Dataset Preview Go to dataset viewer
argument (string)conclusion (string)id (string)
"In Sackett v. EPA plaintiffs argued, "that by issuing compliance orders without first giving property owners a chance to contest them in court, the EPA skirts the federal law and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process." The Supreme Court agreed and ordered the EPA to stop judging violators outside the judiciary. "
"The Environmental Protection Agency a division of the executive branch regularly creates and enforces laws outside the legislative process and judges the violators outside the judiciary. "
"While it is often claimed that a suspected terrorist is set to kill others, and thus his torture is justified, this does not necessarily make sense. The suspected terrorist in custody is not going to directly kill anyone. They are merely suspected to have information that could possibly lead to the interception of those that are threatening to kill others. The disconnect is so wide between the suspected terrorists and the victims that the notion of "punishing" the suspected terrorist in custody does not make sense. "
"Suspected information-holders cannot be punished for crimes they do not commit. "
"Monitoring would be extremely tedious and time-consuming. Many teens send over 100 texts a day, it would clearly be very time consuming to read them all along with all other digital communication.1 By contrast content filtering, contact management, and privacy protection parental controls, which can be used to block all incoming and outgoing information, require only minimal supervision. Parents who meanwhile deem their children immature when it comes to social networking and gaming can instead impose user restrictions on the relevant websites and devices. 2 Administering these alternative parental controls leave for more quality time with children. In this case, only when children acquire sufficient digital maturity and responsibility can these controls be lifted. As they have learnt to be mature in the digital environment the children would most likely continue to surf safely even when the parental controls are lifted. 1 Goldberg, Stephanie, “Many teens send 100-plus texts a day, survey says”, CNN, 21 April 2010 2 Burt, David. “Parental Controls Product Guide.” 2010 Edition. n.d. PDF File. Web. May 2013. "
"Other parental controls are more practical and reasonable to administer. "
"Russia owns Crimea. I say this because the citizens of Crimea voted for joining Russia. Yes, there might have been some kind of Russian intervention or “threat” against the people who voted against joining Russia, but even without that they probably would have had a majority vote for joining Russia, and also Russia has a military presence in Crimea as well as administrative stuff. The new Ukrainian government doesn't have any jurisdiction or presence at all within Crimea now, it all belongs to Russia. "
"Russia unambiguously owns Crimea now. "
"In one treasure digging ritual, Joseph Smith, Sr. made two concentric circles using witch hazel sticks to ward off evil spirits, walked three times around the periphery muttering incantations, stuck a steel rod in the center to mark the treasure, and enjoined complete silence on the diggers, lest they arouse the guardian spirit. After consulting his son Joseph, he said the dig was unsuccessful because of an early error in the ritual. Howe, 1823, pp. 238-39 William Stafford statement "
"Magical rituals and symbols were essential elements of the treasure excavations in which Joseph Smith and his family participated. "
"Maduro is unlikely to leave office out of his own volition, which will only increasing the economic issues in Venezuela "
"The country is in an downward spiral instability which is not likely to get better without outside help "
"I have been home all day and have been watching news channels and they have been covering the Sydney hostage crisis all day as BREAKING NEWS and BBC and Skynews both for most part of the day were showing live feed form Australian Channels 7 News and 9News. I think this is a huge overreaction. I am not trying to underestimate the seriousness of the situation. The Australian media are right to cover this as much as possible but I don't think it is healthy for news channels in other parts of the world to broadcast this news 24 7. Yesterday evening, When my dad called me from his work and told me to watch the news because the radio is saying there has been a terrorist attack in Sydney , I honesty thought it was a massive explosion with lots of casualties, I was glad to see that it was not that serious. As a result of living in The Netherlands and The UK, I seem to have subconsciously typed 'the' in front of Australia in the title. Please do not judge my argument based on that typo. "
"I don't think news channels outside the Australia should have covered the hostage crisis as an all day breaking news. "
"As you'll know if you check my post history, I love black comedy and other comedy that hits certain groups. For quite a bit earlier this year, my favorite sub was r meanjokes in fact . I've gotten this criticism at least once on Reddit, and a handful of occasions in real life that these jokes are toxic. But I disagree. As long as you are telling the jokes in the appropriate environment i.e. not putting racist jokes on r BlackPeopleTwitter and keeping them on r meanjokes , there is nothing wrong about enjoying them. So an enjoyment of racist jokes is not evidence of racism. Enjoying sexist jokes isn't evidence of sexism, etc An enjoyment of dark comedy is an enjoyment of dark comedy it simply makes me laugh better there are no toxic elements to it. "
"An enjoyment of dark comedy is not bad, wrong or reflective of any prejudice "
"Especially information on what to do when missing the pill once, twice, or three times is often poorly understood or not adequately conveyed to patients. "
"The problem with contraception related education is not that people need to know it exists, but how to use it properly. "
"Just as the title says. I think that if, say, Duke Energy is found to have committed criminal code violations for their coal ash pond breach on the Dan River that the members of the board at the time should have to pay the costs, not the company itself which would hit shareholders who may have had nothing to do with it . I base this logic on three concepts Forcing a corporation to pay fines for criminal violations rarely results in a change in leadership see JP Morgan and Jamie Dimon , which means the same bad actors are still in a position of authority Shareholders at most levels do not have operational control over a corporation, and invest in it believing that to one degree or another the corporation is NOT committing criminal acts and The Board of Directors is theoretically legally responsible for a company. Punishing the board for failure to govern would do more to fix poor corporate behavior than nearly anything else. I am open to your input. . "
"I believe that if a corporation is found to have committed a criminal violation, the entire Board of Directors at the time should be forced to pay restitution, instead of the corporation paying it, and they should all be imprisoned. "
"Female literacy is negatively related with fertility rate, population growth rate, infant and child mortality rate and shows a positive association with female age at marriage, life expectancy and participation in modern sector of economy. Dinesha, 2017, p. 1 "
"The Gulabi Gang has historically spoken about the importance of women being educated in order to be independent and successful. "
"The US is the world's only remaining 'superpower'. It is not just more powerful than other nations, but is in a class all of its own. For example, the US spends not only the most on its military - but actually more than the whole of the rest of the world put together. America does not need partners and allies to protect itself - and it shouldn't weaken itself by having to compromise and follow the rules and demands of these other nations. "
"The US is the world's only remaining 'superpower'. It is not just more powerful than other nations,... "
"Let me begin by making it completely clear that I am not a legal scholar, lawyer, political science major, or even constitutional scholar. I do not know every precedent of case law that forms the foundation of the Supreme Court's decision nor have I read the entirety of the majority opinion on same sex marriage which is to my own lack of time . This is not meant to offend, harass, or degrade and is in my mind, simply a devil's advocate argument I have been pondering. The text in question gt All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The current logic of the equal protection clause broken down Laws have benefits and harms. Every citizen is entitled to those benefits and harms. The state must see that those benefits and harms are equally executed. If this breakdown of the clause's logic is accurate, we arrive at an interesting issue. How do we have laws that create classes of citizens that delegate the effects of the law to some classes but not to others? For example, the idea of a voting age. A child born within America is an American citizen entitled to the benefits and consequences of American life such as WIC, medicaid, etc. Yet, despite being a citizen, this child cannot vote. They do not share equal protection under the law because they are a different class, despite citizenry. There are other examples, such as social security, state and federal taxes on paychecks of teenagers, free high school education to the elderly etc. I don't want to get bogged down in the specifics of the examples. So, right now, in practice, we have a long standing tradition of undermining non specific language of any person within its jurisdiction . If a government were forced to follow this language, it probably would be reduced to absurdity allow four year olds to vote, granting infants the right to join the military, etc. Some things however aren't as absurd such as taking tax from 16 year olds who aren't eligible for the whole protection of the law but are held to its negative consequences. From what I can parse together, the Supreme Court has then taken the non LEGALISTIC approach of assuming that the wording is applicable, only insofar as it is rational. Aka a rationality test. Aka rewording the 14th amendment to in practice say deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, if the laws apply to that category of person and that category of person is a rational category. Let's stop right there briefly, to simply point out that is not what the original wording of the 14th amendment says or implies. Now, after appreciating that, let's move on. Even if the 14th amendment were worded to the benefit of the Supreme Court's treatment, I don't think Same Sex Marriage is completely protected. Firstly, the longstanding tradition of the creation of legal categories of citizens elderly, business entity, president, etc is done out of political expediency, not always but sometimes rationality. In the case of Same Sex Marriage, we can ask is the categories of male and female rational, expedient, or follow precedent. And, our answer will be yes in terms of rationality briefly, as 99.9 of Americans fall under xy and xx genotype , in terms of expediency briefly, women vote liberal more often and are treated as special voting block , and following prior precedent briefly, how can we make sense of Title IX without assuming male or female categories to compare . Finally, and most importantly, in the creation of this category, can we ask the question does this category have negative consequences? I would argue that the consequences of the category are often unimportant to the category creation. For example, if an adult gets sick, is uninsured and without a job, this person may be excluded from the benefits of medicare because of age eligibility. Many people have noted that this isn't just a hypothetical case actual people lives are ruined because they fall into bankruptcy under the weight of medical bills. If medicare eligibility were to be considered under the test of undue negative consequences, would not the Supreme Court have to make medicare eligible to all? In summary, TLDR The 14th amendment does not create categories of citizens. We act like it does. Even if this were constitutional, male and female categories are expedient, rational, and follow legal precedent. The consequences of these categories is often irrelevant to the legality of the category. "
"The 14th Amendment is poorly worded and is at best ambiguous about Same Sex Marriage "
"There is no reason for an individual to obey the law solely because it is the law. The only reason people obey is out of fear of punishment. Without state enforcement no one would obey laws. "
"Without the state to enforce the law, society would likely descend into anarchy. "
"Referendums cannot create compromise because they only ask for approval and rejection. Political philosophers like Max Weber therefore rejected them as an element of democratic governance; he saw compromises as the foundation of most laws in modern states. "
"The search for compromise, tedious as it may be, has the potential to satisfy more stakeholders and overcome partisanship, neither of which referendums can achieve. "
"Bi people in straight relationships absolutely ARE queer, don't get me wrong. They deserve to be welcomed into the LGBTQ community for sure. I just think that if appearing to be straight is a problem that you find worth complaining about, you should probably care about something else. It's like this I'm chronically ill. I have a circulatory disorder which negatively impacts many aspects of my life. And sometimes, I'll admit, I wish things were just a little bit worse. I want the sympathy and I want the validation of having a truly difficult struggle, instead of just being kind of tired all the time. But it would be INSANE to actually say out loud I wish I was more disabled as anything other than a guilty confession. Some people legitimately have it so much harder than me, and I should be grateful for the ease I have. My illness is also invisible. It would be a serious issue if I told someone I'm sick and they didn't believe me because I didn't look it. But, despite maybe missing out on some sympathy points, I recognize that I'm really lucky that I can pick and choose who knows about my condition. Similarly, bisexual people in straight relationships absolutely shouldn't be doubted for their belonging in the queer community. I don't advocate for that at all. But gay relationships for bi or gay people mean constant judgement calls about who can know about a seriously influential aspect of your life. They could get you harassed, or fired from jobs in many states. They might mean one partner can't introduce the other to their family. Wishing for all those problems just so people would immediately know you were queer is as insane as me wishing I was more sick. It's not an equal trade off at all. "
"Bi people in straight relationships shouldn't complain that people don't know they're queer "
"I'm going to preface this with a quick note this may sound like an attention plea, but it's not. I guess I should start this by saying that I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in any kind of reincarnation afterlife. What this means is, if I was to theoretically off myself , it wouldn't mean anything to me as I would be dead. While there is the argument What about your friends and relatives that you would be hurting? , what would they matter to a dead person? A dead person feels no emotion, and from my viewpoint a dead person doesn't even exist except for their corpse. Once you're dead, there's absolutely no way for you to feel any emotion, no pain, no anything in my opinion . If this is the case, surely my hypothetical suicide wouldn't harm anybody seeing as I would have no conscience guilt etc? Please, . EDIT TIL I need to re evaluate my views on life death. However, I'd like to thank u urnbabyurn u jerry121212 u Cyrtig for giving me the most thought provoking responses. Thank you all for chipping in, but I doubt I'll be responding to many more new comments made on this thread, seeing as I now see just how stupid I was. "
"I don't think it would matter if "I" was to commit suicide "
"Unless information is protected under certain circumstances, such as non disclosure agreements, it is perfectly legal to reveal hidden information. Why then is it illegal to demand money under threat of revealing hidden information? Usually the hidden information in question is negative information about the blackmail victim . The victim is usually guilty of severe enough wrongdoing to merit blackmail, i.e adultery, fraud, etc. Why should the victim of blackmail be protected when they are usually guilty of whatever it is the blackmailer is threatening them with? If the victim had nothing to hide, blackmail would be ineffective. Normally, people who have blackmail worthy secrets deserve to have their secrets revealed. Innocent people are virtually immune to blackmail since they have nothing to hide. The only victims of blackmail are guilty people. Why is blackmail illegal? Why is it legal for someone to reveal hidden information but it is not legal to request money under threat of revealing said hidden information? EDIT The most popular objection I'm getting is that blackmailers could just fabricate evidence . Whoever does this should go to prison, but for slander not blackmail. "
"Blackmail should be legal "
"If the worldwide veganism's purpose is to end hunger and increase the carrying capacity, then the population would grow past what an omnivore world would get to, which creates its own issues. "
"The moral self-licensing offsets the environmental benefits of the vegan diet. "
"I would like to apologize in advance if this has appeared in the subreddit before. I am 100 for the LGBT community, and have several friends who are parr of it who also got mad at me when I poorly attempted to explain this . I sort of imagine this as being similar to that of slavery, imagine a slave creates a documentary interviewing other slaves about how poorly they are treated, then show it in theatres where slavery is outlawed. I find it irresponsible of them to ask anyone, let alone those who do nothing, to solve their problems for them. I also consider it very rude of them to state that If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem, not only does this demonstrate a serious lack of empathy for those who are not similar to them, it also shows that they believe they are entitled to their rights. I'm not saying they're not entitled per se, I am saying that it seems like they think they should be allowed to just sit there and expect others to do it for them. Like the women who completely deserved their rights in the first place, they should do their own work, and they should address the problem, not the neutral. Watch Iron Jawed Angels for some inspiration. Also, if it sounds like I'm being an asshole, I apologize, but this is what I think, and that's why I'm on . "
"I find it very irresponsible of the LGBT community to create videos about being bullied and showing it around. "
"In my opinion, the world would be a better place if alcohol was illegal. I've done a little bit of research to get some numbers, and I was quite shocked at what I found. Source On average, one in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime. In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes Drunk driving costs each adult in this country almost 500 per year. Drunk driving costs the United States 132 billion a year. Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash. These are just the driving related statistics. They would each get reduced by at least 75 if the sale of alcohol was illegal. I just don't see enough positives to outweigh all the deaths and injuries that result from irresponsible drinking. Alcohol is quite literally a drug, and is also extremely addicting. It would already be illegal if not for all these pointless ties with culture. Most people wouldn't even think to live in a world without alcohol, but in my opinion that world would be a better, safer, and more productive one. , or at least defend the fact that it's legal. "
"I think alcohol should be illegal. "
"More Specifically It is important that the will of the people is voiced through the democratic election process. If people are voting with no understanding of the platforms or policies these candidates are running on, then it makes it very difficult to guarantee that the outcome of the election is the true will of the people. In practice, I would see it as follows When somebody votes for a candidate in an election, they are then provided a multiple choice follow up with 10 12 policy platforms whether it be 'Build a wall', 'filibuster reform', 'small government', 'legalisation', etc. 3 or 4 of these should be the platforms and policies of the candidate, and the rest should be false platforms. If the voter picks policies that the candidate hasn't run on, then their vote would not be counted. I feel that this would also make holding elected officials accountable for their position in elections easier too. As you can't say 'my platform included pro life, and even though 1 of my voters voted for me for that stance I have a mandate to push this as my highest priority'. It'll probably make the elected officials lives easier, as they will truly understand why they were voted in to begin with. In changing my view, I'm happy to hear why my proposal has issues, or what the problems with it may be, but ideally I'd like to hear how current systems of voting for a candidate alone is the better option to my proposal. "
"Elections should have some sort of process to filter out only votes by people who understand the policies of the person or party they're voting for. "
"All computers should come with solid state drives. Mechanical hard drives have absolutely no advantage over solid state drives, except for providing large storage capacity for cheap. However, as somebody who spent 5 years working at a computer repair shop, I'd say 95 of people never used more than 100GB of space on their computer. And those that did, either could use external storage, cloud storage, or are power users that could afford a 1TB SSD anyway. Somebody I know just bought a brand new HP laptop. Quad core processor, 8GB RAM, but it feels so SLOW. Why? It's got a 1TB hard drive. HP just as well could have put in a 240GB SSD and it would make the machine so much faster and 100x more usable. This person, who I would consider, an average computer user, would never run out of space on a 240GB SSD. If you take the average computer user, and hand them two laptops. One with a Core i3, 8GB of RAM, Intel HD Graphics, and a 240GB SSD, and the other laptop, with a Core i7, 16GB of RAM, dedicated GPU, and a 1TB HDD, and ask them to use both computers for a while, and tell you which one is faster unless they are doing intensive 3D gaming, video editing, or something like that, which, average users do not , the clear winner will be the SSD powered laptop. Also, while the very first SSDs, paired with stupid operating systems like XP Vista that didn't understand SSDs, were not all that reliable long term, SSD technology has come a long way. Operating systems like Windows 7 and even more so Windows 8 and 10 are much more SSD aware, and the latest SSDs are very, very reliable, and are far less suspectible to physical damage. Whether it's people walking up and down the stairs with a a laptop, using it in a car or bus or train, or simply banging it around in their backpack, a hard drive is far more likely to fail from normal use than an SSD. Hybrid SSHD drives that cram a small SSD say, 32GB into a 1TB mechanical HDD are a good solution, since the most common OS files and apps will get cached to the SSD portion of the drive. However, it's still a mechanical hard drive that is suspectible to damage from being bumped around. So, now, change my view, and tell me why it's OK that most laptops you'll find at Best Buy or on Amazon or wherever still have these awful mechanical hard drives when solid state drives are readily available? gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"ALL PC should come with SSDs "
"Allow me to explain. You and your spouse partner want to have kids for one or more of the following reasons because your hormones are screaming at your your whole life to do so, because you or your spouse's biological clock is ticking, because it would make your parents proud, because you want to play catch with something, because you need strong backs for the wheat fields, because you think your genetic profile is so important and precious that is deserves to be preserved throughout the ages, or maybe just because you'd like to see what you'd look like if you didn't eat so much cake. Now, let us accept that overpopulation is a cause of the most important problems facing mankind drinking water, food availability, climate change and pollution, deforestation, etc Reproducing new people by using your own cock balls snatch, not by adoption can therefore be seen as a you casting a vote on how you feel about this problem. You have no child , that's two people being replaced by no people, and excluding just going around killing people, is practically the best thing you can do to curb overpopulation. Having one child is one person replacing two, that is you saying that overpopulation is a problem and I'm going to do something about it, just not as much as I could. Having two children , that's two people being replaced by two people, that's you casting your vote for population is perfect the way it is. Now, having more than two children is you casting a vote for population growth, and in doing so your are knowingly exacerbating the problems mentioned above, actively creating more human suffering in the world. Therefore, having more than two children is an absolute evil. From wiktionary evil Adjective Intending to harm malevolent. "
"Having more than two children is an absolute evil "
"There have been several reports coming out about men, often powerful ones, sexually harassing and or sexually assaulting women. Many of these are horrendous, but some like the latest one accusing Oliver Stone made me question whether that should actually be considered sexual assault, considering reddit's and feminist's campaign that claims breast are not sexual organs, and that a women going topless should not be viewed any differently than a male going topless. If boobs are not sexual organs how can it be sexual assault to grab them? While there cases where it would be considered unwanted touching I don't believe it could be considered sexual assault. It would be more akin to an unwanted shoulder massage or tickle. Imagine a guy came up to girl and put his hands on her shoulders, many people might call the man a creep, but I don't think anyone would call for him to be fired or prosecuted, yet if he grabbed their boob, they would. I imagine one argument might be that the men derive sexual pleasure from grabbing the breast, therefor it is sexual assault. Many men derive sexual pleasure from touching a girls shoulder or hands or or arms or even hair. Should these also be considered sexual assault? Should intent play a part in whether an act is sexual assault? If that's the case, then should a man grabbing women's breast for non sexual reasons be considered assault? For example, in the Oliver Stone story, he grabbed the boob and said honk , which seems like he was trying to be funny, not seeking sexual arousal. Next, if you still maintain that touching a boob is sexual assault, does that apply to men as well? If a girl goes up to a topless man on the beach and starts rubbing his pecs breast and chest. Should she be held to the same scrutiny as a a male who touches a female breast? Often times a girls reaction upon touching a mans muscle is one of arousal. How can a person want equality of going topless between sexes, but be against equality in how the top part of the body can be treated? gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"If a person supports the "Free the Nipple" campaign it logically follows that they shouldn't think that groping breasts is sexual assault. "
"Hello. hailcorporate watch out, I'm about to name names I recently had a HORRIBLE experience with the local Pizza Hut in my Texas town. I ordered their 2 mediums any toppings deal with a friend, but when my pizza arrived it was plain cheese with no toppings, no sauce drizzle, and no special crust. This got me furious in such a weird way that I had to contemplate why I was so upset. I think I have it narrowed down. Already as it is, the Pizza places's profit margins are through the roof. I can't imagine a pizza costs them much more than 2 4 tops, and they end up costing you around at least 15 20 if you get them delivered. The main ingredient at any pizza place is gonna be the dough. And a cheese pizza is almost 85 bread. It's nutritionally void, and extremely expensive compared to it's raw value. In my view, the only way to secure a real value from ordering a pizza is to fill it with the most toppings possible. Even then I bet they still make a fortune off of you, but compared to a cheese pizza, they make significantly less when they charge the same for a plain cheese as they would an 8 meat topper. This rule generally holds true for most Pizza Chains. I just used Pizza Hut as an example because they have the cheapest delivery in my town. "
"Getting a regular Cheese pizza is the biggest waste of money "
"When wealthy people get divorced it is not uncommon for the custodial parent to demand absurd amounts of money in child support. This is allowed because child support is typically taken as a percentage of a parents income, and if that income is high the custodial parent can receive enough money to support the child, his herself, a new wife or husband, and more children off of the child support payments from their ex. Here's an example Using easy numbers let's say the non custodial parent earns 1 mil per year. Let's use a conservative estimate of 15 of that parents income must be paid towards child support. This would mean the custodial parent would receive 150,000 year in child support. 150k is considered a very comfortable income in most parts of the country. High enough to afford an upper middle class home, private school, etc. Child support is also non taxable which means they are keeping roughly 28 33 more of that money in their pockets than people who actually earn a 150k salary. This means that a person can in theory divorce a wealthy individual and then support his herself, a new wife husband, and new children with the new spouse, allowing all of them to live a comfortable, upper middle class lifestyle while neither of the parents in the new household even needs a job at all. I don't see how it is the responsibility of the wealthy, non custodial parent to support a comfortable lifestyle for their ex or to have their money being used to support children other than his or her own. But this is possible because the custodial parent doesn't need to prove that they are using their child support money to provide for the child he or she shares with the non custodial parent. My view Due to my belief that it is only the responsibility on the non custodial to provide financially for his or her own children, if a custodial parent would like to receive in excess of double the average amount it costs to raise a child in their area of living, the non custodial parent should be required to submit receipts to prove that the excess money is actually being spent providing things to the child. As we're talking about standard of living these can be non essentials such as nice gifts, high end clothing, etc. But it should all be spent providing for the child that the child support is going towards. It would also be acceptable for the custodial parent to put leftover money towards a college fund or a trust fund to benefit the child later in life. What I am opposed to, and would like to prevent, is people demanding more money in the name of child support and spending most of it to give themselves a more comfortable and lavish lifestyle. ETA Another point is that without any kind of regulations it is entirely possible for the custodial parent to spend nearly all of the money providing themselves a life of luxury while spending the bare minimum to keep the child alive such as second hand clothing, cheap processed foods, etc. There is currently no way to ensure that child support money is even being used to improve the child's standard of living at all. I believe most parents probably want to provide what's best for their child and will use child support money to give their child a better life. But extremely selfish people have children all the time, and the current system allows these very selfish people to exploit their child's needs in order to get more and more money for themselves. Another edit a lot of the responses seem to think that I want the custodial parent to account for every dime they receive. I am saying they need to provide receipt for money received ABOVE double the average amount it costs to raise a child in their area of living. Any amount received in child support below this amount can be allocated however they feel is best for their household. So if in California it costs 13k year to raise a child, the parent could receive up to 26k year before needing to submit receipts. And receipts only need to be submitted for money received and spent OVER that 26k to prove it's being used to provide a more comfortable life for the child. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"If child support payments exceed a certain amount the custodial parent should be required to submit receipts to prove the money is being spent on the child "
"Since Windows 10 has come out and been free to upgrade I have been considering whether or not to upgrade. I have absolutely no compliants about Windows 7, though, and so I see no reason to upgrade. All of my computers are currently running 7, and I don't want to learn a new system if I am happy with the one I have now. In addition to not wanting to learn a new system, I have heard there is a greater degree of surveillance being done by Microsoft on programs installed, communications being sent via computer, etc. This is a bit alarming to me because I believe in a right to individual privacy, but also because some of my work involves potentially having to keep files on a secure drive and Microsoft having access to what I do with my computer might technically violate that, even if I believe that Microsoft probably doesn't care about what I am doing at work. Are there any reasons to upgrade that I am not considering, or any arguments to put my mind at ease about the data collection? "
"I am perfectly happy with Windows 7, and don't see any reason to upgrade to Windows 10 "
"Frankly discussing the causes, effects and potential remedies of the obesity epidemic often gets derailed because someone starts worrying who might take offense. Same goes for race relations and anything related to women. Shutting down the discussion because someone might cry about it or shaping the whole debate to not step on toes is intellectually dishonest. Anyone who comes in and starts talking about who might be offended is doing everyone a disservice because ultimately those feelings are only slightly relevant to the issue at hand, be it obesity, rape, racism, or whatever else gets people up in arms. I truly think it is the sign of an enlightened mind to be able to weigh an idea strictly on its merits, and to entertain it without necessarily agreeing with it. Feelings act as philosophical blinders to keep thought in line with mass appeal. That can't be a good thing. "
"I don't care about your feelings. "
"So I grew up as a major fan of Calvin and Hobbes since my toddler days and being at a young and tender age I believe Hobbes was actually alive, just hides himself around other people. Of course getting older we learn this may not be the case and it might be just a Fight Club situation where Hobbes the living tiger is in Calvin's head, which is full of crazy imaginations. There are quite a few storylines which could all be explained by Calvin doing these things and blaming his stuffed tiger. But going back and reading the old books a hundred times I have ran into a few storylines that make me question this. There was that one where Susie Derkins is staying at Calvin's house while waiting for her mom to pick her up. Calvin is shocked and horrified but he tries to set her up to be pounced on by Hobbes. Instead she is greeted by Hobbes in a tie. As far as I remember keep in mind I'm having trouble finding the book this was in Calvin had no idea Susie was coming over, so why before leaving for school that morning would he go through the trouble of putting a tie on his stuffed tiger for a girl he's repulsed by? Speaking of being pounced on, this is a common trope in the comics. We've seen Hobbes pounce on him so hard it often knocks his shoes off and even once skidded for a good mile Okay, granted that part may be in his head as well . There was a Sunday strip where we see his mom go pick Hobbes up from the bus stop so you could argue she leaves him by the door for Calvin. But what about the pouncing? Even if he had a crazy imagination why would Calvin pretty much hurt himself just to give the illusion his tiger's alive? Another storyline that made me think this was the one where Calvin is trying to be Houdini by having Hobbes tie him up to a chair and try to escape. It seemed like a good job of tying him up even his dad was confused. I've never tried tying myself up but I imagine it couldn't be that easy. Of course, I've always believed Bill Watterson would like us to come to our own conclusions, so everyone's free to have their own. Feel free to change mine. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"Hobbes the tiger is in fact a living creature "
"If Trump turns out to be a severely unpopular president, this strengthens the Democrats' mandate when they next come into power. "
"Even if Trump will win his next term, lowering his popularity is still good for Democrats. "
"Like any other medical procedure, there will be a system of checks and balances and a standard of care. Negligence will be prosecuted like in any other medical procedure, there is little risk that doctors would become serial murderers. "
"There is a danger that the professionals might also be given the power to decide who lives and who dies to where the choice no longer belongs to the patient. "
"A few engineering proposals have been made for the more difficult task of capturing CO2 directly from the air, but work in this area is still in its infancy. Global Research Technologies demonstrated a pre-prototype in 2007.11 Capture costs are estimated to be higher than from point sources, but may be feasible for dealing with emissions from diffuse sources like automobiles and aircraft. The theoretically required energy for air capture is only slightly more than for capture from point sources. The additional costs come from the devices that use the natural air flow. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a form of geoengineering by greenhouse gas remediation.3 "
"CCS can be used to draw carbon directly from air. "
"Chick-fil-A stopped giving to certain organisations when gay rights groups accused the fast-food chain of supporting anti-gay causes. "
"The LGBT community has been successful in organising to put pressure on corporations to change their practices. "
"Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels such as coal and oil to provide energy. This has released large volumes of a number of gases into the atmosphere, particularly CO2. At the same time, the world's remaining large forests - which help absorb CO2 - are being rapidly destroyed by commercial logging and to make way for farm land. Overall, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by 30% over the last century.When in the atmosphere, CO2 and other gases are thought to lead to a 'greenhouse effect': they allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat emitted by the earth, trapping it and leading to global warming. Weather records seem to support this theory. Average temperatures have increased by up to 0.6°C since the 19th century; the four hottest years since accurate records began have all been in the last decade. Unusual weather patterns such as floods and droughts have also been on the increase, with the uncharacteristically strong El Niño events of recent years causing widespread disruption. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, an international body set up to study possible global warming, has concluded that '. the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.' "
"Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels such as coa... "
"Response times average at least 10 minutes In 10 minutes, many people can be killed or injured. Having a trained individual with a firearm in the school is really the only way to expect an immediate armed protector. Sometimes, even if the law enforcement personnel respond to the location of the shooting, they choose to remain outside the school. "
"Having several people on site who might be able to delay or end the threat greatly reduces the need to wait for proper first response to arrive, reducing the time window of attacks. "
"There is a reduction in fuel use as there is less herbicide and pesticide use as well as less soil cultivation. The reduced spraying also ultimately reduced Green house gas emissions source "
"GMOs are more environmentally friendly - conserve more soil, water and energy. "
"Annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems amount to $22 billion compared to revenues of $6 billion in the US. "
"The healthcare costs for ailments caused by alcohol and tabacco are higher than tax revenues. "
"Social scientists like Max Weber argued already a century ago that legitimacy can not only be based on legal principles and rules but also tradition such as in Monarchies and charisma usually with a leader figure. "
"Legitimacy can have many sources that render a leader or a government acceptable to the people. "
"I'm about to start studying international relations how appropriate at the University of Edinburgh, and may be eligible to vote in the upcoming referendum. This is a complicated issue that has more than a few Scots on the fence, and I'm no different despite having far less skin in the game. Personally, based on what information I do have, I would favor independence. I would never even consider voting until I had read more on the subject, but I intend to learn more about it, and whether or not that changes my opinion, or reinforces it enough that I'd think myself qualified, I still don't think it my place to meddle in the affairs of a country in which I am a guest. I'm looking forward to the discussion about this, but please, lets leave the particular politics of the debate out. Apologies for typos. It's 4 am in my part of the world and I can't sleep. I figure it's best to ask now though, because the part of the world where it's relevant will just be getting to work and hopping on reddit "
"As an international student who will shortly begin studying in Scotland, I have no place voting in the upcoming referendum. "
"Note Free at point of entry meaning no fares tickets. The system would be paid for by the residents of the city, passenger or not. The person who benefits from mass transportation is the passenger. This seems like an obvious and indisputable premise. And so it seems to make sense to charge a fare so that passengers pay for the bulk or the entirety of the cost of running a mass transportation system. But I don't think that's true. In many large cities the New Yorks, the Chicagos, the Londons and Tokyos , the city cannot function unless people use mass transportation. It's simply impossible to move the number of people that need to be moved without a mass transportation system. In that way, mass transportation is much closer to police services city wide charge than something like water charge per unit consumed . Even though some people might consume police or fire services more than others, we recognize that metered or fared consumption is a poor way to distribute costs for that kind of city service. Another way to think about it. One way to allocate costs is by allocating it on the entities that impose the cost. If you use a lot of water the city will charge you more because you impose a greater cost than someone who draws less water. if you consumed less water then you would be charged less. If everyone consumed less or opted out completely, maybe a private water supplier , then the city could scale back its system and spending. Suppose every subway and bus passenger in Chicago decided to take an Uber private provider of transportation . Would this increase or decrease the cost to the city of providing transportation? I argue that it would massively increase costs to the point of failure for the city. Why would users switching away from a city service increase costs to the city? Because the users are providing a benefit to the city by taking mass transportation generally speaking . Not all mass transportation use benefits the city. But the system as a whole is so critical to the functioning of a large city that I think it's incorrect to place the burden of maintaining the system on the subset of the population who aren't fortunate enough to be able to opt out of it such as by driving, or living near more expensive commercial centers . "
"Mass transportation should be free at point of entry in large cities "
"This argument is the epitome of subjectivity, but I thought I'd see what you guys think anyways. Reasons for my position Orwell's prose may not be as incredibly detailed as Joseph Conrad's or Virginia Woolf's when it comes to squeezing meaning into each word, but it's not vague or empty by any means. This makes his style slightly more appealing and readable, at least in my eyes. The figurative language and thematic messaging that Orwell does throw in throughout 1984 and Animal Farm has several levels of possible understanding. One can read Winston and Julia's relationship as a quasi Biblical, semi Shakespearean allegory, or as in itself a rather violent lesson in morality, human psychology, and pragmatics. Orwell's writing is still highly readable and enjoyable even when one chooses to read simply for plot. This is but one slim example as any readers of his know, Orwell is capable of many, many more. Orwell had a very particular affinity for predicting the future. I'm not saying that any significant element of the world he created in 1984 came true, just that as a thinker he was more capable than any of his contemporaries of observing his political and economic surroundings, and turning them into a work of prose that remains relevant and intelligible decades later. Orwell's essays, and his chronicles of the Spanish Civil War in Homage to Catalonia, all demonstrate his ability to hang on a detail Shooting an Elephant while turning it into something intellectually profound Down and Out in London and Paris . Now, the final reason for me backing Orwell in this horse race may be self incriminating. It's not that I haven't read other English language authors it's that I haven't read enough. I've certainly read Shakespeare, Conrad, Dickens, Koestler, Bradbury, Woolf, Heller, Vonnegut, etc. But I haven't touched others whom some people may fervently believe to be the greatest to have ever lived some people swear by their Asimov, or more recently Toni Morrison . As a result, this is still a discussion of why you think I'm wrong, but it will likely also develop into a list of suggestions for what I and anyone else absolutely need to read in order to make such a bold assertion. One ground rule like the title says, I'm limiting this to English language authors only. That means Kafka, Dostoevsky, and Marquez are all out of bounds, despite their brilliance. I do this for two reasons to narrow the discussion to authors we can all talk about with more confidence, and to control for poor translations and native speakers of German arguing that Nietzsche was actually the unparalleled prose stylist in his language. TL DR Orwell's the best English language author there ever was. He wrote in an aesthetically pleasing way, and his thoughts were sharp and societally useful. Feel free to mention authors that I may not have read, but make sure they wrote write in English and deserve the title of Best Ever. "
"George Orwell is the greatest English language author of all time. "
"I have a complete and utter distrust of authority figures of all stripes. I believe that when you give a human being enough power he'll abuse it for is own ends no matter what. Having a classless societal structure should on paper be the best option for humanity, right? "
"The only political ideology that makes any sense to me is Libertarian Socialism i.e. Anarchism. "
"At all. No exceptions. Crack addicts, single mothers, elderly widows, if you fall under the poverty line and need help, by all means, take what's offered . Using the so often cited single mother with four kids example, can you really justify letting her four kids starve because their mother's kind of a slut? The crack addict, if that welfare check keeps him from stealing shit to survive, isn't that a net gain for everyone? That guy sitting on his couch doing nothing? Just opened up a spot in your line of work that led to a decent salary. Even if we did somehow dream up a system that allowed us to weed out those abusing it, and they turned out to be the majority, what then? Do we cut them off, leave them to their own devices? Seems to me the only cost effective option. "
"I don't give a damn if you're on welfare. "
"This could lead to members of the LGBT movement being less willing to fight for the rights of bisexuals. "
"This is harmful because it can turn members of the LGT community against bisexual people. "
"When you make a sandwich, you need something other than mushy shit. Crunchy fixes that. It adds some good texture and shit to the sandwich. If you use creamy, it's all mushy and fucking disgusting. At that point you might as well smear shit all over your sandwich cause that's basically what creamy peanut butter is. The ONLY time I can defend the use of creamy peanut butter is when you put it on crackers, because you already have the crunch. Having no crunch or anything in your sandwich is just fucked up IMO. "
"Creamy peanut butter is absolutely disgusting. "
"I'm not talking about the history of white Americans, but simply the study of the white American populous through a sociological lens. Why do we not study alcoholism within the white community or study why the majority of school shootings are perpetrated by white people? We usually don't see studies about white depression, but simply American depression and are to assume that it is about white people. I'm not attempting be a seperationist, but it simply confounds me that there isn't that much resources being put into learning the sociology of the white American mindset. I think we are hurting ourselves as a society and this is not a good thing. It's like we are subconsciously saying that white people are innately above reproach, and I think that's racist. Please change my view. Edit. I mean this to be an USA centric topic. Sorry for the confusion. "
"I believe that the lack of a White Studies department at major American universities is itself racist and counterproductive. "
"Note I'm only interested in what would have been common knowledge within the Galatic Senate and the general populace the secret identity of Palpatine and his role as a double agent are not relevant in this discussion. Point 1 The Separatists were entirely justified when they seceded from the Republic. The Galactic Senate was corrupt and ineffective, not to mention rigid and tied down by bureaucracy. There is no way for a country ? of that size to accommodate the unique needs of so many different species, planets, and corporations. Without a standing navy, the outer rim inhabited by many Separatist systems had fallen prey to piracy and slavers. The Republic was also policed by an opaque cadre of over powered religious fanatics with very little oversight or checks and balances. The creation of an enslaved clone army only further justifies the secession of other systems later in the Clone War. The Republic was supposed to represent its respective member systems in a democratic fashion, provide protection, and regulate trade. It failed to represent the thousands of systems, operate democratically, protect the outer rim, and provide the outer rim with any real economic benefits evidenced by the frustration of the Trade Federation and other multi planetary corporations . Even without those grievances, I argue any system ought to have the right to govern itself autonomously. Point 2 The Republic made the first act of aggression. Were the Separatists building a droid army? Sure. But the Republic was building a Clone army at the same time By all accounts, the Separatists would be foolish not to prepare to defend their confederacy. When Kenobi reported his discovery on Geonosis, Palpatine was given emergency powers and the war started almost immediately after when the clones landed to save Kenobi meanwhile he had been illegally spying within the Confederacy's borders . You can't just start a war because your spy got caught spying, or because your rival has built an army to defend themselves from yours. "
"The Clone War was an Unjust and Illegitimate War "
"I think that for redistributing wealth to deal with increased automation, expanding the welfare system makes way more sense than UBI. I want to begin this by defining UBI and the welfare system as I understand them. UBI to provide all legal residents of a country a standard sum of cash unconnected to work The Welfare System Providing income to society's lowest earning citizens on a sliding scale so that the lower your income, the more assistence you get. Expanding this would mean that we redefine where we draw the line on who should deserve assistence. If we want to redistribute wealth to deal with automation, we could decide that the income limit for who recieves welfare could be much higher than it is today, but it still could be distributed on a sliding scale based on income. The reasons I believe an expanded welfare system is better will be broken into 2 parts UBI would waste huge resources providing basic income to the upper middle class and rich members of society. I think it makes no sense to indiscriminately give money to the rich and upper middle class. This would not increase their buying power in any significant way, but would cost the state billions of dollars every year. Using the US as an example, I've seen estimates that UBI would cost 539 billion per year, meaning that they would be spending 107.3 billion ie. 20 of 539billion giving money to the upper class and rich for no logical reason. UBI would be a much greater driving force of inflation than a sliding scale welfare system. If everyone in a society has 30,000 more per year in buying power, demand will quickly drive up prices to make that 30,000 per year worth much less than it originally was. Simply due to supply of goods remaining consistent and the buying power of every single citizen being increased by a static amount. If I suddenly had an extra 30,000 per year to spend on the same goods I am buying now, I will buy more of those goods, and suppliers will do the logical thing and increase prices to account for the increased demand. This will render UBI to be a much less effective way of redistributing wealth, because inflation will make it redundant. In a welfare system, the buying power of each individual citizen will not be raised by a static amount, meaning that demand will not increase by a static amount either. This means that the driving forces of inflation will be more diluted, and inflation will increase at a slower rate, making the wealth distribution more meaningful and effective. For the above reasons, I feel like UBI just seems like a less effective welfare system. I feel like UBI has become a rallying point for alot of people who have grown up in a generation that has demonized welfare, but want something that does virtually the same thing. Namely, to redistribute wealth so that everyone can maintain a basic standard of first world living. Since Welfare has become so demonized, it's simple to rally behind a brute force method of just giving everyone money, which isn't the most logical idea but is simplest to agree on. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"Universal Basic Income makes much less sense than simply expanding the Welfare System "
"I'll be brief If I were a racist, by definition I would make assumptions about people based on race. I would say things like Asians are good at math or Jews are cheap because these are preconceptions I have made about them based on their ethnicity. Now let's say I believe in astrology. How is it not the exact same behavior to say Oh, you're an Aries, therefore you are moody and short tempered or You're a Libra, therefore you're argumentative. Racism and astrology both do the same harmful thing, which is put people in groups instead of acknowledging them as individuals. I think astrology is much more harmful than people give it credit for being. Change my view? note I realize that many people read horoscopes as an entertainment feature. That's all in good fun. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the people that perceive their compatibility and relationships based on astrology. "
"I think astrology is just as dangerous as racism and for the same reason. "
"Many people go into debates about politics or whatnot with the intention of winning the debate. What this usually means is making the opposition change their view on a matter. If you search How to win a debate , you'll find countless articles giving tips and even articles about how to win debate competitions. A debate is seen as a sort of contest by many people. However, going into a debate with this mindset is inherently close minded. It means that to concede that the opposition is correct is to admit defeat. The purpose of an argument is to learn from opposing viewpoints and morph your own ideas as new concepts are introduced to you. If you are so convinced that you are correct that you are going into an argument with the intention of winning it , it defeats the purpose of even debating an issue in the first place. All people should be open to the fact that they may be wrong about certain things. "
"You should NOT try to win a debate or argument. "
"Drivers oftentimes are in a hurry and need to save time. Drivers who are in a hurry don't want to stop for hitchhikers. "
"There are some reasons why a driver may not want to stop for a hitchhiker. "
"Information on Wikileaks is not being handed to 'foreign intelligence services', it is being publicy released onto the Internet. Information known to everyone is completely valueless. "
"Can't be used as blackmail if everyone knows it. "
"I believe the bread turns into His body. I believe the wine turns to blood. I believe this because of the numerous bible verses and miracles that have happened over the years. There was simply too much evidence for the real presence in communion for me not to believe it. I was raised Protestant and sort of anti catholic, so this was a big change, but after reading the Bible more, I came to the conclusion that the real presence is in communion. For Jesus said take this all of you and eat it for this is my body which will be given up for you I really would like for someone to try and defend their point of view of communion. I'm here to just talk about communion for today I don't really want to spark any other debates about any other topics, so just talk about communion please. Im here to see if people can change my view on it, so go ahead. I'm a pretty new catholic and not an apologist so please don't judge all of us if I mis quote something. Edit I'm going to bed because I have college in the morning, ill reply later. Edit2 I'm heading off to college, I'll reply when I have the chance. Edit3 I'm going to stop responding now, this is getting too out of hand, and I actually have a life I need to get back to it. Just to be clear, my stance hasn't changed, but I won't be replying anymore as my life is more important to me. God Bless you all in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Edit4 There has been more comments so obviously none of you are reading this, but I am done answering questions for now, it's getting too much to balance with college and my actual life. If you really want questions answered, go here thanks and cheers. "
"I'm a Catholic. And everything that goes along with that. "
"For example, there is no "evidence" that a particular couple are married instead, we accept the authority of particular individuals and organisations to come to that conclusion, as people do with God, but it would be a strange thing to deny that a particular couple were married simply on those grounds; it is, instead, what Emile Durkheim referred to as a "social fact" we accept it on the grounds of social convention. "
"We accept the vast majority of meaningful human knowledge without scientific evidence, particularly in the case of social knowledge. This truth criterion would eradicate almost all perfectly useful knowledge. "
"Oscillating models provide a cause for our universe as the result of the collapse and subsequent re-expansion of a previous universe "
"If the universe has a cause, the best candidate for that cause is naturalistic. "
"Many developed countries struggle with low birth rates therefore there would be a conflict between global and local point of views. "
"Opinions are divided about this topic making it difficult to decide what to teach within these lessons. "
"I saw a link on Reddit's front page recently in which the first NHL overtime with 3 vs 3 was played. Here is the link This overtime is fast, aggressive, exciting and decisive. I fully support the decision to switch to this much more intense and offensive version of overtime for a few reasons, but I would like to hear someone argue against it as I see very few downsides and many upsides. Why I think 3 vs 3 overtime is superior 1 Speed With less players on the ice and more space, the plays that result are faster and more intense. 2 Offense As there is less of an opportunity to play cautiously and set up a solid defense, both teams are forced to be very aggressive and put the action on the opposition. 3 Decisiveness This variant is much more likely to result in a decisive overtime period than a 4 vs 4, which I believe is superior to a shootout as shootouts are a really stripped down and somewhat less satisfying conclusion in my opinion. I think of shootouts as similar to ending a drawn baseball game with a pitcher vs batter only challenge. 4 New Strategies We have the opportunity to see teams take on new and interesting strategies which add variety and excitement to the game. "
"I fully agree with the recent decision to change overtime in the NHL to 3 vs 3 rather than 4 vs 4 "
"Sanctions make Russia more aggressive; peace in the international community would best be achieved by reconciling with Russia, for which sanctions need to be removed. "
"All US and EU sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 should be lifted "
"I take this sentence to mean, economic growth benefits everyone. The rich, the poor, and everyone in between. It is an acceptable outcome if a 5 37 growth of the economy meant a 5 37 growth for everyone. Those making 10,000 a year now make 10,500. Those making 1,000,000 now make 1,050,000. Someone being very rich is only a problem if it is a problem, and if people's wealth is not growing that's a problem. Income inequality is a problem if people are not seeing economic gains. If those making 10,000 and 100,000 get stuck there while those making 1,000,000 keep seeing their growth improve to 1,050,00, then 1,105,500. I see this as a system failure because the society got better at producing things, but does not benefit people involved in improving it. The economy is integrated enough that a huge chunk of the workforce will be linked to some project, either directly, or by a 6 degrees principle. I am aware this point is debatable. This is philosophical. It has nothing to do with the actual state of our current economy. I have no interest in arguing about the wealth gains of income demographics over the past 30 years. I made this a sharper point to make it easier to argue directly. I don't want my title sentence to have a stack of qualifiers. I am curious about the ways where income inequality is bad in it of itself. Edits If the grass is always greener than human phycology make inequality corrosive. "
"If a "rising tide lifts all boats" there is no argument against wealth inequality. "
"In this recent thread that made it to the front page, I was surprised to see that many people were extending their outage over loot boxes to physical card games like Magic The Gathering. I'm mostly talking about opening the random card packs playing MTG for money could arguably be considered gambling just like playing poker for money. Buying and opening card packs is not gambling. You generally know what you are going to get for your money using MTG as the example, you're going to get 15 cards, with a rare, 3 uncommons, and the rest commons. Sometimes you get a foil card, sometimes a mythic rare, but it's always the same number of cards. These cards ostensibly all have the same value they can all be used to play the game they are for, and it's up to you, the player, to determine which cards warrant a place in your deck. The game's producer makes no claim about which cards are more valuable deciding which cards work better in your deck is a core part of the gameplay, and the producer would not want to break that by telling you which ones are better. Any secondary market for the cards should not be taken into account. How is it the company's responsibility that other people might be willing to pay you money for what you got in your card pack? If you are opening a box of Lucky Charms, and I say I am willing to pay you a quarter for every unicorn marshmallow you give me, does that mean General Mills is now engaging in gambling? Even if dozens of websites spring up for the purpose of buying and selling Lucky Charms marshmallows, General Mills is still no more responsible for the market value of any given marshmallow than it is now. For the same reason, not knowing the exact contents of the pack does not make it gambling. Sight unseen auctions are legal, and I see no reason to prevent them from being so. Even if other people, after you buy something sight unseen, are willing to offer you more money for it than you paid, the original transaction was not gambling. I think this same logic extends to digital card games like Hearthstone, and even to loot boxes themselves, but I'll leave that for another post. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"Card games like Magic The Gathering are not gambling "
"There is precedent for the idea that the universe itself doesn't necessarily have the laws that apply to its content apply to itself as a whole. The precedent is the laws of relativity, where nothing can move through spacetime faster than the speed of light, but spacetime itself can move faster than the speed of light hence hyperinflation. "
"It is true that everything in the universe has an explanation of its existence, but this is not true of the universe itself. The universe has no explanation. "
"Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poor countries to spend their revenues unwisely in the expectation that creditor nations will wipe out their debts if they get into trouble. Debt relief for countries affected by natural disasters is different, as by their very nature such events are unpredictable and cannot be planned for. Instead the possibility of such assistance in the event of an earthquake, tidal wave, or other disaster makes it more possible for developing states to plan ahead and invest wisely for the future. "
"Normally debt-relief schemes are accused of creating a moral hazard - encouraging governments of poo... "
"Not only do I think they should be legal, but they should be as readily available as alcohol or cigarettes, two substances which kill people on an exponentially higher level than the substances that are currently outlawed. There is no evidence to suggest that if heroin were legalized more people would start using it, and if the drugs were regulated like alcohol and cigarettes are less people would die from overdoses. Prisons would have more room for violent criminals because space wouldn't be being taken up by non violent drug users, and taxpayers wouldn't have to pay to house, food and clothe people whose only crime was being caught with a small quantity of drugs. The argument can be made that drug use does affect others because of the things addicts do to loved ones when they're addicts, but if we're stretching the definition of affecting others that thin we're going to have to outlaw a large number of things, alcohol being the most obvious example. I've never heard a compelling argument for prohibition of any substance, but I genuinely want to understand the mindset of those in favor of it. "
"As part of my belief that anyone should be able to do anything they want to as long as they're not hurting others, all drugs should be legal. "
"Just to preface, I've seen the entirety of both shows to this point and read the entire asoiaf series. The reasons I think Vikings is better is because the cinematography is always at Battle of the Bastards levels, the story is better paced, the changes to the source material actual history viking folklore make the show better instead of worse, and the acting is as least as good as GOT's while I'll argue that Ragnar, Ecbert, and Rollo are better than anything you'll find in GOT. I understand that this is all subjective, but I'd still like to see what fans of both shows think about the comparison. "
"History's Vikings is a better TV show than HBO's Game of Thrones. "
"The additional presidential election decreases voter turnout by 7%, due to voter fatigue. As such, government elections become less representative in republics than those in countries with non-elected heads of state. "
"Monarchies are the best political systems in order to guarantee freedom and democracy. "
"I am referring to the incident where Simona Halep got breast reduction surgery to make herself lighter and more flexible which has tremendously improved her tennis career. Currently, we punish athletes who take drugs to gain a competitive edge. I don't understand why getting an invasive surgery with explicit purpose of getting a similar edge is allowed. I mean, where would it stop? Should it be allowed to get surgery to increase muscle mass, extend the reach of your limbs, etc? How is this different from taking drugs to unleash your full potential? As a note, I am not trying to diminish work ethic of Simona. She surely worked hard. But that's not the point, Lance Armstrong worked very hard too yet he was punished for seeking an unfair edge. Should not the same rules be put in place for surgeries? Second note, I am not against surgeries that are medically necessary. I would also support allowing athletes to take drugs if there is a medical need. But I can't find any source saying that Simona's surgery was medically necessitated, to the contrary all sources seem to say that it was done to help her play tennis. Yet, there is no backlash. What am I missing? Change my view. Thank you in advance gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"There should be rules that would have punished Simona Halep the same as if she was caught doping. "
"I believe in a mixed economy when it comes to nearly all industries. An economy with a healthy mix of the competitive, innovative and productive nature of the private sector and the regulatory oversight of the government is the best economic system. However, when it comes to the prison system I believe that it should always be owned and run by the government for these reasons 1 It is morally repulsive for a private company to profit off the liberty of a country's citizens regardless of how much said citizens deserve it. 2 While this point really boils down to the issue of money in politics, having a private prison sector rich enough to lobby politicians has played an important role in continuing the drug war and tightening laws on immigration. 3 If the government becomes dependent of private prisons to hold their prisoners it could cost us more money as price increases with dependency. 4 I believe there should be a great focus on rehabilitation in prisons rather than punishment. As a society we should want less people in prison as safely possible but this can't be achieved if prisons are driven by money which is driven by keeping people in. Rehabilitation should be the main goal of a prison not profit. 5 Government agencies are required to be completely transparent with their activities. Private companies lack the transparency that government agencies do. Prisons should be completely transparent with all their activities especially in regards to the ethical treatment of prisoners by prison staff. Private companies could potentially treat prisoners poorly if it'll save them a little money. Forgive me if I'm being ignorant in any of my points or if my reasoning is flawed. I am no expert by any means. "
"I believe prisons should not be privatized. "
"Local communities in Zambia, Tanzania, Namibia, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso and Benin receive only 20 to 88 CFA F 0.04 to 0.18 $US per hectare of hunting area pg.18 "
"Very little of the money gained from trophy hunting reaches communities Campbell 3 "
"1 Only people over 30 years of age should own guns. If you look at the number of gun violence related incidents, the bell curve peaks in the 20s but sharply declines in the 30s. This goes without saying for school shootings, where usually young students former students use firearms that they really shouldn’t be in possession of. 2 People with children are not allowed to own guns. A Children can harm themselves w o proper parenting skills which a lot of ppl don’t have B It would prevent kids who would potentially steal guns from their parents to do malicious things C “Defending” your house would be unnecessary as most criminals are in their 20s and wouldn’t even have guns in the first place see 1 3 Anybody with a mental health issue, even the slightest, is immediately disqualified from owning arms 4 Any purchaser of a gun must have their request notarized twice 5 Gun shop owners must take at least a 1 month training course on who to sell guns to 6 These laws will take into effect “right now” if they got passed , and any of these not obeyed before this time say a 20 yo has a gun right now , they will not have their guns stripped away from them. These are long term laws, not for just the next year. We want to effectively end school shootings and gun violence, and this will take years to work effectively. Feel free to go hard on me. I want to know any little mishap I make, so I can make these points even stronger. "
"Gun control laws should be put into place, but not in the way you think. "
"Cell lines alone are not useful in looking at some physiological processes, therefore lab animals give a more accurate picture of the mechanisms underlying different physiological processes. "
"Animal testing has resulted in significant developments in medicine for humans. "
"Regarding High Sabbaths, the Jewish online presence Chabad says the following, "On these days, the Torah prohibits work. At a sacred time, work or any involvement in the mundanities of the week will subvert that sacredness and block its light. Lacking the ability to work on these days, a day of preparation before that sabbath is necessary. "
"Feast days are also considered sabbaths known as High Sabbaths, each with their own days of preparation. The supposed differences in the Gospels may then be reconciled if one allows for the possibility of two Preparations/Sabbaths on Crucifixion Week, with Passover falling a few days before Saturday. "
"Basically, I don't think who sits in the oval office matters. Each president has his agenda and will try to achieve it, but no matter how much they would like citizens to believe, a President is not capable of creating jobs or affecting prices of goods, etc., in a significant way. Recessions, shortages, price changes, and other events that significantly impact people are economic phenomena, caused by market forces and the actions of businesses. Take the 2009 Recession started by a crash in the housing market caused by banks giving out sketchy loans to people who couldn't pay them off. What role did Bush Obama have in something like that? I have a hard time seeing how a president is to blame for that. I am not the most well versed person on the economy, so perhaps someone can convince me that the President actually does play a significant role. "
"I believe that ultimately the president and his or her views have very little effect on the economic well-being of citizens, and the market and decisions of businesses are the only factors that affect this. "
"Does anyone remember The Rock, True Lies, or the Terminator movies? What about the early Die Hard movies? Those movies were great. They delivered exactly what they promised kinetic, explosive, fucking awesome shit, and they did not take themselves too seriously. I'm not a serious film buff or expert, so if you are then perhaps you can , but my rough perception is that this trend shifted circa The Dark Knight. This was a Dark, Angsty, comic book film that was very successful both critically and commercially, and suddenly we see plenty of summer blockbusters not all, but plenty too many become equally maudlin. I downloaded one of the Spiderman movies at one point and was like, really? I want to see Spiderman kill things, not introspect glumly re his tarnished psyche. If I wanted dark, edgy art I would watch No Country For Old Men or fucking Schindler's List. Christopher Nolan has also remarked that he is going for a more serious and realistic Superman. Because if there's any premise conducive to seriousness and realism, it's Superman. Even Pacific Rim, which should be the cartoonishly obvious embodiment of awesome unserious action entertainment, has this whole unnecessary and boring plot about the white guy and Asian girl's respective traumatic memories and ability to psychically connect. I thought TDK was good. I thought Heath Ledger was good in it. And I'm aware you can probably come up with counterexamples to this trend I've perceived Michael Bay is still making movies, for example . Nonetheless, I feel like action films overall have trended towards Darker Edgier for the sake thereof, and that TDK exerted a major and regrettable influence to this end. I dunno, maybe the real causal factor was 9 11. But see if you can because I am open to compelling arguments. "
"Action movies were better before The Dark Knight. "
"I was watching the Penn State Northwestern game over the weekend and two Northwestern players were called for targeting . The penalty for targeting is 15 yards, and an automatic ejection from the game. For people who don't know, the ELI5 definition of targeting is that it is a penalty that is called when a defensive player tackles someone by hitting into them with their helmet. It's more complicated than that, but that's the essence of it. The problem that I have is the automatic ejection from the game of the offending player. While i agree that targeting is dangerous, there are many cases when the helmet contact is accidental and extremely slight. The officials should have some discretion to differentiate between intentional and unintentional targeting, just like they have when calling a facemask penalty. Ejection from the game should be an extreme penalty only used when a player does something that is intentional and malicious. Here is an example from the game. The penalty was reviewed by the officials and upheld. Here is the official rule gt No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown top of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting See Note 1 below . When in question, it is a foul. gt Note 1 Targeting means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to gt Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area gt A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground gt Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area gt Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet "
"In college football, the penalty for "targeting" should not include an automatic ejection from the game "
"TLDR up top I believe in a modern, democratic version of manifest destiny. I believe that America, despite its flaws, is the country that offers its citizens the most liberty and opportunity in the world. I also believe that the world will be more and more peaceful as we move to a system with fewer competing nationalisms. So, I believe the U.S. should allow other countries to enter our union as additional states. In my hypothetical union, a few preconditions must occur 1 A plebiscite in the country desiring to become part of the U.S., which passes with a super majority of the vote 60 or greater . 2 The state department should draw up a 10 year inclusion plan that sets goalposts for things like education, civil liberties, government accountability, and economic integration with the U.S. If those goal posts are not met, the President and state department has the option of extending the 10 year term to give the country further chance, or deny entry to the Union. 3 A super majority in the Senate would have to vote to approve a country's entry into the 10 year inclusion track. I think the benefits to the U.S. would be a more global strategic footprint, more access to resources, labor and capital, and a growing citizenry. It would also diversify domestic politics, as domestic politics would obviously be expanding as well. I think the benefits to the other country are becoming integrated into the world's biggest economy, and the security of being part of the sovereign territory of the top world power. Also, I imagine that entering the process would attract a lot of investment from U.S. businessmen, so it could jump start local economies even before the union was complete. Arguments that will not change my view other countries won't want to do it this is not a coercive plan, it's entirely optional. I just believe the U.S. should have it in place for the IF it should happen. I could see plausible circumstances where some smaller, less developed countries might see it as a good idea. If you want to change my view, I need to be convinced that democratic expansion wouldn't be good for the U.S. "
"The U.S. should establish a system whereby other countries can be admitted to the union. "
"This is , so I sort of expect not to be insulted. I am really interested in a While there are subjective points to intelligence and most people are good at one part of it and bad at another, there are objectively wrong and stupid things to believe in. I could spend hours finding links to data showing evidence Well, I admit, 95 is a bit of an arbitrary and seemingly high number . gt When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar. Source I totally acknowledge that this is often caused by a lack of access to information, but that doesn't make people less stupid. Let me just throw in this here Policy Exchange 61 of British Muslims want homosexuality punished Pew Research 2013 76 of South Asian Muslims and 56 of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion. I don't want to focus on Muslims, this just showed up on google To cite Winston Churchill gt The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I don't advocate a dictatorship here and democracy is all fine until we find a better alternative, but those We are the 99 signs shown during the Occupy Wall Street movement really show what I mean. Yes, dear 99 , most of you are best kept where you are Powerless. Reddit Please Apologies for grammar and spelling. Edit I don't think any country fits this and the ruling percentage is not not exclusively made up by the brightest people. I mean what I wrote as a bit of an utopian Idea where the intelligent ones rule. But my main point is that most people are stupid "
"I think 95% of the global population are plain and simple stupid and should for their own sake be governed by the other 5% "
"It is cruel and immoral to eat fruits and vegetables that have been picked by forced labor, child labor, brutal sexual abuse, or other cruel and inhumane conditions. For the majority of the fruit- and vegetable-buying population, this is unavoidable, so therefore, eating meat is no more cruelty-free than eating vegetables: "
"Consuming vegetables is also cruel to both the plants and to the workers responsible for the agricultural process. "
"Firstly, I'd like to say that I am not talking about the efficacy of these programs I know that Stop and Frisk is racially discriminatory although very effective and that the NSA isn't actually all that effective The fourth amendment is really a band aid to the actual problem it is trying to solve. I think everyone agrees that if someone is actually doing something wrong, regardless of how they are caught, they should be put in prison have their gun confiscated depending on the circumstance. When people complain about the nanny state and the NSA, they're not actually worried about people looking at their data, their worried about what they will do with that data. If they are worried about what the government will do with their data, it is either because A They are doing something illegal and immoral B They are doing something illegal but not immoral shouldn't be illegal i. e. buying drugs for personal consumption , in which case the problem isn't the government knowing this, but rather punishing them for it having bad laws. C They are doing something that is not illegal, and are worried about being judged, to which I say well, suck it up. Do you think the government actually cares about your porn watching habits? Really? tl dr The NSA is not an issue by itself, the issue is unfair punishments based on the data that has been collected, or using that data in extra judicial ways. "
"As a liberal, the NSA and policies like Stop and Frisk aren't thngs we should worry about. "
"If an escalator breaks down, the drop of objects would not be as severe as with a space elevator if an elevator's suspension breaks, free fall would be unsafe for both people and cargo. "
"An international space escalator would carry more people than a space elevator. "
"I believe the traditional approach to traffic lights is archaic. We know what green, yellow and red means but the time they last is usually unknown to the driver. No doubt this system of traffic lights results in many accidents each year. Cars speeding up to get through an intersection before the light changes. Cars being surprised by changes in lights and slamming on the breaks creating collisions. The occasional driver sliding into the intersection by a surprising light change. I believe all theses can be partly mitigated by a new number oriented system. I think a new number oriented system either employed alongside the traditional green, yellow, red system or completely surplanting it would lessen accidents and lead to smoother traffic flow. Long term this would probably save many lives but imo also lead to increased productivity and less time spent in traffic. Things that will change my mind. Some sort of expert telling me why this is a bad idea. A convincing argument by anyone. Examples of this system not working. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"Instead of traffic lights mostly being green, yellow, red they should use a countdown feature to signal when the light will change. "
"I'm an educated man and believe in USA's legal system. Although it is not perfect its still pretty good when compared to other alternatives. Taking the circumstantial evidence into account and the interpretation of the law that justifies what happened I still feel Mr. Zimmerman is wrong in killing Mr. Martin. On a personal not legal level I feel when it comes down to it Trayvon Martin is dead today because of Mr. Zimmerman's prejudice stereotyping and arrogance. Mr. Zimmerman decided ironically the same legal system that would later defend was not good enough and arrogantly decided deal with a potential fabricated situation his way. He picked a fight that he realized he couldn't win so he shot him. Please don't spend your comments convincing me that he was acquitted of the charge because I get and accept that but I can't help but to feel that Mr. Zimmerman got beat up by a 17 yr old so he shot him. I don't think he meant to kill him but only Mr. Zimmerman can answer that. TL DR Even though Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges I feel his actions were still wrong and he is still responsible for wrongfully killing Mr. Martin. Please bring educated comments I really want to know if I'm missing something I'm going to just bicker back and forth. "
"I accept the Zimmerman verdict, but I feel Mr. Zimmerman was still wrong to kill Mr. Martin. "
"By the same logic, good and deep story lines should be considered overdone since few triple-A developers do them. Yet there are other reasons for that. "
"Just because triple-A developers don't do it doesn't mean that they do so for a good reason. "
"Such an advanced system would be tightly integrated into the Real world financial system. Money in such a system would be as or more important to the financial systems stability as current country-based currencies. Such a virtual economy would need finance related laws for the same reasons as the current real world "
"Virtual economies are growing As virtual reality becomes more commonplace users will develop significant investments in virtual goods and services that deserve protection from crimes such as theft or fraud. "
"I really dislike the rhetoric associated with the words microaggression and institutionalization but I'm not so conceited as to attribute them to the ravings of crazy people. I understand what people mean when they use them when someone grows up and is socialized around outlets people, interactions between people, media, ect. that portray a specific group in a negative light more often than not then that person will develop a negative association with that group. This negative association manifests in negative instinctual, snap reaction behavior when recognizing someone of that group even if you are aware of it you can't change it. This has significant implications on a societal level. My conflict is that a companion rhetoric often accompanying this sort of issue states we shouldn't solve it by assimilating the groups in our mind becoming blind to them . Instead it suggests that we get society to acknowledge different categories without differentiating them. I pose that this is a contradiction. I am positive that these sorts of unconscious categorical associations were developed through evolution and as such there is no real way to stop people from categorizing internally. Perhaps you could remove all strict negative associations by never portraying any group negatively more often than any other but then we still have a disparity. What if you don't view one group negatively but view all other groups more positively? The same issues of unconscious preference would appear. The treatment of one person is relative to the treatment of all other people, yet our end goal is for all people to be treated equally. Our only solution then becomes to equalize all group associations. But how do we do this? It is my opinion that even if you were able to somehow artificially equalize portrayal of all groups across all media for a span of 50 years, so long as you append a category to a person while talking about them society will eventually shift back into trending biases it would be an unstable equilibrium. In this way you can only meaningfully remove category bias if you assimilate all categories of that class in your mind become blind to them . I do not believe that there is a separate but equal in the subconscious. I've avoided the terms race , gender , religion , ect. because this argument functions for all relevant categories that I can think of. I also do not mean to imply that we should stop applying categorical adjectives to people, just that that is what it would take to actually equalize two different categories in the mind. "
"You cannot prevent negative instinctual reactions against a group "microaggressions" without becoming blind to the group entirely "
"Every person who dies leaves behind people whose lives are made dramatically worse by the loss of a loved one. The average person, by continuing to live, helps those around them in a multitude of ways: love for their family, productive enterprise, and any philanthropic behavior in which they may engage. Out of sheer sympathy for the loved ones of the dead, and others who depend on their continued survival, one ought to minimize the number who die, and thus save the five. "
"The harms related to a death extend beyond the loss of life "
"if someone is violent and we think they may cause themselves or someone else harm we take action. if someone chose to breath a poison dust everyday and when he was around people he'd blow some dust at them too this man would be considered a danger to the public and could even be called a terrorist. but when someone smokes a cigarette, none of those rules apply? now i'm not saying they have no rights, but their rights end when they step on my rights, your right to swing you arm ends at my face. gt Hello, users of This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing "
"I believe smokers are a danger to themselves and others and should be treated as such legally. "
"64% of evangelical Protestants in a Pew Research Study strongly opposed same-sex marriage. In contrast, only 28% strongly favored it. "
"The legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States was an act that directly defied evangelical beliefs. "
"Now, to be precise, this is not my view but one I have found within an article on Francis Bacon. The more I think about this argument, the more I am convinced that it is not, after all, controversial and is in fact one that is almost universally held I simply having not come by it so plainly, am exaggerating is profoundness. Anyway the argument, as made by Loren Eiseley, goes as thus gt Science among us is an invented cultural institution, an institution not present in all societies, and not one that may be counted upon to arise from human instinct. gt Science is as capable of decay and death as any other human activity, such as a religion or a system of government. It can be equated with individual thought or the unique observations of genius, even though it partakes of these things. As a way of life it has rules which have to be learned, and practices and techniques which have to be transmitted from generation to generation by the formal process of education. Neither is it technology, although technology may contribute to science, or science to technology. Many lost civilizations—Roman, Mayan, Egyptian—had great builders, whether of roads, aqueducts, temples, or pyramids. Their remains show enormous experience of transmitted and improved techniques, but still we are not precisely within the true domain of science. gt Science exists only within a tradition of constant experimental investigation of the natural world. It demands that every hypothesis we formulate be subject to proof, whether in nature of in the laboratory, before we can accept its validity. Men, even scientists, find this type of thinking extremely difficult to sustain. In this sense science is not natural to man at all. It has to be learned, consciously practiced, stripped out of the sea of emotions, prejudices and wishes in which our daily lives are steeped. No man can long endure such rarefied heights without descending to common earth. Even the profession scientist frequently confines such activity to a specific discipline, and outside of it though this redditor thinks as much inside as well indulges his illogical prejudices. gt Men are, in mass, still emotional and resistant to fact even today. We are more willing to accept mechanical changes in an automobile than to revise, or even examine our racial prejudices, to use just one painful example. Now that I've retyped this, the main point seems even more like an obvious truth than before. However, there are many interesting things brought up in this that I think warrant debate and, therefore, discussion. I would advise you not to be too focused on semantics as I assume we all can get what is meant by science, in that it is inquiry within logical, empirical reasoning. Though I suppose this will too inevitably be debated—and I condone such as long as it is not fallacious nitpicking. "
"The Scientific Method is unnatural to Humans. "
"The only reason some devices are connected to the Internet is to allow their manufacturer to collect data and providing no benefit to the user in return. "
"Many devices, such as toasters, do not really need an internet connection to function. "
"While public school segregation based on religion is illegal in the US just as it's illegal to segregate based on race , private schools enjoy the legal liberty of administering their admissions however they want. So my view is not about law, but about ethics and morality. Brown v Board of Education wisely held that despite the potential equality between black schools and white schools in terms of facilities and instruction, segregation caused class distinctions and feelings of inferiority among the lower class blacks . This is true in private and public education, even though the SC holding only applied to public schools. Today we consider racial segregation morally despicable, even in private schools. Yet religion based admissions criteria are frequent at private schools, especially in the South. In fact most private schools are owned by churches, who use the schools as a very effective way of accomplishing their goal of you have to have religion X to be allowed in the upper social class, or at least you have to pretend to have religion X . Just as racial segregation created and strengthened class divisions pre 1954, religious segregation does so today. Those in the religious majority, in the upper class of a given region, should realize that their support of such a system is immoral and unethical. Church leaders who control the schools that they own should realize that they are creating and enforcing tyranny. To teach about religion or encourage it is one thing, but to hold a monopoly over a geographic region's social class structure, and to use it to extract money and influence, is immoral. They should stop. "
"Religion-based School Segregation Enforces Class Barriers and is Morally Wrong "
"Non-violent resistance is required as trying to act civil in the face of extreme intolerance is destined to fail. "
"Denying service to Trump officials is an effective form of non-violent resistance "
"This risks the possibility of the country 'losing' a meal by giving away something that defines that culture. This sets the road towards a single culture. Having the best of the cultures doesn't enrich culture. "
"A more uniform culture is the opposite to enriching culture. "
"Prostitution is legal where I live. It protects the workers, but does not legitimize the trade morally. For example, underage workers are not allowed to work in brothels. Prostitutes working in brothels pay taxes, have safety provisions, employer restrictions and can get insurance. This does not eliminate, but reduces street prostitution because of the provisions brothels provide. Safe sex is promoted. However, prostitution is not openly advertised. Its not like the dutch situation. Detail "
"Buying and selling sex should be legal for sex workers and their clients. "
"It should be up to the individual to decide whether the risk is worth taking. "
"Cannabis should be legalised for medical use in the UK. "
"I feel like if everyone had some form of non invasive birth control, like say men had an implant that disallowed accidental pregnancies, until you decide to go and have it turned off, which would be state funded and free like Planned Parenthood, would be a better institution than our current society. Religious views aside say an opt out for parents of the belief that would be against god I see no reason why this wouldn't be effective. As a double safety, women could have something similar, so both parents would have to have declined for a couple to conceive. All children would have their state of reproduction printed on the birth record and put on there own medical record, so they could know upon request, if the parents aren't available or willing to be truthful. They can change their own state of fertility when they are of legal age of consequence and reason based on their state laws. Obviously all countries couldn't afford this and it would not be a worldwide mandate, I'm more speaking about in the developed world. Again, I feel like if it wasn't medically dangerous, relatively affordable, but with no expense to the public, this would be an excellent method of preventing unwanted births. If for some reason this isn't feasible at birth, than it could be applied during early puberty. TL DR please do, but even if not, a free, fully inclusive program where everyone has an on off switch for pregnancy would be the best setup for reproduction. People could opt out for their children and the children could opt in later. "
"I believe a society where you had to choose to become pregnant, through some form of free program, would be better than a society where random, unplanned pregnancies occur. "
""The Case Against Rebuilding New Orleans". The Unplanning Journal. 8 Sept. 2005 - "With the recent destruction of New Orleans, will we also have enough energy and other resources to rebuild what was lost while protecting from future calamity? . Again the answer would have to be no. . Our global energy supplies are stretched thinner than ever, even before Hurricane Katrina struck. . Secondly, the spiraling cost of oil and other forms of energy would suck the economic life out of the country, depriving the government of the will or the means to pay for an increasingly costly reconstruction effort." "
"US does not have enough resources to rebuild New Orleans "
"Mind you, I'm not for putting scientists in political positions, Neil Degrasse Tyson is better suited to science rather than leadership. I do enjoy his work though. For those unaware an oligarchy is a system of government where the many are ruled by the few. There are a few oligarchies in the world today, some even consider the United States an oligarchy. Throughout history there have been able to just sort of, well, got it. They were ahead of their time in their way of thinking. Socrates in an example of someone who laid the foundations for the future of philosophy with his teachings. He was one of the first well known skeptics, his work is very good indeed. My point being, history is full of those sort of people. They understood what was going on in their society and even other societies but they did not have the power to stop it. Power is a very important thing, in societies usually someone holds power someplace. In the USA, politicians try to win the whim of the people, they use words as a means of swaying the masses to their idea. The power is essentially given to the majority to use. The average person has the average intellect. Still, they can be rather easily swayed by charisma and an argument that confirms their biases. Not to mention showing a relatively feeble grasp about current events beyond what they've heard from their friends. They are given the illusion of the puppeteer, when in reality they are more like a puppet. They are fickle and easy to fool by using fallacious statements disguised as truth. In the end, progress is slowed by the average person who is not ready to accept it. Do you think the average person would have accepted the idea of gay marriage 50 years ago? Power should be wielded by those who have the intellect to wield it properly. That is how humanity becomes what it has sought from the beginning, to be happy. Also, if you're going to bring up Orwellian ideas, it's kind of a tired argument. I've read his work, and while I find 1984 interesting to think about it kind of plays on the growing fear of the government at the time. It's still a well thought out book. "
"The world should have an oligarchy of the smart to guide humanity. "
"I will be providing some video game examples as that's the type of media I mainly consume, movies being a distant second. Trying to go out of the norm just to send a message is oftentimes a bad move 'cause some developers directors forget to make an interesting character in the process. That's a horrible example of diversity since it feels shoved in for the sake of it rather than to savour it. To talk in modern terms, characters like Sara Ryder Mass Effect Andromeda , Iden Versio Star Wars Battlefront II , and Aqua Kingdom Hearts are examples of characters that tried to break the mold in some fashion in terms of active roles and open up diversity, but the creators forgot to make them likable or give them any real personality. They're either the lifeless type, or their personalities are unlikable. That's not to say it never works there are other characters that get the job done. Elena Fisher Uncharted , Ellie The Last of Us , and even male representatives like Kanji Tatsumi Persona 4 are examples of characters that knew how to make their differences benefit the story and or gameplay of their respective games. The difference here is that some characters were designed to have a personality. You know, be cool and fun, and make the experience a lot better, without explicitly needing to tell us they're positively different, but show us why they're a big deal. Elena, Ellie, and Kanji are unforgettable in that respect and serve as great reminders that diversity is a great way to surprise the audience. The difference between Kanji and Ryder is that Kanji wasn't made for the sake of diversity. Now, you're probably wondering, what about a vanilla design, like Solid Snake? He looks like a typical game character on the surface. Why isn't he designed to look physically different? My answer there's no gain out of it. Snake is a badass character for who he is, and he helps make the story and gameplay in MGS enjoyable. There's no way changing his design is going to make MGS better, so again, there's no gain out of it. It's as inorganic as having diversity for the sake of it. "
"Having diversity for the sake of diversity in media harms good story-telling. "
"Note I am most definitely willing to change my view. Please give me factual and logical reason to why I should. Now I am addressing those who say that and are considered legal citizens I cannot attest or respond to illegal residents of the US . There are 2 other governing branches that are set up to be a system of checks and balances. It seems that majority of skeptics against Donald Trump do not have faith in the system. To offer even more reason why I doubt anyone should genuinely fear their lives is the fact that the Republican party is not totally on board with Trump. He was not endorsed by major representatives and senators within the GOP. In conclusion, lack of support from major influences in the GOP, plus checks and balances of our government will not yield situations in which people have to fear for their lives. Legislators will ultimately listen to their constituents in order to hold office and with vocal citizens, there isn't a chance they congress will pass any bills to put majority of people in dire situations. edit So after reading a bit of the comments I am noticing something along the lines of For minorities, this will be a hostile environment. Trump himself is bigoted. I respond to that with, SO WHAT? I am a proud minority however I do not fear bigots. I stand up to them and be vocal with my advocacy through correcting misconceptions in microagressions and voting in my local primaries and elections. Bigots are everywhere but I have never had to fear them. We have a voice in this country which is not at all disabled in any capacity simply because some bigot was elected to be the next POTUS. What chance is there to legalize bigotry and discrimination with our society's culture being shaped by an ever growing number of diversified people? 2nd edit Some of the arguments I've read are appealing and sound. I haven't totally agreed yet, but I am getting close if you can answer some the rest of my skepticism. Final edit So I think my argument was fundamentally flawed. Trump's authority as POTUS isn't necessarily something to warrant fear, but what is, through his following, his campaign, and his inappropriate actions Trump has indirectly endorsed unacceptable behavior through means of bigotry and racism. As well, many of his policies due through manipulation of jargon and the combined efforts of partisan politics and gerrymandering, can exclude millions of people from getting benefits IE Repeal of ACA and other efforts . I find it highly unlikely for him to do rash things with all his political advisors around him, but there is not such thing as absolutes especially seeing as how he legitimately won the presidency in the first place . Thanks for changing my view and making me see how people can be scared from this coming change. Just one more piece of unwarranted advice from OP but to those who are appalled scared because of this election, I implore you not to be. If you fear the coming days because of your differences, stand up and fight. Minorities and those who believe in being equal have a battle coming ahead that will only be met with opposition. You have to be vocal and advocate cultural diversity, and correct instances of bigotry and racist microagressions. To change the nation, it has to start at the local and community level first. Be vocal in local elections and primaries. Be involved and stay informed. The best to everyone whether you agree or disagree with other's political views. "
"I think those who say they are "genuinely fearing for their lives" now that Trump is President-elect are over exaggerating the severity and reach of his authority. "
End of preview (truncated to 100 rows)
YAML Metadata Warning: empty or missing yaml metadata in repo card (

Dataset Card for ConcluGen

Dataset Summary

The ConcluGen corpus is constructed for the task of argument summarization. It consists of 136,996 pairs of argumentative texts and their conclusions collected from the ChangeMyView subreddit, a web portal for argumentative discussions on controversial topics.

The corpus has three variants: topics, aspects, and targets. Each variation encodes the corresponding information via control codes. These provide additional argumentative knowledge for generating more informative conclusions.

Supported Tasks and Leaderboards

Argument Summarization, Conclusion Generation


English ('en') as spoken by Reddit users on the r/changemyview subreddits.

Dataset Structure

Data Instances

An example consists of a unique 'id', an 'argument', and its 'conclusion'.


Contains only the argument and its conclusion.

{'id': 'ee11c116-23df-4795-856e-8b6c6626d5ed',
 'argument': "In my opinion, the world would be a better place if alcohol was illegal. I've done a little bit of research to get some numbers, and I was quite shocked at what I found. Source On average, one in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime. In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes Drunk driving costs each adult in this country almost 500 per year. Drunk driving costs the United States 132 billion a year. Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash. These are just the driving related statistics. They would each get reduced by at least 75 if the sale of alcohol was illegal. I just don't see enough positives to outweigh all the deaths and injuries that result from irresponsible drinking. Alcohol is quite literally a drug, and is also extremely addicting. It would already be illegal if not for all these pointless ties with culture. Most people wouldn't even think to live in a world without alcohol, but in my opinion that world would be a better, safer, and more productive one. , or at least defend the fact that it's legal.",
 'conclusion': 'I think alcohol should be illegal.'}


Argument encoded with the discussion topic.

{"id":"b22272fd-00d2-4373-b46c-9c1d9d21e6c2","argument":"<|TOPIC|>Should Planned Parenthood Be Defunded?<|ARGUMENT|>Even the best contraceptive methods such as surgical sterilisation can fail, and even with perfect use the pill may not work.<|CONCLUSION|>","conclusion":"Even with the best intentions and preparation, contraceptives can and do fail."}


Argument encoded with the discussion topic and argument's aspects.

{"id":"adc92826-7892-42d4-9405-855e845bf027","argument":"<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>Men's toilets and women's urine have different odours due to hormone differences in each biological sex. As a result, the urine of one sex may smell much worse to the other sex and vice versa, meaning that it is logical to keep their toilet facilities separate.<|ASPECTS|>hormone differences, urine, separate, facilities, different odours, smell much worse<|CONCLUSION|>","conclusion":"Men and women, because of their different biological characteristics, each need a different type of bathroom. Gender-segregated bathrooms reflect and honour these differences."}


Argument encoded with the discussion topic and possible conclusion targets.

{"id":"c9a87a03-edda-42be-9c0d-1e7d2d311816","argument":"<|TOPIC|>Australian republic vs. monarchy<|ARGUMENT|>The monarchy is a direct reflection of Australia's past as a British colony and continues to symbolize Australia's subservience to the British crown. Such symbolism has a powerfully negative effect on Australians' sense of independence and identity. Ending the monarchy and establishing a republic would constitute a substantial stride in the direction of creating a greater sense of independence and national pride and identity.<|TARGETS|>Such symbolism, The monarchy, Ending the monarchy and establishing a republic<|CONCLUSION|>","conclusion":"Ending the monarchy would foster an independent identity in Australia"}

Data Fields

  • id: a string identifier for each example.
  • argument: the argumentative text.
  • conclusion: the conclusion of the argumentative text.

Data Splits

The data is split into train, validation, and test splits for each variation of the dataset (including base).

| | Train | Validation | Test | |--------- |--------- |------------ |------ | | Base | 116,922 | 12,224 | 1373 | | Aspects | 120,142 | 12,174 | 1357 | | Targets | 109,376 | 11,053 | 1237 | | Topic | 121,588 | 12,335 | 1372 |

Dataset Creation

Curation Rationale

ConcluGen was built as a first step towards argument summarization technology. The rules of the subreddit ensure high quality data suitable for the task.

Source Data

Initial Data Collection and Normalization

Reddit ChangeMyView

Who are the source language producers?

Users of the subreddit r/changemyview. Further demographic information is unavailable from the data source.


The dataset is augmented with automatically extracted knowledge such as the argument's aspects, the discussion topic, and possible conclusion targets.

Annotation process


Who are the annotators?


Personal and Sensitive Information

Only the argumentative text and its conclusion are provided. No personal information of the posters is included.

Considerations for Using the Data

Social Impact of Dataset

[Needs More Information]

Discussion of Biases

[Needs More Information]

Other Known Limitations

[Needs More Information]

Additional Information

Dataset Curators

[Needs More Information]

Licensing Information

The licensing status of the dataset hinges on the legal status of the data which is unclear.

Citation Information

  author    = {Shahbaz Syed and
               Khalid Al Khatib and
               Milad Alshomary and
               Henning Wachsmuth and
               Martin Potthast},
  editor    = {Chengqing Zong and
               Fei Xia and
               Wenjie Li and
               Roberto Navigli},
  title     = {Generating Informative Conclusions for Argumentative Texts},
  booktitle = {Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: {ACL/IJCNLP}
               2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021},
  pages     = {3482--3493},
  publisher = {Association for Computational Linguistics},
  year      = {2021},
  url       = {},
  doi       = {10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.306}
Edit dataset card
Evaluate models HF Leaderboard