<|TOPIC|>ban child performers<|ARGUMENT|>Even experienced adults can find it difficult to deal with stage fright or performance anxiety. Children, more emotionally vulnerable than adults by nature, should not be exposed to this sort of pressure. This is especially true in situations where the child is being paid for their performance, since the added necessity to perform well can lead to even more pressure. Although suicide among children is rare, it is believed often to occur as a result of the child feeling like she is under too much pressure, or failing to meet the expectations of others.1 There are also consequences that continue long past the child has stopped performing; former child actors often have the problem as young adults as feeling as having already ‘peaked’ and find themselves without a sense of drive or ambition or a coherent adult identity, consequentially they often suffer from substance abuse and addiction 1 Lipsett, ‘Stress driving pupils to suicide, says union’<|ASPECTS|>drive, substance abuse, addiction, perform well, adult identity, consequences, pressure, ambition, emotionally vulnerable, stage fright, suicide, expectations, performance anxiety<|CONCLUSION|>
It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So let me start off by saying this is an account I made solely for controversial questions as I don't want this coming up on my actual reddit history because I fear this will harm my career choices, have those close to me ostracized me, and etc. This is not spam, I genuinely want to see if my views on these matters can be changed I just want to do so with an extra layer of anonymity. Additionally, let me add that I voted for Hillary, am a regestered democrat, consider R The Donald to have too many closed minded bigoted people for my liking, and consider Trump to be too completely incompetent and two faced to effectively be a decent president. All that being said This all started when a lot of fuss was brought up in the college I am attending this has nothing to do with me personally, want to clarify perfectly clear and this doesn't affect ME whatsoever, I am concerened over those it did affect about Trump endind the DACA protection and the administration promising the students that they would protect their DACA students and employees we have a lot of workers who are likely illegal immigrants as well . I don't think it is fair that Illegal Immigrants should be allowed to go to AMERICAN college and even take financial aid. American Colleges are meant first and foremost to benefit the very Americans who pay taxes to support said schools as they are supposed to be at least a partially public service. These illegal students I highly doubt pay any sort of taxes and are not only potentially hell, maybe some are working their assess off to pay, and that's fine, but receiving financial aid but are taking a VERY contested and spot in american universities which are, again, supposed to primarily benefit Americans. I guarantee you there are thousands of very poor bright kids who were actually born here and whose parent s or themselves pay taxes to the federal government and are crowded out because the room, board, and financial aid is being given to an illegal immigrant. The only acceptable reason for accepting an illegal immigrant into an American University with ANY amount of government aid payed for by CITIZENS is if there is no other possible canidates who are US citizens who qualify for financial aide and do not have sufficient grades to get in, then and ONLY then could Illegal Immigrants be allowed into the university with financial aid. Honestly I don't think this situation would ever happen as there are so many citizens who want to go to college who are poor. Please note I have empathy for the illegal immigrants in this country, but this REALLY rankles me. Let me clarify further that I have NOTHING against a rich family or something paying out of the goodness of their heart full tuition for an illegal student. It's your money and frankly helping another human being, regardless of nationality, is awesome. Still, I don't believe American Taxpayers should be paying tuition for Illegal Immigrants while their own kids are rejected from the same colleges. TLDR The Title. EDIT Yeah I've been using DACA and Illegal Immigrants interchangeably and it appears that in either case they don't receive financial aide thank you all for explaining this, That's why I'm here, to learn , and my view has changed about 80 degrees so far out of the 180. <|ASPECTS|>full tuition, daca, illegal students, protect, immigrants, rich family, money, harm, career choices, american college, tuition, partially, controversial questions, empathy, rejected, financial aid, illegal immigrants, taxes, decent president, financial aide, incompetent, regestered democrat, poor bright kids, illegal student, paying, aid, illegal immigrant, benefit americans, anonymity, helping another human, benefit, ostracized, government aid, poor, public service, closed minded bigoted people<|CONCLUSION|>
DACA Students should have zero financial aide and are crowding out American Citizens from good Colleges.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I honestly do not understand the big fuss about bathrooms. Some people want to force people to use the bathroom of the sex they were born in while others want everyone to be able to go to the bathroom they want to go in. Both these positions have a lot of disadvantages. Cons of forcing people to use the bathroom of the sex they were born in how would you know who is and who is not a trans. Cons of allowing everyone to use any bathroom they want sexual predators My position is why regulate the bathroom. If you look like a woman, go to the female bathroom. No one will really care. Similarly if you look like a man, go to the male bathroom. No one will know if you have a penis or not. Edit Clarification What I am proposing is not a rule that needs to be enforced, but rather let bathrooms be how they used to be. Also, if a person is ambiguous, there will not be an outrage on which bathroom they use. The justified outrage is when people want to allow males who are clearly males to use the female bathroom. Edit Further Clarification SJW want to let everyone use any bathroom. Right wing people want to go by biological sex. Both proposals are bad and impractical. Why not continue with the status quo whereby a clearly looking male person cannot go to the female bathroom but an ambiguous looking one can<|ASPECTS|>ambiguous, , force, bathroom, sexual predators, biological sex, status quo, bad, care, penis, rule, fuss about bathrooms, female bathroom, male bathroom, disadvantages, regulate the bathroom, justified outrage, bathrooms, outrage, ambiguous looking, impractical<|CONCLUSION|>
If you look like a man go to the men bathroom. If you look like a woman go to the women bathroom.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>including the I'm not going to vote because the system sucks posts, which are the same thing through a personal statement This is us centric, but the logic may apply to elections elsewhere. When I say should, I mean that these forums would be a better place without those posts or posters, if people insist on breaking the rule repeatedly and get banned All right, so, this is a recent thought I had. It's not a cherished opinion, but, I've managed to convince myself of it. Leading up to an election, this has become relevant again. This type of post is not yet common, but was endemic in 2016, before and after the election. First, they derail conversation into the same repetitive arguments. I've never seen anything constructive come of those discussions. Second, discouraging voting is a tried and true tactic of political operators now including Russian trolls, though it's much older than that. That means a good number of such posts are fake lies told in a targeted way to encourage certain groups to not vote. There's no reason to facilitate such propaganda. Third, this rule is clear, would be easy to enforce, and has no real gray areas or slippery slope. My proposed wording Any post suggesting that others not vote, or that their votes do not matter, including any statement of personal intent to not vote, or blanket statements about groups doing the same, is banned. Pointing out problems in voting systems, lack of representation, reduced impact, low voter turnout, is ok. To be banned, your post must contain either An imperative statement to not vote. An uncontested statement that voting does not matter the system is too broken to vote. An anecdotal statement about yourself or categories demographics of people not voting because voting doesn't matter. For example, group of people aren't voting because they realize the system is broken is banned. Group of people aren't voting because they don't have faith in the electoral process, is fine. I live in a solid blue red state so my vote won't matter, is banned. I live in a solid blue red state and wish my vote had more impact, is fine. Some final details I'm specifically talking about moderator enforced rules in political subs, not Reddit as a whole, and not this subreddit. Specifically, I object to broader discussions of news, politics, etc, being derailed. I don't care about free speech arguments, unless you can provide strong evidence that removing these posts would seriously impact other discussions. Finally, if your response to me is an attempt to prove that voting indeed doesn't matter, I will ignore you. That's not the topic of discussion.<|ASPECTS|>, low, cherished opinion, political operators, ignore, impact other discussions, discouraging voting, discussions, lack of representation, better place, fake lies, faith in, voting, derail conversation, broader, centric, voting indeed, relevant, constructive, voting systems, derailed, anecdotal statement, gray areas, system is broken, personal intent, voter turnout, moderator enforced rules, rule, banned, system sucks posts, politics, system, facilitate, electoral process, repetitive arguments, reduced impact, free speech arguments, news, endemic, impact, topic of discussion, easy, broken to vote, propaganda, demographics, vote, slippery slope<|CONCLUSION|>
political subreddits should ban posts discouraging voting
<|TOPIC|>There should be no welfare state.<|ARGUMENT|>Most targeted unemployment benefits have time limitations. Across Europe, only Belgium guarantees unlimited unemployment benefits. In other countries the benefits last from 3 to 24 months for a worker with 22 years of contributions European Commission, pg. 5<|ASPECTS|>unemployment benefits, benefits, time limitations<|CONCLUSION|>
In some EU countries, unemployment benefits are time limited, therefore recipients cannot rely on them indefinitely.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>One of the most famous quotes about Nihilism is Nietzsche's God is dead and we killed him , referring to the way how science research deleted God as an explanation from so many places, where we just couldn't figure something out. While this depressive philosophy isn't really healthy and I believe Nietzsche himself feared it's uprise because of its dangers , the more you are interested in science and logic, the less and less meaning there is to both individuals and humanity's existence. The only arguments by people in science, that are religious, are in the logical paradoxes, that have no real explanation, because they are nonsensical, so they just put God there. Note that I used God a lot here, using him as sort of ultimate purpose in life. I did it because I believe, that there is no discussion if life's purpose that isn't based on religion in a few billion years no matter what you achieve, all of Earth will be turned to ashes as the Sun swallows it whole. And even if you make humanity jump the technological gap and, for example, invent a way to save mankind, at the point at which the Universe meets its ultimate fate, even if mankind by then survived just because of you, they will inevitably all die and it will make no difference, whether they died then or at any other time. I'm kinda scared of this philosophy so it's in my best intent to change my view on it, but I've failed to find a good argument against it. Help me <|ASPECTS|>life 's purpose, healthy, scared, change, ultimate fate, god is dead, religion, ultimate purpose in life, god, ashes, dangers, nonsensical, save mankind, depressive philosophy, die, technological gap, logical paradoxes<|CONCLUSION|>
Nihilism naturally derives from science and reason
<|TOPIC|>Is tax avoidance acceptable?<|ARGUMENT|>They have to work hard at their jobs and put in an effort to climb up in the company.<|ASPECTS|>work hard<|CONCLUSION|>
Even when people are born in rich households, they still have to work hard to earn wealth.
<|TOPIC|>Is it OK to publicly approach a stranger for sex?<|ARGUMENT|>Surveys show that many men are fine with hooking up with a stranger who approaches them - whereas barely any women are. This indicates that women dislike this idea.<|ASPECTS|>stranger, dislike<|CONCLUSION|>
Just because women are fine with being asked out on a date does not mean that the same applies to being approached by a stranger for sex.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Just clarify by saying that this is for people who turn to God for decisions such as praying for cure of an illness ie praying to God to cure them of cancer instead of seeking medical help. For example that couple that had both of their sons die by denying them medical help and choosing to pray instead. I know not all Christians Religious people are like this. Basically where people use God instead of rational logic , I believe should be treated as mentally ill. Please don't reply saying that if they used rational logic then they wouldn't believe in God in the first place.<|ASPECTS|>believe, cancer, medical help, rational logic, religious people, god, cure, die, mentally ill<|CONCLUSION|>
I think that believing in God should be classified as a mental illness.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My reasoning for this is as follows In my experience, most students will choose their major after the first year of college. To a certain extent, I'd say that one's choice of major plays a major role in determining one's future. A philosophy major might have a hard time getting an engineering gig, for instance. By requiring students to take a variety of courses prior to making this decision, students would be more likely to make a better informed decision on their major and future career. An issue I foresee with this is that gen eds are more geared towards the humanities, rather than STEM courses. To address this, I'd suggest requiring either introductory level STEM courses Chem 101, Intro to Biology, etc to be taught as gen eds, or having an even more introductory level class to be taught to people who have no background in the matter, maybe not to teach major concepts, but at the very least to introduce students to the styles of thought and methods that would be required in a college environment, as opposed to a high school environment. Writing this, I realize that this is probably more America centric than I had initially anticipated. Sorry about that. In addition to allowing students to make a better informed decision, students would likely have an easier time with scheduling their coursework. Anecdotally, I know that I had a considerable degree of difficult getting coursework scheduled as a STEM student because a lab section was scheduled for the same time as a gen ed that I needed to take. While I believe the majority of my gen eds were valuable for me, I think that the scheduling difficulties that they established limited the coursework that I was able to take. Finally, sort of going off my first point, this introductory year or two would serve as a good developmental stalling tactic. While I won't pretend that a 20 year old is the most mature creature on this planet, I think they would be more likely to make a better considered and more thoughtful decision about their academic path than somebody who's fresh out of college. Being exposed to a more rigorous environment, coupled with ongoing neural development, would presumably give college students a bit more time and wisdom to make a proper decision. EDIT Apparently my college experience was quite different from the standard experience. Whoops. <|ASPECTS|>, better informed decision, hard time, informed decision, humanities, development, scheduling difficulties, engineering gig, determining, developmental stalling tactic, thoughtful decision, future, scheduling, america centric, experience, time and wisdom, proper decision, academic path, college experience, coursework, difficult getting, rigorous environment, 's, styles of thought and methods, easier time, choose their major, mature creature, students, better, stem, choice<|CONCLUSION|>
Gen-ed requirements in college, particularly in liberal arts colleges, should primarily be front-loaded into the first year or two, and students should only be allowed to select a major after finishing the bulk of these courses.
<|TOPIC|>Are the rich or the poor more responsible for environmental damages?<|ARGUMENT|>Demand simply responds to supply to whatever customers buy the most is what will be produced the most.<|ASPECTS|>responds to supply<|CONCLUSION|>
Consumers have the power to influence producers' choices by choosing to purchase items that are environmentally advantageous.
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>If reparations were financed from petty cash, this could easily create the impression that a insignificantly low amount of money is used to buy acquiescence of Black Americans.<|ASPECTS|>black americans, petty cash<|CONCLUSION|>
The willingness to pay a significant, notable amount of money that requires cuts elsewhere would emphasize the importance of this step for the United States.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Mother's Baby Father's Maybe. I think that paternity testing should be mandatory in all cases where a man wishes to put his name on the birth certificate. Quite simply Eliminates the chance of unwilling cuckoldry Means that males who are unsure of whether they are the father can find out without potentially blowing up a relationship If it were mandatory women in 'more stable' relationships would be more careful with protection with whomever they were cheating with as if they got pregnant they would be found out. Frankly I can't think of a reason why this could be a bad idea for any reason other than to save health services money. But its not even that expensive<|ASPECTS|>unwilling cuckoldry, paternity testing, 's, save, careful, protection, father 's, health services money<|CONCLUSION|>
I believe that Paternity testing should be mandatory for a father to be put on a birth certificate
<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>Hardcore Brexiteers are always going to hate having been deprived of their "victory", but they don't have to like it to turn up to vote, even if it's only to try to oust whoever made the decision. Their visceral dislike of the outcome will make them as aware as anyone of how and why they eventually "lost", i.e. They'll come out of it understanding the nature of British democracy and why they should vote to decide on their local MP.<|ASPECTS|>lost, visceral dislike, oust, deprived, victory, british democracy<|CONCLUSION|>
Not necessarily, if it were correctly framed as a loss of faith by parliament in the referendum process and a return to Britain's actual sovereignty, in which the electorate elect and the elected make educated decisions, rather than throwing decisions to a lynch mob for political purposes. If that case were made it could result in increased turnout at elections as the electorate would then better understand the importance of electing the right people.
<|TOPIC|>Autonomous Killing Machines: The Future of Warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>30h missions with pilots sitting in a seat and not moving would be really really strenuous, so you would probably have to build it in a way so that the pilots can shift around and maybe even stretch, go to the toilet.<|ASPECTS|>strenuous, shift<|CONCLUSION|>
Imagine you had to build a Global Hawk with pilots on board. That would have made the plane bigger, heavier and much more complex. GH missions are so long, that you would probably have to have 2-3 pilots on board.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Imperials follow Palpatine who legally became Supreme Chancellor of the senate albeit due to manipulations that are very common in politics. He used legal means to control the senate by a domino effect that he and his Sith allies started to coerce the population into granting him emergency rights. Although he broke the trust of the voters while he had these emergency rights by declaring himself emperor, he still did it within the law. The rebels on the other hand aren't able to overthrow him legally and therefore committed terrorist actions against the established government and were trying to eliminate the Sith elements that headed this government for religious reasons dark side of the force . Although this government brought order and stability to the core worlds and protection from outsiders as referenced by the Vong invasion. The rebels led by the Jedi religion light side of the force relied on ancient texts and prophecies that told them that there would be a balance to the force which gave them permission and incentive to perform terrorists acts against the established government in effect their jihad. Reasons that the Empire was a legit government It drove technology forward via innovation in weapons, ships, shields and communication. It imposed the law effectively by dissolving the senate so decisions would be made quickly and efficiently rather than by corrupt officials. EDIT I LOVE Star Wars but I've always wondered about these aspects of course I rooted for the Rebels Still Change my View. EDIT 2 this wiki provides more examples of the rebellions terrorism<|ASPECTS|>, decisions, control the senate, manipulations, terrorist actions, view, emergency rights, rebellions, religious reasons, elements, drove, permission, quickly, trust of the voters, incentive, stability, efficiently, jihad, legal means, law effectively, protection from outsiders, innovation, balance, overthrow, order, corrupt officials, terrorists acts, technology forward<|CONCLUSION|>
The Imperials are really the law abiding citizens in STAR WARS compared to the Rebels who are simply terrorists fighting a religious war.
<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>True. Existence has nothing to do with contradictions or incoherence. Both are our concepts, while reality exists independently from us and our concepts. It is elementary, like the paradox: "I'm a compulsive liar." The fact that we cannot resolve this statement does not prove that in reality there is no compulsive lair who can say these very words. Quantum physics is a contradiction, electron being both a wave and a particle, which are two mutually exclusive concepts.<|ASPECTS|>mutually exclusive, contradictions, existence, compulsive liar, compulsive lair, elementary, incoherence, reality exists independently<|CONCLUSION|>
Not having a consistent definition of an object or phenomenon doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, reality exists independently of out concepts and definitions. A better definition may be possible.
<|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.<|ASPECTS|>fail, sterilisation<|CONCLUSION|>
Even with the best intentions and preparation, contraceptives can and do fail.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know a lot of people talk about how important it is to major in something you are interested, but I think majoring in something really saturated eg. Journalism is a bad idea. It is common for people to romanticise a certain major or career. The truth is most if not all jobs have workplace politics of some sort so most careers are not as good as they think. You might as well pick the career which pays better if you don't have it too much. Finding a job will be very competitive. I know a lot of it is based on meritocracy but other things like luck matter a lot too. A company may have to choose between ten equally qualified candidates so someone is bound to be rejected. Networking is obviously important, but with tonnes of other eager candidates competing with you, it is really hard to stand out. College is expensive and time consuming so it seems wise to see it as a form of investment. If you like learning about philosophy or music, you can always learn about that in your free time by taking much cheaper online courses. No need to spend thousands of dollars on a degree. The only exception I can think of is wealthy kids who never have to worry about poverty or they can easily find a job via family networks. <|ASPECTS|>time consuming, pick, worry, hard, stand, networking, family networks, spend thousands of dollars, pays better, rejected, bad idea, wealthy kids, investment, journalism, workplace politics, learn, luck, philosophy, competitive, equally qualified candidates, cheaper online courses, career, eager candidates, poverty, expensive, romanticise, meritocracy<|CONCLUSION|>
Majoring in something really saturated is a bad idea
<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>'Using' such sites for counter-terrorism purposes means that they are going to be subject to a different type of scrutiny; for example, anonymity being waived, as in the case of the Daily Stormer where many discussions were conducted by anonymous parties. As such, there is - if not a certainty - then at least a high risk of increased surveillance.<|ASPECTS|>scrutiny, anonymous, increased surveillance, risk, anonymity<|CONCLUSION|>
White supremacists deserve privacy just like any other individual in society does. Regardless of whether they should be censored, they should not be subject to extra surveillance simply because they hold views that are objectionable to some.
<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>An abuser is not a protector when their own actions are worse than the outside world they are supposedly "protecting" their victim from. This is true of the conditions created inside factory farms.<|ASPECTS|>protector, abuser, conditions, protecting<|CONCLUSION|>
Given humans kills many cows for their meat, it is not clear that they could be viewed as protecting cows or having a particularly close relationship with them.
<|TOPIC|>Should laws prohibit children under 16 from being unsupervised?<|ARGUMENT|>This would stop the very young from hanging out in the streets and getting into trouble.<|ASPECTS|>trouble, streets<|CONCLUSION|>
Laws should prohibit children 16 and under from being unsupervised.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I would describe myself as an atheistic agnostic, and have been since early childhood. My son has recently started asking questions about death will I die, will mom die, will he die, how long until he dies, what happens when he dies, and so on. He is really anxious about this and will lie awake talking about it. His mother and I have so far answered these in accordance with our lack of belief yes, everyone dies and no, there is nothing after death, don't worry about it you'll live a long, long time before you die. Would it be kinder to an already pretty anxious boy to serve him some comforting lies until he's old enough to handle the truth? So far, I've been sure that honesty is the best policy in the long run over kindness in the short run. Change my view <|ASPECTS|>death, live, comforting lies, atheistic agnostic, awake, boy, kindness, dies, anxious, childhood, long, die, nothing after death, time, honesty<|CONCLUSION|>
I'm an atheist, and believe it's OK to tell children the truth about death.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a left leaning British Christian, I come from a tradition where the left commonly identifies with Christianity the NHS was started by Christians, free education for all was championed by Christian reformers, Christians lead the abolition of slavery fight etc . Part of this logic is that the acceptance of taxation is akin to charity, IE we give up what is by most definitions our money, to give to a cause that benefits those less fortunate, as well as broader society. In the US however, Christians it seems more commonly identify with the right, and when I argue that, for instance, US Christians should be in support of universal healthcare funded through taxation, because Christians are okay with charity, the counter response is something to the effect of but charity is voluntary, where as taxation is compulsory and so therefore taxation isn't comparable here and thus taxpayer funded universal healthcare isn't something they would support. The problem I have with this logic is that it's basically undermined by the US Christian Right wing outlook on many other issues. If their argument is that because taxation is involuntary and compelled through force of law, how do they then see it as so important that force of law be used to enforce against gay marriage for instance. In fact, this argument goes even further. Surely this is basically the same as an argument for abolishing the state. If US Christian Republicans basically argue that something is not holy if it is compelled through force of law, why then are they so often very law and order focused. If they do not think the law is an apropriate force to compel charity, why it is okay to use the law to compel other Christian behaviours, such as temperance because US Christian Republicans are often very opposed to the use of recreational drugs etc . So in summary, I'd like to see a compelling reason why a the American Christian Republican perspective can oppose taxation as charity because the state should not enforce generosity but can support police enforced morality because the state should enforce good citizenship. <|ASPECTS|>charity is voluntary, undermined, free education, apropriate force, acceptance of taxation, taxation, charity, christian right wing outlook, compel, police enforced morality, good citizenship, us, benefits those less fortunate, involuntary, law and order focused, force of law, taxpayer funded, abolition of slavery, abolishing the state, generosity, compel charity, universal healthcare, marriage, healthcare, compelled, christian behaviours, holy<|CONCLUSION|>
The Republican Christian objection to tax as charity because tax is not voluntary is ultimately hypocritical
<|TOPIC|>Should cheerleading be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Governments do not ban people from signing up for dangerous professions e.g. firemen, police, electricians.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous professions<|CONCLUSION|>
An activity being dangerous does not justify the government banning that activity.
<|TOPIC|>Should Evangelicals vote for Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>President Trump has talked about his own daughter in a sexual manner on numerous occasions. Incest is generally condemned in the bible.<|ASPECTS|>sexual, incest<|CONCLUSION|>
Trump has committed numerous types of 'sexual immorality', which the Bible preaches it followers to abstain from.
<|TOPIC|>Would the world be a better place if it was united under one government eg the UN?<|ARGUMENT|>The Secretary General is largely dependent on the funding and good will of the most powerful nations, making it difficult for them to openly criticise them<|ASPECTS|>funding, good, criticise<|CONCLUSION|>
The Secretary General lacks the independent authority to achieve any meaningful change.
<|TOPIC|>Withdrawing from Iraq<|ARGUMENT|>Saddam has been removed from office and executed, WMD has not been found, and Iraq is no longer a threat to the region. This was the main thrust of the US mission going into the war. Having accomplished these objectives and having ensured that Iraq in fact does not have WMD, the US can withdrawal on the basis that it has accomplished its limited mission in Iraq.<|ASPECTS|>withdrawal, saddam, threat, iraq, wmd, limited mission<|CONCLUSION|>
The US has accomplished its limited strategic objectives in Iraq, so it can leave.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is a two part question. First he's scandal proof. I mean literally the man has a new scandal every single week. He's got a strategy where he just dogpiles the scandals one after the other so before one even goes deep he's already embroiled in another scandal. Maybe it's just the media overhyping every little thing but I honestly don't think there is anything he can do that can effect him much at all. As Ben Shapiro put it that most politicians are scared of getting mud whereas trump is a monster made of mud. Secondly I think there is nothing that can turn his base against him. He himself said he could shoot someone on fourth Avenue and not lose any support. He can literally make any stupid descion or do any kind of crazy act but his cult followers will never leave him. Its like a religion basically. Somebody on this because I don't think it can be changed.<|ASPECTS|>, effect, shoot someone, monster, crazy act, religion, scared of getting, mud, overhyping every, new, turn his base, scandals, scandal proof, stupid descion, media, cult followers, scandal, support, changed, lose, dogpiles<|CONCLUSION|>
Trump is scandal-proof and there is nothing that can turn his base against him.
<|TOPIC|>Should all major political decisions be made via public referendum?<|ARGUMENT|>During the 'Brexit' referendum the Electoral Reform Commission's free online resource A Better Referendum had limited take-up with only 12,000 unique visitors to the site. Page 35.<|ASPECTS|>limited take-up, unique<|CONCLUSION|>
Simply because such bodies exist does not mean that they will be listened to.
<|TOPIC|>Should Democrats Cooperate with Donald Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>Julie Kirchner was appointed to work at the federal Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services by the Trump administration in May. She was previously the executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organisation that has complained that immigration undermines whites' dominance<|ASPECTS|>whites ' dominance<|CONCLUSION|>
Trump and his administration have extensive connections with members of the alt-right movement, a movement he refuses to condemn.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Post game, it should be the loser's decision to initiate congratulations, handshakes, declarations of good game , etc. The winner can then reciprocate, and should. If the winner initiates this, it can come across as rubbing it in, especially if it was a painful loss, or if the game was decided by dumb luck, or if the loser in some sense should have won, or if the winner won only because the loser defeated himself. If the loser does not congratulate the winner or shake hands or whatnot, it is a display of poor sportsmanship, sure, but forgivably so. It's a minor infraction, because the winner has the emotional upper hand. His feelings are not in need of sparing. He should take no offense. If anything, he should take satisfaction in having defeated such a competitive opponent, who takes losses so hard he can't bring himself to congratulate his opponent in the immediate aftermath. The proper response of a winner to a loser who offers no congratulations is to also say nothing, to respect the competitive flames which are continuing to burn in the loser's soul. A winner initiating good game is a worse offense to the gods of sportsmanship than a loser neglecting to initiate good game .<|ASPECTS|>painful loss, sparing, poor sportsmanship, worse offense, handshakes, emotional upper hand, competitive flames, feelings, losses, offense, reciprocate, congratulate, sportsmanship, loser 's decision, good game, minor infraction, competitive opponent, game, congratulations, dumb luck<|CONCLUSION|>
Post-game, the loser and not the winner should initiate "good sportsmanship".
<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>In Acts 12:14-15, a servant tells members of the early Church that Peter had escaped from prison, and she is dismissed with the claim that it was only his angel. This shows that the early Church wasn't quick to assume that the appearance of someone is necessarily their physical presence.<|ASPECTS|>angel, escaped from prison, someone, physical presence<|CONCLUSION|>
If the witnesses of the resurrected body were hallucinating, they likely would have concluded that it was only a vision rather than a bodily resurrection, since we know that both their culture and the specific individuals involved had a concept of spiritual visions.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the following reasons It dilutes the historical significance of the word. Perhaps black people initially called each other the N word to show brotherhood however, today it is often casually used interchangeably with words like bro, dude, or man. This trivializes its historical origin and makes it hard for non black people to believe it is truly offensive. It engenders resentment among white people who mean no harm. A white musician can't even perform a cover of a black rapper's song without censoring the lyrics, lest he face backlash. It aggravates racial tension by widening the linguistic rift. If language is a barrier, allowing one group to use certain terminology while barring another group from doing so exacerbates cultural separation. It is has become associated with some of the worst aspects of black culture, popularized by black entertainers who celebrate the thug lifestyle, gang violence, and drugs. In fact, it seems to me that the more affluent a black person becomes, the less likely they are to use the N word. No other minority group frequently refers to themselves by derogatory terms coined by their oppressors. You don't hear Asians call each other chinks, Mexicans don't call each other wetbacks, and Jews don't call each other kikes. Maybe it happens on occasion, but nowhere near to the extent that black people use the N word. In order to change my view, you need to make an argument showing the benefits of black people using the N word outweigh all the negative things I have listed. Just addressing one of my points is not sufficient. EDIT The word queer is not a counterpoint to 5. Gay people don't get offended by cis people using the word queer. It's completely different from the N word, which is one group of people using a word while telling another group they cannot use the word. The analogy is not at all appropriate.<|ASPECTS|>derogatory terms, n, worst aspects, brotherhood, cultural separation, gang violence, black people, counterpoint, benefits, analogy, drugs, backlash, queer, wetbacks, appropriate, negative things, gay people, resentment, historical significance, offended, minority group, offensive, thug, black culture, racial tension, linguistic rift, different, affluent, historical origin<|CONCLUSION|>
Black people should stop using the N-word
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After having a dumb phone for so many years, I have found that I am able to accomplish all of my needs through it, a personal computer, and tablet. Paying the cell companies extra money in order to have a smartphone and access to the internet is a waste, especially since I have access to public, schools, home, and work WiFi spots. All of the tasks that would be considered productive on a smartphone can be accomplished from many other, cheaper devices. A laptop computer can accomplish anything a phone can at much faster speeds. I can use a GPS for maps and locations. I can use books and or a kindle to use for reading. Also, a smart phone lures you into the trap of always needing to be connected to the internet. As someone from the millennial generation, it is apparent and sad to see how social gatherings are spent around showing each other YouTube videos or looking at stuff on Facebook or Snapchat. Therefore, I see no productive reasoning for buying a smartphone aside from wanting to simply own something for the sake of looking cool being in the loop. Please , and also aim to convince me that despite already having a cellphone, laptop, and tablet that I personally should switch to a data plan. 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 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<|ASPECTS|>productive reasoning, money, faster speeds, waste, connected to the internet, remind, cheaper, popular topics, trap, accomplish, concerns, gps, effective, downvotes, looking cool, happy cmving, sad, productive, social gatherings, message us, change, downvote, maps and locations, questions, needs, data plan, reading<|CONCLUSION|>
I believe switching to a smart phone plan is a waste of money and the added "benefits" do not outweigh the costs of owning a smartphone.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I recently was banned from r HoldMyNip for reporting a post for animal abuse and commenting on it. The link was a gif of a cats trapped in a dryer. Even if there was no heat the dryer had to be on for the inside to be spinning the way it was. This is clearly a situation in which a cat would be under pretty severe duress. Am I wrong? It seems to me that whoever made the video has no problem being cruel to animals just to get a cheap laugh. After commenting I was shortly banned and received a message from the moderator calling me a complete idiot. If I am in fact being dumb then please someone enlighten me. Here are the links and an image of the message from the mod. Edit I said two cats. It looks like it is just one cat. Also It looks like there may be no door on this dryer but I honestly can't tell. Also apparently it was posted by the mod who banned me. Edit 2 I am not asking if I can be banned for something. I was already banned so obviously yes it exists within their wheel house. I am simply asking if being concerned for the welfare of a cat is just cause for being banned. I don't think it is. Even if I am wrong about the cat being in any amount of distress, that should not result in being immediately banned. Someone could easily just point out that the door is open and claim that this is enough to suggest that the cat is in no harm. That is fine. Instead I received abusive messages from the mod who also posted the gif.<|ASPECTS|>animal abuse, severe, idiot, duress, gif, distress, cats, spinning, cheap laugh, cruel to animals, one cat, door, heat, harm, dumb, abusive messages, house, welfare of a cat, banned<|CONCLUSION|>
I should not have been banned from r/HoldMyNip for pointing out animal abuse.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For those unfamiliar, the FairTax is proposed tax reform in the USA that would essentially get rid of the income tax, and replace it with a federal sales tax of around 25 30 . To account for essentials, people would receive a prebate check once a month for the estimated cost of basic essentials, the value of which is based on the number of adults and children in your household. TL DR FairTax taxes consumption rather than income. My argument is that people find illegal immigration to be a problem because people are coming into the country, and using our government services without paying taxes. But with the FairTax, everyone pays taxes every time they buy anything. This removes the incentive to hide income, to have offshore accounts, and generally reduce the opportunities for tax fraud. People tend to think of the FairTax as just being tax reform, but it would also solve what people see as the major problem with the illegal immigrant population. Thoughts?<|ASPECTS|>tax reform, taxes, taxes consumption, basic essentials, income tax, thoughts, cost, income, pays taxes, government services, federal sales tax, hide income, tax fraud, illegal immigration, illegal immigrant population<|CONCLUSION|>
The FairTax would be a great solution to the illegal immigration problem.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm sick of hearing people complain. Every successful person who's story I know started out poor and either paid their way through night classes or worked their asses off to start a successful business. I've seen many typical poor people throw away their chance at an education for no good reason and end up working minimum wage jobs to pay for their alcohol tobacco drug use. I work with many immigrants, who came here from impoverished countries and are either making well over six figures or will be in a few years. There's no excuse not to get good grades in highschool, go to college full or part time on scholarships, get a relevant degree STEM, business etc. and get a good, high paying job.<|ASPECTS|>good grades, successful business, complain, immigrants, alcohol tobacco drug use, hearing people, impoverished countries, poor, successful, education, night classes, excuse, paid, high paying job<|CONCLUSION|>
I think there's no excuse for being poor.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe if you look at the current Libertarian Party, and look at the U.S. Constitution, and the quotes and works of men such as Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, etc. you will find that they are incredibly aligned ideologically. I am not a libertarian nor am I saying America should be a libertarian nation. Times change. Under the founding fathers, women were not allowed to vote. The majority of the founding fathers were slave owners, yet America eventually decided to change with the times. If America wishes to be anything other than libertarian, they must admit that they can no longer purport the ideology of the founding fathers and the constitution and align themselves with more modern thinkers better suited for current times and the current world economy.<|ASPECTS|>women, libertarian nation, change, ideology, libertarian, fathers, slave owners, allowed to vote, modern thinkers, quotes, aligned ideologically<|CONCLUSION|>
The founding fathers were libertarians.
<|TOPIC|>Should Google Censor Their Search Results In Order To Operate In China?<|ARGUMENT|>The CEO of Google stated that "filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission”, but failing to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world’s population, compromises our mission far more severely.”<|ASPECTS|>compromises, search, mission, mission, results<|CONCLUSION|>
Google’s mission statement declares that the company’s goal is to bring information to as many people as possible. Operating in China allows it to reach more people.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've come across this interesting concept in some personal conversations, and I find myself continuously returning to it and thinking, Huh, that might be something. My view is that people should not be entitled to having children that is people shouldn't automatically have the right to birth and raise a child. A quick disclaimer before the argument I do not believe this is a view that can be effectively legislated for, and I am not advocating for any program to enable this. I am posing a more philosophical and ethical argument. I fully understand the dangers of giving a group of people the power to artificially select those who can and can't have children, and I don't pose to be any kind of expert in any area related to such things. I will not discuss selection processes, nor preventative processes, except in the broadest of possible senses. Now, my points. It is immoral to force a conscious entity into existence. I think this is a principle many people feel in situations outside of human children. For example, I have asked several people a question along the lines of Is it moral to, assuming they are conscious, farm instantiations of artificial intelligence? Let's take this to a large real world scale, and say we have a thousand servers each storing a thousand AI, and these AI are sufficiently intelligent that, while it is unknowable, there is a possibility that the AI are conscious entities. Imagine that a company is trying to create a specialized AI for some problem they're trying to solve, and so they set their servers to work evolutionarily testing the AI until they produce one which solves the problem sufficiently. In essence, a million possibly conscious entities are being evaluated on their ability to solve a problem, and then discarded for a newer, better generation of a million AI. These servers are creating and destroying millions of instantiations of an AI which is possibly conscious in some way. Is this morally acceptable? I think not. These entities are being forced into existence and, to a first degree approximation, somewhat arbitrarily destroyed. I think that is something equivalent to a digital Holocaust, and I am not using that phrase lightly. Were those AI human brains, there is no doubt that we would find some practice of subjecting humans to a similar process to be hugely immoral. The principle here is that we are, essentially, exerting control over the life and death of a conscious entity. We don't find slavery or murder acceptable, so why would this be? We can take this principle and apply it to human babies. By having a child, you are creating a conscious entity you've taken control of its life. I am aware that we have children in order to continue the species, we are biologically designed to have children. But just because it's the natural course of things does not make it moral. I'm not of the inclination that the perpetuation of the species is an inherently good goal. Human life is frought with suffering and hardship. It is, until we somehow become all powerful, unavoidable. Every new human life also means new suffering. We find that inflicting suffering upon someone is immoral, and even allowing someone to suffer is widely considered immoral. Why would it be alright to enable suffering through the creation of the capacity for suffering as having a child does? Why is it okay to force people to live? If someone is already alive, then of course we should allow them agency over their body and life, and provide alleviation of suffering, but why should we be allowed to force something into a position where it must encounter suffering?What right does anyone have to do this?<|ASPECTS|>, right to birth, solves the problem, natural course, hardship, species, evolutionarily, force people to live, moral, powerful, ability, specialized ai, unavoidable, effectively legislated, life and death, destroying, intelligence, digital holocaust, human children, solve a problem, selection processes, good goal, immoral, taken, forced, life, destroyed, philosophical, unknowable, human babies, morally acceptable, entitled to having children, inflicting, slavery, ethical argument, conscious entities, conscious entity, new, biologically designed to have children, control, intelligent, murder, farm, agency, suffering, artificially select, okay, children, alleviation of suffering, arbitrarily, conscious, principle, ai, enable suffering, instantiations, capacity, preventative processes<|CONCLUSION|>
Having Children Should not be a Fundamental Human Right
<|TOPIC|>Would Abolishing Privacy Be Beneficial?<|ARGUMENT|>Even in elite circles and among homosexuals themselves, in many of these countries homosexuality is seen as a sin and personal failure. Thus, the heterosexual elites have more power and control over their homosexual counterparts.<|ASPECTS|>personal failure, sin, power and control, elites<|CONCLUSION|>
In order to maintain a socially moral and respectable position, the sexually non-conforming elites are more likely to be repressed by their heterosexual elite counterparts.
<|TOPIC|>ban the sale of surveillance technology to non-democratic countries<|ARGUMENT|>As much as the more liberal citizenry of many of the world’s democracies wish to believe otherwise, democracy as a system of government is not the only game in town. In fact, the growth of the strong-state/state-capitalism approach to government has gained much traction in developing countries that witness the incredible rise of China, which will before long be the world’s largest economy, flourish under an undemocratic model.1 Chinas ruling communist party have legitimacy as a result of its performance and its historical role reunifying the country.2 Democracies pretending they are the only meaningful or legitimate states only serve to antagonize their non-democratic neighbours. Such antagonism is doubly damaging, considering that all states, democracies included, rely on alliances and deals with other states to guarantee their security and prosperity. This has meant that through history democracies have had to deal with non-democracies as equal partners on the international stage, and this fact is no different today. States cannot always pick and choose their allies, and democracies best serve their citizens by furthering their genuine interests on the world stage. This policy serves as a wedge between democracies and their undemocratic allies that will only weaken their relations to the detriment of both. When the matter comes to surveillance technology, Western states’ unwillingness to share an important technology they are willing to use themselves causes tension between these states. Non-democracies have just as much right to security that surveillance technology can provide as the more advanced states that develop those technologies. 1 Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012. 2 Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, <|ASPECTS|>right to security, non-democracies, system of government, relations, legitimacy, choose, antagonism, democracy, undemocratic, serve, equal partners, security and prosperity, democracies, antagonize, genuine interests, state capitalism winning, tension, weaken, game, citizens, meaningful, historical role, undemocratic model, non-democratic neighbours, surveillance<|CONCLUSION|>
Presuming democracy is the only legitimate or worthwhile form of government is both inaccurate and unproductive
<|TOPIC|>Who should the Conservative Party choose to be the next UK Prime Minister?<|ARGUMENT|>Prices of imported goods are likely to increase for consumers because the UK will have to pay EU external tariffs.<|ASPECTS|>external tariffs, prices, imported goods<|CONCLUSION|>
In a no-deal Brexit scenario there would likely be increased prices for certain goods and medicines in the UK.
<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Maintaining good rapport with US allies is the top priority of the Democratic Party, while maintaining military superiority is the focus of the Republican Party.<|ASPECTS|>military superiority, rapport<|CONCLUSION|>
The Democratic Party is more likely to be 'softer' on foreign policy, endangering national security in the process.
<|TOPIC|>Should important elections be voted online using web browsers?<|ARGUMENT|>Vote coercion can happen when others can force you to vote, while they are monitoring that you vote correctly.<|ASPECTS|>coercion, correctly<|CONCLUSION|>
There is no method that guarantees that voters have the ability to vote secretly online.
<|TOPIC|>Should all companies be entirely owned by their workers?<|ARGUMENT|>Community owned-projects receive substantial crowdfunding worker's cooperatives which derive their workforce from the surrounding community are likely to receive a similar level of support.<|ASPECTS|>support, crowdfunding<|CONCLUSION|>
If wealth is spread more evenly, people will have money to loan to family and friends or to contribute to crowd funding campaigns.
<|TOPIC|>Is the UN a force for good?<|ARGUMENT|>The Republic of Nicaragua successfully won a ICJ court case against the USA, who had supported a rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and mined Nicaragua's harbors. However, the USA used it's Security Council power to block enforcement and prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation.<|ASPECTS|>compensation, block enforcement, rebellion<|CONCLUSION|>
The permanent members of the Security Council are able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they are the defendant, or which they consented to be bound.
<|TOPIC|>Should Aborting a Disabled Child Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>A woman with an increased risk of postpartum depression may not be able to handle the stress and extra responsibility of taking care of a disabled child. It is in her best interest to abort.<|ASPECTS|>responsibility, stress, postpartum depression, risk, extra<|CONCLUSION|>
One or both parents may not be emotionally or psychologically stable enough to handle the personal costs of caring for a disabled child.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I was on r videos and saw a video that I personally found funny that involved a woman with parkinson's being confused for making sexual hand gestures. I did, however, make this comment that was in a nutshell me saying I found the video funny but I didn't support it since it could cause more harm than I believed it was worth. People did not like this comment. Amusingly, people assumed I was old or a woman, and I am neither of those things. So point out where I'm wrong not about my sex but my opinion I'd love for me to be wrong than for the majority of redditors to be. My main problems with the video and videos like it are as follows Anyone can see the joke, including those with the disability I can accept that people with parkinson's might not care about such jokes especially if they are unrealistic portrayals of the disability , but I am unsure on this, which is why I err on the side of caution. It may propagate a culture in which jokes that are more directed at disabled people and objectively harmful are okay I don't like using an argument that is so close to the slippery slope fallacy, but, again, I don't think that loss of humour is significant, unlike what is usually argued to be sacrificed using the slippery slope fallacy e.g. Good laws for fear of bad ones . Looking forward to seeing what you guys say<|ASPECTS|>slope, objectively harmful, wrong, caution, fear of bad ones, laws, disability, old, harm, disabled people, sexual hand gestures, loss of humour, cause, woman<|CONCLUSION|>
It's okay to reject humour poking fun at disabled people that you think may cause more harm than good
<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>A university of Texas study found that wisdom increases with age, especially for longer term strategic decisions which took future stages into account. They found that younger adults were better when only the immediate rewards needed to be considered. They suggested a biological cause of younger adults using their still strong ventral striatum, compared to older people who are forced to compensate by using their prefrontal cortices as their ventral striatum degrades.<|ASPECTS|>wisdom, biological cause, younger adults, better, immediate rewards, age, strategic decisions<|CONCLUSION|>
Older voters are on average wiser than the youngest voters, and their views are less prone to fluctuation. As the youngest voters get wiser it is therefore reasonable to assume that a proportion of them will change their views to align more closely to the prevailing wisdom amongst older voters.
<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>In the episode "Balance of Terror" it is stated the Earth-Romulan war was fought with, by their standard, "primitive" atomic/nuclear weaponry. This was 100 years before the episode and we are not told if they mean fission or fusion weapons. However the episode was shot in 1966. Thermonuclear weapons had already been discovered, and the largest ever tested, the Tsar bomb, was tested in 1961, 5 years before the episode was produced. Thus it is logical to assume they mean fusion nukes.<|ASPECTS|>primitive, weaponry, fission, fusion weapons, thermonuclear weapons, fusion nukes, tsar bomb<|CONCLUSION|>
Given the premise that Star Trek is set in the future, it would be illogical for them to ditch more powerful or effective weaponry, for something less effective, just as modern militarise would not stop using assault rifles and go back to bows and crossbows.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I admit that I don't have much to say about this. The latter just seems so silly to me. In everyday language, a comma represents a small pause and a full stop represents a large pause. To be more specific, I think commas are traditionally used to separate clauses while full stops are used to separate sentences. Shifting from an integer to a fraction is a more conceptually significant change, and should be represented by a full stop. This makes more sense with regard to consistent use of commas and full stops. To define my terms when I say better I mean more intuitive, more sensical, etc etc. Obviously if you grew up in a culture in which the latter is more common, it's easier for you to use the latter. But if we decided, as a species, to pick one of the two options, we should go for the former <|ASPECTS|>consistent use of commas, separate sentences, silly, easier, small pause, intuitive, separate clauses, conceptually significant change, full stops, large pause, sensical<|CONCLUSION|>
Writing numbers in this format 1,000,000.001 is better than writing them in this format 1.000.000,001
<|TOPIC|>Who Will Win the Game of Thrones?<|ARGUMENT|>Daenerys held an exact copy of Khal Drogo's speech, also someone who only conquered but did not really rule.<|ASPECTS|>conquered<|CONCLUSION|>
Daenerys basically admits to Daario that she only wants to conquer, not to rule.
<|TOPIC|>Should the Primary Focus of Prisons be Rehabilitation, or Punishment?<|ARGUMENT|>The end goal should be the safety of society, which means that rehabilitation and reintegration are the only reasonable aims. Punitive incarceration among offenders, without an effort in edification, might exacerbate delinquency; the milieu of a correctional facility is without guidance, and thereby develops certain corrupt social structures, which can then seep into the general population.<|ASPECTS|>incarceration, rehabilitation, safety of society, delinquency, corrupt social structures, exacerbate<|CONCLUSION|>
As the prisoner will re-enter the community upon completion of their sentence, it is necessary to focus on the holistic rehabilitation of the individual.
<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>They are part of the history of the "nation" and if anything the African American community should join with the Native American community and take "ownership" of these symbols as a show of character and strength against white supremacist movements.<|ASPECTS|>african, white supremacist, strength, history, ownership, character<|CONCLUSION|>
Confederate monuments, flags and memorials honor an important part of the American story.
<|TOPIC|>One nation under god, leave it in or take it out?<|ARGUMENT|>"composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954. The Pledge is predominantly sworn by children in public schools in response to state laws requiring the Pledge to be offered. Congressional sessions open with the swearing of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, other organizations, and many sporting events. The current version of the Pledge of Allegiance reads: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''- God was not mentioned by the founding fathers and the pledge has already been changed 4 times; changing it once again to include atheists as part of the American populous shouldn't be a problem. However excluding American atheists from the pledge because of a still-burning hatred for the Reds/'Commi's is unacceptable. Comrade N.S<|ASPECTS|>atheists, hatred for the reds/'commi, liberty, sworn, indivisible, god, justice<|CONCLUSION|>
Only put in "under God" in 1954 because of the war against famously 'atheist' Communists
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I cannot stand Trump. I have really tried to find one example of him doing something that was the slightest bit redeeming and have had no luck. I have put this question out there to some people on facebook. People I was thinking about unfriending because they were pro trump. They couldn't give me one example either. One person said he gave like 400,000 his 2nd quarter salary as president to charity. I did the math and since trump is worth 3.1 billion dollars, that's a joke. That's like someone who makes 100,000 a year donating 10. It's . 01 . Not too generous. But I like to think there's something redeeming in all of us so please help me out here.<|ASPECTS|>donating, example, redeeming, trump, unfriending, pro trump, charity, generous, stand, salary<|CONCLUSION|>
There is nothing good or kind or empathetic about Donald Trump. He is as close to evil as u can get.
<|TOPIC|>Autonomous Killing Machines: The Future of Warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>When there is an essential threat to survival moral becomes secondary, as identified by Berthold Brecht famous quotation 'grub first, then ethics.'<|ASPECTS|>moral, threat to survival<|CONCLUSION|>
There is a constant balance between moral arguments and needs. It is impossible to be pure to only one side.
<|TOPIC|>Should same-sex marriage be legalised in Australia?<|ARGUMENT|>This can be exemplified by many bible passages that conflict with modern morals, such as the killing of civillians during war time. The Bible: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Geneva Convention: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities . shall in all circumstances be treated humanely" Other examples<|ASPECTS|>kill every male, treated, humanely, women, kill, man, killing, hostilities, alive, modern morals, civillians<|CONCLUSION|>
Many religious moral prescriptions are imoral for today's standards of most cultures.
<|TOPIC|>Free trade<|ARGUMENT|>From the perspective of North American consumers, one of the negative effects of NAFTA has been the significant increase in bilingual and often trilingual labeling on products for simultaneous distribution through retailers in Canada, the United States, and Mexico in French, English, and Spanish.<|ASPECTS|>negative effects, simultaneous, labeling, bilingual<|CONCLUSION|>
NAFTA creates the problem of multilingual labeling on goods and products
<|TOPIC|>The Trolley Problem: What's the Right Solution?<|ARGUMENT|>In the United States, people do not vote directly for presidential candidates, but for electors who vote for a candidate on their behalf. Voters still consider themselves to be deciding which candidate is elected because they are reasonably certain of what their chosen elector will decide.<|ASPECTS|>, directly, candidates<|CONCLUSION|>
One can only decide "not to decide" by allowing someone else, or random chance, to make the decision instead. Passing the decision to an agent whose decision is known e.g. the current state of the tracks is equivalent to making the decision oneself.
<|TOPIC|>In the event that cybercrime and cyberwarfare cannot be controlled, the Internet should be shut down.<|ARGUMENT|>Cybercrime and cyberwarfare are not naturally existing problems, as regular crime and warfare are. They can be removed by removing the technology on which they depend.<|ASPECTS|>technology, existing problems, warfare, crime<|CONCLUSION|>
In the event that cybercrime and cyberwarfare cannot be controlled, the Internet should be shut down.
<|TOPIC|>Should copyright be reformed to focus on revenue, not copies?<|ARGUMENT|>In the words of John Oswald, "If creativity is the field, copyrights are the fence."<|ASPECTS|>copyrights, creativity<|CONCLUSION|>
The current copyright system is incompatible with a free and open Internet.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obama is undoubtedly considered one of the highest regarded leaders in not only the African American community, but also in the United States. Therefore after he made the comments If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon and more recently The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America, many people, whether they were black or not, became impassioned about this case. The trial became more about How far have we really come? in regards to civil rights than Is Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I do think the case would have been covered heavily even if Obama had not commented, but I also believe he made it messier. If the president of the United States of America takes a side in a trial, the opposing side will be seen as nothing short of abhorrent in the eyes of his supporters. My view is that Obama's involvement in the case was divisive and further separated the gap between white and black in 2013 America. Note I don't want to seem annoying with another Zimmerman related , but I did not see one that directly related Obama when I used the search bar and I have a strong opinion about his role specifically. Apologies if it is a repeat.<|ASPECTS|>death, obama, african, divisive, covered heavily, impassioned, guilty, repeat, far, civil rights, white and black, separated, highest, tragedy, gap, abhorrent, annoying, regarded leaders, messier<|CONCLUSION|>
I don't believe Obama should have been involved in the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case.
<|TOPIC|>Should the state grant benefits linked to marriage?<|ARGUMENT|>In many countries, marriage allows spouses to become legal representatives for their partner should their partner die or be unable to make important medical or financial decisions.<|ASPECTS|>medical or financial decisions<|CONCLUSION|>
Marriage provides couples and each person within the couple with important legal protections.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't understand why people support the Palestinian cause. Palestinian nationalism is baseless, and Palestinian groups with nationalistic aspirations use extremely violent means to persuade the Israeli state to give Palestinian people more rights. How can it be said that they deserve it after all of the murders they have committed? While I might not agree with the tenets of Zionism, Israel IS a Jewish state. Can someone please explain this to me, and potentially change my view?<|ASPECTS|>deserve, murders, rights, palestinian nationalism, jewish state, nationalistic aspirations, change my view, palestinian cause, zionism, support, violent means<|CONCLUSION|>
Israel is a Jewish state, and Israelis are right to protect themselves against Palestinian aggression. Palestinian nationalism is baseless and wrong.
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>In a 1988 judgement, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled that Israel had annexed East Jerusalem. HCJ 282/88, p. 4<|ASPECTS|>annexed east jerusalem<|CONCLUSION|>
The International Court of Justice found that Israel effectively 'annexed East Jerusalem with the 1980 Jerusalem Law.
<|TOPIC|>The Trilemma of the Maroons<|ARGUMENT|>Agree and do what is necessary to survive. When the British impose their cultural practices upon you, appropriate them. When the British introduce the sport of cricket to you, make yourself so good that centuries later your cricket team will terrify and embarrass your old colonial masters in England. History will forever hold your cricket team as the best ever and you will have shown the world how a once small, downtrodden nation can ascend greatness!<|ASPECTS|>survive, appropriate, colonial masters, necessary, greatness, cultural practices, terrify, embarrass, downtrodden nation<|CONCLUSION|>
Option "One": Agree and then honor the agreement. Become the slave police.
<|TOPIC|>Should Inheritance be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>This means that, over generations, some families will have amassed far more than others because of an unfair advantage.<|ASPECTS|>amassed, unfair advantage<|CONCLUSION|>
The more money you have the easier it is to make more money by investing, rent, etc..
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe a woman has a right to deny use of her body to anyone, but what I'm struggling with is whether she has the right to kill her literal child to cut off that usage. If the fetus couldn't care for his herself anyway this removal wouldn't change the death, just its cause, but the exact moment where he she becomes viable is nigh impossible to pinpoint.Thus when an abortion is permissible if ever becomes muddied. That all aside, It might be wrong to kill something one that will be a person if he she's not one already . Isn't preventing development of a human inside the womb the same as murdering someone outside i.e. the continuation of his er life ?<|ASPECTS|>, death, preventing development, care, er life, wrong to kill, murdering someone, muddied, continuation, right to deny use, right to kill, person<|CONCLUSION|>
cmv abortion is wrong because the moment a fetus "becomes" a "person" isn't ascertainable and prevention of his/er/its later life is akin to murder.
<|TOPIC|>What Is the Best Drug Regulation System?<|ARGUMENT|>The first and most important natural right is the right to life. If it is the governments duty to protect life, by pure logic, it cannot allow its citizens to commit suicide. 1<|ASPECTS|>duty, commit suicide, right to life, natural right, protect life<|CONCLUSION|>
According to John Locke, the purpose of the government is to protect our natural rights and not to interfere with them. 1
<|TOPIC|>Should the minimum age of candidacy for political office be 18?<|ARGUMENT|>During this century, many countries have reduced their legal voting age from varying ages to 18 years. Austria reduced it from 19 to 18 years, United Kingdom from 21 to 18 years, and the call for reductions is growing in many other countries. This demonstrates a growing international desire and demand among youth to participate in the democratic process as candidates. This desire itself could be viewed as a sufficient warrant for young people to participate; it demonstrates a willingness to engage and fulfill the burdens of office.<|ASPECTS|>reduced, young people, legal voting age, reductions, demand, warrant, engage, international desire, burdens of office, democratic process<|CONCLUSION|>
A global trend exists in the reduction of voting ages:
<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>To not give rights to AIs now could not be problematic in the present because it is easy to distinguish them from us, but it could create habits that we will reproduce on distant future artificial entities that we can't distinguish from humans.<|ASPECTS|>habits, rights to ais<|CONCLUSION|>
Not granting AGI fundamental rights would increase the likelihood of human abuses towards AGI, thereby degenerating civil societies.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I had a discussion about whether photography is considered art or not. This case was about scenery photography, but we also went and talked about all kind of photography. My opinion it's not, as a photographed scene is not an expression of any kind of you own and the better the tools, the less skill you need . I don't mean to diminish photography, i like it. Art is a handcrafted expression through e.g. painting, sculpturing, writing or music. I really appreciate museums and other exhibitions, but when i see someone talking about an art exhibitions where photographs are shown i usually dismiss them. I get that photography can be artistic in the sense that they express some kind of emotion or feeling and i know im dismissing the medium of a digital photo, but for me it's not the same as a painting. edit It's my first time posting here, i'm sorry if i do something that's not 100 according to the rules. edit2 lol ya'll really didn't like this post.<|ASPECTS|>feeling, scenery photography, photographs, photography, artistic, better the tools, dismiss, like, sculpturing, skill, handcrafted expression, appreciate, diminish photography, art, less, emotion<|CONCLUSION|>
Photography is not art.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been reading a few articles suggesting that incels are a cult, but they don't seem to be able to support the idea by actually linking their behavior or beliefs to a standard definition of a cult. They aren't religious in nature, they don't really have one source of admiration or devotion, and they don't seem to have the cohesion and organization associated with cults. <|ASPECTS|>cult, religious, incels, devotion, admiration, behavior, cohesion and organization<|CONCLUSION|>
Incels are not a cult, and presenting them as such is sensationalist.
<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>In Adam Clarke's commentary to Isaiah 29:4 he writes: "The pretenders to the art of necromancy who were chiefly women, had an art of speaking with a feigned voice.they could make the voice seem to come from beneath the ground."<|ASPECTS|>feigned voice.they<|CONCLUSION|>
The Book of Mormon portrays Joseph Smith's manner of translating the Book of Mormon in terms consistent with necromancy
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The problems that need fixing Teens being solicited and pressured for sexually revealing photos of themselves Teens being overly concerned with peers' opinions eg comparing themselves to Kim Kardashian Videos and pictures of sexual assaults being circulated amongst peers I feel like it would be an easy fix to a problem that today's teens are certainly having. Young people are facing more pressure than ever to make themselves look like the women and adults they see online and in media, and then document themselves looking that way. Kids cannot leak underaged photos of other kids if they don't all have cameras to take them with. We also commonly hear people bemoaning that people are too vain now, with endless selfies and updates. Without a camera, at least teens will not be overly focused on their appearances. Cameras and the apps that come with them are not essential to survival. I was raised without a phone until I was 16. I survived. Ok, change my view. Edit Clarification points I am not against teens using any sort of camera. I just think they should not have them on their phones. I don't think legal changes are the way to go I think parents should rally together to petition phone manufacturers to make smartphones without cameras. This would probably be cheaper, as well.<|ASPECTS|>survived, pressure, peers ' opinions, survival, sexual assaults, problems, cheaper, endless, petition phone manufacturers, selfies, without a phone, leak, teens, camera, appearances, focused, revealing, updates, essential, vain, legal changes, underaged photos<|CONCLUSION|>
Teens should not be allowed to own phones with cameras on them until they are over the age of consent.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am 32M with an Associates Degree. I have no debt currently. I work as a server in an upscale restaurant. I am learning computer programming on my own to try to create a better future for myself, but I have a lot of people telling me it won't work is pointless unless I go back to school, which I can't do without taking on a lot of debt like a lot of people . I'll define success for the purposes of my statement. I believe success is making enough money to solve most of life's common uncommon issues. For example, if my dog requires an operation of around 3,000.00, I can't afford that, but a person who can, I would deem them successful. If my car breaks down tomorrow, I'll be taking the bus, whereas a successful person will pay to have their car fixed, or have purchased a new car before the old one dies. If I need to replace my roof after this winter, I won't be able to without taking on debt. And, like most Americans, I am one major health issue away from crippling medical debt. I maintain successful people have many problems, and that the ones I have listed are not on their radar. i.e. I am worried my dog may need surgery one day, but not worried about how I will pay for it. An obvious counter argument to this is that if I had less stuff, I would be able to pay for these things, or not need things at all. Becoming a monk in a cave might be an extreme example. I would maintain that the monk, people in large amounts of debt, or people with fewer possessions in general even in poverty certainly can be very HAPPY. But I would not consider them SUCCESSFUL. If my car dies and I convince myself I am perfectly happy taking the bus everywhere, I could consider myself happy, just not successful. So, without student loans, or other large forms of debt, I believe I will not become successful in my lifetime. I'm looking forward to someone changing my view<|ASPECTS|>success, better future, money, consider, extreme example, successful people, successful, problems, define, common uncommon issues, server, student loans, happy, associates, debt, need things, roof, upscale, pointless, become, health issue, 's, crippling, medical debt, pay, less stuff, afford, changing, poverty, need surgery<|CONCLUSION|>
It is extremely unlikely I will be "successful" in life without going into a lot of debt.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I just had a long debate with my friend about this, and I came in with the thought that blacks and whites were genetically similar, but all the evidence seems to say otherwise. For example, African countries have horrible average IQs, and normally I would explain that with the fact that they're way less developed than the rest of the world. However, we can take a look at countries with similar or worse human development and see much better IQs, even Afghanistan has 84, which is much higher than the average African IQ. The southeast Asian countries would be another example of this, having similar HDI ratings, but much higher IQs. The most damning evidence that really changed my mind was that according to a study by Minnesota university, black children adopted by white parents STILL have lower IQs than white kids adopted by white parents. Even worse is that children with one black parent, but adopted by two white parents have a higher IQ than children with two black parents, but less than children with two white parents. wiki Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study It's really hard for me to believe that blacks have inherently lower IQs, and I really don't want to accept it. Plus the implications it has for society are huge, so I would really appreciate it if you guys could change my view. <|ASPECTS|>average iqs, higher iqs, less developed, society, change, hdi ratings, implications, blacks, black children, view, higher iq, better iqs, genetically similar, human development, horrible, lower iqs<|CONCLUSION|>
People of African descent have inherently lower IQ.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that this topic has been covered before, but I've found myself lacking the answers I seek. I apologize in advance if anyone finds this topic redundant. ​ Hate speech is defined as speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. ​ I find this definition to be far too vague. By this definition, criticizing scientologists for stealing people's money could be considered hate speech. As could discussing biological differences between men and women. Banning hate speech would only entrench hateful people in their views. As soon as someone is silenced or targeted for their views, they are now the victims, which gives their views legitimacy. If a white supremacist is punished for speaking his mind, then he would see this as evidence of minorities taking away the white's rightful place as superior in society and further incite them to champion the white supremacy movement. If the goal is to create safe spaces, then banning hate speech is not the way to do it.<|ASPECTS|>hate speech, superior in society, hateful people, safe spaces, answers, white supremacy movement, victims, banning, white, minorities, biological differences, redundant, rightful place, views legitimacy<|CONCLUSION|>
Hate Speech Should Be Legal
<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Even if efforts were made to curb the practice, corruption is so rife in Goa that it is highly unlikely any sustainable action will be taken.<|ASPECTS|>sustainable action, corruption<|CONCLUSION|>
In Goa, an Indian state, their version of bullfighting continues as "an open secret" despite it being illegal.
<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Either one religion is right, and the rest are wrong, OR all of them are wrong. This would suggest the number of people who are groomed to believe an incorrect religion is very high, if not the majority of believers.<|ASPECTS|>religion, incorrect religion, wrong, right<|CONCLUSION|>
In most instances, followers are born into their religion. Their parents expose them to faithful practices and religious experiences early on. This is similar to indoctrination practices, which provide false sense of belonging and a distaste for divergent thought.
<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>The suffering of billions of animals by violence and fear caused by predators or natural disasters in almost endless time is apparently incompatible with the existence of a good God.<|ASPECTS|>fear, natural disasters, violence, good god, suffering<|CONCLUSION|>
The existence of evil and suffering suggests that God is evil.
<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>For instance, ISIS uses social media to directly interact with young Muslim women in Western countries, promise them marriage build on a will for teenage rebellion or use their disillusionment with their home country to motivate them to join ISIS. This individually tailored and highly personalised recruitment would not be possible at a distance without social media.<|ASPECTS|>individually tailored, highly, teenage rebellion, disillusionment, personalised recruitment, muslim women<|CONCLUSION|>
Social media allows terrorist organizations to tailor their content to specific niche groups.
<|TOPIC|>Should Mission Tables Continue to be in World of Warcraft?<|ARGUMENT|>Provides a type of gameplay not otherwise offered in the game, adding to variety of gameplay.<|ASPECTS|>gameplay, variety of gameplay<|CONCLUSION|>
Should Mission Tables Continue to be in World of Warcraft?
<|TOPIC|>Is social media helping or harming human relationship?<|ARGUMENT|>We can form relationships with anyone in the world now. These new relationships enrich our lives, that we never would have found without the internet.<|ASPECTS|>enrich our lives, relationships<|CONCLUSION|>
Social media allows us to bridge distances and connect with people all over the world.
<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child procreate?<|ARGUMENT|>Social services and local authorities already target poorer income families more than wealthier ones. This selective enforcement is likely to be an issue with the licensing policy as well.<|ASPECTS|>poorer income families, selective enforcement, wealthier, licensing<|CONCLUSION|>
The licensing assessment policy could be an incredibly evil tool if it fell into the wrong hands, possibly resulting in genocide.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Earth is big to us, but it's quite small in relation to the rest of our solar system. Particularly the asteroid belt, which makes up such a large part of our solar system but is often overlooked. In fact, we are just more than a dot in comparison to the size of the asteroid belt The asteroid belt's vastness and closeness means it could support humanity for a long period of time. Earth's resources are greatly limited, many resources key to life are expected to run out in the next 60 years, whereas the asteroid belt contains many resource rich asteroids. To put this into perspective, it is estimated that the 16 Psyche asteroid contains 1.7×1019 kg of nickel–iron which would be able to supply earth for millions of years. With the possibility of the creation of RF resonant cavity thrusters, it would be possible to travel to the moon in 4 hours, with this in mind it would take about 70 days to get to mars, and roughly 83 days to enter the asteroid belt assuming it takes 70 days to get to mars, and mars is 2.577 au away, 20813 Aakashshah 2000 SB274 is in the asteroid belt and 3.055 au away . With such a vast amount of resources so close, relocation would be tremendously easier than any other celestial body.<|ASPECTS|>travel to, closeness, easier, limited, asteroid, big, supply earth, support humanity, resources, resource rich, rf resonant cavity, relocation, nickel–iron, small, vastness, overlooked<|CONCLUSION|>
The next future of humanity lies in the asteroid belt
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I finally had In N Out after years of hearing how great it is from friends, TV, basically everyone. I got the double double with fries. It tasted basically a little better than normal fast food burgers, except this time I got to wait 40 minutes before I could eat it. 1 It clearly isn't as good as a real burger joint you don't even choose if you want it medium, rare, well done, etc. And you wait for less time at a real joint And it's only like 4 dollars more expensive, for a much better, actually real burger. So why do people willingly wait in this long line over and over? 2 They say the meat isn't frozen, ingredients are better, etc I'm pretty sure if you did a blind taste test with people that have never had any fast foot burgers, they would a be like holy shit these burgers are all pretty bad compared to a real burger and b not be able to tell that In N Out is better and not frozen. In other words it's still a fast foot burger . It absolutely does not stand out as better than fast food. I couldn't even tell the meat was never frozen . So why are people waiting for 40 minutes? Why is it hip and trendy to go there? Why is it not just viewed as another maybe SLIGHTLY better fast food joint? <|ASPECTS|>medium, real, tasted, great, fast foot burger, frozen, willingly wait, choose, hip, trendy, ingredients, fries, double, good, taste, slightly, waiting, better fast food joint, better, rare, less time, expensive, food, long line, meat was never frozen<|CONCLUSION|>
In-N-Out burger is ridiculously overrated
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Because Lenin was a communist and his successor Stalin, people often treat Lenin as an evil, cruel leader. However, this is far from what he truly was. In fact, he proposed his New Economic Policy to try his best to help the people of his country. Born into a poor family, he learned of the struggles the working class faced and tried to stand up for the people around him, embracing communism. Always skeptical about Stalin, Lenin did not believe the Soviet Union should be controlled by a dictator. Rather, he felt that it would be best in a more technocratic style. A good leader is characterized by courage, humility, and compassion, and Lenin embodied these all.<|ASPECTS|>compassion, technocratic style, courage, communism, struggles, help the people, cruel leader, poor family, skeptical, controlled by, good, evil, humility, working class, dictator<|CONCLUSION|>
Lenin was a great leader
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I firmly believe that it's okay for grown men 25 80 to be attracted to late teen females. I believe this because there's nothing unnatural about it, a woman at the age of 16 or 17 is usually pretty well developed and is fit for reproduction, and since pedophilia laws are partially based on development and reproduction it doesn't make sense for the age of consent to be 18. Furthermore, many countries have an age of consent of 16, including several developed European countries, and it doesn't really negatively impact them. This is especially true for religious families, where men and women can get married earlier and avoid sexual frustration. Regardless, I find it ridiculous when people flame a man for being attracted to a woman who's only 3 months away from her 18th birthday. Im willing to hold a conversation and change my view.<|ASPECTS|>okay, flame a man, late teen females, well developed, fit for reproduction, unnatural, change my view, age of consent, sexual frustration, development, conversation, negatively impact<|CONCLUSION|>
There's Nothing Wrong With An Adult Being Attracted to 16 or 17 Year Olds.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>By social conflicts, I mean conflict between men and women, white and black, etc. The following hypothesis is my own and I have come up with this just by my personal experiences. I want people who know sociology psychology, etc to criticize my hypothesis and point out what is wrong with my hypothesis. Lets say there are two communities X and Y. Say, X oppresses discriminates against Y initially say men discriminating against women . After a long time being oppressed, Y decides to retaliate and fight for equal rights to X. Y starts to encourage itself and to bring their status equal to X, they boast about themselves, tell themselves how they are great, how they are strong, how they are unique, etc. Over time, Y creates a virtual 'wall' between X and Y, creating two separate identities. Once Y reaches equal status with X, they forget their movement was about equality and tries to get the upper hand. This triggers X and X starts to breed hatred and discrimination against Y. This leads to X trying to dominate Y. This in turn, triggers Y and Y struggles to dominate X. Plus, the fact that people generalize things a lot its my assumption , generalizes accusations against the other community, painting the whole community to be 'evil' and fueling more hatred among communities. With time, the initial objective to be treated as equal is forgotten, and the virtual wall, created to make themselves equal in the first place, gives rise to a cycle of hatred with both communities trying to dominate each other. I made this hypothesis watching men vs women, news about black vs white I'm not American , dalits vs upper castes I'm from India , rich vs poor, etc. So, what's wrong with my hypothesis? How dumb is it? Edit some of the comments point out that X itself created the 'wall' in the first place. My hypothesis is that this wall is 'illusory wall' in the sense that Y does not believe in that wall. If Y believed in that wall, there wouldn't have been a movement in the first place. The purpose of Y's movement, at least initially, is to get rid of the world and establish a world with equal treatment for Y and X. But with time, to improve self esteem in people of Y, Y's leaders encourage and celebrate their identity, thus cementing the illusory wall into a kind of real one. So, Y transforms the illusory wall between X and Y into a real one.<|ASPECTS|>dominate x, illusory wall, conflict, wall, oppressed, equal rights, separate identities, castes, personal experiences, discriminates against, communities x, equality, x, equal, equal status, world, dominate, oppresses, hatred, social conflicts, celebrate, equal treatment, identity, dalits, criticize, vs, dumb, movement, hatred among communities, discriminating against women, rich, cycle, discrimination, status equal, self esteem, unique<|CONCLUSION|>
my naive and self-made hypothesis on social conflicts
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I see other women having a decent time.They have children, they have boyfriends, they have worries but they are fairly typical. It seems boring but they are extremely happy from what I can tell. There is probably something wrong with me. I do like clothes I suppose and do likes being presentable but I do not like shopping and it is not a huge deal to me. I want to be normal. Like what do most other women major in? How do they not like Mathematics, Physics, Engineering and CS? What do most women do? For fun? How do other women have time to dedicate a lot of time to fashion and beauty and for it to be lucrative? How do other women not spend hours on a computer? What are their dreams? A lot of my social media friends are bartenders, beauty bloggers, office assistants in their mid twenties is this fulfilling? I already knew I was a freak when I was a child. I don't like rules. I don't like society. It is quietly against my goals. I am painfully honest and I treat everyone the same whether you are a clerk at CVS or an esteemed professor at Harvard. I don't think I am intelligent but somehow I found myself at Ivy Leagues and MIT. I want to inspire students like I was inspired but I don't think it's worth it. I feel I am less productive because I fantasize about what life could be like. I don't think I can have it all especially as a black woman. I am a commodity in my engineering field but in the real world it's not like it makes me more attractive to men probably less and more fun and relatable.<|ASPECTS|>treat everyone the, life could, wrong, like society, goals, painfully honest, women, fun, happy, lucrative, normal, spend hours, quietly, presentable, fashion and beauty, typical, ivy leagues, attractive, inspire students, dreams, fun and relatable, social, like, shopping, intelligent, boring, black woman, less, commodity, productive, decent time.they, fulfilling, worries, freak, worth, rules<|CONCLUSION|>
I don't think my uphill battle as a black female PhD student is worth it
<|TOPIC|>Should Racial Profiling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Simply showing that certain races are statistically the subject of law enforcement action does not necessarily show bias as there are many confounding factors: the law enforcement action may be a legitimate response to actual crimes which occur unevenly across communities, or other non-racial factors that are associated with race, such as socioeconomic factors which predispose to crime, or negative attitudes towards police in certain communities.<|ASPECTS|>legitimate, negative attitudes towards police, bias<|CONCLUSION|>
It is very difficult to tell from aggregate statistics for example, a police department's arrest records whether racial profiling is driving a racial disparity in arrest statistics.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I should mention I do not wear a fedora myself. However, when I read fedora bashing comments on Reddit, to me, the vitriol that comes across is kind of scary. Is it really that intimidating to these people that someone who might be a little socially awkward would want to use an accessory to help boost their confidence? I suspect the loudest anti fedora protestors to be the ones that most wish the freedom to don one themselves without fear of harsh judgement. I understand that, perhaps years later, the fedora crowd might look back and cringe a little at the way they approached their appearance. But I also think that looking back on one's own awkwardness is a nice healthy way to validate one's own personal growth, and that you need to commit mistakes in all ways of living in order to move on to something greater. It is often true that people who take chances are ridiculed for their failures in the present, but if they keep sticking with it, eventually find their own unique way to surpass, or at least become accepted by, the status quo crowd who mocked them. Very few people are born with an innate sense of style, and even fewer can look back on a 20 year old picture and think yeah this outfit would still look good today. So who is anyone to mock anyone else's sense of style, when eventually it's going to all look like brown and orange striped 70's style wide lapels and powdered blue ruffle shirts anyway? I will say that I have had a beard for many years, and for a very long time I did not properly trim it. I really, really wish someone had come along and told me not to shave directly along my jaw line. I wound up figuring that out on my own. So I understand the benefit of good ADVICE. Good advice would be to help a fedoran find the CORRECT hat. Or to offer fashion advice in other ways. Whenever I see people just losing their shit over the fashion accessories some total stranger is wearing, I just think that life is too short to start fuming over the way other people choose to look when they venture into the outside world. This just comes up so often on reddit and I'm sorry to add to the phenomenon here , I'm thinking maybe I'm missing something, and that I too should be personally offended by the way someone else dresses. I am willing to change my view if I hear a good enough argument.<|ASPECTS|>fedoran, fashion accessories, appearance, good advice, socially awkward, look good, cringe, scary, personal growth, sense of style, confidence, style, properly, beard, failures, harsh judgement, world, losing their shit, boost, offended, freedom to, status quo, shave, intimidating, change my view, personally, fedora, vitriol, commit mistakes, argument, benefit, sense, fashion advice, life is too short, correct hat, awkwardness<|CONCLUSION|>
I think people who hate on fedora wearers are the ones with the problem.
<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>To define a God of classical theology to be basically the simplest thing imaginable is to define away everything that defines it as a God according to classical theology. There are no known mechanisms by which an unchanging nondescript simple thing with no moving parts can accomplish anything at all. That's not a God. It's more like an infinitesimal neutrino field without even a neutrino. Basically as close to nothing as anything can be. You might as well say God is nothing.<|ASPECTS|>god, infinitesimal neutrino field, god is nothing<|CONCLUSION|>
An "Unmoved Mover" aka a being of Pure Actuality is not the same thing as God.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I apologize if this topic has already been discussed. I am fairly new to this sub and didn't see the topic mentioned under the Popular Topics Wiki. The idea of hell is very frightening to anyone with an imagination. Being tortured for eternity in a lake of fire is certainly something that would get a child's mind reeling. Now I'm not saying that talking about hell in itself is abusive, but calling it the truth to an impressionable child is down right terrifying. Now add to that the idea that the child's friends will all go there one day if they don't go to church and believe what the child is told is true, and you have a set up for a child that will be horrified if his her friends aren't the same as they are. Now imagine if one of those friends dies That child will have to conclude that the friend they were playing with just yesterday is screaming in torment and will be forever. In my mind that would be without a doubt traumatizing, to say the least. What if the child decides to think for themselves and question what they are being taught? Instinctively they will start to worry that they are not acting the way they should and could go to hell, therefore stamping out any hope that the child will go on to think for themselves in regards to religion, and to the extreme, about most anything they are brought up to believe. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir but I believe this very passionately since this was the case for me growing up and it terrified me continuously. Can anyone claim that this isn't psychological abuse?<|ASPECTS|>frightening, forever, 's mind reeling, religion, abusive, screaming in torment, new, terrified, think, question, hell, go, psychological abuse, terrifying, traumatizing, horrified, tortured, acting<|CONCLUSION|>
I believe that teaching children that "Hell" is real and that non-believers will go there is child abuse.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I hear people recovering from an addiction and going to NA or AA and calling their addiction a disease, I don't agree with them. A disease is a debilitating condition that cannot be chosen. People do not choose to have Alzheimer's or cancer, it is something their body produces and they have to live like that until they get medical treatment. I understand that the way neurotransmitters react with one another affects the severity of the addiction, but that is not a disease, it is a disorder. I am not sure how the new DSM classifies addiction, but when rehabilitation groups teach addicts that their behavior is a disease it gives them an excuse not to try and get better. Simply teaching addicts that they have a disorder will not only be beneficial to their treatment, it will be more medically accurate in my opinion. .<|ASPECTS|>medical treatment, live, addiction, cancer, beneficial, neurotransmitters, alzheimer 's, behavior, disorder, debilitating condition, medically accurate, severity, disease<|CONCLUSION|>
I don't believe addiction is a disease.
<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>It's better to receive an award, medal etc from a monarch who has represented the country for decades rather than a career politician who represents their party; monarchs in contrast are non-partisan, reducing the alienation caused by the polarised nature of party-politics.<|ASPECTS|>alienation, non-partisan, party-politics<|CONCLUSION|>
The monarch is a politically neutral figure who appeals to everyone and isn’t publicly partisan to any particular view.
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}
Downloads last month
Edit dataset card