topic_encoded_argument,targets_encoded_argument,aspects_encoded_argument,argument,conclusion
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not trying to pot stir or anything it's just I thought of this for a while now and would at least like to talk about it. I accept society as it is and will adapt whenever it applies to me but I personally feel women have a leg up on relationships and sex. Simply because they have so much value when men basically have very little to give. So they often start with disadvantages. So the obviously solution is to found out what women want and what they need and the biggest reason why it is so hard to get these things is because you need to date more women to get them. Confidence, humor, sex game, conversation, emotional connection, etc. Is what can be acquired through dating women. The hard part is you have to find women when you absolutely nothing to offer them and hope they accept you. Which can be very fustrating. Not impossible but indeed very hard. When you're guy you have to know how to please women and know exactly what they want because they don't like to tell you what they want, just expect you to just know. It's like playing Dark Souls on a slightly harder setting with absolutely no tutorials or HUD. You're basically going in blind.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not trying to pot stir or anything it's just I thought of this for a while now and would at least like to talk about it. I accept society as it is and will adapt whenever it applies to me but I personally feel women have a leg up on relationships and sex. Simply because they have so much value when men basically have very little to give. So they often start with disadvantages. So the obviously solution is to found out what women want and what they need and the biggest reason why it is so hard to get these things is because you need to date more women to get them. Confidence, humor, sex game, conversation, emotional connection, etc. Is what can be acquired through dating women. The hard part is you have to find women when you absolutely nothing to offer them and hope they accept you. Which can be very fustrating. Not impossible but indeed very hard. When you're guy you have to know how to please women and know exactly what they want because they don't like to tell you what they want, just expect you to just know. It's like playing Dark Souls on a slightly harder setting with absolutely no tutorials or HUD. You're basically going in blind.<|TARGETS|>Not trying to pot stir or anything it, to know how to please women and know exactly what they want because they do n't like to tell you what they want just expect you to just know ., I accept society as it is and will adapt whenever it applies to me but I personally feel women have a leg up on relationships and sex ., to find women when you absolutely nothing to offer them and hope they accept you ., to talk about it ., to found out what women want and what they need and the biggest reason why it is so hard to get these things<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not trying to pot stir or anything it's just I thought of this for a while now and would at least like to talk about it. I accept society as it is and will adapt whenever it applies to me but I personally feel women have a leg up on relationships and sex. Simply because they have so much value when men basically have very little to give. So they often start with disadvantages. So the obviously solution is to found out what women want and what they need and the biggest reason why it is so hard to get these things is because you need to date more women to get them. Confidence, humor, sex game, conversation, emotional connection, etc. Is what can be acquired through dating women. The hard part is you have to find women when you absolutely nothing to offer them and hope they accept you. Which can be very fustrating. Not impossible but indeed very hard. When you're guy you have to know how to please women and know exactly what they want because they don't like to tell you what they want, just expect you to just know. It's like playing Dark Souls on a slightly harder setting with absolutely no tutorials or HUD. You're basically going in blind.<|ASPECTS|>, please women, blind, adapt, humor, hard, find women, accept, date more women, emotional connection, disadvantages, accept society, fustrating, harder, pot stir, tutorials, acquired, little to give, hud, relationships, sex, value, souls, women want, dating women, conversation, impossible, sex game<|CONCLUSION|>","Not trying to pot stir or anything it's just I thought of this for a while now and would at least like to talk about it. I accept society as it is and will adapt whenever it applies to me but I personally feel women have a leg up on relationships and sex. Simply because they have so much value when men basically have very little to give. So they often start with disadvantages. So the obviously solution is to found out what women want and what they need and the biggest reason why it is so hard to get these things is because you need to date more women to get them. Confidence, humor, sex game, conversation, emotional connection, etc. Is what can be acquired through dating women. The hard part is you have to find women when you absolutely nothing to offer them and hope they accept you. Which can be very fustrating. Not impossible but indeed very hard. When you're guy you have to know how to please women and know exactly what they want because they don't like to tell you what they want, just expect you to just know. It's like playing Dark Souls on a slightly harder setting with absolutely no tutorials or HUD. You're basically going in blind.",Women have an easier time getting sex and relationships.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>i've heard many people complain about old politicians that are toxic and need to be removed or others that just need to step down. but we can't and they won't. so why don't they have term limits for everything? shouldn't we have more of a revolving door of fresh new ideas instead of people that have been sitting there for as long as i've been alive? hyperbole, i hope . especially when a lot of things that are being talked about are the internet and video games, when these people don't even use email. they aren't qualified anymore, it's the same reason i don't sit on a panel on rocket science, i know jack shit about it. if i am missing something please let me know because i admit i am not the most well informed when it comes to politics but in any job, infinite job security seems like a bad idea. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>i've heard many people complain about old politicians that are toxic and need to be removed or others that just need to step down. but we can't and they won't. so why don't they have term limits for everything? shouldn't we have more of a revolving door of fresh new ideas instead of people that have been sitting there for as long as i've been alive? hyperbole, i hope . especially when a lot of things that are being talked about are the internet and video games, when these people don't even use email. they aren't qualified anymore, it's the same reason i don't sit on a panel on rocket science, i know jack shit about it. if i am missing something please let me know because i admit i am not the most well informed when it comes to politics but in any job, infinite job security seems like a bad idea. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>a revolving door of fresh new ideas instead of people that have been sitting there for as long as i 've been alive, to remind you of a couple of things ., hyperbole, if i am missing something please let me know because i admit i am not the most well informed when it comes to politics but in any job infinite job security, i do n't sit on a panel on rocket science, many people complain about old politicians that are toxic and need to be removed or others that just need to step down .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>i've heard many people complain about old politicians that are toxic and need to be removed or others that just need to step down. but we can't and they won't. so why don't they have term limits for everything? shouldn't we have more of a revolving door of fresh new ideas instead of people that have been sitting there for as long as i've been alive? hyperbole, i hope . especially when a lot of things that are being talked about are the internet and video games, when these people don't even use email. they aren't qualified anymore, it's the same reason i don't sit on a panel on rocket science, i know jack shit about it. if i am missing something please let me know because i admit i am not the most well informed when it comes to politics but in any job, infinite job security seems like a bad idea. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>rocket, old politicians, concerns, message us, change, downvote, popular topics, hyperbole, effective, downvotes, toxic, job security, happy cmving, qualified, questions, infinite, fresh new ideas, remind, internet, term limits<|CONCLUSION|>","i've heard many people complain about old politicians that are toxic and need to be removed or others that just need to step down. but we can't and they won't. so why don't they have term limits for everything? shouldn't we have more of a revolving door of fresh new ideas instead of people that have been sitting there for as long as i've been alive? hyperbole, i hope . especially when a lot of things that are being talked about are the internet and video games, when these people don't even use email. they aren't qualified anymore, it's the same reason i don't sit on a panel on rocket science, i know jack shit about it. if i am missing something please let me know because i admit i am not the most well informed when it comes to politics but in any job, infinite job security seems like a bad idea. gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing",i think all political positions should require a term limit i'm in the US
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been a huge fan of NBA basketball nearly all my life. While I have a team that I root for, I love watching greatness come from anyone. That being said, I feel that LeBron has to be the GOAT. As my first point, I should acknowledge that I'm going off the assumption that if LeBron isn't the GOAT, Michael Jordan is though if you can CMV in favor of anyone else, that'd be awesome . So let's compare the two. These stats are from WikiPedia via basketball reference.com LeBron for his career currently averages over 27 ppg, over 7 rpg, and over 7 apg. MJ averaged about 30 ppg, over 6 rpg, and over 5 apg. Michael beats LBJ in ppg, but LeBron leads him by a lot in the other two areas. It should also be noted that while MJ did have more ppg, his field goal percentage and three point percentage were both below LeBron's. The only people who come close to LeBron's career stats are Larry Bird and Magic. LeBron also has by far the best plus minus stats in NBA history. His BPM box plus minus, which can be read about at is wayyy above MJ's, despite MJ still being at number two. Statistically, if any team could choose to put any NBA player, past or present, on the floor, their team would perform the best if that person was LeBron James. Take this evidence as an example in the 92 93 NBA season, Jordan and the Bulls went 57 25. MJ leaves the next season, and the 93 94 Bulls go 55 27, a marginal difference from the previous season. In comparison, LBJ and the 09 10 Cavaliers went 61 21. LeBron leaves the next season, and the Cavs go 19 63. LeBron carries and makes the whole team perform at their peak, and while MJ does that to an extent as well, remove him from the team, and despite the lack of a ring from that season, the performance hardly drops at all. Defense wise, I also think LeBron stands up to MJ. While MJ has more defensive accolades 1 DPOY, 9x all NBA first team defense , I feel that LeBron is a more valuable defender to have, purely based on his ability to guard every player on the floor phenomenally. Some of Cleveland's best playoff moments this season came when LeBron was holding down the defense at the 5 position. The main crux of my argument comes from a comparison of the NBA today vs the NBA of the 80s 90s. The players of the modern day NBA are, in my opinion, by far the best they've ever been for more on this, try this article LeBron manages to put up better stats than MJ while doing so in a tougher league. I find this also to be a fair criticism of the argument that MJ is the GOAT because he was a six time NBA champion. There was a recent article I read about the ELO ratings of NBA finals teams that either MJ or LBJ played against for the data, use this link to the r NBA page and for more on ELO ratings, check out this explanation from FiveThirtyEight LBJ faced significantly better teams than MJ did in the NBA finals. The worst team LBJ ever played in the finals has an ELO rating about equal to the average team MJ played. While Michael is obviously a legend for getting two threepeats, frankly, I think that if you put him and his championship team up against any of the Warriors teams from the past three years, they would struggle just as much as the Cavs. Meanwhile, put LBJ and the Cavs against the teams MJ faced, and I think LeBron has six rings. Obviously, none of that can be proven though. When it comes down to it, it seems to me that LeBron is better than MJ in nearly every aspect of the game he's just had to play in a league that's significantly more talented than the league of Jordan. Some people, however, would say that this is irrelevant the argument is that Michael is still the GOAT because he performed at his peak for the league he was in. He was clutch, and the six titles are proof of that. LeBron is 3 for 7 for the finals, and even if that's in a much harder league, to be the GOAT, you have to rise to the occasion, which Michael did. I think this is definitely a fair argument. I'd counter, however, that if that's our measure for analysis performing at the highest level on whatever stage you happen to be on then MJ still isn't the GOAT. By that statistic, why not someone like Bill Russell, who had 11 championship wins? He performed and got rings. My logic is that since almost no one talks about Bill Russell as the GOAT, we can't really be buying into the idea that the overall skill level of the league a player's in doesn't matter. It seems obvious to us that Michael is a better player than Bill Russell, because even if he had fewer rings, he played in a league that was much more developed than Bill's. If we use that analysis there, we should use it just as much when we compare LBJ and Michael. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me that LeBron James is or, at the end of his career, will be the greatest player of all time. In both individual stats and team stats, LeBron has the slight edge, without even factoring in the difficulty of the league that he's in. In my eyes, only reason for MJ to be the GOAT is that sort of non quantifiable wow factor his clutchness, his attitude, rising to the occasion, and overall superstar aura that he exudes with his two threepeats. While I can't ever disprove that argument, or pretend that LeBron will have that same aura, I think it's time we start thinking about the GOAT status in a different way. Instead of making someone the GOAT because of the general sense of awe associated with them, let's do it because that person truly is the greatest person to ever play basketball, the overall most talented in every area of the game. And, when you look at all the evidence presented, I feel that that person is King James. But, as I stated, I love and respect greatness in any form. I'm ready to hear why the GOAT isn't LeBron, but Michael, or Bill Russell, or Kareem, or Magic or anyone. So go ahead Reddit, CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been a huge fan of NBA basketball nearly all my life. While I have a team that I root for, I love watching greatness come from anyone. That being said, I feel that LeBron has to be the GOAT. As my first point, I should acknowledge that I'm going off the assumption that if LeBron isn't the GOAT, Michael Jordan is though if you can CMV in favor of anyone else, that'd be awesome . So let's compare the two. These stats are from WikiPedia via basketball reference.com LeBron for his career currently averages over 27 ppg, over 7 rpg, and over 7 apg. MJ averaged about 30 ppg, over 6 rpg, and over 5 apg. Michael beats LBJ in ppg, but LeBron leads him by a lot in the other two areas. It should also be noted that while MJ did have more ppg, his field goal percentage and three point percentage were both below LeBron's. The only people who come close to LeBron's career stats are Larry Bird and Magic. LeBron also has by far the best plus minus stats in NBA history. His BPM box plus minus, which can be read about at is wayyy above MJ's, despite MJ still being at number two. Statistically, if any team could choose to put any NBA player, past or present, on the floor, their team would perform the best if that person was LeBron James. Take this evidence as an example in the 92 93 NBA season, Jordan and the Bulls went 57 25. MJ leaves the next season, and the 93 94 Bulls go 55 27, a marginal difference from the previous season. In comparison, LBJ and the 09 10 Cavaliers went 61 21. LeBron leaves the next season, and the Cavs go 19 63. LeBron carries and makes the whole team perform at their peak, and while MJ does that to an extent as well, remove him from the team, and despite the lack of a ring from that season, the performance hardly drops at all. Defense wise, I also think LeBron stands up to MJ. While MJ has more defensive accolades 1 DPOY, 9x all NBA first team defense , I feel that LeBron is a more valuable defender to have, purely based on his ability to guard every player on the floor phenomenally. Some of Cleveland's best playoff moments this season came when LeBron was holding down the defense at the 5 position. The main crux of my argument comes from a comparison of the NBA today vs the NBA of the 80s 90s. The players of the modern day NBA are, in my opinion, by far the best they've ever been for more on this, try this article LeBron manages to put up better stats than MJ while doing so in a tougher league. I find this also to be a fair criticism of the argument that MJ is the GOAT because he was a six time NBA champion. There was a recent article I read about the ELO ratings of NBA finals teams that either MJ or LBJ played against for the data, use this link to the r NBA page and for more on ELO ratings, check out this explanation from FiveThirtyEight LBJ faced significantly better teams than MJ did in the NBA finals. The worst team LBJ ever played in the finals has an ELO rating about equal to the average team MJ played. While Michael is obviously a legend for getting two threepeats, frankly, I think that if you put him and his championship team up against any of the Warriors teams from the past three years, they would struggle just as much as the Cavs. Meanwhile, put LBJ and the Cavs against the teams MJ faced, and I think LeBron has six rings. Obviously, none of that can be proven though. When it comes down to it, it seems to me that LeBron is better than MJ in nearly every aspect of the game he's just had to play in a league that's significantly more talented than the league of Jordan. Some people, however, would say that this is irrelevant the argument is that Michael is still the GOAT because he performed at his peak for the league he was in. He was clutch, and the six titles are proof of that. LeBron is 3 for 7 for the finals, and even if that's in a much harder league, to be the GOAT, you have to rise to the occasion, which Michael did. I think this is definitely a fair argument. I'd counter, however, that if that's our measure for analysis performing at the highest level on whatever stage you happen to be on then MJ still isn't the GOAT. By that statistic, why not someone like Bill Russell, who had 11 championship wins? He performed and got rings. My logic is that since almost no one talks about Bill Russell as the GOAT, we can't really be buying into the idea that the overall skill level of the league a player's in doesn't matter. It seems obvious to us that Michael is a better player than Bill Russell, because even if he had fewer rings, he played in a league that was much more developed than Bill's. If we use that analysis there, we should use it just as much when we compare LBJ and Michael. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me that LeBron James is or, at the end of his career, will be the greatest player of all time. In both individual stats and team stats, LeBron has the slight edge, without even factoring in the difficulty of the league that he's in. In my eyes, only reason for MJ to be the GOAT is that sort of non quantifiable wow factor his clutchness, his attitude, rising to the occasion, and overall superstar aura that he exudes with his two threepeats. While I can't ever disprove that argument, or pretend that LeBron will have that same aura, I think it's time we start thinking about the GOAT status in a different way. Instead of making someone the GOAT because of the general sense of awe associated with them, let's do it because that person truly is the greatest person to ever play basketball, the overall most talented in every area of the game. And, when you look at all the evidence presented, I feel that that person is King James. But, as I stated, I love and respect greatness in any form. I'm ready to hear why the GOAT isn't LeBron, but Michael, or Bill Russell, or Kareem, or Magic or anyone. So go ahead Reddit, CMV<|TARGETS|>FiveThirtyEight LBJ, to guard every player on the floor phenomenally ., if that 's our measure for analysis performing at the highest level on whatever stage you happen to be on then MJ still, Bill Russell as the GOAT, MJ, Bill Russell because even if he had fewer rings<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been a huge fan of NBA basketball nearly all my life. While I have a team that I root for, I love watching greatness come from anyone. That being said, I feel that LeBron has to be the GOAT. As my first point, I should acknowledge that I'm going off the assumption that if LeBron isn't the GOAT, Michael Jordan is though if you can CMV in favor of anyone else, that'd be awesome . So let's compare the two. These stats are from WikiPedia via basketball reference.com LeBron for his career currently averages over 27 ppg, over 7 rpg, and over 7 apg. MJ averaged about 30 ppg, over 6 rpg, and over 5 apg. Michael beats LBJ in ppg, but LeBron leads him by a lot in the other two areas. It should also be noted that while MJ did have more ppg, his field goal percentage and three point percentage were both below LeBron's. The only people who come close to LeBron's career stats are Larry Bird and Magic. LeBron also has by far the best plus minus stats in NBA history. His BPM box plus minus, which can be read about at is wayyy above MJ's, despite MJ still being at number two. Statistically, if any team could choose to put any NBA player, past or present, on the floor, their team would perform the best if that person was LeBron James. Take this evidence as an example in the 92 93 NBA season, Jordan and the Bulls went 57 25. MJ leaves the next season, and the 93 94 Bulls go 55 27, a marginal difference from the previous season. In comparison, LBJ and the 09 10 Cavaliers went 61 21. LeBron leaves the next season, and the Cavs go 19 63. LeBron carries and makes the whole team perform at their peak, and while MJ does that to an extent as well, remove him from the team, and despite the lack of a ring from that season, the performance hardly drops at all. Defense wise, I also think LeBron stands up to MJ. While MJ has more defensive accolades 1 DPOY, 9x all NBA first team defense , I feel that LeBron is a more valuable defender to have, purely based on his ability to guard every player on the floor phenomenally. Some of Cleveland's best playoff moments this season came when LeBron was holding down the defense at the 5 position. The main crux of my argument comes from a comparison of the NBA today vs the NBA of the 80s 90s. The players of the modern day NBA are, in my opinion, by far the best they've ever been for more on this, try this article LeBron manages to put up better stats than MJ while doing so in a tougher league. I find this also to be a fair criticism of the argument that MJ is the GOAT because he was a six time NBA champion. There was a recent article I read about the ELO ratings of NBA finals teams that either MJ or LBJ played against for the data, use this link to the r NBA page and for more on ELO ratings, check out this explanation from FiveThirtyEight LBJ faced significantly better teams than MJ did in the NBA finals. The worst team LBJ ever played in the finals has an ELO rating about equal to the average team MJ played. While Michael is obviously a legend for getting two threepeats, frankly, I think that if you put him and his championship team up against any of the Warriors teams from the past three years, they would struggle just as much as the Cavs. Meanwhile, put LBJ and the Cavs against the teams MJ faced, and I think LeBron has six rings. Obviously, none of that can be proven though. When it comes down to it, it seems to me that LeBron is better than MJ in nearly every aspect of the game he's just had to play in a league that's significantly more talented than the league of Jordan. Some people, however, would say that this is irrelevant the argument is that Michael is still the GOAT because he performed at his peak for the league he was in. He was clutch, and the six titles are proof of that. LeBron is 3 for 7 for the finals, and even if that's in a much harder league, to be the GOAT, you have to rise to the occasion, which Michael did. I think this is definitely a fair argument. I'd counter, however, that if that's our measure for analysis performing at the highest level on whatever stage you happen to be on then MJ still isn't the GOAT. By that statistic, why not someone like Bill Russell, who had 11 championship wins? He performed and got rings. My logic is that since almost no one talks about Bill Russell as the GOAT, we can't really be buying into the idea that the overall skill level of the league a player's in doesn't matter. It seems obvious to us that Michael is a better player than Bill Russell, because even if he had fewer rings, he played in a league that was much more developed than Bill's. If we use that analysis there, we should use it just as much when we compare LBJ and Michael. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me that LeBron James is or, at the end of his career, will be the greatest player of all time. In both individual stats and team stats, LeBron has the slight edge, without even factoring in the difficulty of the league that he's in. In my eyes, only reason for MJ to be the GOAT is that sort of non quantifiable wow factor his clutchness, his attitude, rising to the occasion, and overall superstar aura that he exudes with his two threepeats. While I can't ever disprove that argument, or pretend that LeBron will have that same aura, I think it's time we start thinking about the GOAT status in a different way. Instead of making someone the GOAT because of the general sense of awe associated with them, let's do it because that person truly is the greatest person to ever play basketball, the overall most talented in every area of the game. And, when you look at all the evidence presented, I feel that that person is King James. But, as I stated, I love and respect greatness in any form. I'm ready to hear why the GOAT isn't LeBron, but Michael, or Bill Russell, or Kareem, or Magic or anyone. So go ahead Reddit, CMV<|ASPECTS|>, slight, perform, percentage, greatest player, performed, analysis performing, fair argument, talented, edge, better stats, greatness come, goat status, field goal percentage, lebron, got rings, cmv, performance, superstar aura, king james, plus minus stats, better teams, tougher, non quantifiable, bpm, playoff moments, goat, fan, elo rating, best, nba basketball, better than mj, awe, career stats, anyone, respect greatness, defensive accolades, skill level, disprove, defense, difficulty of, better player, lbj, struggle, championship wins, developed, valuable defender, love<|CONCLUSION|>","I've been a huge fan of NBA basketball nearly all my life. While I have a team that I root for, I love watching greatness come from anyone. That being said, I feel that LeBron has to be the GOAT. As my first point, I should acknowledge that I'm going off the assumption that if LeBron isn't the GOAT, Michael Jordan is though if you can  in favor of anyone else, that'd be awesome . So let's compare the two. These stats are from WikiPedia via basketball reference.com LeBron for his career currently averages over 27 ppg, over 7 rpg, and over 7 apg. MJ averaged about 30 ppg, over 6 rpg, and over 5 apg. Michael beats LBJ in ppg, but LeBron leads him by a lot in the other two areas. It should also be noted that while MJ did have more ppg, his field goal percentage and three point percentage were both below LeBron's. The only people who come close to LeBron's career stats are Larry Bird and Magic. LeBron also has by far the best plus minus stats in NBA history. His BPM box plus minus, which can be read about at is wayyy above MJ's, despite MJ still being at number two. Statistically, if any team could choose to put any NBA player, past or present, on the floor, their team would perform the best if that person was LeBron James. Take this evidence as an example in the 92 93 NBA season, Jordan and the Bulls went 57 25. MJ leaves the next season, and the 93 94 Bulls go 55 27, a marginal difference from the previous season. In comparison, LBJ and the 09 10 Cavaliers went 61 21. LeBron leaves the next season, and the Cavs go 19 63. LeBron carries and makes the whole team perform at their peak, and while MJ does that to an extent as well, remove him from the team, and despite the lack of a ring from that season, the performance hardly drops at all. Defense wise, I also think LeBron stands up to MJ. While MJ has more defensive accolades 1 DPOY, 9x all NBA first team defense , I feel that LeBron is a more valuable defender to have, purely based on his ability to guard every player on the floor phenomenally. Some of Cleveland's best playoff moments this season came when LeBron was holding down the defense at the 5 position. The main crux of my argument comes from a comparison of the NBA today vs the NBA of the 80s 90s. The players of the modern day NBA are, in my opinion, by far the best they've ever been for more on this, try this article LeBron manages to put up better stats than MJ while doing so in a tougher league. I find this also to be a fair criticism of the argument that MJ is the GOAT because he was a six time NBA champion. There was a recent article I read about the ELO ratings of NBA finals teams that either MJ or LBJ played against for the data, use this link to the r NBA page and for more on ELO ratings, check out this explanation from FiveThirtyEight LBJ faced significantly better teams than MJ did in the NBA finals. The worst team LBJ ever played in the finals has an ELO rating about equal to the average team MJ played. While Michael is obviously a legend for getting two threepeats, frankly, I think that if you put him and his championship team up against any of the Warriors teams from the past three years, they would struggle just as much as the Cavs. Meanwhile, put LBJ and the Cavs against the teams MJ faced, and I think LeBron has six rings. Obviously, none of that can be proven though. When it comes down to it, it seems to me that LeBron is better than MJ in nearly every aspect of the game he's just had to play in a league that's significantly more talented than the league of Jordan. Some people, however, would say that this is irrelevant the argument is that Michael is still the GOAT because he performed at his peak for the league he was in. He was clutch, and the six titles are proof of that. LeBron is 3 for 7 for the finals, and even if that's in a much harder league, to be the GOAT, you have to rise to the occasion, which Michael did. I think this is definitely a fair argument. I'd counter, however, that if that's our measure for analysis performing at the highest level on whatever stage you happen to be on then MJ still isn't the GOAT. By that statistic, why not someone like Bill Russell, who had 11 championship wins? He performed and got rings. My logic is that since almost no one talks about Bill Russell as the GOAT, we can't really be buying into the idea that the overall skill level of the league a player's in doesn't matter. It seems obvious to us that Michael is a better player than Bill Russell, because even if he had fewer rings, he played in a league that was much more developed than Bill's. If we use that analysis there, we should use it just as much when we compare LBJ and Michael. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me that LeBron James is or, at the end of his career, will be the greatest player of all time. In both individual stats and team stats, LeBron has the slight edge, without even factoring in the difficulty of the league that he's in. In my eyes, only reason for MJ to be the GOAT is that sort of non quantifiable wow factor his clutchness, his attitude, rising to the occasion, and overall superstar aura that he exudes with his two threepeats. While I can't ever disprove that argument, or pretend that LeBron will have that same aura, I think it's time we start thinking about the GOAT status in a different way. Instead of making someone the GOAT because of the general sense of awe associated with them, let's do it because that person truly is the greatest person to ever play basketball, the overall most talented in every area of the game. And, when you look at all the evidence presented, I feel that that person is King James. But, as I stated, I love and respect greatness in any form. I'm ready to hear why the GOAT isn't LeBron, but Michael, or Bill Russell, or Kareem, or Magic or anyone. So go ahead Reddit,",LeBron James is the greatest basketball player of all time
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>About a week ago we had a pro life group set up in a busy area of our university campus outside with warning barriers and signs before the actual display. But if you were going from one end of the campus to the other without making a large detour, you would have to walk through it , and today I see a giant abortion kills poster on an overpass over our highway during rush hour. How are these graphic posters allowed to be displayed in busy and public areas? For the highway poster, there was a police cruiser with his lights on beside it Im assuming it was either to make sure that the guys with the poster werent going to throw themselves off the bridge, or to help them with the poster and such . Shouldn't I have a choice to NOT view these? I have looked briefly into it and some students HAVE gotten arrested for doing it in areas that weren't approved by the university elsewhere The Pro Life group believes that hiding the posters from public sight is a form of censorship. I'm curious if any of the pictures used in the posters were approved by the families to be used for pro life? How does this respect the families involved? Isn't this similar to posting a picture of a teen suicide and saying Hide your magazines Too much pressure for teens Pro Life supporters also don't care for the situation of the families involved, even if it was a rape case. This baffles me completely. I understand that Pro Life supporters want ALL individuals to have an equal chance at LIFE especially when the individual CANNOT chose to make that decision for themselves, but still. Why do they not put pressure on magazines and other forms of social forces that drive teens into depression and suicide in some cases. Where is the Pro Life in that? Sorry, I feel as if I had to get that off my mind. CMV Guys Thanks<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>About a week ago we had a pro life group set up in a busy area of our university campus outside with warning barriers and signs before the actual display. But if you were going from one end of the campus to the other without making a large detour, you would have to walk through it , and today I see a giant abortion kills poster on an overpass over our highway during rush hour. How are these graphic posters allowed to be displayed in busy and public areas? For the highway poster, there was a police cruiser with his lights on beside it Im assuming it was either to make sure that the guys with the poster werent going to throw themselves off the bridge, or to help them with the poster and such . Shouldn't I have a choice to NOT view these? I have looked briefly into it and some students HAVE gotten arrested for doing it in areas that weren't approved by the university elsewhere The Pro Life group believes that hiding the posters from public sight is a form of censorship. I'm curious if any of the pictures used in the posters were approved by the families to be used for pro life? How does this respect the families involved? Isn't this similar to posting a picture of a teen suicide and saying Hide your magazines Too much pressure for teens Pro Life supporters also don't care for the situation of the families involved, even if it was a rape case. This baffles me completely. I understand that Pro Life supporters want ALL individuals to have an equal chance at LIFE especially when the individual CANNOT chose to make that decision for themselves, but still. Why do they not put pressure on magazines and other forms of social forces that drive teens into depression and suicide in some cases. Where is the Pro Life in that? Sorry, I feel as if I had to get that off my mind. CMV Guys Thanks<|TARGETS|>Why do they not put pressure on magazines and other forms of social forces, that hiding the posters from public sight, to make sure that the guys with the poster werent going to throw themselves off the bridge or to help them with the poster and such ., these graphic posters allowed to be displayed in busy and public areas, posting a picture of a teen suicide and saying Hide your magazines Too much pressure for teens Pro Life supporters, to have an equal chance at LIFE especially when the individual CANNOT chose to make that decision for themselves<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>About a week ago we had a pro life group set up in a busy area of our university campus outside with warning barriers and signs before the actual display. But if you were going from one end of the campus to the other without making a large detour, you would have to walk through it , and today I see a giant abortion kills poster on an overpass over our highway during rush hour. How are these graphic posters allowed to be displayed in busy and public areas? For the highway poster, there was a police cruiser with his lights on beside it Im assuming it was either to make sure that the guys with the poster werent going to throw themselves off the bridge, or to help them with the poster and such . Shouldn't I have a choice to NOT view these? I have looked briefly into it and some students HAVE gotten arrested for doing it in areas that weren't approved by the university elsewhere The Pro Life group believes that hiding the posters from public sight is a form of censorship. I'm curious if any of the pictures used in the posters were approved by the families to be used for pro life? How does this respect the families involved? Isn't this similar to posting a picture of a teen suicide and saying Hide your magazines Too much pressure for teens Pro Life supporters also don't care for the situation of the families involved, even if it was a rape case. This baffles me completely. I understand that Pro Life supporters want ALL individuals to have an equal chance at LIFE especially when the individual CANNOT chose to make that decision for themselves, but still. Why do they not put pressure on magazines and other forms of social forces that drive teens into depression and suicide in some cases. Where is the Pro Life in that? Sorry, I feel as if I had to get that off my mind. CMV Guys Thanks<|ASPECTS|>, teen suicide, depression, busy and public areas, abortion kills poster, view, pressure, throw, respect the families, approved, situation, graphic posters, baffles, sight, pro life, suicide, life, rape, warning barriers, magazines, social forces, pictures, equal chance, choice, censorship<|CONCLUSION|>","About a week ago we had a pro life group set up in a busy area of our university campus outside with warning barriers and signs before the actual display. But if you were going from one end of the campus to the other without making a large detour, you would have to walk through it , and today I see a giant abortion kills poster on an overpass over our highway during rush hour. How are these graphic posters allowed to be displayed in busy and public areas? For the highway poster, there was a police cruiser with his lights on beside it Im assuming it was either to make sure that the guys with the poster werent going to throw themselves off the bridge, or to help them with the poster and such . Shouldn't I have a choice to NOT view these? I have looked briefly into it and some students HAVE gotten arrested for doing it in areas that weren't approved by the university elsewhere The Pro Life group believes that hiding the posters from public sight is a form of censorship. I'm curious if any of the pictures used in the posters were approved by the families to be used for pro life? How does this respect the families involved? Isn't this similar to posting a picture of a teen suicide and saying Hide your magazines Too much pressure for teens Pro Life supporters also don't care for the situation of the families involved, even if it was a rape case. This baffles me completely. I understand that Pro Life supporters want ALL individuals to have an equal chance at LIFE especially when the individual CANNOT chose to make that decision for themselves, but still. Why do they not put pressure on magazines and other forms of social forces that drive teens into depression and suicide in some cases. Where is the Pro Life in that? Sorry, I feel as if I had to get that off my mind.  Guys Thanks","Pro-Life displays in heavily public areas,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yesterday I posted this thread about what future generations will castigate us for. One of the more intriguing responses touched on something that had never occurred to me so far namely the suffering of animals in the wild, which is, according to this commenter likely even greater in scale than that of animal agriculture. Now wild animal suffering being anything other than natural had until this point never crossed my mind before, maybe because, to quote Stephen Pinker cited in this article The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering I grew up with the bad science in nature documentary voiceovers, that has ingrained in me the moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. So then I learned of a whole movement, r wildanimalsuffering for example, dedicated to discussion of the evaluation and optimization of wild animal welfare. Now I consider myself as someone who cares about animals. If I saw a fox in my garden chasing a bird then I’d probably try to protect the bird if I could. But also, there’s so much human suffering, plus so much suffering of animals at human hands, that surely those are more important causes to get behind than going out of our way to intervene in nature which, unless it’s helping to save species from the brink of extinction, strikes me as none of our business or at least not a priority and on such a huge scale that it would seem almost impossible to do anything about implementing a solution that could address all this suffering anyway where do you draw the line? But maybe there’s a flaw in my thinking after all, I only came across this whole concept yesterday. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yesterday I posted this thread about what future generations will castigate us for. One of the more intriguing responses touched on something that had never occurred to me so far namely the suffering of animals in the wild, which is, according to this commenter likely even greater in scale than that of animal agriculture. Now wild animal suffering being anything other than natural had until this point never crossed my mind before, maybe because, to quote Stephen Pinker cited in this article The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering I grew up with the bad science in nature documentary voiceovers, that has ingrained in me the moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. So then I learned of a whole movement, r wildanimalsuffering for example, dedicated to discussion of the evaluation and optimization of wild animal welfare. Now I consider myself as someone who cares about animals. If I saw a fox in my garden chasing a bird then I’d probably try to protect the bird if I could. But also, there’s so much human suffering, plus so much suffering of animals at human hands, that surely those are more important causes to get behind than going out of our way to intervene in nature which, unless it’s helping to save species from the brink of extinction, strikes me as none of our business or at least not a priority and on such a huge scale that it would seem almost impossible to do anything about implementing a solution that could address all this suffering anyway where do you draw the line? But maybe there’s a flaw in my thinking after all, I only came across this whole concept yesterday. CMV<|TARGETS|>posted this thread about what future generations will castigate us for ., to intervene in nature which unless it ’s helping to save species from the brink of extinction, wild animal suffering being anything other than natural had until this point never crossed my mind before maybe because to quote Stephen Pinker cited in this article The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering I grew up with the bad science in nature documentary voiceovers, the suffering of animals in the wild, so much suffering of animals at human hands, If I saw a fox in my garden chasing a bird<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yesterday I posted this thread about what future generations will castigate us for. One of the more intriguing responses touched on something that had never occurred to me so far namely the suffering of animals in the wild, which is, according to this commenter likely even greater in scale than that of animal agriculture. Now wild animal suffering being anything other than natural had until this point never crossed my mind before, maybe because, to quote Stephen Pinker cited in this article The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering I grew up with the bad science in nature documentary voiceovers, that has ingrained in me the moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. So then I learned of a whole movement, r wildanimalsuffering for example, dedicated to discussion of the evaluation and optimization of wild animal welfare. Now I consider myself as someone who cares about animals. If I saw a fox in my garden chasing a bird then I’d probably try to protect the bird if I could. But also, there’s so much human suffering, plus so much suffering of animals at human hands, that surely those are more important causes to get behind than going out of our way to intervene in nature which, unless it’s helping to save species from the brink of extinction, strikes me as none of our business or at least not a priority and on such a huge scale that it would seem almost impossible to do anything about implementing a solution that could address all this suffering anyway where do you draw the line? But maybe there’s a flaw in my thinking after all, I only came across this whole concept yesterday. CMV<|ASPECTS|>evaluation, suffering of animals, cares about animals, human suffering, extinction, protect the bird, castigate, wild animal welfare, natural, future generations, optimization, good, flaw, science, wildanimalsuffering, suffering, moralistic<|CONCLUSION|>","Yesterday I posted this thread about what future generations will castigate us for. One of the more intriguing responses touched on something that had never occurred to me so far namely the suffering of animals in the wild, which is, according to this commenter likely even greater in scale than that of animal agriculture. Now wild animal suffering being anything other than natural had until this point never crossed my mind before, maybe because, to quote Stephen Pinker cited in this article The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering I grew up with the bad science in nature documentary voiceovers, that has ingrained in me the moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. So then I learned of a whole movement, r wildanimalsuffering for example, dedicated to discussion of the evaluation and optimization of wild animal welfare. Now I consider myself as someone who cares about animals. If I saw a fox in my garden chasing a bird then I’d probably try to protect the bird if I could. But also, there’s so much human suffering, plus so much suffering of animals at human hands, that surely those are more important causes to get behind than going out of our way to intervene in nature which, unless it’s helping to save species from the brink of extinction, strikes me as none of our business or at least not a priority and on such a huge scale that it would seem almost impossible to do anything about implementing a solution that could address all this suffering anyway where do you draw the line? But maybe there’s a flaw in my thinking after all, I only came across this whole concept yesterday.",Wild animal suffering should not be a human priority
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We already have the ability to read some information from the brain, and we have some ability to stimulate areas of the brain as well, ranging from magnetic pulses to inserting small wires. As our understanding of our brains improves and with the inevitable pace of technological improvement will we eventually have the ability to directly stimulate parts of our brain. This might be used to help paralyzed people, or maybe to boost memory or intelligence or treat PTSD. But it will mean that there will eventually be a simple and noninvasive or at least not dangerous way to directly stimulate or block pain and pleasure centers. This seems like it might have some problems, but might also be beneficial, and if we’re worried about abuse, well that’s not a new thing. People have used all kinds of shortcuts to stimulate their pleasure centers. From eating lots of unhealthy food to gambling and obviously lots of drugs affect the feeling of pleasure directly. But these all have consequences, they cost time and money and they come with negative impacts on health and wellbeing eventually. Which means that they’re not sustainable, and severe problems aren’t widespread. Of course there’s other serious threats to humanity Technological nuclear war, global warming, AI superintelligence Paradigm shifting events contact with alien intelligent life, discovering we’re living in a simulation, etc. Natural disasters getting hit by a comet, a supervolcano, untreatable disease Some of these are just out of our control, but at least they’re not inevitable on any relevant timespan. Others like nuclear war or global warming we’re already living with the potential for huge problems, but we’re dealing with them and arguably solving these problems will make humanity stronger. But a simple neural interface to trigger pleasure is different than all these for a few significant reasons It’s inevitable, unless we stop all medical progress it’ll happen eventually. Or maybe it will take a long time and it won't be possible until we can upload our minds to machines, but it'll probably happen sooner rather than later. We already have the ability, it’s just difficult enough that most people wouldn’t opt for it, and comes with enough risks that almost no doctor would perform the required operation It will be essentially consequence free. The same way that social drinking is fine, or even encouraged, today, having a ‘pleasure implant’ and using it occasionally would be seen as a harmless vice. Unlike threats to our lives this is a threat to our sense of self and our ability to solve problems because it gets at the very heart of what it means to be human, our consciousness. When we think about what’s important about being human, eventually most people starting with Descartes concludes that it’s our conscious self that matters. We can lose parts of our bodies or lose physical or even some mental faculties, but as long as we still have our mind we still feel, and are treated like, human. And defining characteristic of consciousness is the ability to feel pain and pleasure It’s an experience that doesn’t have any correlate in the rest of the world. It’s what sits at the root of our ability to create meaning, have goals, be ethical and all problem solving. And our brains have been wired by evolution very well to make the most of this ability. It’s easy to feel pain to avoid lots of little and big dangers. Feeling pleasure is a little more difficult, but it comes from putting in some effort and is linked to critical behaviors. Importantly these two essentially never get switched or miswired and we don’t see people being born without the ability to feel good or bad at all. What is it like when we shortcut this system and can feel pleasure at the push of a button? There have been experiments on rats and eventually humans where they were allowed to trigger their own pleasure centers. And while some animals and people showed restraint, many used the ability nearly constantly when they were allowed to and would do so even in the face of significant obstacles. Which raises the question, if you can feel happy whenever you want, why do anything? I mean, lots of us like to work hard and help other people and solve interesting problems. But we do those things because our brains are wired to reward those things. If given the ability it seems obvious that a lot of people would prefer easy and consequence free pleasure, or would prefer it to working hard and what would be the point of helping someone else feel better if they could just hit a button to do it themselves. Society might fight the easiness of it for awhile, but without the need to put in effort to get rewarded eventually all the foundations of society will be worn away and more and more humans will slip into a never ending bliss that goes nowhere. Ultimately I believe that humans are conscious because evolution stumbled on it, and it turned out to be a fantastic way to create complex goals and behaviors by attaching pain and pleasure to complex stimulus. In a sense the conscious us is just along for the ride with our unconscious bodies because we’re so good at planning and helping them do stuff. But when we inevitably invent a simple and safe way to make ourselves feel good without having to make our bodies do stuff to get it, then we’re going to sever that link. Our conscious self, the thing that really makes us human, will just experiencing simple uncomplicated pleasure and everything else will just drift away. And worst of all, essentially no one is worried about this, so it could easily catch us completely unaware.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We already have the ability to read some information from the brain, and we have some ability to stimulate areas of the brain as well, ranging from magnetic pulses to inserting small wires. As our understanding of our brains improves and with the inevitable pace of technological improvement will we eventually have the ability to directly stimulate parts of our brain. This might be used to help paralyzed people, or maybe to boost memory or intelligence or treat PTSD. But it will mean that there will eventually be a simple and noninvasive or at least not dangerous way to directly stimulate or block pain and pleasure centers. This seems like it might have some problems, but might also be beneficial, and if we’re worried about abuse, well that’s not a new thing. People have used all kinds of shortcuts to stimulate their pleasure centers. From eating lots of unhealthy food to gambling and obviously lots of drugs affect the feeling of pleasure directly. But these all have consequences, they cost time and money and they come with negative impacts on health and wellbeing eventually. Which means that they’re not sustainable, and severe problems aren’t widespread. Of course there’s other serious threats to humanity Technological nuclear war, global warming, AI superintelligence Paradigm shifting events contact with alien intelligent life, discovering we’re living in a simulation, etc. Natural disasters getting hit by a comet, a supervolcano, untreatable disease Some of these are just out of our control, but at least they’re not inevitable on any relevant timespan. Others like nuclear war or global warming we’re already living with the potential for huge problems, but we’re dealing with them and arguably solving these problems will make humanity stronger. But a simple neural interface to trigger pleasure is different than all these for a few significant reasons It’s inevitable, unless we stop all medical progress it’ll happen eventually. Or maybe it will take a long time and it won't be possible until we can upload our minds to machines, but it'll probably happen sooner rather than later. We already have the ability, it’s just difficult enough that most people wouldn’t opt for it, and comes with enough risks that almost no doctor would perform the required operation It will be essentially consequence free. The same way that social drinking is fine, or even encouraged, today, having a ‘pleasure implant’ and using it occasionally would be seen as a harmless vice. Unlike threats to our lives this is a threat to our sense of self and our ability to solve problems because it gets at the very heart of what it means to be human, our consciousness. When we think about what’s important about being human, eventually most people starting with Descartes concludes that it’s our conscious self that matters. We can lose parts of our bodies or lose physical or even some mental faculties, but as long as we still have our mind we still feel, and are treated like, human. And defining characteristic of consciousness is the ability to feel pain and pleasure It’s an experience that doesn’t have any correlate in the rest of the world. It’s what sits at the root of our ability to create meaning, have goals, be ethical and all problem solving. And our brains have been wired by evolution very well to make the most of this ability. It’s easy to feel pain to avoid lots of little and big dangers. Feeling pleasure is a little more difficult, but it comes from putting in some effort and is linked to critical behaviors. Importantly these two essentially never get switched or miswired and we don’t see people being born without the ability to feel good or bad at all. What is it like when we shortcut this system and can feel pleasure at the push of a button? There have been experiments on rats and eventually humans where they were allowed to trigger their own pleasure centers. And while some animals and people showed restraint, many used the ability nearly constantly when they were allowed to and would do so even in the face of significant obstacles. Which raises the question, if you can feel happy whenever you want, why do anything? I mean, lots of us like to work hard and help other people and solve interesting problems. But we do those things because our brains are wired to reward those things. If given the ability it seems obvious that a lot of people would prefer easy and consequence free pleasure, or would prefer it to working hard and what would be the point of helping someone else feel better if they could just hit a button to do it themselves. Society might fight the easiness of it for awhile, but without the need to put in effort to get rewarded eventually all the foundations of society will be worn away and more and more humans will slip into a never ending bliss that goes nowhere. Ultimately I believe that humans are conscious because evolution stumbled on it, and it turned out to be a fantastic way to create complex goals and behaviors by attaching pain and pleasure to complex stimulus. In a sense the conscious us is just along for the ride with our unconscious bodies because we’re so good at planning and helping them do stuff. But when we inevitably invent a simple and safe way to make ourselves feel good without having to make our bodies do stuff to get it, then we’re going to sever that link. Our conscious self, the thing that really makes us human, will just experiencing simple uncomplicated pleasure and everything else will just drift away. And worst of all, essentially no one is worried about this, so it could easily catch us completely unaware.<|TARGETS|>to sever that link ., when we shortcut this system and can feel pleasure at the push of a button, free pleasure or would prefer it to working hard and what would be the point of helping someone else feel better if they could just hit a button to do it themselves ., these two essentially never get switched or miswired and we do n’t see people being born without the ability to feel good or bad at all ., When we think about what ’s important about being human eventually most people starting with Descartes, the ride with our unconscious bodies because we ’re so good at planning and helping them do stuff .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We already have the ability to read some information from the brain, and we have some ability to stimulate areas of the brain as well, ranging from magnetic pulses to inserting small wires. As our understanding of our brains improves and with the inevitable pace of technological improvement will we eventually have the ability to directly stimulate parts of our brain. This might be used to help paralyzed people, or maybe to boost memory or intelligence or treat PTSD. But it will mean that there will eventually be a simple and noninvasive or at least not dangerous way to directly stimulate or block pain and pleasure centers. This seems like it might have some problems, but might also be beneficial, and if we’re worried about abuse, well that’s not a new thing. People have used all kinds of shortcuts to stimulate their pleasure centers. From eating lots of unhealthy food to gambling and obviously lots of drugs affect the feeling of pleasure directly. But these all have consequences, they cost time and money and they come with negative impacts on health and wellbeing eventually. Which means that they’re not sustainable, and severe problems aren’t widespread. Of course there’s other serious threats to humanity Technological nuclear war, global warming, AI superintelligence Paradigm shifting events contact with alien intelligent life, discovering we’re living in a simulation, etc. Natural disasters getting hit by a comet, a supervolcano, untreatable disease Some of these are just out of our control, but at least they’re not inevitable on any relevant timespan. Others like nuclear war or global warming we’re already living with the potential for huge problems, but we’re dealing with them and arguably solving these problems will make humanity stronger. But a simple neural interface to trigger pleasure is different than all these for a few significant reasons It’s inevitable, unless we stop all medical progress it’ll happen eventually. Or maybe it will take a long time and it won't be possible until we can upload our minds to machines, but it'll probably happen sooner rather than later. We already have the ability, it’s just difficult enough that most people wouldn’t opt for it, and comes with enough risks that almost no doctor would perform the required operation It will be essentially consequence free. The same way that social drinking is fine, or even encouraged, today, having a ‘pleasure implant’ and using it occasionally would be seen as a harmless vice. Unlike threats to our lives this is a threat to our sense of self and our ability to solve problems because it gets at the very heart of what it means to be human, our consciousness. When we think about what’s important about being human, eventually most people starting with Descartes concludes that it’s our conscious self that matters. We can lose parts of our bodies or lose physical or even some mental faculties, but as long as we still have our mind we still feel, and are treated like, human. And defining characteristic of consciousness is the ability to feel pain and pleasure It’s an experience that doesn’t have any correlate in the rest of the world. It’s what sits at the root of our ability to create meaning, have goals, be ethical and all problem solving. And our brains have been wired by evolution very well to make the most of this ability. It’s easy to feel pain to avoid lots of little and big dangers. Feeling pleasure is a little more difficult, but it comes from putting in some effort and is linked to critical behaviors. Importantly these two essentially never get switched or miswired and we don’t see people being born without the ability to feel good or bad at all. What is it like when we shortcut this system and can feel pleasure at the push of a button? There have been experiments on rats and eventually humans where they were allowed to trigger their own pleasure centers. And while some animals and people showed restraint, many used the ability nearly constantly when they were allowed to and would do so even in the face of significant obstacles. Which raises the question, if you can feel happy whenever you want, why do anything? I mean, lots of us like to work hard and help other people and solve interesting problems. But we do those things because our brains are wired to reward those things. If given the ability it seems obvious that a lot of people would prefer easy and consequence free pleasure, or would prefer it to working hard and what would be the point of helping someone else feel better if they could just hit a button to do it themselves. Society might fight the easiness of it for awhile, but without the need to put in effort to get rewarded eventually all the foundations of society will be worn away and more and more humans will slip into a never ending bliss that goes nowhere. Ultimately I believe that humans are conscious because evolution stumbled on it, and it turned out to be a fantastic way to create complex goals and behaviors by attaching pain and pleasure to complex stimulus. In a sense the conscious us is just along for the ride with our unconscious bodies because we’re so good at planning and helping them do stuff. But when we inevitably invent a simple and safe way to make ourselves feel good without having to make our bodies do stuff to get it, then we’re going to sever that link. Our conscious self, the thing that really makes us human, will just experiencing simple uncomplicated pleasure and everything else will just drift away. And worst of all, essentially no one is worried about this, so it could easily catch us completely unaware.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, physical, never, bad, harmless vice, nuclear war, consequence free, trigger pleasure, block, safe, feel pain, feeling pleasure, working hard, huge problems, pleasure, problem solving, foundations of society, feel good, critical behaviors, life, memory, health and wellbeing, medical progress, bliss, human, planning, stimulate areas, mental faculties, work hard, difficult, feel, sense of self, untreatable disease, abuse, evolution, shortcuts, feel better, worried, beneficial, consequences, conscious self, stimulate, threats, pleasure centers, sustainable, boost, pain and pleasure, threats to humanity, consequence free pleasure, cost time and money, create, switched, help, humanity, catch us completely unaware, noninvasive, link, complex stimulus, lose, meaning, sever, obstacles, pain and pleasure centers, directly, natural disasters, goals, brain, severe problems, risks, help other people, simple, treat, reward, gambling, minds, unconscious, miswired, dangers, feel happy whenever, consciousness, conscious us, unhealthy, significant, inevitable, technological improvement, easiness, problems, intelligence, restraint, ptsd, lose parts of our bodies, solve interesting problems, social drinking, feeling of pleasure, threat, negative impacts, paralyzed people, helping, uncomplicated pleasure, wired, read some information, long time, stimulate parts, ethical, solve problems, conscious, global warming, complex goals and behaviors, easy<|CONCLUSION|>","We already have the ability to read some information from the brain, and we have some ability to stimulate areas of the brain as well, ranging from magnetic pulses to inserting small wires. As our understanding of our brains improves and with the inevitable pace of technological improvement will we eventually have the ability to directly stimulate parts of our brain. This might be used to help paralyzed people, or maybe to boost memory or intelligence or treat PTSD. But it will mean that there will eventually be a simple and noninvasive or at least not dangerous way to directly stimulate or block pain and pleasure centers. This seems like it might have some problems, but might also be beneficial, and if we’re worried about abuse, well that’s not a new thing. People have used all kinds of shortcuts to stimulate their pleasure centers. From eating lots of unhealthy food to gambling and obviously lots of drugs affect the feeling of pleasure directly. But these all have consequences, they cost time and money and they come with negative impacts on health and wellbeing eventually. Which means that they’re not sustainable, and severe problems aren’t widespread. Of course there’s other serious threats to humanity Technological nuclear war, global warming, AI superintelligence Paradigm shifting events contact with alien intelligent life, discovering we’re living in a simulation, etc. Natural disasters getting hit by a comet, a supervolcano, untreatable disease Some of these are just out of our control, but at least they’re not inevitable on any relevant timespan. Others like nuclear war or global warming we’re already living with the potential for huge problems, but we’re dealing with them and arguably solving these problems will make humanity stronger. But a simple neural interface to trigger pleasure is different than all these for a few significant reasons It’s inevitable, unless we stop all medical progress it’ll happen eventually. Or maybe it will take a long time and it won't be possible until we can upload our minds to machines, but it'll probably happen sooner rather than later. We already have the ability, it’s just difficult enough that most people wouldn’t opt for it, and comes with enough risks that almost no doctor would perform the required operation It will be essentially consequence free. The same way that social drinking is fine, or even encouraged, today, having a ‘pleasure implant’ and using it occasionally would be seen as a harmless vice. Unlike threats to our lives this is a threat to our sense of self and our ability to solve problems because it gets at the very heart of what it means to be human, our consciousness. When we think about what’s important about being human, eventually most people starting with Descartes concludes that it’s our conscious self that matters. We can lose parts of our bodies or lose physical or even some mental faculties, but as long as we still have our mind we still feel, and are treated like, human. And defining characteristic of consciousness is the ability to feel pain and pleasure It’s an experience that doesn’t have any correlate in the rest of the world. It’s what sits at the root of our ability to create meaning, have goals, be ethical and all problem solving. And our brains have been wired by evolution very well to make the most of this ability. It’s easy to feel pain to avoid lots of little and big dangers. Feeling pleasure is a little more difficult, but it comes from putting in some effort and is linked to critical behaviors. Importantly these two essentially never get switched or miswired and we don’t see people being born without the ability to feel good or bad at all. What is it like when we shortcut this system and can feel pleasure at the push of a button? There have been experiments on rats and eventually humans where they were allowed to trigger their own pleasure centers. And while some animals and people showed restraint, many used the ability nearly constantly when they were allowed to and would do so even in the face of significant obstacles. Which raises the question, if you can feel happy whenever you want, why do anything? I mean, lots of us like to work hard and help other people and solve interesting problems. But we do those things because our brains are wired to reward those things. If given the ability it seems obvious that a lot of people would prefer easy and consequence free pleasure, or would prefer it to working hard and what would be the point of helping someone else feel better if they could just hit a button to do it themselves. Society might fight the easiness of it for awhile, but without the need to put in effort to get rewarded eventually all the foundations of society will be worn away and more and more humans will slip into a never ending bliss that goes nowhere. Ultimately I believe that humans are conscious because evolution stumbled on it, and it turned out to be a fantastic way to create complex goals and behaviors by attaching pain and pleasure to complex stimulus. In a sense the conscious us is just along for the ride with our unconscious bodies because we’re so good at planning and helping them do stuff. But when we inevitably invent a simple and safe way to make ourselves feel good without having to make our bodies do stuff to get it, then we’re going to sever that link. Our conscious self, the thing that really makes us human, will just experiencing simple uncomplicated pleasure and everything else will just drift away. And worst of all, essentially no one is worried about this, so it could easily catch us completely unaware.",The greatest existential threat to humanity is the inevitable invention of a simple brain interface
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obvious GoT spoilers below. This is based off the show only, and assumes that Alliser Thorne and his friends killed Jon Snow for the Watch and not for any nefarious reasons. IMO the people killed Jon Snow for bringing over the wildlings are idiots. Without dragonglass or Valyrian steel, the wildlings are sitting ducks for the White Walkers. Leaving them beyond the Wall would massively increase the size of the Night's King's wight army. This would result in more casualties for the Watch and make the Wall much more vulnerable to being breached. The wights and White Walkers are much more powerful and can cause more damage than any wildling army ever will. Alliser Thorne may think he's a better leader than Jon Snow, but he's clearly not. He's an well meaning asshole who gives in easily to the pressures of leadership, and is often unable to see the big picture. He has an emotional hatred of wildlings that result in him making poor decisions. Thus, IMO, the mutineers are making the wrong decision for the Night's Watch. By removing Jon Snow from power, they are removing someone who recognizes the threat of the White Walkers and understands the usefulness of the being allied with the remaining wildlings. They are possibly replacing him with a poor leader who doesn't understand the complexity of the situation beyond the Wall.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obvious GoT spoilers below. This is based off the show only, and assumes that Alliser Thorne and his friends killed Jon Snow for the Watch and not for any nefarious reasons. IMO the people killed Jon Snow for bringing over the wildlings are idiots. Without dragonglass or Valyrian steel, the wildlings are sitting ducks for the White Walkers. Leaving them beyond the Wall would massively increase the size of the Night's King's wight army. This would result in more casualties for the Watch and make the Wall much more vulnerable to being breached. The wights and White Walkers are much more powerful and can cause more damage than any wildling army ever will. Alliser Thorne may think he's a better leader than Jon Snow, but he's clearly not. He's an well meaning asshole who gives in easily to the pressures of leadership, and is often unable to see the big picture. He has an emotional hatred of wildlings that result in him making poor decisions. Thus, IMO, the mutineers are making the wrong decision for the Night's Watch. By removing Jon Snow from power, they are removing someone who recognizes the threat of the White Walkers and understands the usefulness of the being allied with the remaining wildlings. They are possibly replacing him with a poor leader who doesn't understand the complexity of the situation beyond the Wall.<|TARGETS|>The wights and White Walkers, Alliser Thorne, Leaving them beyond the Wall, IMO the people killed Jon Snow for bringing over the wildlings, removing Jon Snow from power<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obvious GoT spoilers below. This is based off the show only, and assumes that Alliser Thorne and his friends killed Jon Snow for the Watch and not for any nefarious reasons. IMO the people killed Jon Snow for bringing over the wildlings are idiots. Without dragonglass or Valyrian steel, the wildlings are sitting ducks for the White Walkers. Leaving them beyond the Wall would massively increase the size of the Night's King's wight army. This would result in more casualties for the Watch and make the Wall much more vulnerable to being breached. The wights and White Walkers are much more powerful and can cause more damage than any wildling army ever will. Alliser Thorne may think he's a better leader than Jon Snow, but he's clearly not. He's an well meaning asshole who gives in easily to the pressures of leadership, and is often unable to see the big picture. He has an emotional hatred of wildlings that result in him making poor decisions. Thus, IMO, the mutineers are making the wrong decision for the Night's Watch. By removing Jon Snow from power, they are removing someone who recognizes the threat of the White Walkers and understands the usefulness of the being allied with the remaining wildlings. They are possibly replacing him with a poor leader who doesn't understand the complexity of the situation beyond the Wall.<|ASPECTS|>complexity, mutineers, idiots, powerful, better leader, wildlings, situation, pressures of leadership, vulnerable to being breached, threat, increase, nefarious reasons, emotional hatred, casualties, cause, poor decisions, damage, usefulness, killed, sitting ducks, white walkers, army, got, spoilers, poor leader, big picture, size, wrong decision<|CONCLUSION|>","Obvious GoT spoilers below. This is based off the show only, and assumes that Alliser Thorne and his friends killed Jon Snow for the Watch and not for any nefarious reasons. IMO the people killed Jon Snow for bringing over the wildlings are idiots. Without dragonglass or Valyrian steel, the wildlings are sitting ducks for the White Walkers. Leaving them beyond the Wall would massively increase the size of the Night's King's wight army. This would result in more casualties for the Watch and make the Wall much more vulnerable to being breached. The wights and White Walkers are much more powerful and can cause more damage than any wildling army ever will. Alliser Thorne may think he's a better leader than Jon Snow, but he's clearly not. He's an well meaning asshole who gives in easily to the pressures of leadership, and is often unable to see the big picture. He has an emotional hatred of wildlings that result in him making poor decisions. Thus, IMO, the mutineers are making the wrong decision for the Night's Watch. By removing Jon Snow from power, they are removing someone who recognizes the threat of the White Walkers and understands the usefulness of the being allied with the remaining wildlings. They are possibly replacing him with a poor leader who doesn't understand the complexity of the situation beyond the Wall.",The Night's Watch mutineers are idiots
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Super Mario World is the best Mario game the only arguable rival for this is Super Mario Bros. 3, and I think the larger levels and secret paths in SMW put it over the top from a design perspective, while the improved color palette brought Mario to live in a way that still stands up today, unlike the later 3D revisions which tend to look blocky and unattractive by modern standards. Sonic has had an even worse time post Genesis, but the series peaked much earlier, with Sonic 2. The music was better, the addition of the spin dash solved a major problem with losing momentum that was present in the first game, and again, the larger, multi path level design was perfected in Sonic 2. A single sidekick character, present for the new 2 player co op race modes, added some variety without diluting the franchise. The 3D Sonic games would later destroy this balance with a cavalcade of terrible mascot characters, marring otherwise acceptable games like Sonic Adventure with levels that force you to play as a giant cat fisherman. But back to the other 2D Sonic games Sonic 3 altered the art style of the sprites somewhat, making for a muddier, busier look that made some of the levels hard to look at for me. It lacked the crisp definition of Sonic 2. Sonic and Knuckles was more of the same, and began the process of bogging down the series with additional character options. In short, I think that platformers in general were perfected in the 16 bit era, and have been on a long, slow descent since that time as developers tried to translate the concept into 3 dimesions, resulting in frustrating 3D jumping mechanics and gimmicky features Mario's giant water gun, Sonic's homing dash, etc. It's nice to see a return to 2D platformers among indie developers Shantae, Hollow Knight, Super Meat Boy, et. al. , but I'd really like to see Nintendo and Sega return to classic sprite based 2D mascot platforming games.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Super Mario World is the best Mario game the only arguable rival for this is Super Mario Bros. 3, and I think the larger levels and secret paths in SMW put it over the top from a design perspective, while the improved color palette brought Mario to live in a way that still stands up today, unlike the later 3D revisions which tend to look blocky and unattractive by modern standards. Sonic has had an even worse time post Genesis, but the series peaked much earlier, with Sonic 2. The music was better, the addition of the spin dash solved a major problem with losing momentum that was present in the first game, and again, the larger, multi path level design was perfected in Sonic 2. A single sidekick character, present for the new 2 player co op race modes, added some variety without diluting the franchise. The 3D Sonic games would later destroy this balance with a cavalcade of terrible mascot characters, marring otherwise acceptable games like Sonic Adventure with levels that force you to play as a giant cat fisherman. But back to the other 2D Sonic games Sonic 3 altered the art style of the sprites somewhat, making for a muddier, busier look that made some of the levels hard to look at for me. It lacked the crisp definition of Sonic 2. Sonic and Knuckles was more of the same, and began the process of bogging down the series with additional character options. In short, I think that platformers in general were perfected in the 16 bit era, and have been on a long, slow descent since that time as developers tried to translate the concept into 3 dimesions, resulting in frustrating 3D jumping mechanics and gimmicky features Mario's giant water gun, Sonic's homing dash, etc. It's nice to see a return to 2D platformers among indie developers Shantae, Hollow Knight, Super Meat Boy, et. al. , but I'd really like to see Nintendo and Sega return to classic sprite based 2D mascot platforming games.<|TARGETS|>SMW, Sonic, Super Mario World, Sonic and Knuckles, to see Nintendo and Sega return to classic sprite, A single sidekick character present for the new 2 player co op race modes<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Super Mario World is the best Mario game the only arguable rival for this is Super Mario Bros. 3, and I think the larger levels and secret paths in SMW put it over the top from a design perspective, while the improved color palette brought Mario to live in a way that still stands up today, unlike the later 3D revisions which tend to look blocky and unattractive by modern standards. Sonic has had an even worse time post Genesis, but the series peaked much earlier, with Sonic 2. The music was better, the addition of the spin dash solved a major problem with losing momentum that was present in the first game, and again, the larger, multi path level design was perfected in Sonic 2. A single sidekick character, present for the new 2 player co op race modes, added some variety without diluting the franchise. The 3D Sonic games would later destroy this balance with a cavalcade of terrible mascot characters, marring otherwise acceptable games like Sonic Adventure with levels that force you to play as a giant cat fisherman. But back to the other 2D Sonic games Sonic 3 altered the art style of the sprites somewhat, making for a muddier, busier look that made some of the levels hard to look at for me. It lacked the crisp definition of Sonic 2. Sonic and Knuckles was more of the same, and began the process of bogging down the series with additional character options. In short, I think that platformers in general were perfected in the 16 bit era, and have been on a long, slow descent since that time as developers tried to translate the concept into 3 dimesions, resulting in frustrating 3D jumping mechanics and gimmicky features Mario's giant water gun, Sonic's homing dash, etc. It's nice to see a return to 2D platformers among indie developers Shantae, Hollow Knight, Super Meat Boy, et. al. , but I'd really like to see Nintendo and Sega return to classic sprite based 2D mascot platforming games.<|ASPECTS|>cat, 2d platformers, slow descent, character options, mascot characters, peaked, 3d jumping mechanics, bogging, worse time, variety, music, mascot platforming, secret paths, art style, crisp definition, multi, busier, terrible, unattractive, blocky, muddier, losing momentum<|CONCLUSION|>","Super Mario World is the best Mario game the only arguable rival for this is Super Mario Bros. 3, and I think the larger levels and secret paths in SMW put it over the top from a design perspective, while the improved color palette brought Mario to live in a way that still stands up today, unlike the later 3D revisions which tend to look blocky and unattractive by modern standards. Sonic has had an even worse time post Genesis, but the series peaked much earlier, with Sonic 2. The music was better, the addition of the spin dash solved a major problem with losing momentum that was present in the first game, and again, the larger, multi path level design was perfected in Sonic 2. A single sidekick character, present for the new 2 player co op race modes, added some variety without diluting the franchise. The 3D Sonic games would later destroy this balance with a cavalcade of terrible mascot characters, marring otherwise acceptable games like Sonic Adventure with levels that force you to play as a giant cat fisherman. But back to the other 2D Sonic games Sonic 3 altered the art style of the sprites somewhat, making for a muddier, busier look that made some of the levels hard to look at for me. It lacked the crisp definition of Sonic 2. Sonic and Knuckles was more of the same, and began the process of bogging down the series with additional character options. In short, I think that platformers in general were perfected in the 16 bit era, and have been on a long, slow descent since that time as developers tried to translate the concept into 3 dimesions, resulting in frustrating 3D jumping mechanics and gimmicky features Mario's giant water gun, Sonic's homing dash, etc. It's nice to see a return to 2D platformers among indie developers Shantae, Hollow Knight, Super Meat Boy, et. al. , but I'd really like to see Nintendo and Sega return to classic sprite based 2D mascot platforming games.",Both Sonic and Mario peaked in the 90's
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Preface A common response is then the rich will just vote to advance their own interests. My response is that those with advanced degrees overwhelmingly voted for Clinton 20 30 margin despite the fact that Clinton would raise their taxes. Those who were uneducated voted for the tangerine nightmare. Preface 2 This isn't what we should do or what is fair, or what is just. My view is merely we would be better off in terms of the tangible gains. It doesn't matter if you are left or right, we just elected a guy who says vaccines cause autism, global warming is a liberal conspiracy and whose VP says smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Even if you are on the right, there is no denying that this guy is a complete moron or at the very least, stands for way too many things that are objectively moronic. We elected these two because voters think NAFTA took our jobs away. 99.9 of economists know that to be false. We elected these two because people are worried about millions of immigrants poring over our boarder. Net immigration has been essentially zero from Mexico since 2008. We elected these two because people think climate change is a liberal conspiracy. 99.9 of climate scientists know this is false. People are too stupid to vote in an informed manner. They can't calculate two percent of a hundred, name the VP, name the 3 branches of gov, tell you the impact of NAFTA, tell you if CH4 is a greenhouse gas. Leaving issues of fairness aside and just looking at the tangible impact, we would be better off if only the smart and highly educated voted. I'm not talking about some C average party school college grad, I'm talking elite college, grad school, or someone without a college degree who is very smart and self educated.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Preface A common response is then the rich will just vote to advance their own interests. My response is that those with advanced degrees overwhelmingly voted for Clinton 20 30 margin despite the fact that Clinton would raise their taxes. Those who were uneducated voted for the tangerine nightmare. Preface 2 This isn't what we should do or what is fair, or what is just. My view is merely we would be better off in terms of the tangible gains. It doesn't matter if you are left or right, we just elected a guy who says vaccines cause autism, global warming is a liberal conspiracy and whose VP says smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Even if you are on the right, there is no denying that this guy is a complete moron or at the very least, stands for way too many things that are objectively moronic. We elected these two because voters think NAFTA took our jobs away. 99.9 of economists know that to be false. We elected these two because people are worried about millions of immigrants poring over our boarder. Net immigration has been essentially zero from Mexico since 2008. We elected these two because people think climate change is a liberal conspiracy. 99.9 of climate scientists know this is false. People are too stupid to vote in an informed manner. They can't calculate two percent of a hundred, name the VP, name the 3 branches of gov, tell you the impact of NAFTA, tell you if CH4 is a greenhouse gas. Leaving issues of fairness aside and just looking at the tangible impact, we would be better off if only the smart and highly educated voted. I'm not talking about some C average party school college grad, I'm talking elite college, grad school, or someone without a college degree who is very smart and self educated.<|TARGETS|>Leaving issues of fairness aside and just looking at the tangible impact, Preface, to advance their own interests ., not talking about some C average party school college grad, NAFTA, denying that this guy is a complete moron or at the very least<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Preface A common response is then the rich will just vote to advance their own interests. My response is that those with advanced degrees overwhelmingly voted for Clinton 20 30 margin despite the fact that Clinton would raise their taxes. Those who were uneducated voted for the tangerine nightmare. Preface 2 This isn't what we should do or what is fair, or what is just. My view is merely we would be better off in terms of the tangible gains. It doesn't matter if you are left or right, we just elected a guy who says vaccines cause autism, global warming is a liberal conspiracy and whose VP says smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Even if you are on the right, there is no denying that this guy is a complete moron or at the very least, stands for way too many things that are objectively moronic. We elected these two because voters think NAFTA took our jobs away. 99.9 of economists know that to be false. We elected these two because people are worried about millions of immigrants poring over our boarder. Net immigration has been essentially zero from Mexico since 2008. We elected these two because people think climate change is a liberal conspiracy. 99.9 of climate scientists know this is false. People are too stupid to vote in an informed manner. They can't calculate two percent of a hundred, name the VP, name the 3 branches of gov, tell you the impact of NAFTA, tell you if CH4 is a greenhouse gas. Leaving issues of fairness aside and just looking at the tangible impact, we would be better off if only the smart and highly educated voted. I'm not talking about some C average party school college grad, I'm talking elite college, grad school, or someone without a college degree who is very smart and self educated.<|ASPECTS|>worried, millions, immigrants, informed manner, liberal, greenhouse gas, advanced degrees, elite, climate scientists, lung cancer, moron, autism, fair, zero, tangerine nightmare, advance, moronic, uneducated, fairness, highly educated, climate change, smart, stupid, net immigration, liberal conspiracy, global warming, interests, voted, rich, tangible gains, raise their taxes, false, took our jobs, impact, vote, self educated<|CONCLUSION|>","Preface A common response is then the rich will just vote to advance their own interests. My response is that those with advanced degrees overwhelmingly voted for Clinton 20 30 margin despite the fact that Clinton would raise their taxes. Those who were uneducated voted for the tangerine nightmare. Preface 2 This isn't what we should do or what is fair, or what is just. My view is merely we would be better off in terms of the tangible gains. It doesn't matter if you are left or right, we just elected a guy who says vaccines cause autism, global warming is a liberal conspiracy and whose VP says smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Even if you are on the right, there is no denying that this guy is a complete moron or at the very least, stands for way too many things that are objectively moronic. We elected these two because voters think NAFTA took our jobs away. 99.9 of economists know that to be false. We elected these two because people are worried about millions of immigrants poring over our boarder. Net immigration has been essentially zero from Mexico since 2008. We elected these two because people think climate change is a liberal conspiracy. 99.9 of climate scientists know this is false. People are too stupid to vote in an informed manner. They can't calculate two percent of a hundred, name the VP, name the 3 branches of gov, tell you the impact of NAFTA, tell you if CH4 is a greenhouse gas. Leaving issues of fairness aside and just looking at the tangible impact, we would be better off if only the smart and highly educated voted. I'm not talking about some C average party school college grad, I'm talking elite college, grad school, or someone without a college degree who is very smart and self educated.","America would be better off, at least by tangible measures, if we agreed to restrict the right to vote to the smart and highly educated."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Soundtrack for this CMV post EDIT Please do not downvote CMV posts. If you disagree with the premise of the belief, you are free to respond in the comments and explain your opinion. Most societies throughout history have had histories of racism and cultural marginalisation of minorities. The tribalism of seeing people who look different than us as being an 'other' has strong evolutionary and cultural roots. So, it makes sense that in our modern societies, with fairly recent examples of incredible marginalisation slavery, in the US, for example, or the marginalization of aboriginals in Canada that these pervasive undertones still live on. Luckily, we have had tremendous amount of progress, but while there are people who like to dismiss racism and claim the majority of it is 'over', that is unfortunately far from the case. The word 'racist' drags behind it a huge negative stigma. I think that is unfortunate, as people are unwilling to admit to racism out of fear of being labeled a 'racist' which is the societal equivalent of the boogeyman especially among people who like to think of themselves as 'progressive', 'liberal', or 'open minded'. So instead of owning up to what our behaviors are, we try to think of other words to describe them, or try to logically justify them, or underplay them. For example, it's hard to admit to the racism which we think isn't overt It's not like we're doing hate crimes or overtly malicious. Things that are more in our subconscious, but are still racism. like not being attracted to certain races, etc Especially when we live in a diverse society, and interact with people of many other races, have diverse friends, it's easy to think Hey I'm not racist . But it's the deeper subconscious biases that we don't acknowledge that are racist, too. Afterall, admitting it is not an easy thing to do But the fact is, everyone's a little bit racist. Queue song<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Soundtrack for this CMV post EDIT Please do not downvote CMV posts. If you disagree with the premise of the belief, you are free to respond in the comments and explain your opinion. Most societies throughout history have had histories of racism and cultural marginalisation of minorities. The tribalism of seeing people who look different than us as being an 'other' has strong evolutionary and cultural roots. So, it makes sense that in our modern societies, with fairly recent examples of incredible marginalisation slavery, in the US, for example, or the marginalization of aboriginals in Canada that these pervasive undertones still live on. Luckily, we have had tremendous amount of progress, but while there are people who like to dismiss racism and claim the majority of it is 'over', that is unfortunately far from the case. The word 'racist' drags behind it a huge negative stigma. I think that is unfortunate, as people are unwilling to admit to racism out of fear of being labeled a 'racist' which is the societal equivalent of the boogeyman especially among people who like to think of themselves as 'progressive', 'liberal', or 'open minded'. So instead of owning up to what our behaviors are, we try to think of other words to describe them, or try to logically justify them, or underplay them. For example, it's hard to admit to the racism which we think isn't overt It's not like we're doing hate crimes or overtly malicious. Things that are more in our subconscious, but are still racism. like not being attracted to certain races, etc Especially when we live in a diverse society, and interact with people of many other races, have diverse friends, it's easy to think Hey I'm not racist . But it's the deeper subconscious biases that we don't acknowledge that are racist, too. Afterall, admitting it is not an easy thing to do But the fact is, everyone's a little bit racist. Queue song<|TARGETS|>to admit to the racism which we think is n't overt It 's not like we 're doing hate crimes or overtly malicious ., owning up to what our behaviors, the marginalization of aboriginals in Canada that these pervasive undertones, to dismiss racism and claim the majority of it, Queue song, to think of other words to describe them or try to logically justify them or underplay them .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Soundtrack for this CMV post EDIT Please do not downvote CMV posts. If you disagree with the premise of the belief, you are free to respond in the comments and explain your opinion. Most societies throughout history have had histories of racism and cultural marginalisation of minorities. The tribalism of seeing people who look different than us as being an 'other' has strong evolutionary and cultural roots. So, it makes sense that in our modern societies, with fairly recent examples of incredible marginalisation slavery, in the US, for example, or the marginalization of aboriginals in Canada that these pervasive undertones still live on. Luckily, we have had tremendous amount of progress, but while there are people who like to dismiss racism and claim the majority of it is 'over', that is unfortunately far from the case. The word 'racist' drags behind it a huge negative stigma. I think that is unfortunate, as people are unwilling to admit to racism out of fear of being labeled a 'racist' which is the societal equivalent of the boogeyman especially among people who like to think of themselves as 'progressive', 'liberal', or 'open minded'. So instead of owning up to what our behaviors are, we try to think of other words to describe them, or try to logically justify them, or underplay them. For example, it's hard to admit to the racism which we think isn't overt It's not like we're doing hate crimes or overtly malicious. Things that are more in our subconscious, but are still racism. like not being attracted to certain races, etc Especially when we live in a diverse society, and interact with people of many other races, have diverse friends, it's easy to think Hey I'm not racist . But it's the deeper subconscious biases that we don't acknowledge that are racist, too. Afterall, admitting it is not an easy thing to do But the fact is, everyone's a little bit racist. Queue song<|ASPECTS|>attracted, cultural marginalisation of minorities, marginalization of aboriginals, evolutionary and cultural roots, logically justify, subconscious biases, malicious, marginalisation slavery, races, diverse society, diverse friends, histories, negative stigma, hate crimes, premise, racist, downvote, racism, opinion, tribalism, posts, progress, behaviors<|CONCLUSION|>","Soundtrack for this  post EDIT Please do not downvote  posts. If you disagree with the premise of the belief, you are free to respond in the comments and explain your opinion. Most societies throughout history have had histories of racism and cultural marginalisation of minorities. The tribalism of seeing people who look different than us as being an 'other' has strong evolutionary and cultural roots. So, it makes sense that in our modern societies, with fairly recent examples of incredible marginalisation slavery, in the US, for example, or the marginalization of aboriginals in Canada that these pervasive undertones still live on. Luckily, we have had tremendous amount of progress, but while there are people who like to dismiss racism and claim the majority of it is 'over', that is unfortunately far from the case. The word 'racist' drags behind it a huge negative stigma. I think that is unfortunate, as people are unwilling to admit to racism out of fear of being labeled a 'racist' which is the societal equivalent of the boogeyman especially among people who like to think of themselves as 'progressive', 'liberal', or 'open minded'. So instead of owning up to what our behaviors are, we try to think of other words to describe them, or try to logically justify them, or underplay them. For example, it's hard to admit to the racism which we think isn't overt It's not like we're doing hate crimes or overtly malicious. Things that are more in our subconscious, but are still racism. like not being attracted to certain races, etc Especially when we live in a diverse society, and interact with people of many other races, have diverse friends, it's easy to think Hey I'm not racist . But it's the deeper subconscious biases that we don't acknowledge that are racist, too. Afterall, admitting it is not an easy thing to do But the fact is, everyone's a little bit racist. Queue song",Everyone's a little bit racist.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This view will be broken down into a few main points Lack of Training, Corruption, Abuse of Power, and conclude with Overall Role of the President. Lack of Training The primary and most notable is that the President doesn't need any no formal training or experience with the Army. Now it may be true that the brunt of the responsibility for this is in the hands of the Generals but the fact that a no experience individual gets such influence on the behavior of the largest army on the planet, is just absurd. The president can go against the council of those generals and against the council of the CIA which has been seen many times in the last few decades. Corruption Having a single person with this much power over the army lends itself to corruption either from the outside or even worse, corruption from that individual who would use the army for personal reasons. For example, George Bush 2nd invaded Iraq in part due to the fact that Osama Bin Laden had attempted to kill George's dad in the past. He made the move with the army against the recommendation of the CIA who said the attacks came from Saudi Arabia, to get the man who hated his daddy. Abuse of Power It is frankly idiotic that the person in control of the army, can use that as a resource to gain 'Emergency Powers'. This is just a perfectly exploitable glitch in the system. This is made especally potent when you take into account that the president for some reason doesn't need permission from congress to go to war, invade another country, or deploy the military any way they choose. The president also can abuse their power to get money that could circumvent the power of congress, allowing this one person to circumvent many powers of the legislative branch, and judicial branch goodbye checks and balances. This still occurs through documented selling of firearms over seas after a 'totally legit invasion' of panama, iraq, or wherever else. Overall Role of the President The president is a figure head more than anything, cluttering the role of the president with control over the armed forces just adds unnecessary strain to the role of the president who should focus on being Head of State and communication with the public, not foreign affairs, the state of the army, or anything of the sort. Conclusion So what should the president be of not commander in chief? What the president is now Head of State and Head of Government. I see no issue with having the elected office of the president simply being a figurehead role, and having commander in chief be a separate role chosen either by the president or through a panel with The Generals of the Army. Many people say the president actually has less power than people think, and this is true because many people think the president controls legislation, which they do not. But the president does have more power than a single individual in a balanced government should have power of the army, power of uncontested 'emergency powers', and a nigh endless amount of unbounded cash to use globally. To CMV I must see a reasonable argument as to why each of these is wrong because if even one of them stands it is a legitimate reason to remove the Commander in Chief title from the Presidency. or You must show a reason why transferring the role to a separate person or to the army leaders as a group, would be a worse alternative than its current state.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This view will be broken down into a few main points Lack of Training, Corruption, Abuse of Power, and conclude with Overall Role of the President. Lack of Training The primary and most notable is that the President doesn't need any no formal training or experience with the Army. Now it may be true that the brunt of the responsibility for this is in the hands of the Generals but the fact that a no experience individual gets such influence on the behavior of the largest army on the planet, is just absurd. The president can go against the council of those generals and against the council of the CIA which has been seen many times in the last few decades. Corruption Having a single person with this much power over the army lends itself to corruption either from the outside or even worse, corruption from that individual who would use the army for personal reasons. For example, George Bush 2nd invaded Iraq in part due to the fact that Osama Bin Laden had attempted to kill George's dad in the past. He made the move with the army against the recommendation of the CIA who said the attacks came from Saudi Arabia, to get the man who hated his daddy. Abuse of Power It is frankly idiotic that the person in control of the army, can use that as a resource to gain 'Emergency Powers'. This is just a perfectly exploitable glitch in the system. This is made especally potent when you take into account that the president for some reason doesn't need permission from congress to go to war, invade another country, or deploy the military any way they choose. The president also can abuse their power to get money that could circumvent the power of congress, allowing this one person to circumvent many powers of the legislative branch, and judicial branch goodbye checks and balances. This still occurs through documented selling of firearms over seas after a 'totally legit invasion' of panama, iraq, or wherever else. Overall Role of the President The president is a figure head more than anything, cluttering the role of the president with control over the armed forces just adds unnecessary strain to the role of the president who should focus on being Head of State and communication with the public, not foreign affairs, the state of the army, or anything of the sort. Conclusion So what should the president be of not commander in chief? What the president is now Head of State and Head of Government. I see no issue with having the elected office of the president simply being a figurehead role, and having commander in chief be a separate role chosen either by the president or through a panel with The Generals of the Army. Many people say the president actually has less power than people think, and this is true because many people think the president controls legislation, which they do not. But the president does have more power than a single individual in a balanced government should have power of the army, power of uncontested 'emergency powers', and a nigh endless amount of unbounded cash to use globally. To CMV I must see a reasonable argument as to why each of these is wrong because if even one of them stands it is a legitimate reason to remove the Commander in Chief title from the Presidency. or You must show a reason why transferring the role to a separate person or to the army leaders as a group, would be a worse alternative than its current state.<|TARGETS|>the president controls legislation, cluttering the role of the president with control over the armed forces, allowing this one person to circumvent many powers of the legislative branch, Saudi Arabia, Osama Bin Laden, a no experience individual gets such influence on the behavior of the largest army on the planet<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This view will be broken down into a few main points Lack of Training, Corruption, Abuse of Power, and conclude with Overall Role of the President. Lack of Training The primary and most notable is that the President doesn't need any no formal training or experience with the Army. Now it may be true that the brunt of the responsibility for this is in the hands of the Generals but the fact that a no experience individual gets such influence on the behavior of the largest army on the planet, is just absurd. The president can go against the council of those generals and against the council of the CIA which has been seen many times in the last few decades. Corruption Having a single person with this much power over the army lends itself to corruption either from the outside or even worse, corruption from that individual who would use the army for personal reasons. For example, George Bush 2nd invaded Iraq in part due to the fact that Osama Bin Laden had attempted to kill George's dad in the past. He made the move with the army against the recommendation of the CIA who said the attacks came from Saudi Arabia, to get the man who hated his daddy. Abuse of Power It is frankly idiotic that the person in control of the army, can use that as a resource to gain 'Emergency Powers'. This is just a perfectly exploitable glitch in the system. This is made especally potent when you take into account that the president for some reason doesn't need permission from congress to go to war, invade another country, or deploy the military any way they choose. The president also can abuse their power to get money that could circumvent the power of congress, allowing this one person to circumvent many powers of the legislative branch, and judicial branch goodbye checks and balances. This still occurs through documented selling of firearms over seas after a 'totally legit invasion' of panama, iraq, or wherever else. Overall Role of the President The president is a figure head more than anything, cluttering the role of the president with control over the armed forces just adds unnecessary strain to the role of the president who should focus on being Head of State and communication with the public, not foreign affairs, the state of the army, or anything of the sort. Conclusion So what should the president be of not commander in chief? What the president is now Head of State and Head of Government. I see no issue with having the elected office of the president simply being a figurehead role, and having commander in chief be a separate role chosen either by the president or through a panel with The Generals of the Army. Many people say the president actually has less power than people think, and this is true because many people think the president controls legislation, which they do not. But the president does have more power than a single individual in a balanced government should have power of the army, power of uncontested 'emergency powers', and a nigh endless amount of unbounded cash to use globally. To CMV I must see a reasonable argument as to why each of these is wrong because if even one of them stands it is a legitimate reason to remove the Commander in Chief title from the Presidency. or You must show a reason why transferring the role to a separate person or to the army leaders as a group, would be a worse alternative than its current state.<|ASPECTS|>, formal training, attacks, power of congress, invade another country, less power, power of the army, selling of firearms, lack of training, head of state, overall, get money, corruption, kill, lack, conclusion, permission, experience, invasion, hated his daddy, controls legislation, role of the president, role, behavior, head of government, influence, power, legitimate, exploitable glitch, training, president, council, unbounded cash, abuse of power, figurehead role, separate, powers, iraq, deploy, unnecessary strain, responsibility, worse alternative, abuse, commander<|CONCLUSION|>","This view will be broken down into a few main points Lack of Training, Corruption, Abuse of Power, and conclude with Overall Role of the President. Lack of Training The primary and most notable is that the President doesn't need any no formal training or experience with the Army. Now it may be true that the brunt of the responsibility for this is in the hands of the Generals but the fact that a no experience individual gets such influence on the behavior of the largest army on the planet, is just absurd. The president can go against the council of those generals and against the council of the CIA which has been seen many times in the last few decades. Corruption Having a single person with this much power over the army lends itself to corruption either from the outside or even worse, corruption from that individual who would use the army for personal reasons. For example, George Bush 2nd invaded Iraq in part due to the fact that Osama Bin Laden had attempted to kill George's dad in the past. He made the move with the army against the recommendation of the CIA who said the attacks came from Saudi Arabia, to get the man who hated his daddy. Abuse of Power It is frankly idiotic that the person in control of the army, can use that as a resource to gain 'Emergency Powers'. This is just a perfectly exploitable glitch in the system. This is made especally potent when you take into account that the president for some reason doesn't need permission from congress to go to war, invade another country, or deploy the military any way they choose. The president also can abuse their power to get money that could circumvent the power of congress, allowing this one person to circumvent many powers of the legislative branch, and judicial branch goodbye checks and balances. This still occurs through documented selling of firearms over seas after a 'totally legit invasion' of panama, iraq, or wherever else. Overall Role of the President The president is a figure head more than anything, cluttering the role of the president with control over the armed forces just adds unnecessary strain to the role of the president who should focus on being Head of State and communication with the public, not foreign affairs, the state of the army, or anything of the sort. Conclusion So what should the president be of not commander in chief? What the president is now Head of State and Head of Government. I see no issue with having the elected office of the president simply being a figurehead role, and having commander in chief be a separate role chosen either by the president or through a panel with The Generals of the Army. Many people say the president actually has less power than people think, and this is true because many people think the president controls legislation, which they do not. But the president does have more power than a single individual in a balanced government should have power of the army, power of uncontested 'emergency powers', and a nigh endless amount of unbounded cash to use globally. To  I must see a reasonable argument as to why each of these is wrong because if even one of them stands it is a legitimate reason to remove the Commander in Chief title from the Presidency. or You must show a reason why transferring the role to a separate person or to the army leaders as a group, would be a worse alternative than its current state.",The President of the US should not be in charge of the military.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For those unfamiliar, here is a link ONW was a proposed false flag to incite war with Cuba. This plan was proposed in the early 60's. Think about it. A plane, remote controlled and flown over Neutral Territory and then shot down by the US disguised as Cubans. The investigators would find pieces of parachutes and ID of the people who were allegedly in the plane. This, of course, would take place after a series of attacks caused by Cubans of course also staged by the government and a bunch of anti cuban propaganda. The three points to debate are People would uncover most of the story either through whistle blowers or from evidence and connecting the dots. Most people would not believe these crazy stories. The story itself would not be revealed to the general public. There would be no official story saying that operation North woods was a false flag. I know, its totally hypothetical, but it is fascinating to think about EDIT added link<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For those unfamiliar, here is a link ONW was a proposed false flag to incite war with Cuba. This plan was proposed in the early 60's. Think about it. A plane, remote controlled and flown over Neutral Territory and then shot down by the US disguised as Cubans. The investigators would find pieces of parachutes and ID of the people who were allegedly in the plane. This, of course, would take place after a series of attacks caused by Cubans of course also staged by the government and a bunch of anti cuban propaganda. The three points to debate are People would uncover most of the story either through whistle blowers or from evidence and connecting the dots. Most people would not believe these crazy stories. The story itself would not be revealed to the general public. There would be no official story saying that operation North woods was a false flag. I know, its totally hypothetical, but it is fascinating to think about EDIT added link<|TARGETS|>that operation North woods, The three points to debate, This plan, The investigators, The story itself, a series of attacks caused by Cubans of course also staged by the government and a bunch of anti cuban propaganda<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For those unfamiliar, here is a link ONW was a proposed false flag to incite war with Cuba. This plan was proposed in the early 60's. Think about it. A plane, remote controlled and flown over Neutral Territory and then shot down by the US disguised as Cubans. The investigators would find pieces of parachutes and ID of the people who were allegedly in the plane. This, of course, would take place after a series of attacks caused by Cubans of course also staged by the government and a bunch of anti cuban propaganda. The three points to debate are People would uncover most of the story either through whistle blowers or from evidence and connecting the dots. Most people would not believe these crazy stories. The story itself would not be revealed to the general public. There would be no official story saying that operation North woods was a false flag. I know, its totally hypothetical, but it is fascinating to think about EDIT added link<|ASPECTS|>incite, story, whistle, public, evidence, attacks, anti cuban, parachutes, revealed, connecting the dots, uncover, war with cuba, neutral territory, crazy stories, edit, false flag, id, fascinating, hypothetical<|CONCLUSION|>","For those unfamiliar, here is a link ONW was a proposed false flag to incite war with Cuba. This plan was proposed in the early 60's. Think about it. A plane, remote controlled and flown over Neutral Territory and then shot down by the US disguised as Cubans. The investigators would find pieces of parachutes and ID of the people who were allegedly in the plane. This, of course, would take place after a series of attacks caused by Cubans of course also staged by the government and a bunch of anti cuban propaganda. The three points to debate are People would uncover most of the story either through whistle blowers or from evidence and connecting the dots. Most people would not believe these crazy stories. The story itself would not be revealed to the general public. There would be no official story saying that operation North woods was a false flag. I know, its totally hypothetical, but it is fascinating to think about EDIT added link","If operation Northwoods actually happened, no one would believe the ""conspiracy theorists"" who would actually be correct this time."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When trying to define ourselves, we will probably name a bunch of traits characteristics like our age, race, gender, profession, possessions, thoughts, emotions, history, accomplishments, etc But everything physical is transient in nature constantly changing. So what can we really take credit for, and identify as? What do we really have as our own? What really are we? It seems we are what we're choosing to do We are only our conscious thoughts, decisions, and actions. But I'm open to changing my view<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When trying to define ourselves, we will probably name a bunch of traits characteristics like our age, race, gender, profession, possessions, thoughts, emotions, history, accomplishments, etc But everything physical is transient in nature constantly changing. So what can we really take credit for, and identify as? What do we really have as our own? What really are we? It seems we are what we're choosing to do We are only our conscious thoughts, decisions, and actions. But I'm open to changing my view<|TARGETS|>open to changing my view, our conscious thoughts decisions and actions ., When trying to define ourselves we will probably name a bunch of traits characteristics like our age race gender profession possessions thoughts emotions history accomplishments etc But everything physical is transient in nature constantly changing .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When trying to define ourselves, we will probably name a bunch of traits characteristics like our age, race, gender, profession, possessions, thoughts, emotions, history, accomplishments, etc But everything physical is transient in nature constantly changing. So what can we really take credit for, and identify as? What do we really have as our own? What really are we? It seems we are what we're choosing to do We are only our conscious thoughts, decisions, and actions. But I'm open to changing my view<|ASPECTS|>decisions, transient, conscious thoughts, changing, credit, actions, identify, traits<|CONCLUSION|>","When trying to define ourselves, we will probably name a bunch of traits characteristics like our age, race, gender, profession, possessions, thoughts, emotions, history, accomplishments, etc But everything physical is transient in nature constantly changing. So what can we really take credit for, and identify as? What do we really have as our own? What really are we? It seems we are what we're choosing to do We are only our conscious thoughts, decisions, and actions. But I'm open to changing my view","Since everything physical is transient, we are only our conscious thoughts, decisions, and actions"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As an intactivist sympathizer I do not support neonatal circumcisions at all the only exceptions to this are when a baby provably has a foreskin infection that circumcision can prevent. But absolutely no government money can go towards circumcisions. All neonatal circumcisions, or circumcisions given to anyone under 18 who cannot give informed consent , must receive no public funding and should be fully fronted by the requesting parent s or a charity as long as that charity is not funded by the government . Medicaid, medicare etc absolutely none of these services should fund circumcisions unless there is provably an infection that has or will occur in the baby that a circumcision is sure to prevent. If you think that circumcision is so great that you are willing to do it to a baby incapable of giving consent, then you should be willing to pay for it an unwillingness to pay for it is an appalling contradiction in this regard. I think it would be very telling if, after this were to be hypothetically instituted, circumcision rates in states that cover circumcision would fall. To make this debate flow easier, I will say that you can boil my view down to neonatal circumcision, outside of special cases, is not medically valuable enough that it should be covered by government subsidies . CMV EDIT To add in, I will expand it to include any major medical issues with the penis that may be resolved by circumcision. So developmental, infectious, long term issues etc EDIT 2 Since charities are tax exempt, I'll exclude any tax exempt groups from the criteria<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As an intactivist sympathizer I do not support neonatal circumcisions at all the only exceptions to this are when a baby provably has a foreskin infection that circumcision can prevent. But absolutely no government money can go towards circumcisions. All neonatal circumcisions, or circumcisions given to anyone under 18 who cannot give informed consent , must receive no public funding and should be fully fronted by the requesting parent s or a charity as long as that charity is not funded by the government . Medicaid, medicare etc absolutely none of these services should fund circumcisions unless there is provably an infection that has or will occur in the baby that a circumcision is sure to prevent. If you think that circumcision is so great that you are willing to do it to a baby incapable of giving consent, then you should be willing to pay for it an unwillingness to pay for it is an appalling contradiction in this regard. I think it would be very telling if, after this were to be hypothetically instituted, circumcision rates in states that cover circumcision would fall. To make this debate flow easier, I will say that you can boil my view down to neonatal circumcision, outside of special cases, is not medically valuable enough that it should be covered by government subsidies . CMV EDIT To add in, I will expand it to include any major medical issues with the penis that may be resolved by circumcision. So developmental, infectious, long term issues etc EDIT 2 Since charities are tax exempt, I'll exclude any tax exempt groups from the criteria<|TARGETS|>All neonatal circumcisions, to pay for it an unwillingness to pay for it, To make this debate flow, to do it to a baby incapable of giving consent, Medicaid, this were to be hypothetically instituted circumcision rates in states that cover circumcision<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As an intactivist sympathizer I do not support neonatal circumcisions at all the only exceptions to this are when a baby provably has a foreskin infection that circumcision can prevent. But absolutely no government money can go towards circumcisions. All neonatal circumcisions, or circumcisions given to anyone under 18 who cannot give informed consent , must receive no public funding and should be fully fronted by the requesting parent s or a charity as long as that charity is not funded by the government . Medicaid, medicare etc absolutely none of these services should fund circumcisions unless there is provably an infection that has or will occur in the baby that a circumcision is sure to prevent. If you think that circumcision is so great that you are willing to do it to a baby incapable of giving consent, then you should be willing to pay for it an unwillingness to pay for it is an appalling contradiction in this regard. I think it would be very telling if, after this were to be hypothetically instituted, circumcision rates in states that cover circumcision would fall. To make this debate flow easier, I will say that you can boil my view down to neonatal circumcision, outside of special cases, is not medically valuable enough that it should be covered by government subsidies . CMV EDIT To add in, I will expand it to include any major medical issues with the penis that may be resolved by circumcision. So developmental, infectious, long term issues etc EDIT 2 Since charities are tax exempt, I'll exclude any tax exempt groups from the criteria<|ASPECTS|>contradiction, intactivist sympathizer, government money, funded, incapable, government subsidies, fronted, circumcision, medical issues, developmental, unwillingness, infection, circumcision rates, infectious, medically valuable, tax exempt, public funding, tax exempt groups, long, fund, circumcisions<|CONCLUSION|>","As an intactivist sympathizer I do not support neonatal circumcisions at all the only exceptions to this are when a baby provably has a foreskin infection that circumcision can prevent. But absolutely no government money can go towards circumcisions. All neonatal circumcisions, or circumcisions given to anyone under 18 who cannot give informed consent , must receive no public funding and should be fully fronted by the requesting parent s or a charity as long as that charity is not funded by the government . Medicaid, medicare etc absolutely none of these services should fund circumcisions unless there is provably an infection that has or will occur in the baby that a circumcision is sure to prevent. If you think that circumcision is so great that you are willing to do it to a baby incapable of giving consent, then you should be willing to pay for it an unwillingness to pay for it is an appalling contradiction in this regard. I think it would be very telling if, after this were to be hypothetically instituted, circumcision rates in states that cover circumcision would fall. To make this debate flow easier, I will say that you can boil my view down to neonatal circumcision, outside of special cases, is not medically valuable enough that it should be covered by government subsidies .  EDIT To add in, I will expand it to include any major medical issues with the penis that may be resolved by circumcision. So developmental, infectious, long term issues etc EDIT 2 Since charities are tax exempt, I'll exclude any tax exempt groups from the criteria",All public funding for neonatal circumcision should cease
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start, I'm Canadian and this stuff doesn't affect me directly so maybe I'm just missing something here. I usually fall under the Democrat Liberal Socialist umbrella and my views generally align with theirs. Recently though I can't comprehend the stupidity coming out of US democratic congress members' mouths. If they succeed in starting impeachment proceedings in the house, which would likely be simple enough considering it just requires a simple majority which they'll have next month, it would then have to go through the Senate where it needs 66 votes, and I don't think they can get anywhere close to the Republican votes required anytime soon. The lame duck Republican power grabs in NC and Wisconsin really drives this point home, and to me, it shows that Republicans are desperately holding on til the bitter end. It's very unlikely that the GOP will have a crisis of identity and wake up while Trump is still in office. Anyways, let's say they do somehow have the Senate votes, and Trump is impeached we are left with Mike Pence, who's first action after taking the oath would almost certainly be a full pardon for Donald Trump and his family so that america can heal and move on . Mike Pence is definitely worse than Trump for Democrats and the liberal agenda, especially when it comes to social issues and women's health. At the same time, he will undoubtedly have more credibility and self control than Trump. There will be no unhinged twitter rants, no hush payments, and the only scandals in the media would revolve around his extreme religious views, his policies that will mirror those views, and any executive order he signs. Shit would get real serious, real fast. The GOP will then have almost 2 years to distance themselves from Trump, which would improve their chances in 2020 drastically. Now let's go through what would happen if impeachment fails in the Senate. it would galvanize Trump's base, and further, validate their claims of a witch hunt. It would be a huge win for all of them. it would be an even bigger loss for Democrats because impeachment is the most grandiose weapon in their arsenal. Donald Trump will feel vindicated and empowered. He might be more inclined to take increasingly drastic actions, like ending the special counsel investigation. it might make it harder for any other GOP candidate to go against him in 2020 the country will be even more divided Am I missing something? To me the only logical action for Democrats to take, is to shut the fuck up about impeachment, cut down the number of candidates who will run in 2020 which will probably be the most diluted shitshow of a DNC primary pool in recent history focus on and build a more concrete agenda, stop with the grandstanding political theater bullshit,keep their heads up and don't stoop to the GOPs level looking at you Maxine Waters , and do everything possible to vote him out in 2020. It is the only path I see towards him potentially being held accountable for his actions and the damage he's caused to your country, because of this 5 year statute of limitations shit that he wouldn't have to deal with if he gets re elected, and because of the guaranteed pardon he would receive if he's impeached or forced to resign. So yeah other than the fact that it would probably feel really good for a while to see Trump kicked out or forced to resign, is there any valid argument that shows impeachment as a smart viable option? I want to believe, I really do. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start, I'm Canadian and this stuff doesn't affect me directly so maybe I'm just missing something here. I usually fall under the Democrat Liberal Socialist umbrella and my views generally align with theirs. Recently though I can't comprehend the stupidity coming out of US democratic congress members' mouths. If they succeed in starting impeachment proceedings in the house, which would likely be simple enough considering it just requires a simple majority which they'll have next month, it would then have to go through the Senate where it needs 66 votes, and I don't think they can get anywhere close to the Republican votes required anytime soon. The lame duck Republican power grabs in NC and Wisconsin really drives this point home, and to me, it shows that Republicans are desperately holding on til the bitter end. It's very unlikely that the GOP will have a crisis of identity and wake up while Trump is still in office. Anyways, let's say they do somehow have the Senate votes, and Trump is impeached we are left with Mike Pence, who's first action after taking the oath would almost certainly be a full pardon for Donald Trump and his family so that america can heal and move on . Mike Pence is definitely worse than Trump for Democrats and the liberal agenda, especially when it comes to social issues and women's health. At the same time, he will undoubtedly have more credibility and self control than Trump. There will be no unhinged twitter rants, no hush payments, and the only scandals in the media would revolve around his extreme religious views, his policies that will mirror those views, and any executive order he signs. Shit would get real serious, real fast. The GOP will then have almost 2 years to distance themselves from Trump, which would improve their chances in 2020 drastically. Now let's go through what would happen if impeachment fails in the Senate. it would galvanize Trump's base, and further, validate their claims of a witch hunt. It would be a huge win for all of them. it would be an even bigger loss for Democrats because impeachment is the most grandiose weapon in their arsenal. Donald Trump will feel vindicated and empowered. He might be more inclined to take increasingly drastic actions, like ending the special counsel investigation. it might make it harder for any other GOP candidate to go against him in 2020 the country will be even more divided Am I missing something? To me the only logical action for Democrats to take, is to shut the fuck up about impeachment, cut down the number of candidates who will run in 2020 which will probably be the most diluted shitshow of a DNC primary pool in recent history focus on and build a more concrete agenda, stop with the grandstanding political theater bullshit,keep their heads up and don't stoop to the GOPs level looking at you Maxine Waters , and do everything possible to vote him out in 2020. It is the only path I see towards him potentially being held accountable for his actions and the damage he's caused to your country, because of this 5 year statute of limitations shit that he wouldn't have to deal with if he gets re elected, and because of the guaranteed pardon he would receive if he's impeached or forced to resign. So yeah other than the fact that it would probably feel really good for a while to see Trump kicked out or forced to resign, is there any valid argument that shows impeachment as a smart viable option? I want to believe, I really do. <|TARGETS|>Mike Pence, To me the only logical action for Democrats to take, Donald Trump, The lame duck Republican power grabs in NC and Wisconsin, any other GOP candidate to go against him in 2020 the country, to see Trump kicked out or forced to resign is there any valid argument that shows impeachment as a smart viable option<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start, I'm Canadian and this stuff doesn't affect me directly so maybe I'm just missing something here. I usually fall under the Democrat Liberal Socialist umbrella and my views generally align with theirs. Recently though I can't comprehend the stupidity coming out of US democratic congress members' mouths. If they succeed in starting impeachment proceedings in the house, which would likely be simple enough considering it just requires a simple majority which they'll have next month, it would then have to go through the Senate where it needs 66 votes, and I don't think they can get anywhere close to the Republican votes required anytime soon. The lame duck Republican power grabs in NC and Wisconsin really drives this point home, and to me, it shows that Republicans are desperately holding on til the bitter end. It's very unlikely that the GOP will have a crisis of identity and wake up while Trump is still in office. Anyways, let's say they do somehow have the Senate votes, and Trump is impeached we are left with Mike Pence, who's first action after taking the oath would almost certainly be a full pardon for Donald Trump and his family so that america can heal and move on . Mike Pence is definitely worse than Trump for Democrats and the liberal agenda, especially when it comes to social issues and women's health. At the same time, he will undoubtedly have more credibility and self control than Trump. There will be no unhinged twitter rants, no hush payments, and the only scandals in the media would revolve around his extreme religious views, his policies that will mirror those views, and any executive order he signs. Shit would get real serious, real fast. The GOP will then have almost 2 years to distance themselves from Trump, which would improve their chances in 2020 drastically. Now let's go through what would happen if impeachment fails in the Senate. it would galvanize Trump's base, and further, validate their claims of a witch hunt. It would be a huge win for all of them. it would be an even bigger loss for Democrats because impeachment is the most grandiose weapon in their arsenal. Donald Trump will feel vindicated and empowered. He might be more inclined to take increasingly drastic actions, like ending the special counsel investigation. it might make it harder for any other GOP candidate to go against him in 2020 the country will be even more divided Am I missing something? To me the only logical action for Democrats to take, is to shut the fuck up about impeachment, cut down the number of candidates who will run in 2020 which will probably be the most diluted shitshow of a DNC primary pool in recent history focus on and build a more concrete agenda, stop with the grandstanding political theater bullshit,keep their heads up and don't stoop to the GOPs level looking at you Maxine Waters , and do everything possible to vote him out in 2020. It is the only path I see towards him potentially being held accountable for his actions and the damage he's caused to your country, because of this 5 year statute of limitations shit that he wouldn't have to deal with if he gets re elected, and because of the guaranteed pardon he would receive if he's impeached or forced to resign. So yeah other than the fact that it would probably feel really good for a while to see Trump kicked out or forced to resign, is there any valid argument that shows impeachment as a smart viable option? I want to believe, I really do. <|ASPECTS|>women 's health, chances in 2020, trump 's base, self control, worse, validate, impeachment proceedings, simple majority, republican votes, distance, win, accountable, full, serious, witch hunt, affect, improve, hush payments, drastic actions, unhinged, crisis of identity, senate votes, credibility, smart viable option, views, stupidity, divided, vindicated, guaranteed, shit, believe, empowered, pardon, damage, social issues, impeachment, canadian, bitter, liberal socialist, heal, political theater, limitations, galvanize, missing, diluted, order, scandals, extreme religious views, investigation, grandiose weapon, impeachment fails, loss for democrats, republican power grabs, huge<|CONCLUSION|>","To start, I'm Canadian and this stuff doesn't affect me directly so maybe I'm just missing something here. I usually fall under the Democrat Liberal Socialist umbrella and my views generally align with theirs. Recently though I can't comprehend the stupidity coming out of US democratic congress members' mouths. If they succeed in starting impeachment proceedings in the house, which would likely be simple enough considering it just requires a simple majority which they'll have next month, it would then have to go through the Senate where it needs 66 votes, and I don't think they can get anywhere close to the Republican votes required anytime soon. The lame duck Republican power grabs in NC and Wisconsin really drives this point home, and to me, it shows that Republicans are desperately holding on til the bitter end. It's very unlikely that the GOP will have a crisis of identity and wake up while Trump is still in office. Anyways, let's say they do somehow have the Senate votes, and Trump is impeached we are left with Mike Pence, who's first action after taking the oath would almost certainly be a full pardon for Donald Trump and his family so that america can heal and move on . Mike Pence is definitely worse than Trump for Democrats and the liberal agenda, especially when it comes to social issues and women's health. At the same time, he will undoubtedly have more credibility and self control than Trump. There will be no unhinged twitter rants, no hush payments, and the only scandals in the media would revolve around his extreme religious views, his policies that will mirror those views, and any executive order he signs. Shit would get real serious, real fast. The GOP will then have almost 2 years to distance themselves from Trump, which would improve their chances in 2020 drastically. Now let's go through what would happen if impeachment fails in the Senate. it would galvanize Trump's base, and further, validate their claims of a witch hunt. It would be a huge win for all of them. it would be an even bigger loss for Democrats because impeachment is the most grandiose weapon in their arsenal. Donald Trump will feel vindicated and empowered. He might be more inclined to take increasingly drastic actions, like ending the special counsel investigation. it might make it harder for any other GOP candidate to go against him in 2020 the country will be even more divided Am I missing something? To me the only logical action for Democrats to take, is to shut the fuck up about impeachment, cut down the number of candidates who will run in 2020 which will probably be the most diluted shitshow of a DNC primary pool in recent history focus on and build a more concrete agenda, stop with the grandstanding political theater bullshit,keep their heads up and don't stoop to the GOPs level looking at you Maxine Waters , and do everything possible to vote him out in 2020. It is the only path I see towards him potentially being held accountable for his actions and the damage he's caused to your country, because of this 5 year statute of limitations shit that he wouldn't have to deal with if he gets re elected, and because of the guaranteed pardon he would receive if he's impeached or forced to resign. So yeah other than the fact that it would probably feel really good for a while to see Trump kicked out or forced to resign, is there any valid argument that shows impeachment as a smart viable option? I want to believe, I really do.",Impeaching Trump would be one of the most idiotic things Democrats could do
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Every genre has its period. The 1960s had Westerns, the 1980s had SciFi, and the 2000s and 2010s had have superhero movies. Things started off well in the 2000s. We had Spiderman, The Dark Knight, Ironman, etc. But now this genre just seems forced. Most of the movies coming out now are for superheroes no one has ever heard of. The movies get mostly negative ratings. Plots are lazy, acting is sub par, over reliance on CGI effects, etc. I just went to the theater on Friday to see a movie and 4 out of the 9 movie trailers shown are for Marvel movies which all look atrocious btw . Just stop already.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Every genre has its period. The 1960s had Westerns, the 1980s had SciFi, and the 2000s and 2010s had have superhero movies. Things started off well in the 2000s. We had Spiderman, The Dark Knight, Ironman, etc. But now this genre just seems forced. Most of the movies coming out now are for superheroes no one has ever heard of. The movies get mostly negative ratings. Plots are lazy, acting is sub par, over reliance on CGI effects, etc. I just went to the theater on Friday to see a movie and 4 out of the 9 movie trailers shown are for Marvel movies which all look atrocious btw . Just stop already.<|TARGETS|>The movies, Plots, the theater on Friday to see a movie and 4 out of the 9 movie trailers shown<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Every genre has its period. The 1960s had Westerns, the 1980s had SciFi, and the 2000s and 2010s had have superhero movies. Things started off well in the 2000s. We had Spiderman, The Dark Knight, Ironman, etc. But now this genre just seems forced. Most of the movies coming out now are for superheroes no one has ever heard of. The movies get mostly negative ratings. Plots are lazy, acting is sub par, over reliance on CGI effects, etc. I just went to the theater on Friday to see a movie and 4 out of the 9 movie trailers shown are for Marvel movies which all look atrocious btw . Just stop already.<|ASPECTS|>atrocious, superhero movies, negative ratings, lazy, reliance, superheroes, cgi effects, genre, forced, par, acting, period<|CONCLUSION|>","Every genre has its period. The 1960s had Westerns, the 1980s had SciFi, and the 2000s and 2010s had have superhero movies. Things started off well in the 2000s. We had Spiderman, The Dark Knight, Ironman, etc. But now this genre just seems forced. Most of the movies coming out now are for superheroes no one has ever heard of. The movies get mostly negative ratings. Plots are lazy, acting is sub par, over reliance on CGI effects, etc. I just went to the theater on Friday to see a movie and 4 out of the 9 movie trailers shown are for Marvel movies which all look atrocious btw . Just stop already.",The superhero genre for movies needs to die
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Republican Party is experiencing its first death throes. Lets count the ways shall we A. The southern strategy appealing to whites from the south to the exclusion of all else after the Civil Rights Act B. Demographics are not on their side. C. They have used gerrymandering to retain power but are excluded from the reality of a new America which further radicalizes the party.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Republican Party is experiencing its first death throes. Lets count the ways shall we A. The southern strategy appealing to whites from the south to the exclusion of all else after the Civil Rights Act B. Demographics are not on their side. C. They have used gerrymandering to retain power but are excluded from the reality of a new America which further radicalizes the party.<|TARGETS|>The Republican Party<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Republican Party is experiencing its first death throes. Lets count the ways shall we A. The southern strategy appealing to whites from the south to the exclusion of all else after the Civil Rights Act B. Demographics are not on their side. C. They have used gerrymandering to retain power but are excluded from the reality of a new America which further radicalizes the party.<|ASPECTS|>ways, retain power, death throes, radicalizes, exclusion, demographics, southern, gerrymandering, new america<|CONCLUSION|>",The Republican Party is experiencing its first death throes. Lets count the ways shall we A. The southern strategy appealing to whites from the south to the exclusion of all else after the Civil Rights Act B. Demographics are not on their side. C. They have used gerrymandering to retain power but are excluded from the reality of a new America which further radicalizes the party.,We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Republican party.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Banning some white supremacist's rant from facebook youtube twitter does nothing but incite resentment on the individual, making him search for alternative plataforms to express his free opinion, where he is likely to be further radicalized as the playaform is dominated by other extremists like him taking refuge. To ban an idea is a coward, inneficient way to pretend you have dealt with the problems emmanating from it. You might prevent people from seeing it, but you haven't allowed them the chance to use their critical thinking to analyze as many opinions as possible and comming to their own conclusions. It would be much easier and effective to encourage de radicalization of individuals by having moderate, respectful individuals present them with other modes of thinking, instead of banning extremists from conversations. An attack on extremists is, at it's core, an attack on free speech. Yes, free speech can and often does give rise to hate speech, but said hateful discourse it to be confronted head on through meaningful dialogue, not foolish censorship. All this has achieved is create political bubbles where it becomes either shunned or outright forbiden to express a given opinion on a given topic at the major sites. If you believe in the power and importance of free speech, you should't support actions that seek to undermine it. Change My View.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Banning some white supremacist's rant from facebook youtube twitter does nothing but incite resentment on the individual, making him search for alternative plataforms to express his free opinion, where he is likely to be further radicalized as the playaform is dominated by other extremists like him taking refuge. To ban an idea is a coward, inneficient way to pretend you have dealt with the problems emmanating from it. You might prevent people from seeing it, but you haven't allowed them the chance to use their critical thinking to analyze as many opinions as possible and comming to their own conclusions. It would be much easier and effective to encourage de radicalization of individuals by having moderate, respectful individuals present them with other modes of thinking, instead of banning extremists from conversations. An attack on extremists is, at it's core, an attack on free speech. Yes, free speech can and often does give rise to hate speech, but said hateful discourse it to be confronted head on through meaningful dialogue, not foolish censorship. All this has achieved is create political bubbles where it becomes either shunned or outright forbiden to express a given opinion on a given topic at the major sites. If you believe in the power and importance of free speech, you should't support actions that seek to undermine it. Change My View.<|TARGETS|>to encourage de radicalization of individuals by having moderate respectful individuals present them with other modes of thinking, either shunned or outright forbiden to express a given opinion on a given topic at the major sites, Banning some white supremacist 's rant from facebook youtube twitter, If you believe in the power and importance of free speech, free speech, An attack on extremists<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Banning some white supremacist's rant from facebook youtube twitter does nothing but incite resentment on the individual, making him search for alternative plataforms to express his free opinion, where he is likely to be further radicalized as the playaform is dominated by other extremists like him taking refuge. To ban an idea is a coward, inneficient way to pretend you have dealt with the problems emmanating from it. You might prevent people from seeing it, but you haven't allowed them the chance to use their critical thinking to analyze as many opinions as possible and comming to their own conclusions. It would be much easier and effective to encourage de radicalization of individuals by having moderate, respectful individuals present them with other modes of thinking, instead of banning extremists from conversations. An attack on extremists is, at it's core, an attack on free speech. Yes, free speech can and often does give rise to hate speech, but said hateful discourse it to be confronted head on through meaningful dialogue, not foolish censorship. All this has achieved is create political bubbles where it becomes either shunned or outright forbiden to express a given opinion on a given topic at the major sites. If you believe in the power and importance of free speech, you should't support actions that seek to undermine it. Change My View.<|ASPECTS|>, critical thinking, coward, analyze, political bubbles, shunned, problems, hateful discourse, extremists, foolish censorship, undermine, outright, free speech, meaningful dialogue, de radicalization of individuals, resentment, hate speech, prevent, change my view, inneficient, power, many, importance, opinions<|CONCLUSION|>","Banning some white supremacist's rant from facebook youtube twitter does nothing but incite resentment on the individual, making him search for alternative plataforms to express his free opinion, where he is likely to be further radicalized as the playaform is dominated by other extremists like him taking refuge. To ban an idea is a coward, inneficient way to pretend you have dealt with the problems emmanating from it. You might prevent people from seeing it, but you haven't allowed them the chance to use their critical thinking to analyze as many opinions as possible and comming to their own conclusions. It would be much easier and effective to encourage de radicalization of individuals by having moderate, respectful individuals present them with other modes of thinking, instead of banning extremists from conversations. An attack on extremists is, at it's core, an attack on free speech. Yes, free speech can and often does give rise to hate speech, but said hateful discourse it to be confronted head on through meaningful dialogue, not foolish censorship. All this has achieved is create political bubbles where it becomes either shunned or outright forbiden to express a given opinion on a given topic at the major sites. If you believe in the power and importance of free speech, you should't support actions that seek to undermine it. Change My View.",There would be much less extremism if mainstream/social media companies allowed for extemists to have a plataform to be debated
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Do not assume that I think general education should be eliminated or that I simply did poorly in general ed. I hold the opinion that general education is too prevalent in high school and that life skills should be the main focus of secondary schooling. I have met many people who simply can't function outside of school because things changed far too quickly. I have met dozens of graduates who couldn't tell you how to file taxes accurately many adults couldn't do that either from what I understand , or even tell you the first thing when it comes to finding a place to live. Sexual education is a sham. Schools focus more on the biological aspects as opposed to how to have a healthy and functioning relationship with a partner. Certainly, people survive outside of highschool without being taught life skills in school. However many experience the hardest decade in their lives immediately after those four years, and I feel that if certain skills were to be taught in high school, the years after it might not be as difficult for some. Edit As a brief explanation to my opinion, I was very unhappy in high school. One of the biggest reasons why was because I had more responsibilities and a harder life at home. I didn't have functioning parents to teach me many life skills and I haven't been left with much as far as general knowledge on how to survive in the real world . Edit2 At one point in time, all education was considered the responsibility of the parents. Yes, it is their job. However, I'm seeing more and more parents letting their kids go without any sort of clue. I've seen parents fall apart over their lives and leave their children with nothing other than the street. I've also seen students torn to all hell over coping with life outside of school. I feel that a stronger integration of life centered courses could be of some use to all people especially those who's parents don't teach them all they need to know. More Editing Thank you for the responses so far This is my first submission to r changemyview and I am pleased to see some replies. This likely isn't the best view to discuss, but I'm glad to have discussed things as far as I have. I'm heavily inspired by edit Thanks again, everyone I have an online midterm soon, so I'll likely be gone for around three hours. I'm not sure if I can respond to further comments, but I will say that I definitely have a slightly different view on the matter. I still think schools are a bit too focused on general education, but I do have a difficult time determining specifics of how life skills would be taught.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Do not assume that I think general education should be eliminated or that I simply did poorly in general ed. I hold the opinion that general education is too prevalent in high school and that life skills should be the main focus of secondary schooling. I have met many people who simply can't function outside of school because things changed far too quickly. I have met dozens of graduates who couldn't tell you how to file taxes accurately many adults couldn't do that either from what I understand , or even tell you the first thing when it comes to finding a place to live. Sexual education is a sham. Schools focus more on the biological aspects as opposed to how to have a healthy and functioning relationship with a partner. Certainly, people survive outside of highschool without being taught life skills in school. However many experience the hardest decade in their lives immediately after those four years, and I feel that if certain skills were to be taught in high school, the years after it might not be as difficult for some. Edit As a brief explanation to my opinion, I was very unhappy in high school. One of the biggest reasons why was because I had more responsibilities and a harder life at home. I didn't have functioning parents to teach me many life skills and I haven't been left with much as far as general knowledge on how to survive in the real world . Edit2 At one point in time, all education was considered the responsibility of the parents. Yes, it is their job. However, I'm seeing more and more parents letting their kids go without any sort of clue. I've seen parents fall apart over their lives and leave their children with nothing other than the street. I've also seen students torn to all hell over coping with life outside of school. I feel that a stronger integration of life centered courses could be of some use to all people especially those who's parents don't teach them all they need to know. More Editing Thank you for the responses so far This is my first submission to r changemyview and I am pleased to see some replies. This likely isn't the best view to discuss, but I'm glad to have discussed things as far as I have. I'm heavily inspired by edit Thanks again, everyone I have an online midterm soon, so I'll likely be gone for around three hours. I'm not sure if I can respond to further comments, but I will say that I definitely have a slightly different view on the matter. I still think schools are a bit too focused on general education, but I do have a difficult time determining specifics of how life skills would be taught.<|TARGETS|>Schools, seeing more and more parents letting their kids go without any sort of clue ., the opinion that general education, if certain skills were to be taught in high school, to have discussed things as far as I have ., if I can respond to further comments<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Do not assume that I think general education should be eliminated or that I simply did poorly in general ed. I hold the opinion that general education is too prevalent in high school and that life skills should be the main focus of secondary schooling. I have met many people who simply can't function outside of school because things changed far too quickly. I have met dozens of graduates who couldn't tell you how to file taxes accurately many adults couldn't do that either from what I understand , or even tell you the first thing when it comes to finding a place to live. Sexual education is a sham. Schools focus more on the biological aspects as opposed to how to have a healthy and functioning relationship with a partner. Certainly, people survive outside of highschool without being taught life skills in school. However many experience the hardest decade in their lives immediately after those four years, and I feel that if certain skills were to be taught in high school, the years after it might not be as difficult for some. Edit As a brief explanation to my opinion, I was very unhappy in high school. One of the biggest reasons why was because I had more responsibilities and a harder life at home. I didn't have functioning parents to teach me many life skills and I haven't been left with much as far as general knowledge on how to survive in the real world . Edit2 At one point in time, all education was considered the responsibility of the parents. Yes, it is their job. However, I'm seeing more and more parents letting their kids go without any sort of clue. I've seen parents fall apart over their lives and leave their children with nothing other than the street. I've also seen students torn to all hell over coping with life outside of school. I feel that a stronger integration of life centered courses could be of some use to all people especially those who's parents don't teach them all they need to know. More Editing Thank you for the responses so far This is my first submission to r changemyview and I am pleased to see some replies. This likely isn't the best view to discuss, but I'm glad to have discussed things as far as I have. I'm heavily inspired by edit Thanks again, everyone I have an online midterm soon, so I'll likely be gone for around three hours. I'm not sure if I can respond to further comments, but I will say that I definitely have a slightly different view on the matter. I still think schools are a bit too focused on general education, but I do have a difficult time determining specifics of how life skills would be taught.<|ASPECTS|>, survive, different view, nothing, life outside of school, view, skills, file taxes, hardest decade, sexual education, general ed, function, torn, poorly, job, general education, harder life, parents letting their kids go, general knowledge, biological aspects, quickly, things, fall apart, responsibilities, coping, functioning parents, high school, street, responsibility of the parents, integration of life centered courses, sham, difficult, place to live, unhappy, healthy and functioning relationship, students, life skills, changed, specifics<|CONCLUSION|>","Do not assume that I think general education should be eliminated or that I simply did poorly in general ed. I hold the opinion that general education is too prevalent in high school and that life skills should be the main focus of secondary schooling. I have met many people who simply can't function outside of school because things changed far too quickly. I have met dozens of graduates who couldn't tell you how to file taxes accurately many adults couldn't do that either from what I understand , or even tell you the first thing when it comes to finding a place to live. Sexual education is a sham. Schools focus more on the biological aspects as opposed to how to have a healthy and functioning relationship with a partner. Certainly, people survive outside of highschool without being taught life skills in school. However many experience the hardest decade in their lives immediately after those four years, and I feel that if certain skills were to be taught in high school, the years after it might not be as difficult for some. Edit As a brief explanation to my opinion, I was very unhappy in high school. One of the biggest reasons why was because I had more responsibilities and a harder life at home. I didn't have functioning parents to teach me many life skills and I haven't been left with much as far as general knowledge on how to survive in the real world . Edit2 At one point in time, all education was considered the responsibility of the parents. Yes, it is their job. However, I'm seeing more and more parents letting their kids go without any sort of clue. I've seen parents fall apart over their lives and leave their children with nothing other than the street. I've also seen students torn to all hell over coping with life outside of school. I feel that a stronger integration of life centered courses could be of some use to all people especially those who's parents don't teach them all they need to know. More Editing Thank you for the responses so far This is my first submission to r changemyview and I am pleased to see some replies. This likely isn't the best view to discuss, but I'm glad to have discussed things as far as I have. I'm heavily inspired by edit Thanks again, everyone I have an online midterm soon, so I'll likely be gone for around three hours. I'm not sure if I can respond to further comments, but I will say that I definitely have a slightly different view on the matter. I still think schools are a bit too focused on general education, but I do have a difficult time determining specifics of how life skills would be taught.","Teaching life skills should be the core function of high school, and not general education."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My brother is a staunch monarchist. He is going to an event in a few days where he will meet our local representative to the Australian House of Representatives to ask for a portrait of the Queen. I'm not kidding Members of the Australian House of Representatives really are required to give out free portraits of the Queen if requested hint hardly anyone ever requests these . His rationale for this is gt Patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house to show off their patriotism. Why can't I show off my patriotism by requesting a portrait of the Queen and displaying it in our living room? In contrast, I am a republican by that, I mean that I support the idea of Republicanism in Australia These are my views on this topic If you want to show off how patriotic you are, putting up portraits of a non Australian citizen is the exact opposite way to go. I also oppose personality cults and dynastic politics and a de jure royal dynasty doesn't stop de facto dynasties of politicians . Some Australians would even say that monarchism is inherently un Australian, going against the Australian belief in a fair go . I believe that it's understandable why patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house because it's their nation's flag, not that of another nation, and it's completely separate from personality cults and dynasties. However, since lots of people accuse me of closed mindedness, I need to prove that accusation wrong by opening my mind to the opposing arguments. Therefore Why should I consider the Queen Elizabeth II Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms as a symbol of Australian patriotism? Why should I support dynastic monarchism and a personality cult?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My brother is a staunch monarchist. He is going to an event in a few days where he will meet our local representative to the Australian House of Representatives to ask for a portrait of the Queen. I'm not kidding Members of the Australian House of Representatives really are required to give out free portraits of the Queen if requested hint hardly anyone ever requests these . His rationale for this is gt Patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house to show off their patriotism. Why can't I show off my patriotism by requesting a portrait of the Queen and displaying it in our living room? In contrast, I am a republican by that, I mean that I support the idea of Republicanism in Australia These are my views on this topic If you want to show off how patriotic you are, putting up portraits of a non Australian citizen is the exact opposite way to go. I also oppose personality cults and dynastic politics and a de jure royal dynasty doesn't stop de facto dynasties of politicians . Some Australians would even say that monarchism is inherently un Australian, going against the Australian belief in a fair go . I believe that it's understandable why patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house because it's their nation's flag, not that of another nation, and it's completely separate from personality cults and dynasties. However, since lots of people accuse me of closed mindedness, I need to prove that accusation wrong by opening my mind to the opposing arguments. Therefore Why should I consider the Queen Elizabeth II Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms as a symbol of Australian patriotism? Why should I support dynastic monarchism and a personality cult?<|TARGETS|>the Queen Elizabeth II Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms as a symbol of Australian patriotism, kidding Members of the Australian House of Representatives, the Australian House of Representatives to ask for a portrait of the Queen ., the idea of Republicanism in Australia These are my views on this topic If you want to show off how patriotic you are putting up portraits of a non Australian citizen, Patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house to show off their patriotism ., to give out free portraits of the Queen if requested hint hardly anyone ever requests these .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My brother is a staunch monarchist. He is going to an event in a few days where he will meet our local representative to the Australian House of Representatives to ask for a portrait of the Queen. I'm not kidding Members of the Australian House of Representatives really are required to give out free portraits of the Queen if requested hint hardly anyone ever requests these . His rationale for this is gt Patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house to show off their patriotism. Why can't I show off my patriotism by requesting a portrait of the Queen and displaying it in our living room? In contrast, I am a republican by that, I mean that I support the idea of Republicanism in Australia These are my views on this topic If you want to show off how patriotic you are, putting up portraits of a non Australian citizen is the exact opposite way to go. I also oppose personality cults and dynastic politics and a de jure royal dynasty doesn't stop de facto dynasties of politicians . Some Australians would even say that monarchism is inherently un Australian, going against the Australian belief in a fair go . I believe that it's understandable why patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house because it's their nation's flag, not that of another nation, and it's completely separate from personality cults and dynasties. However, since lots of people accuse me of closed mindedness, I need to prove that accusation wrong by opening my mind to the opposing arguments. Therefore Why should I consider the Queen Elizabeth II Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms as a symbol of Australian patriotism? Why should I support dynastic monarchism and a personality cult?<|ASPECTS|>portrait, opposing, un australian, staunch, personality cult, monarchism, patriotism, dynasties of politicians, australian, patriotic, fair go, monarchist, closed mindedness, de, republicanism, personality cults, dynastic politics, dynastic monarchism, free portraits of, republican<|CONCLUSION|>","My brother is a staunch monarchist. He is going to an event in a few days where he will meet our local representative to the Australian House of Representatives to ask for a portrait of the Queen. I'm not kidding Members of the Australian House of Representatives really are required to give out free portraits of the Queen if requested hint hardly anyone ever requests these . His rationale for this is gt Patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house to show off their patriotism. Why can't I show off my patriotism by requesting a portrait of the Queen and displaying it in our living room? In contrast, I am a republican by that, I mean that I support the idea of Republicanism in Australia These are my views on this topic If you want to show off how patriotic you are, putting up portraits of a non Australian citizen is the exact opposite way to go. I also oppose personality cults and dynastic politics and a de jure royal dynasty doesn't stop de facto dynasties of politicians . Some Australians would even say that monarchism is inherently un Australian, going against the Australian belief in a fair go . I believe that it's understandable why patriotic Americans fly the American flag in front of their house because it's their nation's flag, not that of another nation, and it's completely separate from personality cults and dynasties. However, since lots of people accuse me of closed mindedness, I need to prove that accusation wrong by opening my mind to the opposing arguments. Therefore Why should I consider the Queen Elizabeth II Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms as a symbol of Australian patriotism? Why should I support dynastic monarchism and a personality cult?",Proudly displaying a portrait of the Queen in your living room is not a symbol of Australian patriotism
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've heard an incredible amount of vitriol for anti vaxxers people who don't believe that vaccinations work are safe in my day to day life, but especially on reddit. It seems that many people think that these people are purposely ignorant and stupid. Now I'm not an anti vaxxer. I'm vaccinated, I believe they work, and plan to vaccinate my kids when the time comes. But I think I understand where some anti vaxxers are coming from, and I think they should be treated as misguided people who are trying to do the right thing rather than evil parents who are trying to kill their children. Here's why Scientific thought and consensus are constantly evolving. As new information becomes available or new discoveries are made, scientists will change their opinions and medical recommendations on things. To some people, this would make it seem that scientific consensus is often wrong and is always changing. I've even seen many people on reddit comment about never knowing whether a certain chemical food etc is unhealthy or cancerous, because it seems like scientific opinion on it is always changing. Scientific consensus HAS been wrong before, and has even advocated barbaric medical practices. Ever heard of a lobotomy? This practice, which involved cutting out a portion of the brain and left many people permanently incapacitated and mentally disabled, was a mainstream procedure in some Western countries for more than two decades prescribed for psychiatric and occasionally other conditions despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. This was as recently as the 1950s. Again, misguided people could look at cases like this and conclude that medical practices can be severely detrimental even when they're supported by the scientific community. Media exposure of recalls. It's common to see recall commercials, news reports, or law office commercials describing a new medicine, birth control pill, etc. that has been recalled due to serious side effects. These are just a few points. When you consider that the original anti vaccine paper was published by surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield I think it's completely understandable that people have been duped. Again, I don't agree with anti vaccine views. But I think publicly shaming and humiliating them will make them double down on their harmful views and will make them less willing to reconsider. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've heard an incredible amount of vitriol for anti vaxxers people who don't believe that vaccinations work are safe in my day to day life, but especially on reddit. It seems that many people think that these people are purposely ignorant and stupid. Now I'm not an anti vaxxer. I'm vaccinated, I believe they work, and plan to vaccinate my kids when the time comes. But I think I understand where some anti vaxxers are coming from, and I think they should be treated as misguided people who are trying to do the right thing rather than evil parents who are trying to kill their children. Here's why Scientific thought and consensus are constantly evolving. As new information becomes available or new discoveries are made, scientists will change their opinions and medical recommendations on things. To some people, this would make it seem that scientific consensus is often wrong and is always changing. I've even seen many people on reddit comment about never knowing whether a certain chemical food etc is unhealthy or cancerous, because it seems like scientific opinion on it is always changing. Scientific consensus HAS been wrong before, and has even advocated barbaric medical practices. Ever heard of a lobotomy? This practice, which involved cutting out a portion of the brain and left many people permanently incapacitated and mentally disabled, was a mainstream procedure in some Western countries for more than two decades prescribed for psychiatric and occasionally other conditions despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. This was as recently as the 1950s. Again, misguided people could look at cases like this and conclude that medical practices can be severely detrimental even when they're supported by the scientific community. Media exposure of recalls. It's common to see recall commercials, news reports, or law office commercials describing a new medicine, birth control pill, etc. that has been recalled due to serious side effects. These are just a few points. When you consider that the original anti vaccine paper was published by surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield I think it's completely understandable that people have been duped. Again, I don't agree with anti vaccine views. But I think publicly shaming and humiliating them will make them double down on their harmful views and will make them less willing to reconsider. CMV.<|TARGETS|>the original anti vaccine paper, be treated as misguided people who are trying to do the right thing rather than evil parents who are trying to kill their children ., Media exposure of recalls, to vaccinate my kids when the time, anti vaccine views, Scientific thought and consensus<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've heard an incredible amount of vitriol for anti vaxxers people who don't believe that vaccinations work are safe in my day to day life, but especially on reddit. It seems that many people think that these people are purposely ignorant and stupid. Now I'm not an anti vaxxer. I'm vaccinated, I believe they work, and plan to vaccinate my kids when the time comes. But I think I understand where some anti vaxxers are coming from, and I think they should be treated as misguided people who are trying to do the right thing rather than evil parents who are trying to kill their children. Here's why Scientific thought and consensus are constantly evolving. As new information becomes available or new discoveries are made, scientists will change their opinions and medical recommendations on things. To some people, this would make it seem that scientific consensus is often wrong and is always changing. I've even seen many people on reddit comment about never knowing whether a certain chemical food etc is unhealthy or cancerous, because it seems like scientific opinion on it is always changing. Scientific consensus HAS been wrong before, and has even advocated barbaric medical practices. Ever heard of a lobotomy? This practice, which involved cutting out a portion of the brain and left many people permanently incapacitated and mentally disabled, was a mainstream procedure in some Western countries for more than two decades prescribed for psychiatric and occasionally other conditions despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. This was as recently as the 1950s. Again, misguided people could look at cases like this and conclude that medical practices can be severely detrimental even when they're supported by the scientific community. Media exposure of recalls. It's common to see recall commercials, news reports, or law office commercials describing a new medicine, birth control pill, etc. that has been recalled due to serious side effects. These are just a few points. When you consider that the original anti vaccine paper was published by surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield I think it's completely understandable that people have been duped. Again, I don't agree with anti vaccine views. But I think publicly shaming and humiliating them will make them double down on their harmful views and will make them less willing to reconsider. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, scientific thought and consensus, incapacitated, cancerous, safe, vaxxers, barbaric medical practices, misguided, duped, severely, serious, medical recommendations, humiliating, misguided people, kill, mentally disabled, reconsider, harmful views, anti vaccine views, side effects, less willing, scientific opinion, medical practices, shaming, vaccinate my kids, detrimental, anti vaxxer, lobotomy, stupid, vaccinated, vitriol, unhealthy, scientific consensus, recall commercials, changing, change their opinions, evil parents, media exposure of recalls, ignorant, vaccinations<|CONCLUSION|>","I've heard an incredible amount of vitriol for anti vaxxers people who don't believe that vaccinations work are safe in my day to day life, but especially on reddit. It seems that many people think that these people are purposely ignorant and stupid. Now I'm not an anti vaxxer. I'm vaccinated, I believe they work, and plan to vaccinate my kids when the time comes. But I think I understand where some anti vaxxers are coming from, and I think they should be treated as misguided people who are trying to do the right thing rather than evil parents who are trying to kill their children. Here's why Scientific thought and consensus are constantly evolving. As new information becomes available or new discoveries are made, scientists will change their opinions and medical recommendations on things. To some people, this would make it seem that scientific consensus is often wrong and is always changing. I've even seen many people on reddit comment about never knowing whether a certain chemical food etc is unhealthy or cancerous, because it seems like scientific opinion on it is always changing. Scientific consensus HAS been wrong before, and has even advocated barbaric medical practices. Ever heard of a lobotomy? This practice, which involved cutting out a portion of the brain and left many people permanently incapacitated and mentally disabled, was a mainstream procedure in some Western countries for more than two decades prescribed for psychiatric and occasionally other conditions despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. This was as recently as the 1950s. Again, misguided people could look at cases like this and conclude that medical practices can be severely detrimental even when they're supported by the scientific community. Media exposure of recalls. It's common to see recall commercials, news reports, or law office commercials describing a new medicine, birth control pill, etc. that has been recalled due to serious side effects. These are just a few points. When you consider that the original anti vaccine paper was published by surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield I think it's completely understandable that people have been duped. Again, I don't agree with anti vaccine views. But I think publicly shaming and humiliating them will make them double down on their harmful views and will make them less willing to reconsider. .","Anti-vaxxers and people who believe in ""natural medicine"" have been understandably mislead and misguided. They should be corrected compassionately, not publicly shamed and humiliated"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I say that it would be selfish because there are no advantages in having a sibling. If you're wondering how I could possibly know this I asked this question a little while ago on another account I'd link it but I can't find it and the responses weren't positive enough to convince me that I missed out. Now that I'm older and thinking about my future I've come to the conclusion that having more than one child would be selfish on my part, and here's why As a child Children already have so many things competing for their parent's attention and I don't want to have to split whatever time I do have in half. Money. Same argument as above. Also potentially less opportunity to invest in things my child may be interested in like learning to play an instrument. Parents and family members play favorites whether they know it or not. I don't want to put myself in a position where I'm unconsciously comparing my children and damaging their self esteem. Unfortunately there are things in life that force children to grow up faster. I don't want one of those things to be taking care of a younger sibling because Mommy's tired. IMO this does not benefit either child and breeds resentment. As an Adult Less competition for inheritances. Not just good for my child but my future grandkids. Remember all that money from childhood? Perhaps some of it went into a college savings fund which lead to a great job. Or perhaps it helped pay for a first apartment. Maybe it got invested. Maybe they bought drugs with it instead of robbing somebody, who knows? It's not a bad thing that it's available. One bad thing that I face now as an adult is the realization that I'm going to have to care for my Mom in her old age and will one day have to plan her funeral. I accept this as my duty because there's no one else that will care for her like I will. The silver lining is that if I had a sibling I'd either end up doing it and would feel bitter or I wouldn't do it and would feel guilty. As far as a lack of playmates or social interaction are concerned there are always friends, cousins, and a Mom with time and energy. If there's anything I've missed so far I would really like to know. Please, CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I say that it would be selfish because there are no advantages in having a sibling. If you're wondering how I could possibly know this I asked this question a little while ago on another account I'd link it but I can't find it and the responses weren't positive enough to convince me that I missed out. Now that I'm older and thinking about my future I've come to the conclusion that having more than one child would be selfish on my part, and here's why As a child Children already have so many things competing for their parent's attention and I don't want to have to split whatever time I do have in half. Money. Same argument as above. Also potentially less opportunity to invest in things my child may be interested in like learning to play an instrument. Parents and family members play favorites whether they know it or not. I don't want to put myself in a position where I'm unconsciously comparing my children and damaging their self esteem. Unfortunately there are things in life that force children to grow up faster. I don't want one of those things to be taking care of a younger sibling because Mommy's tired. IMO this does not benefit either child and breeds resentment. As an Adult Less competition for inheritances. Not just good for my child but my future grandkids. Remember all that money from childhood? Perhaps some of it went into a college savings fund which lead to a great job. Or perhaps it helped pay for a first apartment. Maybe it got invested. Maybe they bought drugs with it instead of robbing somebody, who knows? It's not a bad thing that it's available. One bad thing that I face now as an adult is the realization that I'm going to have to care for my Mom in her old age and will one day have to plan her funeral. I accept this as my duty because there's no one else that will care for her like I will. The silver lining is that if I had a sibling I'd either end up doing it and would feel bitter or I wouldn't do it and would feel guilty. As far as a lack of playmates or social interaction are concerned there are always friends, cousins, and a Mom with time and energy. If there's anything I've missed so far I would really like to know. Please, CMV.<|TARGETS|>The silver lining, to have to split whatever time I do have in half ., Maybe they bought drugs with it instead of robbing somebody, to invest in things my child may be interested in like learning to play an instrument ., unconsciously comparing my children and damaging their self esteem ., having more than one child would be selfish on my part and here 's why As a child Children already have so many things competing for their parent 's attention<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I say that it would be selfish because there are no advantages in having a sibling. If you're wondering how I could possibly know this I asked this question a little while ago on another account I'd link it but I can't find it and the responses weren't positive enough to convince me that I missed out. Now that I'm older and thinking about my future I've come to the conclusion that having more than one child would be selfish on my part, and here's why As a child Children already have so many things competing for their parent's attention and I don't want to have to split whatever time I do have in half. Money. Same argument as above. Also potentially less opportunity to invest in things my child may be interested in like learning to play an instrument. Parents and family members play favorites whether they know it or not. I don't want to put myself in a position where I'm unconsciously comparing my children and damaging their self esteem. Unfortunately there are things in life that force children to grow up faster. I don't want one of those things to be taking care of a younger sibling because Mommy's tired. IMO this does not benefit either child and breeds resentment. As an Adult Less competition for inheritances. Not just good for my child but my future grandkids. Remember all that money from childhood? Perhaps some of it went into a college savings fund which lead to a great job. Or perhaps it helped pay for a first apartment. Maybe it got invested. Maybe they bought drugs with it instead of robbing somebody, who knows? It's not a bad thing that it's available. One bad thing that I face now as an adult is the realization that I'm going to have to care for my Mom in her old age and will one day have to plan her funeral. I accept this as my duty because there's no one else that will care for her like I will. The silver lining is that if I had a sibling I'd either end up doing it and would feel bitter or I wouldn't do it and would feel guilty. As far as a lack of playmates or social interaction are concerned there are always friends, cousins, and a Mom with time and energy. If there's anything I've missed so far I would really like to know. Please, CMV.<|ASPECTS|>opportunity to invest, parents, bad, play favorites, funeral, plan, available, comparing, missed, bought drugs, friends, younger sibling, tired, parent 's attention, playmates, guilty, competition for inheritances, robbing somebody, time and energy, grow up faster, damaging, life, resentment, advantages, college savings fund, care, future grandkids, first apartment, care for my mom, breeds, bitter, social interaction, less, pay, great job, benefit, children, money from childhood, learning to play an instrument, feel, duty, invested, selfish, helped, mommy 's, self esteem<|CONCLUSION|>","I say that it would be selfish because there are no advantages in having a sibling. If you're wondering how I could possibly know this I asked this question a little while ago on another account I'd link it but I can't find it and the responses weren't positive enough to convince me that I missed out. Now that I'm older and thinking about my future I've come to the conclusion that having more than one child would be selfish on my part, and here's why As a child Children already have so many things competing for their parent's attention and I don't want to have to split whatever time I do have in half. Money. Same argument as above. Also potentially less opportunity to invest in things my child may be interested in like learning to play an instrument. Parents and family members play favorites whether they know it or not. I don't want to put myself in a position where I'm unconsciously comparing my children and damaging their self esteem. Unfortunately there are things in life that force children to grow up faster. I don't want one of those things to be taking care of a younger sibling because Mommy's tired. IMO this does not benefit either child and breeds resentment. As an Adult Less competition for inheritances. Not just good for my child but my future grandkids. Remember all that money from childhood? Perhaps some of it went into a college savings fund which lead to a great job. Or perhaps it helped pay for a first apartment. Maybe it got invested. Maybe they bought drugs with it instead of robbing somebody, who knows? It's not a bad thing that it's available. One bad thing that I face now as an adult is the realization that I'm going to have to care for my Mom in her old age and will one day have to plan her funeral. I accept this as my duty because there's no one else that will care for her like I will. The silver lining is that if I had a sibling I'd either end up doing it and would feel bitter or I wouldn't do it and would feel guilty. As far as a lack of playmates or social interaction are concerned there are always friends, cousins, and a Mom with time and energy. If there's anything I've missed so far I would really like to know. Please, .",As an only child I don't see any advantages in having more than one child myself. Having a second would be selfish of me.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>common opinion of many Americans is that the Iraq war was wrong and George Bush is a war criminal for it. When you look at the recent events leading up to it I think the war was well within reason. Saddam Hussein first rose to power then began fighting the Iranians and that was ok because they were our enemies. Then he proceeds to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country killing 182,000 Kurds during one campaign, utilizing weapons of mass destruction . After this he starts a war with a sovereign nation and occupies it. Not comparing him to Hitler but he was very similar with his atrocities military invasions. If the world is serious about never again and not allowing genocides, wouldn’t it be moral to remove the regime responsible for such atrocities who continued active genocide up to 2003. Not to mention Iraq was being run as a fascist state that regularly kidnapped,tortured and massacres any dissenters supposed dissenters. The military invasion of Iraq may have been started on false pretenses WMD’s but it did remove a regime that is an Arab version of the 3rd Reich like seriously you have a military dictatorship, genocide, police state, one party rule, regular massacres, propaganda centered around a charismatic strongman, invasions of neighboring states The US was then forced to be the reigning government and occupying force. There were Baathist members joining insurgent groups, old sectarian feuds exploding because the Baathist rule was now gone and there was that unfortunate bombing of that important mosque. We removed a genocidal dictatorship and then were forced to keep a dysfunctional country under control. It was unfortunate a large scale insurgency happened and many died as a result but were not entirely responsible for that forming, we just had to fight it. We even eventually formed a democratic government who still ruled today. There are still issues but not at the same scale. Tl dr the Iraq war removed an Arab 4th Reich and unfortunately fought a large war. The handling might have been botched but it was noble and we really were toppling an evil government.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>common opinion of many Americans is that the Iraq war was wrong and George Bush is a war criminal for it. When you look at the recent events leading up to it I think the war was well within reason. Saddam Hussein first rose to power then began fighting the Iranians and that was ok because they were our enemies. Then he proceeds to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country killing 182,000 Kurds during one campaign, utilizing weapons of mass destruction . After this he starts a war with a sovereign nation and occupies it. Not comparing him to Hitler but he was very similar with his atrocities military invasions. If the world is serious about never again and not allowing genocides, wouldn’t it be moral to remove the regime responsible for such atrocities who continued active genocide up to 2003. Not to mention Iraq was being run as a fascist state that regularly kidnapped,tortured and massacres any dissenters supposed dissenters. The military invasion of Iraq may have been started on false pretenses WMD’s but it did remove a regime that is an Arab version of the 3rd Reich like seriously you have a military dictatorship, genocide, police state, one party rule, regular massacres, propaganda centered around a charismatic strongman, invasions of neighboring states The US was then forced to be the reigning government and occupying force. There were Baathist members joining insurgent groups, old sectarian feuds exploding because the Baathist rule was now gone and there was that unfortunate bombing of that important mosque. We removed a genocidal dictatorship and then were forced to keep a dysfunctional country under control. It was unfortunate a large scale insurgency happened and many died as a result but were not entirely responsible for that forming, we just had to fight it. We even eventually formed a democratic government who still ruled today. There are still issues but not at the same scale. Tl dr the Iraq war removed an Arab 4th Reich and unfortunately fought a large war. The handling might have been botched but it was noble and we really were toppling an evil government.<|TARGETS|>The military invasion of Iraq, The handling, the Iraq war, If the world is serious about never again and not allowing genocides, to remove the regime responsible for such atrocities who continued active genocide up to 2003 ., Tl dr the Iraq war<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>common opinion of many Americans is that the Iraq war was wrong and George Bush is a war criminal for it. When you look at the recent events leading up to it I think the war was well within reason. Saddam Hussein first rose to power then began fighting the Iranians and that was ok because they were our enemies. Then he proceeds to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country killing 182,000 Kurds during one campaign, utilizing weapons of mass destruction . After this he starts a war with a sovereign nation and occupies it. Not comparing him to Hitler but he was very similar with his atrocities military invasions. If the world is serious about never again and not allowing genocides, wouldn’t it be moral to remove the regime responsible for such atrocities who continued active genocide up to 2003. Not to mention Iraq was being run as a fascist state that regularly kidnapped,tortured and massacres any dissenters supposed dissenters. The military invasion of Iraq may have been started on false pretenses WMD’s but it did remove a regime that is an Arab version of the 3rd Reich like seriously you have a military dictatorship, genocide, police state, one party rule, regular massacres, propaganda centered around a charismatic strongman, invasions of neighboring states The US was then forced to be the reigning government and occupying force. There were Baathist members joining insurgent groups, old sectarian feuds exploding because the Baathist rule was now gone and there was that unfortunate bombing of that important mosque. We removed a genocidal dictatorship and then were forced to keep a dysfunctional country under control. It was unfortunate a large scale insurgency happened and many died as a result but were not entirely responsible for that forming, we just had to fight it. We even eventually formed a democratic government who still ruled today. There are still issues but not at the same scale. Tl dr the Iraq war removed an Arab 4th Reich and unfortunately fought a large war. The handling might have been botched but it was noble and we really were toppling an evil government.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, genocide, invasions, occupies, insurgency, moral, dysfunctional country, genocides, military invasions, fascist state, large war, arab 4th reich, false pretenses, kidnapped, scale, unfortunate, enemies, kurds, ethnic minority, large, war criminal, massacres, sovereign nation, evil government, noble, iranians, dissenters, died, atrocities, sectarian feuds, reigning, insurgent groups, bombing, tortured, rule, ruled, iraq war, fighting, baathist, genocidal dictatorship, weapons of mass destruction, war, democratic government, propaganda, issues, within reason<|CONCLUSION|>","common opinion of many Americans is that the Iraq war was wrong and George Bush is a war criminal for it. When you look at the recent events leading up to it I think the war was well within reason. Saddam Hussein first rose to power then began fighting the Iranians and that was ok because they were our enemies. Then he proceeds to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country killing 182,000 Kurds during one campaign, utilizing weapons of mass destruction . After this he starts a war with a sovereign nation and occupies it. Not comparing him to Hitler but he was very similar with his atrocities military invasions. If the world is serious about never again and not allowing genocides, wouldn’t it be moral to remove the regime responsible for such atrocities who continued active genocide up to 2003. Not to mention Iraq was being run as a fascist state that regularly kidnapped,tortured and massacres any dissenters supposed dissenters. The military invasion of Iraq may have been started on false pretenses WMD’s but it did remove a regime that is an Arab version of the 3rd Reich like seriously you have a military dictatorship, genocide, police state, one party rule, regular massacres, propaganda centered around a charismatic strongman, invasions of neighboring states The US was then forced to be the reigning government and occupying force. There were Baathist members joining insurgent groups, old sectarian feuds exploding because the Baathist rule was now gone and there was that unfortunate bombing of that important mosque. We removed a genocidal dictatorship and then were forced to keep a dysfunctional country under control. It was unfortunate a large scale insurgency happened and many died as a result but were not entirely responsible for that forming, we just had to fight it. We even eventually formed a democratic government who still ruled today. There are still issues but not at the same scale. Tl dr the Iraq war removed an Arab 4th Reich and unfortunately fought a large war. The handling might have been botched but it was noble and we really were toppling an evil government.",The Iraq war was neither illegal nor “evil”
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A Joe Rogan video hit the top of r videos a few days ago and the comment thread prompted this CMV. In general reddit loathes the body positive movement because in my opinion they don't like unattractive women thinking they're attractive. This is what the issue is really about to me. People say it will encourage women to be obese or we should encourage women to lose weight for the health benefits but i don't buy any of that. No one aims to be obese, it just happens because we live in a stressful alienating world and some people deal with it by eating. No one cares that our media is filled with obese men. And most importantly, this has nothing to do with health. Being obese isn't good for your health but neither is millions of things like smoking or energy drinks or sitting in front of a computer your whole life. In fact if you're obese you don't even need to necessarily lose all your weight to become healthy, and having the aim of losing lots of weight is often a poor strategy. If you aim to exercise and diet so you don't put on any weight, and talk to a doctor or dietician, you'll become pretty healthy while still being chunky. More than this it's not just about hating fat women. It's fat women who think they're attractive is what really gets people angry. And why? Beauty is entirely subjective, many unhealthy habits like smoking can be seen as attractive, and thinking of yourself as beautiful is often a positive thing. So what's the problem here? Is it because they're seen as liars? Many obese women are seen as beautiful by certain people. People rarely react by saying some might find you beautiful but personally from my subjective view I would disagree it's almost always you're not beautiful or No one thinks you're beautiful which is entirely unverifiable. It seems like transparent policing of women's bodies to me. So if there's a reasonable way to hate body positivity that isn't revolved around being repulsed by fat women I'm all ears.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A Joe Rogan video hit the top of r videos a few days ago and the comment thread prompted this CMV. In general reddit loathes the body positive movement because in my opinion they don't like unattractive women thinking they're attractive. This is what the issue is really about to me. People say it will encourage women to be obese or we should encourage women to lose weight for the health benefits but i don't buy any of that. No one aims to be obese, it just happens because we live in a stressful alienating world and some people deal with it by eating. No one cares that our media is filled with obese men. And most importantly, this has nothing to do with health. Being obese isn't good for your health but neither is millions of things like smoking or energy drinks or sitting in front of a computer your whole life. In fact if you're obese you don't even need to necessarily lose all your weight to become healthy, and having the aim of losing lots of weight is often a poor strategy. If you aim to exercise and diet so you don't put on any weight, and talk to a doctor or dietician, you'll become pretty healthy while still being chunky. More than this it's not just about hating fat women. It's fat women who think they're attractive is what really gets people angry. And why? Beauty is entirely subjective, many unhealthy habits like smoking can be seen as attractive, and thinking of yourself as beautiful is often a positive thing. So what's the problem here? Is it because they're seen as liars? Many obese women are seen as beautiful by certain people. People rarely react by saying some might find you beautiful but personally from my subjective view I would disagree it's almost always you're not beautiful or No one thinks you're beautiful which is entirely unverifiable. It seems like transparent policing of women's bodies to me. So if there's a reasonable way to hate body positivity that isn't revolved around being repulsed by fat women I'm all ears.<|TARGETS|>to hate body positivity that is n't revolved around being repulsed by fat women, many unhealthy habits like smoking, A Joe Rogan video, Being obese, People rarely react by saying some might find you beautiful but personally from my subjective view I would disagree it 's almost always you 're not beautiful or No one thinks you 're beautiful which is entirely unverifiable ., to be obese or we should encourage women to lose weight for the health benefits<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A Joe Rogan video hit the top of r videos a few days ago and the comment thread prompted this CMV. In general reddit loathes the body positive movement because in my opinion they don't like unattractive women thinking they're attractive. This is what the issue is really about to me. People say it will encourage women to be obese or we should encourage women to lose weight for the health benefits but i don't buy any of that. No one aims to be obese, it just happens because we live in a stressful alienating world and some people deal with it by eating. No one cares that our media is filled with obese men. And most importantly, this has nothing to do with health. Being obese isn't good for your health but neither is millions of things like smoking or energy drinks or sitting in front of a computer your whole life. In fact if you're obese you don't even need to necessarily lose all your weight to become healthy, and having the aim of losing lots of weight is often a poor strategy. If you aim to exercise and diet so you don't put on any weight, and talk to a doctor or dietician, you'll become pretty healthy while still being chunky. More than this it's not just about hating fat women. It's fat women who think they're attractive is what really gets people angry. And why? Beauty is entirely subjective, many unhealthy habits like smoking can be seen as attractive, and thinking of yourself as beautiful is often a positive thing. So what's the problem here? Is it because they're seen as liars? Many obese women are seen as beautiful by certain people. People rarely react by saying some might find you beautiful but personally from my subjective view I would disagree it's almost always you're not beautiful or No one thinks you're beautiful which is entirely unverifiable. It seems like transparent policing of women's bodies to me. So if there's a reasonable way to hate body positivity that isn't revolved around being repulsed by fat women I'm all ears.<|ASPECTS|>unverifiable, health benefits, liars, obese, hating fat women, unhealthy habits, exercise, hate, angry, beautiful, stressful alienating world, poor strategy, positive, health, body positive, women 's bodies, repulsed, fat women, weight, attractive, comment, body positivity, diet, unattractive women, healthy, beauty is entirely subjective, transparent policing, obese men, obese women, lose<|CONCLUSION|>","A Joe Rogan video hit the top of r videos a few days ago and the comment thread prompted this . In general reddit loathes the body positive movement because in my opinion they don't like unattractive women thinking they're attractive. This is what the issue is really about to me. People say it will encourage women to be obese or we should encourage women to lose weight for the health benefits but i don't buy any of that. No one aims to be obese, it just happens because we live in a stressful alienating world and some people deal with it by eating. No one cares that our media is filled with obese men. And most importantly, this has nothing to do with health. Being obese isn't good for your health but neither is millions of things like smoking or energy drinks or sitting in front of a computer your whole life. In fact if you're obese you don't even need to necessarily lose all your weight to become healthy, and having the aim of losing lots of weight is often a poor strategy. If you aim to exercise and diet so you don't put on any weight, and talk to a doctor or dietician, you'll become pretty healthy while still being chunky. More than this it's not just about hating fat women. It's fat women who think they're attractive is what really gets people angry. And why? Beauty is entirely subjective, many unhealthy habits like smoking can be seen as attractive, and thinking of yourself as beautiful is often a positive thing. So what's the problem here? Is it because they're seen as liars? Many obese women are seen as beautiful by certain people. People rarely react by saying some might find you beautiful but personally from my subjective view I would disagree it's almost always you're not beautiful or No one thinks you're beautiful which is entirely unverifiable. It seems like transparent policing of women's bodies to me. So if there's a reasonable way to hate body positivity that isn't revolved around being repulsed by fat women I'm all ears.",There's nothing wrong with obese women thinking they're beautiful or being ok with their body.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You are constantly seeing new report about how poaching is increasing in national parks across the world. The problem is especially bad in Sub Saharan Africa and South east Asia. Lets take the Black and White Rhino, there are about 25000 of them in the whole of Africa and about 1000 were killed by poachers for their horn. They have tried taking the horns of but the poachers still kill. A solution was suggested in moving a population of rhinos to Australia to live in a similar environment without poachers. This solution should be more utilised, when an animal can't be protected it is moved to an ex situ conservation facility.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You are constantly seeing new report about how poaching is increasing in national parks across the world. The problem is especially bad in Sub Saharan Africa and South east Asia. Lets take the Black and White Rhino, there are about 25000 of them in the whole of Africa and about 1000 were killed by poachers for their horn. They have tried taking the horns of but the poachers still kill. A solution was suggested in moving a population of rhinos to Australia to live in a similar environment without poachers. This solution should be more utilised, when an animal can't be protected it is moved to an ex situ conservation facility.<|TARGETS|>Lets take the Black and White Rhino, This solution, A solution<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You are constantly seeing new report about how poaching is increasing in national parks across the world. The problem is especially bad in Sub Saharan Africa and South east Asia. Lets take the Black and White Rhino, there are about 25000 of them in the whole of Africa and about 1000 were killed by poachers for their horn. They have tried taking the horns of but the poachers still kill. A solution was suggested in moving a population of rhinos to Australia to live in a similar environment without poachers. This solution should be more utilised, when an animal can't be protected it is moved to an ex situ conservation facility.<|ASPECTS|>horns, poaching, bad, kill, protected, utilised, poachers, killed, similar environment, problem<|CONCLUSION|>","You are constantly seeing new report about how poaching is increasing in national parks across the world. The problem is especially bad in Sub Saharan Africa and South east Asia. Lets take the Black and White Rhino, there are about 25000 of them in the whole of Africa and about 1000 were killed by poachers for their horn. They have tried taking the horns of but the poachers still kill. A solution was suggested in moving a population of rhinos to Australia to live in a similar environment without poachers. This solution should be more utilised, when an animal can't be protected it is moved to an ex situ conservation facility.",Endangered species are not always best in their natural habitat.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My school was a hellhole, period. The kids did what they wanted, drew all in the books, trashed the classrooms, cursed out the teachers, and fought at least once a week. The teachers were overwhelmed and on their last ropes, and it showed. They just didn't care anymore. Most of the time they just sat out and left us to our own devices and means. We didn't have any strict, no nonsense teachers the ones we did have left or retired and that what we needed, I believe that what a lot of schools need. They need a teacher or staff A person who won't tolerate bullshit from either the staff, teachers or students, a person who is strict but fair and won't let up until everyone stop giving excuses and to finally change for the better. If we had a teacher like that than I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have had a serious problem like we did before, and I'm pretty sure the same could go to other schools as well. Cmv?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My school was a hellhole, period. The kids did what they wanted, drew all in the books, trashed the classrooms, cursed out the teachers, and fought at least once a week. The teachers were overwhelmed and on their last ropes, and it showed. They just didn't care anymore. Most of the time they just sat out and left us to our own devices and means. We didn't have any strict, no nonsense teachers the ones we did have left or retired and that what we needed, I believe that what a lot of schools need. They need a teacher or staff A person who won't tolerate bullshit from either the staff, teachers or students, a person who is strict but fair and won't let up until everyone stop giving excuses and to finally change for the better. If we had a teacher like that than I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have had a serious problem like we did before, and I'm pretty sure the same could go to other schools as well. Cmv?<|TARGETS|>any strict no nonsense teachers the ones we did have left or retired and that what we needed, a teacher or staff A person who wo n't tolerate bullshit from either the staff teachers or students a person who is strict but fair and wo n't let up until everyone stop giving excuses and to finally change for the better .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My school was a hellhole, period. The kids did what they wanted, drew all in the books, trashed the classrooms, cursed out the teachers, and fought at least once a week. The teachers were overwhelmed and on their last ropes, and it showed. They just didn't care anymore. Most of the time they just sat out and left us to our own devices and means. We didn't have any strict, no nonsense teachers the ones we did have left or retired and that what we needed, I believe that what a lot of schools need. They need a teacher or staff A person who won't tolerate bullshit from either the staff, teachers or students, a person who is strict but fair and won't let up until everyone stop giving excuses and to finally change for the better. If we had a teacher like that than I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have had a serious problem like we did before, and I'm pretty sure the same could go to other schools as well. Cmv?<|ASPECTS|>last, overwhelmed, tolerate bullshit, change, strict, care, fought, hellhole, cursed out the teachers, devices and means, serious problem, left, drew, teachers, trashed the classrooms<|CONCLUSION|>","My school was a hellhole, period. The kids did what they wanted, drew all in the books, trashed the classrooms, cursed out the teachers, and fought at least once a week. The teachers were overwhelmed and on their last ropes, and it showed. They just didn't care anymore. Most of the time they just sat out and left us to our own devices and means. We didn't have any strict, no nonsense teachers the ones we did have left or retired and that what we needed, I believe that what a lot of schools need. They need a teacher or staff A person who won't tolerate bullshit from either the staff, teachers or students, a person who is strict but fair and won't let up until everyone stop giving excuses and to finally change for the better. If we had a teacher like that than I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have had a serious problem like we did before, and I'm pretty sure the same could go to other schools as well. Cmv?","I think we need more stricter, no nonsense teachers/staff in our schools."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A long ass time ago on this sub I made a cringeworthy post on this subreddit circlejerking about how bad Justin Bieber is. The basic point of my argument is that some opinions are objective, and one of them being that JBs music is bad. I realize how stupid that was. However, I still think a little bit of my point still stands. I think that it's perfectly possible for different people to like different things, however you have to be able to validate that opinion. If I want to make the argument that Word Up by Cameo is the greatest song of all time, and when questioned on this my only reasoning is I just really like it, ok? is not a respectable opinion, and completely pointless in discussion of art. However, if you said I really enjoy the catchiness of the bass riff, and it has one of the best kermit the frog impressions I ever heard as the vocals as your reasoning, it would be worth arguing. The definition of a valid opinion I am using is this One that is as unbiased and objective as possible. If it does meet this criteria, it isn't worth sharing. Edit U guys I CMV aint no need to reply anymore homies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A long ass time ago on this sub I made a cringeworthy post on this subreddit circlejerking about how bad Justin Bieber is. The basic point of my argument is that some opinions are objective, and one of them being that JBs music is bad. I realize how stupid that was. However, I still think a little bit of my point still stands. I think that it's perfectly possible for different people to like different things, however you have to be able to validate that opinion. If I want to make the argument that Word Up by Cameo is the greatest song of all time, and when questioned on this my only reasoning is I just really like it, ok? is not a respectable opinion, and completely pointless in discussion of art. However, if you said I really enjoy the catchiness of the bass riff, and it has one of the best kermit the frog impressions I ever heard as the vocals as your reasoning, it would be worth arguing. The definition of a valid opinion I am using is this One that is as unbiased and objective as possible. If it does meet this criteria, it isn't worth sharing. Edit U guys I CMV aint no need to reply anymore homies<|TARGETS|>a cringeworthy post on this subreddit circlejerking about how bad Justin Bieber, to make the argument that Word Up by Cameo, the frog impressions I ever heard as the vocals as your reasoning, to reply anymore homies, JBs music, the catchiness of the bass riff<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A long ass time ago on this sub I made a cringeworthy post on this subreddit circlejerking about how bad Justin Bieber is. The basic point of my argument is that some opinions are objective, and one of them being that JBs music is bad. I realize how stupid that was. However, I still think a little bit of my point still stands. I think that it's perfectly possible for different people to like different things, however you have to be able to validate that opinion. If I want to make the argument that Word Up by Cameo is the greatest song of all time, and when questioned on this my only reasoning is I just really like it, ok? is not a respectable opinion, and completely pointless in discussion of art. However, if you said I really enjoy the catchiness of the bass riff, and it has one of the best kermit the frog impressions I ever heard as the vocals as your reasoning, it would be worth arguing. The definition of a valid opinion I am using is this One that is as unbiased and objective as possible. If it does meet this criteria, it isn't worth sharing. Edit U guys I CMV aint no need to reply anymore homies<|ASPECTS|>worth sharing, like different things, pointless, respectable opinion, greatest, bad, music, objective, cringeworthy, valid opinion, unbiased, kermit, stupid, catchiness, art, point, reply, opinions<|CONCLUSION|>","A long ass time ago on this sub I made a cringeworthy post on this subreddit circlejerking about how bad Justin Bieber is. The basic point of my argument is that some opinions are objective, and one of them being that JBs music is bad. I realize how stupid that was. However, I still think a little bit of my point still stands. I think that it's perfectly possible for different people to like different things, however you have to be able to validate that opinion. If I want to make the argument that Word Up by Cameo is the greatest song of all time, and when questioned on this my only reasoning is I just really like it, ok? is not a respectable opinion, and completely pointless in discussion of art. However, if you said I really enjoy the catchiness of the bass riff, and it has one of the best kermit the frog impressions I ever heard as the vocals as your reasoning, it would be worth arguing. The definition of a valid opinion I am using is this One that is as unbiased and objective as possible. If it does meet this criteria, it isn't worth sharing. Edit U guys I  aint no need to reply anymore homies",The only valid opinion is an opinion that you can back up.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Essentially, we are living in a reality that is directly opposed to the predictions of conservative economists. With corporate profits doing just fine and the average American making less and less per year, I believe that the theory is completely invalidated and the left wing model should be given a chance. I am American and I am completely baffled by the poor mostly white people who vote Republican and I normally chalk that up to racist and homophobic attitudes that are perceived as more masculine.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Essentially, we are living in a reality that is directly opposed to the predictions of conservative economists. With corporate profits doing just fine and the average American making less and less per year, I believe that the theory is completely invalidated and the left wing model should be given a chance. I am American and I am completely baffled by the poor mostly white people who vote Republican and I normally chalk that up to racist and homophobic attitudes that are perceived as more masculine.<|TARGETS|>the poor mostly white people who vote Republican and I normally chalk that up to racist and homophobic attitudes that are perceived as more masculine ., the left wing model<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Essentially, we are living in a reality that is directly opposed to the predictions of conservative economists. With corporate profits doing just fine and the average American making less and less per year, I believe that the theory is completely invalidated and the left wing model should be given a chance. I am American and I am completely baffled by the poor mostly white people who vote Republican and I normally chalk that up to racist and homophobic attitudes that are perceived as more masculine.<|ASPECTS|>invalidated, racist, model, masculine, left, predictions, conservative, poor, corporate profits, homophobic attitudes<|CONCLUSION|>","Essentially, we are living in a reality that is directly opposed to the predictions of conservative economists. With corporate profits doing just fine and the average American making less and less per year, I believe that the theory is completely invalidated and the left wing model should be given a chance. I am American and I am completely baffled by the poor mostly white people who vote Republican and I normally chalk that up to racist and homophobic attitudes that are perceived as more masculine.",I believe that with corporate profits hitting record levels and wages stagnating that supply-side economics is completely untrue.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>They have some listicles and gimmicky content, but they use that to finance some of the best journalism in the entire world. They have numerous pullitzer prize winning journalists from places like the NYT and Pro Publica. Anyone criticizing them is using dated talking points or is a jealous hater. They are this generation's NYT and MTV combined. They have the best news gatherers and are at the forefront of the youth zeitgeist. They are A STAR FACTORY on YouTube and Facebook. Just look at people like Matt Bellasai super famous among teens and Gaby Dunn over 500k YouTube subs . They both were made by BuzzFeed. Yes, BuzzFeed has taken money from the Koch brothers but almost every big news org has one shady donor or two. And they don't do clickbait, despite what people might think. Since their ads are native they don't need to get clicks. They also don't focus on clicks anymore since they're moving to a distribution model. All the criticism of BuzzFeed is 2010 2012 era crap. Anyone criticizing them now is jealous that they're not good enough to work for them or ignorant.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>They have some listicles and gimmicky content, but they use that to finance some of the best journalism in the entire world. They have numerous pullitzer prize winning journalists from places like the NYT and Pro Publica. Anyone criticizing them is using dated talking points or is a jealous hater. They are this generation's NYT and MTV combined. They have the best news gatherers and are at the forefront of the youth zeitgeist. They are A STAR FACTORY on YouTube and Facebook. Just look at people like Matt Bellasai super famous among teens and Gaby Dunn over 500k YouTube subs . They both were made by BuzzFeed. Yes, BuzzFeed has taken money from the Koch brothers but almost every big news org has one shady donor or two. And they don't do clickbait, despite what people might think. Since their ads are native they don't need to get clicks. They also don't focus on clicks anymore since they're moving to a distribution model. All the criticism of BuzzFeed is 2010 2012 era crap. Anyone criticizing them now is jealous that they're not good enough to work for them or ignorant.<|TARGETS|>BuzzFeed, using dated talking points, All the criticism of BuzzFeed, Matt Bellasai super famous among teens and Gaby Dunn over 500k YouTube subs, Anyone criticizing them now, Since their ads<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>They have some listicles and gimmicky content, but they use that to finance some of the best journalism in the entire world. They have numerous pullitzer prize winning journalists from places like the NYT and Pro Publica. Anyone criticizing them is using dated talking points or is a jealous hater. They are this generation's NYT and MTV combined. They have the best news gatherers and are at the forefront of the youth zeitgeist. They are A STAR FACTORY on YouTube and Facebook. Just look at people like Matt Bellasai super famous among teens and Gaby Dunn over 500k YouTube subs . They both were made by BuzzFeed. Yes, BuzzFeed has taken money from the Koch brothers but almost every big news org has one shady donor or two. And they don't do clickbait, despite what people might think. Since their ads are native they don't need to get clicks. They also don't focus on clicks anymore since they're moving to a distribution model. All the criticism of BuzzFeed is 2010 2012 era crap. Anyone criticizing them now is jealous that they're not good enough to work for them or ignorant.<|ASPECTS|>2012 era crap, shady donor, news gatherers, money, clickbait, pullitzer prize winning journalists, mtv, nyt, gimmicky content, criticism, focus, youth zeitgeist, factory, distribution model, famous, jealous, listicles, dated talking points, finance, enough, native, best journalism, ignorant, jealous hater, clicks<|CONCLUSION|>","They have some listicles and gimmicky content, but they use that to finance some of the best journalism in the entire world. They have numerous pullitzer prize winning journalists from places like the NYT and Pro Publica. Anyone criticizing them is using dated talking points or is a jealous hater. They are this generation's NYT and MTV combined. They have the best news gatherers and are at the forefront of the youth zeitgeist. They are A STAR FACTORY on YouTube and Facebook. Just look at people like Matt Bellasai super famous among teens and Gaby Dunn over 500k YouTube subs . They both were made by BuzzFeed. Yes, BuzzFeed has taken money from the Koch brothers but almost every big news org has one shady donor or two. And they don't do clickbait, despite what people might think. Since their ads are native they don't need to get clicks. They also don't focus on clicks anymore since they're moving to a distribution model. All the criticism of BuzzFeed is 2010 2012 era crap. Anyone criticizing them now is jealous that they're not good enough to work for them or ignorant.",There's Nothing Wrong With BuzzFeed
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This can apply to a number of things, but I see it often at sports arenas. Folks are chatting about this fan or that fan didn't cheer loudly during a goal, just sat and clapped their hands, left early, and so on. They judge them and say how they don't get that , it's an embarrassment , or start deciding how they should and should not act as a fan while attending that event. I find that kind of behavior utterly pretentious, self important, and elitist. Those people paid for their ticket, they are spending their own time. It is ABSOLUTELY none of their business how they choose to enjoy themselves so long as it's not illegal, violent, affects you, etc . They can have their own way of enjoying themselves that does not conform to this elitist group of Pro Fans rules and expectations, and it's nobodies business but theirs. It's their money, and up to them how they spend their time. If they don't feel like screaming at every goal, fine. If they want to leave early when a team is up by a huge margin, that's their business. These Pro Fans should concern themselves with their own enjoyment, and stop trying to force their rules of fandom on others.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This can apply to a number of things, but I see it often at sports arenas. Folks are chatting about this fan or that fan didn't cheer loudly during a goal, just sat and clapped their hands, left early, and so on. They judge them and say how they don't get that , it's an embarrassment , or start deciding how they should and should not act as a fan while attending that event. I find that kind of behavior utterly pretentious, self important, and elitist. Those people paid for their ticket, they are spending their own time. It is ABSOLUTELY none of their business how they choose to enjoy themselves so long as it's not illegal, violent, affects you, etc . They can have their own way of enjoying themselves that does not conform to this elitist group of Pro Fans rules and expectations, and it's nobodies business but theirs. It's their money, and up to them how they spend their time. If they don't feel like screaming at every goal, fine. If they want to leave early when a team is up by a huge margin, that's their business. These Pro Fans should concern themselves with their own enjoyment, and stop trying to force their rules of fandom on others.<|TARGETS|>their business how they choose to enjoy themselves so long as it 's not illegal violent, deciding how they should and should not act as a fan while attending that event ., Folks are chatting about this fan or that fan did n't cheer loudly during a goal just sat and clapped their hands, to force their rules of fandom on others ., If they want to leave early when a team is up by a huge margin, Those people paid for their ticket<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This can apply to a number of things, but I see it often at sports arenas. Folks are chatting about this fan or that fan didn't cheer loudly during a goal, just sat and clapped their hands, left early, and so on. They judge them and say how they don't get that , it's an embarrassment , or start deciding how they should and should not act as a fan while attending that event. I find that kind of behavior utterly pretentious, self important, and elitist. Those people paid for their ticket, they are spending their own time. It is ABSOLUTELY none of their business how they choose to enjoy themselves so long as it's not illegal, violent, affects you, etc . They can have their own way of enjoying themselves that does not conform to this elitist group of Pro Fans rules and expectations, and it's nobodies business but theirs. It's their money, and up to them how they spend their time. If they don't feel like screaming at every goal, fine. If they want to leave early when a team is up by a huge margin, that's their business. These Pro Fans should concern themselves with their own enjoyment, and stop trying to force their rules of fandom on others.<|ASPECTS|>, enjoying, money, spend, affects, pretentious, illegal, business, rules of fandom, left early, screaming, paid, fan, spending, self important, behavior, enjoy, cheer loudly, expectations, time, enjoyment, absolutely, embarrassment, leave early, sports arenas, violent, judge, elitist, rules<|CONCLUSION|>","This can apply to a number of things, but I see it often at sports arenas. Folks are chatting about this fan or that fan didn't cheer loudly during a goal, just sat and clapped their hands, left early, and so on. They judge them and say how they don't get that , it's an embarrassment , or start deciding how they should and should not act as a fan while attending that event. I find that kind of behavior utterly pretentious, self important, and elitist. Those people paid for their ticket, they are spending their own time. It is ABSOLUTELY none of their business how they choose to enjoy themselves so long as it's not illegal, violent, affects you, etc . They can have their own way of enjoying themselves that does not conform to this elitist group of Pro Fans rules and expectations, and it's nobodies business but theirs. It's their money, and up to them how they spend their time. If they don't feel like screaming at every goal, fine. If they want to leave early when a team is up by a huge margin, that's their business. These Pro Fans should concern themselves with their own enjoyment, and stop trying to force their rules of fandom on others.","I believe judging other sports fans on how ""good"" of a fan they are is utterly pretentious and self-important."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that a lot of people view pre nups as “insurance” in the case of divorce. And I get it. If someone is entering into a marriage with a LOT of capital, and the other person comes from significantly less, it makes sense to want to make sure that what’s yours, stays yours. But I think a lot of people at least in media portrayals and stories from friends are very against the idea of signing one and I don’t get it. If you love someone and you intend to be married to them forever, a pre nup is essentially pointless. To me, it only seems like you would refuse to be adverse to sign a pre nup if you’re marrying someone because you see the relationship as potentially beneficial for you in the case of a divorce. I’m interested in hearing anyone’s opinion, but particularly the opinions of those who have been in this situation, i.e. the one asking for the pre nup or the one being asked. Thank you EDIT I’ve awarded 3 deltas on this post so far because of some very valid points. The most convincing of which was that a prenup compels the person signing to be in a potentially extremely difficult and even dangerous position in the case of abuse. Someone else provided me with a very convincing analogy which put the whole issue in a new light for me. A third person suggested the possibility of an unfair prenup I understand why you would not sign one, however, after re negotiating the terms to a place where both parties can be satisfied with the prenup, it would then make no sense to continue to refuse to sign. And if the person asking for a prenup refuses to compromise on unfair terms, you probably shouldn’t be marrying them in the first place, imho. Ultimately, my personal experience has shaped my view so that I have no issue with signing a prenup with my partner, but I do see now that the issue is much more multi faceted than I had previously believed. I suppose my view on the subject now is there is no reason not to sign a prenup if the terms are satisfactory to both parties and there is room for a discussion between the couple. If your SO refuses to compromise on any point or even engage in a discussion about the terms, you probably shouldn’t be marrying them in the first place as they clear don’t see you as an equal. So I guess view shifted expanded, but not altogether changed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that a lot of people view pre nups as “insurance” in the case of divorce. And I get it. If someone is entering into a marriage with a LOT of capital, and the other person comes from significantly less, it makes sense to want to make sure that what’s yours, stays yours. But I think a lot of people at least in media portrayals and stories from friends are very against the idea of signing one and I don’t get it. If you love someone and you intend to be married to them forever, a pre nup is essentially pointless. To me, it only seems like you would refuse to be adverse to sign a pre nup if you’re marrying someone because you see the relationship as potentially beneficial for you in the case of a divorce. I’m interested in hearing anyone’s opinion, but particularly the opinions of those who have been in this situation, i.e. the one asking for the pre nup or the one being asked. Thank you EDIT I’ve awarded 3 deltas on this post so far because of some very valid points. The most convincing of which was that a prenup compels the person signing to be in a potentially extremely difficult and even dangerous position in the case of abuse. Someone else provided me with a very convincing analogy which put the whole issue in a new light for me. A third person suggested the possibility of an unfair prenup I understand why you would not sign one, however, after re negotiating the terms to a place where both parties can be satisfied with the prenup, it would then make no sense to continue to refuse to sign. And if the person asking for a prenup refuses to compromise on unfair terms, you probably shouldn’t be marrying them in the first place, imho. Ultimately, my personal experience has shaped my view so that I have no issue with signing a prenup with my partner, but I do see now that the issue is much more multi faceted than I had previously believed. I suppose my view on the subject now is there is no reason not to sign a prenup if the terms are satisfactory to both parties and there is room for a discussion between the couple. If your SO refuses to compromise on any point or even engage in a discussion about the terms, you probably shouldn’t be marrying them in the first place as they clear don’t see you as an equal. So I guess view shifted expanded, but not altogether changed.<|TARGETS|>a prenup, to continue to refuse to sign ., re negotiating the terms to a place where both parties can be satisfied with the prenup, to be adverse to sign a pre nup if you ’re marrying someone because you see the relationship as potentially beneficial for you in the case of a divorce ., to want to make sure that what ’s yours, my view on the subject now<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that a lot of people view pre nups as “insurance” in the case of divorce. And I get it. If someone is entering into a marriage with a LOT of capital, and the other person comes from significantly less, it makes sense to want to make sure that what’s yours, stays yours. But I think a lot of people at least in media portrayals and stories from friends are very against the idea of signing one and I don’t get it. If you love someone and you intend to be married to them forever, a pre nup is essentially pointless. To me, it only seems like you would refuse to be adverse to sign a pre nup if you’re marrying someone because you see the relationship as potentially beneficial for you in the case of a divorce. I’m interested in hearing anyone’s opinion, but particularly the opinions of those who have been in this situation, i.e. the one asking for the pre nup or the one being asked. Thank you EDIT I’ve awarded 3 deltas on this post so far because of some very valid points. The most convincing of which was that a prenup compels the person signing to be in a potentially extremely difficult and even dangerous position in the case of abuse. Someone else provided me with a very convincing analogy which put the whole issue in a new light for me. A third person suggested the possibility of an unfair prenup I understand why you would not sign one, however, after re negotiating the terms to a place where both parties can be satisfied with the prenup, it would then make no sense to continue to refuse to sign. And if the person asking for a prenup refuses to compromise on unfair terms, you probably shouldn’t be marrying them in the first place, imho. Ultimately, my personal experience has shaped my view so that I have no issue with signing a prenup with my partner, but I do see now that the issue is much more multi faceted than I had previously believed. I suppose my view on the subject now is there is no reason not to sign a prenup if the terms are satisfactory to both parties and there is room for a discussion between the couple. If your SO refuses to compromise on any point or even engage in a discussion about the terms, you probably shouldn’t be marrying them in the first place as they clear don’t see you as an equal. So I guess view shifted expanded, but not altogether changed.<|ASPECTS|>beneficial, satisfactory, discussion, love someone, capital, view shifted expanded, convincing analogy, personal, unfair prenup, equal, pre, “ insurance ”, dangerous position, compromise, potentially, multi faceted, valid points, pointless, deltas, difficult, unfair terms, opinion, abuse, opinions<|CONCLUSION|>","I know that a lot of people view pre nups as “insurance” in the case of divorce. And I get it. If someone is entering into a marriage with a LOT of capital, and the other person comes from significantly less, it makes sense to want to make sure that what’s yours, stays yours. But I think a lot of people at least in media portrayals and stories from friends are very against the idea of signing one and I don’t get it. If you love someone and you intend to be married to them forever, a pre nup is essentially pointless. To me, it only seems like you would refuse to be adverse to sign a pre nup if you’re marrying someone because you see the relationship as potentially beneficial for you in the case of a divorce. I’m interested in hearing anyone’s opinion, but particularly the opinions of those who have been in this situation, i.e. the one asking for the pre nup or the one being asked. Thank you EDIT I’ve awarded 3 deltas on this post so far because of some very valid points. The most convincing of which was that a prenup compels the person signing to be in a potentially extremely difficult and even dangerous position in the case of abuse. Someone else provided me with a very convincing analogy which put the whole issue in a new light for me. A third person suggested the possibility of an unfair prenup I understand why you would not sign one, however, after re negotiating the terms to a place where both parties can be satisfied with the prenup, it would then make no sense to continue to refuse to sign. And if the person asking for a prenup refuses to compromise on unfair terms, you probably shouldn’t be marrying them in the first place, imho. Ultimately, my personal experience has shaped my view so that I have no issue with signing a prenup with my partner, but I do see now that the issue is much more multi faceted than I had previously believed. I suppose my view on the subject now is there is no reason not to sign a prenup if the terms are satisfactory to both parties and there is room for a discussion between the couple. If your SO refuses to compromise on any point or even engage in a discussion about the terms, you probably shouldn’t be marrying them in the first place as they clear don’t see you as an equal. So I guess view shifted expanded, but not altogether changed.",There is no reason to refuse to sign a pre-nup unless your reasons for marriage are corrupt to begin with.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Local governments get most of their revenue from property tax. This is an indirect form of residency tax paid by property owners directly or renters indirectly. But this tax is not charged to the homeless and guests and so is not fair because they still use services and benefit by being allowed to reside in the community. The use of public space should be restricted to residents who pay to maintain that space. If you don't pay a resident tax you should be evicted for trespassing the same as if you didn't pay your rent or property tax. The residency tax would be composed of multiple charges such as federal, state and local. Each level of government would set the rate to balance revenue generated. If too low then not enough revenue generated and if too high then revenue would be low because the residents could not afford to pay and would be forced to leave. Payment would be charged daily if you change locations. If you are in a hotel, they could collect the tax. If you are visiting friends in a different city you would pay the rate for that city and get a credit for not spending the night at your home residency. Collection of the residency tax would require a daily update of the location of all people. EDIT There would need to be areas without a residency tax, so only local governments would charge this tax. Uninhabited areas outside of cities would not have a residency tax.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Local governments get most of their revenue from property tax. This is an indirect form of residency tax paid by property owners directly or renters indirectly. But this tax is not charged to the homeless and guests and so is not fair because they still use services and benefit by being allowed to reside in the community. The use of public space should be restricted to residents who pay to maintain that space. If you don't pay a resident tax you should be evicted for trespassing the same as if you didn't pay your rent or property tax. The residency tax would be composed of multiple charges such as federal, state and local. Each level of government would set the rate to balance revenue generated. If too low then not enough revenue generated and if too high then revenue would be low because the residents could not afford to pay and would be forced to leave. Payment would be charged daily if you change locations. If you are in a hotel, they could collect the tax. If you are visiting friends in a different city you would pay the rate for that city and get a credit for not spending the night at your home residency. Collection of the residency tax would require a daily update of the location of all people. EDIT There would need to be areas without a residency tax, so only local governments would charge this tax. Uninhabited areas outside of cities would not have a residency tax.<|TARGETS|>being allowed to reside in the community ., Payment, a resident tax you should be evicted for trespassing the same as if you did n't pay your rent or property tax ., The residency tax, Uninhabited areas outside of cities, Local governments<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Local governments get most of their revenue from property tax. This is an indirect form of residency tax paid by property owners directly or renters indirectly. But this tax is not charged to the homeless and guests and so is not fair because they still use services and benefit by being allowed to reside in the community. The use of public space should be restricted to residents who pay to maintain that space. If you don't pay a resident tax you should be evicted for trespassing the same as if you didn't pay your rent or property tax. The residency tax would be composed of multiple charges such as federal, state and local. Each level of government would set the rate to balance revenue generated. If too low then not enough revenue generated and if too high then revenue would be low because the residents could not afford to pay and would be forced to leave. Payment would be charged daily if you change locations. If you are in a hotel, they could collect the tax. If you are visiting friends in a different city you would pay the rate for that city and get a credit for not spending the night at your home residency. Collection of the residency tax would require a daily update of the location of all people. EDIT There would need to be areas without a residency tax, so only local governments would charge this tax. Uninhabited areas outside of cities would not have a residency tax.<|ASPECTS|>charged daily, credit, trespassing, tax, uninhabited, resident tax, homeless, restricted, daily update, public space, residency tax, revenue, afford to pay, payment, revenue generated, evicted, charges, pay, benefit, use services, balance revenue generated, use, rate, revenue would be low, property tax, collect, location<|CONCLUSION|>","Local governments get most of their revenue from property tax. This is an indirect form of residency tax paid by property owners directly or renters indirectly. But this tax is not charged to the homeless and guests and so is not fair because they still use services and benefit by being allowed to reside in the community. The use of public space should be restricted to residents who pay to maintain that space. If you don't pay a resident tax you should be evicted for trespassing the same as if you didn't pay your rent or property tax. The residency tax would be composed of multiple charges such as federal, state and local. Each level of government would set the rate to balance revenue generated. If too low then not enough revenue generated and if too high then revenue would be low because the residents could not afford to pay and would be forced to leave. Payment would be charged daily if you change locations. If you are in a hotel, they could collect the tax. If you are visiting friends in a different city you would pay the rate for that city and get a credit for not spending the night at your home residency. Collection of the residency tax would require a daily update of the location of all people. EDIT There would need to be areas without a residency tax, so only local governments would charge this tax. Uninhabited areas outside of cities would not have a residency tax.",Governments should charge a residency tax
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We pay sports analysts millions of dollars to break down the action and provide us with in depth percentages, averages, records, comparison and opinion probably because we need filler in between segments. Some fans track this stuff obsessively. Not that there's an absolute dichotomy, but others are interested in role playing games or character based stories where statistical accomplishments are equally as important. LARPing, D D, Magic The Gathering, etc. My view is that if we're to judge these Star Trek dorks for keeping track of Klingon grammar, we should hold those who obsess over sports statistics to the same standard of utter meaninglessness. Though we're making strides in social acceptance, there is a line drawn at least in the United States between the tolerance level of one versus the other in the main stream. None ought to be viewed as more nerdy than the other. I'm very open to changing my view. edit Backwards causation of nerd label. View changed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We pay sports analysts millions of dollars to break down the action and provide us with in depth percentages, averages, records, comparison and opinion probably because we need filler in between segments. Some fans track this stuff obsessively. Not that there's an absolute dichotomy, but others are interested in role playing games or character based stories where statistical accomplishments are equally as important. LARPing, D D, Magic The Gathering, etc. My view is that if we're to judge these Star Trek dorks for keeping track of Klingon grammar, we should hold those who obsess over sports statistics to the same standard of utter meaninglessness. Though we're making strides in social acceptance, there is a line drawn at least in the United States between the tolerance level of one versus the other in the main stream. None ought to be viewed as more nerdy than the other. I'm very open to changing my view. edit Backwards causation of nerd label. View changed.<|TARGETS|>hold those who obsess over sports statistics to the same standard of utter meaninglessness ., playing games or character based stories where statistical accomplishments, making strides in social acceptance, to be viewed as more nerdy than the other ., to judge these Star Trek dorks for keeping track of Klingon grammar, pay sports analysts millions of dollars to break down the action and provide us with in depth percentages averages records comparison and opinion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We pay sports analysts millions of dollars to break down the action and provide us with in depth percentages, averages, records, comparison and opinion probably because we need filler in between segments. Some fans track this stuff obsessively. Not that there's an absolute dichotomy, but others are interested in role playing games or character based stories where statistical accomplishments are equally as important. LARPing, D D, Magic The Gathering, etc. My view is that if we're to judge these Star Trek dorks for keeping track of Klingon grammar, we should hold those who obsess over sports statistics to the same standard of utter meaninglessness. Though we're making strides in social acceptance, there is a line drawn at least in the United States between the tolerance level of one versus the other in the main stream. None ought to be viewed as more nerdy than the other. I'm very open to changing my view. edit Backwards causation of nerd label. View changed.<|ASPECTS|>obsessively, tolerance level, view changed, dichotomy, utter, nerdy, nerd label, filler, statistical accomplishments, backwards causation, meaninglessness, depth percentages, larping, social acceptance, changing my view<|CONCLUSION|>","We pay sports analysts millions of dollars to break down the action and provide us with in depth percentages, averages, records, comparison and opinion probably because we need filler in between segments. Some fans track this stuff obsessively. Not that there's an absolute dichotomy, but others are interested in role playing games or character based stories where statistical accomplishments are equally as important. LARPing, D D, Magic The Gathering, etc. My view is that if we're to judge these Star Trek dorks for keeping track of Klingon grammar, we should hold those who obsess over sports statistics to the same standard of utter meaninglessness. Though we're making strides in social acceptance, there is a line drawn at least in the United States between the tolerance level of one versus the other in the main stream. None ought to be viewed as more nerdy than the other. I'm very open to changing my view. edit Backwards causation of nerd label. View changed.",There is no reason for a greater social stigma against analyzing supposedly nerd activities than tracking sports statistics.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a fairly specific look and location in mind. Side of the head, kinda wrapping around the ear. Either something Celtic mandala like, or black and grey realism maybe a design that combines both. None of the pics in the links are tattoos I'm getting they're just for ideas. And btw, I already have big detailed tattoos on my arms and legs. note I am not nearly as good looking as the folks in those pics There's the obvious things that people would say against a head tattoo Can't get certain jobs Social stigma Family disapproval I'm not worried about jobs. I'm the kind of person who will never work in an place that would have a problem with head tattoos. I am worried how people in general might respond. Certain circles of society not only don't give a fuck, but openly celebrate such displays of artistic individuality. These are the circles I run in. It's the rest of the world that worries me. How badly would a head tattoo affect me walking into certain businesses, working with people from very different walks of life, or law enforcement those who might choose to discriminate based solely on that? There is no way of predicting these things, and I've talked to people with head tattoos about it. Those I've asked say they've been fine. But is it worth the risk? My family probably won't approve. Although fine with tattoos everyone in my immediate family has them , getting one on my head would be going too far for some of them. I wouldn't be disowned or barred from interacting with the kids or anything. I'm an adult, it's my choice and they would respect that, but I respect and love them too, and don't want to create rifts. I really want this tattoo. It's been on my mind for years now. But I'm just so nervous. What would you say to talk me out of it? Edit No one has really changed my opinions, but the hesitation to get this tattoo is still there. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a fairly specific look and location in mind. Side of the head, kinda wrapping around the ear. Either something Celtic mandala like, or black and grey realism maybe a design that combines both. None of the pics in the links are tattoos I'm getting they're just for ideas. And btw, I already have big detailed tattoos on my arms and legs. note I am not nearly as good looking as the folks in those pics There's the obvious things that people would say against a head tattoo Can't get certain jobs Social stigma Family disapproval I'm not worried about jobs. I'm the kind of person who will never work in an place that would have a problem with head tattoos. I am worried how people in general might respond. Certain circles of society not only don't give a fuck, but openly celebrate such displays of artistic individuality. These are the circles I run in. It's the rest of the world that worries me. How badly would a head tattoo affect me walking into certain businesses, working with people from very different walks of life, or law enforcement those who might choose to discriminate based solely on that? There is no way of predicting these things, and I've talked to people with head tattoos about it. Those I've asked say they've been fine. But is it worth the risk? My family probably won't approve. Although fine with tattoos everyone in my immediate family has them , getting one on my head would be going too far for some of them. I wouldn't be disowned or barred from interacting with the kids or anything. I'm an adult, it's my choice and they would respect that, but I respect and love them too, and don't want to create rifts. I really want this tattoo. It's been on my mind for years now. But I'm just so nervous. What would you say to talk me out of it? Edit No one has really changed my opinions, but the hesitation to get this tattoo is still there. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why. <|TARGETS|>a head tattoo affect me walking into certain businesses working with people from very different walks of life or law enforcement those who might choose to discriminate based solely on that, not nearly as good looking as the folks in those pics There 's the obvious things that people would say against a head tattoo, to talk me out of it, Either something Celtic mandala like or black and grey realism, Certain circles of society not only do n't give a fuck but openly celebrate such displays of artistic individuality ., btw<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a fairly specific look and location in mind. Side of the head, kinda wrapping around the ear. Either something Celtic mandala like, or black and grey realism maybe a design that combines both. None of the pics in the links are tattoos I'm getting they're just for ideas. And btw, I already have big detailed tattoos on my arms and legs. note I am not nearly as good looking as the folks in those pics There's the obvious things that people would say against a head tattoo Can't get certain jobs Social stigma Family disapproval I'm not worried about jobs. I'm the kind of person who will never work in an place that would have a problem with head tattoos. I am worried how people in general might respond. Certain circles of society not only don't give a fuck, but openly celebrate such displays of artistic individuality. These are the circles I run in. It's the rest of the world that worries me. How badly would a head tattoo affect me walking into certain businesses, working with people from very different walks of life, or law enforcement those who might choose to discriminate based solely on that? There is no way of predicting these things, and I've talked to people with head tattoos about it. Those I've asked say they've been fine. But is it worth the risk? My family probably won't approve. Although fine with tattoos everyone in my immediate family has them , getting one on my head would be going too far for some of them. I wouldn't be disowned or barred from interacting with the kids or anything. I'm an adult, it's my choice and they would respect that, but I respect and love them too, and don't want to create rifts. I really want this tattoo. It's been on my mind for years now. But I'm just so nervous. What would you say to talk me out of it? Edit No one has really changed my opinions, but the hesitation to get this tattoo is still there. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why. <|ASPECTS|>, fine, approve, jobs, disowned, predicting, look and location, specific, nervous, tattoo, respond, far, social stigma, detailed tattoos, celtic, respect, family, risk, changed my opinions, going, ideas, discriminate, interacting with the kids, barred, circles, rifts, hesitation, artistic individuality, rest, worries, head tattoos, worth, choice, love<|CONCLUSION|>","I have a fairly specific look and location in mind. Side of the head, kinda wrapping around the ear. Either something Celtic mandala like, or black and grey realism maybe a design that combines both. None of the pics in the links are tattoos I'm getting they're just for ideas. And btw, I already have big detailed tattoos on my arms and legs. note I am not nearly as good looking as the folks in those pics There's the obvious things that people would say against a head tattoo Can't get certain jobs Social stigma Family disapproval I'm not worried about jobs. I'm the kind of person who will never work in an place that would have a problem with head tattoos. I am worried how people in general might respond. Certain circles of society not only don't give a fuck, but openly celebrate such displays of artistic individuality. These are the circles I run in. It's the rest of the world that worries me. How badly would a head tattoo affect me walking into certain businesses, working with people from very different walks of life, or law enforcement those who might choose to discriminate based solely on that? There is no way of predicting these things, and I've talked to people with head tattoos about it. Those I've asked say they've been fine. But is it worth the risk? My family probably won't approve. Although fine with tattoos everyone in my immediate family has them , getting one on my head would be going too far for some of them. I wouldn't be disowned or barred from interacting with the kids or anything. I'm an adult, it's my choice and they would respect that, but I respect and love them too, and don't want to create rifts. I really want this tattoo. It's been on my mind for years now. But I'm just so nervous. What would you say to talk me out of it? Edit No one has really changed my opinions, but the hesitation to get this tattoo is still there. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why.",I really want a head tattoo. Talk me out of it.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that religion should be given no place in society. Tax breaks, hospital visits and responsibility, anything that comes with marriage really, should have no place in government or tax breaks or what have you. Marriage should be completely handled by churches. I am an atheist, so I really don't care how they do it, or who they do or don't include. The reason that I think this is because originally, it was a religious ceremony, and we shouldn't be forcing our pro homosexual I am in no way against gay rights agenda into their long lived practices and force them to change. If you think about, legalizing gay marriage would if anything be us forcing them to do something they don't want to. Let them do what they want, no matter how prejudiced, stupid, and irrelevant what they do is. As long as they don't hurt or kill anyone, it's okay in my book. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that religion should be given no place in society. Tax breaks, hospital visits and responsibility, anything that comes with marriage really, should have no place in government or tax breaks or what have you. Marriage should be completely handled by churches. I am an atheist, so I really don't care how they do it, or who they do or don't include. The reason that I think this is because originally, it was a religious ceremony, and we shouldn't be forcing our pro homosexual I am in no way against gay rights agenda into their long lived practices and force them to change. If you think about, legalizing gay marriage would if anything be us forcing them to do something they don't want to. Let them do what they want, no matter how prejudiced, stupid, and irrelevant what they do is. As long as they don't hurt or kill anyone, it's okay in my book. CMV<|TARGETS|>Tax breaks, legalizing gay marriage, Let them do what they want no matter how prejudiced stupid and irrelevant what they do, forcing our pro homosexual I am in no way against gay rights agenda into their long lived practices, n't care how they do it or who they do or do n't include .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that religion should be given no place in society. Tax breaks, hospital visits and responsibility, anything that comes with marriage really, should have no place in government or tax breaks or what have you. Marriage should be completely handled by churches. I am an atheist, so I really don't care how they do it, or who they do or don't include. The reason that I think this is because originally, it was a religious ceremony, and we shouldn't be forcing our pro homosexual I am in no way against gay rights agenda into their long lived practices and force them to change. If you think about, legalizing gay marriage would if anything be us forcing them to do something they don't want to. Let them do what they want, no matter how prejudiced, stupid, and irrelevant what they do is. As long as they don't hurt or kill anyone, it's okay in my book. CMV<|ASPECTS|>okay, handled by churches, place in society, religious ceremony, religion, gay rights agenda, atheist, marriage, hurt, gay marriage, kill anyone, completely, forcing, responsibility, stupid, tax breaks, irrelevant, prejudiced, hospital visits<|CONCLUSION|>","I think that religion should be given no place in society. Tax breaks, hospital visits and responsibility, anything that comes with marriage really, should have no place in government or tax breaks or what have you. Marriage should be completely handled by churches. I am an atheist, so I really don't care how they do it, or who they do or don't include. The reason that I think this is because originally, it was a religious ceremony, and we shouldn't be forcing our pro homosexual I am in no way against gay rights agenda into their long lived practices and force them to change. If you think about, legalizing gay marriage would if anything be us forcing them to do something they don't want to. Let them do what they want, no matter how prejudiced, stupid, and irrelevant what they do is. As long as they don't hurt or kill anyone, it's okay in my book.",I don't believe marriage should have any sort of government recognition.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit It seems I had some pretty awful wording in my post. and that I got offtopic I'll leave the original text here for posterity, but I'll include a brief summary of what I meant gt I think that academic universities not those actually dedicated to the arts should put less or no focus on certain subjects and focus more on STEM and similar academic subjects. gt I think that humanity as a whole needs to spend our best money and best resources on advancing the human race, not maintaining the present. Opinion Let me begin by defining what is probably the controversial part of the tite advancement of the human race . There is no objective definition to me for the advancement of the human race . What I do mean is that majors which will give people the tools to better the world in our future. Things such as engineering, math and science, which be used to develop new tools for the world. Because I'm probably not doing such a good job at describing that phrase, let me provide a few examples gt Developing a cure for ebola Advancing gt Building a new bridge to move supplies Advancing gt Performing a new, hip interpretive dance Not Advancing I see higher education institutions as a way for people to further their education in a field that cannot be satisfied with a high school degree. Fields such as medicine, engineering, and physics require further specific knowledge that can be obtained a college or university a degree is all but required to get a job in one of these fields. Argument Humanity is at an odd time in our timeline. Quite frankly, we're fighting for pureed dinosaurs in the middle of a desert. We've grown too big for our small little planet, yet we're too comfortable with situation is in. Instead of pushing for the advancement of technology through space travel or green energy, we're focusing our attention on culture, media, and the fact that that nobody knows that the ' ' is actually a pound sign. Even as the world erupts into war and the ocean is accumulating a plastic patch we're using higher institutions of learning for majors such as Slavic Languages and Literatures no offense to them . Humanity has chosen to bolster the liberal arts majors instead of the STEM ones, which could be argued will improve humanity in the long run. We should be using these institutions of higher learning to promote the growth and expansion of humanity, not spending our time and roughly 120,000 to teach people interpretive dance and other 'unnecessary' majors. Colleges and Universities should put more weight on the STEM majors versus the other ones. Higher Education is the place for our best and brightest humanity's hopes for the future to go to learn and obtain the information for them to use in the rest of their lives. It should not be a place for frat parties and drinking. Rather, higher education should be a place for students to study today's information to use so that tomorrow will be better than today. These majors and fields are not useless by any means our best time and effort should be directed at the STEM fields instead. While Marvel spent 170 million making a film about adventures in space, India had actual adventures in space by sending a probe to Mars for about 70 million We're spending a lot of money that could be used for topics to 'advance' the human race through science and technology. Conclusion gt “Two possibilities exist either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” Arthur C. Clarke Perhaps this is where I base my opinion I'm not quite sure how I formed it. It's just that we're alone in the Universe, and I think we should be spending more time trying to get farther along, rather than rolling in money over some oil in the middle east. This guy does a better job at explaining it gt It means that if you value intelligence, technology, or understanding the universe then you realize that we, as humans, are not only the very best that the universe has to offer, but that it's all on us. If we screw up then the universe will remain a mystery. It makes us the one single light of reason in an incomprehensibly large and dark room. gt And it means that we are alone in facing our problems, alone in experiencing war and hate and all the darkness that comes from intelligence misused, it means no one and nothing is going to show up and say Hey humanity, you've done well you know? You screwed up some places, but so did we. gt For me the idea that humanity is the only glimmer of intelligence in the universe makes all our petty squabbles and politics more damning. It means that the people in power are risking stakes they cannot comprehend for gains so short term that they're not even visible on a geological scale, much less a cosmic one. Imagine all that humanity could accomplish, the colonies of life and reason spreading throughout the cosmos, every planet we visit and terraform would bring new and unique life into the universe, imagine the wonders we could create and then realize that we risk it all over things which won't matter in 40 years or which would be better solved using reason. Add to it the fact that we risk all of that potential not only for ourselves but for the universe at large, and it is an awesome responsibility. u VorDresden gt Source<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit It seems I had some pretty awful wording in my post. and that I got offtopic I'll leave the original text here for posterity, but I'll include a brief summary of what I meant gt I think that academic universities not those actually dedicated to the arts should put less or no focus on certain subjects and focus more on STEM and similar academic subjects. gt I think that humanity as a whole needs to spend our best money and best resources on advancing the human race, not maintaining the present. Opinion Let me begin by defining what is probably the controversial part of the tite advancement of the human race . There is no objective definition to me for the advancement of the human race . What I do mean is that majors which will give people the tools to better the world in our future. Things such as engineering, math and science, which be used to develop new tools for the world. Because I'm probably not doing such a good job at describing that phrase, let me provide a few examples gt Developing a cure for ebola Advancing gt Building a new bridge to move supplies Advancing gt Performing a new, hip interpretive dance Not Advancing I see higher education institutions as a way for people to further their education in a field that cannot be satisfied with a high school degree. Fields such as medicine, engineering, and physics require further specific knowledge that can be obtained a college or university a degree is all but required to get a job in one of these fields. Argument Humanity is at an odd time in our timeline. Quite frankly, we're fighting for pureed dinosaurs in the middle of a desert. We've grown too big for our small little planet, yet we're too comfortable with situation is in. Instead of pushing for the advancement of technology through space travel or green energy, we're focusing our attention on culture, media, and the fact that that nobody knows that the ' ' is actually a pound sign. Even as the world erupts into war and the ocean is accumulating a plastic patch we're using higher institutions of learning for majors such as Slavic Languages and Literatures no offense to them . Humanity has chosen to bolster the liberal arts majors instead of the STEM ones, which could be argued will improve humanity in the long run. We should be using these institutions of higher learning to promote the growth and expansion of humanity, not spending our time and roughly 120,000 to teach people interpretive dance and other 'unnecessary' majors. Colleges and Universities should put more weight on the STEM majors versus the other ones. Higher Education is the place for our best and brightest humanity's hopes for the future to go to learn and obtain the information for them to use in the rest of their lives. It should not be a place for frat parties and drinking. Rather, higher education should be a place for students to study today's information to use so that tomorrow will be better than today. These majors and fields are not useless by any means our best time and effort should be directed at the STEM fields instead. While Marvel spent 170 million making a film about adventures in space, India had actual adventures in space by sending a probe to Mars for about 70 million We're spending a lot of money that could be used for topics to 'advance' the human race through science and technology. Conclusion gt “Two possibilities exist either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” Arthur C. Clarke Perhaps this is where I base my opinion I'm not quite sure how I formed it. It's just that we're alone in the Universe, and I think we should be spending more time trying to get farther along, rather than rolling in money over some oil in the middle east. This guy does a better job at explaining it gt It means that if you value intelligence, technology, or understanding the universe then you realize that we, as humans, are not only the very best that the universe has to offer, but that it's all on us. If we screw up then the universe will remain a mystery. It makes us the one single light of reason in an incomprehensibly large and dark room. gt And it means that we are alone in facing our problems, alone in experiencing war and hate and all the darkness that comes from intelligence misused, it means no one and nothing is going to show up and say Hey humanity, you've done well you know? You screwed up some places, but so did we. gt For me the idea that humanity is the only glimmer of intelligence in the universe makes all our petty squabbles and politics more damning. It means that the people in power are risking stakes they cannot comprehend for gains so short term that they're not even visible on a geological scale, much less a cosmic one. Imagine all that humanity could accomplish, the colonies of life and reason spreading throughout the cosmos, every planet we visit and terraform would bring new and unique life into the universe, imagine the wonders we could create and then realize that we risk it all over things which won't matter in 40 years or which would be better solved using reason. Add to it the fact that we risk all of that potential not only for ourselves but for the universe at large, and it is an awesome responsibility. u VorDresden gt Source<|TARGETS|>Argument Humanity, an incomprehensibly large and dark room ., spending more time trying to get farther along rather than rolling in money over some oil in the middle east ., to learn and obtain the information for them to use in the rest of their lives ., Marvel spent 170 million making a film about adventures in space, to bolster the liberal arts majors instead of the STEM ones<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit It seems I had some pretty awful wording in my post. and that I got offtopic I'll leave the original text here for posterity, but I'll include a brief summary of what I meant gt I think that academic universities not those actually dedicated to the arts should put less or no focus on certain subjects and focus more on STEM and similar academic subjects. gt I think that humanity as a whole needs to spend our best money and best resources on advancing the human race, not maintaining the present. Opinion Let me begin by defining what is probably the controversial part of the tite advancement of the human race . There is no objective definition to me for the advancement of the human race . What I do mean is that majors which will give people the tools to better the world in our future. Things such as engineering, math and science, which be used to develop new tools for the world. Because I'm probably not doing such a good job at describing that phrase, let me provide a few examples gt Developing a cure for ebola Advancing gt Building a new bridge to move supplies Advancing gt Performing a new, hip interpretive dance Not Advancing I see higher education institutions as a way for people to further their education in a field that cannot be satisfied with a high school degree. Fields such as medicine, engineering, and physics require further specific knowledge that can be obtained a college or university a degree is all but required to get a job in one of these fields. Argument Humanity is at an odd time in our timeline. Quite frankly, we're fighting for pureed dinosaurs in the middle of a desert. We've grown too big for our small little planet, yet we're too comfortable with situation is in. Instead of pushing for the advancement of technology through space travel or green energy, we're focusing our attention on culture, media, and the fact that that nobody knows that the ' ' is actually a pound sign. Even as the world erupts into war and the ocean is accumulating a plastic patch we're using higher institutions of learning for majors such as Slavic Languages and Literatures no offense to them . Humanity has chosen to bolster the liberal arts majors instead of the STEM ones, which could be argued will improve humanity in the long run. We should be using these institutions of higher learning to promote the growth and expansion of humanity, not spending our time and roughly 120,000 to teach people interpretive dance and other 'unnecessary' majors. Colleges and Universities should put more weight on the STEM majors versus the other ones. Higher Education is the place for our best and brightest humanity's hopes for the future to go to learn and obtain the information for them to use in the rest of their lives. It should not be a place for frat parties and drinking. Rather, higher education should be a place for students to study today's information to use so that tomorrow will be better than today. These majors and fields are not useless by any means our best time and effort should be directed at the STEM fields instead. While Marvel spent 170 million making a film about adventures in space, India had actual adventures in space by sending a probe to Mars for about 70 million We're spending a lot of money that could be used for topics to 'advance' the human race through science and technology. Conclusion gt “Two possibilities exist either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” Arthur C. Clarke Perhaps this is where I base my opinion I'm not quite sure how I formed it. It's just that we're alone in the Universe, and I think we should be spending more time trying to get farther along, rather than rolling in money over some oil in the middle east. This guy does a better job at explaining it gt It means that if you value intelligence, technology, or understanding the universe then you realize that we, as humans, are not only the very best that the universe has to offer, but that it's all on us. If we screw up then the universe will remain a mystery. It makes us the one single light of reason in an incomprehensibly large and dark room. gt And it means that we are alone in facing our problems, alone in experiencing war and hate and all the darkness that comes from intelligence misused, it means no one and nothing is going to show up and say Hey humanity, you've done well you know? You screwed up some places, but so did we. gt For me the idea that humanity is the only glimmer of intelligence in the universe makes all our petty squabbles and politics more damning. It means that the people in power are risking stakes they cannot comprehend for gains so short term that they're not even visible on a geological scale, much less a cosmic one. Imagine all that humanity could accomplish, the colonies of life and reason spreading throughout the cosmos, every planet we visit and terraform would bring new and unique life into the universe, imagine the wonders we could create and then realize that we risk it all over things which won't matter in 40 years or which would be better solved using reason. Add to it the fact that we risk all of that potential not only for ourselves but for the universe at large, and it is an awesome responsibility. u VorDresden gt Source<|ASPECTS|>, petty squabbles, ebola, universe, new tools, light of reason, money, develop, spend, better than today, intelligence misused, awful wording, problems, specific knowledge, intelligence, growth, green, study, incomprehensibly, subjects, us, stem majors, best time and effort, conclusion, useless, best money, drinking, potential, unique life, improve humanity, tools, war and hate, weight, school, risking stakes, liberal arts majors, risk, best, objective definition, screwed, dark room, information, colonies, alone in the universe, alone, tomorrow, learn, advancement of technology, cure, better the world, interpretive dance, understanding the universe, terrifying., comfortable with situation, plastic patch, farther, institutions, academic subjects, value, mystery, humanity, expansion of humanity, advancement, adventures, politics, culture, humanity 's hopes, best resources, darkness, war, education, obtain, pureed dinosaurs, responsibility, human race, life and reason, stem, frat parties, controversial, odd time<|CONCLUSION|>","Edit It seems I had some pretty awful wording in my post. and that I got offtopic I'll leave the original text here for posterity, but I'll include a brief summary of what I meant gt I think that academic universities not those actually dedicated to the arts should put less or no focus on certain subjects and focus more on STEM and similar academic subjects. gt I think that humanity as a whole needs to spend our best money and best resources on advancing the human race, not maintaining the present. Opinion Let me begin by defining what is probably the controversial part of the tite advancement of the human race . There is no objective definition to me for the advancement of the human race . What I do mean is that majors which will give people the tools to better the world in our future. Things such as engineering, math and science, which be used to develop new tools for the world. Because I'm probably not doing such a good job at describing that phrase, let me provide a few examples gt Developing a cure for ebola Advancing gt Building a new bridge to move supplies Advancing gt Performing a new, hip interpretive dance Not Advancing I see higher education institutions as a way for people to further their education in a field that cannot be satisfied with a high school degree. Fields such as medicine, engineering, and physics require further specific knowledge that can be obtained a college or university a degree is all but required to get a job in one of these fields. Argument Humanity is at an odd time in our timeline. Quite frankly, we're fighting for pureed dinosaurs in the middle of a desert. We've grown too big for our small little planet, yet we're too comfortable with situation is in. Instead of pushing for the advancement of technology through space travel or green energy, we're focusing our attention on culture, media, and the fact that that nobody knows that the ' ' is actually a pound sign. Even as the world erupts into war and the ocean is accumulating a plastic patch we're using higher institutions of learning for majors such as Slavic Languages and Literatures no offense to them . Humanity has chosen to bolster the liberal arts majors instead of the STEM ones, which could be argued will improve humanity in the long run. We should be using these institutions of higher learning to promote the growth and expansion of humanity, not spending our time and roughly 120,000 to teach people interpretive dance and other 'unnecessary' majors. Colleges and Universities should put more weight on the STEM majors versus the other ones. Higher Education is the place for our best and brightest humanity's hopes for the future to go to learn and obtain the information for them to use in the rest of their lives. It should not be a place for frat parties and drinking. Rather, higher education should be a place for students to study today's information to use so that tomorrow will be better than today. These majors and fields are not useless by any means our best time and effort should be directed at the STEM fields instead. While Marvel spent 170 million making a film about adventures in space, India had actual adventures in space by sending a probe to Mars for about 70 million We're spending a lot of money that could be used for topics to 'advance' the human race through science and technology. Conclusion gt “Two possibilities exist either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” Arthur C. Clarke Perhaps this is where I base my opinion I'm not quite sure how I formed it. It's just that we're alone in the Universe, and I think we should be spending more time trying to get farther along, rather than rolling in money over some oil in the middle east. This guy does a better job at explaining it gt It means that if you value intelligence, technology, or understanding the universe then you realize that we, as humans, are not only the very best that the universe has to offer, but that it's all on us. If we screw up then the universe will remain a mystery. It makes us the one single light of reason in an incomprehensibly large and dark room. gt And it means that we are alone in facing our problems, alone in experiencing war and hate and all the darkness that comes from intelligence misused, it means no one and nothing is going to show up and say Hey humanity, you've done well you know? You screwed up some places, but so did we. gt For me the idea that humanity is the only glimmer of intelligence in the universe makes all our petty squabbles and politics more damning. It means that the people in power are risking stakes they cannot comprehend for gains so short term that they're not even visible on a geological scale, much less a cosmic one. Imagine all that humanity could accomplish, the colonies of life and reason spreading throughout the cosmos, every planet we visit and terraform would bring new and unique life into the universe, imagine the wonders we could create and then realize that we risk it all over things which won't matter in 40 years or which would be better solved using reason. Add to it the fact that we risk all of that potential not only for ourselves but for the universe at large, and it is an awesome responsibility. u VorDresden gt Source",I believe colleges and universities should not offer majors that do not contribute to the advancement of the human race.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am an ex Christian, and this statement is what made me change my religious beliefs. My friend, the first atheist I knew, said to me In are thousand years people could look back at Christianity the same way as we look at Greek mythology, while continuing practicing their own beliefs just as ridiculous. I thought more and more about the Bible and Christianity as a whole, and started to hate it. At Sunday School and Church I would read the Bible to find moral atrocities such as Genesis 38 8 10 where a man named Onan is forced to sleep with his dead brothers wife, and when he spills his seed semen pulls out to avoid her getting pregnant, God smites him. I would also find things we simply do not follow today. Such as Moses' 613 Commandments everyone except the extremely devout seem to forget about. Or Bible Communism which is particularly ironic considering the typical conservative Republican is Christian. I do realize that I focusing on Christianity more than any other religions, but that is the one I have most experience and knowledge in. I would not want to make false or ignorant assumptions about Daoism or Islam without doing more research. I am curious to hear other perspectives because I attend a Christian High School, and most of the responses I get to the statement posed above are vague or don't even address it.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am an ex Christian, and this statement is what made me change my religious beliefs. My friend, the first atheist I knew, said to me In are thousand years people could look back at Christianity the same way as we look at Greek mythology, while continuing practicing their own beliefs just as ridiculous. I thought more and more about the Bible and Christianity as a whole, and started to hate it. At Sunday School and Church I would read the Bible to find moral atrocities such as Genesis 38 8 10 where a man named Onan is forced to sleep with his dead brothers wife, and when he spills his seed semen pulls out to avoid her getting pregnant, God smites him. I would also find things we simply do not follow today. Such as Moses' 613 Commandments everyone except the extremely devout seem to forget about. Or Bible Communism which is particularly ironic considering the typical conservative Republican is Christian. I do realize that I focusing on Christianity more than any other religions, but that is the one I have most experience and knowledge in. I would not want to make false or ignorant assumptions about Daoism or Islam without doing more research. I am curious to hear other perspectives because I attend a Christian High School, and most of the responses I get to the statement posed above are vague or don't even address it.<|TARGETS|>to hear other perspectives because I attend a Christian High School and most of the responses I get to the statement posed above are vague or do n't even address it ., Or Bible Communism, I focusing on Christianity more than any other religions, to make false or ignorant assumptions about Daoism or Islam without doing more research ., the Bible to find moral atrocities such as Genesis 38 8 10 where a man named Onan is forced to sleep with his dead brothers wife and when he spills his seed semen, My friend the first atheist I knew said to me In are thousand years people could look back at Christianity the same way as we look at Greek mythology while continuing practicing their own beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am an ex Christian, and this statement is what made me change my religious beliefs. My friend, the first atheist I knew, said to me In are thousand years people could look back at Christianity the same way as we look at Greek mythology, while continuing practicing their own beliefs just as ridiculous. I thought more and more about the Bible and Christianity as a whole, and started to hate it. At Sunday School and Church I would read the Bible to find moral atrocities such as Genesis 38 8 10 where a man named Onan is forced to sleep with his dead brothers wife, and when he spills his seed semen pulls out to avoid her getting pregnant, God smites him. I would also find things we simply do not follow today. Such as Moses' 613 Commandments everyone except the extremely devout seem to forget about. Or Bible Communism which is particularly ironic considering the typical conservative Republican is Christian. I do realize that I focusing on Christianity more than any other religions, but that is the one I have most experience and knowledge in. I would not want to make false or ignorant assumptions about Daoism or Islam without doing more research. I am curious to hear other perspectives because I attend a Christian High School, and most of the responses I get to the statement posed above are vague or don't even address it.<|ASPECTS|>, islam, moral atrocities, bible, forget, back, hate, vague, religious beliefs, god, ex, focusing, bible communism, ignorant assumptions, false, experience, perspectives, christianity, knowledge<|CONCLUSION|>","I am an ex Christian, and this statement is what made me change my religious beliefs. My friend, the first atheist I knew, said to me In are thousand years people could look back at Christianity the same way as we look at Greek mythology, while continuing practicing their own beliefs just as ridiculous. I thought more and more about the Bible and Christianity as a whole, and started to hate it. At Sunday School and Church I would read the Bible to find moral atrocities such as Genesis 38 8 10 where a man named Onan is forced to sleep with his dead brothers wife, and when he spills his seed semen pulls out to avoid her getting pregnant, God smites him. I would also find things we simply do not follow today. Such as Moses' 613 Commandments everyone except the extremely devout seem to forget about. Or Bible Communism which is particularly ironic considering the typical conservative Republican is Christian. I do realize that I focusing on Christianity more than any other religions, but that is the one I have most experience and knowledge in. I would not want to make false or ignorant assumptions about Daoism or Islam without doing more research. I am curious to hear other perspectives because I attend a Christian High School, and most of the responses I get to the statement posed above are vague or don't even address it.",Modern Religions are no more likely than Greek Mythology.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I grew up in a high school that was, I thought, absurdly pro athleticism. Scholarships were constantly being thrown at these scholar athletes, their education was being paid for them because they could run well with a ball, they often had around 2.5 GPAs. This all happened while the intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals as myself were left to their own means. Today, being a professional athlete gives about probably one of the highest paying jobs in America, while researchers and doctors make fractions of that. I simply feel that we have assembled this society that values sports and entertainment over everything else and this view is continually being pushed as it is highly marketable. I, to this day, carry somewhat hateful, perhaps envious, opinions of these scholar athletes. I make fun of people who desired to be a pro sport player rather than pursue what I thought to be meaningful careers. Please, change my view,<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I grew up in a high school that was, I thought, absurdly pro athleticism. Scholarships were constantly being thrown at these scholar athletes, their education was being paid for them because they could run well with a ball, they often had around 2.5 GPAs. This all happened while the intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals as myself were left to their own means. Today, being a professional athlete gives about probably one of the highest paying jobs in America, while researchers and doctors make fractions of that. I simply feel that we have assembled this society that values sports and entertainment over everything else and this view is continually being pushed as it is highly marketable. I, to this day, carry somewhat hateful, perhaps envious, opinions of these scholar athletes. I make fun of people who desired to be a pro sport player rather than pursue what I thought to be meaningful careers. Please, change my view,<|TARGETS|>I make fun of people who desired to be a pro sport player rather than pursue what I thought to be meaningful careers ., the intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals as myself were left to their own means ., that we have assembled this society that values sports and entertainment over everything else and this view, Scholarships<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I grew up in a high school that was, I thought, absurdly pro athleticism. Scholarships were constantly being thrown at these scholar athletes, their education was being paid for them because they could run well with a ball, they often had around 2.5 GPAs. This all happened while the intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals as myself were left to their own means. Today, being a professional athlete gives about probably one of the highest paying jobs in America, while researchers and doctors make fractions of that. I simply feel that we have assembled this society that values sports and entertainment over everything else and this view is continually being pushed as it is highly marketable. I, to this day, carry somewhat hateful, perhaps envious, opinions of these scholar athletes. I make fun of people who desired to be a pro sport player rather than pursue what I thought to be meaningful careers. Please, change my view,<|ASPECTS|>pseudo intellectuals, values, hateful, gpas, opinions, scholar athletes, intellectuals, means, education, sports and entertainment, pro, athleticism, highly marketable, paid, run well, meaningful careers, scholarships, highest paying jobs<|CONCLUSION|>","I grew up in a high school that was, I thought, absurdly pro athleticism. Scholarships were constantly being thrown at these scholar athletes, their education was being paid for them because they could run well with a ball, they often had around 2.5 GPAs. This all happened while the intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals as myself were left to their own means. Today, being a professional athlete gives about probably one of the highest paying jobs in America, while researchers and doctors make fractions of that. I simply feel that we have assembled this society that values sports and entertainment over everything else and this view is continually being pushed as it is highly marketable. I, to this day, carry somewhat hateful, perhaps envious, opinions of these scholar athletes. I make fun of people who desired to be a pro sport player rather than pursue what I thought to be meaningful careers. Please, change my view,","I think that pursuing a career in sports is a meaningless and silly ambition,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Note \ Big thing like on lines of superpower, where they will be the centre of economic activity and be the most sought after nations to be in for business. Although, right now many in West might lampoon Asia, but the truth is centre of economic activity is shifting back to Asia. If these two countries plan and execute well they will end up shaping the new world order. Also, China is already an emerging challenge to USA and if USA continues to fall, it's end as world hegemon is near. On the top of it, USA has not been making wise decisions for a while, hence helping china indirectly. we have seen the Neo imperialism by China, it's affects are already being felt in Africa and Sri Lanka, Hambantota port was almost like a perfect example of same. When we talk about India, although it needs to cover a lot of distance, yet if it's play the cards right, things are quite possible. It need to contain the population plus focus on revamping the education system. Already, it has revolutionised the IT sector and Internet people have cheapest internet access here now, you get 1.5GB data daily in barely 5USD for a month Also, Asians tend to have an affinity towards STEM, while there American counterparts are gravitating towards useless Liberal Arts courses. Political correctness and tolerating the intolerant might further exacerbate the issues in the West.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Note \ Big thing like on lines of superpower, where they will be the centre of economic activity and be the most sought after nations to be in for business. Although, right now many in West might lampoon Asia, but the truth is centre of economic activity is shifting back to Asia. If these two countries plan and execute well they will end up shaping the new world order. Also, China is already an emerging challenge to USA and if USA continues to fall, it's end as world hegemon is near. On the top of it, USA has not been making wise decisions for a while, hence helping china indirectly. we have seen the Neo imperialism by China, it's affects are already being felt in Africa and Sri Lanka, Hambantota port was almost like a perfect example of same. When we talk about India, although it needs to cover a lot of distance, yet if it's play the cards right, things are quite possible. It need to contain the population plus focus on revamping the education system. Already, it has revolutionised the IT sector and Internet people have cheapest internet access here now, you get 1.5GB data daily in barely 5USD for a month Also, Asians tend to have an affinity towards STEM, while there American counterparts are gravitating towards useless Liberal Arts courses. Political correctness and tolerating the intolerant might further exacerbate the issues in the West.<|TARGETS|>If these two countries plan and execute well, Hambantota port, China, to cover a lot of distance, When we talk about India, the Neo imperialism by China<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Note \ Big thing like on lines of superpower, where they will be the centre of economic activity and be the most sought after nations to be in for business. Although, right now many in West might lampoon Asia, but the truth is centre of economic activity is shifting back to Asia. If these two countries plan and execute well they will end up shaping the new world order. Also, China is already an emerging challenge to USA and if USA continues to fall, it's end as world hegemon is near. On the top of it, USA has not been making wise decisions for a while, hence helping china indirectly. we have seen the Neo imperialism by China, it's affects are already being felt in Africa and Sri Lanka, Hambantota port was almost like a perfect example of same. When we talk about India, although it needs to cover a lot of distance, yet if it's play the cards right, things are quite possible. It need to contain the population plus focus on revamping the education system. Already, it has revolutionised the IT sector and Internet people have cheapest internet access here now, you get 1.5GB data daily in barely 5USD for a month Also, Asians tend to have an affinity towards STEM, while there American counterparts are gravitating towards useless Liberal Arts courses. Political correctness and tolerating the intolerant might further exacerbate the issues in the West.<|ASPECTS|>world order, economic activity, contain the population, education system, affects, distance, neo imperialism, wise decisions, sector, possible, affinity, world hegemon, revamping, centre, shaping, new, play, cheapest internet access, exacerbate, end, lampoon, intolerant, stem, emerging challenge, centre of economic activity, political correctness, issues<|CONCLUSION|>","Note Big thing like on lines of superpower, where they will be the centre of economic activity and be the most sought after nations to be in for business. Although, right now many in West might lampoon Asia, but the truth is centre of economic activity is shifting back to Asia. If these two countries plan and execute well they will end up shaping the new world order. Also, China is already an emerging challenge to USA and if USA continues to fall, it's end as world hegemon is near. On the top of it, USA has not been making wise decisions for a while, hence helping china indirectly. we have seen the Neo imperialism by China, it's affects are already being felt in Africa and Sri Lanka, Hambantota port was almost like a perfect example of same. When we talk about India, although it needs to cover a lot of distance, yet if it's play the cards right, things are quite possible. It need to contain the population plus focus on revamping the education system. Already, it has revolutionised the IT sector and Internet people have cheapest internet access here now, you get 1.5GB data daily in barely 5USD for a month Also, Asians tend to have an affinity towards STEM, while there American counterparts are gravitating towards useless Liberal Arts courses. Political correctness and tolerating the intolerant might further exacerbate the issues in the West.",China and India will be the next big thing.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>At 21, most people are outside of parental supervision, at college, or hopefully living on their own I know this is an unattainable reality for some Millennials, the perspective is still valid for a large chunk of the populace . I believe that it is critical that a youth learn 'the right way' to drink. I know this sounds a little silly to some of you, please reserve judgment until the end of this post. I see so many people who just hammer themselves drink after drink until they feel blitzed enough. And as many of you experienced drinkers know, you're usually 1 or 2 drinks over where you want to be when it starts to hit you, if you slam them one after another. Most of the time it is a strange peer one upsmanship contest that nobody wins. On the other hand, most of the people that I see that moderate their intake responsibly, slowly ramping up to their 'dancing optimum' where your inhibitions are just weak enough to let you loose, but still around enough to keep you from snorting a line of Finishing Sugar off of the rim of your margarita. And in most circumstances, those people that drink responsibly were indoctrinated in the responsibilities of drinking at home by their parents. I know its common knowledge that parents may occasionally give their older kids a sip of wine or beer, and most people really don't have an issue with this provided it isn't some whackjob parent buying six packs for sleepovers. On the other hand, when the drinking age was 18, many families I knew made it a point to be around for their newly drinking legal offspring's first few benders. Important lessons were learned in these early years. Pacing Quality assessment 'Beer Goggle' resistance In most similar perspectives, it is the gentle and sometimes not so gentle embarrassment of family members that are trusted that guide the youth into proper drinking patterns. Without that guidance, drinking patterns are based upon personal experience and peer encouragement. In the modern day 21 college frat party culture, there are fewer social controls or mentor structures in place, resulting in a larger number of people who become adults without really having a grasp of consumption moderation. I volunteer at a non profit drug rehab, and I see literally thousands of alcoholics come through our doors every year. I get a chance to hear most of their stories. Most of them started young, 12 14. And they started hardcore, and never really stopped, and never learned to stop, and never learned why they even would want to stop. And they never had a chance to have guidance from their family on how not to be stupid in consumption. So, I feel that by raising the legal drinking age to 21, and stigmatizing alcohol awareness training from parents, we have created a great swell in the number of alcoholics that need treatment to get their lives back on track.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>At 21, most people are outside of parental supervision, at college, or hopefully living on their own I know this is an unattainable reality for some Millennials, the perspective is still valid for a large chunk of the populace . I believe that it is critical that a youth learn 'the right way' to drink. I know this sounds a little silly to some of you, please reserve judgment until the end of this post. I see so many people who just hammer themselves drink after drink until they feel blitzed enough. And as many of you experienced drinkers know, you're usually 1 or 2 drinks over where you want to be when it starts to hit you, if you slam them one after another. Most of the time it is a strange peer one upsmanship contest that nobody wins. On the other hand, most of the people that I see that moderate their intake responsibly, slowly ramping up to their 'dancing optimum' where your inhibitions are just weak enough to let you loose, but still around enough to keep you from snorting a line of Finishing Sugar off of the rim of your margarita. And in most circumstances, those people that drink responsibly were indoctrinated in the responsibilities of drinking at home by their parents. I know its common knowledge that parents may occasionally give their older kids a sip of wine or beer, and most people really don't have an issue with this provided it isn't some whackjob parent buying six packs for sleepovers. On the other hand, when the drinking age was 18, many families I knew made it a point to be around for their newly drinking legal offspring's first few benders. Important lessons were learned in these early years. Pacing Quality assessment 'Beer Goggle' resistance In most similar perspectives, it is the gentle and sometimes not so gentle embarrassment of family members that are trusted that guide the youth into proper drinking patterns. Without that guidance, drinking patterns are based upon personal experience and peer encouragement. In the modern day 21 college frat party culture, there are fewer social controls or mentor structures in place, resulting in a larger number of people who become adults without really having a grasp of consumption moderation. I volunteer at a non profit drug rehab, and I see literally thousands of alcoholics come through our doors every year. I get a chance to hear most of their stories. Most of them started young, 12 14. And they started hardcore, and never really stopped, and never learned to stop, and never learned why they even would want to stop. And they never had a chance to have guidance from their family on how not to be stupid in consumption. So, I feel that by raising the legal drinking age to 21, and stigmatizing alcohol awareness training from parents, we have created a great swell in the number of alcoholics that need treatment to get their lives back on track.<|TARGETS|>a non profit drug rehab, its common knowledge that parents may occasionally give their older kids a sip of wine or beer, the modern day 21 college frat party culture, to have guidance from their family on how not to be stupid in consumption ., an unattainable reality for some Millennials the perspective, when the drinking age<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>At 21, most people are outside of parental supervision, at college, or hopefully living on their own I know this is an unattainable reality for some Millennials, the perspective is still valid for a large chunk of the populace . I believe that it is critical that a youth learn 'the right way' to drink. I know this sounds a little silly to some of you, please reserve judgment until the end of this post. I see so many people who just hammer themselves drink after drink until they feel blitzed enough. And as many of you experienced drinkers know, you're usually 1 or 2 drinks over where you want to be when it starts to hit you, if you slam them one after another. Most of the time it is a strange peer one upsmanship contest that nobody wins. On the other hand, most of the people that I see that moderate their intake responsibly, slowly ramping up to their 'dancing optimum' where your inhibitions are just weak enough to let you loose, but still around enough to keep you from snorting a line of Finishing Sugar off of the rim of your margarita. And in most circumstances, those people that drink responsibly were indoctrinated in the responsibilities of drinking at home by their parents. I know its common knowledge that parents may occasionally give their older kids a sip of wine or beer, and most people really don't have an issue with this provided it isn't some whackjob parent buying six packs for sleepovers. On the other hand, when the drinking age was 18, many families I knew made it a point to be around for their newly drinking legal offspring's first few benders. Important lessons were learned in these early years. Pacing Quality assessment 'Beer Goggle' resistance In most similar perspectives, it is the gentle and sometimes not so gentle embarrassment of family members that are trusted that guide the youth into proper drinking patterns. Without that guidance, drinking patterns are based upon personal experience and peer encouragement. In the modern day 21 college frat party culture, there are fewer social controls or mentor structures in place, resulting in a larger number of people who become adults without really having a grasp of consumption moderation. I volunteer at a non profit drug rehab, and I see literally thousands of alcoholics come through our doors every year. I get a chance to hear most of their stories. Most of them started young, 12 14. And they started hardcore, and never really stopped, and never learned to stop, and never learned why they even would want to stop. And they never had a chance to have guidance from their family on how not to be stupid in consumption. So, I feel that by raising the legal drinking age to 21, and stigmatizing alcohol awareness training from parents, we have created a great swell in the number of alcoholics that need treatment to get their lives back on track.<|ASPECTS|>, right way, alcohol awareness, silly, sleepovers, stupid in consumption, started young, optimum, age, reserve judgment, parental supervision, unattainable, learned, mentor structures, indoctrinated, social controls, hammer, stories, learned to stop, weak, drinking, peer encouragement, important lessons, whackjob, alcoholics, responsibilities, drug rehab, one upsmanship contest, learn, inhibitions, legal offspring, proper drinking patterns, guidance, drinking age, quality, alcoholics come, consumption moderation, hardcore, youth, critical, drinking patterns, stigmatizing, responsibly, benders, slam, lives, personal experience, blitzed enough, gentle<|CONCLUSION|>","At 21, most people are outside of parental supervision, at college, or hopefully living on their own I know this is an unattainable reality for some Millennials, the perspective is still valid for a large chunk of the populace . I believe that it is critical that a youth learn 'the right way' to drink. I know this sounds a little silly to some of you, please reserve judgment until the end of this post. I see so many people who just hammer themselves drink after drink until they feel blitzed enough. And as many of you experienced drinkers know, you're usually 1 or 2 drinks over where you want to be when it starts to hit you, if you slam them one after another. Most of the time it is a strange peer one upsmanship contest that nobody wins. On the other hand, most of the people that I see that moderate their intake responsibly, slowly ramping up to their 'dancing optimum' where your inhibitions are just weak enough to let you loose, but still around enough to keep you from snorting a line of Finishing Sugar off of the rim of your margarita. And in most circumstances, those people that drink responsibly were indoctrinated in the responsibilities of drinking at home by their parents. I know its common knowledge that parents may occasionally give their older kids a sip of wine or beer, and most people really don't have an issue with this provided it isn't some whackjob parent buying six packs for sleepovers. On the other hand, when the drinking age was 18, many families I knew made it a point to be around for their newly drinking legal offspring's first few benders. Important lessons were learned in these early years. Pacing Quality assessment 'Beer Goggle' resistance In most similar perspectives, it is the gentle and sometimes not so gentle embarrassment of family members that are trusted that guide the youth into proper drinking patterns. Without that guidance, drinking patterns are based upon personal experience and peer encouragement. In the modern day 21 college frat party culture, there are fewer social controls or mentor structures in place, resulting in a larger number of people who become adults without really having a grasp of consumption moderation. I volunteer at a non profit drug rehab, and I see literally thousands of alcoholics come through our doors every year. I get a chance to hear most of their stories. Most of them started young, 12 14. And they started hardcore, and never really stopped, and never learned to stop, and never learned why they even would want to stop. And they never had a chance to have guidance from their family on how not to be stupid in consumption. So, I feel that by raising the legal drinking age to 21, and stigmatizing alcohol awareness training from parents, we have created a great swell in the number of alcoholics that need treatment to get their lives back on track.","The legal drinking age of 21 is actually detrimental, causing a wave of new alcoholics."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a degree in criminology and poly sci. I am well aware of the massive corruption, waste, and bias in the US Justice system from the street level to the courts. I recently watched a documentary however that showcased prisons in European countries. I was baffled at the fact that people who commit the most heinous of crimes are sent to prisons that are nicer then hotels I've stayed in. For example this man murdered 50 children, and only is severing 21 years as that is the max sentence in Norway. I fully support the idea of rehabilitation with punishment but I do firmly believe that there needs to be some sense of punishment for certain crimes. And I do believe that certain crimes are so reprehensible and evil that the person who carries out such acts has no place in a civilized society. Change my view EDIT Thank you for all the responses This is the first time I’ve ever posted here and it seems like a great community to get some information. I will admit in regards to the case I cited that I studied criminology in the United States and we just barely touched on systems outside of the United States so I was unaware that he will be reevaluated every 5 years after the initial 21. I have accepted through the responses that it only makes sense to do what is right for society to reduce recidivism rates that is proven through European techniques among other major components like the lack of social and economic inequality. Here in the United States it’s a cultural ideal held that a person should not just be rehabilitated for their crime but they should also be punished. A commons sediments damping Americans I often hear or see in regards to these crimes is that “why should have person enjoy any freedom or life when the person s he murdered no longer do” and also “harsher punishments deter crime” Which I know to be false . I think it’s just a cultural difference here in the United States that would be very hard to justify the people. To be honest you could present all this information to most Americans and I think it would be fair to say that they still agree that that person should not enjoy life in any sense whatsoever because the people they commit a crime against cannot. Thank you again<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a degree in criminology and poly sci. I am well aware of the massive corruption, waste, and bias in the US Justice system from the street level to the courts. I recently watched a documentary however that showcased prisons in European countries. I was baffled at the fact that people who commit the most heinous of crimes are sent to prisons that are nicer then hotels I've stayed in. For example this man murdered 50 children, and only is severing 21 years as that is the max sentence in Norway. I fully support the idea of rehabilitation with punishment but I do firmly believe that there needs to be some sense of punishment for certain crimes. And I do believe that certain crimes are so reprehensible and evil that the person who carries out such acts has no place in a civilized society. Change my view EDIT Thank you for all the responses This is the first time I’ve ever posted here and it seems like a great community to get some information. I will admit in regards to the case I cited that I studied criminology in the United States and we just barely touched on systems outside of the United States so I was unaware that he will be reevaluated every 5 years after the initial 21. I have accepted through the responses that it only makes sense to do what is right for society to reduce recidivism rates that is proven through European techniques among other major components like the lack of social and economic inequality. Here in the United States it’s a cultural ideal held that a person should not just be rehabilitated for their crime but they should also be punished. A commons sediments damping Americans I often hear or see in regards to these crimes is that “why should have person enjoy any freedom or life when the person s he murdered no longer do” and also “harsher punishments deter crime” Which I know to be false . I think it’s just a cultural difference here in the United States that would be very hard to justify the people. To be honest you could present all this information to most Americans and I think it would be fair to say that they still agree that that person should not enjoy life in any sense whatsoever because the people they commit a crime against cannot. Thank you again<|TARGETS|>the idea of rehabilitation with punishment, A commons sediments damping Americans I often hear or see in regards to these crimes is that “ why should have person enjoy any freedom or life when the person s he murdered no longer do ” and also “ harsher punishments, to say that they still agree that that person should not enjoy life in any sense whatsoever because the people they commit a crime against cannot ., the fact that people who commit the most heinous of crimes are sent to prisons that are nicer then hotels I 've stayed in ., to be some sense of punishment for certain crimes ., that certain crimes are so reprehensible and evil that the person who carries out such acts<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a degree in criminology and poly sci. I am well aware of the massive corruption, waste, and bias in the US Justice system from the street level to the courts. I recently watched a documentary however that showcased prisons in European countries. I was baffled at the fact that people who commit the most heinous of crimes are sent to prisons that are nicer then hotels I've stayed in. For example this man murdered 50 children, and only is severing 21 years as that is the max sentence in Norway. I fully support the idea of rehabilitation with punishment but I do firmly believe that there needs to be some sense of punishment for certain crimes. And I do believe that certain crimes are so reprehensible and evil that the person who carries out such acts has no place in a civilized society. Change my view EDIT Thank you for all the responses This is the first time I’ve ever posted here and it seems like a great community to get some information. I will admit in regards to the case I cited that I studied criminology in the United States and we just barely touched on systems outside of the United States so I was unaware that he will be reevaluated every 5 years after the initial 21. I have accepted through the responses that it only makes sense to do what is right for society to reduce recidivism rates that is proven through European techniques among other major components like the lack of social and economic inequality. Here in the United States it’s a cultural ideal held that a person should not just be rehabilitated for their crime but they should also be punished. A commons sediments damping Americans I often hear or see in regards to these crimes is that “why should have person enjoy any freedom or life when the person s he murdered no longer do” and also “harsher punishments deter crime” Which I know to be false . I think it’s just a cultural difference here in the United States that would be very hard to justify the people. To be honest you could present all this information to most Americans and I think it would be fair to say that they still agree that that person should not enjoy life in any sense whatsoever because the people they commit a crime against cannot. Thank you again<|ASPECTS|>bias, crime, cultural ideal, enjoy life, waste, crimes, justify, murdered, punishments, corruption, community, rehabilitated, cultural difference, criminology, sci, information, prisons, punished, evil, years, social and economic inequality, freedom or life, severing, recidivism rates, sense, harsher, rehabilitation with punishment, punishment, touched on systems, nicer, massive, reprehensible, deter crime<|CONCLUSION|>","I have a degree in criminology and poly sci. I am well aware of the massive corruption, waste, and bias in the US Justice system from the street level to the courts. I recently watched a documentary however that showcased prisons in European countries. I was baffled at the fact that people who commit the most heinous of crimes are sent to prisons that are nicer then hotels I've stayed in. For example this man murdered 50 children, and only is severing 21 years as that is the max sentence in Norway. I fully support the idea of rehabilitation with punishment but I do firmly believe that there needs to be some sense of punishment for certain crimes. And I do believe that certain crimes are so reprehensible and evil that the person who carries out such acts has no place in a civilized society. Change my view EDIT Thank you for all the responses This is the first time I’ve ever posted here and it seems like a great community to get some information. I will admit in regards to the case I cited that I studied criminology in the United States and we just barely touched on systems outside of the United States so I was unaware that he will be reevaluated every 5 years after the initial 21. I have accepted through the responses that it only makes sense to do what is right for society to reduce recidivism rates that is proven through European techniques among other major components like the lack of social and economic inequality. Here in the United States it’s a cultural ideal held that a person should not just be rehabilitated for their crime but they should also be punished. A commons sediments damping Americans I often hear or see in regards to these crimes is that “why should have person enjoy any freedom or life when the person s he murdered no longer do” and also “harsher punishments deter crime” Which I know to be false . I think it’s just a cultural difference here in the United States that would be very hard to justify the people. To be honest you could present all this information to most Americans and I think it would be fair to say that they still agree that that person should not enjoy life in any sense whatsoever because the people they commit a crime against cannot. Thank you again","While I wholeheartedly agree there’s massive issues with the US justice system, Europe as a whole is way too lenient on people who commit crimes especially serious violent crime."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This was a hard thing to come up with a title for and may be ambiguous so I will try to explain better here. Whenever the assault weapon debate comes up, people on the side of more restriction typically talk about how an assault weapon can shoot many more rounds per second and for much longer than a handgun, therefore they should be limited. I don't hold this view, but if it came to the point where something MUST be banned I would come at it from a different angle. Banning should be based off of the carnage it can cause to a target, not the amount of targets it can hit. For example, if grenades were legal and were on the chopping block to be banned, saying that it could injure dozens of people at once would not be the best reason, the best reason for banning it would be because a grenade will blow off limbs and cause enough damage to decimate a human body. I think of guns in the same respect, it's not how many people it can injure, it's the type of injuries that matter. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This was a hard thing to come up with a title for and may be ambiguous so I will try to explain better here. Whenever the assault weapon debate comes up, people on the side of more restriction typically talk about how an assault weapon can shoot many more rounds per second and for much longer than a handgun, therefore they should be limited. I don't hold this view, but if it came to the point where something MUST be banned I would come at it from a different angle. Banning should be based off of the carnage it can cause to a target, not the amount of targets it can hit. For example, if grenades were legal and were on the chopping block to be banned, saying that it could injure dozens of people at once would not be the best reason, the best reason for banning it would be because a grenade will blow off limbs and cause enough damage to decimate a human body. I think of guns in the same respect, it's not how many people it can injure, it's the type of injuries that matter. <|TARGETS|>to come up with a title for and, the assault weapon debate, the chopping block to be banned, Banning, if it came to the point where something MUST be banned I would come at it from a different angle ., to explain better here .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This was a hard thing to come up with a title for and may be ambiguous so I will try to explain better here. Whenever the assault weapon debate comes up, people on the side of more restriction typically talk about how an assault weapon can shoot many more rounds per second and for much longer than a handgun, therefore they should be limited. I don't hold this view, but if it came to the point where something MUST be banned I would come at it from a different angle. Banning should be based off of the carnage it can cause to a target, not the amount of targets it can hit. For example, if grenades were legal and were on the chopping block to be banned, saying that it could injure dozens of people at once would not be the best reason, the best reason for banning it would be because a grenade will blow off limbs and cause enough damage to decimate a human body. I think of guns in the same respect, it's not how many people it can injure, it's the type of injuries that matter. <|ASPECTS|>ambiguous, injuries, assault, injure, limited, carnage, damage, shoot, injure dozens, blow off limbs, decimate, explain, banned, rounds<|CONCLUSION|>","This was a hard thing to come up with a title for and may be ambiguous so I will try to explain better here. Whenever the assault weapon debate comes up, people on the side of more restriction typically talk about how an assault weapon can shoot many more rounds per second and for much longer than a handgun, therefore they should be limited. I don't hold this view, but if it came to the point where something MUST be banned I would come at it from a different angle. Banning should be based off of the carnage it can cause to a target, not the amount of targets it can hit. For example, if grenades were legal and were on the chopping block to be banned, saying that it could injure dozens of people at once would not be the best reason, the best reason for banning it would be because a grenade will blow off limbs and cause enough damage to decimate a human body. I think of guns in the same respect, it's not how many people it can injure, it's the type of injuries that matter.","If a type guns must be banned, it should be on the basis of the damage it causes, not the number of things it can damage."
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now let me start off by saying that this subject for some reason really irks me. While I am part of the Arab and American culture this post is about any culture but specifically Arab culture. I really hope someone can change my view cause this topic just gets me rolling. First off to couples who are financially well off and if the guy is well off since in Arab cultures the guys pays for everything unfortunately and you both agree to have a big and pretty wedding then this post isn't really about you per say. First there are some people that take out loans for their wedding like why???? That is so unnecessary and if you are girl and know your partner isn't in the best of financial state and you still expect this huge wedding so you can show off then I'm sorry but you are stuck up. I swear some people think more about the wedding then the marriage itself. Sure a wedding is fun and all but it doesn't have to be so expensive and all out. At the end of the couple of days celebrating whose going to come home with you? Everybody that was at the wedding?? No it will be your spouse and reality will start to set in that you have to live with that person. Why do people care about weddings so much? I will truly never understand it. It's just a temporary wedding. Why don't you think about your own marriage? I'd rather save money and have a small wedding while being able to have a great honeymoon with just the 2 of us instead. I hate the fact that I might have to pay so much money for such a temporary thing. Sure a beautiful wedding is nice and all but a beautiful marriage is even better. I really hope someone does CMV cause this topic irks me and it's so annoying seeing people prepare so much for their wedding not think about the marriage instead. Please try to change my view about a dumb materialistic wedding that doesn't matter in the long run once it's over and reality sets in that you have to live with your partner and start a life together. Any questions please don't be scared to ask.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now let me start off by saying that this subject for some reason really irks me. While I am part of the Arab and American culture this post is about any culture but specifically Arab culture. I really hope someone can change my view cause this topic just gets me rolling. First off to couples who are financially well off and if the guy is well off since in Arab cultures the guys pays for everything unfortunately and you both agree to have a big and pretty wedding then this post isn't really about you per say. First there are some people that take out loans for their wedding like why???? That is so unnecessary and if you are girl and know your partner isn't in the best of financial state and you still expect this huge wedding so you can show off then I'm sorry but you are stuck up. I swear some people think more about the wedding then the marriage itself. Sure a wedding is fun and all but it doesn't have to be so expensive and all out. At the end of the couple of days celebrating whose going to come home with you? Everybody that was at the wedding?? No it will be your spouse and reality will start to set in that you have to live with that person. Why do people care about weddings so much? I will truly never understand it. It's just a temporary wedding. Why don't you think about your own marriage? I'd rather save money and have a small wedding while being able to have a great honeymoon with just the 2 of us instead. I hate the fact that I might have to pay so much money for such a temporary thing. Sure a beautiful wedding is nice and all but a beautiful marriage is even better. I really hope someone does CMV cause this topic irks me and it's so annoying seeing people prepare so much for their wedding not think about the marriage instead. Please try to change my view about a dumb materialistic wedding that doesn't matter in the long run once it's over and reality sets in that you have to live with your partner and start a life together. Any questions please don't be scared to ask.<|TARGETS|>a beautiful wedding, seeing people prepare so much for their wedding not think about the marriage instead ., the Arab and American culture this post, if you are girl and know your partner is n't in the best of financial state and you still expect this huge wedding so you can show off, to pay so much money for such a temporary thing ., Please try to change my view about a dumb materialistic wedding that does n't matter in the long run once it 's over and reality sets in that you have to live with your partner and start a life together .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now let me start off by saying that this subject for some reason really irks me. While I am part of the Arab and American culture this post is about any culture but specifically Arab culture. I really hope someone can change my view cause this topic just gets me rolling. First off to couples who are financially well off and if the guy is well off since in Arab cultures the guys pays for everything unfortunately and you both agree to have a big and pretty wedding then this post isn't really about you per say. First there are some people that take out loans for their wedding like why???? That is so unnecessary and if you are girl and know your partner isn't in the best of financial state and you still expect this huge wedding so you can show off then I'm sorry but you are stuck up. I swear some people think more about the wedding then the marriage itself. Sure a wedding is fun and all but it doesn't have to be so expensive and all out. At the end of the couple of days celebrating whose going to come home with you? Everybody that was at the wedding?? No it will be your spouse and reality will start to set in that you have to live with that person. Why do people care about weddings so much? I will truly never understand it. It's just a temporary wedding. Why don't you think about your own marriage? I'd rather save money and have a small wedding while being able to have a great honeymoon with just the 2 of us instead. I hate the fact that I might have to pay so much money for such a temporary thing. Sure a beautiful wedding is nice and all but a beautiful marriage is even better. I really hope someone does CMV cause this topic irks me and it's so annoying seeing people prepare so much for their wedding not think about the marriage instead. Please try to change my view about a dumb materialistic wedding that doesn't matter in the long run once it's over and reality sets in that you have to live with your partner and start a life together. Any questions please don't be scared to ask.<|ASPECTS|>, honeymoon, small wedding, never, temporary, spouse, financially well, view, weddings, materialistic wedding, beautiful wedding, beautiful marriage, understand, financial state, fun, think, wedding, person, irks, pay so much money, scared, care, save money, temporary wedding, nice, marriage, life together, pays, arab culture, dumb, live, change, culture, reality, loans, expensive, unnecessary<|CONCLUSION|>",Now let me start off by saying that this subject for some reason really irks me. While I am part of the Arab and American culture this post is about any culture but specifically Arab culture. I really hope someone can change my view cause this topic just gets me rolling. First off to couples who are financially well off and if the guy is well off since in Arab cultures the guys pays for everything unfortunately and you both agree to have a big and pretty wedding then this post isn't really about you per say. First there are some people that take out loans for their wedding like why???? That is so unnecessary and if you are girl and know your partner isn't in the best of financial state and you still expect this huge wedding so you can show off then I'm sorry but you are stuck up. I swear some people think more about the wedding then the marriage itself. Sure a wedding is fun and all but it doesn't have to be so expensive and all out. At the end of the couple of days celebrating whose going to come home with you? Everybody that was at the wedding?? No it will be your spouse and reality will start to set in that you have to live with that person. Why do people care about weddings so much? I will truly never understand it. It's just a temporary wedding. Why don't you think about your own marriage? I'd rather save money and have a small wedding while being able to have a great honeymoon with just the 2 of us instead. I hate the fact that I might have to pay so much money for such a temporary thing. Sure a beautiful wedding is nice and all but a beautiful marriage is even better. I really hope someone does  cause this topic irks me and it's so annoying seeing people prepare so much for their wedding not think about the marriage instead. Please try to change my view about a dumb materialistic wedding that doesn't matter in the long run once it's over and reality sets in that you have to live with your partner and start a life together. Any questions please don't be scared to ask.,Extravagant and overpriced weddings are unnecessary and it's more of showing off for people instead of thinking about your partner
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm seeing more and more commercials advertising free to play games Game of War for example on television. This advertising will aid in the rise in popularity in these FTP games, and game publishers will start putting features in their games that will reflect practices seen in these kinds of games things such as micro transactions, pay to win, etc. There are already obvious trends occurring in AAA titles like Mortal Kombat X On disc DLC Goro is locked on the disc unless you pay money to unlock him . I know there are other trends that are occurring right now, but I feel that these FTP games are the bane of gaming and will ultimately lead to its decline.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm seeing more and more commercials advertising free to play games Game of War for example on television. This advertising will aid in the rise in popularity in these FTP games, and game publishers will start putting features in their games that will reflect practices seen in these kinds of games things such as micro transactions, pay to win, etc. There are already obvious trends occurring in AAA titles like Mortal Kombat X On disc DLC Goro is locked on the disc unless you pay money to unlock him . I know there are other trends that are occurring right now, but I feel that these FTP games are the bane of gaming and will ultimately lead to its decline.<|TARGETS|>these FTP games, This advertising, DLC Goro<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm seeing more and more commercials advertising free to play games Game of War for example on television. This advertising will aid in the rise in popularity in these FTP games, and game publishers will start putting features in their games that will reflect practices seen in these kinds of games things such as micro transactions, pay to win, etc. There are already obvious trends occurring in AAA titles like Mortal Kombat X On disc DLC Goro is locked on the disc unless you pay money to unlock him . I know there are other trends that are occurring right now, but I feel that these FTP games are the bane of gaming and will ultimately lead to its decline.<|ASPECTS|>, micro transactions, rise, trends, decline, commercials, popularity, bane of gaming, free to play, game<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm seeing more and more commercials advertising free to play games Game of War for example on television. This advertising will aid in the rise in popularity in these FTP games, and game publishers will start putting features in their games that will reflect practices seen in these kinds of games things such as micro transactions, pay to win, etc. There are already obvious trends occurring in AAA titles like Mortal Kombat X On disc DLC Goro is locked on the disc unless you pay money to unlock him . I know there are other trends that are occurring right now, but I feel that these FTP games are the bane of gaming and will ultimately lead to its decline.",Free-to-play games are the worst thing happening in the gaming industry today
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't like the idea of them because I want to find someone I love, not someone I'm obligated to stay with for the sake of being married. I guess being brought up in a western society does that to you. I know I'm getting one so there's no avoiding it. I can't help but think about only the negative sides of it, I need something positive to think about. I know reddit is mostly a western influenced website most of you won't be able to make me see things differently, but I just need something to hang on to I guess? I don't know, any positive advice would be useful right about now.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't like the idea of them because I want to find someone I love, not someone I'm obligated to stay with for the sake of being married. I guess being brought up in a western society does that to you. I know I'm getting one so there's no avoiding it. I can't help but think about only the negative sides of it, I need something positive to think about. I know reddit is mostly a western influenced website most of you won't be able to make me see things differently, but I just need something to hang on to I guess? I don't know, any positive advice would be useful right about now.<|TARGETS|>to hang on to I guess, being brought up in a western society, to find someone I love not someone I 'm obligated to stay with for the sake of being married ., reddit<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't like the idea of them because I want to find someone I love, not someone I'm obligated to stay with for the sake of being married. I guess being brought up in a western society does that to you. I know I'm getting one so there's no avoiding it. I can't help but think about only the negative sides of it, I need something positive to think about. I know reddit is mostly a western influenced website most of you won't be able to make me see things differently, but I just need something to hang on to I guess? I don't know, any positive advice would be useful right about now.<|ASPECTS|>useful, western influenced, negative sides, positive, avoiding, western society, positive advice, see things differently<|CONCLUSION|>","I don't like the idea of them because I want to find someone I love, not someone I'm obligated to stay with for the sake of being married. I guess being brought up in a western society does that to you. I know I'm getting one so there's no avoiding it. I can't help but think about only the negative sides of it, I need something positive to think about. I know reddit is mostly a western influenced website most of you won't be able to make me see things differently, but I just need something to hang on to I guess? I don't know, any positive advice would be useful right about now.",I'm a South Asian girl who doesn't like arranged marriages.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm gay and was raised Catholic. I've never been in a relationship I'm only 18, so maybe not that far behind by gay standards nor have I ever had sex. I don't see any way to lead a gay lifestyle that doesn't contradict my faith. I want to, but I don't. It is against the Natural Law to engage in sexual intercourse that does not serve the purpose of procreation, and to do so would be a direct refusal to Go forth and be fruitful . Sex, according to the Church, is supposed to be done with the purpose of having children, anything otherwise is selfish and lustful. I understand that being gay and having same sex attractions is not sinful, but if I were to act on them I would be committing mortal sins. The only way I can see myself, in good conscience, willfully act on these urges is if I were to abandon my faith, and I don't want to do that.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm gay and was raised Catholic. I've never been in a relationship I'm only 18, so maybe not that far behind by gay standards nor have I ever had sex. I don't see any way to lead a gay lifestyle that doesn't contradict my faith. I want to, but I don't. It is against the Natural Law to engage in sexual intercourse that does not serve the purpose of procreation, and to do so would be a direct refusal to Go forth and be fruitful . Sex, according to the Church, is supposed to be done with the purpose of having children, anything otherwise is selfish and lustful. I understand that being gay and having same sex attractions is not sinful, but if I were to act on them I would be committing mortal sins. The only way I can see myself, in good conscience, willfully act on these urges is if I were to abandon my faith, and I don't want to do that.<|TARGETS|>to do that ., The only way I can see myself in good conscience willfully act on these urges, committing mortal sins ., to lead a gay lifestyle that does n't contradict my faith ., to engage in sexual intercourse that, to abandon my faith<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm gay and was raised Catholic. I've never been in a relationship I'm only 18, so maybe not that far behind by gay standards nor have I ever had sex. I don't see any way to lead a gay lifestyle that doesn't contradict my faith. I want to, but I don't. It is against the Natural Law to engage in sexual intercourse that does not serve the purpose of procreation, and to do so would be a direct refusal to Go forth and be fruitful . Sex, according to the Church, is supposed to be done with the purpose of having children, anything otherwise is selfish and lustful. I understand that being gay and having same sex attractions is not sinful, but if I were to act on them I would be committing mortal sins. The only way I can see myself, in good conscience, willfully act on these urges is if I were to abandon my faith, and I don't want to do that.<|ASPECTS|>mortal sins, abandon my faith, raised, sinful, lustful, gay lifestyle, contradict my faith, natural law, gay standards, committing, procreation, selfish, gay, catholic, urges, refusal<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm gay and was raised Catholic. I've never been in a relationship I'm only 18, so maybe not that far behind by gay standards nor have I ever had sex. I don't see any way to lead a gay lifestyle that doesn't contradict my faith. I want to, but I don't. It is against the Natural Law to engage in sexual intercourse that does not serve the purpose of procreation, and to do so would be a direct refusal to Go forth and be fruitful . Sex, according to the Church, is supposed to be done with the purpose of having children, anything otherwise is selfish and lustful. I understand that being gay and having same sex attractions is not sinful, but if I were to act on them I would be committing mortal sins. The only way I can see myself, in good conscience, willfully act on these urges is if I were to abandon my faith, and I don't want to do that.",I should resist my homosexuality and not lead a homosexual lifestyle
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Across the studies we know of, women are typically more choosy than men, less willing to have sex at the drop of a hat, have more conditions for minimal requirements to choose a mate, more willing to walk away from sex, feel more confident they choose whether sex happens or not, do a tiny of active explicit approaching and so on. In short, it is women who primarily weed out men, men who primarily risk rejection, attempt to flatter, coax, impress, seduce, serenade, charm and so on, in an effort to get a woman to say yes. It is also primarily women who are able to exchange their sexual favors heterosexually in return for money, favors, gifts and so on. In short, women have more sexual power, women have more sexual capital, in most instances the sexual locus of control emotionally resides outside of a man's body. Had Elliot Rogers been a woman of comparative looks like his sister he would have been having sex easily and early despite all of his personality failings.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Across the studies we know of, women are typically more choosy than men, less willing to have sex at the drop of a hat, have more conditions for minimal requirements to choose a mate, more willing to walk away from sex, feel more confident they choose whether sex happens or not, do a tiny of active explicit approaching and so on. In short, it is women who primarily weed out men, men who primarily risk rejection, attempt to flatter, coax, impress, seduce, serenade, charm and so on, in an effort to get a woman to say yes. It is also primarily women who are able to exchange their sexual favors heterosexually in return for money, favors, gifts and so on. In short, women have more sexual power, women have more sexual capital, in most instances the sexual locus of control emotionally resides outside of a man's body. Had Elliot Rogers been a woman of comparative looks like his sister he would have been having sex easily and early despite all of his personality failings.<|TARGETS|>to have sex at the drop of a hat have more conditions for minimal requirements to choose a mate more willing to walk away from sex feel more confident they choose whether sex, women who primarily weed out men men who primarily risk rejection attempt to flatter coax impress seduce serenade charm and so on, Had Elliot Rogers been a woman of comparative looks like his sister<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Across the studies we know of, women are typically more choosy than men, less willing to have sex at the drop of a hat, have more conditions for minimal requirements to choose a mate, more willing to walk away from sex, feel more confident they choose whether sex happens or not, do a tiny of active explicit approaching and so on. In short, it is women who primarily weed out men, men who primarily risk rejection, attempt to flatter, coax, impress, seduce, serenade, charm and so on, in an effort to get a woman to say yes. It is also primarily women who are able to exchange their sexual favors heterosexually in return for money, favors, gifts and so on. In short, women have more sexual power, women have more sexual capital, in most instances the sexual locus of control emotionally resides outside of a man's body. Had Elliot Rogers been a woman of comparative looks like his sister he would have been having sex easily and early despite all of his personality failings.<|ASPECTS|>active explicit, personality failings, early, sex easily, risk rejection, heterosexually, money, sexual power, walk away, weed out men, control, sexual capital, minimal requirements, sexual locus, exchange, sexual favors, comparative looks, choosy, less<|CONCLUSION|>","Across the studies we know of, women are typically more choosy than men, less willing to have sex at the drop of a hat, have more conditions for minimal requirements to choose a mate, more willing to walk away from sex, feel more confident they choose whether sex happens or not, do a tiny of active explicit approaching and so on. In short, it is women who primarily weed out men, men who primarily risk rejection, attempt to flatter, coax, impress, seduce, serenade, charm and so on, in an effort to get a woman to say yes. It is also primarily women who are able to exchange their sexual favors heterosexually in return for money, favors, gifts and so on. In short, women have more sexual power, women have more sexual capital, in most instances the sexual locus of control emotionally resides outside of a man's body. Had Elliot Rogers been a woman of comparative looks like his sister he would have been having sex easily and early despite all of his personality failings.","Women have more sexual power and more sexual capital than men, in general"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Feminists believe women are the same as men, except for some slight biological differences in the genitals. They don't merely want equal rights for women, they also want women to be treated the same as men socially and culturally. I think this is bogus. Feminism grew big between the 60s and the 80s, when people strongly believed in the malleability of society and nurture was chosen above nature. This is false. Modern research has shown that personality and behavior are far more dependent on biology brain, genes than previously understood. There are significant differences in general between male and female brains. In the past all males had to act masculine and females had to act feminine. Instead of ending gender stereotypes, feminists have created a new unisex stereotype letting females behave more like males and letting males behave a bit more feminine. Both options are wrong and harmful. In reality many males seem to be predisposed toward masculine behavior for example aggressiveness and competitiveness , and the same holds true for females and feminine behavior. On average, boys just have more testosterone in their bodies. Not all of them are aggressive, and there are aggressive females too, but if you're looking at big groups, there is a significant difference. So if there are more male boxers, criminals, politicians and businessmen than females, that might just be biology, and not 'the patriarchy'. The idea that women are exactly the same as men seems to be harmful. Women should be fully equal in political and legal rights, but it's not 'wrong' if a certain group a job or a community has more males than females, or vice versa. Some governments try to 'correct' this with quotas, and I think that's harmful. I don't think we should strive for a unisex world I think we should learn to accept feminine males, masculine females, feminine females and masculine males.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Feminists believe women are the same as men, except for some slight biological differences in the genitals. They don't merely want equal rights for women, they also want women to be treated the same as men socially and culturally. I think this is bogus. Feminism grew big between the 60s and the 80s, when people strongly believed in the malleability of society and nurture was chosen above nature. This is false. Modern research has shown that personality and behavior are far more dependent on biology brain, genes than previously understood. There are significant differences in general between male and female brains. In the past all males had to act masculine and females had to act feminine. Instead of ending gender stereotypes, feminists have created a new unisex stereotype letting females behave more like males and letting males behave a bit more feminine. Both options are wrong and harmful. In reality many males seem to be predisposed toward masculine behavior for example aggressiveness and competitiveness , and the same holds true for females and feminine behavior. On average, boys just have more testosterone in their bodies. Not all of them are aggressive, and there are aggressive females too, but if you're looking at big groups, there is a significant difference. So if there are more male boxers, criminals, politicians and businessmen than females, that might just be biology, and not 'the patriarchy'. The idea that women are exactly the same as men seems to be harmful. Women should be fully equal in political and legal rights, but it's not 'wrong' if a certain group a job or a community has more males than females, or vice versa. Some governments try to 'correct' this with quotas, and I think that's harmful. I don't think we should strive for a unisex world I think we should learn to accept feminine males, masculine females, feminine females and masculine males.<|TARGETS|>Feminism, Some governments, Feminists, a unisex world I think we should learn to accept feminine males masculine females feminine females and masculine males ., Modern research, equal rights for women they also want women to be treated the same as men socially and culturally .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Feminists believe women are the same as men, except for some slight biological differences in the genitals. They don't merely want equal rights for women, they also want women to be treated the same as men socially and culturally. I think this is bogus. Feminism grew big between the 60s and the 80s, when people strongly believed in the malleability of society and nurture was chosen above nature. This is false. Modern research has shown that personality and behavior are far more dependent on biology brain, genes than previously understood. There are significant differences in general between male and female brains. In the past all males had to act masculine and females had to act feminine. Instead of ending gender stereotypes, feminists have created a new unisex stereotype letting females behave more like males and letting males behave a bit more feminine. Both options are wrong and harmful. In reality many males seem to be predisposed toward masculine behavior for example aggressiveness and competitiveness , and the same holds true for females and feminine behavior. On average, boys just have more testosterone in their bodies. Not all of them are aggressive, and there are aggressive females too, but if you're looking at big groups, there is a significant difference. So if there are more male boxers, criminals, politicians and businessmen than females, that might just be biology, and not 'the patriarchy'. The idea that women are exactly the same as men seems to be harmful. Women should be fully equal in political and legal rights, but it's not 'wrong' if a certain group a job or a community has more males than females, or vice versa. Some governments try to 'correct' this with quotas, and I think that's harmful. I don't think we should strive for a unisex world I think we should learn to accept feminine males, masculine females, feminine females and masculine males.<|ASPECTS|>, wrong, gender stereotypes, equal rights, differences, act feminine, feminism, nurture, accept feminine males, aggressiveness, dependent on biology brain, feminine behavior, patriarchy, competitiveness, women, equal, bogus, biological differences, masculine behavior, unisex stereotype, groups, unisex world, feminine, biology, personality and behavior, quotas, malleability of society, political and legal rights, testosterone, aggressive, significant, difference, act masculine, harmful, aggressive females<|CONCLUSION|>","Feminists believe women are the same as men, except for some slight biological differences in the genitals. They don't merely want equal rights for women, they also want women to be treated the same as men socially and culturally. I think this is bogus. Feminism grew big between the 60s and the 80s, when people strongly believed in the malleability of society and nurture was chosen above nature. This is false. Modern research has shown that personality and behavior are far more dependent on biology brain, genes than previously understood. There are significant differences in general between male and female brains. In the past all males had to act masculine and females had to act feminine. Instead of ending gender stereotypes, feminists have created a new unisex stereotype letting females behave more like males and letting males behave a bit more feminine. Both options are wrong and harmful. In reality many males seem to be predisposed toward masculine behavior for example aggressiveness and competitiveness , and the same holds true for females and feminine behavior. On average, boys just have more testosterone in their bodies. Not all of them are aggressive, and there are aggressive females too, but if you're looking at big groups, there is a significant difference. So if there are more male boxers, criminals, politicians and businessmen than females, that might just be biology, and not 'the patriarchy'. The idea that women are exactly the same as men seems to be harmful. Women should be fully equal in political and legal rights, but it's not 'wrong' if a certain group a job or a community has more males than females, or vice versa. Some governments try to 'correct' this with quotas, and I think that's harmful. I don't think we should strive for a unisex world I think we should learn to accept feminine males, masculine females, feminine females and masculine males.","I oppose feminism, and I don't think women are equal to men."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It’s obviously a violation of the 4th amendment and we have been frequently lied to about it, but since this program is only designed to catch people involved in bad activity, it doesn’t seem to affect me and likely never will. Obviously, there are some companies that have decided to shut down rather than give their encryption codes, but on the whole if this program really does succeed in stopping terrorism, should we be that upset? I really started to think about this when I learned that since ~2005 Google’s adsense did the exact same thing—except instead of scanning secure, protected gmail content for terrorist threats, they scanned for personality and ads. Important to keep in mind this is me as an individual, not me as a corporation or internet giant. EDIT just this article from today's front page explains a lot<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It’s obviously a violation of the 4th amendment and we have been frequently lied to about it, but since this program is only designed to catch people involved in bad activity, it doesn’t seem to affect me and likely never will. Obviously, there are some companies that have decided to shut down rather than give their encryption codes, but on the whole if this program really does succeed in stopping terrorism, should we be that upset? I really started to think about this when I learned that since ~2005 Google’s adsense did the exact same thing—except instead of scanning secure, protected gmail content for terrorist threats, they scanned for personality and ads. Important to keep in mind this is me as an individual, not me as a corporation or internet giant. EDIT just this article from today's front page explains a lot<|TARGETS|>this program, to think about this when I learned that since ~ 2005 Google ’s adsense, this program is only designed to catch people involved in bad activity, to shut down rather than give their encryption codes<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It’s obviously a violation of the 4th amendment and we have been frequently lied to about it, but since this program is only designed to catch people involved in bad activity, it doesn’t seem to affect me and likely never will. Obviously, there are some companies that have decided to shut down rather than give their encryption codes, but on the whole if this program really does succeed in stopping terrorism, should we be that upset? I really started to think about this when I learned that since ~2005 Google’s adsense did the exact same thing—except instead of scanning secure, protected gmail content for terrorist threats, they scanned for personality and ads. Important to keep in mind this is me as an individual, not me as a corporation or internet giant. EDIT just this article from today's front page explains a lot<|ASPECTS|>stopping terrorism, internet giant, violation, terrorist threats, bad activity, personality and ads, adsense, 4th amendment, individual<|CONCLUSION|>","It’s obviously a violation of the 4th amendment and we have been frequently lied to about it, but since this program is only designed to catch people involved in bad activity, it doesn’t seem to affect me and likely never will. Obviously, there are some companies that have decided to shut down rather than give their encryption codes, but on the whole if this program really does succeed in stopping terrorism, should we be that upset? I really started to think about this when I learned that since ~2005 Google’s adsense did the exact same thing—except instead of scanning secure, protected gmail content for terrorist threats, they scanned for personality and ads. Important to keep in mind this is me as an individual, not me as a corporation or internet giant. EDIT just this article from today's front page explains a lot",Is NSA spying really that terrible?
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Louis CK was recently accused of inappropriate sexual behavior, where he exposed himself and masturbated in front of several woman, who were shocked, confused, or disturbed by his behavior. While this behavior is certainly inappropriate and distasteful, he never actually forced these women to watch, and he didn't have any physical contact with the women. If they wanted to, they could have left the room at any time or told him to stop. He might have been in a position of power, but these women still had free will regardless. Because of what he did, his entire career has ended. All of his film, television, and stand up projects have been cancelled. He has admitted that he was wrong and has given what seems to be a heartfelt apology. He is one of the greatest living comedians and his style of brutally honest, self reflective comedy has had a positive impact on millions of fans. Therefore, his career should be allowed to continue. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Louis CK was recently accused of inappropriate sexual behavior, where he exposed himself and masturbated in front of several woman, who were shocked, confused, or disturbed by his behavior. While this behavior is certainly inappropriate and distasteful, he never actually forced these women to watch, and he didn't have any physical contact with the women. If they wanted to, they could have left the room at any time or told him to stop. He might have been in a position of power, but these women still had free will regardless. Because of what he did, his entire career has ended. All of his film, television, and stand up projects have been cancelled. He has admitted that he was wrong and has given what seems to be a heartfelt apology. He is one of the greatest living comedians and his style of brutally honest, self reflective comedy has had a positive impact on millions of fans. Therefore, his career should be allowed to continue. <|TARGETS|>any physical contact with the women ., the greatest living comedians and his style of brutally honest self reflective comedy, Louis CK, All of his film television and stand up projects<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Louis CK was recently accused of inappropriate sexual behavior, where he exposed himself and masturbated in front of several woman, who were shocked, confused, or disturbed by his behavior. While this behavior is certainly inappropriate and distasteful, he never actually forced these women to watch, and he didn't have any physical contact with the women. If they wanted to, they could have left the room at any time or told him to stop. He might have been in a position of power, but these women still had free will regardless. Because of what he did, his entire career has ended. All of his film, television, and stand up projects have been cancelled. He has admitted that he was wrong and has given what seems to be a heartfelt apology. He is one of the greatest living comedians and his style of brutally honest, self reflective comedy has had a positive impact on millions of fans. Therefore, his career should be allowed to continue. <|ASPECTS|>entire, apology, heartfelt, physical contact, career has ended, self reflective comedy, honest, projects, free, positive impact, cancelled, inappropriate sexual behavior, career, continue, position of power, inappropriate, distasteful, left the room<|CONCLUSION|>","Louis CK was recently accused of inappropriate sexual behavior, where he exposed himself and masturbated in front of several woman, who were shocked, confused, or disturbed by his behavior. While this behavior is certainly inappropriate and distasteful, he never actually forced these women to watch, and he didn't have any physical contact with the women. If they wanted to, they could have left the room at any time or told him to stop. He might have been in a position of power, but these women still had free will regardless. Because of what he did, his entire career has ended. All of his film, television, and stand up projects have been cancelled. He has admitted that he was wrong and has given what seems to be a heartfelt apology. He is one of the greatest living comedians and his style of brutally honest, self reflective comedy has had a positive impact on millions of fans. Therefore, his career should be allowed to continue.",Louis CK's career shouldn't have ended for what he did.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>“Grades are a problem. On the most general level, they're an explicit acknowledgment that what you're doing is insufficiently interesting or rewarding for you to do it on your own. Nobody ever gave you a grade for learning how to play, how to ride a bicycle, or how to kiss. One of the best ways to destroy love for any of these activities would be through the use of grades, and the coercion and judgment they represent. Grades are a cudgel to bludgeon the unwilling into doing what they don't want to do, an important instrument in inculcating children into a lifelong subservience to whatever authority happens to be thrust over them.” Derrick Jensen This quote encapsulates the core concerns of my viewpoint. The large majority of education across the world teaches our children to fear authority. There is usually one teacher to many students. The teacher is automatically considered the authority on the subject. Students are forced to accept the teacher's word as fact. Discussion is largely frowned upon. Questions are kept to a minimum because time is limited and the teacher has to get through all the material . All the students listen intently and take notes because they need to get good grades. Is this really how we should be bringing up our kids?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>“Grades are a problem. On the most general level, they're an explicit acknowledgment that what you're doing is insufficiently interesting or rewarding for you to do it on your own. Nobody ever gave you a grade for learning how to play, how to ride a bicycle, or how to kiss. One of the best ways to destroy love for any of these activities would be through the use of grades, and the coercion and judgment they represent. Grades are a cudgel to bludgeon the unwilling into doing what they don't want to do, an important instrument in inculcating children into a lifelong subservience to whatever authority happens to be thrust over them.” Derrick Jensen This quote encapsulates the core concerns of my viewpoint. The large majority of education across the world teaches our children to fear authority. There is usually one teacher to many students. The teacher is automatically considered the authority on the subject. Students are forced to accept the teacher's word as fact. Discussion is largely frowned upon. Questions are kept to a minimum because time is limited and the teacher has to get through all the material . All the students listen intently and take notes because they need to get good grades. Is this really how we should be bringing up our kids?<|TARGETS|>All the students listen intently and take notes because they need to get good grades ., Discussion, to accept the teacher 's word, a grade for learning how to play how to ride a bicycle or how to kiss ., the unwilling into doing what they do n't want to do an important instrument in inculcating children into a lifelong subservience to whatever authority happens to be thrust over them . ” Derrick Jensen This quote, The teacher<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>“Grades are a problem. On the most general level, they're an explicit acknowledgment that what you're doing is insufficiently interesting or rewarding for you to do it on your own. Nobody ever gave you a grade for learning how to play, how to ride a bicycle, or how to kiss. One of the best ways to destroy love for any of these activities would be through the use of grades, and the coercion and judgment they represent. Grades are a cudgel to bludgeon the unwilling into doing what they don't want to do, an important instrument in inculcating children into a lifelong subservience to whatever authority happens to be thrust over them.” Derrick Jensen This quote encapsulates the core concerns of my viewpoint. The large majority of education across the world teaches our children to fear authority. There is usually one teacher to many students. The teacher is automatically considered the authority on the subject. Students are forced to accept the teacher's word as fact. Discussion is largely frowned upon. Questions are kept to a minimum because time is limited and the teacher has to get through all the material . All the students listen intently and take notes because they need to get good grades. Is this really how we should be bringing up our kids?<|ASPECTS|>, kiss, discussion, time is limited, material, subservience, judgment, learning how, accept, rewarding, teacher 's word, lifelong, authority, coercion, destroy love, listen, interesting, good grades, play, grade, our kids, grades, teacher, questions, frowned, fear authority<|CONCLUSION|>","“Grades are a problem. On the most general level, they're an explicit acknowledgment that what you're doing is insufficiently interesting or rewarding for you to do it on your own. Nobody ever gave you a grade for learning how to play, how to ride a bicycle, or how to kiss. One of the best ways to destroy love for any of these activities would be through the use of grades, and the coercion and judgment they represent. Grades are a cudgel to bludgeon the unwilling into doing what they don't want to do, an important instrument in inculcating children into a lifelong subservience to whatever authority happens to be thrust over them.” Derrick Jensen This quote encapsulates the core concerns of my viewpoint. The large majority of education across the world teaches our children to fear authority. There is usually one teacher to many students. The teacher is automatically considered the authority on the subject. Students are forced to accept the teacher's word as fact. Discussion is largely frowned upon. Questions are kept to a minimum because time is limited and the teacher has to get through all the material . All the students listen intently and take notes because they need to get good grades. Is this really how we should be bringing up our kids?",Grades perpetuate a culture of subservience that stifles creative thinking and freedom of expression.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is a short one for the sports people. I don't think teams should have to release a list of players that can't play due to injury or whatever. After a quick google search, I think the NFL might have the loosest requirement of having to announce it 90 minutes before the game. There's so much strategy that can come into this but it's being taken away. Example It's been announced that KD won't play for game 2 of the finals. Now Toronto knows not to practice for a fully loaded warriors team. In competitons, every little bit counts. Practicing for KD could make Kawhi just that much more tired and cause him to miss a game winning shot. That's the only one that is fresh on my mind. What if Toronto was under the assumption KD wasn't coming back and then boom there he is. Obviously, a frantic game plan is a bad game plan x200B Basically, I feel it takes away a strategic play for the team<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is a short one for the sports people. I don't think teams should have to release a list of players that can't play due to injury or whatever. After a quick google search, I think the NFL might have the loosest requirement of having to announce it 90 minutes before the game. There's so much strategy that can come into this but it's being taken away. Example It's been announced that KD won't play for game 2 of the finals. Now Toronto knows not to practice for a fully loaded warriors team. In competitons, every little bit counts. Practicing for KD could make Kawhi just that much more tired and cause him to miss a game winning shot. That's the only one that is fresh on my mind. What if Toronto was under the assumption KD wasn't coming back and then boom there he is. Obviously, a frantic game plan is a bad game plan x200B Basically, I feel it takes away a strategic play for the team<|TARGETS|>to release a list of players that ca n't play due to injury or whatever ., a frantic game plan, Toronto was under the assumption KD was n't coming back and then boom, KD, a quick google search, Practicing for KD<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is a short one for the sports people. I don't think teams should have to release a list of players that can't play due to injury or whatever. After a quick google search, I think the NFL might have the loosest requirement of having to announce it 90 minutes before the game. There's so much strategy that can come into this but it's being taken away. Example It's been announced that KD won't play for game 2 of the finals. Now Toronto knows not to practice for a fully loaded warriors team. In competitons, every little bit counts. Practicing for KD could make Kawhi just that much more tired and cause him to miss a game winning shot. That's the only one that is fresh on my mind. What if Toronto was under the assumption KD wasn't coming back and then boom there he is. Obviously, a frantic game plan is a bad game plan x200B Basically, I feel it takes away a strategic play for the team<|ASPECTS|>loosest requirement, strategy, players, practice, sports people, miss, strategic play, play, injury, mind, competitons, taken, fresh, tired<|CONCLUSION|>","This is a short one for the sports people. I don't think teams should have to release a list of players that can't play due to injury or whatever. After a quick google search, I think the NFL might have the loosest requirement of having to announce it 90 minutes before the game. There's so much strategy that can come into this but it's being taken away. Example It's been announced that KD won't play for game 2 of the finals. Now Toronto knows not to practice for a fully loaded warriors team. In competitons, every little bit counts. Practicing for KD could make Kawhi just that much more tired and cause him to miss a game winning shot. That's the only one that is fresh on my mind. What if Toronto was under the assumption KD wasn't coming back and then boom there he is. Obviously, a frantic game plan is a bad game plan x200B Basically, I feel it takes away a strategic play for the team",Professional teams shouldn't be required to announce or release the name of their inactive players.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's my impression that many lacto ovo vegetarians have chosen their diet partially or solely out of ethical reasons. I think vegetarianism is good for many reasons, but I argue that, from an ethical point of view, it can be less unethical to eat meat than eating diary products. My reasoning is as follows I believe that it's possible to raise farm animals in a way where they live a good, safe life and when it's time to slaughter them it's also possible to do this in a way where the stress and pain is minimal or maybe even non existent this is also the case with game . This is of course not how the majority of farm animals are kept, but my point is that it's possible as a consumer to get ethically or rather less non ethically sourced meat. On the other hand I don't think it's possible to find ethically dairy products unless you have your own cows, let the calf stay with the mother and only take the excess milk that the calf doesn't drink . Cows doesn't naturally produce milk all the time, so they are routinely impregnated and when the calf is born it is taken away from the mother after a short while. It's stressfull for the cow to be forced to produce milk all the time and it's stressfull for the cow and calf to be separated from each other. So to summarise I think that it's possible to purchase meat where the animals have been subjected to a minimal amount of suffering whereas it's not realistically possible to get hold of dairy products that has been produced without a great deal of suffering from the cows and calves. Change my view EDIT As u textrovert pointed out, the environmental issue is also an ethical one. A better title would be CMV It generally causes animals more suffering, to eat high welfare organic meat and not consume high welfare organic dairy products than vice versa<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's my impression that many lacto ovo vegetarians have chosen their diet partially or solely out of ethical reasons. I think vegetarianism is good for many reasons, but I argue that, from an ethical point of view, it can be less unethical to eat meat than eating diary products. My reasoning is as follows I believe that it's possible to raise farm animals in a way where they live a good, safe life and when it's time to slaughter them it's also possible to do this in a way where the stress and pain is minimal or maybe even non existent this is also the case with game . This is of course not how the majority of farm animals are kept, but my point is that it's possible as a consumer to get ethically or rather less non ethically sourced meat. On the other hand I don't think it's possible to find ethically dairy products unless you have your own cows, let the calf stay with the mother and only take the excess milk that the calf doesn't drink . Cows doesn't naturally produce milk all the time, so they are routinely impregnated and when the calf is born it is taken away from the mother after a short while. It's stressfull for the cow to be forced to produce milk all the time and it's stressfull for the cow and calf to be separated from each other. So to summarise I think that it's possible to purchase meat where the animals have been subjected to a minimal amount of suffering whereas it's not realistically possible to get hold of dairy products that has been produced without a great deal of suffering from the cows and calves. Change my view EDIT As u textrovert pointed out, the environmental issue is also an ethical one. A better title would be CMV It generally causes animals more suffering, to eat high welfare organic meat and not consume high welfare organic dairy products than vice versa<|TARGETS|>to raise farm animals in a way where they live a good safe life and when it 's time to slaughter them it 's also possible to do this in a way where the stress and pain, Cows, to find ethically dairy products unless you have your own cows let the calf stay with the mother and only take the excess milk that the calf, the cow to be forced to produce milk all the time, to get hold of dairy products, an ethical point of view<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's my impression that many lacto ovo vegetarians have chosen their diet partially or solely out of ethical reasons. I think vegetarianism is good for many reasons, but I argue that, from an ethical point of view, it can be less unethical to eat meat than eating diary products. My reasoning is as follows I believe that it's possible to raise farm animals in a way where they live a good, safe life and when it's time to slaughter them it's also possible to do this in a way where the stress and pain is minimal or maybe even non existent this is also the case with game . This is of course not how the majority of farm animals are kept, but my point is that it's possible as a consumer to get ethically or rather less non ethically sourced meat. On the other hand I don't think it's possible to find ethically dairy products unless you have your own cows, let the calf stay with the mother and only take the excess milk that the calf doesn't drink . Cows doesn't naturally produce milk all the time, so they are routinely impregnated and when the calf is born it is taken away from the mother after a short while. It's stressfull for the cow to be forced to produce milk all the time and it's stressfull for the cow and calf to be separated from each other. So to summarise I think that it's possible to purchase meat where the animals have been subjected to a minimal amount of suffering whereas it's not realistically possible to get hold of dairy products that has been produced without a great deal of suffering from the cows and calves. Change my view EDIT As u textrovert pointed out, the environmental issue is also an ethical one. A better title would be CMV It generally causes animals more suffering, to eat high welfare organic meat and not consume high welfare organic dairy products than vice versa<|ASPECTS|>unethical, ethical one, ethically sourced meat, ethically dairy, welfare, ethically, stressfull, excess milk, suffering, ethical reasons, environmental, separated, safe life, routinely, impregnated, purchase, animals, produce milk, stress and pain, less<|CONCLUSION|>","It's my impression that many lacto ovo vegetarians have chosen their diet partially or solely out of ethical reasons. I think vegetarianism is good for many reasons, but I argue that, from an ethical point of view, it can be less unethical to eat meat than eating diary products. My reasoning is as follows I believe that it's possible to raise farm animals in a way where they live a good, safe life and when it's time to slaughter them it's also possible to do this in a way where the stress and pain is minimal or maybe even non existent this is also the case with game . This is of course not how the majority of farm animals are kept, but my point is that it's possible as a consumer to get ethically or rather less non ethically sourced meat. On the other hand I don't think it's possible to find ethically dairy products unless you have your own cows, let the calf stay with the mother and only take the excess milk that the calf doesn't drink . Cows doesn't naturally produce milk all the time, so they are routinely impregnated and when the calf is born it is taken away from the mother after a short while. It's stressfull for the cow to be forced to produce milk all the time and it's stressfull for the cow and calf to be separated from each other. So to summarise I think that it's possible to purchase meat where the animals have been subjected to a minimal amount of suffering whereas it's not realistically possible to get hold of dairy products that has been produced without a great deal of suffering from the cows and calves. Change my view EDIT As u textrovert pointed out, the environmental issue is also an ethical one. A better title would be  It generally causes animals more suffering, to eat high welfare organic meat and not consume high welfare organic dairy products than vice versa",I believe it's more ethical to eat meat and not consume dairy products than vice versa
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Texas has been in the news lately with their Voter ID law getting some heavy opposition. The bill originally intended to prevent anyone who did not have a valid photo ID to participate in the elections in Texas. A district court judge recently blocked the law on the grounds that it is racially discriminatory. However, the appeals court stated that Texas could keep the law in place for the upcoming elections. I find it hard to believe that this could be interpreted as racially discriminatory as you need to have a valid ID to pretty much do anything in this country. So why should Texas or any state for that matter allow anyone who doesn't have a valid Photo ID to vote in their elections? EDIT I am very glad this post got the attention I thought it would. It has come to my attention that it is unrealistic to expect every United States citizen who is eligible to vote have a photo ID present when voting and I now agree. My underlying concern is ensuring that only United States citizens vote in United States elections and there are other ways to do that rather than photo ID's, however tricky those ways may be. This is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people and I get that it may not have serious implications now, but it could in the future there is no way of knowing. That being said, thank you all for your comments and articulate responses, my view has been changed. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Texas has been in the news lately with their Voter ID law getting some heavy opposition. The bill originally intended to prevent anyone who did not have a valid photo ID to participate in the elections in Texas. A district court judge recently blocked the law on the grounds that it is racially discriminatory. However, the appeals court stated that Texas could keep the law in place for the upcoming elections. I find it hard to believe that this could be interpreted as racially discriminatory as you need to have a valid ID to pretty much do anything in this country. So why should Texas or any state for that matter allow anyone who doesn't have a valid Photo ID to vote in their elections? EDIT I am very glad this post got the attention I thought it would. It has come to my attention that it is unrealistic to expect every United States citizen who is eligible to vote have a photo ID present when voting and I now agree. My underlying concern is ensuring that only United States citizens vote in United States elections and there are other ways to do that rather than photo ID's, however tricky those ways may be. This is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people and I get that it may not have serious implications now, but it could in the future there is no way of knowing. That being said, thank you all for your comments and articulate responses, my view has been changed. <|TARGETS|>to believe that this could be interpreted as racially discriminatory as you need to have a valid ID to pretty much do anything in this country ., to expect every United States citizen who is eligible to vote have a photo ID present when voting, A district court judge, your comments and articulate responses my view, Texas, Texas or any state for that matter allow anyone who does n't have a valid Photo ID to vote in their elections<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Texas has been in the news lately with their Voter ID law getting some heavy opposition. The bill originally intended to prevent anyone who did not have a valid photo ID to participate in the elections in Texas. A district court judge recently blocked the law on the grounds that it is racially discriminatory. However, the appeals court stated that Texas could keep the law in place for the upcoming elections. I find it hard to believe that this could be interpreted as racially discriminatory as you need to have a valid ID to pretty much do anything in this country. So why should Texas or any state for that matter allow anyone who doesn't have a valid Photo ID to vote in their elections? EDIT I am very glad this post got the attention I thought it would. It has come to my attention that it is unrealistic to expect every United States citizen who is eligible to vote have a photo ID present when voting and I now agree. My underlying concern is ensuring that only United States citizens vote in United States elections and there are other ways to do that rather than photo ID's, however tricky those ways may be. This is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people and I get that it may not have serious implications now, but it could in the future there is no way of knowing. That being said, thank you all for your comments and articulate responses, my view has been changed. <|ASPECTS|>racially discriminatory, attention, prevent, valid id, valid, sensitive topic, implications, heavy, opposition, photo id, view, articulate responses, voter id law, law, citizens vote, valid photo id, united, unrealistic<|CONCLUSION|>","Texas has been in the news lately with their Voter ID law getting some heavy opposition. The bill originally intended to prevent anyone who did not have a valid photo ID to participate in the elections in Texas. A district court judge recently blocked the law on the grounds that it is racially discriminatory. However, the appeals court stated that Texas could keep the law in place for the upcoming elections. I find it hard to believe that this could be interpreted as racially discriminatory as you need to have a valid ID to pretty much do anything in this country. So why should Texas or any state for that matter allow anyone who doesn't have a valid Photo ID to vote in their elections? EDIT I am very glad this post got the attention I thought it would. It has come to my attention that it is unrealistic to expect every United States citizen who is eligible to vote have a photo ID present when voting and I now agree. My underlying concern is ensuring that only United States citizens vote in United States elections and there are other ways to do that rather than photo ID's, however tricky those ways may be. This is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people and I get that it may not have serious implications now, but it could in the future there is no way of knowing. That being said, thank you all for your comments and articulate responses, my view has been changed.",Every election in the United States of America should require a valid photo ID to participate in.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've noticed trends of faster and faster Internet speeds. Not usually where I live, but yes, there's a voice inside me that yells more fasterer Better Better Now, I know there are some people with big bandwidth requirements those doing some major file sharing, or maybe needing a big pipe for a VPN to work. But I think that in the commercial marketplace, that's a small percentage. I thought about this recently when a friend of mine was looking at his options for getting Internet services. He opted for the cable modem at 25 Mbps because it was faster than the DSL offering at 12Mbps, which is what I have. And I thought about it, knowing what he'll do online surf the web, stream some audio, watch Netflix once in a while and even for that, 12 is overkill, let alone 25. I know that the providers have to have significant bandwidth in their infrastructure, but I feel that consumer offerings of 25, 30, 50 Mbps and more are really just selling people the idea of a super fast connection that they'll really never use. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've noticed trends of faster and faster Internet speeds. Not usually where I live, but yes, there's a voice inside me that yells more fasterer Better Better Now, I know there are some people with big bandwidth requirements those doing some major file sharing, or maybe needing a big pipe for a VPN to work. But I think that in the commercial marketplace, that's a small percentage. I thought about this recently when a friend of mine was looking at his options for getting Internet services. He opted for the cable modem at 25 Mbps because it was faster than the DSL offering at 12Mbps, which is what I have. And I thought about it, knowing what he'll do online surf the web, stream some audio, watch Netflix once in a while and even for that, 12 is overkill, let alone 25. I know that the providers have to have significant bandwidth in their infrastructure, but I feel that consumer offerings of 25, 30, 50 Mbps and more are really just selling people the idea of a super fast connection that they'll really never use. CMV.<|TARGETS|>knowing what he 'll do online surf the web, the commercial marketplace, when a friend of mine was looking at his options for getting Internet services<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've noticed trends of faster and faster Internet speeds. Not usually where I live, but yes, there's a voice inside me that yells more fasterer Better Better Now, I know there are some people with big bandwidth requirements those doing some major file sharing, or maybe needing a big pipe for a VPN to work. But I think that in the commercial marketplace, that's a small percentage. I thought about this recently when a friend of mine was looking at his options for getting Internet services. He opted for the cable modem at 25 Mbps because it was faster than the DSL offering at 12Mbps, which is what I have. And I thought about it, knowing what he'll do online surf the web, stream some audio, watch Netflix once in a while and even for that, 12 is overkill, let alone 25. I know that the providers have to have significant bandwidth in their infrastructure, but I feel that consumer offerings of 25, 30, 50 Mbps and more are really just selling people the idea of a super fast connection that they'll really never use. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>trends, fasterer, bandwidth requirements, commercial marketplace, cable, faster and faster internet speeds, super fast connection, options, internet services, faster, overkill, bandwidth, small<|CONCLUSION|>","I've noticed trends of faster and faster Internet speeds. Not usually where I live, but yes, there's a voice inside me that yells more fasterer Better Better Now, I know there are some people with big bandwidth requirements those doing some major file sharing, or maybe needing a big pipe for a VPN to work. But I think that in the commercial marketplace, that's a small percentage. I thought about this recently when a friend of mine was looking at his options for getting Internet services. He opted for the cable modem at 25 Mbps because it was faster than the DSL offering at 12Mbps, which is what I have. And I thought about it, knowing what he'll do online surf the web, stream some audio, watch Netflix once in a while and even for that, 12 is overkill, let alone 25. I know that the providers have to have significant bandwidth in their infrastructure, but I feel that consumer offerings of 25, 30, 50 Mbps and more are really just selling people the idea of a super fast connection that they'll really never use. .",Internet speeds above 20Mbps aren't useful for most people.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Technically, growing up is also 'aging', but I'm talking about senescence gt Senescence or biological aging is the gradual deterioration of function characteristic of most complex lifeforms, that on the level of the organism increases mortality after maturation. gt Albeit indirectly, senescence is by far the leading cause of death. Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two thirds—100,000 per day—die of age related causes in industrialized nations, moreover, the proportion is much higher, reaching 90 . Like cars and houses, humans degrade over time. Disease is often caused by this degradation that's why old people have a way higher chance of getting cancer or dementia. When we get older, we get weaker, less fertile, more prone to disease, etcetera. We try to stop the degradation of our houses and cars. With proper care, cars can be used forever. There are cars older than a century which are still being used, and they look like they're new We haven't found the right methods yet, but it is possible to end aging. There are biologically immortal animals. And ending aging is great Ebola has killed less than 10,000 people since the beginning of the epidemic in 2013, and we're all terrified of it and looking for a cure. Aging kills 100,000 people every day It's more deadly than the entire Syrian Civil War, from the Arab Spring to ISIS, every 3 days. Aging kills more people than 9 11 every hour of every day . We want to stop ebola. We want to stop ISIS. We think 9 11 was absolutely horrible. Aging is as bad as these things, but on a way bigger scale. When unhealthy food or a car accident disables somebody, we think it's horrible. But when aging does it, we think it's natural and normal. We fear cancer and dementia and want to cure it, but many people accept the root cause aging. We shouldn't. The body of a 30 year old person is better than the body of an 80 year old person, and we should try to keep people 'young'. TL DR Aging causes cancer, dementia, disabilities and infertility. These things are normally considered bad, but only a few people consider the root cause of these problems aging bad. This is wrong aging is terrible and should be stopped.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Technically, growing up is also 'aging', but I'm talking about senescence gt Senescence or biological aging is the gradual deterioration of function characteristic of most complex lifeforms, that on the level of the organism increases mortality after maturation. gt Albeit indirectly, senescence is by far the leading cause of death. Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two thirds—100,000 per day—die of age related causes in industrialized nations, moreover, the proportion is much higher, reaching 90 . Like cars and houses, humans degrade over time. Disease is often caused by this degradation that's why old people have a way higher chance of getting cancer or dementia. When we get older, we get weaker, less fertile, more prone to disease, etcetera. We try to stop the degradation of our houses and cars. With proper care, cars can be used forever. There are cars older than a century which are still being used, and they look like they're new We haven't found the right methods yet, but it is possible to end aging. There are biologically immortal animals. And ending aging is great Ebola has killed less than 10,000 people since the beginning of the epidemic in 2013, and we're all terrified of it and looking for a cure. Aging kills 100,000 people every day It's more deadly than the entire Syrian Civil War, from the Arab Spring to ISIS, every 3 days. Aging kills more people than 9 11 every hour of every day . We want to stop ebola. We want to stop ISIS. We think 9 11 was absolutely horrible. Aging is as bad as these things, but on a way bigger scale. When unhealthy food or a car accident disables somebody, we think it's horrible. But when aging does it, we think it's natural and normal. We fear cancer and dementia and want to cure it, but many people accept the root cause aging. We shouldn't. The body of a 30 year old person is better than the body of an 80 year old person, and we should try to keep people 'young'. TL DR Aging causes cancer, dementia, disabilities and infertility. These things are normally considered bad, but only a few people consider the root cause of these problems aging bad. This is wrong aging is terrible and should be stopped.<|TARGETS|>When unhealthy food or a car accident, The body of a 30 year old person, Aging, TL DR Aging, gt Albeit indirectly senescence, the roughly 150000 people who die each day across the globe about two thirds — 100000 per day — die of age related causes in industrialized nations<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Technically, growing up is also 'aging', but I'm talking about senescence gt Senescence or biological aging is the gradual deterioration of function characteristic of most complex lifeforms, that on the level of the organism increases mortality after maturation. gt Albeit indirectly, senescence is by far the leading cause of death. Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two thirds—100,000 per day—die of age related causes in industrialized nations, moreover, the proportion is much higher, reaching 90 . Like cars and houses, humans degrade over time. Disease is often caused by this degradation that's why old people have a way higher chance of getting cancer or dementia. When we get older, we get weaker, less fertile, more prone to disease, etcetera. We try to stop the degradation of our houses and cars. With proper care, cars can be used forever. There are cars older than a century which are still being used, and they look like they're new We haven't found the right methods yet, but it is possible to end aging. There are biologically immortal animals. And ending aging is great Ebola has killed less than 10,000 people since the beginning of the epidemic in 2013, and we're all terrified of it and looking for a cure. Aging kills 100,000 people every day It's more deadly than the entire Syrian Civil War, from the Arab Spring to ISIS, every 3 days. Aging kills more people than 9 11 every hour of every day . We want to stop ebola. We want to stop ISIS. We think 9 11 was absolutely horrible. Aging is as bad as these things, but on a way bigger scale. When unhealthy food or a car accident disables somebody, we think it's horrible. But when aging does it, we think it's natural and normal. We fear cancer and dementia and want to cure it, but many people accept the root cause aging. We shouldn't. The body of a 30 year old person is better than the body of an 80 year old person, and we should try to keep people 'young'. TL DR Aging causes cancer, dementia, disabilities and infertility. These things are normally considered bad, but only a few people consider the root cause of these problems aging bad. This is wrong aging is terrible and should be stopped.<|ASPECTS|>stop, senescence, infertility, deterioration of function, , deadly, unhealthy food, bad, cancer, ebola, isis, leading, problems, root cause aging, fear, prone, aging, terrified, disease, biologically immortal animals, mortality, gradual, care, degrade over time, terrible, end aging, aging bad, kills, car accident, less fertile, disabilities, cure, killed, horrible, cars, used forever, humans, disables somebody, degradation, bigger scale, ending, better, natural and normal, age related causes, increases, dementia, cause of death, weaker<|CONCLUSION|>","Technically, growing up is also 'aging', but I'm talking about senescence gt Senescence or biological aging is the gradual deterioration of function characteristic of most complex lifeforms, that on the level of the organism increases mortality after maturation. gt Albeit indirectly, senescence is by far the leading cause of death. Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two thirds—100,000 per day—die of age related causes in industrialized nations, moreover, the proportion is much higher, reaching 90 . Like cars and houses, humans degrade over time. Disease is often caused by this degradation that's why old people have a way higher chance of getting cancer or dementia. When we get older, we get weaker, less fertile, more prone to disease, etcetera. We try to stop the degradation of our houses and cars. With proper care, cars can be used forever. There are cars older than a century which are still being used, and they look like they're new We haven't found the right methods yet, but it is possible to end aging. There are biologically immortal animals. And ending aging is great Ebola has killed less than 10,000 people since the beginning of the epidemic in 2013, and we're all terrified of it and looking for a cure. Aging kills 100,000 people every day It's more deadly than the entire Syrian Civil War, from the Arab Spring to ISIS, every 3 days. Aging kills more people than 9 11 every hour of every day . We want to stop ebola. We want to stop ISIS. We think 9 11 was absolutely horrible. Aging is as bad as these things, but on a way bigger scale. When unhealthy food or a car accident disables somebody, we think it's horrible. But when aging does it, we think it's natural and normal. We fear cancer and dementia and want to cure it, but many people accept the root cause aging. We shouldn't. The body of a 30 year old person is better than the body of an 80 year old person, and we should try to keep people 'young'. TL DR Aging causes cancer, dementia, disabilities and infertility. These things are normally considered bad, but only a few people consider the root cause of these problems aging bad. This is wrong aging is terrible and should be stopped.",Aging is terrible and should be 'cured'
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As you probably know, I am talking about the phenomenon where people are surprised to learn that a memory event thing did not happen the way in which they remember it. The phenomenon is named for Nelson Mandela. Many thousands of people, reportedly, remembered him dying in prison in the 1980s. Mandela actually died in 2013, but it led many to believe that something had changed. People have offered explanations such as alternate timelines, large scale media conspiracies, and more, but I believe the issue both simpler and more complex. I believe that our brains are constantly being bombarded with information, some of it helpful, much of it unimportant nonsense. To cope with that information overload, our brains will pick out high points, and fill in the blanks. Think about your drive home from work yesterday. Do you remember what red lights you had to stop at? I don't. But I remember stopping for gas a high point. I think the collective memory lapses associated with the Mandela effect are largely due to the fact that we rely on each other for our collective memories rather than on the fact itself. We hear see things repeated over and over again in pop culture and they become ingrained, despite being inaccurate. Sometimes, the difference is tiny, sometimes its bigger, but I think it's still a collective memory lapse combined with a growing emotional attachment to our memories. We get offended when we are told we remember something incorrectly, so we start creating reasons why we aren't wrong. This is already long, but I want to cover a few common examples that are not Nelson Mandela. Berenstain Bears vs. Berenstein Bears I never thought about the spelling of this one until it was brought up in relation to the Mandela effect. But, I had these books. I always always always pronounced it Ber en STAYN which I wouldn't have done if the word ended in stein. I admit the spelling looks weird as an adult, but that's because stein is much more common than a name ending in stain. I think this plays into the misremembering more than anything else. If you build it, they he will come. Field of Dreams. This one shocked me to even find on the list. It has always been If you build, he will come. I might be misremembering, but I think Kevin Costner's character talks to his wife about who he might be. Last but not least, Luke No, I am your father. Empire Strikes Back. This one got misquoted early on in other movies and those quotes stuck in the collective memory. Just like Rick in Casablanca never says Play it again, Sam, Darth Vader never said Luke, I am your father. Chris Farley did in Tommy Boy, but not Vader. I'm open to being convinced that there is more than human memory and psychology going on, but you're going to have come with good reasons. . Edit Faulty is a misleading word and not indicative of my actual view. Incorrect memory for whatever reason would be more accurate. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As you probably know, I am talking about the phenomenon where people are surprised to learn that a memory event thing did not happen the way in which they remember it. The phenomenon is named for Nelson Mandela. Many thousands of people, reportedly, remembered him dying in prison in the 1980s. Mandela actually died in 2013, but it led many to believe that something had changed. People have offered explanations such as alternate timelines, large scale media conspiracies, and more, but I believe the issue both simpler and more complex. I believe that our brains are constantly being bombarded with information, some of it helpful, much of it unimportant nonsense. To cope with that information overload, our brains will pick out high points, and fill in the blanks. Think about your drive home from work yesterday. Do you remember what red lights you had to stop at? I don't. But I remember stopping for gas a high point. I think the collective memory lapses associated with the Mandela effect are largely due to the fact that we rely on each other for our collective memories rather than on the fact itself. We hear see things repeated over and over again in pop culture and they become ingrained, despite being inaccurate. Sometimes, the difference is tiny, sometimes its bigger, but I think it's still a collective memory lapse combined with a growing emotional attachment to our memories. We get offended when we are told we remember something incorrectly, so we start creating reasons why we aren't wrong. This is already long, but I want to cover a few common examples that are not Nelson Mandela. Berenstain Bears vs. Berenstein Bears I never thought about the spelling of this one until it was brought up in relation to the Mandela effect. But, I had these books. I always always always pronounced it Ber en STAYN which I wouldn't have done if the word ended in stein. I admit the spelling looks weird as an adult, but that's because stein is much more common than a name ending in stain. I think this plays into the misremembering more than anything else. If you build it, they he will come. Field of Dreams. This one shocked me to even find on the list. It has always been If you build, he will come. I might be misremembering, but I think Kevin Costner's character talks to his wife about who he might be. Last but not least, Luke No, I am your father. Empire Strikes Back. This one got misquoted early on in other movies and those quotes stuck in the collective memory. Just like Rick in Casablanca never says Play it again, Sam, Darth Vader never said Luke, I am your father. Chris Farley did in Tommy Boy, but not Vader. I'm open to being convinced that there is more than human memory and psychology going on, but you're going to have come with good reasons. . Edit Faulty is a misleading word and not indicative of my actual view. Incorrect memory for whatever reason would be more accurate. <|TARGETS|>the spelling, what red lights you had to stop at, Berenstain Bears vs. Berenstein Bears, Empire Strikes, To cope with that information overload, to cover a few common examples that<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As you probably know, I am talking about the phenomenon where people are surprised to learn that a memory event thing did not happen the way in which they remember it. The phenomenon is named for Nelson Mandela. Many thousands of people, reportedly, remembered him dying in prison in the 1980s. Mandela actually died in 2013, but it led many to believe that something had changed. People have offered explanations such as alternate timelines, large scale media conspiracies, and more, but I believe the issue both simpler and more complex. I believe that our brains are constantly being bombarded with information, some of it helpful, much of it unimportant nonsense. To cope with that information overload, our brains will pick out high points, and fill in the blanks. Think about your drive home from work yesterday. Do you remember what red lights you had to stop at? I don't. But I remember stopping for gas a high point. I think the collective memory lapses associated with the Mandela effect are largely due to the fact that we rely on each other for our collective memories rather than on the fact itself. We hear see things repeated over and over again in pop culture and they become ingrained, despite being inaccurate. Sometimes, the difference is tiny, sometimes its bigger, but I think it's still a collective memory lapse combined with a growing emotional attachment to our memories. We get offended when we are told we remember something incorrectly, so we start creating reasons why we aren't wrong. This is already long, but I want to cover a few common examples that are not Nelson Mandela. Berenstain Bears vs. Berenstein Bears I never thought about the spelling of this one until it was brought up in relation to the Mandela effect. But, I had these books. I always always always pronounced it Ber en STAYN which I wouldn't have done if the word ended in stein. I admit the spelling looks weird as an adult, but that's because stein is much more common than a name ending in stain. I think this plays into the misremembering more than anything else. If you build it, they he will come. Field of Dreams. This one shocked me to even find on the list. It has always been If you build, he will come. I might be misremembering, but I think Kevin Costner's character talks to his wife about who he might be. Last but not least, Luke No, I am your father. Empire Strikes Back. This one got misquoted early on in other movies and those quotes stuck in the collective memory. Just like Rick in Casablanca never says Play it again, Sam, Darth Vader never said Luke, I am your father. Chris Farley did in Tommy Boy, but not Vader. I'm open to being convinced that there is more than human memory and psychology going on, but you're going to have come with good reasons. . Edit Faulty is a misleading word and not indicative of my actual view. Incorrect memory for whatever reason would be more accurate. <|ASPECTS|>, misremembering, tiny, media conspiracies, remember something incorrectly, incorrect memory, inaccurate, information overload, ingrained, alternate timelines, collective memory lapses, drive home, spelling, stopping, misquoted, misleading, collective memories, remembered, common examples, bombarded, accurate, helpful, psychology, father, offended, died, collective memory, information, dreams, dying in prison, high points, unimportant nonsense, collective memory lapse, human memory, memory event, red lights, mandela effect, emotional attachment, nelson, come, something had changed, simpler, edit faulty, complex<|CONCLUSION|>","As you probably know, I am talking about the phenomenon where people are surprised to learn that a memory event thing did not happen the way in which they remember it. The phenomenon is named for Nelson Mandela. Many thousands of people, reportedly, remembered him dying in prison in the 1980s. Mandela actually died in 2013, but it led many to believe that something had changed. People have offered explanations such as alternate timelines, large scale media conspiracies, and more, but I believe the issue both simpler and more complex. I believe that our brains are constantly being bombarded with information, some of it helpful, much of it unimportant nonsense. To cope with that information overload, our brains will pick out high points, and fill in the blanks. Think about your drive home from work yesterday. Do you remember what red lights you had to stop at? I don't. But I remember stopping for gas a high point. I think the collective memory lapses associated with the Mandela effect are largely due to the fact that we rely on each other for our collective memories rather than on the fact itself. We hear see things repeated over and over again in pop culture and they become ingrained, despite being inaccurate. Sometimes, the difference is tiny, sometimes its bigger, but I think it's still a collective memory lapse combined with a growing emotional attachment to our memories. We get offended when we are told we remember something incorrectly, so we start creating reasons why we aren't wrong. This is already long, but I want to cover a few common examples that are not Nelson Mandela. Berenstain Bears vs. Berenstein Bears I never thought about the spelling of this one until it was brought up in relation to the Mandela effect. But, I had these books. I always always always pronounced it Ber en STAYN which I wouldn't have done if the word ended in stein. I admit the spelling looks weird as an adult, but that's because stein is much more common than a name ending in stain. I think this plays into the misremembering more than anything else. If you build it, they he will come. Field of Dreams. This one shocked me to even find on the list. It has always been If you build, he will come. I might be misremembering, but I think Kevin Costner's character talks to his wife about who he might be. Last but not least, Luke No, I am your father. Empire Strikes Back. This one got misquoted early on in other movies and those quotes stuck in the collective memory. Just like Rick in Casablanca never says Play it again, Sam, Darth Vader never said Luke, I am your father. Chris Farley did in Tommy Boy, but not Vader. I'm open to being convinced that there is more than human memory and psychology going on, but you're going to have come with good reasons. . Edit Faulty is a misleading word and not indicative of my actual view. Incorrect memory for whatever reason would be more accurate.","I believe that the Mandela Effect is caused by faulty memories, not by parallel universes, intentional conspiracies, or anything else."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Utilitarianism is the idea that society should always consider moral what will result in the greatest amount of happiness level of well being for the greatest number of people. I believe that this philosophy is correct 99 of the time with the exception of animal rights, but it also logically follows that treating animals well will benefit people in most cases . A common example of this is the Train Problem, which you can read a summary of here I believe that killing the one person to save the five is the correct solution, because it saves more lives. A common rebuttal to this is a situation where a doctor kills a man and uses his organs to save five of his patients. I maintain that a society where people have to live in fear that their organs may be harvested by doctors if need be would be a much less fruitful society. In this way, the utilitarian solution would be to disallow such actions, and therefore, this point is not a problem. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Utilitarianism is the idea that society should always consider moral what will result in the greatest amount of happiness level of well being for the greatest number of people. I believe that this philosophy is correct 99 of the time with the exception of animal rights, but it also logically follows that treating animals well will benefit people in most cases . A common example of this is the Train Problem, which you can read a summary of here I believe that killing the one person to save the five is the correct solution, because it saves more lives. A common rebuttal to this is a situation where a doctor kills a man and uses his organs to save five of his patients. I maintain that a society where people have to live in fear that their organs may be harvested by doctors if need be would be a much less fruitful society. In this way, the utilitarian solution would be to disallow such actions, and therefore, this point is not a problem. <|TARGETS|>that treating animals well, a society where people have to live in fear that their organs may be harvested by doctors if need be, that killing the one person to save the five, the utilitarian solution, Utilitarianism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Utilitarianism is the idea that society should always consider moral what will result in the greatest amount of happiness level of well being for the greatest number of people. I believe that this philosophy is correct 99 of the time with the exception of animal rights, but it also logically follows that treating animals well will benefit people in most cases . A common example of this is the Train Problem, which you can read a summary of here I believe that killing the one person to save the five is the correct solution, because it saves more lives. A common rebuttal to this is a situation where a doctor kills a man and uses his organs to save five of his patients. I maintain that a society where people have to live in fear that their organs may be harvested by doctors if need be would be a much less fruitful society. In this way, the utilitarian solution would be to disallow such actions, and therefore, this point is not a problem. <|ASPECTS|>train problem, well, fear, kills a man, harvested, utilitarianism, killing, save, saves more lives, organs, happiness level, disallow such actions, fruitful society, utilitarian solution, benefit people, animal rights, less, correct<|CONCLUSION|>","Utilitarianism is the idea that society should always consider moral what will result in the greatest amount of happiness level of well being for the greatest number of people. I believe that this philosophy is correct 99 of the time with the exception of animal rights, but it also logically follows that treating animals well will benefit people in most cases . A common example of this is the Train Problem, which you can read a summary of here I believe that killing the one person to save the five is the correct solution, because it saves more lives. A common rebuttal to this is a situation where a doctor kills a man and uses his organs to save five of his patients. I maintain that a society where people have to live in fear that their organs may be harvested by doctors if need be would be a much less fruitful society. In this way, the utilitarian solution would be to disallow such actions, and therefore, this point is not a problem.",Utilitarianism has no flaws
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been an amateur language geek all of my life, and though my judgement is far from perfect, I can't find any logical reason why the grammatically correct and quite useful contraction y'all you all has not yet been adopted as the de facto second person plural pronoun of, at least the United States, if not the entire Anglosphere. So far, the only reason I can find is that y'all is perceived as southern, rustic, and therefor, unsophisticated. It has a public image problem dating back to the Beverly Hillbillies which is wholly undeserved, IMO. This saddens me, because goodness knows the other regional alternatives are just as unpolished, with far less utility and claim to grammatical correctness. I mean, youse guys ? Yinz ? Yunces ? Not only do they have no foundation in English grammar, but they simply don't roll off the tongue with the same grace and economy of motion. English is one of the only major languages I can think of that does not yet have a widely accepted plural second person pronoun. German has ihr , Spanish has ustedes I think it's time we have one, and y'all is, at least to my ear, the most elegant and justifiable contender. Am I wrong? What do y'all think?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been an amateur language geek all of my life, and though my judgement is far from perfect, I can't find any logical reason why the grammatically correct and quite useful contraction y'all you all has not yet been adopted as the de facto second person plural pronoun of, at least the United States, if not the entire Anglosphere. So far, the only reason I can find is that y'all is perceived as southern, rustic, and therefor, unsophisticated. It has a public image problem dating back to the Beverly Hillbillies which is wholly undeserved, IMO. This saddens me, because goodness knows the other regional alternatives are just as unpolished, with far less utility and claim to grammatical correctness. I mean, youse guys ? Yinz ? Yunces ? Not only do they have no foundation in English grammar, but they simply don't roll off the tongue with the same grace and economy of motion. English is one of the only major languages I can think of that does not yet have a widely accepted plural second person pronoun. German has ihr , Spanish has ustedes I think it's time we have one, and y'all is, at least to my ear, the most elegant and justifiable contender. Am I wrong? What do y'all think?<|TARGETS|>the grammatically correct and quite useful contraction y'all you all has not yet been adopted as the de facto second person plural pronoun of, an amateur language geek all of my life and though my judgement, n't roll off the tongue with the same grace and economy of motion ., the Beverly Hillbillies, Yunces, Yinz<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been an amateur language geek all of my life, and though my judgement is far from perfect, I can't find any logical reason why the grammatically correct and quite useful contraction y'all you all has not yet been adopted as the de facto second person plural pronoun of, at least the United States, if not the entire Anglosphere. So far, the only reason I can find is that y'all is perceived as southern, rustic, and therefor, unsophisticated. It has a public image problem dating back to the Beverly Hillbillies which is wholly undeserved, IMO. This saddens me, because goodness knows the other regional alternatives are just as unpolished, with far less utility and claim to grammatical correctness. I mean, youse guys ? Yinz ? Yunces ? Not only do they have no foundation in English grammar, but they simply don't roll off the tongue with the same grace and economy of motion. English is one of the only major languages I can think of that does not yet have a widely accepted plural second person pronoun. German has ihr , Spanish has ustedes I think it's time we have one, and y'all is, at least to my ear, the most elegant and justifiable contender. Am I wrong? What do y'all think?<|ASPECTS|>unsophisticated, economy of motion, useful, elegant, grammatical correctness, plural pronoun, amateur language geek, rustic, yunces, utility, justifiable contender, grace, judgement, southern, public image problem, unpolished, less, plural second person pronoun, grammatically correct<|CONCLUSION|>","I've been an amateur language geek all of my life, and though my judgement is far from perfect, I can't find any logical reason why the grammatically correct and quite useful contraction y'all you all has not yet been adopted as the de facto second person plural pronoun of, at least the United States, if not the entire Anglosphere. So far, the only reason I can find is that y'all is perceived as southern, rustic, and therefor, unsophisticated. It has a public image problem dating back to the Beverly Hillbillies which is wholly undeserved, IMO. This saddens me, because goodness knows the other regional alternatives are just as unpolished, with far less utility and claim to grammatical correctness. I mean, youse guys ? Yinz ? Yunces ? Not only do they have no foundation in English grammar, but they simply don't roll off the tongue with the same grace and economy of motion. English is one of the only major languages I can think of that does not yet have a widely accepted plural second person pronoun. German has ihr , Spanish has ustedes I think it's time we have one, and y'all is, at least to my ear, the most elegant and justifiable contender. Am I wrong? What do y'all think?","Anti-rural bigotry is the only thing preventing widescale adoption of the word ""y'all""."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As far as I can remember, university admissions have always put great emphasis on their applicants demonstrating their leadership abilities, as if having leadership qualities are the most important to society and the most important metric to indicate future success. gt Harvardʼs application informs students that its mission is “to educate our students to be citizens and citizen\ leaders for society.” Yaleʼs website advises applicants that it seeks “the leaders of their generation” on Princetonʼs site, “leadership activities” are first among equals on a list of characteristics for would\ be students to showcase. Even Wesleyan, known for its artistic culture, was found by one study to evaluate applicants based on leadership potential. This is flawed for several reasons Not everyone can be a leader. In any leadership hierarchy, there are only so many spots at the top. Yes, leaders, are important, but you also need followers as well. Not everyone wants to be a leader. Some people such as my self, have no desire to be leaders, and are comfortable following someone else's lead. Some people are perfectly happy being a producer in their craft and contributing, without taking the lead. It penalizes people for having certain personality types. Leaders tend to be more extroverted and outgoing, so requiring leadership qualities penalizes people with more introverted personalities. There are other important and meaningful ways to contribute to society and be successful without being a leader. Steve Jobs may have lead Apple and had the vision, but that company would have never been successful without all the work and contributions behind the scenes, many of whom may have no had leadership roles. It leads to an unhealthy rat race in high school. With college admissions being so competitive, many high schoolers will overwhelm themselves trying to take on as many leadership roles as possible to try and be able to stand out from the rest. Once again, this ignores the fact that students can have other non\ leadership qualities that can still be valuable to society. Leadership isn't the only indicator of future success. There could be a a brilliant artist or writer or engineer with a lot of great potential who gets looked over because they don't have a lot of leadership qualities to talk about on their application. TL DR \ Leadership qualities are not the only indicators of future success, and are certainly not the only things that are valuable to society. Therefore university admissions should stop putting so much emphasis on leadership as an admissions criteria. Just because someone isn't a leader doesn't mean they don't have value to society or to an employer. EDIT 1 It penalizes less affluent kids, because they will likely have less opportunity to take leadership roles in school activities, because they will often have to spend more time after school working a menial job to help pay the bills, or their less well funded school system just may not provide as many extra\ curricular activities.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As far as I can remember, university admissions have always put great emphasis on their applicants demonstrating their leadership abilities, as if having leadership qualities are the most important to society and the most important metric to indicate future success. gt Harvardʼs application informs students that its mission is “to educate our students to be citizens and citizen\ leaders for society.” Yaleʼs website advises applicants that it seeks “the leaders of their generation” on Princetonʼs site, “leadership activities” are first among equals on a list of characteristics for would\ be students to showcase. Even Wesleyan, known for its artistic culture, was found by one study to evaluate applicants based on leadership potential. This is flawed for several reasons Not everyone can be a leader. In any leadership hierarchy, there are only so many spots at the top. Yes, leaders, are important, but you also need followers as well. Not everyone wants to be a leader. Some people such as my self, have no desire to be leaders, and are comfortable following someone else's lead. Some people are perfectly happy being a producer in their craft and contributing, without taking the lead. It penalizes people for having certain personality types. Leaders tend to be more extroverted and outgoing, so requiring leadership qualities penalizes people with more introverted personalities. There are other important and meaningful ways to contribute to society and be successful without being a leader. Steve Jobs may have lead Apple and had the vision, but that company would have never been successful without all the work and contributions behind the scenes, many of whom may have no had leadership roles. It leads to an unhealthy rat race in high school. With college admissions being so competitive, many high schoolers will overwhelm themselves trying to take on as many leadership roles as possible to try and be able to stand out from the rest. Once again, this ignores the fact that students can have other non\ leadership qualities that can still be valuable to society. Leadership isn't the only indicator of future success. There could be a a brilliant artist or writer or engineer with a lot of great potential who gets looked over because they don't have a lot of leadership qualities to talk about on their application. TL DR \ Leadership qualities are not the only indicators of future success, and are certainly not the only things that are valuable to society. Therefore university admissions should stop putting so much emphasis on leadership as an admissions criteria. Just because someone isn't a leader doesn't mean they don't have value to society or to an employer. EDIT 1 It penalizes less affluent kids, because they will likely have less opportunity to take leadership roles in school activities, because they will often have to spend more time after school working a menial job to help pay the bills, or their less well funded school system just may not provide as many extra\ curricular activities.<|TARGETS|>a lot of leadership qualities to talk about on their application ., Leadership, Yale ʼs website, any leadership hierarchy, university admissions, gt Harvard ʼs application<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As far as I can remember, university admissions have always put great emphasis on their applicants demonstrating their leadership abilities, as if having leadership qualities are the most important to society and the most important metric to indicate future success. gt Harvardʼs application informs students that its mission is “to educate our students to be citizens and citizen\ leaders for society.” Yaleʼs website advises applicants that it seeks “the leaders of their generation” on Princetonʼs site, “leadership activities” are first among equals on a list of characteristics for would\ be students to showcase. Even Wesleyan, known for its artistic culture, was found by one study to evaluate applicants based on leadership potential. This is flawed for several reasons Not everyone can be a leader. In any leadership hierarchy, there are only so many spots at the top. Yes, leaders, are important, but you also need followers as well. Not everyone wants to be a leader. Some people such as my self, have no desire to be leaders, and are comfortable following someone else's lead. Some people are perfectly happy being a producer in their craft and contributing, without taking the lead. It penalizes people for having certain personality types. Leaders tend to be more extroverted and outgoing, so requiring leadership qualities penalizes people with more introverted personalities. There are other important and meaningful ways to contribute to society and be successful without being a leader. Steve Jobs may have lead Apple and had the vision, but that company would have never been successful without all the work and contributions behind the scenes, many of whom may have no had leadership roles. It leads to an unhealthy rat race in high school. With college admissions being so competitive, many high schoolers will overwhelm themselves trying to take on as many leadership roles as possible to try and be able to stand out from the rest. Once again, this ignores the fact that students can have other non\ leadership qualities that can still be valuable to society. Leadership isn't the only indicator of future success. There could be a a brilliant artist or writer or engineer with a lot of great potential who gets looked over because they don't have a lot of leadership qualities to talk about on their application. TL DR \ Leadership qualities are not the only indicators of future success, and are certainly not the only things that are valuable to society. Therefore university admissions should stop putting so much emphasis on leadership as an admissions criteria. Just because someone isn't a leader doesn't mean they don't have value to society or to an employer. EDIT 1 It penalizes less affluent kids, because they will likely have less opportunity to take leadership roles in school activities, because they will often have to spend more time after school working a menial job to help pay the bills, or their less well funded school system just may not provide as many extra\ curricular activities.<|ASPECTS|>desire to, leaders, flawed, leadership qualities, leadership activities, future success, citizen\, work and contributions, personality types, non\, less affluent kids, penalizes, 's lead, successful, introverted personalities, great potential, artistic culture, spots, producer, society, extroverted and outgoing, rat race, happy, leadership potential, leadership roles, brilliant, valuable to society, extra\, admissions, opportunity, leadership, leader, comfortable following, valuable, activities, unhealthy, competitive, citizens, meaningful, followers, value to society, overwhelm, need, leadership hierarchy, contributing, leadership abilities, contribute to society<|CONCLUSION|>","As far as I can remember, university admissions have always put great emphasis on their applicants demonstrating their leadership abilities, as if having leadership qualities are the most important to society and the most important metric to indicate future success. gt Harvardʼs application informs students that its mission is “to educate our students to be citizens and citizen leaders for society.” Yaleʼs website advises applicants that it seeks “the leaders of their generation” on Princetonʼs site, “leadership activities” are first among equals on a list of characteristics for would be students to showcase. Even Wesleyan, known for its artistic culture, was found by one study to evaluate applicants based on leadership potential. This is flawed for several reasons Not everyone can be a leader. In any leadership hierarchy, there are only so many spots at the top. Yes, leaders, are important, but you also need followers as well. Not everyone wants to be a leader. Some people such as my self, have no desire to be leaders, and are comfortable following someone else's lead. Some people are perfectly happy being a producer in their craft and contributing, without taking the lead. It penalizes people for having certain personality types. Leaders tend to be more extroverted and outgoing, so requiring leadership qualities penalizes people with more introverted personalities. There are other important and meaningful ways to contribute to society and be successful without being a leader. Steve Jobs may have lead Apple and had the vision, but that company would have never been successful without all the work and contributions behind the scenes, many of whom may have no had leadership roles. It leads to an unhealthy rat race in high school. With college admissions being so competitive, many high schoolers will overwhelm themselves trying to take on as many leadership roles as possible to try and be able to stand out from the rest. Once again, this ignores the fact that students can have other non leadership qualities that can still be valuable to society. Leadership isn't the only indicator of future success. There could be a a brilliant artist or writer or engineer with a lot of great potential who gets looked over because they don't have a lot of leadership qualities to talk about on their application. TL DR Leadership qualities are not the only indicators of future success, and are certainly not the only things that are valuable to society. Therefore university admissions should stop putting so much emphasis on leadership as an admissions criteria. Just because someone isn't a leader doesn't mean they don't have value to society or to an employer. EDIT 1 It penalizes less affluent kids, because they will likely have less opportunity to take leadership roles in school activities, because they will often have to spend more time after school working a menial job to help pay the bills, or their less well funded school system just may not provide as many extra curricular activities.",University admissions put way too much emphasis on leadership qualities in applicants
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If you watch enough Asian porn this starts to get implanted in your head, I swear. But if I had a girl then that girl would be so perfect. Please don't flame me, I'm not stereotyping but just going off Asian porn. If you have another opinion and have seen a fair amount of Asian dick then you may be a woman or gay. If you have a different stance then please elevate me. I would rather not have this opinion. So just be up front, I think it's a valid fear. It's not as if I have any issues down there so I know it wouldn't be that small but I still worry. On the flip side the IQ would be higher. Here is some proof<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If you watch enough Asian porn this starts to get implanted in your head, I swear. But if I had a girl then that girl would be so perfect. Please don't flame me, I'm not stereotyping but just going off Asian porn. If you have another opinion and have seen a fair amount of Asian dick then you may be a woman or gay. If you have a different stance then please elevate me. I would rather not have this opinion. So just be up front, I think it's a valid fear. It's not as if I have any issues down there so I know it wouldn't be that small but I still worry. On the flip side the IQ would be higher. Here is some proof<|TARGETS|>Please do n't flame me, If you have another opinion and have seen a fair amount of Asian dick, I had a girl then that girl, not stereotyping but just going off Asian porn, If you watch enough Asian porn this starts to get implanted in your head<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If you watch enough Asian porn this starts to get implanted in your head, I swear. But if I had a girl then that girl would be so perfect. Please don't flame me, I'm not stereotyping but just going off Asian porn. If you have another opinion and have seen a fair amount of Asian dick then you may be a woman or gay. If you have a different stance then please elevate me. I would rather not have this opinion. So just be up front, I think it's a valid fear. It's not as if I have any issues down there so I know it wouldn't be that small but I still worry. On the flip side the IQ would be higher. Here is some proof<|ASPECTS|>worry, iq, elevate, stereotyping, issues, gay, valid fear, asian porn, opinion, stance, asian dick, perfect, woman<|CONCLUSION|>","If you watch enough Asian porn this starts to get implanted in your head, I swear. But if I had a girl then that girl would be so perfect. Please don't flame me, I'm not stereotyping but just going off Asian porn. If you have another opinion and have seen a fair amount of Asian dick then you may be a woman or gay. If you have a different stance then please elevate me. I would rather not have this opinion. So just be up front, I think it's a valid fear. It's not as if I have any issues down there so I know it wouldn't be that small but I still worry. On the flip side the IQ would be higher. Here is some proof","This might sound mean, but I love Asian girls and yet I worry if I have a family with one and have a boy, he may grow up to have a small penis."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Working in family law, I meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex. You also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust. They usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support. I don't give much merit to these claims. What most of these men don't understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership. When a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage. The traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i.e. cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc. First off, I think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value. These tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting. The counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support. While this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man's choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties. In other words, the man.entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs. In many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did. Maybe it wasn't directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status. I would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify. When you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success. So regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it. I think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion. Finally, I want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support. Temporary support is usually close to a 50 , flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined. Permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc. In longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted but in most cases, there is a termination date involved. I can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings. However, I don't think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles. Usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the Judge this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Working in family law, I meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex. You also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust. They usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support. I don't give much merit to these claims. What most of these men don't understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership. When a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage. The traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i.e. cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc. First off, I think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value. These tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting. The counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support. While this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man's choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties. In other words, the man.entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs. In many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did. Maybe it wasn't directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status. I would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify. When you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success. So regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it. I think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion. Finally, I want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support. Temporary support is usually close to a 50 , flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined. Permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc. In longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted but in most cases, there is a termination date involved. I can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings. However, I don't think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles. Usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the Judge this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.<|TARGETS|>either spouse to succeed in another professional setting ., When a couple marries they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage ., What most of these men do n't understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law, When you develop a career you pour your soul into your work and everything about your lifestyle, to marry someone with no professional prospects and no willingness to perform domestic duties ., The traditional view of marriage<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Working in family law, I meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex. You also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust. They usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support. I don't give much merit to these claims. What most of these men don't understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership. When a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage. The traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i.e. cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc. First off, I think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value. These tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting. The counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support. While this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man's choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties. In other words, the man.entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs. In many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did. Maybe it wasn't directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status. I would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify. When you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success. So regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it. I think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion. Finally, I want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support. Temporary support is usually close to a 50 , flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined. Permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc. In longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted but in most cases, there is a termination date involved. I can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings. However, I don't think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles. Usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the Judge this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.<|ASPECTS|>, maintain, sexual attraction, man 's choice, success, unjust, merit, temporary, claims, pour, divorce, economic partnership, lifestyle, emotional support, domestic duties, childcare, succeed, social status, economic, self sufficient, costs, pay support, bad economic partnership, obligation, professional setting, support, refused, parties lifestyle, disproportionately ordered, retirement, unfair outcomes, fair, fault, willingness, soul, family, alimony, permanent spousal support, domestic labor, share resources, chose, ex, refused to work, permanent support, economic value, inexorable affect, unfair, wife, unfair principles, handled properly, contribute, entitled to support, professional prospects, education, termination date, job training, unfair rulings<|CONCLUSION|>","Working in family law, I meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex. You also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust. They usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support. I don't give much merit to these claims. What most of these men don't understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership. When a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage. The traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i.e. cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc. First off, I think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value. These tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting. The counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support. While this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man's choice to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties. In other words, the man.entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs. In many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did. Maybe it wasn't directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status. I would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify. When you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success. So regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it. I think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion. Finally, I want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support. Temporary support is usually close to a 50 , flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined. Permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self sufficient through education, job training, etc. In longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted but in most cases, there is a termination date involved. I can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings. However, I don't think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles. Usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the Judge this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.","I believe that domestic labor has value, and the principles behind alimony laws are valid."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Morality can be established by universal, objective, and secular means. A few things 1 Morals are based on actions. It is untenable to extend morals to thoughts and or preferences. It is no more a moral issue of whether one favors the idea of murder no more than it is if one favors the color green. 2 The actions mentioned above are ones that have the capability of disrupting our preferred states by means of universally undesirable behavior. theft, murder, assault, lying the big four . 3 It is impossible to have a preferred state be disrupted by a universally preferable behavior. i.e, one cannot have their preferred state of alive be disrupted by not murder. One cannot lose possession of their property by not being stolen from. 4 Actions that disrupt our preferred states must be undesirable actions one cannot be stolen from if they want to be stolen from stealing, by definition, cannot be preferred by both parties simultaneously . 5 Actions that disrupt our preferred states are bad. 6 Committing actions that disrupt preferred states is immoral. Immoral acts have consequences. 7 These principles can be universally and objectively applied without infringing on any individuals preferred state or permitting one to infringe on any other's preferred state. To CMV For me, this view hinges on an action not being able to be good and bad at the same time, as these concepts are opposite of each other 3 1 cannot be 4 and 4, for example . For the person who decides to murder, there is an obvious good , but for that good to somehow outweigh the bad of the person being murdered seems to me impossible to reconcile. If someone can establish that an action can be both good and bad for the same person, I'd be open to changing my view. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Morality can be established by universal, objective, and secular means. A few things 1 Morals are based on actions. It is untenable to extend morals to thoughts and or preferences. It is no more a moral issue of whether one favors the idea of murder no more than it is if one favors the color green. 2 The actions mentioned above are ones that have the capability of disrupting our preferred states by means of universally undesirable behavior. theft, murder, assault, lying the big four . 3 It is impossible to have a preferred state be disrupted by a universally preferable behavior. i.e, one cannot have their preferred state of alive be disrupted by not murder. One cannot lose possession of their property by not being stolen from. 4 Actions that disrupt our preferred states must be undesirable actions one cannot be stolen from if they want to be stolen from stealing, by definition, cannot be preferred by both parties simultaneously . 5 Actions that disrupt our preferred states are bad. 6 Committing actions that disrupt preferred states is immoral. Immoral acts have consequences. 7 These principles can be universally and objectively applied without infringing on any individuals preferred state or permitting one to infringe on any other's preferred state. To CMV For me, this view hinges on an action not being able to be good and bad at the same time, as these concepts are opposite of each other 3 1 cannot be 4 and 4, for example . For the person who decides to murder, there is an obvious good , but for that good to somehow outweigh the bad of the person being murdered seems to me impossible to reconcile. If someone can establish that an action can be both good and bad for the same person, I'd be open to changing my view. <|TARGETS|>to have a preferred state be disrupted by a universally preferable behavior ., 4 Actions that disrupt our preferred states must be undesirable actions one cannot be stolen from if they want to be stolen from stealing by definition cannot be preferred by both parties simultaneously ., Committing actions that disrupt preferred states, Morality, to extend morals to thoughts and or preferences ., Immoral acts<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Morality can be established by universal, objective, and secular means. A few things 1 Morals are based on actions. It is untenable to extend morals to thoughts and or preferences. It is no more a moral issue of whether one favors the idea of murder no more than it is if one favors the color green. 2 The actions mentioned above are ones that have the capability of disrupting our preferred states by means of universally undesirable behavior. theft, murder, assault, lying the big four . 3 It is impossible to have a preferred state be disrupted by a universally preferable behavior. i.e, one cannot have their preferred state of alive be disrupted by not murder. One cannot lose possession of their property by not being stolen from. 4 Actions that disrupt our preferred states must be undesirable actions one cannot be stolen from if they want to be stolen from stealing, by definition, cannot be preferred by both parties simultaneously . 5 Actions that disrupt our preferred states are bad. 6 Committing actions that disrupt preferred states is immoral. Immoral acts have consequences. 7 These principles can be universally and objectively applied without infringing on any individuals preferred state or permitting one to infringe on any other's preferred state. To CMV For me, this view hinges on an action not being able to be good and bad at the same time, as these concepts are opposite of each other 3 1 cannot be 4 and 4, for example . For the person who decides to murder, there is an obvious good , but for that good to somehow outweigh the bad of the person being murdered seems to me impossible to reconcile. If someone can establish that an action can be both good and bad for the same person, I'd be open to changing my view. <|ASPECTS|>morals, undesirable behavior, bad, morality, actions, good and bad, consequences, objective, universally, untenable, states, preferred, stolen, changing my view, infringe, based, secular means, lose possession of their property, objectively applied, infringing, immoral, disrupt preferred states, preferred state, extend, universally preferable behavior, state, theft, disrupting our preferred states, undesirable actions, preferred states, murder, good, universal, assault, disrupt, thoughts, immoral acts, disrupted, stolen from stealing, state of alive, preferences, opposite, moral issue<|CONCLUSION|>","Morality can be established by universal, objective, and secular means. A few things 1 Morals are based on actions. It is untenable to extend morals to thoughts and or preferences. It is no more a moral issue of whether one favors the idea of murder no more than it is if one favors the color green. 2 The actions mentioned above are ones that have the capability of disrupting our preferred states by means of universally undesirable behavior. theft, murder, assault, lying the big four . 3 It is impossible to have a preferred state be disrupted by a universally preferable behavior. i.e, one cannot have their preferred state of alive be disrupted by not murder. One cannot lose possession of their property by not being stolen from. 4 Actions that disrupt our preferred states must be undesirable actions one cannot be stolen from if they want to be stolen from stealing, by definition, cannot be preferred by both parties simultaneously . 5 Actions that disrupt our preferred states are bad. 6 Committing actions that disrupt preferred states is immoral. Immoral acts have consequences. 7 These principles can be universally and objectively applied without infringing on any individuals preferred state or permitting one to infringe on any other's preferred state. To  For me, this view hinges on an action not being able to be good and bad at the same time, as these concepts are opposite of each other 3 1 cannot be 4 and 4, for example . For the person who decides to murder, there is an obvious good , but for that good to somehow outweigh the bad of the person being murdered seems to me impossible to reconcile. If someone can establish that an action can be both good and bad for the same person, I'd be open to changing my view.",Morality is secular and universally objective.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Maybe I don't understand its goals, but my hope was that the March for Science would promote science and policies based on science, like fighting climate change. And to do that, it's not enough to turn out big crowds the Women's March had big crowds a few months ago, and so what? What we need to do is to influence politicians. But as things went, the March for Science will probably have the opposite effect, sadly. The reason I think that is that the president, congress, and the senate are all Republican. We have to appeal to them. The best way to do that would be to have a broad coalition of scientists, Republicans and Democrats, standing side by side and showing that science isn't a partisan issue. Especially important would be the Republicans in that picture we need a solid lineup of prominent scientists saying, We are Republicans, and we want our party to take science seriously. Other Republicans might listen to that. They won't listen to a bunch of progressives with anti Trump signs, as many of them were. All the liberal people I follow on Twitter are for the March, while all the conservative people I follow are not I try to follow a mixed group to not live in a bubble . Likewise, reading news reports, it's clear the demonstrators are overwhelmingly liberal. And opinion pieces by liberals are for it, by conservatives against. Looking for any positive sign of Republican representation in the March, I saw at best things ambivalent things like gt “Even people who voted Republican can still get behind clean air for their grandchildren,” a liberal said Washington Post So to me, this shows that the March has failed to turn out both sides. And by turning out mostly the left, it is politicizing science even more. The Republicans in power can just say, well, another protest by liberals, like the Women's March, they oppose us on everything anyhow. Why did the March fail? I'm not sure, but it's clear from the mission statement and other details on the March's website that it caters to a liberal point of view. It doesn't look like it even tried to build bridges to the conservative side, despite saying science isn't partisan . Just saying that isn't enough. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Maybe I don't understand its goals, but my hope was that the March for Science would promote science and policies based on science, like fighting climate change. And to do that, it's not enough to turn out big crowds the Women's March had big crowds a few months ago, and so what? What we need to do is to influence politicians. But as things went, the March for Science will probably have the opposite effect, sadly. The reason I think that is that the president, congress, and the senate are all Republican. We have to appeal to them. The best way to do that would be to have a broad coalition of scientists, Republicans and Democrats, standing side by side and showing that science isn't a partisan issue. Especially important would be the Republicans in that picture we need a solid lineup of prominent scientists saying, We are Republicans, and we want our party to take science seriously. Other Republicans might listen to that. They won't listen to a bunch of progressives with anti Trump signs, as many of them were. All the liberal people I follow on Twitter are for the March, while all the conservative people I follow are not I try to follow a mixed group to not live in a bubble . Likewise, reading news reports, it's clear the demonstrators are overwhelmingly liberal. And opinion pieces by liberals are for it, by conservatives against. Looking for any positive sign of Republican representation in the March, I saw at best things ambivalent things like gt “Even people who voted Republican can still get behind clean air for their grandchildren,” a liberal said Washington Post So to me, this shows that the March has failed to turn out both sides. And by turning out mostly the left, it is politicizing science even more. The Republicans in power can just say, well, another protest by liberals, like the Women's March, they oppose us on everything anyhow. Why did the March fail? I'm not sure, but it's clear from the mission statement and other details on the March's website that it caters to a liberal point of view. It doesn't look like it even tried to build bridges to the conservative side, despite saying science isn't partisan . Just saying that isn't enough. <|TARGETS|>opinion pieces by liberals, the March for Science, gt “ Even people who voted Republican can still get behind clean air for their grandchildren ” a liberal said Washington Post, The Republicans in power, listen to a bunch of progressives with anti Trump signs, to have a broad coalition of scientists Republicans and Democrats standing side by side and showing that science<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Maybe I don't understand its goals, but my hope was that the March for Science would promote science and policies based on science, like fighting climate change. And to do that, it's not enough to turn out big crowds the Women's March had big crowds a few months ago, and so what? What we need to do is to influence politicians. But as things went, the March for Science will probably have the opposite effect, sadly. The reason I think that is that the president, congress, and the senate are all Republican. We have to appeal to them. The best way to do that would be to have a broad coalition of scientists, Republicans and Democrats, standing side by side and showing that science isn't a partisan issue. Especially important would be the Republicans in that picture we need a solid lineup of prominent scientists saying, We are Republicans, and we want our party to take science seriously. Other Republicans might listen to that. They won't listen to a bunch of progressives with anti Trump signs, as many of them were. All the liberal people I follow on Twitter are for the March, while all the conservative people I follow are not I try to follow a mixed group to not live in a bubble . Likewise, reading news reports, it's clear the demonstrators are overwhelmingly liberal. And opinion pieces by liberals are for it, by conservatives against. Looking for any positive sign of Republican representation in the March, I saw at best things ambivalent things like gt “Even people who voted Republican can still get behind clean air for their grandchildren,” a liberal said Washington Post So to me, this shows that the March has failed to turn out both sides. And by turning out mostly the left, it is politicizing science even more. The Republicans in power can just say, well, another protest by liberals, like the Women's March, they oppose us on everything anyhow. Why did the March fail? I'm not sure, but it's clear from the mission statement and other details on the March's website that it caters to a liberal point of view. It doesn't look like it even tried to build bridges to the conservative side, despite saying science isn't partisan . Just saying that isn't enough. <|ASPECTS|>ambivalent, mixed group, view, liberal, conservatives, partisan, conservative, march, influence politicians, oppose us, big crowds, partisan issue, science and policies, opposite effect, lineup, progressives, scientists, science seriously, promote, republicans, demonstrators, appeal, anti trump signs, listen, clean air, prominent scientists, politicizing science, bubble, bridges, climate change, science, republican representation, liberal point, opinion pieces, fighting, fail, coalition, republican<|CONCLUSION|>","Maybe I don't understand its goals, but my hope was that the March for Science would promote science and policies based on science, like fighting climate change. And to do that, it's not enough to turn out big crowds the Women's March had big crowds a few months ago, and so what? What we need to do is to influence politicians. But as things went, the March for Science will probably have the opposite effect, sadly. The reason I think that is that the president, congress, and the senate are all Republican. We have to appeal to them. The best way to do that would be to have a broad coalition of scientists, Republicans and Democrats, standing side by side and showing that science isn't a partisan issue. Especially important would be the Republicans in that picture we need a solid lineup of prominent scientists saying, We are Republicans, and we want our party to take science seriously. Other Republicans might listen to that. They won't listen to a bunch of progressives with anti Trump signs, as many of them were. All the liberal people I follow on Twitter are for the March, while all the conservative people I follow are not I try to follow a mixed group to not live in a bubble . Likewise, reading news reports, it's clear the demonstrators are overwhelmingly liberal. And opinion pieces by liberals are for it, by conservatives against. Looking for any positive sign of Republican representation in the March, I saw at best things ambivalent things like gt “Even people who voted Republican can still get behind clean air for their grandchildren,” a liberal said Washington Post So to me, this shows that the March has failed to turn out both sides. And by turning out mostly the left, it is politicizing science even more. The Republicans in power can just say, well, another protest by liberals, like the Women's March, they oppose us on everything anyhow. Why did the March fail? I'm not sure, but it's clear from the mission statement and other details on the March's website that it caters to a liberal point of view. It doesn't look like it even tried to build bridges to the conservative side, despite saying science isn't partisan . Just saying that isn't enough.","The ""March for Science"" failed"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>From a mathematical background, I think predicting the future is inherently unstable and that attempting to do so while hiding behind the veneer of quantification is dishonest. Long term economic trends pass tipping points unpredictably, and if big events can't be predicted by consensus then whats the point? Like history, those who ignore the lessons of economics are doomed to repeat past mistakes, but I think if we industrialised historians to the same degree as we do economists and marginalised economics to academia, we would end up with a similar success rate at predicting the future and the workings of governance and enterprise would be much more engaging to the general populace, and therefore society would be more democratic. I'm from Australia if that matters.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>From a mathematical background, I think predicting the future is inherently unstable and that attempting to do so while hiding behind the veneer of quantification is dishonest. Long term economic trends pass tipping points unpredictably, and if big events can't be predicted by consensus then whats the point? Like history, those who ignore the lessons of economics are doomed to repeat past mistakes, but I think if we industrialised historians to the same degree as we do economists and marginalised economics to academia, we would end up with a similar success rate at predicting the future and the workings of governance and enterprise would be much more engaging to the general populace, and therefore society would be more democratic. I'm from Australia if that matters.<|TARGETS|>that attempting to do so while hiding behind the veneer of quantification, if we industrialised historians to the same degree as we do economists and marginalised economics to academia, a similar success rate at predicting the future and the workings of governance and enterprise<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>From a mathematical background, I think predicting the future is inherently unstable and that attempting to do so while hiding behind the veneer of quantification is dishonest. Long term economic trends pass tipping points unpredictably, and if big events can't be predicted by consensus then whats the point? Like history, those who ignore the lessons of economics are doomed to repeat past mistakes, but I think if we industrialised historians to the same degree as we do economists and marginalised economics to academia, we would end up with a similar success rate at predicting the future and the workings of governance and enterprise would be much more engaging to the general populace, and therefore society would be more democratic. I'm from Australia if that matters.<|ASPECTS|>success rate, inherently, mistakes, tipping points, dishonest, democratic, economic trends, unstable, consensus<|CONCLUSION|>","From a mathematical background, I think predicting the future is inherently unstable and that attempting to do so while hiding behind the veneer of quantification is dishonest. Long term economic trends pass tipping points unpredictably, and if big events can't be predicted by consensus then whats the point? Like history, those who ignore the lessons of economics are doomed to repeat past mistakes, but I think if we industrialised historians to the same degree as we do economists and marginalised economics to academia, we would end up with a similar success rate at predicting the future and the workings of governance and enterprise would be much more engaging to the general populace, and therefore society would be more democratic. I'm from Australia if that matters.",I believe that economists are given too much credit.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not going to say that white people don't want racial equality or want things to better for black people. I think most white people would want that to be the case. I just think that white people as a whole see all the negative statistics for black people and they see them in the real world and gain a sense of superiority. I'd like to believe that my view is wrong, but given my real world experiences as a black guy as well as my internet experiences as one, I find it hard for my view to be changed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not going to say that white people don't want racial equality or want things to better for black people. I think most white people would want that to be the case. I just think that white people as a whole see all the negative statistics for black people and they see them in the real world and gain a sense of superiority. I'd like to believe that my view is wrong, but given my real world experiences as a black guy as well as my internet experiences as one, I find it hard for my view to be changed.<|TARGETS|>that white people as a whole see all the negative statistics for black people and they see them in the real world and gain a sense of superiority ., to say that white people do n't want racial equality or want things to better for black people ., to believe that my view is wrong but given my real world experiences as a black guy as well as my internet experiences as one<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not going to say that white people don't want racial equality or want things to better for black people. I think most white people would want that to be the case. I just think that white people as a whole see all the negative statistics for black people and they see them in the real world and gain a sense of superiority. I'd like to believe that my view is wrong, but given my real world experiences as a black guy as well as my internet experiences as one, I find it hard for my view to be changed.<|ASPECTS|>negative statistics, racial equality, better, view, black people, superiority, white people, changed, view is wrong<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm not going to say that white people don't want racial equality or want things to better for black people. I think most white people would want that to be the case. I just think that white people as a whole see all the negative statistics for black people and they see them in the real world and gain a sense of superiority. I'd like to believe that my view is wrong, but given my real world experiences as a black guy as well as my internet experiences as one, I find it hard for my view to be changed.","I believe that, generally, white people think they are better than black people."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The electoral college needs to be reformed in some way. It's not really acceptable that the popular vote PV and the electoral college vote ECV can disagree as often as they are seeming to. Yet, the EC is still needed in some form, as it's initial function, IE to protect the smaller states from the larger states, is still valuable. Thus any proposed reform needs to perform two functions. Ensure that the relationship between the PV and the ECV is closer to the point of making it virtually impossible that PV and ECV disagree. Ensure that those areas protected by the ECV are still given stronger power in some way. The reform I propose here would be to assign votes in the electoral college proportionally by doing the following. Take the final total number of votes cast in a given state's election total state votes TSV . Divide that number by the number of electoral college votes that state is worth. That number gives you the number of votes you need in that state to get one electoral college vote the Single EC Vote Value SECVV . Divide the number of votes given to each candidate by the SECVV. That number gives you the initial number of EC votes given to that candidate. Any remaining EC votes are given to the candidate that has the largest remaining Popular Votes, once all the votes for the ECV have been assigned. So to give a hypothetical example, imagine the fictional state of Banto. Banto is worth eight ECV and has an eligible voting population of 2.5 million people. Of those 2.5 million, 1.3 million didn't vote. 0.8 million voted for candidate Singh of the Yellow party 0.3 million voted for candidate Park of the Purple party 0.1 million votes for candidate Rodriguez of the Cyan party The total vote therefore is 1.2 million, so divide that by eight and you get 0.15 million, which is how many votes you need to win. For candidate Singh, 0.8 0.15 5.33333 so Singh gets 5 of Banto's eight ECV with 0.75 million votes, leaving them 0.5 votes as remainder For candidate Park, 0.3 0.15 2 so Singh gets 2 of Banto's eight ECV, with no remainder votes For candidate Rodriguez, 0.1 0.15 is 0.66666 so Rodriguez gets one ECV, as they get no ECV with SECVV, but their remainder vote is larger than that of Singh, giving them one ECV. This system still protects the individual states from other states, as their ECV scores could be unaffected although they might want to enlarge everyone's score overall, just to make the divisions easier and it makes it less likely that the ECV and the PV will disagree. I believe that this system should be adopted by the US, as it would solve the central problem posed at the recent election, while also preserving the defence of the individual states. EDIT To further clarifiy the point, the smaller states will still be protected under this system. The way the EC protects smaller states now is linked to the ratios between the number of ECVs in a given state, and its population. IE, in the smaller states, the ratio is smaller you need fewer people to be worth one electoral vote. This is still the same in this system. The only difference is how the votes are given out in the states.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The electoral college needs to be reformed in some way. It's not really acceptable that the popular vote PV and the electoral college vote ECV can disagree as often as they are seeming to. Yet, the EC is still needed in some form, as it's initial function, IE to protect the smaller states from the larger states, is still valuable. Thus any proposed reform needs to perform two functions. Ensure that the relationship between the PV and the ECV is closer to the point of making it virtually impossible that PV and ECV disagree. Ensure that those areas protected by the ECV are still given stronger power in some way. The reform I propose here would be to assign votes in the electoral college proportionally by doing the following. Take the final total number of votes cast in a given state's election total state votes TSV . Divide that number by the number of electoral college votes that state is worth. That number gives you the number of votes you need in that state to get one electoral college vote the Single EC Vote Value SECVV . Divide the number of votes given to each candidate by the SECVV. That number gives you the initial number of EC votes given to that candidate. Any remaining EC votes are given to the candidate that has the largest remaining Popular Votes, once all the votes for the ECV have been assigned. So to give a hypothetical example, imagine the fictional state of Banto. Banto is worth eight ECV and has an eligible voting population of 2.5 million people. Of those 2.5 million, 1.3 million didn't vote. 0.8 million voted for candidate Singh of the Yellow party 0.3 million voted for candidate Park of the Purple party 0.1 million votes for candidate Rodriguez of the Cyan party The total vote therefore is 1.2 million, so divide that by eight and you get 0.15 million, which is how many votes you need to win. For candidate Singh, 0.8 0.15 5.33333 so Singh gets 5 of Banto's eight ECV with 0.75 million votes, leaving them 0.5 votes as remainder For candidate Park, 0.3 0.15 2 so Singh gets 2 of Banto's eight ECV, with no remainder votes For candidate Rodriguez, 0.1 0.15 is 0.66666 so Rodriguez gets one ECV, as they get no ECV with SECVV, but their remainder vote is larger than that of Singh, giving them one ECV. This system still protects the individual states from other states, as their ECV scores could be unaffected although they might want to enlarge everyone's score overall, just to make the divisions easier and it makes it less likely that the ECV and the PV will disagree. I believe that this system should be adopted by the US, as it would solve the central problem posed at the recent election, while also preserving the defence of the individual states. EDIT To further clarifiy the point, the smaller states will still be protected under this system. The way the EC protects smaller states now is linked to the ratios between the number of ECVs in a given state, and its population. IE, in the smaller states, the ratio is smaller you need fewer people to be worth one electoral vote. This is still the same in this system. The only difference is how the votes are given out in the states.<|TARGETS|>to give a hypothetical example, 0.8 million voted for candidate Singh of the Yellow party 0.3 million voted for candidate Park of the Purple party 0.1 million votes for candidate Rodriguez of the Cyan party The total vote therefore, the popular vote PV and the electoral college vote ECV, This system, The electoral college, to assign votes in the electoral college<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The electoral college needs to be reformed in some way. It's not really acceptable that the popular vote PV and the electoral college vote ECV can disagree as often as they are seeming to. Yet, the EC is still needed in some form, as it's initial function, IE to protect the smaller states from the larger states, is still valuable. Thus any proposed reform needs to perform two functions. Ensure that the relationship between the PV and the ECV is closer to the point of making it virtually impossible that PV and ECV disagree. Ensure that those areas protected by the ECV are still given stronger power in some way. The reform I propose here would be to assign votes in the electoral college proportionally by doing the following. Take the final total number of votes cast in a given state's election total state votes TSV . Divide that number by the number of electoral college votes that state is worth. That number gives you the number of votes you need in that state to get one electoral college vote the Single EC Vote Value SECVV . Divide the number of votes given to each candidate by the SECVV. That number gives you the initial number of EC votes given to that candidate. Any remaining EC votes are given to the candidate that has the largest remaining Popular Votes, once all the votes for the ECV have been assigned. So to give a hypothetical example, imagine the fictional state of Banto. Banto is worth eight ECV and has an eligible voting population of 2.5 million people. Of those 2.5 million, 1.3 million didn't vote. 0.8 million voted for candidate Singh of the Yellow party 0.3 million voted for candidate Park of the Purple party 0.1 million votes for candidate Rodriguez of the Cyan party The total vote therefore is 1.2 million, so divide that by eight and you get 0.15 million, which is how many votes you need to win. For candidate Singh, 0.8 0.15 5.33333 so Singh gets 5 of Banto's eight ECV with 0.75 million votes, leaving them 0.5 votes as remainder For candidate Park, 0.3 0.15 2 so Singh gets 2 of Banto's eight ECV, with no remainder votes For candidate Rodriguez, 0.1 0.15 is 0.66666 so Rodriguez gets one ECV, as they get no ECV with SECVV, but their remainder vote is larger than that of Singh, giving them one ECV. This system still protects the individual states from other states, as their ECV scores could be unaffected although they might want to enlarge everyone's score overall, just to make the divisions easier and it makes it less likely that the ECV and the PV will disagree. I believe that this system should be adopted by the US, as it would solve the central problem posed at the recent election, while also preserving the defence of the individual states. EDIT To further clarifiy the point, the smaller states will still be protected under this system. The way the EC protects smaller states now is linked to the ratios between the number of ECVs in a given state, and its population. IE, in the smaller states, the ratio is smaller you need fewer people to be worth one electoral vote. This is still the same in this system. The only difference is how the votes are given out in the states.<|ASPECTS|>, population, remainder, protect, remainder vote, reformed, ratios, two functions, protects, defence of the individual states, assign votes, fictional, central problem, votes, protects smaller states, everyone 's score, protected, stronger power, valuable, unaffected, electoral college votes, ratio, eligible voting population, electoral vote, ec votes, popular votes, electoral college proportionally, electoral college, divisions, individual states, vote, smaller states, disagree, votes given, worth, n't<|CONCLUSION|>","The electoral college needs to be reformed in some way. It's not really acceptable that the popular vote PV and the electoral college vote ECV can disagree as often as they are seeming to. Yet, the EC is still needed in some form, as it's initial function, IE to protect the smaller states from the larger states, is still valuable. Thus any proposed reform needs to perform two functions. Ensure that the relationship between the PV and the ECV is closer to the point of making it virtually impossible that PV and ECV disagree. Ensure that those areas protected by the ECV are still given stronger power in some way. The reform I propose here would be to assign votes in the electoral college proportionally by doing the following. Take the final total number of votes cast in a given state's election total state votes TSV . Divide that number by the number of electoral college votes that state is worth. That number gives you the number of votes you need in that state to get one electoral college vote the Single EC Vote Value SECVV . Divide the number of votes given to each candidate by the SECVV. That number gives you the initial number of EC votes given to that candidate. Any remaining EC votes are given to the candidate that has the largest remaining Popular Votes, once all the votes for the ECV have been assigned. So to give a hypothetical example, imagine the fictional state of Banto. Banto is worth eight ECV and has an eligible voting population of 2.5 million people. Of those 2.5 million, 1.3 million didn't vote. 0.8 million voted for candidate Singh of the Yellow party 0.3 million voted for candidate Park of the Purple party 0.1 million votes for candidate Rodriguez of the Cyan party The total vote therefore is 1.2 million, so divide that by eight and you get 0.15 million, which is how many votes you need to win. For candidate Singh, 0.8 0.15 5.33333 so Singh gets 5 of Banto's eight ECV with 0.75 million votes, leaving them 0.5 votes as remainder For candidate Park, 0.3 0.15 2 so Singh gets 2 of Banto's eight ECV, with no remainder votes For candidate Rodriguez, 0.1 0.15 is 0.66666 so Rodriguez gets one ECV, as they get no ECV with SECVV, but their remainder vote is larger than that of Singh, giving them one ECV. This system still protects the individual states from other states, as their ECV scores could be unaffected although they might want to enlarge everyone's score overall, just to make the divisions easier and it makes it less likely that the ECV and the PV will disagree. I believe that this system should be adopted by the US, as it would solve the central problem posed at the recent election, while also preserving the defence of the individual states. EDIT To further clarifiy the point, the smaller states will still be protected under this system. The way the EC protects smaller states now is linked to the ratios between the number of ECVs in a given state, and its population. IE, in the smaller states, the ratio is smaller you need fewer people to be worth one electoral vote. This is still the same in this system. The only difference is how the votes are given out in the states.",Making the electoral college proportional would be the best of both worlds and should be adopted.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's obvious that Trump has violated the terms of service and is continuing to do so but blocking him would do no good and would probably harm us. Even if mouthing off on Twitter doesn't actually calm him down, it lets the world see his mindset and gives us a greater chance of somebody removing him from office. In other words that gives him a noose to hang himself with. There's still too much of the public that agrees with him and doesn't know him for the disaster that he is but it gets harder for them to deny it when things like this are made public. Without Twitter we would have no way of seeing this information and if he were impeached all his supporters would still be able to argue that he was wronged and that there was some Grand conspiracy working against him. With his tweets available to the world only the most ignorant are able to claim that he isn't delusional and dangerous. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's obvious that Trump has violated the terms of service and is continuing to do so but blocking him would do no good and would probably harm us. Even if mouthing off on Twitter doesn't actually calm him down, it lets the world see his mindset and gives us a greater chance of somebody removing him from office. In other words that gives him a noose to hang himself with. There's still too much of the public that agrees with him and doesn't know him for the disaster that he is but it gets harder for them to deny it when things like this are made public. Without Twitter we would have no way of seeing this information and if he were impeached all his supporters would still be able to argue that he was wronged and that there was some Grand conspiracy working against him. With his tweets available to the world only the most ignorant are able to claim that he isn't delusional and dangerous. <|TARGETS|>if mouthing off on Twitter, to deny it when things like this are made public ., seeing this information and if he were impeached all his supporters<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's obvious that Trump has violated the terms of service and is continuing to do so but blocking him would do no good and would probably harm us. Even if mouthing off on Twitter doesn't actually calm him down, it lets the world see his mindset and gives us a greater chance of somebody removing him from office. In other words that gives him a noose to hang himself with. There's still too much of the public that agrees with him and doesn't know him for the disaster that he is but it gets harder for them to deny it when things like this are made public. Without Twitter we would have no way of seeing this information and if he were impeached all his supporters would still be able to argue that he was wronged and that there was some Grand conspiracy working against him. With his tweets available to the world only the most ignorant are able to claim that he isn't delusional and dangerous. <|ASPECTS|>dangerous, grand conspiracy, terms, wronged, removing, deny, harm us, delusional, violated, public, hang, mindset, calm, disaster<|CONCLUSION|>","It's obvious that Trump has violated the terms of service and is continuing to do so but blocking him would do no good and would probably harm us. Even if mouthing off on Twitter doesn't actually calm him down, it lets the world see his mindset and gives us a greater chance of somebody removing him from office. In other words that gives him a noose to hang himself with. There's still too much of the public that agrees with him and doesn't know him for the disaster that he is but it gets harder for them to deny it when things like this are made public. Without Twitter we would have no way of seeing this information and if he were impeached all his supporters would still be able to argue that he was wronged and that there was some Grand conspiracy working against him. With his tweets available to the world only the most ignorant are able to claim that he isn't delusional and dangerous.",Twitter should not ban Trump even though he's breaking the terms of service
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Starting in 2020, California will require all new homes to have solar panels. I agree with California's motives, slowing climate change , but this policy is the wrong way to go about it. First, not every home is ideal for solar power. Some are heavily shaded, and others may not have an ideal south facing roof surface. Second, energy may be more efficiently produced in large scale solar farms, or even in a different technology like wind. Mandating that every home have solar panels is not a cost effective way to produce energy, since there are more efficient alternatives. A better solution is to simply implement a carbon tax, such that the increased price of fossil fuel energy will naturally lead to transition towards renewables, sans the inefficiencies. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Starting in 2020, California will require all new homes to have solar panels. I agree with California's motives, slowing climate change , but this policy is the wrong way to go about it. First, not every home is ideal for solar power. Some are heavily shaded, and others may not have an ideal south facing roof surface. Second, energy may be more efficiently produced in large scale solar farms, or even in a different technology like wind. Mandating that every home have solar panels is not a cost effective way to produce energy, since there are more efficient alternatives. A better solution is to simply implement a carbon tax, such that the increased price of fossil fuel energy will naturally lead to transition towards renewables, sans the inefficiencies. <|TARGETS|>A better solution, a carbon tax such that the increased price of fossil fuel energy, Mandating that every home have solar panels, Starting in 2020<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Starting in 2020, California will require all new homes to have solar panels. I agree with California's motives, slowing climate change , but this policy is the wrong way to go about it. First, not every home is ideal for solar power. Some are heavily shaded, and others may not have an ideal south facing roof surface. Second, energy may be more efficiently produced in large scale solar farms, or even in a different technology like wind. Mandating that every home have solar panels is not a cost effective way to produce energy, since there are more efficient alternatives. A better solution is to simply implement a carbon tax, such that the increased price of fossil fuel energy will naturally lead to transition towards renewables, sans the inefficiencies. <|ASPECTS|>price, inefficiencies, south facing roof surface, energy, solar panels, ideal, slowing, transition towards, renewables, solar power, climate change, cost effective, efficient alternatives, efficiently produced, heavily shaded, carbon tax<|CONCLUSION|>","Starting in 2020, California will require all new homes to have solar panels. I agree with California's motives, slowing climate change , but this policy is the wrong way to go about it. First, not every home is ideal for solar power. Some are heavily shaded, and others may not have an ideal south facing roof surface. Second, energy may be more efficiently produced in large scale solar farms, or even in a different technology like wind. Mandating that every home have solar panels is not a cost effective way to produce energy, since there are more efficient alternatives. A better solution is to simply implement a carbon tax, such that the increased price of fossil fuel energy will naturally lead to transition towards renewables, sans the inefficiencies.",California's new solar requirement is stupid
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There has been a lot of criticism thrown towards Barack Obama for taking a ton of money to do a speech. I seriously don't know why people are getting so mad at this. Of course he is being payed 400K. He is the former president. So many former presidents get criticism for doing this. He isn't in office anymore. Does he really have any obligation to not make money? Can somebody try to change my view on why this is so bad? To me it seems like the criticism is coming from a bunch of irrational conservatives and bernie bros. It's like getting mad because an actor gets payed millions to do a movie. <|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There has been a lot of criticism thrown towards Barack Obama for taking a ton of money to do a speech. I seriously don't know why people are getting so mad at this. Of course he is being payed 400K. He is the former president. So many former presidents get criticism for doing this. He isn't in office anymore. Does he really have any obligation to not make money? Can somebody try to change my view on why this is so bad? To me it seems like the criticism is coming from a bunch of irrational conservatives and bernie bros. It's like getting mad because an actor gets payed millions to do a movie. <|TARGETS|>somebody try to change my view on why this, any obligation to not make money, payed millions to do a movie .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There has been a lot of criticism thrown towards Barack Obama for taking a ton of money to do a speech. I seriously don't know why people are getting so mad at this. Of course he is being payed 400K. He is the former president. So many former presidents get criticism for doing this. He isn't in office anymore. Does he really have any obligation to not make money? Can somebody try to change my view on why this is so bad? To me it seems like the criticism is coming from a bunch of irrational conservatives and bernie bros. It's like getting mad because an actor gets payed millions to do a movie. <|ASPECTS|>change, money, view, payed millions, mad, make money, criticism, obligation, irrational conservatives<|CONCLUSION|>",There has been a lot of criticism thrown towards Barack Obama for taking a ton of money to do a speech. I seriously don't know why people are getting so mad at this. Of course he is being payed 400K. He is the former president. So many former presidents get criticism for doing this. He isn't in office anymore. Does he really have any obligation to not make money? Can somebody try to change my view on why this is so bad? To me it seems like the criticism is coming from a bunch of irrational conservatives and bernie bros. It's like getting mad because an actor gets payed millions to do a movie.,There is nothing wrong with Barack Obama or any other former president taking money to do a speech.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The cry of 'the end of capitalism' used to be heard emanating only from 'the Left', particularly socialists and communists. In our age, however, the most striking prognostications regarding the imminent collapse of the capitalist mode of production are coming from technologists, who have pointed to the way increased automation, along with a bifurcation of the traditionally interrelated notions of 'use' and 'ownership', are pushing the capitalist system to its breaking point. I believe many of the problems our world is facing, from an over financialized economy that exposes the entire global economy to recurrent crises, to expanding wealth and income inequality both in developed economies and between global North and South, to our planet's environmental crisis not only global climate change, but the loss of biodiversity, pollution, and deforestation as well , are due to capitalism's inability to cope with the changes capitalism itself has brought about technologies that are capable of having effects on orders of magnitude much higher than those who own them can reasonably control, leading both to increasing structural unemployment and to more deleterious negative externalities. However, there is a bright side capitalism has also given rise to extremely powerful and sophisticated means of control and intervention that are rapidly making the notion of 'ownership' irrelevant. Who 'owns' the human genetic code? The obvious answer at least to me is 'no one'. But our genetic code is rapidly becoming one of the most interesting sites of human experimentation and development. Our genetic code can be tampered with and modified without concern for who owns it. This is but one example of what I called earlier the bifurcation of use and ownership. The preceding leads me to conclude that capitalism which, to be clear, I understand not as an ideology but as a mode of production analogous to feudalism before capitalism is on its way out. Now, I don't think that there is an obvious replacement to capitalism already available, and surely whatever comes after capitalism will not be the traditional socialist dream of public i.e. state ownership of the means of production. Just like certain elements of feudalism have carried over into the capitalist age, I see no reason why post capitalism would require the wholesale abandonment of private property or some forms of capital concentration and even social classes. But, at least to my lights, the current configuration of the world economy around capital and its increase is stifling the further development of that economy and so will become replaced by a new engine of progress. What that would be, I must admit, is beyond my ken. It is this ignorance that leads me to be skeptical of my own contention, and the reason why I've chosen to pose this question of this subreddit. Change my view. Edit lots of confusion in the comments concerning the definition of capitalism and the precise question I'm trying to ask. The obscurity was mine, I apologize. a Capitalism is the mode of production centered around a regime of capital accumulation b My contention is that capital accumulation is no longer functioning appropriately, i.e. in a manner capable of reproducing society as a whole, in as much as this social reproduction is necessary for the continued expansion of capital.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The cry of 'the end of capitalism' used to be heard emanating only from 'the Left', particularly socialists and communists. In our age, however, the most striking prognostications regarding the imminent collapse of the capitalist mode of production are coming from technologists, who have pointed to the way increased automation, along with a bifurcation of the traditionally interrelated notions of 'use' and 'ownership', are pushing the capitalist system to its breaking point. I believe many of the problems our world is facing, from an over financialized economy that exposes the entire global economy to recurrent crises, to expanding wealth and income inequality both in developed economies and between global North and South, to our planet's environmental crisis not only global climate change, but the loss of biodiversity, pollution, and deforestation as well , are due to capitalism's inability to cope with the changes capitalism itself has brought about technologies that are capable of having effects on orders of magnitude much higher than those who own them can reasonably control, leading both to increasing structural unemployment and to more deleterious negative externalities. However, there is a bright side capitalism has also given rise to extremely powerful and sophisticated means of control and intervention that are rapidly making the notion of 'ownership' irrelevant. Who 'owns' the human genetic code? The obvious answer at least to me is 'no one'. But our genetic code is rapidly becoming one of the most interesting sites of human experimentation and development. Our genetic code can be tampered with and modified without concern for who owns it. This is but one example of what I called earlier the bifurcation of use and ownership. The preceding leads me to conclude that capitalism which, to be clear, I understand not as an ideology but as a mode of production analogous to feudalism before capitalism is on its way out. Now, I don't think that there is an obvious replacement to capitalism already available, and surely whatever comes after capitalism will not be the traditional socialist dream of public i.e. state ownership of the means of production. Just like certain elements of feudalism have carried over into the capitalist age, I see no reason why post capitalism would require the wholesale abandonment of private property or some forms of capital concentration and even social classes. But, at least to my lights, the current configuration of the world economy around capital and its increase is stifling the further development of that economy and so will become replaced by a new engine of progress. What that would be, I must admit, is beyond my ken. It is this ignorance that leads me to be skeptical of my own contention, and the reason why I've chosen to pose this question of this subreddit. Change my view. Edit lots of confusion in the comments concerning the definition of capitalism and the precise question I'm trying to ask. The obscurity was mine, I apologize. a Capitalism is the mode of production centered around a regime of capital accumulation b My contention is that capital accumulation is no longer functioning appropriately, i.e. in a manner capable of reproducing society as a whole, in as much as this social reproduction is necessary for the continued expansion of capital.<|TARGETS|>to be skeptical of my own contention and the reason why I 've chosen to pose this question of this subreddit ., post capitalism, state ownership of the means of production, our genetic code, a Capitalism, The cry of ' the end of capitalism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The cry of 'the end of capitalism' used to be heard emanating only from 'the Left', particularly socialists and communists. In our age, however, the most striking prognostications regarding the imminent collapse of the capitalist mode of production are coming from technologists, who have pointed to the way increased automation, along with a bifurcation of the traditionally interrelated notions of 'use' and 'ownership', are pushing the capitalist system to its breaking point. I believe many of the problems our world is facing, from an over financialized economy that exposes the entire global economy to recurrent crises, to expanding wealth and income inequality both in developed economies and between global North and South, to our planet's environmental crisis not only global climate change, but the loss of biodiversity, pollution, and deforestation as well , are due to capitalism's inability to cope with the changes capitalism itself has brought about technologies that are capable of having effects on orders of magnitude much higher than those who own them can reasonably control, leading both to increasing structural unemployment and to more deleterious negative externalities. However, there is a bright side capitalism has also given rise to extremely powerful and sophisticated means of control and intervention that are rapidly making the notion of 'ownership' irrelevant. Who 'owns' the human genetic code? The obvious answer at least to me is 'no one'. But our genetic code is rapidly becoming one of the most interesting sites of human experimentation and development. Our genetic code can be tampered with and modified without concern for who owns it. This is but one example of what I called earlier the bifurcation of use and ownership. The preceding leads me to conclude that capitalism which, to be clear, I understand not as an ideology but as a mode of production analogous to feudalism before capitalism is on its way out. Now, I don't think that there is an obvious replacement to capitalism already available, and surely whatever comes after capitalism will not be the traditional socialist dream of public i.e. state ownership of the means of production. Just like certain elements of feudalism have carried over into the capitalist age, I see no reason why post capitalism would require the wholesale abandonment of private property or some forms of capital concentration and even social classes. But, at least to my lights, the current configuration of the world economy around capital and its increase is stifling the further development of that economy and so will become replaced by a new engine of progress. What that would be, I must admit, is beyond my ken. It is this ignorance that leads me to be skeptical of my own contention, and the reason why I've chosen to pose this question of this subreddit. Change my view. Edit lots of confusion in the comments concerning the definition of capitalism and the precise question I'm trying to ask. The obscurity was mine, I apologize. a Capitalism is the mode of production centered around a regime of capital accumulation b My contention is that capital accumulation is no longer functioning appropriately, i.e. in a manner capable of reproducing society as a whole, in as much as this social reproduction is necessary for the continued expansion of capital.<|ASPECTS|>sophisticated, modified, control and intervention, definition of capitalism, capitalist system, production, structural unemployment, expansion of capital, view, negative externalities, social reproduction, capital, stifling, income inequality, development, automation, traditional socialist dream, capitalism, society, biodiversity, engine of progress, one, collapse, capitalist mode, social classes, ignorance, end of capitalism, skeptical, economy, wealth, environmental crisis, replacement to capitalism, genetic code, abandonment of private property, ideology, interesting, capital accumulation, ownership, capital concentration, wholesale, human experimentation and development, confusion, obscurity, functioning appropriately, tampered, pollution, human genetic code, bifurcation of use and ownership, mode of production<|CONCLUSION|>","The cry of 'the end of capitalism' used to be heard emanating only from 'the Left', particularly socialists and communists. In our age, however, the most striking prognostications regarding the imminent collapse of the capitalist mode of production are coming from technologists, who have pointed to the way increased automation, along with a bifurcation of the traditionally interrelated notions of 'use' and 'ownership', are pushing the capitalist system to its breaking point. I believe many of the problems our world is facing, from an over financialized economy that exposes the entire global economy to recurrent crises, to expanding wealth and income inequality both in developed economies and between global North and South, to our planet's environmental crisis not only global climate change, but the loss of biodiversity, pollution, and deforestation as well , are due to capitalism's inability to cope with the changes capitalism itself has brought about technologies that are capable of having effects on orders of magnitude much higher than those who own them can reasonably control, leading both to increasing structural unemployment and to more deleterious negative externalities. However, there is a bright side capitalism has also given rise to extremely powerful and sophisticated means of control and intervention that are rapidly making the notion of 'ownership' irrelevant. Who 'owns' the human genetic code? The obvious answer at least to me is 'no one'. But our genetic code is rapidly becoming one of the most interesting sites of human experimentation and development. Our genetic code can be tampered with and modified without concern for who owns it. This is but one example of what I called earlier the bifurcation of use and ownership. The preceding leads me to conclude that capitalism which, to be clear, I understand not as an ideology but as a mode of production analogous to feudalism before capitalism is on its way out. Now, I don't think that there is an obvious replacement to capitalism already available, and surely whatever comes after capitalism will not be the traditional socialist dream of public i.e. state ownership of the means of production. Just like certain elements of feudalism have carried over into the capitalist age, I see no reason why post capitalism would require the wholesale abandonment of private property or some forms of capital concentration and even social classes. But, at least to my lights, the current configuration of the world economy around capital and its increase is stifling the further development of that economy and so will become replaced by a new engine of progress. What that would be, I must admit, is beyond my ken. It is this ignorance that leads me to be skeptical of my own contention, and the reason why I've chosen to pose this question of this subreddit. Change my view. Edit lots of confusion in the comments concerning the definition of capitalism and the precise question I'm trying to ask. The obscurity was mine, I apologize. a Capitalism is the mode of production centered around a regime of capital accumulation b My contention is that capital accumulation is no longer functioning appropriately, i.e. in a manner capable of reproducing society as a whole, in as much as this social reproduction is necessary for the continued expansion of capital.",Capitalism is becoming obsolete.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If a government gave cheap, affordable, and safe opoids to addicts, we could cut down dramatically on the number of deaths caused by over doses. Most addicts are addicted to opoids because they have experienced severe mental illness, such as depression, and use the drug as a method to escape their psychological pain, much as how a person who has undergone physical pain uses morphine to treat their symptoms until the pain is manageable. A pain patient, who is using morphine, gets the proper amount, which allows them to go about their lives while managing their pain. There are many productive people in our society who use opioids for pain management and are still able to contribute in a meaningful way. The biggest reason addicts cannot contribute to society is because they're constantly trying to earn enough to afford expensive, illicit drugs. This results in crime, and is bad for both the addict and society as a whole. They're also contributing to organized crime by funding hard drug dealers, who are selling illicit drugs, which may not be safe. Drug dealers are under no pressure to maintain drug purity and monitor potency through analysis because why should they, they're illegal drug dealers. They often cross contaminate drugs, which is a huge reason for seeing overdose deaths from fentanyl, and it's analogues. A government system by which users could go to see a mental health professional to receive an authorization to go and get free Or very affordable opioids, or opioid substitutes such as Kratom mitragyna would allow addicts to use drugs, who's potency is known, and monitored, in a safe, clean environment, without stressing about dying from an fentanyl overdose, or having to worry about paying a dangerous drug dealer. The drug users could attend therapy sessions which would help them feel accepted and valued by society, allowing them to become contributing members of society while still recovering from their addiction. This system is very unlikely to increase drug use, since drugs such as heroin, aren't exactly drugs young people experiment with. You need to be in a situation where you use the drug to escape some sort of mental or physical pain to become addicted. This program would appear to be expensive, however, it would likely save tax payers money. First, law enforcement is expensive, and the costs of dismantling drug rings is astronomical and highly ineffective. Law enforcement spends a great deal of time arresting small time users and dealers, which is a waste of resources. Second, the cost of treating overdoses is expensive and draining on emergency medical services, since overdoses are clearly preventable, and less resources would need to be allocated for EMT responders and ER staff to treat overdoses. Third, the addicts would be able to work toward living normal lives, and contribute to society, pay taxes, and buy consumer products.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If a government gave cheap, affordable, and safe opoids to addicts, we could cut down dramatically on the number of deaths caused by over doses. Most addicts are addicted to opoids because they have experienced severe mental illness, such as depression, and use the drug as a method to escape their psychological pain, much as how a person who has undergone physical pain uses morphine to treat their symptoms until the pain is manageable. A pain patient, who is using morphine, gets the proper amount, which allows them to go about their lives while managing their pain. There are many productive people in our society who use opioids for pain management and are still able to contribute in a meaningful way. The biggest reason addicts cannot contribute to society is because they're constantly trying to earn enough to afford expensive, illicit drugs. This results in crime, and is bad for both the addict and society as a whole. They're also contributing to organized crime by funding hard drug dealers, who are selling illicit drugs, which may not be safe. Drug dealers are under no pressure to maintain drug purity and monitor potency through analysis because why should they, they're illegal drug dealers. They often cross contaminate drugs, which is a huge reason for seeing overdose deaths from fentanyl, and it's analogues. A government system by which users could go to see a mental health professional to receive an authorization to go and get free Or very affordable opioids, or opioid substitutes such as Kratom mitragyna would allow addicts to use drugs, who's potency is known, and monitored, in a safe, clean environment, without stressing about dying from an fentanyl overdose, or having to worry about paying a dangerous drug dealer. The drug users could attend therapy sessions which would help them feel accepted and valued by society, allowing them to become contributing members of society while still recovering from their addiction. This system is very unlikely to increase drug use, since drugs such as heroin, aren't exactly drugs young people experiment with. You need to be in a situation where you use the drug to escape some sort of mental or physical pain to become addicted. This program would appear to be expensive, however, it would likely save tax payers money. First, law enforcement is expensive, and the costs of dismantling drug rings is astronomical and highly ineffective. Law enforcement spends a great deal of time arresting small time users and dealers, which is a waste of resources. Second, the cost of treating overdoses is expensive and draining on emergency medical services, since overdoses are clearly preventable, and less resources would need to be allocated for EMT responders and ER staff to treat overdoses. Third, the addicts would be able to work toward living normal lives, and contribute to society, pay taxes, and buy consumer products.<|TARGETS|>A government system by which users, selling illicit drugs, to be in a situation where you use the drug to escape some sort of mental or physical pain to become addicted ., the costs of dismantling drug rings, Drug dealers, law enforcement<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If a government gave cheap, affordable, and safe opoids to addicts, we could cut down dramatically on the number of deaths caused by over doses. Most addicts are addicted to opoids because they have experienced severe mental illness, such as depression, and use the drug as a method to escape their psychological pain, much as how a person who has undergone physical pain uses morphine to treat their symptoms until the pain is manageable. A pain patient, who is using morphine, gets the proper amount, which allows them to go about their lives while managing their pain. There are many productive people in our society who use opioids for pain management and are still able to contribute in a meaningful way. The biggest reason addicts cannot contribute to society is because they're constantly trying to earn enough to afford expensive, illicit drugs. This results in crime, and is bad for both the addict and society as a whole. They're also contributing to organized crime by funding hard drug dealers, who are selling illicit drugs, which may not be safe. Drug dealers are under no pressure to maintain drug purity and monitor potency through analysis because why should they, they're illegal drug dealers. They often cross contaminate drugs, which is a huge reason for seeing overdose deaths from fentanyl, and it's analogues. A government system by which users could go to see a mental health professional to receive an authorization to go and get free Or very affordable opioids, or opioid substitutes such as Kratom mitragyna would allow addicts to use drugs, who's potency is known, and monitored, in a safe, clean environment, without stressing about dying from an fentanyl overdose, or having to worry about paying a dangerous drug dealer. The drug users could attend therapy sessions which would help them feel accepted and valued by society, allowing them to become contributing members of society while still recovering from their addiction. This system is very unlikely to increase drug use, since drugs such as heroin, aren't exactly drugs young people experiment with. You need to be in a situation where you use the drug to escape some sort of mental or physical pain to become addicted. This program would appear to be expensive, however, it would likely save tax payers money. First, law enforcement is expensive, and the costs of dismantling drug rings is astronomical and highly ineffective. Law enforcement spends a great deal of time arresting small time users and dealers, which is a waste of resources. Second, the cost of treating overdoses is expensive and draining on emergency medical services, since overdoses are clearly preventable, and less resources would need to be allocated for EMT responders and ER staff to treat overdoses. Third, the addicts would be able to work toward living normal lives, and contribute to society, pay taxes, and buy consumer products.<|ASPECTS|>depression, pain patient, contributing members of society, preventable, crime, pain, draining, bad, highly, opioid, clean environment, small time users, monitor, addict, lives, buy consumer, safe, drugs, pain management, society, hard drug dealers, opioids, mental or physical pain, illegal drug dealers, costs, valued by society, drug use, earn enough, increase, save, living normal lives, cross contaminate drugs, afford expensive, deaths, affordable opioids, unlikely, productive people, tax payers money, pay taxes, addicts, less resources, potency through analysis, safe opoids, arresting, deaths caused, therapy sessions, number, contribute to society, funding, drug purity, addiction, meaningful, cost, organized crime, contribute, managing, mental illness, psychological pain, accepted, addicted, potency, expensive, dangerous drug dealer, contributing, escape, waste of resources, ineffective<|CONCLUSION|>","If a government gave cheap, affordable, and safe opoids to addicts, we could cut down dramatically on the number of deaths caused by over doses. Most addicts are addicted to opoids because they have experienced severe mental illness, such as depression, and use the drug as a method to escape their psychological pain, much as how a person who has undergone physical pain uses morphine to treat their symptoms until the pain is manageable. A pain patient, who is using morphine, gets the proper amount, which allows them to go about their lives while managing their pain. There are many productive people in our society who use opioids for pain management and are still able to contribute in a meaningful way. The biggest reason addicts cannot contribute to society is because they're constantly trying to earn enough to afford expensive, illicit drugs. This results in crime, and is bad for both the addict and society as a whole. They're also contributing to organized crime by funding hard drug dealers, who are selling illicit drugs, which may not be safe. Drug dealers are under no pressure to maintain drug purity and monitor potency through analysis because why should they, they're illegal drug dealers. They often cross contaminate drugs, which is a huge reason for seeing overdose deaths from fentanyl, and it's analogues. A government system by which users could go to see a mental health professional to receive an authorization to go and get free Or very affordable opioids, or opioid substitutes such as Kratom mitragyna would allow addicts to use drugs, who's potency is known, and monitored, in a safe, clean environment, without stressing about dying from an fentanyl overdose, or having to worry about paying a dangerous drug dealer. The drug users could attend therapy sessions which would help them feel accepted and valued by society, allowing them to become contributing members of society while still recovering from their addiction. This system is very unlikely to increase drug use, since drugs such as heroin, aren't exactly drugs young people experiment with. You need to be in a situation where you use the drug to escape some sort of mental or physical pain to become addicted. This program would appear to be expensive, however, it would likely save tax payers money. First, law enforcement is expensive, and the costs of dismantling drug rings is astronomical and highly ineffective. Law enforcement spends a great deal of time arresting small time users and dealers, which is a waste of resources. Second, the cost of treating overdoses is expensive and draining on emergency medical services, since overdoses are clearly preventable, and less resources would need to be allocated for EMT responders and ER staff to treat overdoses. Third, the addicts would be able to work toward living normal lives, and contribute to society, pay taxes, and buy consumer products.","The best solution to preventing opioid overdoses is to allow the government to give cheap, safe, opoids to drug users."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a software engineer in Silicon Valley. Many companies are trying to get more women into tech. There are many reasons for doing so, let's assume for the sake of argument that it makes sense to encourage more women to enter the tech industry. Most people agree that the best way to do this is to start at an early point in a girl's life encourage them to get into tech starting from before university. Many people believe that fewer girls are interested in tech because they see tech as a men's field . Therefore, even in primary school, girls shy away from tech whereas boys embrace it. Therefore, tech companies are helping to promote tech as a welcoming field for both sexes. However, I don't believe girls choose not to pursue tech primarily because they see it as a men's field . Rather, I believe from an early age, boys spend more time around computers because they play more PC games. Naturally, they tinker with the computers outside of games. By the time they have the choice to take their first computer science course, they're already more familiar with computers on average than girls of the same age. Therefore, they're more likely to take the computer science courses. Then, since there are more boys in the class, some girls feel uncomfortable and stop taking it. This becomes a cycle until we get the drastic sex ratios we see today. To clarify this position, I will use anecdotes In primary school, my friends and I would go to the library to play computer games after class. We'd research gaming strategies and participate in forums to share strategies. No girls came with us, despite our attempts to invite them already hit puberty . At this point, us boys were already more familiar with the Internet than the girls. In the final year of primary school, someone learned how to make websites using Google Sites Google Page Creator . He made a website to share gaming strategies and cheat codes. He taught us all how to make websites, so we each made our own. It became a competition to see whose site had more traffic. In middle school, I stopped making websites, but my friends and I played a lot of PC games together. We wanted to play a new paid game, so we learned how to torrent. At the same time, we learned about viruses, firewalls, evaluating online content for reliability, etc. I torrented video editing software and became familiar with them. In class, I was known as the guy who was good at editing videos for class projects. As far as I knew, no girls had the fancy software I had. In high school, I noticed my computer was lagging when I played certain games. I did some research and learning that I should have 4GB of RAM rather than 2GB. I opened my desktop and saw that there were 2 1GB sticks. I bought 2 2GB sticks and replaced them. Around the same time, I learned that I could hack a game by editing some files. Thus, I learned Lua scripting. No girls I knew had similar experiences. By the time I had my first computer science class in high school, I was already far more familiar with computers than my classmates who didn't play PC games many boys and almost all girls . The first term of computer science in high school, almost everyone took it. Roughly half the class were girls. However, it was clear that some of the boys were far more experienced with computers than everyone else. For each subsequent term, the percentage of girls dropped. By the final year of high school computer science, there was 1 girl who now works at Google . I don't think the issue was that girls in particular were dissuaded from computer science. Rather, there were several boys that started high school computer science far more experienced with computers than everyone else. Therefore, everyone else including other boys were discouraged from taking more computer science courses. In the end, most of us left in computer science were PC gamers. In university and in the workplace, anecdotally speaking, there's a strong correlation between PC gamers and computer scientists. Some would argue that individuals with a certain personality introverted, asocial prefer both PC games and computer science. I agree. However, I would argue that another reason why there's a strong correlation is because the love of PC gaming pushed people into computer science. If my view is correct, there needs to be a change in the way Silicon Valley gets more girls into tech. Rather than merely changing girls' opinions of tech, girls must also naturally find their ways around computers starting from a young age.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a software engineer in Silicon Valley. Many companies are trying to get more women into tech. There are many reasons for doing so, let's assume for the sake of argument that it makes sense to encourage more women to enter the tech industry. Most people agree that the best way to do this is to start at an early point in a girl's life encourage them to get into tech starting from before university. Many people believe that fewer girls are interested in tech because they see tech as a men's field . Therefore, even in primary school, girls shy away from tech whereas boys embrace it. Therefore, tech companies are helping to promote tech as a welcoming field for both sexes. However, I don't believe girls choose not to pursue tech primarily because they see it as a men's field . Rather, I believe from an early age, boys spend more time around computers because they play more PC games. Naturally, they tinker with the computers outside of games. By the time they have the choice to take their first computer science course, they're already more familiar with computers on average than girls of the same age. Therefore, they're more likely to take the computer science courses. Then, since there are more boys in the class, some girls feel uncomfortable and stop taking it. This becomes a cycle until we get the drastic sex ratios we see today. To clarify this position, I will use anecdotes In primary school, my friends and I would go to the library to play computer games after class. We'd research gaming strategies and participate in forums to share strategies. No girls came with us, despite our attempts to invite them already hit puberty . At this point, us boys were already more familiar with the Internet than the girls. In the final year of primary school, someone learned how to make websites using Google Sites Google Page Creator . He made a website to share gaming strategies and cheat codes. He taught us all how to make websites, so we each made our own. It became a competition to see whose site had more traffic. In middle school, I stopped making websites, but my friends and I played a lot of PC games together. We wanted to play a new paid game, so we learned how to torrent. At the same time, we learned about viruses, firewalls, evaluating online content for reliability, etc. I torrented video editing software and became familiar with them. In class, I was known as the guy who was good at editing videos for class projects. As far as I knew, no girls had the fancy software I had. In high school, I noticed my computer was lagging when I played certain games. I did some research and learning that I should have 4GB of RAM rather than 2GB. I opened my desktop and saw that there were 2 1GB sticks. I bought 2 2GB sticks and replaced them. Around the same time, I learned that I could hack a game by editing some files. Thus, I learned Lua scripting. No girls I knew had similar experiences. By the time I had my first computer science class in high school, I was already far more familiar with computers than my classmates who didn't play PC games many boys and almost all girls . The first term of computer science in high school, almost everyone took it. Roughly half the class were girls. However, it was clear that some of the boys were far more experienced with computers than everyone else. For each subsequent term, the percentage of girls dropped. By the final year of high school computer science, there was 1 girl who now works at Google . I don't think the issue was that girls in particular were dissuaded from computer science. Rather, there were several boys that started high school computer science far more experienced with computers than everyone else. Therefore, everyone else including other boys were discouraged from taking more computer science courses. In the end, most of us left in computer science were PC gamers. In university and in the workplace, anecdotally speaking, there's a strong correlation between PC gamers and computer scientists. Some would argue that individuals with a certain personality introverted, asocial prefer both PC games and computer science. I agree. However, I would argue that another reason why there's a strong correlation is because the love of PC gaming pushed people into computer science. If my view is correct, there needs to be a change in the way Silicon Valley gets more girls into tech. Rather than merely changing girls' opinions of tech, girls must also naturally find their ways around computers starting from a young age.<|TARGETS|>bought 2 2GB sticks, not to pursue tech primarily because they see it as a men 's field ., Lua scripting, to encourage more women to enter the tech industry, The first term of computer science in high school, the final year of primary school<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a software engineer in Silicon Valley. Many companies are trying to get more women into tech. There are many reasons for doing so, let's assume for the sake of argument that it makes sense to encourage more women to enter the tech industry. Most people agree that the best way to do this is to start at an early point in a girl's life encourage them to get into tech starting from before university. Many people believe that fewer girls are interested in tech because they see tech as a men's field . Therefore, even in primary school, girls shy away from tech whereas boys embrace it. Therefore, tech companies are helping to promote tech as a welcoming field for both sexes. However, I don't believe girls choose not to pursue tech primarily because they see it as a men's field . Rather, I believe from an early age, boys spend more time around computers because they play more PC games. Naturally, they tinker with the computers outside of games. By the time they have the choice to take their first computer science course, they're already more familiar with computers on average than girls of the same age. Therefore, they're more likely to take the computer science courses. Then, since there are more boys in the class, some girls feel uncomfortable and stop taking it. This becomes a cycle until we get the drastic sex ratios we see today. To clarify this position, I will use anecdotes In primary school, my friends and I would go to the library to play computer games after class. We'd research gaming strategies and participate in forums to share strategies. No girls came with us, despite our attempts to invite them already hit puberty . At this point, us boys were already more familiar with the Internet than the girls. In the final year of primary school, someone learned how to make websites using Google Sites Google Page Creator . He made a website to share gaming strategies and cheat codes. He taught us all how to make websites, so we each made our own. It became a competition to see whose site had more traffic. In middle school, I stopped making websites, but my friends and I played a lot of PC games together. We wanted to play a new paid game, so we learned how to torrent. At the same time, we learned about viruses, firewalls, evaluating online content for reliability, etc. I torrented video editing software and became familiar with them. In class, I was known as the guy who was good at editing videos for class projects. As far as I knew, no girls had the fancy software I had. In high school, I noticed my computer was lagging when I played certain games. I did some research and learning that I should have 4GB of RAM rather than 2GB. I opened my desktop and saw that there were 2 1GB sticks. I bought 2 2GB sticks and replaced them. Around the same time, I learned that I could hack a game by editing some files. Thus, I learned Lua scripting. No girls I knew had similar experiences. By the time I had my first computer science class in high school, I was already far more familiar with computers than my classmates who didn't play PC games many boys and almost all girls . The first term of computer science in high school, almost everyone took it. Roughly half the class were girls. However, it was clear that some of the boys were far more experienced with computers than everyone else. For each subsequent term, the percentage of girls dropped. By the final year of high school computer science, there was 1 girl who now works at Google . I don't think the issue was that girls in particular were dissuaded from computer science. Rather, there were several boys that started high school computer science far more experienced with computers than everyone else. Therefore, everyone else including other boys were discouraged from taking more computer science courses. In the end, most of us left in computer science were PC gamers. In university and in the workplace, anecdotally speaking, there's a strong correlation between PC gamers and computer scientists. Some would argue that individuals with a certain personality introverted, asocial prefer both PC games and computer science. I agree. However, I would argue that another reason why there's a strong correlation is because the love of PC gaming pushed people into computer science. If my view is correct, there needs to be a change in the way Silicon Valley gets more girls into tech. Rather than merely changing girls' opinions of tech, girls must also naturally find their ways around computers starting from a young age.<|ASPECTS|>girls dropped, pc gaming, firewalls, editing, percentage, girls, interested, files, welcoming field, spend, traffic, computer science courses, anecdotes, research, torrented video editing software, software engineer, viruses, uncomfortable, internet, familiar, pursue tech, fancy software, dissuaded, women, class projects, content, personality introverted, hit, pc games, replaced, tinker with, lagging, experienced with computers, tech, share strategies, ways around computers, google page creator, familiar with computers, ram, class, reliability, discouraged, sex ratios, editing videos, girl, shy away from tech, cheat codes, correlation, computer games, torrent, time around computers, computer, competition, websites, men 's field, pc gamers, gaming strategies, find, drastic, puberty, change, love, computer science, feel, computers, asocial prefer, opinions of tech, computer scientists, hack a game, paid game, cycle, similar experiences, encourage, scripting, familiar with, pc<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm a software engineer in Silicon Valley. Many companies are trying to get more women into tech. There are many reasons for doing so, let's assume for the sake of argument that it makes sense to encourage more women to enter the tech industry. Most people agree that the best way to do this is to start at an early point in a girl's life encourage them to get into tech starting from before university. Many people believe that fewer girls are interested in tech because they see tech as a men's field . Therefore, even in primary school, girls shy away from tech whereas boys embrace it. Therefore, tech companies are helping to promote tech as a welcoming field for both sexes. However, I don't believe girls choose not to pursue tech primarily because they see it as a men's field . Rather, I believe from an early age, boys spend more time around computers because they play more PC games. Naturally, they tinker with the computers outside of games. By the time they have the choice to take their first computer science course, they're already more familiar with computers on average than girls of the same age. Therefore, they're more likely to take the computer science courses. Then, since there are more boys in the class, some girls feel uncomfortable and stop taking it. This becomes a cycle until we get the drastic sex ratios we see today. To clarify this position, I will use anecdotes In primary school, my friends and I would go to the library to play computer games after class. We'd research gaming strategies and participate in forums to share strategies. No girls came with us, despite our attempts to invite them already hit puberty . At this point, us boys were already more familiar with the Internet than the girls. In the final year of primary school, someone learned how to make websites using Google Sites Google Page Creator . He made a website to share gaming strategies and cheat codes. He taught us all how to make websites, so we each made our own. It became a competition to see whose site had more traffic. In middle school, I stopped making websites, but my friends and I played a lot of PC games together. We wanted to play a new paid game, so we learned how to torrent. At the same time, we learned about viruses, firewalls, evaluating online content for reliability, etc. I torrented video editing software and became familiar with them. In class, I was known as the guy who was good at editing videos for class projects. As far as I knew, no girls had the fancy software I had. In high school, I noticed my computer was lagging when I played certain games. I did some research and learning that I should have 4GB of RAM rather than 2GB. I opened my desktop and saw that there were 2 1GB sticks. I bought 2 2GB sticks and replaced them. Around the same time, I learned that I could hack a game by editing some files. Thus, I learned Lua scripting. No girls I knew had similar experiences. By the time I had my first computer science class in high school, I was already far more familiar with computers than my classmates who didn't play PC games many boys and almost all girls . The first term of computer science in high school, almost everyone took it. Roughly half the class were girls. However, it was clear that some of the boys were far more experienced with computers than everyone else. For each subsequent term, the percentage of girls dropped. By the final year of high school computer science, there was 1 girl who now works at Google . I don't think the issue was that girls in particular were dissuaded from computer science. Rather, there were several boys that started high school computer science far more experienced with computers than everyone else. Therefore, everyone else including other boys were discouraged from taking more computer science courses. In the end, most of us left in computer science were PC gamers. In university and in the workplace, anecdotally speaking, there's a strong correlation between PC gamers and computer scientists. Some would argue that individuals with a certain personality introverted, asocial prefer both PC games and computer science. I agree. However, I would argue that another reason why there's a strong correlation is because the love of PC gaming pushed people into computer science. If my view is correct, there needs to be a change in the way Silicon Valley gets more girls into tech. Rather than merely changing girls' opinions of tech, girls must also naturally find their ways around computers starting from a young age.",There are far more men than women in tech largely because of the types of video games that boys play at a young age
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>On reddit and other sites I continually hear people say with absolute confidence that atheism is not a belief in no God but a lack of belief, and so people who criticize atheism or state that it is a kind of faith just as much as theism are wrong. The justification for this is usually the argument that the prefix a means not so a theism must mean not theist. I believe this is mistaken. First, the dictionary definition Definition of atheism 1 the belief that there is no God. 2 disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Read More These are clearly binary statements showing hard stances of belief disbelief, not a lack of belief. Note that these are the only two definitions on dictionary.com. Webster's dictionary is much the same, using disbelief and doctrine to describe atheism. Compare this with agnostic Definition of agnostic person who believes that the existence of God is unknown and unknowable or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Read More This is a lack of belief. The synonym study clarifies that an agnostic refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine while an atheist has a doctrine that there is no God. Now some people claim that there is such thing as Gnostic and agnostic atheism. These seem to be very modern labels people use to escape the argument that atheists disbelieve in God by saying they are agnostic atheists . Now these terms don't seem to be recognized by any major dictionary, but from their usage it seems to mean that a Gnostic atheist faithfully states that there is no God with a sense of certainty, while an agnostic atheist says that there is no God but we don't have proof? I've yet to have someone really clarify this in a way that makes sense to me. Here's the thing if you state that there is definitely no God on your faith alone, that isn't Gnostic atheism, that is just atheism If you say we don't have proof but there is probably no God, that falls within agnosticism. If you say there is no proof but there is definitely no God, yet this somehow isn't a decision of faith, i don't think there is a particular word for that because you are talking out of your in a sense there. So maybe agnostic atheism is the word to use here but it is a corruption of both words in this case. Some anticipated counterpoints We should let people label themselves as whatever they want. No, because this confuses the argument and not only makes it difficult to understand what the other person is trying to say and to state things clearly yourself, it allows dishonest commentators to constantly say no, you haven't proven me wrong because I'm really this ad nauseum. The current definitions are too broad. We can easily narrow them down by saying I am an agnostic who believes our existing knowledge makes God almost impossible, but we don't have the evidence to prove the theory of God wrong instead of misusing words which already have a definition and causing confusion. Agnostics have no doctrine so they can't say that there is isnt a God, which means there needs to be a word between I just don't know and atheism. I think this is the strongest argument as doctrine means principle or belief and isn't necessarily limited to a yes no binary dynamic. Still, it seems much clearer and more logical to say I'm agnostic but there is probably no god than to say I'm an agnostic atheist so there is no god but there is also no proof but this isn't a matter of faith. Agnostic atheism seems hypocritical to me. Also see the Socratic definition below. Edit, one more from reading other agnostic atheist threads The dictionary definition of atheist is too narrow and hardly anyone who calls themselves atheist fits it. I don't see the fact that people misunderstand the definition as a good reason in itself to change it. We should instead educate people on what these words actually mean. The reason I don't think we should compromise on this point is the confusion discussed above. Plus the proposed new definitions seem contradictory. Unlike some other cases, accepting these new definitions doesn't actually make conversation easier this isn't just being pedantic, it is being understandable. Also, those people who do identify and use these words properly shouldn't be forced to re label themselves simply because internet goers got it wrong. It's also unclear whether most people get the word wrong or if it's just the reddit community and a few other forums. I'd love to see information based on academic texts or political news discussions. I truly welcome anyone to correct my definitions of Gnostic and agnostic atheism. As I said, i couldnt find official definitions and I've only heard the terms used online so I'm basing their definitions on that context and my own limited analysis. Edit so far the definitions I wrote here haven't been corrected, but some people have added that there is a chart comparing two axes theist atheist and gnostic agnostic with the intersection of each being a different word. This seems to come from the writings of Richard Dawkins originally and is also cited on some blogs. Otherwise, change my views here that atheism is a hard belief disbelief and agnosticism is the soft version, and that gnostic agnostic atheism is a misappropriation of these words to create definitions which already exist as other words and that this is harmful to clear, honest discussion of the topic. Edit as an addendum to the definition of agnosticism I posted above, please note If you look at the definition of agnostic it carries a few other meanings including someone who carries neither of two opposing opinions on a topic such as I'm agnostic on cats vs dogs. this already fills in all the gaps between atheism and theism, which have until now been defined as opposite views. Which is further evidence that the corruption of the word atheism is useless and confusing. The idea that Dawkins wrote it this way doesn't seem a valid reason to ignore atheism being binary and agnosticism filling in the gaps, which has been clear, concise and established. At the moment I'm getting mostly down votes for a post I put a lot of thought into and have commented on every response to. Are you down voting because you disagree with me or because you think I'm unwilling to change my view? Also no one has so far addressed anything beyond what is the correct definition of these words today. The point that the original definition of atheist was binary has not been challenged, nor has the idea that binary is clearer. Some people have said that the definitions used on r atheism are the ones real atheists use but have given very little evidence of this. I'm open to that idea but since the dictionary, which reflects real language use, all academics I've spoken to and nearly every atheist I've met in person all use the classic definition I haven't been given any reason to think it extends beyond reddit and the writings of Richard Dawkins. I argue back hard and ask you to give me evidence but provide that and I'll happily change my view. I do acknowledge that of the major English dictionaries, Oxford does include lack of belief as part of its definition of atheism for the US and Britain , but that is also inconsistent with its definition of agnosticism in its US English section. It seems Dawkins and other modern writers may have had a pronounced effect on the current definition in the British entries in the Oxford dictionary. The other major dictionaries do not seem to include lack of belief, only disbelief. Edit My purpose here was to see if a consensus could be established either way on the definition of the word and it's clearest use but my view has ended up being changed to Avoid such loaded words entirely, especially when discussing delicate topics like religion. My view is also changed in that several important groups and a significant number though not all of individuals define themselves by the inclusive definition of atheism which is a spectrum, not binary. This type of usage really does change the definition of the word, even if it makes it less clear. Conclusion 1 atheism should be officially updated to be inclusive based on widespread use and self identification with the term 2 in discussion it is best to clarify how you're using the word from the start or avoid using such charged language 3 I still believe the inclusive definition is unclear and technically incorrect, but those drawbacks are outweighed by colloquial understanding and self identification in most contexts. Bonus I'm still going to call myself agnostic but you can call me atheist if you feel like it.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>On reddit and other sites I continually hear people say with absolute confidence that atheism is not a belief in no God but a lack of belief, and so people who criticize atheism or state that it is a kind of faith just as much as theism are wrong. The justification for this is usually the argument that the prefix a means not so a theism must mean not theist. I believe this is mistaken. First, the dictionary definition Definition of atheism 1 the belief that there is no God. 2 disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Read More These are clearly binary statements showing hard stances of belief disbelief, not a lack of belief. Note that these are the only two definitions on dictionary.com. Webster's dictionary is much the same, using disbelief and doctrine to describe atheism. Compare this with agnostic Definition of agnostic person who believes that the existence of God is unknown and unknowable or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Read More This is a lack of belief. The synonym study clarifies that an agnostic refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine while an atheist has a doctrine that there is no God. Now some people claim that there is such thing as Gnostic and agnostic atheism. These seem to be very modern labels people use to escape the argument that atheists disbelieve in God by saying they are agnostic atheists . Now these terms don't seem to be recognized by any major dictionary, but from their usage it seems to mean that a Gnostic atheist faithfully states that there is no God with a sense of certainty, while an agnostic atheist says that there is no God but we don't have proof? I've yet to have someone really clarify this in a way that makes sense to me. Here's the thing if you state that there is definitely no God on your faith alone, that isn't Gnostic atheism, that is just atheism If you say we don't have proof but there is probably no God, that falls within agnosticism. If you say there is no proof but there is definitely no God, yet this somehow isn't a decision of faith, i don't think there is a particular word for that because you are talking out of your in a sense there. So maybe agnostic atheism is the word to use here but it is a corruption of both words in this case. Some anticipated counterpoints We should let people label themselves as whatever they want. No, because this confuses the argument and not only makes it difficult to understand what the other person is trying to say and to state things clearly yourself, it allows dishonest commentators to constantly say no, you haven't proven me wrong because I'm really this ad nauseum. The current definitions are too broad. We can easily narrow them down by saying I am an agnostic who believes our existing knowledge makes God almost impossible, but we don't have the evidence to prove the theory of God wrong instead of misusing words which already have a definition and causing confusion. Agnostics have no doctrine so they can't say that there is isnt a God, which means there needs to be a word between I just don't know and atheism. I think this is the strongest argument as doctrine means principle or belief and isn't necessarily limited to a yes no binary dynamic. Still, it seems much clearer and more logical to say I'm agnostic but there is probably no god than to say I'm an agnostic atheist so there is no god but there is also no proof but this isn't a matter of faith. Agnostic atheism seems hypocritical to me. Also see the Socratic definition below. Edit, one more from reading other agnostic atheist threads The dictionary definition of atheist is too narrow and hardly anyone who calls themselves atheist fits it. I don't see the fact that people misunderstand the definition as a good reason in itself to change it. We should instead educate people on what these words actually mean. The reason I don't think we should compromise on this point is the confusion discussed above. Plus the proposed new definitions seem contradictory. Unlike some other cases, accepting these new definitions doesn't actually make conversation easier this isn't just being pedantic, it is being understandable. Also, those people who do identify and use these words properly shouldn't be forced to re label themselves simply because internet goers got it wrong. It's also unclear whether most people get the word wrong or if it's just the reddit community and a few other forums. I'd love to see information based on academic texts or political news discussions. I truly welcome anyone to correct my definitions of Gnostic and agnostic atheism. As I said, i couldnt find official definitions and I've only heard the terms used online so I'm basing their definitions on that context and my own limited analysis. Edit so far the definitions I wrote here haven't been corrected, but some people have added that there is a chart comparing two axes theist atheist and gnostic agnostic with the intersection of each being a different word. This seems to come from the writings of Richard Dawkins originally and is also cited on some blogs. Otherwise, change my views here that atheism is a hard belief disbelief and agnosticism is the soft version, and that gnostic agnostic atheism is a misappropriation of these words to create definitions which already exist as other words and that this is harmful to clear, honest discussion of the topic. Edit as an addendum to the definition of agnosticism I posted above, please note If you look at the definition of agnostic it carries a few other meanings including someone who carries neither of two opposing opinions on a topic such as I'm agnostic on cats vs dogs. this already fills in all the gaps between atheism and theism, which have until now been defined as opposite views. Which is further evidence that the corruption of the word atheism is useless and confusing. The idea that Dawkins wrote it this way doesn't seem a valid reason to ignore atheism being binary and agnosticism filling in the gaps, which has been clear, concise and established. At the moment I'm getting mostly down votes for a post I put a lot of thought into and have commented on every response to. Are you down voting because you disagree with me or because you think I'm unwilling to change my view? Also no one has so far addressed anything beyond what is the correct definition of these words today. The point that the original definition of atheist was binary has not been challenged, nor has the idea that binary is clearer. Some people have said that the definitions used on r atheism are the ones real atheists use but have given very little evidence of this. I'm open to that idea but since the dictionary, which reflects real language use, all academics I've spoken to and nearly every atheist I've met in person all use the classic definition I haven't been given any reason to think it extends beyond reddit and the writings of Richard Dawkins. I argue back hard and ask you to give me evidence but provide that and I'll happily change my view. I do acknowledge that of the major English dictionaries, Oxford does include lack of belief as part of its definition of atheism for the US and Britain , but that is also inconsistent with its definition of agnosticism in its US English section. It seems Dawkins and other modern writers may have had a pronounced effect on the current definition in the British entries in the Oxford dictionary. The other major dictionaries do not seem to include lack of belief, only disbelief. Edit My purpose here was to see if a consensus could be established either way on the definition of the word and it's clearest use but my view has ended up being changed to Avoid such loaded words entirely, especially when discussing delicate topics like religion. My view is also changed in that several important groups and a significant number though not all of individuals define themselves by the inclusive definition of atheism which is a spectrum, not binary. This type of usage really does change the definition of the word, even if it makes it less clear. Conclusion 1 atheism should be officially updated to be inclusive based on widespread use and self identification with the term 2 in discussion it is best to clarify how you're using the word from the start or avoid using such charged language 3 I still believe the inclusive definition is unclear and technically incorrect, but those drawbacks are outweighed by colloquial understanding and self identification in most contexts. Bonus I'm still going to call myself agnostic but you can call me atheist if you feel like it.<|TARGETS|>Compare this with agnostic Definition of agnostic person who believes that the existence of God is unknown and unknowable or that human knowledge, the fact that people misunderstand the definition as a good reason in itself to change it ., a consensus could be established either way on the definition of the word and it 's clearest use but my view, an agnostic who believes our existing knowledge, Dawkins and other modern writers, to re label themselves simply because internet goers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>On reddit and other sites I continually hear people say with absolute confidence that atheism is not a belief in no God but a lack of belief, and so people who criticize atheism or state that it is a kind of faith just as much as theism are wrong. The justification for this is usually the argument that the prefix a means not so a theism must mean not theist. I believe this is mistaken. First, the dictionary definition Definition of atheism 1 the belief that there is no God. 2 disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Read More These are clearly binary statements showing hard stances of belief disbelief, not a lack of belief. Note that these are the only two definitions on dictionary.com. Webster's dictionary is much the same, using disbelief and doctrine to describe atheism. Compare this with agnostic Definition of agnostic person who believes that the existence of God is unknown and unknowable or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Read More This is a lack of belief. The synonym study clarifies that an agnostic refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine while an atheist has a doctrine that there is no God. Now some people claim that there is such thing as Gnostic and agnostic atheism. These seem to be very modern labels people use to escape the argument that atheists disbelieve in God by saying they are agnostic atheists . Now these terms don't seem to be recognized by any major dictionary, but from their usage it seems to mean that a Gnostic atheist faithfully states that there is no God with a sense of certainty, while an agnostic atheist says that there is no God but we don't have proof? I've yet to have someone really clarify this in a way that makes sense to me. Here's the thing if you state that there is definitely no God on your faith alone, that isn't Gnostic atheism, that is just atheism If you say we don't have proof but there is probably no God, that falls within agnosticism. If you say there is no proof but there is definitely no God, yet this somehow isn't a decision of faith, i don't think there is a particular word for that because you are talking out of your in a sense there. So maybe agnostic atheism is the word to use here but it is a corruption of both words in this case. Some anticipated counterpoints We should let people label themselves as whatever they want. No, because this confuses the argument and not only makes it difficult to understand what the other person is trying to say and to state things clearly yourself, it allows dishonest commentators to constantly say no, you haven't proven me wrong because I'm really this ad nauseum. The current definitions are too broad. We can easily narrow them down by saying I am an agnostic who believes our existing knowledge makes God almost impossible, but we don't have the evidence to prove the theory of God wrong instead of misusing words which already have a definition and causing confusion. Agnostics have no doctrine so they can't say that there is isnt a God, which means there needs to be a word between I just don't know and atheism. I think this is the strongest argument as doctrine means principle or belief and isn't necessarily limited to a yes no binary dynamic. Still, it seems much clearer and more logical to say I'm agnostic but there is probably no god than to say I'm an agnostic atheist so there is no god but there is also no proof but this isn't a matter of faith. Agnostic atheism seems hypocritical to me. Also see the Socratic definition below. Edit, one more from reading other agnostic atheist threads The dictionary definition of atheist is too narrow and hardly anyone who calls themselves atheist fits it. I don't see the fact that people misunderstand the definition as a good reason in itself to change it. We should instead educate people on what these words actually mean. The reason I don't think we should compromise on this point is the confusion discussed above. Plus the proposed new definitions seem contradictory. Unlike some other cases, accepting these new definitions doesn't actually make conversation easier this isn't just being pedantic, it is being understandable. Also, those people who do identify and use these words properly shouldn't be forced to re label themselves simply because internet goers got it wrong. It's also unclear whether most people get the word wrong or if it's just the reddit community and a few other forums. I'd love to see information based on academic texts or political news discussions. I truly welcome anyone to correct my definitions of Gnostic and agnostic atheism. As I said, i couldnt find official definitions and I've only heard the terms used online so I'm basing their definitions on that context and my own limited analysis. Edit so far the definitions I wrote here haven't been corrected, but some people have added that there is a chart comparing two axes theist atheist and gnostic agnostic with the intersection of each being a different word. This seems to come from the writings of Richard Dawkins originally and is also cited on some blogs. Otherwise, change my views here that atheism is a hard belief disbelief and agnosticism is the soft version, and that gnostic agnostic atheism is a misappropriation of these words to create definitions which already exist as other words and that this is harmful to clear, honest discussion of the topic. Edit as an addendum to the definition of agnosticism I posted above, please note If you look at the definition of agnostic it carries a few other meanings including someone who carries neither of two opposing opinions on a topic such as I'm agnostic on cats vs dogs. this already fills in all the gaps between atheism and theism, which have until now been defined as opposite views. Which is further evidence that the corruption of the word atheism is useless and confusing. The idea that Dawkins wrote it this way doesn't seem a valid reason to ignore atheism being binary and agnosticism filling in the gaps, which has been clear, concise and established. At the moment I'm getting mostly down votes for a post I put a lot of thought into and have commented on every response to. Are you down voting because you disagree with me or because you think I'm unwilling to change my view? Also no one has so far addressed anything beyond what is the correct definition of these words today. The point that the original definition of atheist was binary has not been challenged, nor has the idea that binary is clearer. Some people have said that the definitions used on r atheism are the ones real atheists use but have given very little evidence of this. I'm open to that idea but since the dictionary, which reflects real language use, all academics I've spoken to and nearly every atheist I've met in person all use the classic definition I haven't been given any reason to think it extends beyond reddit and the writings of Richard Dawkins. I argue back hard and ask you to give me evidence but provide that and I'll happily change my view. I do acknowledge that of the major English dictionaries, Oxford does include lack of belief as part of its definition of atheism for the US and Britain , but that is also inconsistent with its definition of agnosticism in its US English section. It seems Dawkins and other modern writers may have had a pronounced effect on the current definition in the British entries in the Oxford dictionary. The other major dictionaries do not seem to include lack of belief, only disbelief. Edit My purpose here was to see if a consensus could be established either way on the definition of the word and it's clearest use but my view has ended up being changed to Avoid such loaded words entirely, especially when discussing delicate topics like religion. My view is also changed in that several important groups and a significant number though not all of individuals define themselves by the inclusive definition of atheism which is a spectrum, not binary. This type of usage really does change the definition of the word, even if it makes it less clear. Conclusion 1 atheism should be officially updated to be inclusive based on widespread use and self identification with the term 2 in discussion it is best to clarify how you're using the word from the start or avoid using such charged language 3 I still believe the inclusive definition is unclear and technically incorrect, but those drawbacks are outweighed by colloquial understanding and self identification in most contexts. Bonus I'm still going to call myself agnostic but you can call me atheist if you feel like it.<|ASPECTS|>, classic, view, commitment, hard, lack of belief, limited analysis, atheist, conversation easier, reddit community, definition, official definitions, spectrum, evidence, educate people, loaded words, disbelief, disbelieve in god, unwilling, label, pronounced, disbelief and doctrine, addressed, belief, dishonest commentators, certainty, wrong, misappropriation, internet, human knowledge, lack, contradictory, correct definition, broad, understanding, counterpoints, change my view, proof, change, misunderstand, gnostic, agnosticism, principle or belief, agnostic, decision of faith, atheism, pedantic, modern, corruption, unknown, doctrine, agnostic atheism, compromise, unknowable, votes, hard stances, information, theory, opposite views, binary, delicate topics, less, political news discussions, honest, religion, self identification, harmful, faith, supreme, current definition, impossible, hypocritical, god, thought, confusing, belief in no god, difficult to understand, agnostic atheists, real language use, belief disbelief, useless, understandable, limited to experience, religious doctrine, atheists, misusing, binary dynamic, beings, gaps, consensus, confusion, narrow, disagree<|CONCLUSION|>","On reddit and other sites I continually hear people say with absolute confidence that atheism is not a belief in no God but a lack of belief, and so people who criticize atheism or state that it is a kind of faith just as much as theism are wrong. The justification for this is usually the argument that the prefix a means not so a theism must mean not theist. I believe this is mistaken. First, the dictionary definition Definition of atheism 1 the belief that there is no God. 2 disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Read More These are clearly binary statements showing hard stances of belief disbelief, not a lack of belief. Note that these are the only two definitions on dictionary.com. Webster's dictionary is much the same, using disbelief and doctrine to describe atheism. Compare this with agnostic Definition of agnostic person who believes that the existence of God is unknown and unknowable or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Read More This is a lack of belief. The synonym study clarifies that an agnostic refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine while an atheist has a doctrine that there is no God. Now some people claim that there is such thing as Gnostic and agnostic atheism. These seem to be very modern labels people use to escape the argument that atheists disbelieve in God by saying they are agnostic atheists . Now these terms don't seem to be recognized by any major dictionary, but from their usage it seems to mean that a Gnostic atheist faithfully states that there is no God with a sense of certainty, while an agnostic atheist says that there is no God but we don't have proof? I've yet to have someone really clarify this in a way that makes sense to me. Here's the thing if you state that there is definitely no God on your faith alone, that isn't Gnostic atheism, that is just atheism If you say we don't have proof but there is probably no God, that falls within agnosticism. If you say there is no proof but there is definitely no God, yet this somehow isn't a decision of faith, i don't think there is a particular word for that because you are talking out of your in a sense there. So maybe agnostic atheism is the word to use here but it is a corruption of both words in this case. Some anticipated counterpoints We should let people label themselves as whatever they want. No, because this confuses the argument and not only makes it difficult to understand what the other person is trying to say and to state things clearly yourself, it allows dishonest commentators to constantly say no, you haven't proven me wrong because I'm really this ad nauseum. The current definitions are too broad. We can easily narrow them down by saying I am an agnostic who believes our existing knowledge makes God almost impossible, but we don't have the evidence to prove the theory of God wrong instead of misusing words which already have a definition and causing confusion. Agnostics have no doctrine so they can't say that there is isnt a God, which means there needs to be a word between I just don't know and atheism. I think this is the strongest argument as doctrine means principle or belief and isn't necessarily limited to a yes no binary dynamic. Still, it seems much clearer and more logical to say I'm agnostic but there is probably no god than to say I'm an agnostic atheist so there is no god but there is also no proof but this isn't a matter of faith. Agnostic atheism seems hypocritical to me. Also see the Socratic definition below. Edit, one more from reading other agnostic atheist threads The dictionary definition of atheist is too narrow and hardly anyone who calls themselves atheist fits it. I don't see the fact that people misunderstand the definition as a good reason in itself to change it. We should instead educate people on what these words actually mean. The reason I don't think we should compromise on this point is the confusion discussed above. Plus the proposed new definitions seem contradictory. Unlike some other cases, accepting these new definitions doesn't actually make conversation easier this isn't just being pedantic, it is being understandable. Also, those people who do identify and use these words properly shouldn't be forced to re label themselves simply because internet goers got it wrong. It's also unclear whether most people get the word wrong or if it's just the reddit community and a few other forums. I'd love to see information based on academic texts or political news discussions. I truly welcome anyone to correct my definitions of Gnostic and agnostic atheism. As I said, i couldnt find official definitions and I've only heard the terms used online so I'm basing their definitions on that context and my own limited analysis. Edit so far the definitions I wrote here haven't been corrected, but some people have added that there is a chart comparing two axes theist atheist and gnostic agnostic with the intersection of each being a different word. This seems to come from the writings of Richard Dawkins originally and is also cited on some blogs. Otherwise, change my views here that atheism is a hard belief disbelief and agnosticism is the soft version, and that gnostic agnostic atheism is a misappropriation of these words to create definitions which already exist as other words and that this is harmful to clear, honest discussion of the topic. Edit as an addendum to the definition of agnosticism I posted above, please note If you look at the definition of agnostic it carries a few other meanings including someone who carries neither of two opposing opinions on a topic such as I'm agnostic on cats vs dogs. this already fills in all the gaps between atheism and theism, which have until now been defined as opposite views. Which is further evidence that the corruption of the word atheism is useless and confusing. The idea that Dawkins wrote it this way doesn't seem a valid reason to ignore atheism being binary and agnosticism filling in the gaps, which has been clear, concise and established. At the moment I'm getting mostly down votes for a post I put a lot of thought into and have commented on every response to. Are you down voting because you disagree with me or because you think I'm unwilling to change my view? Also no one has so far addressed anything beyond what is the correct definition of these words today. The point that the original definition of atheist was binary has not been challenged, nor has the idea that binary is clearer. Some people have said that the definitions used on r atheism are the ones real atheists use but have given very little evidence of this. I'm open to that idea but since the dictionary, which reflects real language use, all academics I've spoken to and nearly every atheist I've met in person all use the classic definition I haven't been given any reason to think it extends beyond reddit and the writings of Richard Dawkins. I argue back hard and ask you to give me evidence but provide that and I'll happily change my view. I do acknowledge that of the major English dictionaries, Oxford does include lack of belief as part of its definition of atheism for the US and Britain , but that is also inconsistent with its definition of agnosticism in its US English section. It seems Dawkins and other modern writers may have had a pronounced effect on the current definition in the British entries in the Oxford dictionary. The other major dictionaries do not seem to include lack of belief, only disbelief. Edit My purpose here was to see if a consensus could be established either way on the definition of the word and it's clearest use but my view has ended up being changed to Avoid such loaded words entirely, especially when discussing delicate topics like religion. My view is also changed in that several important groups and a significant number though not all of individuals define themselves by the inclusive definition of atheism which is a spectrum, not binary. This type of usage really does change the definition of the word, even if it makes it less clear. Conclusion 1 atheism should be officially updated to be inclusive based on widespread use and self identification with the term 2 in discussion it is best to clarify how you're using the word from the start or avoid using such charged language 3 I still believe the inclusive definition is unclear and technically incorrect, but those drawbacks are outweighed by colloquial understanding and self identification in most contexts. Bonus I'm still going to call myself agnostic but you can call me atheist if you feel like it.","Atheism is a disbelief in God, Agnosticism is a lack of belief, and confusing the two is bad for clear, honest discussion."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What I mean by evil, is when we put a person beyond empathy. When we look at someone and say I don't care about the reasons he took, he's just evil'. In the modern enviroment, I see so many people saying about some opposing They have crossed a line. They are just crazy, con men.There is no reason any regular man would do such a thing I believe a significant poportion of the population does not just go insane and believe the craziest things without any logical reasoning. People follow the thing they believe in and they believe in those thing for a reason. People don't just do 'evil' acts for the sake of doing evil acts. The Nazis, the KKK, Salem, they all had reasons to do what they did. I'm not condoning them or their action, I'm just saying they were all human. The population of Germany were not exposed to some evil virus, they were people who took what information they were given, the facts they were given and chose to believe, and acted on them. They were not 'literal' monsters. Everything they did, is something anyone of us can do. Take a small look at the above groups. The Nazis believed they found an irredeemable in the Jews. They persecuted this evil. The KKK believed they found the irredeemable in the blacks wanting freedom. They persecuted this evil. Salem believed they found the irredeemable in witches. They persecuted this evil. They defined themselves as judges of good and evil and put evil as some kind of inhuman greedy stupid unreasonable 'thing' who couldn't be empathised with, who shouldn't be empathised with. Aren't these similar to the following arguments? Here's a line, if you go beyond, I will judge you as an irrational idiot, a sheep, a hateful moron, a greedy beaurecrat, an extremist because you can't possibly have any valid reason to believe such a thing. Through this process, we dehumanise the people we don't like. We put them below human. I'm not saying there's no such thing as an irrational idiot. I'm just saying maybe it's a human thing to be irrational. Maybe we're not the best judges of who is and isn't one. The more we disassociate these 'things' from 'regular folks', the less we can recognise when we are on the same path. They did those things because they were evil greedy irrational. I have a good reason for what I'm doing. Have you ever heard that before? I'm not saying Evil doesn't exist. I'm not condoning what these people did. I'm just trying to say, that maybe us 'regular folks' aren't the perfect judges of good and evil. Edit I don't know why I'm being downvoted<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What I mean by evil, is when we put a person beyond empathy. When we look at someone and say I don't care about the reasons he took, he's just evil'. In the modern enviroment, I see so many people saying about some opposing They have crossed a line. They are just crazy, con men.There is no reason any regular man would do such a thing I believe a significant poportion of the population does not just go insane and believe the craziest things without any logical reasoning. People follow the thing they believe in and they believe in those thing for a reason. People don't just do 'evil' acts for the sake of doing evil acts. The Nazis, the KKK, Salem, they all had reasons to do what they did. I'm not condoning them or their action, I'm just saying they were all human. The population of Germany were not exposed to some evil virus, they were people who took what information they were given, the facts they were given and chose to believe, and acted on them. They were not 'literal' monsters. Everything they did, is something anyone of us can do. Take a small look at the above groups. The Nazis believed they found an irredeemable in the Jews. They persecuted this evil. The KKK believed they found the irredeemable in the blacks wanting freedom. They persecuted this evil. Salem believed they found the irredeemable in witches. They persecuted this evil. They defined themselves as judges of good and evil and put evil as some kind of inhuman greedy stupid unreasonable 'thing' who couldn't be empathised with, who shouldn't be empathised with. Aren't these similar to the following arguments? Here's a line, if you go beyond, I will judge you as an irrational idiot, a sheep, a hateful moron, a greedy beaurecrat, an extremist because you can't possibly have any valid reason to believe such a thing. Through this process, we dehumanise the people we don't like. We put them below human. I'm not saying there's no such thing as an irrational idiot. I'm just saying maybe it's a human thing to be irrational. Maybe we're not the best judges of who is and isn't one. The more we disassociate these 'things' from 'regular folks', the less we can recognise when we are on the same path. They did those things because they were evil greedy irrational. I have a good reason for what I'm doing. Have you ever heard that before? I'm not saying Evil doesn't exist. I'm not condoning what these people did. I'm just trying to say, that maybe us 'regular folks' aren't the perfect judges of good and evil. Edit I don't know why I'm being downvoted<|TARGETS|>not condoning them or their action, us ' regular folks', The Nazis, themselves as judges of good and evil and put evil as some kind of inhuman greedy stupid unreasonable ' thing ' who could n't be empathised with who should n't be empathised with ., The KKK, not saying Evil<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What I mean by evil, is when we put a person beyond empathy. When we look at someone and say I don't care about the reasons he took, he's just evil'. In the modern enviroment, I see so many people saying about some opposing They have crossed a line. They are just crazy, con men.There is no reason any regular man would do such a thing I believe a significant poportion of the population does not just go insane and believe the craziest things without any logical reasoning. People follow the thing they believe in and they believe in those thing for a reason. People don't just do 'evil' acts for the sake of doing evil acts. The Nazis, the KKK, Salem, they all had reasons to do what they did. I'm not condoning them or their action, I'm just saying they were all human. The population of Germany were not exposed to some evil virus, they were people who took what information they were given, the facts they were given and chose to believe, and acted on them. They were not 'literal' monsters. Everything they did, is something anyone of us can do. Take a small look at the above groups. The Nazis believed they found an irredeemable in the Jews. They persecuted this evil. The KKK believed they found the irredeemable in the blacks wanting freedom. They persecuted this evil. Salem believed they found the irredeemable in witches. They persecuted this evil. They defined themselves as judges of good and evil and put evil as some kind of inhuman greedy stupid unreasonable 'thing' who couldn't be empathised with, who shouldn't be empathised with. Aren't these similar to the following arguments? Here's a line, if you go beyond, I will judge you as an irrational idiot, a sheep, a hateful moron, a greedy beaurecrat, an extremist because you can't possibly have any valid reason to believe such a thing. Through this process, we dehumanise the people we don't like. We put them below human. I'm not saying there's no such thing as an irrational idiot. I'm just saying maybe it's a human thing to be irrational. Maybe we're not the best judges of who is and isn't one. The more we disassociate these 'things' from 'regular folks', the less we can recognise when we are on the same path. They did those things because they were evil greedy irrational. I have a good reason for what I'm doing. Have you ever heard that before? I'm not saying Evil doesn't exist. I'm not condoning what these people did. I'm just trying to say, that maybe us 'regular folks' aren't the perfect judges of good and evil. Edit I don't know why I'm being downvoted<|ASPECTS|>inhuman greedy stupid unreasonable, irredeemable, perfect judges, con men.there, believe in, evil greedy irrational, logical reasoning, human thing, persecuted, recognise, extremist, greedy, downvoted, jews, poportion, irrational idiot, monsters, empathy, follow, best judges, dehumanise the people, freedom, human, crazy, believe, insane, similar, evil, reason, disassociate, good and evil, reasons, hateful, valid, blacks, crossed a line, condoning, evil virus, irrational, evil acts, witches, judges<|CONCLUSION|>","What I mean by evil, is when we put a person beyond empathy. When we look at someone and say I don't care about the reasons he took, he's just evil'. In the modern enviroment, I see so many people saying about some opposing They have crossed a line. They are just crazy, con men.There is no reason any regular man would do such a thing I believe a significant poportion of the population does not just go insane and believe the craziest things without any logical reasoning. People follow the thing they believe in and they believe in those thing for a reason. People don't just do 'evil' acts for the sake of doing evil acts. The Nazis, the KKK, Salem, they all had reasons to do what they did. I'm not condoning them or their action, I'm just saying they were all human. The population of Germany were not exposed to some evil virus, they were people who took what information they were given, the facts they were given and chose to believe, and acted on them. They were not 'literal' monsters. Everything they did, is something anyone of us can do. Take a small look at the above groups. The Nazis believed they found an irredeemable in the Jews. They persecuted this evil. The KKK believed they found the irredeemable in the blacks wanting freedom. They persecuted this evil. Salem believed they found the irredeemable in witches. They persecuted this evil. They defined themselves as judges of good and evil and put evil as some kind of inhuman greedy stupid unreasonable 'thing' who couldn't be empathised with, who shouldn't be empathised with. Aren't these similar to the following arguments? Here's a line, if you go beyond, I will judge you as an irrational idiot, a sheep, a hateful moron, a greedy beaurecrat, an extremist because you can't possibly have any valid reason to believe such a thing. Through this process, we dehumanise the people we don't like. We put them below human. I'm not saying there's no such thing as an irrational idiot. I'm just saying maybe it's a human thing to be irrational. Maybe we're not the best judges of who is and isn't one. The more we disassociate these 'things' from 'regular folks', the less we can recognise when we are on the same path. They did those things because they were evil greedy irrational. I have a good reason for what I'm doing. Have you ever heard that before? I'm not saying Evil doesn't exist. I'm not condoning what these people did. I'm just trying to say, that maybe us 'regular folks' aren't the perfect judges of good and evil. Edit I don't know why I'm being downvoted",The Idea of Evil is the most harmful in Society.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I haven't really thought this out heavily, but I'll do my best to make a proper case for myself, and I actually would like to see it from another's perspective. So here goes Having bought a game on one platform, it's not immoral to pirate the same game on another platform. I'm not even really talking legally though feel free to inform me , but wether I am negatively influencencing the victim company s with this. This of course excludes remakes, GOTY editions and other versions that add substantially to the game, assuming you own the vanilla version. This does not include better graphics on PC or Keyboard mouse support .By buying the game on one platform I have compensated the developer fully for all the work gone into making it, buying another version that adds nothing to the previously bought version is just paying twice the price for one product, solely because the rivalery of companies Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo prevents cross buy. Expanding on my personal buying behaviour, 90 percent of the time I wouldn't have re bought the game anyway, and am doing it purely for convenience bought on Xbox, torrenting on laptop so I can play it when I'm gone too so the developer console company won't make a loss on my illigal copy, and the other 10 of the time I might be interested in rebuying a game bought on console for PC for, say, the mods which are fully made by people outside the company, and do so for no profit , and I still might just have enjoyed the game enough to justify a rebuy if the price is right i.e. I enjoyed the first Fable game greatly on Xbox, and bought Fable TLC in a Steam sale for 3 so I could play it again with mouse keyboard and in widescreen. This port technically has some added content but is also the only version available on PC, I wasn't interested in the extra content and could have done without would I have had the option. Therefore, I wouldn't have felt guilty about torrenting it but at that price I have no issue considering the fun and time I put into it already. You could argue that in theory, I could buy a console that a company has been selling at a loss in hopes of earning this back in sold games, and pirate every single game on it as I already own them on another gaming machine, therfore have the console company make a loss on me. I think that's a risk you take when you're selling your machine at a loss, and if that business model doesn't work for you, change it. Of course the odds of someone doing specifically this are very, very low, and is but a minor dent in the ten hundred thousands or even millions of consumers raking in the profits for these companies. I would be no more harm to them than a person buying the sole console only to let it eat dust in the basement, not to mention the fact that I have a perfectly fine gaming laptop and wouldn't be buying their consoles anyway if it wasn't for their exclusives, which as the name suggests, are exclusive to that console. Along with that, pirating a game on pc fully cuts out the machine developer middle man and makes the loss go directly to the game developer. I think that's pretty much it, I thought this up on the spot and read it over a few times but there might be some holes in it, feel free to use those of course. Also, I do apologise if this has been asked before, I did a quick search before posting and found nothing. Maybe my arguments make for a different approach to the case.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I haven't really thought this out heavily, but I'll do my best to make a proper case for myself, and I actually would like to see it from another's perspective. So here goes Having bought a game on one platform, it's not immoral to pirate the same game on another platform. I'm not even really talking legally though feel free to inform me , but wether I am negatively influencencing the victim company s with this. This of course excludes remakes, GOTY editions and other versions that add substantially to the game, assuming you own the vanilla version. This does not include better graphics on PC or Keyboard mouse support .By buying the game on one platform I have compensated the developer fully for all the work gone into making it, buying another version that adds nothing to the previously bought version is just paying twice the price for one product, solely because the rivalery of companies Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo prevents cross buy. Expanding on my personal buying behaviour, 90 percent of the time I wouldn't have re bought the game anyway, and am doing it purely for convenience bought on Xbox, torrenting on laptop so I can play it when I'm gone too so the developer console company won't make a loss on my illigal copy, and the other 10 of the time I might be interested in rebuying a game bought on console for PC for, say, the mods which are fully made by people outside the company, and do so for no profit , and I still might just have enjoyed the game enough to justify a rebuy if the price is right i.e. I enjoyed the first Fable game greatly on Xbox, and bought Fable TLC in a Steam sale for 3 so I could play it again with mouse keyboard and in widescreen. This port technically has some added content but is also the only version available on PC, I wasn't interested in the extra content and could have done without would I have had the option. Therefore, I wouldn't have felt guilty about torrenting it but at that price I have no issue considering the fun and time I put into it already. You could argue that in theory, I could buy a console that a company has been selling at a loss in hopes of earning this back in sold games, and pirate every single game on it as I already own them on another gaming machine, therfore have the console company make a loss on me. I think that's a risk you take when you're selling your machine at a loss, and if that business model doesn't work for you, change it. Of course the odds of someone doing specifically this are very, very low, and is but a minor dent in the ten hundred thousands or even millions of consumers raking in the profits for these companies. I would be no more harm to them than a person buying the sole console only to let it eat dust in the basement, not to mention the fact that I have a perfectly fine gaming laptop and wouldn't be buying their consoles anyway if it wasn't for their exclusives, which as the name suggests, are exclusive to that console. Along with that, pirating a game on pc fully cuts out the machine developer middle man and makes the loss go directly to the game developer. I think that's pretty much it, I thought this up on the spot and read it over a few times but there might be some holes in it, feel free to use those of course. Also, I do apologise if this has been asked before, I did a quick search before posting and found nothing. Maybe my arguments make for a different approach to the case.<|TARGETS|>torrenting it but at that price I have no issue considering the fun and time I put into it already ., to make a proper case for myself and I actually would like to see it from another 's perspective ., Having bought a game on one platform, pirating a game on pc, Expanding on my personal buying behaviour, this up on the spot and read it over a few times but there<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I haven't really thought this out heavily, but I'll do my best to make a proper case for myself, and I actually would like to see it from another's perspective. So here goes Having bought a game on one platform, it's not immoral to pirate the same game on another platform. I'm not even really talking legally though feel free to inform me , but wether I am negatively influencencing the victim company s with this. This of course excludes remakes, GOTY editions and other versions that add substantially to the game, assuming you own the vanilla version. This does not include better graphics on PC or Keyboard mouse support .By buying the game on one platform I have compensated the developer fully for all the work gone into making it, buying another version that adds nothing to the previously bought version is just paying twice the price for one product, solely because the rivalery of companies Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo prevents cross buy. Expanding on my personal buying behaviour, 90 percent of the time I wouldn't have re bought the game anyway, and am doing it purely for convenience bought on Xbox, torrenting on laptop so I can play it when I'm gone too so the developer console company won't make a loss on my illigal copy, and the other 10 of the time I might be interested in rebuying a game bought on console for PC for, say, the mods which are fully made by people outside the company, and do so for no profit , and I still might just have enjoyed the game enough to justify a rebuy if the price is right i.e. I enjoyed the first Fable game greatly on Xbox, and bought Fable TLC in a Steam sale for 3 so I could play it again with mouse keyboard and in widescreen. This port technically has some added content but is also the only version available on PC, I wasn't interested in the extra content and could have done without would I have had the option. Therefore, I wouldn't have felt guilty about torrenting it but at that price I have no issue considering the fun and time I put into it already. You could argue that in theory, I could buy a console that a company has been selling at a loss in hopes of earning this back in sold games, and pirate every single game on it as I already own them on another gaming machine, therfore have the console company make a loss on me. I think that's a risk you take when you're selling your machine at a loss, and if that business model doesn't work for you, change it. Of course the odds of someone doing specifically this are very, very low, and is but a minor dent in the ten hundred thousands or even millions of consumers raking in the profits for these companies. I would be no more harm to them than a person buying the sole console only to let it eat dust in the basement, not to mention the fact that I have a perfectly fine gaming laptop and wouldn't be buying their consoles anyway if it wasn't for their exclusives, which as the name suggests, are exclusive to that console. Along with that, pirating a game on pc fully cuts out the machine developer middle man and makes the loss go directly to the game developer. I think that's pretty much it, I thought this up on the spot and read it over a few times but there might be some holes in it, feel free to use those of course. Also, I do apologise if this has been asked before, I did a quick search before posting and found nothing. Maybe my arguments make for a different approach to the case.<|ASPECTS|>model, laptop, rivalery, convenience, harm, negatively influencencing the victim, proper case, price, different approach, guilty, holes, immoral, added content, better graphics, loss, risk, case, fun and time, remakes, extra content, eat dust, pirate, machine developer middle man, profits, cross buy, torrenting, personal buying behaviour<|CONCLUSION|>","I haven't really thought this out heavily, but I'll do my best to make a proper case for myself, and I actually would like to see it from another's perspective. So here goes Having bought a game on one platform, it's not immoral to pirate the same game on another platform. I'm not even really talking legally though feel free to inform me , but wether I am negatively influencencing the victim company s with this. This of course excludes remakes, GOTY editions and other versions that add substantially to the game, assuming you own the vanilla version. This does not include better graphics on PC or Keyboard mouse support .By buying the game on one platform I have compensated the developer fully for all the work gone into making it, buying another version that adds nothing to the previously bought version is just paying twice the price for one product, solely because the rivalery of companies Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo prevents cross buy. Expanding on my personal buying behaviour, 90 percent of the time I wouldn't have re bought the game anyway, and am doing it purely for convenience bought on Xbox, torrenting on laptop so I can play it when I'm gone too so the developer console company won't make a loss on my illigal copy, and the other 10 of the time I might be interested in rebuying a game bought on console for PC for, say, the mods which are fully made by people outside the company, and do so for no profit , and I still might just have enjoyed the game enough to justify a rebuy if the price is right i.e. I enjoyed the first Fable game greatly on Xbox, and bought Fable TLC in a Steam sale for 3 so I could play it again with mouse keyboard and in widescreen. This port technically has some added content but is also the only version available on PC, I wasn't interested in the extra content and could have done without would I have had the option. Therefore, I wouldn't have felt guilty about torrenting it but at that price I have no issue considering the fun and time I put into it already. You could argue that in theory, I could buy a console that a company has been selling at a loss in hopes of earning this back in sold games, and pirate every single game on it as I already own them on another gaming machine, therfore have the console company make a loss on me. I think that's a risk you take when you're selling your machine at a loss, and if that business model doesn't work for you, change it. Of course the odds of someone doing specifically this are very, very low, and is but a minor dent in the ten hundred thousands or even millions of consumers raking in the profits for these companies. I would be no more harm to them than a person buying the sole console only to let it eat dust in the basement, not to mention the fact that I have a perfectly fine gaming laptop and wouldn't be buying their consoles anyway if it wasn't for their exclusives, which as the name suggests, are exclusive to that console. Along with that, pirating a game on pc fully cuts out the machine developer middle man and makes the loss go directly to the game developer. I think that's pretty much it, I thought this up on the spot and read it over a few times but there might be some holes in it, feel free to use those of course. Also, I do apologise if this has been asked before, I did a quick search before posting and found nothing. Maybe my arguments make for a different approach to the case.","Having bought a game on one platform, it's okay to pirate the same game on another platform."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Just in the way of a disclaimer, I will say that I am biased in this case in that I have viewed child porn. That being said I feel very very strongly against the abuse and exploitation of children and only resorted to looking at images out of a genuine concern that if I did not find an outlet for my feelings, I might one day have gone on to abuse a child. Please understand that I had grown up believing that people who sexually abuse children are just pedophiles who lose control or have a moment of weakness. After growing up and coming to terms with the fact I was sexually attracted to children I desperately didn't want to get to that point and after realising that I had crossed a line, I handed myself into police in an attempt to get some professional support. Please therefore keep in mind that I am very aware of the consequences of child abuse as I have kept it in the forefront of my mind since I was very young, in an attempt to keep my feelings under control. That being said, I have given a lot of thought to the attribution of culpability with regards to the sexual abuse of children in images of abuse and even though I am trying very hard not to distance myself from the effects of abuse, I still cannot feel as though I, having looked at images, are in any way responsible for the which resulted from the abuse which took place. Two arguments are often made here. One is that my interest in the images is creating a market for it, which, in tern, results in more images being created to fuel that interest. I can understand this to be true if I or anyone else had paid for the images or downloaded them directly from the producer, but unless either of those are the case, I cannot understand how this connection can be made. The second argument is that victims who feature in the images are re victimised when they learn that images of their abuse are circulating around the internet and being viewed by people. Now I do understand the logic in this but I believe that the harm is caused at the point that the victim is made aware that their images are being shared and not at the point that the images are actually shared. This may seem like a heartless way to look at it but in a civil case, with regards to culpability, a person is only responsible for harm if there is no break in the causal chain of events between their action and the harm. The fact that the police might chose to let them know that images of their abuse have been found would, in my mind, be the cause of the harm. It seems that many people seem to attribute the blame to the mens rea guilt mind rather than the act itself. If somebody has the intent to look at those images then they are therefore somehow responsible for the harm caused to the children in the images. If somebody views the images inadvertently without intent or as part of their duty of a legitimate police investigation then they are not to blame. As I said before, I do not agree with how people who view the images are blamed for the harm caused to the children by the abuse itself. I am very open to have my view challenged and I think that I would accept a different opinion if it was explained to me in a way that I understood. Please change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Just in the way of a disclaimer, I will say that I am biased in this case in that I have viewed child porn. That being said I feel very very strongly against the abuse and exploitation of children and only resorted to looking at images out of a genuine concern that if I did not find an outlet for my feelings, I might one day have gone on to abuse a child. Please understand that I had grown up believing that people who sexually abuse children are just pedophiles who lose control or have a moment of weakness. After growing up and coming to terms with the fact I was sexually attracted to children I desperately didn't want to get to that point and after realising that I had crossed a line, I handed myself into police in an attempt to get some professional support. Please therefore keep in mind that I am very aware of the consequences of child abuse as I have kept it in the forefront of my mind since I was very young, in an attempt to keep my feelings under control. That being said, I have given a lot of thought to the attribution of culpability with regards to the sexual abuse of children in images of abuse and even though I am trying very hard not to distance myself from the effects of abuse, I still cannot feel as though I, having looked at images, are in any way responsible for the which resulted from the abuse which took place. Two arguments are often made here. One is that my interest in the images is creating a market for it, which, in tern, results in more images being created to fuel that interest. I can understand this to be true if I or anyone else had paid for the images or downloaded them directly from the producer, but unless either of those are the case, I cannot understand how this connection can be made. The second argument is that victims who feature in the images are re victimised when they learn that images of their abuse are circulating around the internet and being viewed by people. Now I do understand the logic in this but I believe that the harm is caused at the point that the victim is made aware that their images are being shared and not at the point that the images are actually shared. This may seem like a heartless way to look at it but in a civil case, with regards to culpability, a person is only responsible for harm if there is no break in the causal chain of events between their action and the harm. The fact that the police might chose to let them know that images of their abuse have been found would, in my mind, be the cause of the harm. It seems that many people seem to attribute the blame to the mens rea guilt mind rather than the act itself. If somebody has the intent to look at those images then they are therefore somehow responsible for the harm caused to the children in the images. If somebody views the images inadvertently without intent or as part of their duty of a legitimate police investigation then they are not to blame. As I said before, I do not agree with how people who view the images are blamed for the harm caused to the children by the abuse itself. I am very open to have my view challenged and I think that I would accept a different opinion if it was explained to me in a way that I understood. Please change my view.<|TARGETS|>to abuse a child ., If somebody has the intent to look at those images, the abuse and exploitation of children and only resorted to looking at images out of a genuine concern that if I did not find an outlet for my feelings, a lot of thought to the attribution of culpability with regards to the sexual abuse of children in images of abuse and even though I am trying very hard not to distance myself from the effects of abuse I still cannot feel as though I having looked at images are in any way responsible for the which resulted from the abuse which took place ., how people who view the images are blamed for the harm caused to the children by the abuse itself, to get to that point and after realising that I had crossed a line<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Just in the way of a disclaimer, I will say that I am biased in this case in that I have viewed child porn. That being said I feel very very strongly against the abuse and exploitation of children and only resorted to looking at images out of a genuine concern that if I did not find an outlet for my feelings, I might one day have gone on to abuse a child. Please understand that I had grown up believing that people who sexually abuse children are just pedophiles who lose control or have a moment of weakness. After growing up and coming to terms with the fact I was sexually attracted to children I desperately didn't want to get to that point and after realising that I had crossed a line, I handed myself into police in an attempt to get some professional support. Please therefore keep in mind that I am very aware of the consequences of child abuse as I have kept it in the forefront of my mind since I was very young, in an attempt to keep my feelings under control. That being said, I have given a lot of thought to the attribution of culpability with regards to the sexual abuse of children in images of abuse and even though I am trying very hard not to distance myself from the effects of abuse, I still cannot feel as though I, having looked at images, are in any way responsible for the which resulted from the abuse which took place. Two arguments are often made here. One is that my interest in the images is creating a market for it, which, in tern, results in more images being created to fuel that interest. I can understand this to be true if I or anyone else had paid for the images or downloaded them directly from the producer, but unless either of those are the case, I cannot understand how this connection can be made. The second argument is that victims who feature in the images are re victimised when they learn that images of their abuse are circulating around the internet and being viewed by people. Now I do understand the logic in this but I believe that the harm is caused at the point that the victim is made aware that their images are being shared and not at the point that the images are actually shared. This may seem like a heartless way to look at it but in a civil case, with regards to culpability, a person is only responsible for harm if there is no break in the causal chain of events between their action and the harm. The fact that the police might chose to let them know that images of their abuse have been found would, in my mind, be the cause of the harm. It seems that many people seem to attribute the blame to the mens rea guilt mind rather than the act itself. If somebody has the intent to look at those images then they are therefore somehow responsible for the harm caused to the children in the images. If somebody views the images inadvertently without intent or as part of their duty of a legitimate police investigation then they are not to blame. As I said before, I do not agree with how people who view the images are blamed for the harm caused to the children by the abuse itself. I am very open to have my view challenged and I think that I would accept a different opinion if it was explained to me in a way that I understood. Please change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, exploitation of children, attribution of culpability, sexual abuse, shared, harm caused, consequences, view, harm, blame, lose control, moment, feelings, market, child porn, view challenged, heartless, cause, pedophiles, professional support, harm is caused, chain, responsible, guilt mind, abuse children, images, victimised, biased, abuse a child, child abuse, children, connection, inadvertently, sexually attracted to children, opinion, culpability, abuse, weakness<|CONCLUSION|>","Just in the way of a disclaimer, I will say that I am biased in this case in that I have viewed child porn. That being said I feel very very strongly against the abuse and exploitation of children and only resorted to looking at images out of a genuine concern that if I did not find an outlet for my feelings, I might one day have gone on to abuse a child. Please understand that I had grown up believing that people who sexually abuse children are just pedophiles who lose control or have a moment of weakness. After growing up and coming to terms with the fact I was sexually attracted to children I desperately didn't want to get to that point and after realising that I had crossed a line, I handed myself into police in an attempt to get some professional support. Please therefore keep in mind that I am very aware of the consequences of child abuse as I have kept it in the forefront of my mind since I was very young, in an attempt to keep my feelings under control. That being said, I have given a lot of thought to the attribution of culpability with regards to the sexual abuse of children in images of abuse and even though I am trying very hard not to distance myself from the effects of abuse, I still cannot feel as though I, having looked at images, are in any way responsible for the which resulted from the abuse which took place. Two arguments are often made here. One is that my interest in the images is creating a market for it, which, in tern, results in more images being created to fuel that interest. I can understand this to be true if I or anyone else had paid for the images or downloaded them directly from the producer, but unless either of those are the case, I cannot understand how this connection can be made. The second argument is that victims who feature in the images are re victimised when they learn that images of their abuse are circulating around the internet and being viewed by people. Now I do understand the logic in this but I believe that the harm is caused at the point that the victim is made aware that their images are being shared and not at the point that the images are actually shared. This may seem like a heartless way to look at it but in a civil case, with regards to culpability, a person is only responsible for harm if there is no break in the causal chain of events between their action and the harm. The fact that the police might chose to let them know that images of their abuse have been found would, in my mind, be the cause of the harm. It seems that many people seem to attribute the blame to the mens rea guilt mind rather than the act itself. If somebody has the intent to look at those images then they are therefore somehow responsible for the harm caused to the children in the images. If somebody views the images inadvertently without intent or as part of their duty of a legitimate police investigation then they are not to blame. As I said before, I do not agree with how people who view the images are blamed for the harm caused to the children by the abuse itself. I am very open to have my view challenged and I think that I would accept a different opinion if it was explained to me in a way that I understood. Please change my view.",I don't think that people who view child porn are responsible for the harm caused by the sexual abuse of the children in the images.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Sorry for my phrasing. My english is a little wonky at times. Lil about me I grew up in India and I was and still am a very fidgety person and loved doodling while taking notes and I understand and know that it is an amazing tool for memory retention. I’ve also been that person who fell asleep in class cuz they were bored af. Another thing, I had the privilege of having very good and respectable teachers for most of my elementary school, and had great relationships with all of those teachers not so much in middle or high school college is meh , although the bad teachers were few and far between. Additionally in India, and I guess most Asian countries, respecting your elders, especially educators is insisted upon and taught from a young age. My household was filled with free thinkers who valued respect and didn’t define it as fear, so I really do respect most of the teachers I’ve met in my life, not only for who they are as people, but for their profession. — A. About sleepers I find people who fall asleep in class regularly and are crashing cuz they’re bored very disrespectful. I think this because of these reasons The person might be or most probably is distracting other students or even the teacher. Especially if they snore. And even more so when they take the front seats. If there is a group project, that student is usually bringing less to their group since they weren’t paying attention in class and so might need extra time to catchup or understand what is happening and contribute to the class. How you do on tests and in the class itself is a reflection of the course itself, the student and the teacher. Most teacher will be held responsible and will have to answer to parents guardians and their higher ups. Amazing teachers shouldn’t be responsible for a student slacking off or crashing in class and thus doing badly. Most teachers put in a lot of time and effort into their class, however fun or dry the class is. I just think it is really really disrespectful to not respect their effort. And you are actually wasting their time by dozing off in their class. Some concessions I am not talking about people who are sick, who’ve crashed like less than 5 times aka very rarely , have talked to their teachers about a problem, or have issues at home that causes them to need that extra hour or two of sleep. I have also crashed in school. Multiple times. I have also dreamt of doing it to spite a teacher cuz I knew that I’d be pissed off if someone slept off in my class on purpose. B. Doodling I love doodling and writing random nonsense along the margins of my notebook whatever paper I have near me while I’m taking notes. I am also one of those people who NEED to physically write stuff down while doodling AND hear it for it to get into my brain. I very rarely need to look back at it to remember it. So i find teachers who don’t allow students to doodle kinda on the dumber side of life or super snotty. At the same time, I do think that if a teacher has specifically told that they want all eyes on them when they convey something important maybe for a moment or two , people need to stop doodling. I really think that when teachers say something like that, it means they want eye contact and it’s just wrong not to give it to them since usually they’re just emphasizing something important that they might have said a second ago or will repeat again in a few minutes. Maybe it has been ingrained in me from my childhood, but not giving your teachers that little time is just wrong. — Here are my arguments I am actually quite keen on seeing the other side cuz I’ve been thinking about this a lot due to experiencing many different etiquetes during graduate school compared to my undergrad and high school experiences which are also very different compared to my schooling in India.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Sorry for my phrasing. My english is a little wonky at times. Lil about me I grew up in India and I was and still am a very fidgety person and loved doodling while taking notes and I understand and know that it is an amazing tool for memory retention. I’ve also been that person who fell asleep in class cuz they were bored af. Another thing, I had the privilege of having very good and respectable teachers for most of my elementary school, and had great relationships with all of those teachers not so much in middle or high school college is meh , although the bad teachers were few and far between. Additionally in India, and I guess most Asian countries, respecting your elders, especially educators is insisted upon and taught from a young age. My household was filled with free thinkers who valued respect and didn’t define it as fear, so I really do respect most of the teachers I’ve met in my life, not only for who they are as people, but for their profession. — A. About sleepers I find people who fall asleep in class regularly and are crashing cuz they’re bored very disrespectful. I think this because of these reasons The person might be or most probably is distracting other students or even the teacher. Especially if they snore. And even more so when they take the front seats. If there is a group project, that student is usually bringing less to their group since they weren’t paying attention in class and so might need extra time to catchup or understand what is happening and contribute to the class. How you do on tests and in the class itself is a reflection of the course itself, the student and the teacher. Most teacher will be held responsible and will have to answer to parents guardians and their higher ups. Amazing teachers shouldn’t be responsible for a student slacking off or crashing in class and thus doing badly. Most teachers put in a lot of time and effort into their class, however fun or dry the class is. I just think it is really really disrespectful to not respect their effort. And you are actually wasting their time by dozing off in their class. Some concessions I am not talking about people who are sick, who’ve crashed like less than 5 times aka very rarely , have talked to their teachers about a problem, or have issues at home that causes them to need that extra hour or two of sleep. I have also crashed in school. Multiple times. I have also dreamt of doing it to spite a teacher cuz I knew that I’d be pissed off if someone slept off in my class on purpose. B. Doodling I love doodling and writing random nonsense along the margins of my notebook whatever paper I have near me while I’m taking notes. I am also one of those people who NEED to physically write stuff down while doodling AND hear it for it to get into my brain. I very rarely need to look back at it to remember it. So i find teachers who don’t allow students to doodle kinda on the dumber side of life or super snotty. At the same time, I do think that if a teacher has specifically told that they want all eyes on them when they convey something important maybe for a moment or two , people need to stop doodling. I really think that when teachers say something like that, it means they want eye contact and it’s just wrong not to give it to them since usually they’re just emphasizing something important that they might have said a second ago or will repeat again in a few minutes. Maybe it has been ingrained in me from my childhood, but not giving your teachers that little time is just wrong. — Here are my arguments I am actually quite keen on seeing the other side cuz I’ve been thinking about this a lot due to experiencing many different etiquetes during graduate school compared to my undergrad and high school experiences which are also very different compared to my schooling in India.<|TARGETS|>if a teacher has specifically told that they want all eyes on them when they convey something important maybe for a moment or two, seeing the other side cuz I ’ve been thinking about this a lot due to experiencing many different etiquetes during graduate school compared to my undergrad and high school experiences, Doodling, to give it to them since usually they ’re just emphasizing something important that they might have said a second ago or will repeat again in a few minutes ., doodling and writing random nonsense along the margins of my notebook whatever paper I have near me while I ’m taking notes ., to look back at it to remember it .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Sorry for my phrasing. My english is a little wonky at times. Lil about me I grew up in India and I was and still am a very fidgety person and loved doodling while taking notes and I understand and know that it is an amazing tool for memory retention. I’ve also been that person who fell asleep in class cuz they were bored af. Another thing, I had the privilege of having very good and respectable teachers for most of my elementary school, and had great relationships with all of those teachers not so much in middle or high school college is meh , although the bad teachers were few and far between. Additionally in India, and I guess most Asian countries, respecting your elders, especially educators is insisted upon and taught from a young age. My household was filled with free thinkers who valued respect and didn’t define it as fear, so I really do respect most of the teachers I’ve met in my life, not only for who they are as people, but for their profession. — A. About sleepers I find people who fall asleep in class regularly and are crashing cuz they’re bored very disrespectful. I think this because of these reasons The person might be or most probably is distracting other students or even the teacher. Especially if they snore. And even more so when they take the front seats. If there is a group project, that student is usually bringing less to their group since they weren’t paying attention in class and so might need extra time to catchup or understand what is happening and contribute to the class. How you do on tests and in the class itself is a reflection of the course itself, the student and the teacher. Most teacher will be held responsible and will have to answer to parents guardians and their higher ups. Amazing teachers shouldn’t be responsible for a student slacking off or crashing in class and thus doing badly. Most teachers put in a lot of time and effort into their class, however fun or dry the class is. I just think it is really really disrespectful to not respect their effort. And you are actually wasting their time by dozing off in their class. Some concessions I am not talking about people who are sick, who’ve crashed like less than 5 times aka very rarely , have talked to their teachers about a problem, or have issues at home that causes them to need that extra hour or two of sleep. I have also crashed in school. Multiple times. I have also dreamt of doing it to spite a teacher cuz I knew that I’d be pissed off if someone slept off in my class on purpose. B. Doodling I love doodling and writing random nonsense along the margins of my notebook whatever paper I have near me while I’m taking notes. I am also one of those people who NEED to physically write stuff down while doodling AND hear it for it to get into my brain. I very rarely need to look back at it to remember it. So i find teachers who don’t allow students to doodle kinda on the dumber side of life or super snotty. At the same time, I do think that if a teacher has specifically told that they want all eyes on them when they convey something important maybe for a moment or two , people need to stop doodling. I really think that when teachers say something like that, it means they want eye contact and it’s just wrong not to give it to them since usually they’re just emphasizing something important that they might have said a second ago or will repeat again in a few minutes. Maybe it has been ingrained in me from my childhood, but not giving your teachers that little time is just wrong. — Here are my arguments I am actually quite keen on seeing the other side cuz I’ve been thinking about this a lot due to experiencing many different etiquetes during graduate school compared to my undergrad and high school experiences which are also very different compared to my schooling in India.<|ASPECTS|>stop, crashed, , amazing teachers, wrong, pissed, super snotty, taught, badly, answer, ingrained, time and effort, disrespectful, want, snore, valued respect, bad teachers, group, sleep, understand, different etiquetes, fear, fun, effort, dozing, educators, physically write stuff, spite a teacher, class, person, parents guardians, respect, important, free thinkers, crashing in class, responsible, distracting other students, doodling, bored, reflection, crashed in school, wasting their time, dumber side of life, respectable teachers, remember, respecting your elders, time, sleepers, relationships, problem, less, back, eye contact, seats, contribute, catchup, english, slacking, doodle, wonky, issues, memory retention, fell asleep, random nonsense<|CONCLUSION|>","Sorry for my phrasing. My english is a little wonky at times. Lil about me I grew up in India and I was and still am a very fidgety person and loved doodling while taking notes and I understand and know that it is an amazing tool for memory retention. I’ve also been that person who fell asleep in class cuz they were bored af. Another thing, I had the privilege of having very good and respectable teachers for most of my elementary school, and had great relationships with all of those teachers not so much in middle or high school college is meh , although the bad teachers were few and far between. Additionally in India, and I guess most Asian countries, respecting your elders, especially educators is insisted upon and taught from a young age. My household was filled with free thinkers who valued respect and didn’t define it as fear, so I really do respect most of the teachers I’ve met in my life, not only for who they are as people, but for their profession. — A. About sleepers I find people who fall asleep in class regularly and are crashing cuz they’re bored very disrespectful. I think this because of these reasons The person might be or most probably is distracting other students or even the teacher. Especially if they snore. And even more so when they take the front seats. If there is a group project, that student is usually bringing less to their group since they weren’t paying attention in class and so might need extra time to catchup or understand what is happening and contribute to the class. How you do on tests and in the class itself is a reflection of the course itself, the student and the teacher. Most teacher will be held responsible and will have to answer to parents guardians and their higher ups. Amazing teachers shouldn’t be responsible for a student slacking off or crashing in class and thus doing badly. Most teachers put in a lot of time and effort into their class, however fun or dry the class is. I just think it is really really disrespectful to not respect their effort. And you are actually wasting their time by dozing off in their class. Some concessions I am not talking about people who are sick, who’ve crashed like less than 5 times aka very rarely , have talked to their teachers about a problem, or have issues at home that causes them to need that extra hour or two of sleep. I have also crashed in school. Multiple times. I have also dreamt of doing it to spite a teacher cuz I knew that I’d be pissed off if someone slept off in my class on purpose. B. Doodling I love doodling and writing random nonsense along the margins of my notebook whatever paper I have near me while I’m taking notes. I am also one of those people who NEED to physically write stuff down while doodling AND hear it for it to get into my brain. I very rarely need to look back at it to remember it. So i find teachers who don’t allow students to doodle kinda on the dumber side of life or super snotty. At the same time, I do think that if a teacher has specifically told that they want all eyes on them when they convey something important maybe for a moment or two , people need to stop doodling. I really think that when teachers say something like that, it means they want eye contact and it’s just wrong not to give it to them since usually they’re just emphasizing something important that they might have said a second ago or will repeat again in a few minutes. Maybe it has been ingrained in me from my childhood, but not giving your teachers that little time is just wrong. — Here are my arguments I am actually quite keen on seeing the other side cuz I’ve been thinking about this a lot due to experiencing many different etiquetes during graduate school compared to my undergrad and high school experiences which are also very different compared to my schooling in India.","doodlingwhen specifically told not to for a few minutes and sleeping in class is disrespectful and not a right thing to do. Limiting this convo to school, not college"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I'm graduating from university in a month and a friend of mine are planning on renting a townhome together. We locked it down, and saw they allow pets. I've lived with a dog in my home all my life and thought it would be weird living without one, so I ran it by my roommate and he approved. As I was looking at puppies though, he seemed to be offended I wasn't looking at adult rescues, and we got into a short argument about rescuing an adult dog vs. rescuing adopting a puppy. He gave me something to consider, but didn't necessarily change my mind. So I'm posting here to see if reddit can offer points he did not make. My argument for adopting a puppy is this I have greater control over its eventual temperament and behavior. Adult shelter dogs often come with either behavioral or medical issues that made it undesirable to keep. I will, by virtue of the dog being younger, get to keep it longer. Control of Behavior A puppy is essentially a blank slate and you can train and raise it how you want beyond certain instinctual behaviors that might be ingrained into the animal prey drive, need to herd, ect. as a result of breed. I can easily socialize a puppy to other dogs or children, teach it to be comfortable riding in cars, house train it easily, teach it basic commands quickly, ect. If a three or four year old dog arrives and it is hyper aggressive to cats or deathly afraid of people because it was abused, it will be difficult as hell to get rid of that bad behavior, if you're able to get rid of it at all. Introducing it to new training techniques will also be harder, especially if the dog is used to another style of training. Shelter Issues I understand this isn't always the case, but a decent amount of adult dogs are rescue dogs for a reason. Dogs that failed out of police training because they couldn't obey any commands. Dogs that developed expensive medical conditions and the owners couldn't afford the maintenance anymore. Abused dogs that can't be touched without screaming or urinating. You don't have to worry about that most of the time with a puppy. Of course, medical conditions can crop up on any dog, but they're more likely to be an issue with adult rescue dogs than healthy puppies that have lived past 8 9 weeks. Longevity This is more self explanatory, but I'd like to be able to keep an animal I've formed a bond with as long as possible. 12 14 years is better than 8. I've kept 3 dogs from birth until death and all 3 times I wished I could've had them a lot longer. More time means more good memories for me to keep. I realize some of this might sound callous because hey, why wouldn't I want to finally give an abused or unwanted adult dog the home it deserves? It sucks that those things happen. It really does. But is it so wrong that I would want a dog without those issues, and instead have a dog with traits I know I'll like?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I'm graduating from university in a month and a friend of mine are planning on renting a townhome together. We locked it down, and saw they allow pets. I've lived with a dog in my home all my life and thought it would be weird living without one, so I ran it by my roommate and he approved. As I was looking at puppies though, he seemed to be offended I wasn't looking at adult rescues, and we got into a short argument about rescuing an adult dog vs. rescuing adopting a puppy. He gave me something to consider, but didn't necessarily change my mind. So I'm posting here to see if reddit can offer points he did not make. My argument for adopting a puppy is this I have greater control over its eventual temperament and behavior. Adult shelter dogs often come with either behavioral or medical issues that made it undesirable to keep. I will, by virtue of the dog being younger, get to keep it longer. Control of Behavior A puppy is essentially a blank slate and you can train and raise it how you want beyond certain instinctual behaviors that might be ingrained into the animal prey drive, need to herd, ect. as a result of breed. I can easily socialize a puppy to other dogs or children, teach it to be comfortable riding in cars, house train it easily, teach it basic commands quickly, ect. If a three or four year old dog arrives and it is hyper aggressive to cats or deathly afraid of people because it was abused, it will be difficult as hell to get rid of that bad behavior, if you're able to get rid of it at all. Introducing it to new training techniques will also be harder, especially if the dog is used to another style of training. Shelter Issues I understand this isn't always the case, but a decent amount of adult dogs are rescue dogs for a reason. Dogs that failed out of police training because they couldn't obey any commands. Dogs that developed expensive medical conditions and the owners couldn't afford the maintenance anymore. Abused dogs that can't be touched without screaming or urinating. You don't have to worry about that most of the time with a puppy. Of course, medical conditions can crop up on any dog, but they're more likely to be an issue with adult rescue dogs than healthy puppies that have lived past 8 9 weeks. Longevity This is more self explanatory, but I'd like to be able to keep an animal I've formed a bond with as long as possible. 12 14 years is better than 8. I've kept 3 dogs from birth until death and all 3 times I wished I could've had them a lot longer. More time means more good memories for me to keep. I realize some of this might sound callous because hey, why wouldn't I want to finally give an abused or unwanted adult dog the home it deserves? It sucks that those things happen. It really does. But is it so wrong that I would want a dog without those issues, and instead have a dog with traits I know I'll like?<|TARGETS|>a dog in my home all my life and thought it would be weird living without one so I ran it by my roommate and he approved ., Adult shelter dogs, to finally give an abused or unwanted adult dog the home it, n't looking at adult rescues, Dogs that failed out of police training, a dog without those issues and instead have a dog with traits I know I 'll like<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I'm graduating from university in a month and a friend of mine are planning on renting a townhome together. We locked it down, and saw they allow pets. I've lived with a dog in my home all my life and thought it would be weird living without one, so I ran it by my roommate and he approved. As I was looking at puppies though, he seemed to be offended I wasn't looking at adult rescues, and we got into a short argument about rescuing an adult dog vs. rescuing adopting a puppy. He gave me something to consider, but didn't necessarily change my mind. So I'm posting here to see if reddit can offer points he did not make. My argument for adopting a puppy is this I have greater control over its eventual temperament and behavior. Adult shelter dogs often come with either behavioral or medical issues that made it undesirable to keep. I will, by virtue of the dog being younger, get to keep it longer. Control of Behavior A puppy is essentially a blank slate and you can train and raise it how you want beyond certain instinctual behaviors that might be ingrained into the animal prey drive, need to herd, ect. as a result of breed. I can easily socialize a puppy to other dogs or children, teach it to be comfortable riding in cars, house train it easily, teach it basic commands quickly, ect. If a three or four year old dog arrives and it is hyper aggressive to cats or deathly afraid of people because it was abused, it will be difficult as hell to get rid of that bad behavior, if you're able to get rid of it at all. Introducing it to new training techniques will also be harder, especially if the dog is used to another style of training. Shelter Issues I understand this isn't always the case, but a decent amount of adult dogs are rescue dogs for a reason. Dogs that failed out of police training because they couldn't obey any commands. Dogs that developed expensive medical conditions and the owners couldn't afford the maintenance anymore. Abused dogs that can't be touched without screaming or urinating. You don't have to worry about that most of the time with a puppy. Of course, medical conditions can crop up on any dog, but they're more likely to be an issue with adult rescue dogs than healthy puppies that have lived past 8 9 weeks. Longevity This is more self explanatory, but I'd like to be able to keep an animal I've formed a bond with as long as possible. 12 14 years is better than 8. I've kept 3 dogs from birth until death and all 3 times I wished I could've had them a lot longer. More time means more good memories for me to keep. I realize some of this might sound callous because hey, why wouldn't I want to finally give an abused or unwanted adult dog the home it deserves? It sucks that those things happen. It really does. But is it so wrong that I would want a dog without those issues, and instead have a dog with traits I know I'll like?<|ASPECTS|>rescuing, renting, bad behavior, temperament and behavior, keep it longer, worry, medical issues, deathly afraid of people, behavioral, undesirable, points, police training, weird, townhome, blank, shelter, adult dogs, house train, obey any commands, eventual, unwanted adult dog, bond, adult rescues, abused, self explanatory, home, harder, control of behavior, adult, good memories, breed, control, longevity, socialize, hyper aggressive, traits, training, time, basic commands, greater, afford the maintenance, medical conditions, difficult, expensive medical conditions, sucks, things happen, comfortable riding, abused dogs, training techniques, rescue dogs, allow pets, touched, instinctual behaviors, change my mind, without<|CONCLUSION|>","So I'm graduating from university in a month and a friend of mine are planning on renting a townhome together. We locked it down, and saw they allow pets. I've lived with a dog in my home all my life and thought it would be weird living without one, so I ran it by my roommate and he approved. As I was looking at puppies though, he seemed to be offended I wasn't looking at adult rescues, and we got into a short argument about rescuing an adult dog vs. rescuing adopting a puppy. He gave me something to consider, but didn't necessarily change my mind. So I'm posting here to see if reddit can offer points he did not make. My argument for adopting a puppy is this I have greater control over its eventual temperament and behavior. Adult shelter dogs often come with either behavioral or medical issues that made it undesirable to keep. I will, by virtue of the dog being younger, get to keep it longer. Control of Behavior A puppy is essentially a blank slate and you can train and raise it how you want beyond certain instinctual behaviors that might be ingrained into the animal prey drive, need to herd, ect. as a result of breed. I can easily socialize a puppy to other dogs or children, teach it to be comfortable riding in cars, house train it easily, teach it basic commands quickly, ect. If a three or four year old dog arrives and it is hyper aggressive to cats or deathly afraid of people because it was abused, it will be difficult as hell to get rid of that bad behavior, if you're able to get rid of it at all. Introducing it to new training techniques will also be harder, especially if the dog is used to another style of training. Shelter Issues I understand this isn't always the case, but a decent amount of adult dogs are rescue dogs for a reason. Dogs that failed out of police training because they couldn't obey any commands. Dogs that developed expensive medical conditions and the owners couldn't afford the maintenance anymore. Abused dogs that can't be touched without screaming or urinating. You don't have to worry about that most of the time with a puppy. Of course, medical conditions can crop up on any dog, but they're more likely to be an issue with adult rescue dogs than healthy puppies that have lived past 8 9 weeks. Longevity This is more self explanatory, but I'd like to be able to keep an animal I've formed a bond with as long as possible. 12 14 years is better than 8. I've kept 3 dogs from birth until death and all 3 times I wished I could've had them a lot longer. More time means more good memories for me to keep. I realize some of this might sound callous because hey, why wouldn't I want to finally give an abused or unwanted adult dog the home it deserves? It sucks that those things happen. It really does. But is it so wrong that I would want a dog without those issues, and instead have a dog with traits I know I'll like?",Adopting a puppy is — in in the long term — preferable to rescuing an adult dog.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've tried seeking help multiple times. I've tried talking about it multiple times. It hasn't helped. Judging from past experiences, there's a big probability I'll never be happy even if I get help. Even if I don't kill myself there's a possibility a might end up homeless, even more addicted and or eventually prison and in an even worse position. It'd save a lot of money, suffering and time if I don't let it go on. You could argue that my friends would suffer too much to make it worth it or that it's selfish. But if this continues and I end up homeless, hopelessly addicted or something equally horrible then I would lose all my friends anyway. Point is, there's a big probability I'll lose them anyway. My family would be devastated most probably. But they suffer a lot as it is today because of me. I've tried talking but it never helps. This way they'd have a chance to move on with their lives. As it is they're stuck with a sinking ship. I'll probably never amount to anything. I'm gay so I won't continue my lineage or whatever. I'm too damaged to have a relationship. I'm a burden to everyone. My existance is pointless.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've tried seeking help multiple times. I've tried talking about it multiple times. It hasn't helped. Judging from past experiences, there's a big probability I'll never be happy even if I get help. Even if I don't kill myself there's a possibility a might end up homeless, even more addicted and or eventually prison and in an even worse position. It'd save a lot of money, suffering and time if I don't let it go on. You could argue that my friends would suffer too much to make it worth it or that it's selfish. But if this continues and I end up homeless, hopelessly addicted or something equally horrible then I would lose all my friends anyway. Point is, there's a big probability I'll lose them anyway. My family would be devastated most probably. But they suffer a lot as it is today because of me. I've tried talking but it never helps. This way they'd have a chance to move on with their lives. As it is they're stuck with a sinking ship. I'll probably never amount to anything. I'm gay so I won't continue my lineage or whatever. I'm too damaged to have a relationship. I'm a burden to everyone. My existance is pointless.<|TARGETS|>to make it worth it or that it 's selfish ., to move on with their lives ., wo n't continue my lineage or whatever ., tried talking about it multiple times ., Judging from past experiences<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've tried seeking help multiple times. I've tried talking about it multiple times. It hasn't helped. Judging from past experiences, there's a big probability I'll never be happy even if I get help. Even if I don't kill myself there's a possibility a might end up homeless, even more addicted and or eventually prison and in an even worse position. It'd save a lot of money, suffering and time if I don't let it go on. You could argue that my friends would suffer too much to make it worth it or that it's selfish. But if this continues and I end up homeless, hopelessly addicted or something equally horrible then I would lose all my friends anyway. Point is, there's a big probability I'll lose them anyway. My family would be devastated most probably. But they suffer a lot as it is today because of me. I've tried talking but it never helps. This way they'd have a chance to move on with their lives. As it is they're stuck with a sinking ship. I'll probably never amount to anything. I'm gay so I won't continue my lineage or whatever. I'm too damaged to have a relationship. I'm a burden to everyone. My existance is pointless.<|ASPECTS|>, relationship, sinking ship, never, probability, money, chance, lives, prison, move on with, friends, homeless, happy, burden, save, hopelessly addicted, devastated, existance, family, pointless, seeking help, lineage, suffering, time, suffer, amount to anything, damaged, addicted, gay, selfish, helped, lose, worth<|CONCLUSION|>","I've tried seeking help multiple times. I've tried talking about it multiple times. It hasn't helped. Judging from past experiences, there's a big probability I'll never be happy even if I get help. Even if I don't kill myself there's a possibility a might end up homeless, even more addicted and or eventually prison and in an even worse position. It'd save a lot of money, suffering and time if I don't let it go on. You could argue that my friends would suffer too much to make it worth it or that it's selfish. But if this continues and I end up homeless, hopelessly addicted or something equally horrible then I would lose all my friends anyway. Point is, there's a big probability I'll lose them anyway. My family would be devastated most probably. But they suffer a lot as it is today because of me. I've tried talking but it never helps. This way they'd have a chance to move on with their lives. As it is they're stuck with a sinking ship. I'll probably never amount to anything. I'm gay so I won't continue my lineage or whatever. I'm too damaged to have a relationship. I'm a burden to everyone. My existance is pointless.","Society, family and friends would benefit if I killed myself."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start, I want to make it clear I'm not leaving because I'm dropping out rather, I'm able to graduate after only two years of high school. Second, I want to point out that I will also be getting my Associates in Mathematics the same year I graduate. Third, I plan on going to a university immediately afterwards and begin working on my Bachelors and beyond. Finally, before getting into it, I am involved in school and volunteer activities I'm in debate and quiz bowl, and I'm part of my city's Mayor's Youth Commission, among others. I'm asking this because a lot of people seem to think that I should stay in high school longer, and I can understand a few of their arguments. I want to graduate because there's nothing left for me at the high school I will have exhausted it academically, and I see no reason, nor hold any want, to stay there if I don't gain anything from it. The most common argument I hear is, High school is about the social experience and getting ready to deal with people I.E., it's preparing me socially. Too this argument, and without going into much detail, I have been subject to a very, very messy custody battle, practically since birth. My parents acted like toddlers throughout the whole thing, and, due to that, I lost whatever childhood I had at an early age. I had to mature incredibly fast to deal with it and keep me sane, so I don't believe that this argument applies to me. The second argument I commonly hear, is that I should stay in high school so that I can spend time with my friends and family. To start, I don't have an incredible amount of friends the few I do have I usually talk to over the phone anyways. And, due to the above situation with my parents, I don't particularly care to stay around them longer than I have to the only thing that I want out of them right now is for them to give their permission for my early graduation last year. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start, I want to make it clear I'm not leaving because I'm dropping out rather, I'm able to graduate after only two years of high school. Second, I want to point out that I will also be getting my Associates in Mathematics the same year I graduate. Third, I plan on going to a university immediately afterwards and begin working on my Bachelors and beyond. Finally, before getting into it, I am involved in school and volunteer activities I'm in debate and quiz bowl, and I'm part of my city's Mayor's Youth Commission, among others. I'm asking this because a lot of people seem to think that I should stay in high school longer, and I can understand a few of their arguments. I want to graduate because there's nothing left for me at the high school I will have exhausted it academically, and I see no reason, nor hold any want, to stay there if I don't gain anything from it. The most common argument I hear is, High school is about the social experience and getting ready to deal with people I.E., it's preparing me socially. Too this argument, and without going into much detail, I have been subject to a very, very messy custody battle, practically since birth. My parents acted like toddlers throughout the whole thing, and, due to that, I lost whatever childhood I had at an early age. I had to mature incredibly fast to deal with it and keep me sane, so I don't believe that this argument applies to me. The second argument I commonly hear, is that I should stay in high school so that I can spend time with my friends and family. To start, I don't have an incredible amount of friends the few I do have I usually talk to over the phone anyways. And, due to the above situation with my parents, I don't particularly care to stay around them longer than I have to the only thing that I want out of them right now is for them to give their permission for my early graduation last year. <|TARGETS|>to graduate because there 's nothing left for me at the high school I will have exhausted it academically and I see no reason nor hold any want to stay there if I do n't gain anything from it ., n't particularly care to stay around them longer than I have to the only thing that I want out of them right now, an incredible amount of friends the few I do have I usually talk to over the phone, should stay in high school so that I can spend time with my friends and family ., to think that I should stay in high school longer, asking this because a lot of people<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start, I want to make it clear I'm not leaving because I'm dropping out rather, I'm able to graduate after only two years of high school. Second, I want to point out that I will also be getting my Associates in Mathematics the same year I graduate. Third, I plan on going to a university immediately afterwards and begin working on my Bachelors and beyond. Finally, before getting into it, I am involved in school and volunteer activities I'm in debate and quiz bowl, and I'm part of my city's Mayor's Youth Commission, among others. I'm asking this because a lot of people seem to think that I should stay in high school longer, and I can understand a few of their arguments. I want to graduate because there's nothing left for me at the high school I will have exhausted it academically, and I see no reason, nor hold any want, to stay there if I don't gain anything from it. The most common argument I hear is, High school is about the social experience and getting ready to deal with people I.E., it's preparing me socially. Too this argument, and without going into much detail, I have been subject to a very, very messy custody battle, practically since birth. My parents acted like toddlers throughout the whole thing, and, due to that, I lost whatever childhood I had at an early age. I had to mature incredibly fast to deal with it and keep me sane, so I don't believe that this argument applies to me. The second argument I commonly hear, is that I should stay in high school so that I can spend time with my friends and family. To start, I don't have an incredible amount of friends the few I do have I usually talk to over the phone anyways. And, due to the above situation with my parents, I don't particularly care to stay around them longer than I have to the only thing that I want out of them right now is for them to give their permission for my early graduation last year. <|ASPECTS|>lost, spend time, acted like toddlers, messy, mature incredibly fast, friends and family, friends, dropping, sane, permission, exhausted, associates, mathematics, socially, school, social experience, academically, gain, preparing, early graduation, custody battle, youth, volunteer activities, high school longer, graduate, childhood, bachelors<|CONCLUSION|>","To start, I want to make it clear I'm not leaving because I'm dropping out rather, I'm able to graduate after only two years of high school. Second, I want to point out that I will also be getting my Associates in Mathematics the same year I graduate. Third, I plan on going to a university immediately afterwards and begin working on my Bachelors and beyond. Finally, before getting into it, I am involved in school and volunteer activities I'm in debate and quiz bowl, and I'm part of my city's Mayor's Youth Commission, among others. I'm asking this because a lot of people seem to think that I should stay in high school longer, and I can understand a few of their arguments. I want to graduate because there's nothing left for me at the high school I will have exhausted it academically, and I see no reason, nor hold any want, to stay there if I don't gain anything from it. The most common argument I hear is, High school is about the social experience and getting ready to deal with people I.E., it's preparing me socially. Too this argument, and without going into much detail, I have been subject to a very, very messy custody battle, practically since birth. My parents acted like toddlers throughout the whole thing, and, due to that, I lost whatever childhood I had at an early age. I had to mature incredibly fast to deal with it and keep me sane, so I don't believe that this argument applies to me. The second argument I commonly hear, is that I should stay in high school so that I can spend time with my friends and family. To start, I don't have an incredible amount of friends the few I do have I usually talk to over the phone anyways. And, due to the above situation with my parents, I don't particularly care to stay around them longer than I have to the only thing that I want out of them right now is for them to give their permission for my early graduation last year.",There's no reason stay in high school for more than two years.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disregarding rape, I believe that sex between those with no sense of mutual exclusivity is inherently emotionally and psychologically damaging to all of the parties involved. I'm going to use an example of two friends throughout my explanation, because it's topical to the event that prompted this idea in my head, and because it highlights with clarity the risks of such behavior. If two friends decide to have sex, with the notion that they will not be entering into an exclusive relationship, I believe that there is nothing but harm that can come from that relationship. One person will invariably develop feelings for the other and will feel emotionally rejected by their partner. Additionally, if two friends have sex, they are throwing their friendship under the bus and disregarding what may have been an extremely beneficial past and future friendship for a few moments of physical pleasure. In my eyes, two people that aren't going to date should keep their hands off of each other. But I suppose that this is the 21st century, so this is an opinion that I am willing to change. I'm very open for discussion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disregarding rape, I believe that sex between those with no sense of mutual exclusivity is inherently emotionally and psychologically damaging to all of the parties involved. I'm going to use an example of two friends throughout my explanation, because it's topical to the event that prompted this idea in my head, and because it highlights with clarity the risks of such behavior. If two friends decide to have sex, with the notion that they will not be entering into an exclusive relationship, I believe that there is nothing but harm that can come from that relationship. One person will invariably develop feelings for the other and will feel emotionally rejected by their partner. Additionally, if two friends have sex, they are throwing their friendship under the bus and disregarding what may have been an extremely beneficial past and future friendship for a few moments of physical pleasure. In my eyes, two people that aren't going to date should keep their hands off of each other. But I suppose that this is the 21st century, so this is an opinion that I am willing to change. I'm very open for discussion<|TARGETS|>If two friends decide to have sex with the notion that they will not be entering into an exclusive relationship, to use an example of two friends throughout my explanation because it 's topical to the event that prompted this idea in my head, that sex between those with no sense of mutual exclusivity<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disregarding rape, I believe that sex between those with no sense of mutual exclusivity is inherently emotionally and psychologically damaging to all of the parties involved. I'm going to use an example of two friends throughout my explanation, because it's topical to the event that prompted this idea in my head, and because it highlights with clarity the risks of such behavior. If two friends decide to have sex, with the notion that they will not be entering into an exclusive relationship, I believe that there is nothing but harm that can come from that relationship. One person will invariably develop feelings for the other and will feel emotionally rejected by their partner. Additionally, if two friends have sex, they are throwing their friendship under the bus and disregarding what may have been an extremely beneficial past and future friendship for a few moments of physical pleasure. In my eyes, two people that aren't going to date should keep their hands off of each other. But I suppose that this is the 21st century, so this is an opinion that I am willing to change. I'm very open for discussion<|ASPECTS|>emotionally rejected, hands off of each, physical pleasure, psychologically damaging, risks, open, feelings, exclusive relationship, emotionally, harm, friendship, mutual exclusivity, 21st century<|CONCLUSION|>","Disregarding rape, I believe that sex between those with no sense of mutual exclusivity is inherently emotionally and psychologically damaging to all of the parties involved. I'm going to use an example of two friends throughout my explanation, because it's topical to the event that prompted this idea in my head, and because it highlights with clarity the risks of such behavior. If two friends decide to have sex, with the notion that they will not be entering into an exclusive relationship, I believe that there is nothing but harm that can come from that relationship. One person will invariably develop feelings for the other and will feel emotionally rejected by their partner. Additionally, if two friends have sex, they are throwing their friendship under the bus and disregarding what may have been an extremely beneficial past and future friendship for a few moments of physical pleasure. In my eyes, two people that aren't going to date should keep their hands off of each other. But I suppose that this is the 21st century, so this is an opinion that I am willing to change. I'm very open for discussion",that sex is inherently damaging to those in non-exclusive relationships.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Twitter and especially Reddit are absolutely AWFUL sites for people that want to have genuine discussion. The idea of karma or likes perpetuates a system where people don't speak their mind to the fullest extent, instead trying to appease the massages to get their updoots. Not to mention if someone does come by with a different opinion, they'll be circle jerked away while someone digs through their account to try to find something to discredit them with. It's not a big issue, until these platforms try and pretend to be for open discourse and discussion. Say what you will about 4chan, 8chan, etc. But no point system and full anonymity allow actual discussion between parties without the minority being silenced. I'm 100 willing to provide examples and hopefully reach a conclusion with whomever wishes to reply, and look forward to doing so. And dont get me started on Twitter's new cancel culture. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Twitter and especially Reddit are absolutely AWFUL sites for people that want to have genuine discussion. The idea of karma or likes perpetuates a system where people don't speak their mind to the fullest extent, instead trying to appease the massages to get their updoots. Not to mention if someone does come by with a different opinion, they'll be circle jerked away while someone digs through their account to try to find something to discredit them with. It's not a big issue, until these platforms try and pretend to be for open discourse and discussion. Say what you will about 4chan, 8chan, etc. But no point system and full anonymity allow actual discussion between parties without the minority being silenced. I'm 100 willing to provide examples and hopefully reach a conclusion with whomever wishes to reply, and look forward to doing so. And dont get me started on Twitter's new cancel culture. <|TARGETS|>Twitter and especially Reddit, to be for open discourse and discussion, The idea of karma or likes perpetuates a system where people do n't speak their mind to the fullest extent instead trying to appease the massages to get their updoots, Not to mention if someone does come by with a different opinion, to provide examples and hopefully reach a conclusion with whomever wishes to reply and look forward to doing so ., get me started on Twitter 's new cancel culture<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Twitter and especially Reddit are absolutely AWFUL sites for people that want to have genuine discussion. The idea of karma or likes perpetuates a system where people don't speak their mind to the fullest extent, instead trying to appease the massages to get their updoots. Not to mention if someone does come by with a different opinion, they'll be circle jerked away while someone digs through their account to try to find something to discredit them with. It's not a big issue, until these platforms try and pretend to be for open discourse and discussion. Say what you will about 4chan, 8chan, etc. But no point system and full anonymity allow actual discussion between parties without the minority being silenced. I'm 100 willing to provide examples and hopefully reach a conclusion with whomever wishes to reply, and look forward to doing so. And dont get me started on Twitter's new cancel culture. <|ASPECTS|>genuine discussion, examples, appease, minority, cancel culture, anonymity, discussion, new, discredit, mind, actual, karma, open discourse and discussion<|CONCLUSION|>","Twitter and especially Reddit are absolutely AWFUL sites for people that want to have genuine discussion. The idea of karma or likes perpetuates a system where people don't speak their mind to the fullest extent, instead trying to appease the massages to get their updoots. Not to mention if someone does come by with a different opinion, they'll be circle jerked away while someone digs through their account to try to find something to discredit them with. It's not a big issue, until these platforms try and pretend to be for open discourse and discussion. Say what you will about 4chan, 8chan, etc. But no point system and full anonymity allow actual discussion between parties without the minority being silenced. I'm 100 willing to provide examples and hopefully reach a conclusion with whomever wishes to reply, and look forward to doing so. And dont get me started on Twitter's new cancel culture.",Sites such as Twitter and Especially Reddit are very poor for discussion and almost always echochambers
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Germany faces a situation where the major treaty alliance which has protected it or the western half of it at least since the 1940s is in severe peril, and the guarantee of American protection is not as reliable as it once was. Further, with the UK exiting the EU, Germany and France remain the two historical great powers left in that bloc which also has a mutual self defense treaty As the largest and most economically advanced country of the EU, Germany should prepare to position itself as the military leader of Western Europe even absent American global hegemony. With an aggressive and revaunchist Russia to the east, the EU faces a real security threat and should develop the internal means to defeat a Russian invasion. This includes the plausible threat of mutually assured destruction against Russia. Right now, France is about to be the only nuclear weapons state within the EU, and they have IIRC only land based ICBMs which are vulnerable to a first strike. Without a secure guarantee from the US or UK, Germany should focus on developing a strong enough conventional force to stave off Russian aggression in the baltics, as well as a secondary nuclear strike capability probably constituting SLBMs like the UK has. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Germany faces a situation where the major treaty alliance which has protected it or the western half of it at least since the 1940s is in severe peril, and the guarantee of American protection is not as reliable as it once was. Further, with the UK exiting the EU, Germany and France remain the two historical great powers left in that bloc which also has a mutual self defense treaty As the largest and most economically advanced country of the EU, Germany should prepare to position itself as the military leader of Western Europe even absent American global hegemony. With an aggressive and revaunchist Russia to the east, the EU faces a real security threat and should develop the internal means to defeat a Russian invasion. This includes the plausible threat of mutually assured destruction against Russia. Right now, France is about to be the only nuclear weapons state within the EU, and they have IIRC only land based ICBMs which are vulnerable to a first strike. Without a secure guarantee from the US or UK, Germany should focus on developing a strong enough conventional force to stave off Russian aggression in the baltics, as well as a secondary nuclear strike capability probably constituting SLBMs like the UK has. <|TARGETS|>a secure guarantee from the US or UK, France, Germany, the major treaty alliance which has protected it or the western half of it at least since the 1940s<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Germany faces a situation where the major treaty alliance which has protected it or the western half of it at least since the 1940s is in severe peril, and the guarantee of American protection is not as reliable as it once was. Further, with the UK exiting the EU, Germany and France remain the two historical great powers left in that bloc which also has a mutual self defense treaty As the largest and most economically advanced country of the EU, Germany should prepare to position itself as the military leader of Western Europe even absent American global hegemony. With an aggressive and revaunchist Russia to the east, the EU faces a real security threat and should develop the internal means to defeat a Russian invasion. This includes the plausible threat of mutually assured destruction against Russia. Right now, France is about to be the only nuclear weapons state within the EU, and they have IIRC only land based ICBMs which are vulnerable to a first strike. Without a secure guarantee from the US or UK, Germany should focus on developing a strong enough conventional force to stave off Russian aggression in the baltics, as well as a secondary nuclear strike capability probably constituting SLBMs like the UK has. <|ASPECTS|>nuclear strike capability, land based, conventional force, american protection, internal means, mutually assured destruction, mutual self defense, vulnerable, secure guarantee, russian aggression, security threat, global hegemony, nuclear weapons state, military leader, stave, peril, first strike, guarantee, invasion<|CONCLUSION|>","Germany faces a situation where the major treaty alliance which has protected it or the western half of it at least since the 1940s is in severe peril, and the guarantee of American protection is not as reliable as it once was. Further, with the UK exiting the EU, Germany and France remain the two historical great powers left in that bloc which also has a mutual self defense treaty As the largest and most economically advanced country of the EU, Germany should prepare to position itself as the military leader of Western Europe even absent American global hegemony. With an aggressive and revaunchist Russia to the east, the EU faces a real security threat and should develop the internal means to defeat a Russian invasion. This includes the plausible threat of mutually assured destruction against Russia. Right now, France is about to be the only nuclear weapons state within the EU, and they have IIRC only land based ICBMs which are vulnerable to a first strike. Without a secure guarantee from the US or UK, Germany should focus on developing a strong enough conventional force to stave off Russian aggression in the baltics, as well as a secondary nuclear strike capability probably constituting SLBMs like the UK has.",Germany should consider a significant rearmament program including nuclear weapons.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the most part, humanity has existed at the expense of nearly all other inhabitants of Earth. We have driven extinctions of many species and habitats, and are now globally affecting the planet's climate which some scientists predict is the beginning of a mass extinction. We are beginning to seek colonization of other planets, primarily because we fear that Earth may soon be inhospitable. Realistically, we will carry the same habits to other planets and perpetuate the exploitation of native habitat and lifeforms. Our intelligence means we have heightened capacity for suffering. While it's true that we also have a great ability for happiness, can we justify the joy of some for the profound suffering of innocent others? We no longer follow ethics of nature. Ultimately, I feel no obligation to humanity. I feel no pride for humanity. I am excited for space travel, but I do not have the Musk ian passion to save humanity . CMV, tell me why you want to save humanity, and why the is the fate of humankind important to you. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the most part, humanity has existed at the expense of nearly all other inhabitants of Earth. We have driven extinctions of many species and habitats, and are now globally affecting the planet's climate which some scientists predict is the beginning of a mass extinction. We are beginning to seek colonization of other planets, primarily because we fear that Earth may soon be inhospitable. Realistically, we will carry the same habits to other planets and perpetuate the exploitation of native habitat and lifeforms. Our intelligence means we have heightened capacity for suffering. While it's true that we also have a great ability for happiness, can we justify the joy of some for the profound suffering of innocent others? We no longer follow ethics of nature. Ultimately, I feel no obligation to humanity. I feel no pride for humanity. I am excited for space travel, but I do not have the Musk ian passion to save humanity . CMV, tell me why you want to save humanity, and why the is the fate of humankind important to you. <|TARGETS|>space travel, the Musk ian passion to save humanity ., Our intelligence, the joy of some for the profound suffering of innocent others, to seek colonization of other planets<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the most part, humanity has existed at the expense of nearly all other inhabitants of Earth. We have driven extinctions of many species and habitats, and are now globally affecting the planet's climate which some scientists predict is the beginning of a mass extinction. We are beginning to seek colonization of other planets, primarily because we fear that Earth may soon be inhospitable. Realistically, we will carry the same habits to other planets and perpetuate the exploitation of native habitat and lifeforms. Our intelligence means we have heightened capacity for suffering. While it's true that we also have a great ability for happiness, can we justify the joy of some for the profound suffering of innocent others? We no longer follow ethics of nature. Ultimately, I feel no obligation to humanity. I feel no pride for humanity. I am excited for space travel, but I do not have the Musk ian passion to save humanity . CMV, tell me why you want to save humanity, and why the is the fate of humankind important to you. <|ASPECTS|>native habitat, extinctions, profound, lifeforms, mass extinction, pride for humanity, space travel, expense, obligation to humanity, save humanity, innocent others, happiness, inhospitable, habits, colonization of, suffering, exploitation, globally, fate of humankind, humanity, ethics of nature, heightened, capacity for suffering, climate, driven<|CONCLUSION|>","For the most part, humanity has existed at the expense of nearly all other inhabitants of Earth. We have driven extinctions of many species and habitats, and are now globally affecting the planet's climate which some scientists predict is the beginning of a mass extinction. We are beginning to seek colonization of other planets, primarily because we fear that Earth may soon be inhospitable. Realistically, we will carry the same habits to other planets and perpetuate the exploitation of native habitat and lifeforms. Our intelligence means we have heightened capacity for suffering. While it's true that we also have a great ability for happiness, can we justify the joy of some for the profound suffering of innocent others? We no longer follow ethics of nature. Ultimately, I feel no obligation to humanity. I feel no pride for humanity. I am excited for space travel, but I do not have the Musk ian passion to save humanity . , tell me why you want to save humanity, and why the is the fate of humankind important to you.",humanity isn't worth saving
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the early days of the novel 18th century , a lot of books were written to resemble actual, real documents Dangerous Liaisons was purportedly a collection of real letters thrown out of a carriage at the author's feet Gulliver's Travels were supposedly actual travel diaries from one Lemuel Gulliver. The notion that some of the stories being published could actually be real not only added to the popularity of such books, but were also a measure of the gullibility of the reader it said something about you if you accepted or rejected the existence of Houyhnhnms. I believe the correct term for this is mystification although that term can also refer to deliberate, malicious forgery with intend to defraud, like James Frey's A Million Little Pieces I'm referring to writing that is not malicious in intent, but playful . As books became more mainstream, and readers more experienced, this kind of deception became less and less effective. These days, bookstores have clearly marked Fiction and Nonfiction sections, and authors presenting fiction as reality might face a lawsuit or public scorn. And that's a shame fiction that provokes and possibly upsets its audience is a testament to the power of the written word. The practice of deceiving your audience has largely fallen out of use. One notable exception is the movie The Blair Witch Project, which was carefully marketed to be actual footage, going so far as contractually forcing the actors involved in the movie to not make any public appearances after the movie came out. Again, the idea that this could actually be real was what made the movie such a sensation which is not to say that it's a masterpiece necessarily . Now on to the Jenny and Carly story for those who don't know it, a series of r tifu posts here is part 1 claiming to be about OP discovering his wife's infidelity . The posts have become wildly popular over the last few days, and have invited lots of speculation about their veracity. People are examining OP's posts for clues that he's lying, and I think it's safe to argue that not knowing if it's real or not is part of the attraction of the story the comments definitely suggest so . Many comments also say that the posts are entertaining regardless of whether they're true or not. So popular, controversial, playing with notions of truth or falsehood it fits the bill. My conclusion is that, if forged, OP's posts can be considered as a form of literature. You can argue about the quality of the literature, but you can't deny its impact plenty of redditors were mesmerized for several days, hanging onto every update that OP produced. Plenty of published books cannot claim the same kind of effect. Most of all, I applaud the fact that a new channel has been found for presenting fiction as fact. I'd love to hear your arguments against my claim. Edit Delta awarded to u DaystarEld. Calling this 'literature' is too much of a stretch. Edit 2 Delta awarded to u duckwantbread, who rightly points out that the deception only works because it is pandering.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the early days of the novel 18th century , a lot of books were written to resemble actual, real documents Dangerous Liaisons was purportedly a collection of real letters thrown out of a carriage at the author's feet Gulliver's Travels were supposedly actual travel diaries from one Lemuel Gulliver. The notion that some of the stories being published could actually be real not only added to the popularity of such books, but were also a measure of the gullibility of the reader it said something about you if you accepted or rejected the existence of Houyhnhnms. I believe the correct term for this is mystification although that term can also refer to deliberate, malicious forgery with intend to defraud, like James Frey's A Million Little Pieces I'm referring to writing that is not malicious in intent, but playful . As books became more mainstream, and readers more experienced, this kind of deception became less and less effective. These days, bookstores have clearly marked Fiction and Nonfiction sections, and authors presenting fiction as reality might face a lawsuit or public scorn. And that's a shame fiction that provokes and possibly upsets its audience is a testament to the power of the written word. The practice of deceiving your audience has largely fallen out of use. One notable exception is the movie The Blair Witch Project, which was carefully marketed to be actual footage, going so far as contractually forcing the actors involved in the movie to not make any public appearances after the movie came out. Again, the idea that this could actually be real was what made the movie such a sensation which is not to say that it's a masterpiece necessarily . Now on to the Jenny and Carly story for those who don't know it, a series of r tifu posts here is part 1 claiming to be about OP discovering his wife's infidelity . The posts have become wildly popular over the last few days, and have invited lots of speculation about their veracity. People are examining OP's posts for clues that he's lying, and I think it's safe to argue that not knowing if it's real or not is part of the attraction of the story the comments definitely suggest so . Many comments also say that the posts are entertaining regardless of whether they're true or not. So popular, controversial, playing with notions of truth or falsehood it fits the bill. My conclusion is that, if forged, OP's posts can be considered as a form of literature. You can argue about the quality of the literature, but you can't deny its impact plenty of redditors were mesmerized for several days, hanging onto every update that OP produced. Plenty of published books cannot claim the same kind of effect. Most of all, I applaud the fact that a new channel has been found for presenting fiction as fact. I'd love to hear your arguments against my claim. Edit Delta awarded to u DaystarEld. Calling this 'literature' is too much of a stretch. Edit 2 Delta awarded to u duckwantbread, who rightly points out that the deception only works because it is pandering.<|TARGETS|>a new channel, to argue that not knowing if it 's real or not is part of the attraction of the story the comments, the early days of the novel 18th century a lot of books were written to resemble actual real documents Dangerous Liaisons was purportedly a collection of real letters thrown out of a carriage at the author 's feet Gulliver 's Travels, The notion that some of the stories being published, OP 's posts for clues, The practice of deceiving your audience<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the early days of the novel 18th century , a lot of books were written to resemble actual, real documents Dangerous Liaisons was purportedly a collection of real letters thrown out of a carriage at the author's feet Gulliver's Travels were supposedly actual travel diaries from one Lemuel Gulliver. The notion that some of the stories being published could actually be real not only added to the popularity of such books, but were also a measure of the gullibility of the reader it said something about you if you accepted or rejected the existence of Houyhnhnms. I believe the correct term for this is mystification although that term can also refer to deliberate, malicious forgery with intend to defraud, like James Frey's A Million Little Pieces I'm referring to writing that is not malicious in intent, but playful . As books became more mainstream, and readers more experienced, this kind of deception became less and less effective. These days, bookstores have clearly marked Fiction and Nonfiction sections, and authors presenting fiction as reality might face a lawsuit or public scorn. And that's a shame fiction that provokes and possibly upsets its audience is a testament to the power of the written word. The practice of deceiving your audience has largely fallen out of use. One notable exception is the movie The Blair Witch Project, which was carefully marketed to be actual footage, going so far as contractually forcing the actors involved in the movie to not make any public appearances after the movie came out. Again, the idea that this could actually be real was what made the movie such a sensation which is not to say that it's a masterpiece necessarily . Now on to the Jenny and Carly story for those who don't know it, a series of r tifu posts here is part 1 claiming to be about OP discovering his wife's infidelity . The posts have become wildly popular over the last few days, and have invited lots of speculation about their veracity. People are examining OP's posts for clues that he's lying, and I think it's safe to argue that not knowing if it's real or not is part of the attraction of the story the comments definitely suggest so . Many comments also say that the posts are entertaining regardless of whether they're true or not. So popular, controversial, playing with notions of truth or falsehood it fits the bill. My conclusion is that, if forged, OP's posts can be considered as a form of literature. You can argue about the quality of the literature, but you can't deny its impact plenty of redditors were mesmerized for several days, hanging onto every update that OP produced. Plenty of published books cannot claim the same kind of effect. Most of all, I applaud the fact that a new channel has been found for presenting fiction as fact. I'd love to hear your arguments against my claim. Edit Delta awarded to u DaystarEld. Calling this 'literature' is too much of a stretch. Edit 2 Delta awarded to u duckwantbread, who rightly points out that the deception only works because it is pandering.<|ASPECTS|>pandering, actual footage, letters, deliberate, real, less effective, public scorn, malicious forgery, attraction, effect, lying, falsehood, malicious, truth, audience, gullibility of the reader, stretch, popularity, speculation, public appearances, deception, literature, sensation, written word, clues, fiction as fact, infidelity, defraud, quality of the literature, upsets, veracity, entertaining, deceiving your audience, form, power, less, lawsuit, masterpiece, mystification, use, travel diaries, impact<|CONCLUSION|>","In the early days of the novel 18th century , a lot of books were written to resemble actual, real documents Dangerous Liaisons was purportedly a collection of real letters thrown out of a carriage at the author's feet Gulliver's Travels were supposedly actual travel diaries from one Lemuel Gulliver. The notion that some of the stories being published could actually be real not only added to the popularity of such books, but were also a measure of the gullibility of the reader it said something about you if you accepted or rejected the existence of Houyhnhnms. I believe the correct term for this is mystification although that term can also refer to deliberate, malicious forgery with intend to defraud, like James Frey's A Million Little Pieces I'm referring to writing that is not malicious in intent, but playful . As books became more mainstream, and readers more experienced, this kind of deception became less and less effective. These days, bookstores have clearly marked Fiction and Nonfiction sections, and authors presenting fiction as reality might face a lawsuit or public scorn. And that's a shame fiction that provokes and possibly upsets its audience is a testament to the power of the written word. The practice of deceiving your audience has largely fallen out of use. One notable exception is the movie The Blair Witch Project, which was carefully marketed to be actual footage, going so far as contractually forcing the actors involved in the movie to not make any public appearances after the movie came out. Again, the idea that this could actually be real was what made the movie such a sensation which is not to say that it's a masterpiece necessarily . Now on to the Jenny and Carly story for those who don't know it, a series of r tifu posts here is part 1 claiming to be about OP discovering his wife's infidelity . The posts have become wildly popular over the last few days, and have invited lots of speculation about their veracity. People are examining OP's posts for clues that he's lying, and I think it's safe to argue that not knowing if it's real or not is part of the attraction of the story the comments definitely suggest so . Many comments also say that the posts are entertaining regardless of whether they're true or not. So popular, controversial, playing with notions of truth or falsehood it fits the bill. My conclusion is that, if forged, OP's posts can be considered as a form of literature. You can argue about the quality of the literature, but you can't deny its impact plenty of redditors were mesmerized for several days, hanging onto every update that OP produced. Plenty of published books cannot claim the same kind of effect. Most of all, I applaud the fact that a new channel has been found for presenting fiction as fact. I'd love to hear your arguments against my claim. Edit Delta awarded to u DaystarEld. Calling this 'literature' is too much of a stretch. Edit 2 Delta awarded to u duckwantbread, who rightly points out that the deception only works because it is pandering.","If the Jenny and Carly story is fake, it should be praised for reinveting mystification, not condemned as deception"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've felt guilty for the longest time for not giving a shit about gay marriage rights. Today it hit me why should ANY married folks get special treatment in the form of tax dollars? What's wrong with being single? I haven't seen this question addressed, but it's fundamentally more important. There's definitely purpose for legally bonding two people, but there should not be awards and incentives. The argument shouldn't just be Gays should get the same rights as straights . The argument should include Straights have no right to financial privileges along with legally bonding, and neither should gays .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've felt guilty for the longest time for not giving a shit about gay marriage rights. Today it hit me why should ANY married folks get special treatment in the form of tax dollars? What's wrong with being single? I haven't seen this question addressed, but it's fundamentally more important. There's definitely purpose for legally bonding two people, but there should not be awards and incentives. The argument shouldn't just be Gays should get the same rights as straights . The argument should include Straights have no right to financial privileges along with legally bonding, and neither should gays .<|TARGETS|>legally bonding two people, should ANY married folks get special treatment in the form of tax dollars, giving a shit about gay marriage rights, The argument<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've felt guilty for the longest time for not giving a shit about gay marriage rights. Today it hit me why should ANY married folks get special treatment in the form of tax dollars? What's wrong with being single? I haven't seen this question addressed, but it's fundamentally more important. There's definitely purpose for legally bonding two people, but there should not be awards and incentives. The argument shouldn't just be Gays should get the same rights as straights . The argument should include Straights have no right to financial privileges along with legally bonding, and neither should gays .<|ASPECTS|>important, guilty, legally bonding, legally bonding two, financial privileges, fundamentally, purpose, awards and incentives, rights as straights, tax dollars, right, gay marriage rights, single, special treatment<|CONCLUSION|>","I've felt guilty for the longest time for not giving a shit about gay marriage rights. Today it hit me why should ANY married folks get special treatment in the form of tax dollars? What's wrong with being single? I haven't seen this question addressed, but it's fundamentally more important. There's definitely purpose for legally bonding two people, but there should not be awards and incentives. The argument shouldn't just be Gays should get the same rights as straights . The argument should include Straights have no right to financial privileges along with legally bonding, and neither should gays .",Marrieds' rights vs. Singles' rights
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's no doubt feminism has done a lot for women and for humanity as a whole, and continues to do so. Whether it's equal pay, voting rights, education, or fighting sexual assault. But I do think that much of feminism focuses on issues that aren't really that important in the big picture of things. For example, media representation of women. Yes, I understand there are issues that need to be dealt with and that women are often either underrepresented in the media or are presented in an offensive manner. But is that really as important as, say, NSA wiretapping? The lyrics to Blurred Lines might be offensive, but more offensive than the fact that the CIA apparently spied on Congress? Is the impact of porn on men and women as important as climate change? Is the fact that some dumbass congressional candidate said something about rape as important as rising income inequality? Are body image issues as important as a war that drags on in Afghanistan? Are abortion and contraception as important as a dysfunctional criminal justice system? My point is that feminism, while doing a lot of great things in a lot of very important areas, seems to burn a lot of energy and time on things that don't seem very important in the big picture of things. Equal pay and voting rights are important. Cultural issues like media representation and porn? Not as important.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's no doubt feminism has done a lot for women and for humanity as a whole, and continues to do so. Whether it's equal pay, voting rights, education, or fighting sexual assault. But I do think that much of feminism focuses on issues that aren't really that important in the big picture of things. For example, media representation of women. Yes, I understand there are issues that need to be dealt with and that women are often either underrepresented in the media or are presented in an offensive manner. But is that really as important as, say, NSA wiretapping? The lyrics to Blurred Lines might be offensive, but more offensive than the fact that the CIA apparently spied on Congress? Is the impact of porn on men and women as important as climate change? Is the fact that some dumbass congressional candidate said something about rape as important as rising income inequality? Are body image issues as important as a war that drags on in Afghanistan? Are abortion and contraception as important as a dysfunctional criminal justice system? My point is that feminism, while doing a lot of great things in a lot of very important areas, seems to burn a lot of energy and time on things that don't seem very important in the big picture of things. Equal pay and voting rights are important. Cultural issues like media representation and porn? Not as important.<|TARGETS|>Equal pay and voting rights, to be dealt with and that women are often either underrepresented in the media or are presented in an offensive manner ., some dumbass congressional candidate, NSA wiretapping, abortion and contraception, Cultural issues like media representation and porn<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's no doubt feminism has done a lot for women and for humanity as a whole, and continues to do so. Whether it's equal pay, voting rights, education, or fighting sexual assault. But I do think that much of feminism focuses on issues that aren't really that important in the big picture of things. For example, media representation of women. Yes, I understand there are issues that need to be dealt with and that women are often either underrepresented in the media or are presented in an offensive manner. But is that really as important as, say, NSA wiretapping? The lyrics to Blurred Lines might be offensive, but more offensive than the fact that the CIA apparently spied on Congress? Is the impact of porn on men and women as important as climate change? Is the fact that some dumbass congressional candidate said something about rape as important as rising income inequality? Are body image issues as important as a war that drags on in Afghanistan? Are abortion and contraception as important as a dysfunctional criminal justice system? My point is that feminism, while doing a lot of great things in a lot of very important areas, seems to burn a lot of energy and time on things that don't seem very important in the big picture of things. Equal pay and voting rights are important. Cultural issues like media representation and porn? Not as important.<|ASPECTS|>sexual assault, equal pay, cia, energy, feminism, rising, income inequality, women, burn, congress, media representation of women, voting rights, important, rape, dysfunctional criminal justice system, offensive, climate change, nsa, body image issues, time, cultural issues, offensive manner, underrepresented, humanity, media representation, fighting, war, education, wiretapping, impact, issues<|CONCLUSION|>","There's no doubt feminism has done a lot for women and for humanity as a whole, and continues to do so. Whether it's equal pay, voting rights, education, or fighting sexual assault. But I do think that much of feminism focuses on issues that aren't really that important in the big picture of things. For example, media representation of women. Yes, I understand there are issues that need to be dealt with and that women are often either underrepresented in the media or are presented in an offensive manner. But is that really as important as, say, NSA wiretapping? The lyrics to Blurred Lines might be offensive, but more offensive than the fact that the CIA apparently spied on Congress? Is the impact of porn on men and women as important as climate change? Is the fact that some dumbass congressional candidate said something about rape as important as rising income inequality? Are body image issues as important as a war that drags on in Afghanistan? Are abortion and contraception as important as a dysfunctional criminal justice system? My point is that feminism, while doing a lot of great things in a lot of very important areas, seems to burn a lot of energy and time on things that don't seem very important in the big picture of things. Equal pay and voting rights are important. Cultural issues like media representation and porn? Not as important.",I believe modern feminism spends too much time discussing irrelevant issues and ignores more important issues.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The US went into Korea thinking they could handle anything and that it was just another country. Instead they got their asses handed to them by the Chinese, only achieving a stalemate. Although they preserved the independence of South Korea, this was actually a major blow to the American government. Not only were they unable to defeat a country that devastated by war only 2 years prior, their top general McArthur resorted to the tactical advantage of atomic weaponry. Although they would surely have won the war by bombing China, this was completely unexpected, as the Chinese were thought to be poor soldiers and unable to protect themselves from Japan, which America defeated and essentially turned into their vassal country. America was economically, militarily, and scientifically superior to China, yet were unable to defeat them in conventional warfare. The Chinese didn't even have communication technology. Many Chinese units were left stranded by themselves for days and sometimes weeks. This was both a moral as well as military loss for America.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The US went into Korea thinking they could handle anything and that it was just another country. Instead they got their asses handed to them by the Chinese, only achieving a stalemate. Although they preserved the independence of South Korea, this was actually a major blow to the American government. Not only were they unable to defeat a country that devastated by war only 2 years prior, their top general McArthur resorted to the tactical advantage of atomic weaponry. Although they would surely have won the war by bombing China, this was completely unexpected, as the Chinese were thought to be poor soldiers and unable to protect themselves from Japan, which America defeated and essentially turned into their vassal country. America was economically, militarily, and scientifically superior to China, yet were unable to defeat them in conventional warfare. The Chinese didn't even have communication technology. Many Chinese units were left stranded by themselves for days and sometimes weeks. This was both a moral as well as military loss for America.<|TARGETS|>the war by bombing China, The Chinese, Many Chinese units<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The US went into Korea thinking they could handle anything and that it was just another country. Instead they got their asses handed to them by the Chinese, only achieving a stalemate. Although they preserved the independence of South Korea, this was actually a major blow to the American government. Not only were they unable to defeat a country that devastated by war only 2 years prior, their top general McArthur resorted to the tactical advantage of atomic weaponry. Although they would surely have won the war by bombing China, this was completely unexpected, as the Chinese were thought to be poor soldiers and unable to protect themselves from Japan, which America defeated and essentially turned into their vassal country. America was economically, militarily, and scientifically superior to China, yet were unable to defeat them in conventional warfare. The Chinese didn't even have communication technology. Many Chinese units were left stranded by themselves for days and sometimes weeks. This was both a moral as well as military loss for America.<|ASPECTS|>stalemate, protect, moral, american government, military loss, economically, devastated by war, independence, left, atomic weaponry, south, blow, defeat, tactical advantage, america, scientifically superior, communication technology, militarily, handle anything, asses, poor soldiers, preserved, stranded, bombing china, conventional warfare<|CONCLUSION|>","The US went into Korea thinking they could handle anything and that it was just another country. Instead they got their asses handed to them by the Chinese, only achieving a stalemate. Although they preserved the independence of South Korea, this was actually a major blow to the American government. Not only were they unable to defeat a country that devastated by war only 2 years prior, their top general McArthur resorted to the tactical advantage of atomic weaponry. Although they would surely have won the war by bombing China, this was completely unexpected, as the Chinese were thought to be poor soldiers and unable to protect themselves from Japan, which America defeated and essentially turned into their vassal country. America was economically, militarily, and scientifically superior to China, yet were unable to defeat them in conventional warfare. The Chinese didn't even have communication technology. Many Chinese units were left stranded by themselves for days and sometimes weeks. This was both a moral as well as military loss for America.",The Korean War Was a Loss For America.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We all know the standard reasons why some people are against religion. But my reason is because teaching a child about religion is basically brainwashing and indoctrination. I say that the only way to eliminate religion is to ban all religious teachings. If a person grows up never learning that such a thing as religion ever existed, religion will be gone in one generation. My plan is simple, just make all children be raised by the State rather than their biological parents, and punish anyone who mentions anything about religion. After all the moronic religious people have died, and the children who know nothing about religion have grown up, we can go back to the parents raising children. Also, books will not have to be burned, because once a child reaches maturity, if they hear that some magical man in the sky created them, they will consider it nothing more than bad science fiction. Please tell me why this is a bad idea.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We all know the standard reasons why some people are against religion. But my reason is because teaching a child about religion is basically brainwashing and indoctrination. I say that the only way to eliminate religion is to ban all religious teachings. If a person grows up never learning that such a thing as religion ever existed, religion will be gone in one generation. My plan is simple, just make all children be raised by the State rather than their biological parents, and punish anyone who mentions anything about religion. After all the moronic religious people have died, and the children who know nothing about religion have grown up, we can go back to the parents raising children. Also, books will not have to be burned, because once a child reaches maturity, if they hear that some magical man in the sky created them, they will consider it nothing more than bad science fiction. Please tell me why this is a bad idea.<|TARGETS|>if they hear that some magical man in the sky created them, teaching a child about religion, If a person grows up never learning that such a thing as religion ever existed, My plan, all children be raised by the State rather than their biological parents and punish anyone who mentions anything about religion ., to eliminate religion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We all know the standard reasons why some people are against religion. But my reason is because teaching a child about religion is basically brainwashing and indoctrination. I say that the only way to eliminate religion is to ban all religious teachings. If a person grows up never learning that such a thing as religion ever existed, religion will be gone in one generation. My plan is simple, just make all children be raised by the State rather than their biological parents, and punish anyone who mentions anything about religion. After all the moronic religious people have died, and the children who know nothing about religion have grown up, we can go back to the parents raising children. Also, books will not have to be burned, because once a child reaches maturity, if they hear that some magical man in the sky created them, they will consider it nothing more than bad science fiction. Please tell me why this is a bad idea.<|ASPECTS|>bad science fiction, , moronic, ban, religion, punish, religious people, brainwashing, parents raising children, indoctrination, standard, eliminate religion, the state, religious teachings, bad idea<|CONCLUSION|>","We all know the standard reasons why some people are against religion. But my reason is because teaching a child about religion is basically brainwashing and indoctrination. I say that the only way to eliminate religion is to ban all religious teachings. If a person grows up never learning that such a thing as religion ever existed, religion will be gone in one generation. My plan is simple, just make all children be raised by the State rather than their biological parents, and punish anyone who mentions anything about religion. After all the moronic religious people have died, and the children who know nothing about religion have grown up, we can go back to the parents raising children. Also, books will not have to be burned, because once a child reaches maturity, if they hear that some magical man in the sky created them, they will consider it nothing more than bad science fiction. Please tell me why this is a bad idea.",I say that religion is inherently bad and has always been a destructive force in every society.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Subreddits like r pics and r askreddit and r perfectloops are riddled with pictures and jokes of women. 1 2 3 Let alone the subreddits that objectify women like r gonewild, r gentlemanboners, r sexy. Now I understand that only 2 of these are default subs but that's where my problem lies. The front page of the internet should not have obviously sexual pictures of women if it wants to continue holding that title. There are other places on reddit for that. My problem with r gonewild and the like is that it permeates into the default subreddits daily either from crossposts or overt questions on r askreddit. If I wanted to be a part of that community, I would have subscribed to those subs. As for blocking NSFW posts, half of the subs I follow use NSFW tags to denote spoilers or use NSFW tags for every post r goingtohellforthis . I'm just kind of rambling on right now partly due to all of the caffeine I drank this morning preventing me from thinking straight and forming a logical standpoint and partly from thinking that the subject is hard to ignore if you have spent over an hour on reddit at some point in your life. Maybe you can help CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Subreddits like r pics and r askreddit and r perfectloops are riddled with pictures and jokes of women. 1 2 3 Let alone the subreddits that objectify women like r gonewild, r gentlemanboners, r sexy. Now I understand that only 2 of these are default subs but that's where my problem lies. The front page of the internet should not have obviously sexual pictures of women if it wants to continue holding that title. There are other places on reddit for that. My problem with r gonewild and the like is that it permeates into the default subreddits daily either from crossposts or overt questions on r askreddit. If I wanted to be a part of that community, I would have subscribed to those subs. As for blocking NSFW posts, half of the subs I follow use NSFW tags to denote spoilers or use NSFW tags for every post r goingtohellforthis . I'm just kind of rambling on right now partly due to all of the caffeine I drank this morning preventing me from thinking straight and forming a logical standpoint and partly from thinking that the subject is hard to ignore if you have spent over an hour on reddit at some point in your life. Maybe you can help CMV.<|TARGETS|>to be a part of that community, Subreddits like r pics and r askreddit and r perfectloops, blocking NSFW posts, to ignore if you have spent over an hour on reddit at some point in your life ., just kind of rambling on right now partly due to all of the caffeine I drank this morning preventing me from thinking straight and forming a logical standpoint and partly from thinking that the subject, the default subreddits daily either from crossposts or overt questions on r askreddit .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Subreddits like r pics and r askreddit and r perfectloops are riddled with pictures and jokes of women. 1 2 3 Let alone the subreddits that objectify women like r gonewild, r gentlemanboners, r sexy. Now I understand that only 2 of these are default subs but that's where my problem lies. The front page of the internet should not have obviously sexual pictures of women if it wants to continue holding that title. There are other places on reddit for that. My problem with r gonewild and the like is that it permeates into the default subreddits daily either from crossposts or overt questions on r askreddit. If I wanted to be a part of that community, I would have subscribed to those subs. As for blocking NSFW posts, half of the subs I follow use NSFW tags to denote spoilers or use NSFW tags for every post r goingtohellforthis . I'm just kind of rambling on right now partly due to all of the caffeine I drank this morning preventing me from thinking straight and forming a logical standpoint and partly from thinking that the subject is hard to ignore if you have spent over an hour on reddit at some point in your life. Maybe you can help CMV.<|ASPECTS|>women, permeates, help cmv, objectify women, default subs, pictures, spoilers, sexual pictures, gonewild, default, subscribed, logical, hard to ignore, thinking, caffeine, jokes of women<|CONCLUSION|>","Subreddits like r pics and r askreddit and r perfectloops are riddled with pictures and jokes of women. 1 2 3 Let alone the subreddits that objectify women like r gonewild, r gentlemanboners, r sexy. Now I understand that only 2 of these are default subs but that's where my problem lies. The front page of the internet should not have obviously sexual pictures of women if it wants to continue holding that title. There are other places on reddit for that. My problem with r gonewild and the like is that it permeates into the default subreddits daily either from crossposts or overt questions on r askreddit. If I wanted to be a part of that community, I would have subscribed to those subs. As for blocking NSFW posts, half of the subs I follow use NSFW tags to denote spoilers or use NSFW tags for every post r goingtohellforthis . I'm just kind of rambling on right now partly due to all of the caffeine I drank this morning preventing me from thinking straight and forming a logical standpoint and partly from thinking that the subject is hard to ignore if you have spent over an hour on reddit at some point in your life. Maybe you can help .",I think the over sexualization of women on Reddit is repulsive and detracts from the quality of Reddit.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My friend has installed this program onto his computer known as f.lux which changes the color of the screen in regards to the time of day. It makes the screen this odd sort of orange when the sun goes down. He claims it helps eyesight during late night browsing. I don't believe this, if it were as simple as putting this on then why didn't the programmers of the computer put it on there originally? The computer could be damaged by this kind of alteration. For this odd orange shade to be on the computer is not natural and I don't want his laptop to be broken. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My friend has installed this program onto his computer known as f.lux which changes the color of the screen in regards to the time of day. It makes the screen this odd sort of orange when the sun goes down. He claims it helps eyesight during late night browsing. I don't believe this, if it were as simple as putting this on then why didn't the programmers of the computer put it on there originally? The computer could be damaged by this kind of alteration. For this odd orange shade to be on the computer is not natural and I don't want his laptop to be broken. CMV<|TARGETS|>The computer, if it were as simple as putting this on then why did n't the programmers of the computer put it on there originally, For this odd orange shade to be on the computer, installed this program onto his computer known as f.lux<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My friend has installed this program onto his computer known as f.lux which changes the color of the screen in regards to the time of day. It makes the screen this odd sort of orange when the sun goes down. He claims it helps eyesight during late night browsing. I don't believe this, if it were as simple as putting this on then why didn't the programmers of the computer put it on there originally? The computer could be damaged by this kind of alteration. For this odd orange shade to be on the computer is not natural and I don't want his laptop to be broken. CMV<|ASPECTS|>, time of day, orange, alteration, eyesight, color of the screen, damaged, helps, natural, changes, computer<|CONCLUSION|>","My friend has installed this program onto his computer known as f.lux which changes the color of the screen in regards to the time of day. It makes the screen this odd sort of orange when the sun goes down. He claims it helps eyesight during late night browsing. I don't believe this, if it were as simple as putting this on then why didn't the programmers of the computer put it on there originally? The computer could be damaged by this kind of alteration. For this odd orange shade to be on the computer is not natural and I don't want his laptop to be broken.","I believe the computer program ""f.lux"" does nothing to help late night eyesight and actually hurts the computer."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I honestly believe that bicycles belong in bike lanes, trails, races, dirt tracks, or parks. I also understand that not everyone can afford a motor vehicle use mass transit or walk, rather than endangering yourself or others. And if you happen to be a bike courier hats off to you. You have way more balls than I ever will. Yet that's city life I live in a suburb of a major metropolitan area and Cyclists are not always, but mostly a pure nuisance. I have personally witnessed two fender benders that could've been much worse in the past year on major roadways, both a result of swerving to avoid killing a cyclist moving at 30mph in the right lane of a 45mph roadway. Both cyclists, after many vulgar hand signals, waved the passing cars around them. Yet the cyclists still held the center of the right lane, causing accidents when cars merged into each other. Use trails, use back roads, use residential streets Damn, stop using major roads Both collisions involved vehicles moving the same way, death could've occured if either the cyclist was struck or if the cars involved were moving head on. Idiotic, self centered, and reckless. That's my take.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I honestly believe that bicycles belong in bike lanes, trails, races, dirt tracks, or parks. I also understand that not everyone can afford a motor vehicle use mass transit or walk, rather than endangering yourself or others. And if you happen to be a bike courier hats off to you. You have way more balls than I ever will. Yet that's city life I live in a suburb of a major metropolitan area and Cyclists are not always, but mostly a pure nuisance. I have personally witnessed two fender benders that could've been much worse in the past year on major roadways, both a result of swerving to avoid killing a cyclist moving at 30mph in the right lane of a 45mph roadway. Both cyclists, after many vulgar hand signals, waved the passing cars around them. Yet the cyclists still held the center of the right lane, causing accidents when cars merged into each other. Use trails, use back roads, use residential streets Damn, stop using major roads Both collisions involved vehicles moving the same way, death could've occured if either the cyclist was struck or if the cars involved were moving head on. Idiotic, self centered, and reckless. That's my take.<|TARGETS|>a motor vehicle use mass transit or walk, Use trails, to be a bike courier, two fender benders<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I honestly believe that bicycles belong in bike lanes, trails, races, dirt tracks, or parks. I also understand that not everyone can afford a motor vehicle use mass transit or walk, rather than endangering yourself or others. And if you happen to be a bike courier hats off to you. You have way more balls than I ever will. Yet that's city life I live in a suburb of a major metropolitan area and Cyclists are not always, but mostly a pure nuisance. I have personally witnessed two fender benders that could've been much worse in the past year on major roadways, both a result of swerving to avoid killing a cyclist moving at 30mph in the right lane of a 45mph roadway. Both cyclists, after many vulgar hand signals, waved the passing cars around them. Yet the cyclists still held the center of the right lane, causing accidents when cars merged into each other. Use trails, use back roads, use residential streets Damn, stop using major roads Both collisions involved vehicles moving the same way, death could've occured if either the cyclist was struck or if the cars involved were moving head on. Idiotic, self centered, and reckless. That's my take.<|ASPECTS|>balls, death could, killing, idiotic, cyclists, bicycles, swerving, reckless, endangering, mass transit, city life, cyclist, cars, bike lanes, vulgar hand signals, fender benders, self centered, afford, bike courier, accidents, pure nuisance, collisions<|CONCLUSION|>","I honestly believe that bicycles belong in bike lanes, trails, races, dirt tracks, or parks. I also understand that not everyone can afford a motor vehicle use mass transit or walk, rather than endangering yourself or others. And if you happen to be a bike courier hats off to you. You have way more balls than I ever will. Yet that's city life I live in a suburb of a major metropolitan area and Cyclists are not always, but mostly a pure nuisance. I have personally witnessed two fender benders that could've been much worse in the past year on major roadways, both a result of swerving to avoid killing a cyclist moving at 30mph in the right lane of a 45mph roadway. Both cyclists, after many vulgar hand signals, waved the passing cars around them. Yet the cyclists still held the center of the right lane, causing accidents when cars merged into each other. Use trails, use back roads, use residential streets Damn, stop using major roads Both collisions involved vehicles moving the same way, death could've occured if either the cyclist was struck or if the cars involved were moving head on. Idiotic, self centered, and reckless. That's my take.",Cyclists should be banned from any major roadway 45+ mph speed limit without a dedicated bicycle lane.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Backstory I am a senior in high school, and I was recently awarded recognition by the College Board's National Hispanic Recognition Program. What this means is that I got a high PSAT score compared to other Hispanic Latinos. At my high school, three other students received some sort of recognition from the College Board for their test scores. Two of them were white, and another was Korean. They received normal National Merit Scholar recognition, as none of them were Hispanic or Latino and were thus ineligible for that award. At the same time, there are other students at my school who received higher test scores than I did, but lower than the three other students did I know this for a fact I have compared scores with some of them . In my opinion, they are more deserving of awards than I am. However, because I am Hispanic, I was given an award, and those other students who tested higher than I am were not. Here are my views on the situation i.e. what to change I believe that there are other students who deserve an award more than I do, but only did not receive an award because they are not Hispanic. This is bad. I may be deserving of this award, but I don't believe I am deserving of an award in general, if that makes sense. I understand that the Hispanic award is not as high of an honor as the normal one, but I believe that does not undercut my original point. I believe that this is further exacerbated when it is taken into account that the only group recognized separately from the main pool is the Hispanic group. There is no group that is exclusively for whites, blacks, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, etc alongside the normal, overall pool. Although having all these groups would not necessarily make it a good thing, it would be less bad, in my eyes, than having only a Hispanic group alongside the all encompassing one I believe that having recognition for high test scoring Hispanics or other racial ethnic groups, for that matter is not inherently a bad thing. However, I think this should be restricted to just telling people their percentile among different groups or something along those lines.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Backstory I am a senior in high school, and I was recently awarded recognition by the College Board's National Hispanic Recognition Program. What this means is that I got a high PSAT score compared to other Hispanic Latinos. At my high school, three other students received some sort of recognition from the College Board for their test scores. Two of them were white, and another was Korean. They received normal National Merit Scholar recognition, as none of them were Hispanic or Latino and were thus ineligible for that award. At the same time, there are other students at my school who received higher test scores than I did, but lower than the three other students did I know this for a fact I have compared scores with some of them . In my opinion, they are more deserving of awards than I am. However, because I am Hispanic, I was given an award, and those other students who tested higher than I am were not. Here are my views on the situation i.e. what to change I believe that there are other students who deserve an award more than I do, but only did not receive an award because they are not Hispanic. This is bad. I may be deserving of this award, but I don't believe I am deserving of an award in general, if that makes sense. I understand that the Hispanic award is not as high of an honor as the normal one, but I believe that does not undercut my original point. I believe that this is further exacerbated when it is taken into account that the only group recognized separately from the main pool is the Hispanic group. There is no group that is exclusively for whites, blacks, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, etc alongside the normal, overall pool. Although having all these groups would not necessarily make it a good thing, it would be less bad, in my eyes, than having only a Hispanic group alongside the all encompassing one I believe that having recognition for high test scoring Hispanics or other racial ethnic groups, for that matter is not inherently a bad thing. However, I think this should be restricted to just telling people their percentile among different groups or something along those lines.<|TARGETS|>when it is taken into account that the only group recognized separately from the main pool, having all these groups, restricted to just telling people their percentile among different groups or something along those lines ., the Hispanic award, what to change I believe that there are other students who deserve an award more than I do but only did not receive an award because they are not Hispanic ., National Merit Scholar recognition<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Backstory I am a senior in high school, and I was recently awarded recognition by the College Board's National Hispanic Recognition Program. What this means is that I got a high PSAT score compared to other Hispanic Latinos. At my high school, three other students received some sort of recognition from the College Board for their test scores. Two of them were white, and another was Korean. They received normal National Merit Scholar recognition, as none of them were Hispanic or Latino and were thus ineligible for that award. At the same time, there are other students at my school who received higher test scores than I did, but lower than the three other students did I know this for a fact I have compared scores with some of them . In my opinion, they are more deserving of awards than I am. However, because I am Hispanic, I was given an award, and those other students who tested higher than I am were not. Here are my views on the situation i.e. what to change I believe that there are other students who deserve an award more than I do, but only did not receive an award because they are not Hispanic. This is bad. I may be deserving of this award, but I don't believe I am deserving of an award in general, if that makes sense. I understand that the Hispanic award is not as high of an honor as the normal one, but I believe that does not undercut my original point. I believe that this is further exacerbated when it is taken into account that the only group recognized separately from the main pool is the Hispanic group. There is no group that is exclusively for whites, blacks, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, etc alongside the normal, overall pool. Although having all these groups would not necessarily make it a good thing, it would be less bad, in my eyes, than having only a Hispanic group alongside the all encompassing one I believe that having recognition for high test scoring Hispanics or other racial ethnic groups, for that matter is not inherently a bad thing. However, I think this should be restricted to just telling people their percentile among different groups or something along those lines.<|ASPECTS|>hispanic, bad, hispanic award, white, national, group, overall, exacerbated, less bad, situation, compared scores, test scoring, high, test scores, tested higher, deserve, merit scholar recognition, ineligible, deserving, hispanic group, deserving of awards, higher, backstory, award, psat score, racial ethnic, recognized separately, percentile, recognition<|CONCLUSION|>","Backstory I am a senior in high school, and I was recently awarded recognition by the College Board's National Hispanic Recognition Program. What this means is that I got a high PSAT score compared to other Hispanic Latinos. At my high school, three other students received some sort of recognition from the College Board for their test scores. Two of them were white, and another was Korean. They received normal National Merit Scholar recognition, as none of them were Hispanic or Latino and were thus ineligible for that award. At the same time, there are other students at my school who received higher test scores than I did, but lower than the three other students did I know this for a fact I have compared scores with some of them . In my opinion, they are more deserving of awards than I am. However, because I am Hispanic, I was given an award, and those other students who tested higher than I am were not. Here are my views on the situation i.e. what to change I believe that there are other students who deserve an award more than I do, but only did not receive an award because they are not Hispanic. This is bad. I may be deserving of this award, but I don't believe I am deserving of an award in general, if that makes sense. I understand that the Hispanic award is not as high of an honor as the normal one, but I believe that does not undercut my original point. I believe that this is further exacerbated when it is taken into account that the only group recognized separately from the main pool is the Hispanic group. There is no group that is exclusively for whites, blacks, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, etc alongside the normal, overall pool. Although having all these groups would not necessarily make it a good thing, it would be less bad, in my eyes, than having only a Hispanic group alongside the all encompassing one I believe that having recognition for high test scoring Hispanics or other racial ethnic groups, for that matter is not inherently a bad thing. However, I think this should be restricted to just telling people their percentile among different groups or something along those lines.",I shouldn't win an award just because I'm Hispanic
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Bartenders in Canada have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, except for protected classes. For absolutely every other instance I believe that pregnant women should be a protected class. Where I come into conflict is that I could not in good conscience serve someone a drink if that drink is proven to be likely to cause harm to another. The law even states that I am responsible for patrons who become intoxicated and hurt someone or them selves. I would feel personally responsible if I somehow found out I served a pregnant woman some tequila and her baby was born with birth defects or a miscarriage. An important note is that i do not think it should be illegal to serve them. This would mean that if a pregnant woman wants to get drunk, there are litteraly hundreds of bars and chances are someone doesn't care enough to lose out on a few bucks. What won't change my view is the whole my body my choice angle, because you can get a drink without making me responsible. Such as lying and saying I am not pregnant , because I would have plausible deniability. Or the idea that this would result in non pregnant women being refused service, Because of the sheer number of bars and the nature of competition.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Bartenders in Canada have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, except for protected classes. For absolutely every other instance I believe that pregnant women should be a protected class. Where I come into conflict is that I could not in good conscience serve someone a drink if that drink is proven to be likely to cause harm to another. The law even states that I am responsible for patrons who become intoxicated and hurt someone or them selves. I would feel personally responsible if I somehow found out I served a pregnant woman some tequila and her baby was born with birth defects or a miscarriage. An important note is that i do not think it should be illegal to serve them. This would mean that if a pregnant woman wants to get drunk, there are litteraly hundreds of bars and chances are someone doesn't care enough to lose out on a few bucks. What won't change my view is the whole my body my choice angle, because you can get a drink without making me responsible. Such as lying and saying I am not pregnant , because I would have plausible deniability. Or the idea that this would result in non pregnant women being refused service, Because of the sheer number of bars and the nature of competition.<|TARGETS|>What wo n't change my view, could not in good conscience serve someone a drink if that drink, a pregnant woman wants to get drunk there are litteraly hundreds of bars and chances, if I somehow found out I served a pregnant woman some tequila and her baby, the whole my body my choice angle, to lose out on a few bucks .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Bartenders in Canada have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, except for protected classes. For absolutely every other instance I believe that pregnant women should be a protected class. Where I come into conflict is that I could not in good conscience serve someone a drink if that drink is proven to be likely to cause harm to another. The law even states that I am responsible for patrons who become intoxicated and hurt someone or them selves. I would feel personally responsible if I somehow found out I served a pregnant woman some tequila and her baby was born with birth defects or a miscarriage. An important note is that i do not think it should be illegal to serve them. This would mean that if a pregnant woman wants to get drunk, there are litteraly hundreds of bars and chances are someone doesn't care enough to lose out on a few bucks. What won't change my view is the whole my body my choice angle, because you can get a drink without making me responsible. Such as lying and saying I am not pregnant , because I would have plausible deniability. Or the idea that this would result in non pregnant women being refused service, Because of the sheer number of bars and the nature of competition.<|ASPECTS|>personally responsible, responsible, litteraly hundreds, choice, plausible deniability, hurt, protected classes, miscarriage, harm to another, birth defects, patrons, protected class, competition, refused service, right to refuse service, cause, illegal to serve, intoxicated<|CONCLUSION|>","Bartenders in Canada have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, except for protected classes. For absolutely every other instance I believe that pregnant women should be a protected class. Where I come into conflict is that I could not in good conscience serve someone a drink if that drink is proven to be likely to cause harm to another. The law even states that I am responsible for patrons who become intoxicated and hurt someone or them selves. I would feel personally responsible if I somehow found out I served a pregnant woman some tequila and her baby was born with birth defects or a miscarriage. An important note is that i do not think it should be illegal to serve them. This would mean that if a pregnant woman wants to get drunk, there are litteraly hundreds of bars and chances are someone doesn't care enough to lose out on a few bucks. What won't change my view is the whole my body my choice angle, because you can get a drink without making me responsible. Such as lying and saying I am not pregnant , because I would have plausible deniability. Or the idea that this would result in non pregnant women being refused service, Because of the sheer number of bars and the nature of competition.",Bartenders should be able to refuse liqour service to pregnant women.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This only goes for Team Sports. I think that Player apparel needs to go away and shamed by fans and organizations. If you wear a player jersey, then, to me, you’re not rooting for the team, you’re rooting for the player. That’s not how team sports work. It takes the entire effort of the team to succeed and thrive, not just one guy. I know some fans aren’t fans of teams, but fans of players, like Lebron. I get that. You’re fine. Exempt from this conversation. It’s cheaper. If you’re going to get a name, why not get your name? You’re a part of the organization by rooting for the team, buying merchandise, tickets, food, and parking. They would not be there without you. As Mr. Herb Brooks said “The name on the front is a hell lot more important than the name on the back ” TLDR Player Merch needs to be outed because it’s not the player that wins it’s the team.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This only goes for Team Sports. I think that Player apparel needs to go away and shamed by fans and organizations. If you wear a player jersey, then, to me, you’re not rooting for the team, you’re rooting for the player. That’s not how team sports work. It takes the entire effort of the team to succeed and thrive, not just one guy. I know some fans aren’t fans of teams, but fans of players, like Lebron. I get that. You’re fine. Exempt from this conversation. It’s cheaper. If you’re going to get a name, why not get your name? You’re a part of the organization by rooting for the team, buying merchandise, tickets, food, and parking. They would not be there without you. As Mr. Herb Brooks said “The name on the front is a hell lot more important than the name on the back ” TLDR Player Merch needs to be outed because it’s not the player that wins it’s the team.<|TARGETS|>Player apparel, If you ’re going to get a name why not get your name, Exempt from this conversation, If you wear a player jersey, Herb Brooks said “ The name on the front<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This only goes for Team Sports. I think that Player apparel needs to go away and shamed by fans and organizations. If you wear a player jersey, then, to me, you’re not rooting for the team, you’re rooting for the player. That’s not how team sports work. It takes the entire effort of the team to succeed and thrive, not just one guy. I know some fans aren’t fans of teams, but fans of players, like Lebron. I get that. You’re fine. Exempt from this conversation. It’s cheaper. If you’re going to get a name, why not get your name? You’re a part of the organization by rooting for the team, buying merchandise, tickets, food, and parking. They would not be there without you. As Mr. Herb Brooks said “The name on the front is a hell lot more important than the name on the back ” TLDR Player Merch needs to be outed because it’s not the player that wins it’s the team.<|ASPECTS|>fine, fans of players, fans of teams, effort, player apparel, rooting for the team, shamed by fans, exempt, rooting for, rooting for the player, buying, team sports, cheaper, thrive, succeed<|CONCLUSION|>","This only goes for Team Sports. I think that Player apparel needs to go away and shamed by fans and organizations. If you wear a player jersey, then, to me, you’re not rooting for the team, you’re rooting for the player. That’s not how team sports work. It takes the entire effort of the team to succeed and thrive, not just one guy. I know some fans aren’t fans of teams, but fans of players, like Lebron. I get that. You’re fine. Exempt from this conversation. It’s cheaper. If you’re going to get a name, why not get your name? You’re a part of the organization by rooting for the team, buying merchandise, tickets, food, and parking. They would not be there without you. As Mr. Herb Brooks said “The name on the front is a hell lot more important than the name on the back ” TLDR Player Merch needs to be outed because it’s not the player that wins it’s the team.","Sports fans shouldn’t wear player Jerseys and Merch- instead, just get blank jerseys and logo apparel."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe most religious beliefs are ludicrous, but these two stand out to me. Pagans I just have an image of witches casting spells. Surely this belongs in the middle ages. Mormons I don't understand the genuine craziness that comes from their beliefs. How can they possibly think a god dwells on a planet near the star they call kolob . I'm not asking to have my view on their beliefs changed from thinking they're ludicrous to I believe them now , but help me understand why they're no more crazy than any other belief.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe most religious beliefs are ludicrous, but these two stand out to me. Pagans I just have an image of witches casting spells. Surely this belongs in the middle ages. Mormons I don't understand the genuine craziness that comes from their beliefs. How can they possibly think a god dwells on a planet near the star they call kolob . I'm not asking to have my view on their beliefs changed from thinking they're ludicrous to I believe them now , but help me understand why they're no more crazy than any other belief.<|TARGETS|>asking to have my view on their beliefs changed from thinking they 're ludicrous to I believe them now but help me understand why they 're no more crazy than any other belief ., Pagans, a god dwells on a planet near the star they call kolob<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe most religious beliefs are ludicrous, but these two stand out to me. Pagans I just have an image of witches casting spells. Surely this belongs in the middle ages. Mormons I don't understand the genuine craziness that comes from their beliefs. How can they possibly think a god dwells on a planet near the star they call kolob . I'm not asking to have my view on their beliefs changed from thinking they're ludicrous to I believe them now , but help me understand why they're no more crazy than any other belief.<|ASPECTS|>crazy, genuine, religious beliefs, god dwells, beliefs, casting spells, ludicrous, witches, middle ages, craziness<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe most religious beliefs are ludicrous, but these two stand out to me. Pagans I just have an image of witches casting spells. Surely this belongs in the middle ages. Mormons I don't understand the genuine craziness that comes from their beliefs. How can they possibly think a god dwells on a planet near the star they call kolob . I'm not asking to have my view on their beliefs changed from thinking they're ludicrous to I believe them now , but help me understand why they're no more crazy than any other belief.","I believe Pagans and Mormons have psychological problems,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You’re probably thinking “if you don’t date someone because of their race you’re a racist ” And it’s simply not true. You can’t control your physical attraction and that’s what makes you interested in people, it’s not necessarily a conscious decision. It’s unfair to shame people for trying to be happy with a consenting person within the law. I’ve seen so many instances where people are shaming women for only wanting 6’ tall men, but no one shames men for wanting a woman with a pretty face. Being logically consistent if it’s not wrong to like someone because of their face, then it isn’t because of their height, and it isn’t wrong because of their race, or their age of lawful age of course or their transgender status or their wealth and so on. If not wanting to date someone because of their race, transgender status, wealth etc. is wrong then we might as well date the first person we see.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You’re probably thinking “if you don’t date someone because of their race you’re a racist ” And it’s simply not true. You can’t control your physical attraction and that’s what makes you interested in people, it’s not necessarily a conscious decision. It’s unfair to shame people for trying to be happy with a consenting person within the law. I’ve seen so many instances where people are shaming women for only wanting 6’ tall men, but no one shames men for wanting a woman with a pretty face. Being logically consistent if it’s not wrong to like someone because of their face, then it isn’t because of their height, and it isn’t wrong because of their race, or their age of lawful age of course or their transgender status or their wealth and so on. If not wanting to date someone because of their race, transgender status, wealth etc. is wrong then we might as well date the first person we see.<|TARGETS|>to shame people for trying to be happy with a consenting person within the law ., Being logically consistent if it ’s not wrong to like someone because of their face then it is n’t because of their height and it is n’t wrong because of their race or their age of lawful age of course or their transgender status or their wealth and so on ., If not wanting to date someone because of their race, so many instances where people are shaming women for only wanting 6’ tall men but no one shames men for wanting a woman with a pretty face ., You ca n’t control your physical attraction and that ’s what makes you interested in people, ’re probably thinking “ if you do n’t date someone because of their race you ’re a racist ” And it ’s simply not true .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You’re probably thinking “if you don’t date someone because of their race you’re a racist ” And it’s simply not true. You can’t control your physical attraction and that’s what makes you interested in people, it’s not necessarily a conscious decision. It’s unfair to shame people for trying to be happy with a consenting person within the law. I’ve seen so many instances where people are shaming women for only wanting 6’ tall men, but no one shames men for wanting a woman with a pretty face. Being logically consistent if it’s not wrong to like someone because of their face, then it isn’t because of their height, and it isn’t wrong because of their race, or their age of lawful age of course or their transgender status or their wealth and so on. If not wanting to date someone because of their race, transgender status, wealth etc. is wrong then we might as well date the first person we see.<|ASPECTS|>conscious decision, shames men, transgender status, wealth, racist, happy, physical attraction, consenting person, control, date, race, age, unfair, shame people, shaming women<|CONCLUSION|>","You’re probably thinking “if you don’t date someone because of their race you’re a racist ” And it’s simply not true. You can’t control your physical attraction and that’s what makes you interested in people, it’s not necessarily a conscious decision. It’s unfair to shame people for trying to be happy with a consenting person within the law. I’ve seen so many instances where people are shaming women for only wanting 6’ tall men, but no one shames men for wanting a woman with a pretty face. Being logically consistent if it’s not wrong to like someone because of their face, then it isn’t because of their height, and it isn’t wrong because of their race, or their age of lawful age of course or their transgender status or their wealth and so on. If not wanting to date someone because of their race, transgender status, wealth etc. is wrong then we might as well date the first person we see.","people that shame people for not wanting to date someone because of their height, weight, race, transgender status, socioeconomic status etc. are wrong"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>NOTE I purposefully didn't include medical benefits in this discussion. That is an entirely different topic. I view medical benefits similarly to worker's comp for injuries. I do not believe they should get long term medical assistance if they leave the military with a clean bill of health though. Also, I don't believe the whole They are fighting for your freedom or They signed up so you didn't have to argument is relevant here. It is pretty well accepted at this point that our military serves our global political economic interests and doesn't exist for our immediate safety or to protect our freedoms. EDIT Before you read, I'm arguing against DELAYED benefits, not benefits in general. Once you're out of the military that should be it. If you want to use things like the GI Bill or the home loan program you should have to be active reserve duty, not a veteran. THE REST I don't blame the veterans for using those benefits, I blame the system for allowing those benefits to exist. It's not that I dislike the military or its members. I have a hard time rationalizing the money that we spend on veterans after their service has ended. In my mind the government military is just like any other employer. You sign an employment agreement knowing exactly what the job description is. You know the dangers and risks going in. You know that military service isn't viewed that same as a college degree. You know the skills you gain are not necessary transferable to civilian life. But when these men and women leave the military, they are on paper anyway supposed to be partially taken care of by tax dollars for the rest of their lives through college tuition assistance, VA Home Loan benefits, preferential hiring practices, etc. If I chose to go work as a laborer for an oil company Halliburton or similar in the Middle East right after high school an entirely possible scenario , I would get paid well but once my contract was up, that's it. They don't help me find my next job. They don't give me durable medical benefits. They don't send me to college. I can't then stand up at the podium and say Hey everyone I took a job that gave me no transferable skills and little relevant experience, can ya'll pass the hat around and donate enough money to send me to college for free, help me buy a house with significantly reduced fees, and then promise to hire me because I used to work for XXXX? I'd be laughed out of the room. Why exactly should military personnel be afforded those luxuries? I imagine they are incentives for people to join the military. But we have 2.3 million active reserve military personnel. If we lose half of those because people stop signing up due to decreased benefits that still leaves us in the Top 10 of active reserve military. We would fall behind Russia and China but there will never be a day that we fight a land war with either of those nations. After thinking about it, the only reason we need so many people is to support the gigantic military industrial complex. We need those people to man the ships, fly the planes, and drive the trucks as well as carry the rifles. We would need to retire a lot of equipment. That's besides the point though. Keep a roof over their heads, feed them decent food, maybe teach them something they can use when they get out, pay them a good salary. But when you're discharged that should be the end of the relationship in my mind. Maybe I'm just not fully realizing how much lower our enlistment rate would be if those benefits weren't there but those benefits seems like a byproduct of the old guard when conscription was actually a possibility. I would like someone to change my view. EDIT I'm arguing against DELAYED benefits, not benefits in general. I'm okay with things like the GI Bill and home loan assistance for active reserve duty personnel. If you want to use those programs, you must stay in the military so we the taxpayers can at least get some utility from our investment.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>NOTE I purposefully didn't include medical benefits in this discussion. That is an entirely different topic. I view medical benefits similarly to worker's comp for injuries. I do not believe they should get long term medical assistance if they leave the military with a clean bill of health though. Also, I don't believe the whole They are fighting for your freedom or They signed up so you didn't have to argument is relevant here. It is pretty well accepted at this point that our military serves our global political economic interests and doesn't exist for our immediate safety or to protect our freedoms. EDIT Before you read, I'm arguing against DELAYED benefits, not benefits in general. Once you're out of the military that should be it. If you want to use things like the GI Bill or the home loan program you should have to be active reserve duty, not a veteran. THE REST I don't blame the veterans for using those benefits, I blame the system for allowing those benefits to exist. It's not that I dislike the military or its members. I have a hard time rationalizing the money that we spend on veterans after their service has ended. In my mind the government military is just like any other employer. You sign an employment agreement knowing exactly what the job description is. You know the dangers and risks going in. You know that military service isn't viewed that same as a college degree. You know the skills you gain are not necessary transferable to civilian life. But when these men and women leave the military, they are on paper anyway supposed to be partially taken care of by tax dollars for the rest of their lives through college tuition assistance, VA Home Loan benefits, preferential hiring practices, etc. If I chose to go work as a laborer for an oil company Halliburton or similar in the Middle East right after high school an entirely possible scenario , I would get paid well but once my contract was up, that's it. They don't help me find my next job. They don't give me durable medical benefits. They don't send me to college. I can't then stand up at the podium and say Hey everyone I took a job that gave me no transferable skills and little relevant experience, can ya'll pass the hat around and donate enough money to send me to college for free, help me buy a house with significantly reduced fees, and then promise to hire me because I used to work for XXXX? I'd be laughed out of the room. Why exactly should military personnel be afforded those luxuries? I imagine they are incentives for people to join the military. But we have 2.3 million active reserve military personnel. If we lose half of those because people stop signing up due to decreased benefits that still leaves us in the Top 10 of active reserve military. We would fall behind Russia and China but there will never be a day that we fight a land war with either of those nations. After thinking about it, the only reason we need so many people is to support the gigantic military industrial complex. We need those people to man the ships, fly the planes, and drive the trucks as well as carry the rifles. We would need to retire a lot of equipment. That's besides the point though. Keep a roof over their heads, feed them decent food, maybe teach them something they can use when they get out, pay them a good salary. But when you're discharged that should be the end of the relationship in my mind. Maybe I'm just not fully realizing how much lower our enlistment rate would be if those benefits weren't there but those benefits seems like a byproduct of the old guard when conscription was actually a possibility. I would like someone to change my view. EDIT I'm arguing against DELAYED benefits, not benefits in general. I'm okay with things like the GI Bill and home loan assistance for active reserve duty personnel. If you want to use those programs, you must stay in the military so we the taxpayers can at least get some utility from our investment.<|TARGETS|>Keep a roof over their heads feed them decent food maybe teach them something they can use when they get out, stop signing up due to decreased benefits that, to retire a lot of equipment ., to go work as a laborer for an oil company Halliburton or similar in the Middle East right after high school an entirely possible scenario, to change my view ., to hire me because I used to work for XXXX<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>NOTE I purposefully didn't include medical benefits in this discussion. That is an entirely different topic. I view medical benefits similarly to worker's comp for injuries. I do not believe they should get long term medical assistance if they leave the military with a clean bill of health though. Also, I don't believe the whole They are fighting for your freedom or They signed up so you didn't have to argument is relevant here. It is pretty well accepted at this point that our military serves our global political economic interests and doesn't exist for our immediate safety or to protect our freedoms. EDIT Before you read, I'm arguing against DELAYED benefits, not benefits in general. Once you're out of the military that should be it. If you want to use things like the GI Bill or the home loan program you should have to be active reserve duty, not a veteran. THE REST I don't blame the veterans for using those benefits, I blame the system for allowing those benefits to exist. It's not that I dislike the military or its members. I have a hard time rationalizing the money that we spend on veterans after their service has ended. In my mind the government military is just like any other employer. You sign an employment agreement knowing exactly what the job description is. You know the dangers and risks going in. You know that military service isn't viewed that same as a college degree. You know the skills you gain are not necessary transferable to civilian life. But when these men and women leave the military, they are on paper anyway supposed to be partially taken care of by tax dollars for the rest of their lives through college tuition assistance, VA Home Loan benefits, preferential hiring practices, etc. If I chose to go work as a laborer for an oil company Halliburton or similar in the Middle East right after high school an entirely possible scenario , I would get paid well but once my contract was up, that's it. They don't help me find my next job. They don't give me durable medical benefits. They don't send me to college. I can't then stand up at the podium and say Hey everyone I took a job that gave me no transferable skills and little relevant experience, can ya'll pass the hat around and donate enough money to send me to college for free, help me buy a house with significantly reduced fees, and then promise to hire me because I used to work for XXXX? I'd be laughed out of the room. Why exactly should military personnel be afforded those luxuries? I imagine they are incentives for people to join the military. But we have 2.3 million active reserve military personnel. If we lose half of those because people stop signing up due to decreased benefits that still leaves us in the Top 10 of active reserve military. We would fall behind Russia and China but there will never be a day that we fight a land war with either of those nations. After thinking about it, the only reason we need so many people is to support the gigantic military industrial complex. We need those people to man the ships, fly the planes, and drive the trucks as well as carry the rifles. We would need to retire a lot of equipment. That's besides the point though. Keep a roof over their heads, feed them decent food, maybe teach them something they can use when they get out, pay them a good salary. But when you're discharged that should be the end of the relationship in my mind. Maybe I'm just not fully realizing how much lower our enlistment rate would be if those benefits weren't there but those benefits seems like a byproduct of the old guard when conscription was actually a possibility. I would like someone to change my view. EDIT I'm arguing against DELAYED benefits, not benefits in general. I'm okay with things like the GI Bill and home loan assistance for active reserve duty personnel. If you want to use those programs, you must stay in the military so we the taxpayers can at least get some utility from our investment.<|ASPECTS|>, long term, government military, protect, decreased benefits, partially taken care, money, skills, rationalizing, land war, benefits, immediate, active reserve military personnel, laughed, freedoms, military, next job, global political economic interests, delayed, active reserve duty, enlistment rate, risks, incentives, decent food, different topic, fly, clean bill of health, employment agreement, necessary transferable, end of the relationship, va, home loan assistance, lot of equipment, freedom, drive, roof, little, college tuition assistance, veterans, change my view, dangers, luxuries, reduced fees, paid well, retire, military industrial complex, gigantic, salary, find, safety, job description, help, gi bill, college degree, lower, reserve, medical assistance, man, preferential hiring practices, utility, durable, medical benefits, dislike, college, civilian life, military service, relevant experience, transferable skills, veteran<|CONCLUSION|>","NOTE I purposefully didn't include medical benefits in this discussion. That is an entirely different topic. I view medical benefits similarly to worker's comp for injuries. I do not believe they should get long term medical assistance if they leave the military with a clean bill of health though. Also, I don't believe the whole They are fighting for your freedom or They signed up so you didn't have to argument is relevant here. It is pretty well accepted at this point that our military serves our global political economic interests and doesn't exist for our immediate safety or to protect our freedoms. EDIT Before you read, I'm arguing against DELAYED benefits, not benefits in general. Once you're out of the military that should be it. If you want to use things like the GI Bill or the home loan program you should have to be active reserve duty, not a veteran. THE REST I don't blame the veterans for using those benefits, I blame the system for allowing those benefits to exist. It's not that I dislike the military or its members. I have a hard time rationalizing the money that we spend on veterans after their service has ended. In my mind the government military is just like any other employer. You sign an employment agreement knowing exactly what the job description is. You know the dangers and risks going in. You know that military service isn't viewed that same as a college degree. You know the skills you gain are not necessary transferable to civilian life. But when these men and women leave the military, they are on paper anyway supposed to be partially taken care of by tax dollars for the rest of their lives through college tuition assistance, VA Home Loan benefits, preferential hiring practices, etc. If I chose to go work as a laborer for an oil company Halliburton or similar in the Middle East right after high school an entirely possible scenario , I would get paid well but once my contract was up, that's it. They don't help me find my next job. They don't give me durable medical benefits. They don't send me to college. I can't then stand up at the podium and say Hey everyone I took a job that gave me no transferable skills and little relevant experience, can ya'll pass the hat around and donate enough money to send me to college for free, help me buy a house with significantly reduced fees, and then promise to hire me because I used to work for XXXX? I'd be laughed out of the room. Why exactly should military personnel be afforded those luxuries? I imagine they are incentives for people to join the military. But we have 2.3 million active reserve military personnel. If we lose half of those because people stop signing up due to decreased benefits that still leaves us in the Top 10 of active reserve military. We would fall behind Russia and China but there will never be a day that we fight a land war with either of those nations. After thinking about it, the only reason we need so many people is to support the gigantic military industrial complex. We need those people to man the ships, fly the planes, and drive the trucks as well as carry the rifles. We would need to retire a lot of equipment. That's besides the point though. Keep a roof over their heads, feed them decent food, maybe teach them something they can use when they get out, pay them a good salary. But when you're discharged that should be the end of the relationship in my mind. Maybe I'm just not fully realizing how much lower our enlistment rate would be if those benefits weren't there but those benefits seems like a byproduct of the old guard when conscription was actually a possibility. I would like someone to change my view. EDIT I'm arguing against DELAYED benefits, not benefits in general. I'm okay with things like the GI Bill and home loan assistance for active reserve duty personnel. If you want to use those programs, you must stay in the military so we the taxpayers can at least get some utility from our investment.","I believe veterans should not get delayed benefits after service such as the GI Bill, preferential hiring through campaigns such as Show Your Stripes or Hire Heroes, or VA Home Loans."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>One tactic for reliable upvotes on r tinder is to post a screenshot of yourself asking a woman who has a height requirement usually six feet how much she weighs. Typically the woman gives some offended reply and r tinder congratulates themselves on exposing a double standard. Thing is, it actually makes way more sense to have an absolute height requirement than a weight requirement. At the weight of 71kg, somebody Taylor Swift's height has a body mass index in the middle of the normal range. At the same weight, somebody Ariana Grande's height is \ obese\ . Weight is a meaningless number without height for context. Also, you can evaluate somebody's body fat level visually by looking at them \ assuming they aren't posting photos only of their face . It is challenging to work out a person's height, even from a full body photograph, without a reference point. Tom Cruise is short for a man, but that is rarely apparent in his movies. There is no double standard here, knowing somebody's height is helpful. Knowing somebody's weight as long as it isn't extremely high or low provides you with less information. EDIT a lot of people are arguing that a rough weight is helpful because if it is above, say, 160 pounds, then the person is highly likely to be overweight. The problem with this argument is that the opposite is also true. If the girl gives a number that seems low, that can provide false reassurance if she turns out to be relatively short. Asking height on the other hand is totally reliable at obtaining the piece of information it sets out to obtain. I'm not arguing that somebody's weight is meaningless, i'm arguing that it is a much less useful piece of information than a person's height.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>One tactic for reliable upvotes on r tinder is to post a screenshot of yourself asking a woman who has a height requirement usually six feet how much she weighs. Typically the woman gives some offended reply and r tinder congratulates themselves on exposing a double standard. Thing is, it actually makes way more sense to have an absolute height requirement than a weight requirement. At the weight of 71kg, somebody Taylor Swift's height has a body mass index in the middle of the normal range. At the same weight, somebody Ariana Grande's height is \ obese\ . Weight is a meaningless number without height for context. Also, you can evaluate somebody's body fat level visually by looking at them \ assuming they aren't posting photos only of their face . It is challenging to work out a person's height, even from a full body photograph, without a reference point. Tom Cruise is short for a man, but that is rarely apparent in his movies. There is no double standard here, knowing somebody's height is helpful. Knowing somebody's weight as long as it isn't extremely high or low provides you with less information. EDIT a lot of people are arguing that a rough weight is helpful because if it is above, say, 160 pounds, then the person is highly likely to be overweight. The problem with this argument is that the opposite is also true. If the girl gives a number that seems low, that can provide false reassurance if she turns out to be relatively short. Asking height on the other hand is totally reliable at obtaining the piece of information it sets out to obtain. I'm not arguing that somebody's weight is meaningless, i'm arguing that it is a much less useful piece of information than a person's height.<|TARGETS|>to have an absolute height requirement than a weight requirement, Tom Cruise, somebody Ariana Grande 's height, not arguing that somebody 's weight, If the girl, Asking height on the other hand<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>One tactic for reliable upvotes on r tinder is to post a screenshot of yourself asking a woman who has a height requirement usually six feet how much she weighs. Typically the woman gives some offended reply and r tinder congratulates themselves on exposing a double standard. Thing is, it actually makes way more sense to have an absolute height requirement than a weight requirement. At the weight of 71kg, somebody Taylor Swift's height has a body mass index in the middle of the normal range. At the same weight, somebody Ariana Grande's height is \ obese\ . Weight is a meaningless number without height for context. Also, you can evaluate somebody's body fat level visually by looking at them \ assuming they aren't posting photos only of their face . It is challenging to work out a person's height, even from a full body photograph, without a reference point. Tom Cruise is short for a man, but that is rarely apparent in his movies. There is no double standard here, knowing somebody's height is helpful. Knowing somebody's weight as long as it isn't extremely high or low provides you with less information. EDIT a lot of people are arguing that a rough weight is helpful because if it is above, say, 160 pounds, then the person is highly likely to be overweight. The problem with this argument is that the opposite is also true. If the girl gives a number that seems low, that can provide false reassurance if she turns out to be relatively short. Asking height on the other hand is totally reliable at obtaining the piece of information it sets out to obtain. I'm not arguing that somebody's weight is meaningless, i'm arguing that it is a much less useful piece of information than a person's height.<|ASPECTS|>meaningless, overweight, height, weight requirement, absolute height requirement, point, meaningless number, body mass index, challenging, short for a man, double standard, rough weight, person 's, evaluate, useful piece, weight, information, reliable upvotes, less, reliable, offended reply, false reassurance, obese\, body fat level, opposite, less information<|CONCLUSION|>","One tactic for reliable upvotes on r tinder is to post a screenshot of yourself asking a woman who has a height requirement usually six feet how much she weighs. Typically the woman gives some offended reply and r tinder congratulates themselves on exposing a double standard. Thing is, it actually makes way more sense to have an absolute height requirement than a weight requirement. At the weight of 71kg, somebody Taylor Swift's height has a body mass index in the middle of the normal range. At the same weight, somebody Ariana Grande's height is obese . Weight is a meaningless number without height for context. Also, you can evaluate somebody's body fat level visually by looking at them assuming they aren't posting photos only of their face . It is challenging to work out a person's height, even from a full body photograph, without a reference point. Tom Cruise is short for a man, but that is rarely apparent in his movies. There is no double standard here, knowing somebody's height is helpful. Knowing somebody's weight as long as it isn't extremely high or low provides you with less information. EDIT a lot of people are arguing that a rough weight is helpful because if it is above, say, 160 pounds, then the person is highly likely to be overweight. The problem with this argument is that the opposite is also true. If the girl gives a number that seems low, that can provide false reassurance if she turns out to be relatively short. Asking height on the other hand is totally reliable at obtaining the piece of information it sets out to obtain. I'm not arguing that somebody's weight is meaningless, i'm arguing that it is a much less useful piece of information than a person's height.",r/tinder is wrong. It makes more sense to have a height requirement than a weight requirement when online dating.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Part of this might be hindsight, like how the audience at the Gettysburg Address thought that it was dishwatery in substance, but have there been any worthy orators since, say, MLK? We had Bobby Kennedy then, as well as Norman Mailer and James Baldwin. Anything in the 2010s I'd like to hear about. I liked Obama's speeches but are any of them referenced for any reason nowadays? I don't really watch the news anymore but I can't think of one person that really reliably gets people amped up. Honestly, the last speech related item that I remember is when GWB said, But I can hear you on the 9 11 rubble. That was pretty good. Qualifications for a good speech for the purposes of this CMV One that gets mentioned even months years later. One that people like to mention that they attended in person. In English. Having to do with national widespread issues. Not criteria Amount of applause Size of audience Publicity <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Part of this might be hindsight, like how the audience at the Gettysburg Address thought that it was dishwatery in substance, but have there been any worthy orators since, say, MLK? We had Bobby Kennedy then, as well as Norman Mailer and James Baldwin. Anything in the 2010s I'd like to hear about. I liked Obama's speeches but are any of them referenced for any reason nowadays? I don't really watch the news anymore but I can't think of one person that really reliably gets people amped up. Honestly, the last speech related item that I remember is when GWB said, But I can hear you on the 9 11 rubble. That was pretty good. Qualifications for a good speech for the purposes of this CMV One that gets mentioned even months years later. One that people like to mention that they attended in person. In English. Having to do with national widespread issues. Not criteria Amount of applause Size of audience Publicity <|TARGETS|>to mention that they attended in person ., when GWB, n't really watch the news anymore but I ca n't think of one person that really reliably gets people amped up ., Having to do with national widespread issues ., Obama 's speeches<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Part of this might be hindsight, like how the audience at the Gettysburg Address thought that it was dishwatery in substance, but have there been any worthy orators since, say, MLK? We had Bobby Kennedy then, as well as Norman Mailer and James Baldwin. Anything in the 2010s I'd like to hear about. I liked Obama's speeches but are any of them referenced for any reason nowadays? I don't really watch the news anymore but I can't think of one person that really reliably gets people amped up. Honestly, the last speech related item that I remember is when GWB said, But I can hear you on the 9 11 rubble. That was pretty good. Qualifications for a good speech for the purposes of this CMV One that gets mentioned even months years later. One that people like to mention that they attended in person. In English. Having to do with national widespread issues. Not criteria Amount of applause Size of audience Publicity <|ASPECTS|>reliably, attended in person, substance, audience, people amped, good speech, national widespread issues, qualifications, hindsight, worthy, referenced, applause, hear, bobby, speech related, dishwatery<|CONCLUSION|>","Part of this might be hindsight, like how the audience at the Gettysburg Address thought that it was dishwatery in substance, but have there been any worthy orators since, say, MLK? We had Bobby Kennedy then, as well as Norman Mailer and James Baldwin. Anything in the 2010s I'd like to hear about. I liked Obama's speeches but are any of them referenced for any reason nowadays? I don't really watch the news anymore but I can't think of one person that really reliably gets people amped up. Honestly, the last speech related item that I remember is when GWB said, But I can hear you on the 9 11 rubble. That was pretty good. Qualifications for a good speech for the purposes of this  One that gets mentioned even months years later. One that people like to mention that they attended in person. In English. Having to do with national widespread issues. Not criteria Amount of applause Size of audience Publicity",Nobody gives good speeches anymore.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To clarify I am not talking about people making child porn or child molesters. I'm only talking about people caught possessing it. My reasons I found this TIL post and a lot of comments in it made a lot of sense. Pedophilia is today's McCarthyism or Salem Witch Trials Nobody wants to stand up against it, or you're automatically labeled a pedo or a commie or a witch. Prison doesn't help anyone. I get that imprisoning guys left and right for whatever reason can be scrounged up is a long American tradition just not a proud one but what exactly is the point? Who is this helping? The offender? No. Society? Not even a little. I also don't think they should be put on that God awful sex offender registry. That thing should ONLY be for people who are a threat to the neighborhood. Can you name a better way to keep someone from being a productive member of society than to march them around their neighborhood and force them to tell everyone they live near Hey. You know that thing everyone hates more than anything? I'm that. Well I look forward to awkwardly avoiding eye contact with you for the rest of my life. Would you hire a sex offender? The purpose of Megan's Law is to protect children period. How does this do that? Pedophiles are not destined to become child molesters. There's this thing we all agree on Rape is about power, not sex. How and why does this change because the victim is a child? There's a Harvard study that says pedophiles are most likely going to harm children in some way or other that always pops up when this assertion is made that I can't find at the moment, sorry. But assuredly someone is bound to cite it sooner or later here but the key thing from that study that everyone willfully ignores the sample of pedophiles interviewed for the study were in prison at the time , so it's not a wild leap to say that they were all there for harming children. I mean imagine your brother came to you today and said I'm a pedophile . Would you ever trust him around your kids alone, ever again? This guy you've known your whole life and I'd bet you a million dollars you'd treat him the same way you would treat a dirty vagrant around your kids. Why would a pedophile ever share this life ruining secret with anyone, ever? It's impossible to know how many pedophiles are out there because of that. Putting them in therapy to help channel their sexuality in a way that won't harm kids. This makes your children safer. Who wouldn't take a teeny, tiny tax increase that directly makes kids safer? Therapy is expensive and the price tag is a major barrier for people taking the step to get help. A nameless, random face on the internet will almost never be attached to an identity, so the victim in the picture will likely never be found, and the best justice you can salvage from the situation is that someone gets help for their dangerous habit. Throwing that guy in jail for having her picture doesn't make one ounce of a difference to that girl. At least this way, you're helping someone . CP of someone the perpetrator knows is pretty solid probable cause to find out if they broke any other laws, like rape or assault or the production of child pornography.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To clarify I am not talking about people making child porn or child molesters. I'm only talking about people caught possessing it. My reasons I found this TIL post and a lot of comments in it made a lot of sense. Pedophilia is today's McCarthyism or Salem Witch Trials Nobody wants to stand up against it, or you're automatically labeled a pedo or a commie or a witch. Prison doesn't help anyone. I get that imprisoning guys left and right for whatever reason can be scrounged up is a long American tradition just not a proud one but what exactly is the point? Who is this helping? The offender? No. Society? Not even a little. I also don't think they should be put on that God awful sex offender registry. That thing should ONLY be for people who are a threat to the neighborhood. Can you name a better way to keep someone from being a productive member of society than to march them around their neighborhood and force them to tell everyone they live near Hey. You know that thing everyone hates more than anything? I'm that. Well I look forward to awkwardly avoiding eye contact with you for the rest of my life. Would you hire a sex offender? The purpose of Megan's Law is to protect children period. How does this do that? Pedophiles are not destined to become child molesters. There's this thing we all agree on Rape is about power, not sex. How and why does this change because the victim is a child? There's a Harvard study that says pedophiles are most likely going to harm children in some way or other that always pops up when this assertion is made that I can't find at the moment, sorry. But assuredly someone is bound to cite it sooner or later here but the key thing from that study that everyone willfully ignores the sample of pedophiles interviewed for the study were in prison at the time , so it's not a wild leap to say that they were all there for harming children. I mean imagine your brother came to you today and said I'm a pedophile . Would you ever trust him around your kids alone, ever again? This guy you've known your whole life and I'd bet you a million dollars you'd treat him the same way you would treat a dirty vagrant around your kids. Why would a pedophile ever share this life ruining secret with anyone, ever? It's impossible to know how many pedophiles are out there because of that. Putting them in therapy to help channel their sexuality in a way that won't harm kids. This makes your children safer. Who wouldn't take a teeny, tiny tax increase that directly makes kids safer? Therapy is expensive and the price tag is a major barrier for people taking the step to get help. A nameless, random face on the internet will almost never be attached to an identity, so the victim in the picture will likely never be found, and the best justice you can salvage from the situation is that someone gets help for their dangerous habit. Throwing that guy in jail for having her picture doesn't make one ounce of a difference to that girl. At least this way, you're helping someone . CP of someone the perpetrator knows is pretty solid probable cause to find out if they broke any other laws, like rape or assault or the production of child pornography.<|TARGETS|>This guy you 've known your whole life and I 'd bet you a million dollars you 'd treat him the same way you would treat a dirty vagrant around your kids ., Putting them in therapy, that imprisoning guys left and right for whatever reason can be scrounged up, this TIL post and a lot of comments in it, a teeny tiny tax increase that directly, to keep someone from being a productive member of society than to march them around their neighborhood and force them to tell everyone they live near Hey .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To clarify I am not talking about people making child porn or child molesters. I'm only talking about people caught possessing it. My reasons I found this TIL post and a lot of comments in it made a lot of sense. Pedophilia is today's McCarthyism or Salem Witch Trials Nobody wants to stand up against it, or you're automatically labeled a pedo or a commie or a witch. Prison doesn't help anyone. I get that imprisoning guys left and right for whatever reason can be scrounged up is a long American tradition just not a proud one but what exactly is the point? Who is this helping? The offender? No. Society? Not even a little. I also don't think they should be put on that God awful sex offender registry. That thing should ONLY be for people who are a threat to the neighborhood. Can you name a better way to keep someone from being a productive member of society than to march them around their neighborhood and force them to tell everyone they live near Hey. You know that thing everyone hates more than anything? I'm that. Well I look forward to awkwardly avoiding eye contact with you for the rest of my life. Would you hire a sex offender? The purpose of Megan's Law is to protect children period. How does this do that? Pedophiles are not destined to become child molesters. There's this thing we all agree on Rape is about power, not sex. How and why does this change because the victim is a child? There's a Harvard study that says pedophiles are most likely going to harm children in some way or other that always pops up when this assertion is made that I can't find at the moment, sorry. But assuredly someone is bound to cite it sooner or later here but the key thing from that study that everyone willfully ignores the sample of pedophiles interviewed for the study were in prison at the time , so it's not a wild leap to say that they were all there for harming children. I mean imagine your brother came to you today and said I'm a pedophile . Would you ever trust him around your kids alone, ever again? This guy you've known your whole life and I'd bet you a million dollars you'd treat him the same way you would treat a dirty vagrant around your kids. Why would a pedophile ever share this life ruining secret with anyone, ever? It's impossible to know how many pedophiles are out there because of that. Putting them in therapy to help channel their sexuality in a way that won't harm kids. This makes your children safer. Who wouldn't take a teeny, tiny tax increase that directly makes kids safer? Therapy is expensive and the price tag is a major barrier for people taking the step to get help. A nameless, random face on the internet will almost never be attached to an identity, so the victim in the picture will likely never be found, and the best justice you can salvage from the situation is that someone gets help for their dangerous habit. Throwing that guy in jail for having her picture doesn't make one ounce of a difference to that girl. At least this way, you're helping someone . CP of someone the perpetrator knows is pretty solid probable cause to find out if they broke any other laws, like rape or assault or the production of child pornography.<|ASPECTS|>dirty vagrant, dangerous habit, caught possessing, threat to the neighborhood, harming children, mccarthyism, hates, harm children, price tag, productive member of society, barrier, prison, tax increase, helping someone, child pornography, trust, society, child, imprisoning guys, pedophilia, child porn, probable cause, life, sex offender, long american tradition, pedophiles, pedophile, treat, awkwardly, god awful, child molesters, offender, rape, jail, laws, avoiding eye contact, channel their sexuality, alone, hire, power, help anyone, victim, protect children period, ruining secret, sex, difference, harm kids, children, expensive, sex offender registry, safer, kids<|CONCLUSION|>","To clarify I am not talking about people making child porn or child molesters. I'm only talking about people caught possessing it. My reasons I found this TIL post and a lot of comments in it made a lot of sense. Pedophilia is today's McCarthyism or Salem Witch Trials Nobody wants to stand up against it, or you're automatically labeled a pedo or a commie or a witch. Prison doesn't help anyone. I get that imprisoning guys left and right for whatever reason can be scrounged up is a long American tradition just not a proud one but what exactly is the point? Who is this helping? The offender? No. Society? Not even a little. I also don't think they should be put on that God awful sex offender registry. That thing should ONLY be for people who are a threat to the neighborhood. Can you name a better way to keep someone from being a productive member of society than to march them around their neighborhood and force them to tell everyone they live near Hey. You know that thing everyone hates more than anything? I'm that. Well I look forward to awkwardly avoiding eye contact with you for the rest of my life. Would you hire a sex offender? The purpose of Megan's Law is to protect children period. How does this do that? Pedophiles are not destined to become child molesters. There's this thing we all agree on Rape is about power, not sex. How and why does this change because the victim is a child? There's a Harvard study that says pedophiles are most likely going to harm children in some way or other that always pops up when this assertion is made that I can't find at the moment, sorry. But assuredly someone is bound to cite it sooner or later here but the key thing from that study that everyone willfully ignores the sample of pedophiles interviewed for the study were in prison at the time , so it's not a wild leap to say that they were all there for harming children. I mean imagine your brother came to you today and said I'm a pedophile . Would you ever trust him around your kids alone, ever again? This guy you've known your whole life and I'd bet you a million dollars you'd treat him the same way you would treat a dirty vagrant around your kids. Why would a pedophile ever share this life ruining secret with anyone, ever? It's impossible to know how many pedophiles are out there because of that. Putting them in therapy to help channel their sexuality in a way that won't harm kids. This makes your children safer. Who wouldn't take a teeny, tiny tax increase that directly makes kids safer? Therapy is expensive and the price tag is a major barrier for people taking the step to get help. A nameless, random face on the internet will almost never be attached to an identity, so the victim in the picture will likely never be found, and the best justice you can salvage from the situation is that someone gets help for their dangerous habit. Throwing that guy in jail for having her picture doesn't make one ounce of a difference to that girl. At least this way, you're helping someone . CP of someone the perpetrator knows is pretty solid probable cause to find out if they broke any other laws, like rape or assault or the production of child pornography.",I believe that the only legal punishment for people caught with child pornography should be court mandated therapy. No jail. No registry. Just therapy.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that femdom, is not against the Bible. The reasoning I am using comes from this website Now I am going to first state that the type of femdom I enjoy is gentlefemdom look here if you are curious First off In a spiritual relationship the man is meant to lead by example, which does not necessarily mean that he rule the household. Secondly, according to 1 corinthians 11 9 a woman is meant to have authority over her head note that her head refers to her spiritual head , and in 1 Corinthians 11 3 the man is her spiritual head. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that femdom, is not against the Bible. The reasoning I am using comes from this website Now I am going to first state that the type of femdom I enjoy is gentlefemdom look here if you are curious First off In a spiritual relationship the man is meant to lead by example, which does not necessarily mean that he rule the household. Secondly, according to 1 corinthians 11 9 a woman is meant to have authority over her head note that her head refers to her spiritual head , and in 1 Corinthians 11 3 the man is her spiritual head. <|TARGETS|>to first state that the type of femdom I enjoy is gentlefemdom look here if you are curious First off In a spiritual relationship the man is meant to lead by example, to have authority over her head note that her head<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that femdom, is not against the Bible. The reasoning I am using comes from this website Now I am going to first state that the type of femdom I enjoy is gentlefemdom look here if you are curious First off In a spiritual relationship the man is meant to lead by example, which does not necessarily mean that he rule the household. Secondly, according to 1 corinthians 11 9 a woman is meant to have authority over her head note that her head refers to her spiritual head , and in 1 Corinthians 11 3 the man is her spiritual head. <|ASPECTS|>spiritual head, bible, authority over her head, spiritual, gentlefemdom, femdom, rule the household<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that femdom, is not against the Bible. The reasoning I am using comes from this website Now I am going to first state that the type of femdom I enjoy is gentlefemdom look here if you are curious First off In a spiritual relationship the man is meant to lead by example, which does not necessarily mean that he rule the household. Secondly, according to 1 corinthians 11 9 a woman is meant to have authority over her head note that her head refers to her spiritual head , and in 1 Corinthians 11 3 the man is her spiritual head.","Femdom, is not against the Bible."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know we have more technology than ever before, but the last major human advancement was going from cavemen to citymen. Science has definitely given us more knowledge, but humanity seems to generally be lacking in the wisdom department. Hell, I'd settle for a little more common sense. Here's some of the reason's I don't think we're as advanced as we typically believe 5 We can't figure out how the ancients built the megaliths Not only can we not recreate what the ancients did, we are generally lost as to how it was done. There are so many ancient sites that still confound us, the Sphinx and the Pyramids of Giza, Puma Punku, Gobekli Tepe, Stone Henge, Easter Island's Moai, the list goes on and on. I find it hard to call ourselves advanced when we can't even move many of the giant blocks that these advanced ancient civilizations used to build with. 4 We let natural resources run the world Civilization as we know it has always been dominated by the control of natural resources. People that control these resources have all the power, and they seem to get a raging boner for manipulating everyone for their own profit. During the bronze age it was the trade of bronze. Today it's fossil fuels. The worst part is we have the technology to move past this phase, but not the money, how ironic. On top of that, we consume these resources faster and faster each year as more of the world becomes industrialized. We really don't know how long these fossil fuels will last. Fossil fuel depletion gt It’s often claimed that we have enough coal to last hundreds of years. But if we step up production to fill the gap left through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. And let’s not even think of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning all that coal. 3 Advanced technology historically has been weaponized There are too many instances to list, but nuclear technology instantly comes to mind. Instead of clean energy, we made bombs. Newer tech that can revolutionize the world is epitomized by drones. We are coming into the age of drones, and the craziest idea so far is having them deliver a fucking package? The rate of drone use is rapidly increasing. Currently governments are mainly using drones to kill and spy, instead of more useful things like exploration and labor. Nikola Tesla was the greatest genius of the industrial age, and even claimed to have found out how to give free energy to the world. Nobody was interested because they couldn't profit from it. The only time any governments seemed to be interested in Tesla's work was when he claimed he could make a death ray 2 We don't have faster than light capabilities Yes, I'm calling out the prime directive. If we can barely make it past our planet, how can we call ourselves an advanced civilization? Recently, Voyager 1 may have left the solar system, scientists still aren't 100 sure. It was launched 1977 and is one of the fastest crafts we have, but that's not very efficient in the scope of intergalactic space. Until we can travel close to the speed of light or faster, exploration isn't really feasible. There are theories on how this can be done, but no serious research is being pursued. warp drives gt Is there any work being done to search for these breakthroughs? Yes, but not much. 1 We are still at the whim of the universe Not much explanation needed here, our advanced civilization could still go the way of the dinosaurs. Until we can protect the planet, we're only as advanced as the universe let's us be. There are theories on how this can be done, but if we actually found an asteroid in time and it came down to it we'd likely be screwed. There has also been a recent study that suggest we are in a snow globe solar system of asteroids. Can we be advanced if we can't protect our planet from catastrophic space events? The answer for me is not really. Not until humanity can start looking toward the future in terms of eons instead of decades. What do you think, are we really more advanced then early civilizations, or do we just have better stuff?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know we have more technology than ever before, but the last major human advancement was going from cavemen to citymen. Science has definitely given us more knowledge, but humanity seems to generally be lacking in the wisdom department. Hell, I'd settle for a little more common sense. Here's some of the reason's I don't think we're as advanced as we typically believe 5 We can't figure out how the ancients built the megaliths Not only can we not recreate what the ancients did, we are generally lost as to how it was done. There are so many ancient sites that still confound us, the Sphinx and the Pyramids of Giza, Puma Punku, Gobekli Tepe, Stone Henge, Easter Island's Moai, the list goes on and on. I find it hard to call ourselves advanced when we can't even move many of the giant blocks that these advanced ancient civilizations used to build with. 4 We let natural resources run the world Civilization as we know it has always been dominated by the control of natural resources. People that control these resources have all the power, and they seem to get a raging boner for manipulating everyone for their own profit. During the bronze age it was the trade of bronze. Today it's fossil fuels. The worst part is we have the technology to move past this phase, but not the money, how ironic. On top of that, we consume these resources faster and faster each year as more of the world becomes industrialized. We really don't know how long these fossil fuels will last. Fossil fuel depletion gt It’s often claimed that we have enough coal to last hundreds of years. But if we step up production to fill the gap left through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. And let’s not even think of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning all that coal. 3 Advanced technology historically has been weaponized There are too many instances to list, but nuclear technology instantly comes to mind. Instead of clean energy, we made bombs. Newer tech that can revolutionize the world is epitomized by drones. We are coming into the age of drones, and the craziest idea so far is having them deliver a fucking package? The rate of drone use is rapidly increasing. Currently governments are mainly using drones to kill and spy, instead of more useful things like exploration and labor. Nikola Tesla was the greatest genius of the industrial age, and even claimed to have found out how to give free energy to the world. Nobody was interested because they couldn't profit from it. The only time any governments seemed to be interested in Tesla's work was when he claimed he could make a death ray 2 We don't have faster than light capabilities Yes, I'm calling out the prime directive. If we can barely make it past our planet, how can we call ourselves an advanced civilization? Recently, Voyager 1 may have left the solar system, scientists still aren't 100 sure. It was launched 1977 and is one of the fastest crafts we have, but that's not very efficient in the scope of intergalactic space. Until we can travel close to the speed of light or faster, exploration isn't really feasible. There are theories on how this can be done, but no serious research is being pursued. warp drives gt Is there any work being done to search for these breakthroughs? Yes, but not much. 1 We are still at the whim of the universe Not much explanation needed here, our advanced civilization could still go the way of the dinosaurs. Until we can protect the planet, we're only as advanced as the universe let's us be. There are theories on how this can be done, but if we actually found an asteroid in time and it came down to it we'd likely be screwed. There has also been a recent study that suggest we are in a snow globe solar system of asteroids. Can we be advanced if we can't protect our planet from catastrophic space events? The answer for me is not really. Not until humanity can start looking toward the future in terms of eons instead of decades. What do you think, are we really more advanced then early civilizations, or do we just have better stuff?<|TARGETS|>Science, having them deliver a fucking package, protect our planet from catastrophic space events, Tesla 's work, nuclear technology, calling out the prime directive .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know we have more technology than ever before, but the last major human advancement was going from cavemen to citymen. Science has definitely given us more knowledge, but humanity seems to generally be lacking in the wisdom department. Hell, I'd settle for a little more common sense. Here's some of the reason's I don't think we're as advanced as we typically believe 5 We can't figure out how the ancients built the megaliths Not only can we not recreate what the ancients did, we are generally lost as to how it was done. There are so many ancient sites that still confound us, the Sphinx and the Pyramids of Giza, Puma Punku, Gobekli Tepe, Stone Henge, Easter Island's Moai, the list goes on and on. I find it hard to call ourselves advanced when we can't even move many of the giant blocks that these advanced ancient civilizations used to build with. 4 We let natural resources run the world Civilization as we know it has always been dominated by the control of natural resources. People that control these resources have all the power, and they seem to get a raging boner for manipulating everyone for their own profit. During the bronze age it was the trade of bronze. Today it's fossil fuels. The worst part is we have the technology to move past this phase, but not the money, how ironic. On top of that, we consume these resources faster and faster each year as more of the world becomes industrialized. We really don't know how long these fossil fuels will last. Fossil fuel depletion gt It’s often claimed that we have enough coal to last hundreds of years. But if we step up production to fill the gap left through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. And let’s not even think of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning all that coal. 3 Advanced technology historically has been weaponized There are too many instances to list, but nuclear technology instantly comes to mind. Instead of clean energy, we made bombs. Newer tech that can revolutionize the world is epitomized by drones. We are coming into the age of drones, and the craziest idea so far is having them deliver a fucking package? The rate of drone use is rapidly increasing. Currently governments are mainly using drones to kill and spy, instead of more useful things like exploration and labor. Nikola Tesla was the greatest genius of the industrial age, and even claimed to have found out how to give free energy to the world. Nobody was interested because they couldn't profit from it. The only time any governments seemed to be interested in Tesla's work was when he claimed he could make a death ray 2 We don't have faster than light capabilities Yes, I'm calling out the prime directive. If we can barely make it past our planet, how can we call ourselves an advanced civilization? Recently, Voyager 1 may have left the solar system, scientists still aren't 100 sure. It was launched 1977 and is one of the fastest crafts we have, but that's not very efficient in the scope of intergalactic space. Until we can travel close to the speed of light or faster, exploration isn't really feasible. There are theories on how this can be done, but no serious research is being pursued. warp drives gt Is there any work being done to search for these breakthroughs? Yes, but not much. 1 We are still at the whim of the universe Not much explanation needed here, our advanced civilization could still go the way of the dinosaurs. Until we can protect the planet, we're only as advanced as the universe let's us be. There are theories on how this can be done, but if we actually found an asteroid in time and it came down to it we'd likely be screwed. There has also been a recent study that suggest we are in a snow globe solar system of asteroids. Can we be advanced if we can't protect our planet from catastrophic space events? The answer for me is not really. Not until humanity can start looking toward the future in terms of eons instead of decades. What do you think, are we really more advanced then early civilizations, or do we just have better stuff?<|ASPECTS|>lost, crafts, free energy, interested, common sense, protect, catastrophic space events, speed of light, revolutionize the world, fastest, energy, money, advanced civilization, carbon dioxide emissions, consume these resources faster, wisdom department, drone use, technology, gap, faster than light capabilities, research, genius, serious, useful, human advancement, blocks, age of drones, craziest, civilizations, efficient, coal, clean energy, resources, future, tech, breakthroughs, epitomized, industrialized, move, better stuff, screwed, exploration, profit, citymen, death ray, confound, power, left the solar system, asteroids, natural resources, nobody, recreate, kill and spy, snow globe solar system, explanation, knowledge, manipulating everyone, trade of bronze, nuclear technology, warp drives, advanced, package, reserves, protect the planet, rate, fossil fuel depletion, control of natural resources, bombs, feasible, cavemen, fossil fuels, faster, weaponized, exploration and labor, ancient sites<|CONCLUSION|>","I know we have more technology than ever before, but the last major human advancement was going from cavemen to citymen. Science has definitely given us more knowledge, but humanity seems to generally be lacking in the wisdom department. Hell, I'd settle for a little more common sense. Here's some of the reason's I don't think we're as advanced as we typically believe 5 We can't figure out how the ancients built the megaliths Not only can we not recreate what the ancients did, we are generally lost as to how it was done. There are so many ancient sites that still confound us, the Sphinx and the Pyramids of Giza, Puma Punku, Gobekli Tepe, Stone Henge, Easter Island's Moai, the list goes on and on. I find it hard to call ourselves advanced when we can't even move many of the giant blocks that these advanced ancient civilizations used to build with. 4 We let natural resources run the world Civilization as we know it has always been dominated by the control of natural resources. People that control these resources have all the power, and they seem to get a raging boner for manipulating everyone for their own profit. During the bronze age it was the trade of bronze. Today it's fossil fuels. The worst part is we have the technology to move past this phase, but not the money, how ironic. On top of that, we consume these resources faster and faster each year as more of the world becomes industrialized. We really don't know how long these fossil fuels will last. Fossil fuel depletion gt It’s often claimed that we have enough coal to last hundreds of years. But if we step up production to fill the gap left through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. And let’s not even think of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning all that coal. 3 Advanced technology historically has been weaponized There are too many instances to list, but nuclear technology instantly comes to mind. Instead of clean energy, we made bombs. Newer tech that can revolutionize the world is epitomized by drones. We are coming into the age of drones, and the craziest idea so far is having them deliver a fucking package? The rate of drone use is rapidly increasing. Currently governments are mainly using drones to kill and spy, instead of more useful things like exploration and labor. Nikola Tesla was the greatest genius of the industrial age, and even claimed to have found out how to give free energy to the world. Nobody was interested because they couldn't profit from it. The only time any governments seemed to be interested in Tesla's work was when he claimed he could make a death ray 2 We don't have faster than light capabilities Yes, I'm calling out the prime directive. If we can barely make it past our planet, how can we call ourselves an advanced civilization? Recently, Voyager 1 may have left the solar system, scientists still aren't 100 sure. It was launched 1977 and is one of the fastest crafts we have, but that's not very efficient in the scope of intergalactic space. Until we can travel close to the speed of light or faster, exploration isn't really feasible. There are theories on how this can be done, but no serious research is being pursued. warp drives gt Is there any work being done to search for these breakthroughs? Yes, but not much. 1 We are still at the whim of the universe Not much explanation needed here, our advanced civilization could still go the way of the dinosaurs. Until we can protect the planet, we're only as advanced as the universe let's us be. There are theories on how this can be done, but if we actually found an asteroid in time and it came down to it we'd likely be screwed. There has also been a recent study that suggest we are in a snow globe solar system of asteroids. Can we be advanced if we can't protect our planet from catastrophic space events? The answer for me is not really. Not until humanity can start looking toward the future in terms of eons instead of decades. What do you think, are we really more advanced then early civilizations, or do we just have better stuff?",I don't think we're really an advanced civilization.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm sure this has come up a lot but I'd love to discuss. I see a sometimes prevailing idea that being unsatisfied sexually makes it in some way less bad to cheat. Or not being in love makes it okay to cheat. Another argument is that being intoxicated so clouds peoples judgment that cheating sometimes just happens. I don't agree that intoxication changes someone enough to do things that are against their core nature. I think trying to fix your relationship or ending it is the respectful way to deal with dissatisfaction. Can any past cheaters change my view and help me sympathise with their reasoning? Edit I should have clarified that I only consider it cheating if there is mutual trust before the event. Edit 2 I want to apologize because I think I may have set up an unfair argument. In the sense that cases where cheating is okay, I don't really consider it cheating.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm sure this has come up a lot but I'd love to discuss. I see a sometimes prevailing idea that being unsatisfied sexually makes it in some way less bad to cheat. Or not being in love makes it okay to cheat. Another argument is that being intoxicated so clouds peoples judgment that cheating sometimes just happens. I don't agree that intoxication changes someone enough to do things that are against their core nature. I think trying to fix your relationship or ending it is the respectful way to deal with dissatisfaction. Can any past cheaters change my view and help me sympathise with their reasoning? Edit I should have clarified that I only consider it cheating if there is mutual trust before the event. Edit 2 I want to apologize because I think I may have set up an unfair argument. In the sense that cases where cheating is okay, I don't really consider it cheating.<|TARGETS|>a sometimes prevailing idea that being unsatisfied sexually, to deal with dissatisfaction ., being intoxicated so clouds peoples judgment that cheating, trying to fix your relationship or ending it, it cheating ., Another argument<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm sure this has come up a lot but I'd love to discuss. I see a sometimes prevailing idea that being unsatisfied sexually makes it in some way less bad to cheat. Or not being in love makes it okay to cheat. Another argument is that being intoxicated so clouds peoples judgment that cheating sometimes just happens. I don't agree that intoxication changes someone enough to do things that are against their core nature. I think trying to fix your relationship or ending it is the respectful way to deal with dissatisfaction. Can any past cheaters change my view and help me sympathise with their reasoning? Edit I should have clarified that I only consider it cheating if there is mutual trust before the event. Edit 2 I want to apologize because I think I may have set up an unfair argument. In the sense that cases where cheating is okay, I don't really consider it cheating.<|ASPECTS|>okay, relationship, respectful, dissatisfaction, reasoning, cheating, unfair argument, mutual trust, view, cheaters, past, nature, intoxicated, intoxication changes, sympathise, unsatisfied sexually, cheat, less bad to cheat<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm sure this has come up a lot but I'd love to discuss. I see a sometimes prevailing idea that being unsatisfied sexually makes it in some way less bad to cheat. Or not being in love makes it okay to cheat. Another argument is that being intoxicated so clouds peoples judgment that cheating sometimes just happens. I don't agree that intoxication changes someone enough to do things that are against their core nature. I think trying to fix your relationship or ending it is the respectful way to deal with dissatisfaction. Can any past cheaters change my view and help me sympathise with their reasoning? Edit I should have clarified that I only consider it cheating if there is mutual trust before the event. Edit 2 I want to apologize because I think I may have set up an unfair argument. In the sense that cases where cheating is okay, I don't really consider it cheating.",Cheating on a partner is never justified.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading an article about how North Korea may have a working ICBM by next year, I'm not still convinced anyone has the balls to pull the trigger. I'm basing this solely off of the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. Surely they must know anything they hit us with the US can hit them harder? Honestly that's my entire argument. Maybe weak, but seriously, this would be a lose lose situation for everyone involved. No one had the balls during the Cold War and I don't think Kim Jong Un has the balls now.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading an article about how North Korea may have a working ICBM by next year, I'm not still convinced anyone has the balls to pull the trigger. I'm basing this solely off of the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. Surely they must know anything they hit us with the US can hit them harder? Honestly that's my entire argument. Maybe weak, but seriously, this would be a lose lose situation for everyone involved. No one had the balls during the Cold War and I don't think Kim Jong Un has the balls now.<|TARGETS|>basing this solely off of the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction ., Kim Jong Un, reading an article about how North Korea<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading an article about how North Korea may have a working ICBM by next year, I'm not still convinced anyone has the balls to pull the trigger. I'm basing this solely off of the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. Surely they must know anything they hit us with the US can hit them harder? Honestly that's my entire argument. Maybe weak, but seriously, this would be a lose lose situation for everyone involved. No one had the balls during the Cold War and I don't think Kim Jong Un has the balls now.<|ASPECTS|>trigger, hit them harder, balls, lose lose situation, mutually assured destruction, working icbm<|CONCLUSION|>","After reading an article about how North Korea may have a working ICBM by next year, I'm not still convinced anyone has the balls to pull the trigger. I'm basing this solely off of the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. Surely they must know anything they hit us with the US can hit them harder? Honestly that's my entire argument. Maybe weak, but seriously, this would be a lose lose situation for everyone involved. No one had the balls during the Cold War and I don't think Kim Jong Un has the balls now.",We shouldn't worry that much about North Korea attacking us
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Read up a ton on the subject, and I'm still not convinced. I believe I have some points that through research have still not been rebutted. Yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content. What's so different between that and artists making money off of their songs? It's still a service they are providing. Even if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, they are still high levels within the Amway business on it's own. Meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam? If the selling of motivational content was to go away, would the Amway business on it's own still be considered a scam? Isn't it basically a referral program?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Read up a ton on the subject, and I'm still not convinced. I believe I have some points that through research have still not been rebutted. Yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content. What's so different between that and artists making money off of their songs? It's still a service they are providing. Even if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, they are still high levels within the Amway business on it's own. Meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam? If the selling of motivational content was to go away, would the Amway business on it's own still be considered a scam? Isn't it basically a referral program?<|TARGETS|>Read up a ton on the subject, the additional income of the motivational content, if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, a referral program, If the selling of motivational content, the Amway business on it 's own<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Read up a ton on the subject, and I'm still not convinced. I believe I have some points that through research have still not been rebutted. Yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content. What's so different between that and artists making money off of their songs? It's still a service they are providing. Even if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, they are still high levels within the Amway business on it's own. Meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam? If the selling of motivational content was to go away, would the Amway business on it's own still be considered a scam? Isn't it basically a referral program?<|ASPECTS|>income, service, scam, motivational content, referral program, money, making money, research, making, high levels<|CONCLUSION|>","Read up a ton on the subject, and I'm still not convinced. I believe I have some points that through research have still not been rebutted. Yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content. What's so different between that and artists making money off of their songs? It's still a service they are providing. Even if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, they are still high levels within the Amway business on it's own. Meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam? If the selling of motivational content was to go away, would the Amway business on it's own still be considered a scam? Isn't it basically a referral program?",Amway isn't a scam
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have read a lot about near death experiences and have watched videos with people who had them. I have also read a lot of opinions on this topic by the sceptics. My conclusion is that while NDEs are not a 100 bulletproof evidence for the existence of afterlife by afterlife, I refer to the possibility, that a certain part of personal consciousness can exist after bodily death , I still think that there is enough evidence, that such option should be considered very seriously by the mainstream science. As evidence, I consider 1 frequent reports of psychic phenomena during NDE sceptics seem usually to ignore that, or simply say it's not reproducible or trustworthy 2 similarly patients having NDE being able to describe details of surgeries that happened while thay had no brain activity 3 people who had NDEs are usually completely convinced that the experince was real and believe in afterlife, reagardless of previous beliefs sceptics simply say thatm they're deluded, which seems rather closed minded, even smug, to me 4 similarly people who had NDEs often change their lives in some way and attribute that to the contents of the experince. probably does not logically imply much, but it's still worth considering imho . Further, it seems to me, that the sceptics failed to provide a resonable alternative explanation. Usually, they just dismiss it saying it's just hallucination of the dying brain or fraud , but never elaborate on the details of such claims. Please, don't try to CMV on the validity of NDEs, but try to CMV that mainstream science is ignorant of the available evidence and that the sceptics are rather closed minded. Or alternatively explain why all the evidence available is actually not enough to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the default opinion in science as it seems to me to be the case now.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have read a lot about near death experiences and have watched videos with people who had them. I have also read a lot of opinions on this topic by the sceptics. My conclusion is that while NDEs are not a 100 bulletproof evidence for the existence of afterlife by afterlife, I refer to the possibility, that a certain part of personal consciousness can exist after bodily death , I still think that there is enough evidence, that such option should be considered very seriously by the mainstream science. As evidence, I consider 1 frequent reports of psychic phenomena during NDE sceptics seem usually to ignore that, or simply say it's not reproducible or trustworthy 2 similarly patients having NDE being able to describe details of surgeries that happened while thay had no brain activity 3 people who had NDEs are usually completely convinced that the experince was real and believe in afterlife, reagardless of previous beliefs sceptics simply say thatm they're deluded, which seems rather closed minded, even smug, to me 4 similarly people who had NDEs often change their lives in some way and attribute that to the contents of the experince. probably does not logically imply much, but it's still worth considering imho . Further, it seems to me, that the sceptics failed to provide a resonable alternative explanation. Usually, they just dismiss it saying it's just hallucination of the dying brain or fraud , but never elaborate on the details of such claims. Please, don't try to CMV on the validity of NDEs, but try to CMV that mainstream science is ignorant of the available evidence and that the sceptics are rather closed minded. Or alternatively explain why all the evidence available is actually not enough to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the default opinion in science as it seems to me to be the case now.<|TARGETS|>a 100 bulletproof evidence for the existence of afterlife by afterlife, considering imho ., having NDE being able to describe details of surgeries that happened while thay had no brain activity 3 people who had NDEs are usually completely convinced that the experince was real and believe in afterlife reagardless of previous beliefs sceptics, a lot of opinions on this topic by the sceptics ., to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the default opinion in science as it, a certain part of personal consciousness can exist after bodily death I still think that there is enough evidence that such option<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have read a lot about near death experiences and have watched videos with people who had them. I have also read a lot of opinions on this topic by the sceptics. My conclusion is that while NDEs are not a 100 bulletproof evidence for the existence of afterlife by afterlife, I refer to the possibility, that a certain part of personal consciousness can exist after bodily death , I still think that there is enough evidence, that such option should be considered very seriously by the mainstream science. As evidence, I consider 1 frequent reports of psychic phenomena during NDE sceptics seem usually to ignore that, or simply say it's not reproducible or trustworthy 2 similarly patients having NDE being able to describe details of surgeries that happened while thay had no brain activity 3 people who had NDEs are usually completely convinced that the experince was real and believe in afterlife, reagardless of previous beliefs sceptics simply say thatm they're deluded, which seems rather closed minded, even smug, to me 4 similarly people who had NDEs often change their lives in some way and attribute that to the contents of the experince. probably does not logically imply much, but it's still worth considering imho . Further, it seems to me, that the sceptics failed to provide a resonable alternative explanation. Usually, they just dismiss it saying it's just hallucination of the dying brain or fraud , but never elaborate on the details of such claims. Please, don't try to CMV on the validity of NDEs, but try to CMV that mainstream science is ignorant of the available evidence and that the sceptics are rather closed minded. Or alternatively explain why all the evidence available is actually not enough to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the default opinion in science as it seems to me to be the case now.<|ASPECTS|>near death experiences, alternative explanation, trustworthy, hallucination of the dying brain, scientificaly interesting, personal consciousness, sceptics, closed, reproducible, resonable, bulletproof evidence, fraud, validity, default opinion, psychic phenomena, disbelief, bodily death, change, ignorant of the available evidence, closed minded, lives, opinions<|CONCLUSION|>","I have read a lot about near death experiences and have watched videos with people who had them. I have also read a lot of opinions on this topic by the sceptics. My conclusion is that while NDEs are not a 100 bulletproof evidence for the existence of afterlife by afterlife, I refer to the possibility, that a certain part of personal consciousness can exist after bodily death , I still think that there is enough evidence, that such option should be considered very seriously by the mainstream science. As evidence, I consider 1 frequent reports of psychic phenomena during NDE sceptics seem usually to ignore that, or simply say it's not reproducible or trustworthy 2 similarly patients having NDE being able to describe details of surgeries that happened while thay had no brain activity 3 people who had NDEs are usually completely convinced that the experince was real and believe in afterlife, reagardless of previous beliefs sceptics simply say thatm they're deluded, which seems rather closed minded, even smug, to me 4 similarly people who had NDEs often change their lives in some way and attribute that to the contents of the experince. probably does not logically imply much, but it's still worth considering imho . Further, it seems to me, that the sceptics failed to provide a resonable alternative explanation. Usually, they just dismiss it saying it's just hallucination of the dying brain or fraud , but never elaborate on the details of such claims. Please, don't try to  on the validity of NDEs, but try to  that mainstream science is ignorant of the available evidence and that the sceptics are rather closed minded. Or alternatively explain why all the evidence available is actually not enough to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the default opinion in science as it seems to me to be the case now.",Near death experience reports provide a reasonable evidence for the belief in afterlife.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the last year I can count at least 4 times where combining my income with my wife has increased my payments taxes, student loans, etc. . We don't own a home and have no kids. There's no benefits that I can think of for us being married. Not that we got married for the benefits, but when people claim that gays don't have access to the benefits of being married, I just don't understand what they are talking about. We've never had a problem visiting each other in the hospital when we said we were boyfriend girlfriend, and once Affordable Healthcare act becomes a thing it will actually be cheaper for me to have an individual plan than it will to be added to my wife's insurance.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the last year I can count at least 4 times where combining my income with my wife has increased my payments taxes, student loans, etc. . We don't own a home and have no kids. There's no benefits that I can think of for us being married. Not that we got married for the benefits, but when people claim that gays don't have access to the benefits of being married, I just don't understand what they are talking about. We've never had a problem visiting each other in the hospital when we said we were boyfriend girlfriend, and once Affordable Healthcare act becomes a thing it will actually be cheaper for me to have an individual plan than it will to be added to my wife's insurance.<|TARGETS|>when people claim that gays do n't have access to the benefits of being married I just do n't understand what they are talking about ., a problem visiting each other in the hospital when we said we were boyfriend girlfriend and once Affordable Healthcare act<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the last year I can count at least 4 times where combining my income with my wife has increased my payments taxes, student loans, etc. . We don't own a home and have no kids. There's no benefits that I can think of for us being married. Not that we got married for the benefits, but when people claim that gays don't have access to the benefits of being married, I just don't understand what they are talking about. We've never had a problem visiting each other in the hospital when we said we were boyfriend girlfriend, and once Affordable Healthcare act becomes a thing it will actually be cheaper for me to have an individual plan than it will to be added to my wife's insurance.<|ASPECTS|>student loans, visiting each, a home, payments taxes, plan, benefits, cheaper, kids<|CONCLUSION|>","In the last year I can count at least 4 times where combining my income with my wife has increased my payments taxes, student loans, etc. . We don't own a home and have no kids. There's no benefits that I can think of for us being married. Not that we got married for the benefits, but when people claim that gays don't have access to the benefits of being married, I just don't understand what they are talking about. We've never had a problem visiting each other in the hospital when we said we were boyfriend girlfriend, and once Affordable Healthcare act becomes a thing it will actually be cheaper for me to have an individual plan than it will to be added to my wife's insurance.",I don't see any benefits for being married if you don't own a home or have kids
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that with the improvement in medicine and infant mortality rate over the last century, coupled with social welfare programs which I support , allowing unlimited children and providing assistance for all of them without taking away the children or disallowing the parents to have any more is unfair to the children who have to live in such dysfunction and unfair to the rest of society who have to pay for it. You can't help being poor, but you can help controlling your reproduction habits and there is no excuse for pumping out babies like they are puppies if you can't provide for them. At some point society needs to cut you off, one way or another. I realized I have this view after seeing this post 1 And I realized I could possibly be wrong after reading this 2 I do not agree with this comic, mainly because the unique time we live in regarding survival rate of children and abundance of social welfare programs. But XKCD is usually spot on so I want to give people a chance to provide a more in depth argument to sway me. Change my view. EDIT I am reading through the comments and ensuing conversation. obviously this is a contentious issue with lots of people on both sides. I will continue to read comments as best I can, there is just a lot to go through. A lot of good points though, it's at the very least tough to have a hardline opinion one way or the other it seems.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that with the improvement in medicine and infant mortality rate over the last century, coupled with social welfare programs which I support , allowing unlimited children and providing assistance for all of them without taking away the children or disallowing the parents to have any more is unfair to the children who have to live in such dysfunction and unfair to the rest of society who have to pay for it. You can't help being poor, but you can help controlling your reproduction habits and there is no excuse for pumping out babies like they are puppies if you can't provide for them. At some point society needs to cut you off, one way or another. I realized I have this view after seeing this post 1 And I realized I could possibly be wrong after reading this 2 I do not agree with this comic, mainly because the unique time we live in regarding survival rate of children and abundance of social welfare programs. But XKCD is usually spot on so I want to give people a chance to provide a more in depth argument to sway me. Change my view. EDIT I am reading through the comments and ensuing conversation. obviously this is a contentious issue with lots of people on both sides. I will continue to read comments as best I can, there is just a lot to go through. A lot of good points though, it's at the very least tough to have a hardline opinion one way or the other it seems.<|TARGETS|>XKCD, allowing unlimited children and providing assistance for all of them without taking away the children or disallowing the parents to have any more is unfair to the children who have to live in such dysfunction and unfair to the rest of society who have to pay for it ., I will continue to read comments as best I can, help controlling your reproduction habits, pumping out babies like they are puppies, reading through the comments and ensuing conversation .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that with the improvement in medicine and infant mortality rate over the last century, coupled with social welfare programs which I support , allowing unlimited children and providing assistance for all of them without taking away the children or disallowing the parents to have any more is unfair to the children who have to live in such dysfunction and unfair to the rest of society who have to pay for it. You can't help being poor, but you can help controlling your reproduction habits and there is no excuse for pumping out babies like they are puppies if you can't provide for them. At some point society needs to cut you off, one way or another. I realized I have this view after seeing this post 1 And I realized I could possibly be wrong after reading this 2 I do not agree with this comic, mainly because the unique time we live in regarding survival rate of children and abundance of social welfare programs. But XKCD is usually spot on so I want to give people a chance to provide a more in depth argument to sway me. Change my view. EDIT I am reading through the comments and ensuing conversation. obviously this is a contentious issue with lots of people on both sides. I will continue to read comments as best I can, there is just a lot to go through. A lot of good points though, it's at the very least tough to have a hardline opinion one way or the other it seems.<|ASPECTS|>dysfunction, social welfare programs, comments, view, contentious issue, babies, tough, society, controlling, survival rate of children, reproduction habits, infant mortality rate, read comments, unlimited children, unfair, argument, sway, lot, poor, hardline opinion, cut you, conversation<|CONCLUSION|>","I think that with the improvement in medicine and infant mortality rate over the last century, coupled with social welfare programs which I support , allowing unlimited children and providing assistance for all of them without taking away the children or disallowing the parents to have any more is unfair to the children who have to live in such dysfunction and unfair to the rest of society who have to pay for it. You can't help being poor, but you can help controlling your reproduction habits and there is no excuse for pumping out babies like they are puppies if you can't provide for them. At some point society needs to cut you off, one way or another. I realized I have this view after seeing this post 1 And I realized I could possibly be wrong after reading this 2 I do not agree with this comic, mainly because the unique time we live in regarding survival rate of children and abundance of social welfare programs. But XKCD is usually spot on so I want to give people a chance to provide a more in depth argument to sway me. Change my view. EDIT I am reading through the comments and ensuing conversation. obviously this is a contentious issue with lots of people on both sides. I will continue to read comments as best I can, there is just a lot to go through. A lot of good points though, it's at the very least tough to have a hardline opinion one way or the other it seems.",I believe that allowing people to have as many children as they want while continuing to give more and more assistance is hurting society.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I grew up in a religious family but I never understood what they thought was so important about the idea of God and Jesus. I always thought that most of the Bible was entertaining because it sets a good basis for morals but in the end I’ve never felt as if there was something more there. Personally, I feel like I more so believe in fate and destiny if you do what you think is right you’ll get where you want. Similarly, when you do something bad that’s what you’ll get in return. I’m open to new ideas, and I don’t ever really rule things out.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I grew up in a religious family but I never understood what they thought was so important about the idea of God and Jesus. I always thought that most of the Bible was entertaining because it sets a good basis for morals but in the end I’ve never felt as if there was something more there. Personally, I feel like I more so believe in fate and destiny if you do what you think is right you’ll get where you want. Similarly, when you do something bad that’s what you’ll get in return. I’m open to new ideas, and I don’t ever really rule things out.<|TARGETS|>when you do something bad that ’s what you ’ll get in return ., I more so believe in fate and destiny if you do what you think is right you ’ll get where you want ., what they thought was so important about the idea of God and Jesus ., open to new ideas and I do n’t ever really rule things out .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I grew up in a religious family but I never understood what they thought was so important about the idea of God and Jesus. I always thought that most of the Bible was entertaining because it sets a good basis for morals but in the end I’ve never felt as if there was something more there. Personally, I feel like I more so believe in fate and destiny if you do what you think is right you’ll get where you want. Similarly, when you do something bad that’s what you’ll get in return. I’m open to new ideas, and I don’t ever really rule things out.<|ASPECTS|>morals, entertaining, fate, god and jesus, basis, new ideas, rule things, destiny, religious family<|CONCLUSION|>","I grew up in a religious family but I never understood what they thought was so important about the idea of God and Jesus. I always thought that most of the Bible was entertaining because it sets a good basis for morals but in the end I’ve never felt as if there was something more there. Personally, I feel like I more so believe in fate and destiny if you do what you think is right you’ll get where you want. Similarly, when you do something bad that’s what you’ll get in return. I’m open to new ideas, and I don’t ever really rule things out.",I don’t believe in God.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me lay out why The countries in the world which are predominantly based upon Islam are generally not nice places to live. Their laws are harsh, their traditions are harsh and oppressive. The regime's are brutal and punishments harsh. They mutilate people so on so fourth. The hijab has become enforced through law and women have next to no rights. Having to marry their rapist, being stoned to death for being raped so on. Child marriage tends to be rampant as many believe within these countries that the prophet pbuh consummated with ayesha at a young age no realising that life spans back in those days tended to be short and sweet, the men and women tended to mature a lot younger than they do how Apostasy is often met with shaming, disowning and sometimes death. Though the Qur'an is no more violent than the bible the followers within these countries, especially, take it all as the word of God which cannot be changed or amended to reflect the world in which we live in now. I believe that the Qur'an needs a updated version so to speak similar to what happened to the bible I am not saying anything against Muslims as we are all human. I am disagreeing with the notion that Islam is a religion of peace based upon the countries where Islam is the religion tend to demonstrate otherwise. Change my view. my account has been verified by the mods Note I am not interested in talking about terrorism as their are Christian terrorist groups and I will not lump benign Muslims in with said group just like I would do for Christians.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me lay out why The countries in the world which are predominantly based upon Islam are generally not nice places to live. Their laws are harsh, their traditions are harsh and oppressive. The regime's are brutal and punishments harsh. They mutilate people so on so fourth. The hijab has become enforced through law and women have next to no rights. Having to marry their rapist, being stoned to death for being raped so on. Child marriage tends to be rampant as many believe within these countries that the prophet pbuh consummated with ayesha at a young age no realising that life spans back in those days tended to be short and sweet, the men and women tended to mature a lot younger than they do how Apostasy is often met with shaming, disowning and sometimes death. Though the Qur'an is no more violent than the bible the followers within these countries, especially, take it all as the word of God which cannot be changed or amended to reflect the world in which we live in now. I believe that the Qur'an needs a updated version so to speak similar to what happened to the bible I am not saying anything against Muslims as we are all human. I am disagreeing with the notion that Islam is a religion of peace based upon the countries where Islam is the religion tend to demonstrate otherwise. Change my view. my account has been verified by the mods Note I am not interested in talking about terrorism as their are Christian terrorist groups and I will not lump benign Muslims in with said group just like I would do for Christians.<|TARGETS|>a updated version so to speak similar to what happened to the bible I am not saying anything against Muslims as we are all human ., the word of God which cannot be changed or amended to reflect the world in which we live in now ., The regime, Having to marry their rapist being stoned to death for being raped so on ., Let me lay out why The countries in the world which are predominantly based upon Islam, these countries that the prophet pbuh consummated with ayesha at a young age no realising that life spans back in those days tended to be short and sweet the men and women tended to mature a lot younger than they do how Apostasy is often met with shaming disowning and sometimes death .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me lay out why The countries in the world which are predominantly based upon Islam are generally not nice places to live. Their laws are harsh, their traditions are harsh and oppressive. The regime's are brutal and punishments harsh. They mutilate people so on so fourth. The hijab has become enforced through law and women have next to no rights. Having to marry their rapist, being stoned to death for being raped so on. Child marriage tends to be rampant as many believe within these countries that the prophet pbuh consummated with ayesha at a young age no realising that life spans back in those days tended to be short and sweet, the men and women tended to mature a lot younger than they do how Apostasy is often met with shaming, disowning and sometimes death. Though the Qur'an is no more violent than the bible the followers within these countries, especially, take it all as the word of God which cannot be changed or amended to reflect the world in which we live in now. I believe that the Qur'an needs a updated version so to speak similar to what happened to the bible I am not saying anything against Muslims as we are all human. I am disagreeing with the notion that Islam is a religion of peace based upon the countries where Islam is the religion tend to demonstrate otherwise. Change my view. my account has been verified by the mods Note I am not interested in talking about terrorism as their are Christian terrorist groups and I will not lump benign Muslims in with said group just like I would do for Christians.<|ASPECTS|>death, rights, view, short and sweet, oppressive, benign muslims, women, stoned, nice places to live, harsh, christian terrorist groups, islam, religion of peace, enforced, shaming, human, punishments harsh, brutal, laws, disowning, life spans, raped, traditions, child marriage, violent, terrorism, updated version, mutilate people, word of god<|CONCLUSION|>","Let me lay out why The countries in the world which are predominantly based upon Islam are generally not nice places to live. Their laws are harsh, their traditions are harsh and oppressive. The regime's are brutal and punishments harsh. They mutilate people so on so fourth. The hijab has become enforced through law and women have next to no rights. Having to marry their rapist, being stoned to death for being raped so on. Child marriage tends to be rampant as many believe within these countries that the prophet pbuh consummated with ayesha at a young age no realising that life spans back in those days tended to be short and sweet, the men and women tended to mature a lot younger than they do how Apostasy is often met with shaming, disowning and sometimes death. Though the Qur'an is no more violent than the bible the followers within these countries, especially, take it all as the word of God which cannot be changed or amended to reflect the world in which we live in now. I believe that the Qur'an needs a updated version so to speak similar to what happened to the bible I am not saying anything against Muslims as we are all human. I am disagreeing with the notion that Islam is a religion of peace based upon the countries where Islam is the religion tend to demonstrate otherwise. Change my view. my account has been verified by the mods Note I am not interested in talking about terrorism as their are Christian terrorist groups and I will not lump benign Muslims in with said group just like I would do for Christians.",I am a centrist who doesn't buy into the notion that Islam is the religion of peace.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll start by saying I'm in my 30s and I also interact with kids of all ages as a sports coach, so I'm under no illusion regarding the differences between teens and adults. The main argument against this is that kids don't have the real world experience nor the mental decision making capacity to cast an educated vote. While perhaps true on average, in practice this likely wouldn't matter. The kids who don't care aren't going to vote. And yes, the kids who do won't likely have experience paying bills or having jobs. But they will have experience with schooling, which is one of the most important topics when deciding public policy and who to vote for. I would bet that the typical 14 year old who actually went out to vote would be just as informed as the typical adult voter, if not moreso. Another counter argument is that kids might just vote however their parents tell them. But I would consider that as a bonus. Even if we don't allow kids under 18 to vote, I would support parents being able to cast additional votes on behalf of their children. It's unfair to allow some old retired couple to have the same number of votes as a family of 5, as the family of 5 is far more affected by whatever policies take place. However, to reduce possible voting fraud and coercion from parents, under 18 voters should not be allowed to vote by mail in.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll start by saying I'm in my 30s and I also interact with kids of all ages as a sports coach, so I'm under no illusion regarding the differences between teens and adults. The main argument against this is that kids don't have the real world experience nor the mental decision making capacity to cast an educated vote. While perhaps true on average, in practice this likely wouldn't matter. The kids who don't care aren't going to vote. And yes, the kids who do won't likely have experience paying bills or having jobs. But they will have experience with schooling, which is one of the most important topics when deciding public policy and who to vote for. I would bet that the typical 14 year old who actually went out to vote would be just as informed as the typical adult voter, if not moreso. Another counter argument is that kids might just vote however their parents tell them. But I would consider that as a bonus. Even if we don't allow kids under 18 to vote, I would support parents being able to cast additional votes on behalf of their children. It's unfair to allow some old retired couple to have the same number of votes as a family of 5, as the family of 5 is far more affected by whatever policies take place. However, to reduce possible voting fraud and coercion from parents, under 18 voters should not be allowed to vote by mail in.<|TARGETS|>being able to cast additional votes on behalf of their children ., the differences between teens and adults ., that the typical 14 year old who actually went out to vote, Another counter argument, allow kids under 18 to vote, the real world experience nor the mental decision making capacity to cast an educated vote .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll start by saying I'm in my 30s and I also interact with kids of all ages as a sports coach, so I'm under no illusion regarding the differences between teens and adults. The main argument against this is that kids don't have the real world experience nor the mental decision making capacity to cast an educated vote. While perhaps true on average, in practice this likely wouldn't matter. The kids who don't care aren't going to vote. And yes, the kids who do won't likely have experience paying bills or having jobs. But they will have experience with schooling, which is one of the most important topics when deciding public policy and who to vote for. I would bet that the typical 14 year old who actually went out to vote would be just as informed as the typical adult voter, if not moreso. Another counter argument is that kids might just vote however their parents tell them. But I would consider that as a bonus. Even if we don't allow kids under 18 to vote, I would support parents being able to cast additional votes on behalf of their children. It's unfair to allow some old retired couple to have the same number of votes as a family of 5, as the family of 5 is far more affected by whatever policies take place. However, to reduce possible voting fraud and coercion from parents, under 18 voters should not be allowed to vote by mail in.<|ASPECTS|>additional votes, coercion from parents, care, votes, mental decision making capacity, behalf, jobs, teens, real world experience, informed, paying bills, differences, bonus, affected, voting fraud, unfair, vote, experience with schooling, mail, experience, kids<|CONCLUSION|>","I'll start by saying I'm in my 30s and I also interact with kids of all ages as a sports coach, so I'm under no illusion regarding the differences between teens and adults. The main argument against this is that kids don't have the real world experience nor the mental decision making capacity to cast an educated vote. While perhaps true on average, in practice this likely wouldn't matter. The kids who don't care aren't going to vote. And yes, the kids who do won't likely have experience paying bills or having jobs. But they will have experience with schooling, which is one of the most important topics when deciding public policy and who to vote for. I would bet that the typical 14 year old who actually went out to vote would be just as informed as the typical adult voter, if not moreso. Another counter argument is that kids might just vote however their parents tell them. But I would consider that as a bonus. Even if we don't allow kids under 18 to vote, I would support parents being able to cast additional votes on behalf of their children. It's unfair to allow some old retired couple to have the same number of votes as a family of 5, as the family of 5 is far more affected by whatever policies take place. However, to reduce possible voting fraud and coercion from parents, under 18 voters should not be allowed to vote by mail in.",Minimum voting age should be 14
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't see what harm it does if someone has a crush on an animated man woman. It affects people around them in no real negative way other than they think it's weird . Take boy bands, for example. Tons of pre teen girls have crushes on them and it's socially acceptable. Take in mind the fact that these guys are typically years older than their fanbase, they've never met them, and there's a large chance that they never will meet them. Then why is having a waifu so bad? It hurts nobody and gives people happiness. If someone wants to cuddle a body pillow with an anime character on it, why is that so bad?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't see what harm it does if someone has a crush on an animated man woman. It affects people around them in no real negative way other than they think it's weird . Take boy bands, for example. Tons of pre teen girls have crushes on them and it's socially acceptable. Take in mind the fact that these guys are typically years older than their fanbase, they've never met them, and there's a large chance that they never will meet them. Then why is having a waifu so bad? It hurts nobody and gives people happiness. If someone wants to cuddle a body pillow with an anime character on it, why is that so bad?<|TARGETS|>Take in mind the fact that these guys are typically years older than their fanbase, Take boy bands, if someone has a crush on an animated man woman ., If someone wants to cuddle a body pillow with an anime character on it, Tons of pre teen girls<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't see what harm it does if someone has a crush on an animated man woman. It affects people around them in no real negative way other than they think it's weird . Take boy bands, for example. Tons of pre teen girls have crushes on them and it's socially acceptable. Take in mind the fact that these guys are typically years older than their fanbase, they've never met them, and there's a large chance that they never will meet them. Then why is having a waifu so bad? It hurts nobody and gives people happiness. If someone wants to cuddle a body pillow with an anime character on it, why is that so bad?<|ASPECTS|>socially acceptable, never, hurts nobody, animated man woman, negative, crush, body pillow, happiness, waifu, harm, weird, affects people, boy, older<|CONCLUSION|>","I don't see what harm it does if someone has a crush on an animated man woman. It affects people around them in no real negative way other than they think it's weird . Take boy bands, for example. Tons of pre teen girls have crushes on them and it's socially acceptable. Take in mind the fact that these guys are typically years older than their fanbase, they've never met them, and there's a large chance that they never will meet them. Then why is having a waifu so bad? It hurts nobody and gives people happiness. If someone wants to cuddle a body pillow with an anime character on it, why is that so bad?",I see absolutely nothing wrong with having a waifu and believe it is no different than having a crush on a celebrity.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that certain cultures are superior to others. In particular Western civilization which has contributed immensely to the world. Everything from the steam engine to electricity to the internet. All these seeds have been sowed by western culture. And yes, I am aware that other cultures have contributed in the past too. A culture which advocated adulterers be stoned to death or where newborn girls have their genitalia mutilated is not superior or equal to ours. Nor is a culture where newborns girls are tossed off a cliff since they are viewed as undesirables . Having stated my views, I want to point out that western civilization is not restricted to a certain race or group of people. It is not a closed society, so to speak.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that certain cultures are superior to others. In particular Western civilization which has contributed immensely to the world. Everything from the steam engine to electricity to the internet. All these seeds have been sowed by western culture. And yes, I am aware that other cultures have contributed in the past too. A culture which advocated adulterers be stoned to death or where newborn girls have their genitalia mutilated is not superior or equal to ours. Nor is a culture where newborns girls are tossed off a cliff since they are viewed as undesirables . Having stated my views, I want to point out that western civilization is not restricted to a certain race or group of people. It is not a closed society, so to speak.<|TARGETS|>to point out that western civilization, a culture where newborns girls, A culture which advocated adulterers be stoned to death or where newborn girls have their genitalia mutilated, Having stated my views<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that certain cultures are superior to others. In particular Western civilization which has contributed immensely to the world. Everything from the steam engine to electricity to the internet. All these seeds have been sowed by western culture. And yes, I am aware that other cultures have contributed in the past too. A culture which advocated adulterers be stoned to death or where newborn girls have their genitalia mutilated is not superior or equal to ours. Nor is a culture where newborns girls are tossed off a cliff since they are viewed as undesirables . Having stated my views, I want to point out that western civilization is not restricted to a certain race or group of people. It is not a closed society, so to speak.<|ASPECTS|>, death, seeds, restricted, undesirables, contributed immensely to the world, equal, superior, closed society, western civilization, superior to others, race, sowed, electricity, western culture, cliff, contributed, internet, adulterers, cultures<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that certain cultures are superior to others. In particular Western civilization which has contributed immensely to the world. Everything from the steam engine to electricity to the internet. All these seeds have been sowed by western culture. And yes, I am aware that other cultures have contributed in the past too. A culture which advocated adulterers be stoned to death or where newborn girls have their genitalia mutilated is not superior or equal to ours. Nor is a culture where newborns girls are tossed off a cliff since they are viewed as undesirables . Having stated my views, I want to point out that western civilization is not restricted to a certain race or group of people. It is not a closed society, so to speak.",I don't believe in cultural relativism. Some cultures are superior to others.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe this based on constant and repeated examples. Things people may remember, the time Reddit was having a shit fit every time a girl posted a pic of a product or art or something where they themselves were also in the picture, claiming it was just attention whoring. The constant and unending use of 'white knighting' as a term when someone calls these things out. I realize that SRS is full of an infinite supply of retarded nuts, however SRS contains many legitimate examples of all these things, in between the countless idiotic examples. Threads about when it's okay to hit women, when it's okay to call women sluts, and all topics more or less along this line of questions, always turn into bigoted discussions that amount to 'well if I can get hit then I can hit a girl ' Which is another discussion I itself obviously but anyone who's seen the dozens of those threads a month sees the crazy sexism and bigotry that invests them AND gets upvoted higher than the calm reasoned responses. It's a topic that comes to light all the time and there is a pervasive trend where people call Reddit racist and sexist all the time, within many threads, and I think there is truth to it. I think you don't see these things even in other areas of society where anonymity is still available, or within group dynamics where retribution is still negligible.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe this based on constant and repeated examples. Things people may remember, the time Reddit was having a shit fit every time a girl posted a pic of a product or art or something where they themselves were also in the picture, claiming it was just attention whoring. The constant and unending use of 'white knighting' as a term when someone calls these things out. I realize that SRS is full of an infinite supply of retarded nuts, however SRS contains many legitimate examples of all these things, in between the countless idiotic examples. Threads about when it's okay to hit women, when it's okay to call women sluts, and all topics more or less along this line of questions, always turn into bigoted discussions that amount to 'well if I can get hit then I can hit a girl ' Which is another discussion I itself obviously but anyone who's seen the dozens of those threads a month sees the crazy sexism and bigotry that invests them AND gets upvoted higher than the calm reasoned responses. It's a topic that comes to light all the time and there is a pervasive trend where people call Reddit racist and sexist all the time, within many threads, and I think there is truth to it. I think you don't see these things even in other areas of society where anonymity is still available, or within group dynamics where retribution is still negligible.<|TARGETS|>SRS is full of an infinite supply of retarded nuts however SRS, n't see these things even in other areas of society where anonymity is still available or within group dynamics where retribution, The constant and unending use of ' white knighting ', having a shit fit every time a girl posted a pic of a product or art or something where they themselves were also in the picture, to call women sluts and all topics more or less along this line of questions always turn into bigoted discussions that amount to ' well if I can get hit then I can hit a girl ' Which is another discussion I itself obviously but anyone who 's seen the dozens of those threads a month sees the crazy sexism and bigotry that invests them<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe this based on constant and repeated examples. Things people may remember, the time Reddit was having a shit fit every time a girl posted a pic of a product or art or something where they themselves were also in the picture, claiming it was just attention whoring. The constant and unending use of 'white knighting' as a term when someone calls these things out. I realize that SRS is full of an infinite supply of retarded nuts, however SRS contains many legitimate examples of all these things, in between the countless idiotic examples. Threads about when it's okay to hit women, when it's okay to call women sluts, and all topics more or less along this line of questions, always turn into bigoted discussions that amount to 'well if I can get hit then I can hit a girl ' Which is another discussion I itself obviously but anyone who's seen the dozens of those threads a month sees the crazy sexism and bigotry that invests them AND gets upvoted higher than the calm reasoned responses. It's a topic that comes to light all the time and there is a pervasive trend where people call Reddit racist and sexist all the time, within many threads, and I think there is truth to it. I think you don't see these things even in other areas of society where anonymity is still available, or within group dynamics where retribution is still negligible.<|ASPECTS|>women, racist, sexism, retribution, sexist, anonymity, constant and repeated examples, knighting, sluts, attention whoring, bigoted discussions, shit fit, retarded nuts, legitimate, supply, unending, group, bigotry<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe this based on constant and repeated examples. Things people may remember, the time Reddit was having a shit fit every time a girl posted a pic of a product or art or something where they themselves were also in the picture, claiming it was just attention whoring. The constant and unending use of 'white knighting' as a term when someone calls these things out. I realize that SRS is full of an infinite supply of retarded nuts, however SRS contains many legitimate examples of all these things, in between the countless idiotic examples. Threads about when it's okay to hit women, when it's okay to call women sluts, and all topics more or less along this line of questions, always turn into bigoted discussions that amount to 'well if I can get hit then I can hit a girl ' Which is another discussion I itself obviously but anyone who's seen the dozens of those threads a month sees the crazy sexism and bigotry that invests them AND gets upvoted higher than the calm reasoned responses. It's a topic that comes to light all the time and there is a pervasive trend where people call Reddit racist and sexist all the time, within many threads, and I think there is truth to it. I think you don't see these things even in other areas of society where anonymity is still available, or within group dynamics where retribution is still negligible.","I believe Reddit, as a microcosm, is more bigoted, sexist, and racist than the macrocosm that is society."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When posting an ad on Craigslist looking for someone to rent a spare room, I specified that as a 20 something female with no kids, I preferred to live with a 20 something female with no kids. Apparently that is discrimination under the Fair Housing Project. I believe that apartment complexes and lenders should not discriminate, but I should be able to choose the type of person I want to share my home with. Now, I'm not a person who will discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. but age and family status particularly is an important factor in choosing a roommate. EDIT Thanks for the responses, guys. Now I know that this isn't really the case<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When posting an ad on Craigslist looking for someone to rent a spare room, I specified that as a 20 something female with no kids, I preferred to live with a 20 something female with no kids. Apparently that is discrimination under the Fair Housing Project. I believe that apartment complexes and lenders should not discriminate, but I should be able to choose the type of person I want to share my home with. Now, I'm not a person who will discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. but age and family status particularly is an important factor in choosing a roommate. EDIT Thanks for the responses, guys. Now I know that this isn't really the case<|TARGETS|>that apartment complexes and lenders, the Fair Housing Project, to choose the type of person I want to share my home with ., posting an ad on Craigslist looking for someone to rent a spare room, a person who will discriminate based on race religion sexual orientation etc ., to live with a 20 something female with no kids .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When posting an ad on Craigslist looking for someone to rent a spare room, I specified that as a 20 something female with no kids, I preferred to live with a 20 something female with no kids. Apparently that is discrimination under the Fair Housing Project. I believe that apartment complexes and lenders should not discriminate, but I should be able to choose the type of person I want to share my home with. Now, I'm not a person who will discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. but age and family status particularly is an important factor in choosing a roommate. EDIT Thanks for the responses, guys. Now I know that this isn't really the case<|ASPECTS|>religion, family status, discriminate, sexual orientation, race, choose, age, room, discrimination<|CONCLUSION|>","When posting an ad on Craigslist looking for someone to rent a spare room, I specified that as a 20 something female with no kids, I preferred to live with a 20 something female with no kids. Apparently that is discrimination under the Fair Housing Project. I believe that apartment complexes and lenders should not discriminate, but I should be able to choose the type of person I want to share my home with. Now, I'm not a person who will discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. but age and family status particularly is an important factor in choosing a roommate. EDIT Thanks for the responses, guys. Now I know that this isn't really the case",The Fair Housing Project should only apply to lenders and apartment complexes.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>With the New York primary days away and polls showing a significant Clinton lead, Sanders will probably lose New York. I've heard projections saying that if Sanders is to win though pledged delegates, then he'll need to win key primary states like New York with 70 30 margins. He won't be able to make up losses in California should he lose this upcoming primary. Even if neither candidate comes out with a majority of the required amount of delegates to win the nomination, why would superdelegates switch to Sanders? That was plausible a few months ago, but if Sanders can't start pulling big wins, it's over.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>With the New York primary days away and polls showing a significant Clinton lead, Sanders will probably lose New York. I've heard projections saying that if Sanders is to win though pledged delegates, then he'll need to win key primary states like New York with 70 30 margins. He won't be able to make up losses in California should he lose this upcoming primary. Even if neither candidate comes out with a majority of the required amount of delegates to win the nomination, why would superdelegates switch to Sanders? That was plausible a few months ago, but if Sanders can't start pulling big wins, it's over.<|TARGETS|>if Sanders ca n't start pulling big wins, to make up losses in California should he lose this upcoming primary, Sanders, the New York primary days away and polls, projections saying that if Sanders is to win though pledged delegates<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>With the New York primary days away and polls showing a significant Clinton lead, Sanders will probably lose New York. I've heard projections saying that if Sanders is to win though pledged delegates, then he'll need to win key primary states like New York with 70 30 margins. He won't be able to make up losses in California should he lose this upcoming primary. Even if neither candidate comes out with a majority of the required amount of delegates to win the nomination, why would superdelegates switch to Sanders? That was plausible a few months ago, but if Sanders can't start pulling big wins, it's over.<|ASPECTS|>clinton lead, superdelegates, big wins, losses, sanders, lose new, key primary states, delegates, make<|CONCLUSION|>","With the New York primary days away and polls showing a significant Clinton lead, Sanders will probably lose New York. I've heard projections saying that if Sanders is to win though pledged delegates, then he'll need to win key primary states like New York with 70 30 margins. He won't be able to make up losses in California should he lose this upcoming primary. Even if neither candidate comes out with a majority of the required amount of delegates to win the nomination, why would superdelegates switch to Sanders? That was plausible a few months ago, but if Sanders can't start pulling big wins, it's over.","At this point, Senator Sanders has little chance of winning the nomination"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>These beliefs, mainly the incest one, are somewhat contrary to my advocacy for sexual freedom. I find most sexuality between consenting adult humans to be fine. I just find it certain deviances disgusting, yet that is what anti homosexual activists have been saying about homosexuals for years, regardless of consent. If you ask them why gays should not marry, many of their arguments stem from it not being natural or it being gross. I just want to keep an open mind and not repeat history's social mistakes.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>These beliefs, mainly the incest one, are somewhat contrary to my advocacy for sexual freedom. I find most sexuality between consenting adult humans to be fine. I just find it certain deviances disgusting, yet that is what anti homosexual activists have been saying about homosexuals for years, regardless of consent. If you ask them why gays should not marry, many of their arguments stem from it not being natural or it being gross. I just want to keep an open mind and not repeat history's social mistakes.<|TARGETS|>to keep an open mind and not repeat history 's social mistakes ., consenting adult humans to be fine ., If you ask them why gays should not marry many of their arguments<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>These beliefs, mainly the incest one, are somewhat contrary to my advocacy for sexual freedom. I find most sexuality between consenting adult humans to be fine. I just find it certain deviances disgusting, yet that is what anti homosexual activists have been saying about homosexuals for years, regardless of consent. If you ask them why gays should not marry, many of their arguments stem from it not being natural or it being gross. I just want to keep an open mind and not repeat history's social mistakes.<|ASPECTS|>sexual freedom, social mistakes, adult, incest, natural, mind, homosexual, sexuality, gross, deviances disgusting<|CONCLUSION|>","These beliefs, mainly the incest one, are somewhat contrary to my advocacy for sexual freedom. I find most sexuality between consenting adult humans to be fine. I just find it certain deviances disgusting, yet that is what anti homosexual activists have been saying about homosexuals for years, regardless of consent. If you ask them why gays should not marry, many of their arguments stem from it not being natural or it being gross. I just want to keep an open mind and not repeat history's social mistakes.","I find incest and ephebophilia abhorrent, regardless of consent. if you can."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello, CMV I bring this to light as it has been on my mind for a long time now. I believe this subreddit could aid me in changing my mind on something that I have found most people disagree with me on. The topic at hand is celebrities famous people in general, no specific group like moviestars are often found moaning and complaining about going to the store, being spotted by a fan and asked for a photograph. I've seen dozens of twitter posts or other interviews of celebrities claiming they should be 'left alone in public ' Let me preface this by saying, I do NOT condone the paparazzi or crazed fans. So what exactly do I mean? I feel I can best demonstrate through examples. One of my first and what brought this to mind at first was Louis CK's AMA. In it, he states something along the lines of Sometimes I just want to go get coffee without being asked for a thousand photos It seems to me that is a bit over the top, don't you agree? What I mean is this Celebrities since cameras have been available to nearly everyone, have been asked for photos. Your ENTIRE career is made from other people liking your work. If you live in a large place like NYC, there are going to be people who recognize you, and most just say hello, a few might get a photo. When you make MILLIONS of dollars a year, it seems a bit of a stretch to tell people no when they are part of the group that got you where you were in the first place. I do completely understand how it could drive people a bit mad being stopped often for photos or a chat. However, asking them to 'walk and talk' or keep walking while saying 'yeah, go ahead and grab your camera' doesn't seem to be the biggest trouble. I have two more examples, but I might rush them as this is a lot of stuff to read Another example was a female celebrity don't recall her name at a pharmacy getting medicine, a fan had saw her and asked for a photo, she looked beyond annoyed in it and later even posted on twitter IF YOU SEE ME AT THE PHARMACY, DO NOT ASK ME FOR A PHOTO. UGH. This is out of line, she didn't seem to be a huge star who gets stopped 24 7 like Ryan Gosling might so she most likely isn't overwhelmed by fans who help her in making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year. The second one is Tyler, the Creator. He has a song specifically about this kind of thing He mentions a fan at Six Flags wanted a photo and he immediately went on to say he just 'wanted to go on rides ' I'll admit, later he says how the guy posted on twitter and suddenly Tyler was swarmed and couldn't enjoy Six Flags, which I do think is enough to complain about. Finally, I do hope you kind folk of CMV could change my view. I think it sucks when you are swarmed or harassed by fans, but to make such a big deal out of a handful of folks saying hello and asking for a photo is bizarre to me. Thank you. EDIT I would like to thank everyone in the comment section for changing my view If you would like to know why I will put it like this When someone wants to pursue an acting career, they can do it for the love of it or maybe for money and fame. No matter their decision, they deserve a level of privacy. Yes, I did say that they continue to do movies, however, this was me not realizing things like cult classics. Brad Pitt knew he would act in Fight Club and get fans and money but didn't realize it would explode into what it is now. I also acknowledge that when a fan sees a movie of their favorite celeb they are paying for the movie alone, although you may see them later and ask for a photo, they have every right to deny your request hopefully politely . Sure fans get them where they are but they do not necessarily owe it to them just because they went to their football game movie etc. Once again, thank you to everyone who commented. Although I may still feel upset when celebs complain about fans wanting pictures, I will talk myself through what I learned in this CMV and eventually have my mind changed almost completely. Thank you.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello, CMV I bring this to light as it has been on my mind for a long time now. I believe this subreddit could aid me in changing my mind on something that I have found most people disagree with me on. The topic at hand is celebrities famous people in general, no specific group like moviestars are often found moaning and complaining about going to the store, being spotted by a fan and asked for a photograph. I've seen dozens of twitter posts or other interviews of celebrities claiming they should be 'left alone in public ' Let me preface this by saying, I do NOT condone the paparazzi or crazed fans. So what exactly do I mean? I feel I can best demonstrate through examples. One of my first and what brought this to mind at first was Louis CK's AMA. In it, he states something along the lines of Sometimes I just want to go get coffee without being asked for a thousand photos It seems to me that is a bit over the top, don't you agree? What I mean is this Celebrities since cameras have been available to nearly everyone, have been asked for photos. Your ENTIRE career is made from other people liking your work. If you live in a large place like NYC, there are going to be people who recognize you, and most just say hello, a few might get a photo. When you make MILLIONS of dollars a year, it seems a bit of a stretch to tell people no when they are part of the group that got you where you were in the first place. I do completely understand how it could drive people a bit mad being stopped often for photos or a chat. However, asking them to 'walk and talk' or keep walking while saying 'yeah, go ahead and grab your camera' doesn't seem to be the biggest trouble. I have two more examples, but I might rush them as this is a lot of stuff to read Another example was a female celebrity don't recall her name at a pharmacy getting medicine, a fan had saw her and asked for a photo, she looked beyond annoyed in it and later even posted on twitter IF YOU SEE ME AT THE PHARMACY, DO NOT ASK ME FOR A PHOTO. UGH. This is out of line, she didn't seem to be a huge star who gets stopped 24 7 like Ryan Gosling might so she most likely isn't overwhelmed by fans who help her in making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year. The second one is Tyler, the Creator. He has a song specifically about this kind of thing He mentions a fan at Six Flags wanted a photo and he immediately went on to say he just 'wanted to go on rides ' I'll admit, later he says how the guy posted on twitter and suddenly Tyler was swarmed and couldn't enjoy Six Flags, which I do think is enough to complain about. Finally, I do hope you kind folk of CMV could change my view. I think it sucks when you are swarmed or harassed by fans, but to make such a big deal out of a handful of folks saying hello and asking for a photo is bizarre to me. Thank you. EDIT I would like to thank everyone in the comment section for changing my view If you would like to know why I will put it like this When someone wants to pursue an acting career, they can do it for the love of it or maybe for money and fame. No matter their decision, they deserve a level of privacy. Yes, I did say that they continue to do movies, however, this was me not realizing things like cult classics. Brad Pitt knew he would act in Fight Club and get fans and money but didn't realize it would explode into what it is now. I also acknowledge that when a fan sees a movie of their favorite celeb they are paying for the movie alone, although you may see them later and ask for a photo, they have every right to deny your request hopefully politely . Sure fans get them where they are but they do not necessarily owe it to them just because they went to their football game movie etc. Once again, thank you to everyone who commented. Although I may still feel upset when celebs complain about fans wanting pictures, I will talk myself through what I learned in this CMV and eventually have my mind changed almost completely. Thank you.<|TARGETS|>not realizing things like cult classics, that they continue to do movies, it and later even posted on twitter IF YOU SEE ME AT THE PHARMACY, asking them to ' walk and talk ' or keep walking while saying ' yeah go ahead and grab your camera ', when you are swarmed or harassed by fans but to make such a big deal out of a handful of folks saying hello and asking for a photo, Brad Pitt<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello, CMV I bring this to light as it has been on my mind for a long time now. I believe this subreddit could aid me in changing my mind on something that I have found most people disagree with me on. The topic at hand is celebrities famous people in general, no specific group like moviestars are often found moaning and complaining about going to the store, being spotted by a fan and asked for a photograph. I've seen dozens of twitter posts or other interviews of celebrities claiming they should be 'left alone in public ' Let me preface this by saying, I do NOT condone the paparazzi or crazed fans. So what exactly do I mean? I feel I can best demonstrate through examples. One of my first and what brought this to mind at first was Louis CK's AMA. In it, he states something along the lines of Sometimes I just want to go get coffee without being asked for a thousand photos It seems to me that is a bit over the top, don't you agree? What I mean is this Celebrities since cameras have been available to nearly everyone, have been asked for photos. Your ENTIRE career is made from other people liking your work. If you live in a large place like NYC, there are going to be people who recognize you, and most just say hello, a few might get a photo. When you make MILLIONS of dollars a year, it seems a bit of a stretch to tell people no when they are part of the group that got you where you were in the first place. I do completely understand how it could drive people a bit mad being stopped often for photos or a chat. However, asking them to 'walk and talk' or keep walking while saying 'yeah, go ahead and grab your camera' doesn't seem to be the biggest trouble. I have two more examples, but I might rush them as this is a lot of stuff to read Another example was a female celebrity don't recall her name at a pharmacy getting medicine, a fan had saw her and asked for a photo, she looked beyond annoyed in it and later even posted on twitter IF YOU SEE ME AT THE PHARMACY, DO NOT ASK ME FOR A PHOTO. UGH. This is out of line, she didn't seem to be a huge star who gets stopped 24 7 like Ryan Gosling might so she most likely isn't overwhelmed by fans who help her in making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year. The second one is Tyler, the Creator. He has a song specifically about this kind of thing He mentions a fan at Six Flags wanted a photo and he immediately went on to say he just 'wanted to go on rides ' I'll admit, later he says how the guy posted on twitter and suddenly Tyler was swarmed and couldn't enjoy Six Flags, which I do think is enough to complain about. Finally, I do hope you kind folk of CMV could change my view. I think it sucks when you are swarmed or harassed by fans, but to make such a big deal out of a handful of folks saying hello and asking for a photo is bizarre to me. Thank you. EDIT I would like to thank everyone in the comment section for changing my view If you would like to know why I will put it like this When someone wants to pursue an acting career, they can do it for the love of it or maybe for money and fame. No matter their decision, they deserve a level of privacy. Yes, I did say that they continue to do movies, however, this was me not realizing things like cult classics. Brad Pitt knew he would act in Fight Club and get fans and money but didn't realize it would explode into what it is now. I also acknowledge that when a fan sees a movie of their favorite celeb they are paying for the movie alone, although you may see them later and ask for a photo, they have every right to deny your request hopefully politely . Sure fans get them where they are but they do not necessarily owe it to them just because they went to their football game movie etc. Once again, thank you to everyone who commented. Although I may still feel upset when celebs complain about fans wanting pictures, I will talk myself through what I learned in this CMV and eventually have my mind changed almost completely. Thank you.<|ASPECTS|>photo, owe, right to deny, millions, complaining, money, creator, view, talk, cult classics, acting, get, mind changed, changing my mind, paparazzi, harassed by fans, mad, people, privacy, fight, swarmed, asked for photos, celebrities, drive, often, fans, entire career, bizarre, alone in public, enjoy, recognize, paying, liking, overwhelmed, demonstrate through examples, celebrities famous people, change, crazed fans, moaning, fame, fans wanting, tyler, love<|CONCLUSION|>","Hello,  I bring this to light as it has been on my mind for a long time now. I believe this subreddit could aid me in changing my mind on something that I have found most people disagree with me on. The topic at hand is celebrities famous people in general, no specific group like moviestars are often found moaning and complaining about going to the store, being spotted by a fan and asked for a photograph. I've seen dozens of twitter posts or other interviews of celebrities claiming they should be 'left alone in public ' Let me preface this by saying, I do NOT condone the paparazzi or crazed fans. So what exactly do I mean? I feel I can best demonstrate through examples. One of my first and what brought this to mind at first was Louis CK's AMA. In it, he states something along the lines of Sometimes I just want to go get coffee without being asked for a thousand photos It seems to me that is a bit over the top, don't you agree? What I mean is this Celebrities since cameras have been available to nearly everyone, have been asked for photos. Your ENTIRE career is made from other people liking your work. If you live in a large place like NYC, there are going to be people who recognize you, and most just say hello, a few might get a photo. When you make MILLIONS of dollars a year, it seems a bit of a stretch to tell people no when they are part of the group that got you where you were in the first place. I do completely understand how it could drive people a bit mad being stopped often for photos or a chat. However, asking them to 'walk and talk' or keep walking while saying 'yeah, go ahead and grab your camera' doesn't seem to be the biggest trouble. I have two more examples, but I might rush them as this is a lot of stuff to read Another example was a female celebrity don't recall her name at a pharmacy getting medicine, a fan had saw her and asked for a photo, she looked beyond annoyed in it and later even posted on twitter IF YOU SEE ME AT THE PHARMACY, DO NOT ASK ME FOR A PHOTO. UGH. This is out of line, she didn't seem to be a huge star who gets stopped 24 7 like Ryan Gosling might so she most likely isn't overwhelmed by fans who help her in making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year. The second one is Tyler, the Creator. He has a song specifically about this kind of thing He mentions a fan at Six Flags wanted a photo and he immediately went on to say he just 'wanted to go on rides ' I'll admit, later he says how the guy posted on twitter and suddenly Tyler was swarmed and couldn't enjoy Six Flags, which I do think is enough to complain about. Finally, I do hope you kind folk of  could change my view. I think it sucks when you are swarmed or harassed by fans, but to make such a big deal out of a handful of folks saying hello and asking for a photo is bizarre to me. Thank you. EDIT I would like to thank everyone in the comment section for changing my view If you would like to know why I will put it like this When someone wants to pursue an acting career, they can do it for the love of it or maybe for money and fame. No matter their decision, they deserve a level of privacy. Yes, I did say that they continue to do movies, however, this was me not realizing things like cult classics. Brad Pitt knew he would act in Fight Club and get fans and money but didn't realize it would explode into what it is now. I also acknowledge that when a fan sees a movie of their favorite celeb they are paying for the movie alone, although you may see them later and ask for a photo, they have every right to deny your request hopefully politely . Sure fans get them where they are but they do not necessarily owe it to them just because they went to their football game movie etc. Once again, thank you to everyone who commented. Although I may still feel upset when celebs complain about fans wanting pictures, I will talk myself through what I learned in this  and eventually have my mind changed almost completely. Thank you.",Celebrities should complain less about being asked for photos/autographs in public.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>College entry standardized testing is designed to see if you can read, use logic, compute, demonstrate mastery of the English language, comprehend, write, and use basic mathematical and literary intuition and skills quickly and accurately. If you can't do one of these things, it should be reflected in your score because that is what the test is trying to show colleges. Whether you can't read quickly because you are dyslexic, you can't focus well, or you just aren't good at reading doesn't seem to be of that much relevance to the purpose for which colleges want test scores, which is presumably to see if you have the abilities and skills necessary to succeed in their classes. A common argument seems to be that these skills aren't important and mastery of them doesn't indicate people who have great ideas, are driven, or will succeed in college or life. This is absolutely true, but then we should get rid of this style of standardized testing altogether instead of punishing students who have minor problems testing quickly and giving accommodations to those with huge problems testing quickly. If colleges want this information and College Board and the ACT have agreed to give it to them, they should at least give it to them accurately or have an asterisk or letter accompanying the scores to reflect the unusual testing conditions. If you are illiterate for any reason, colleges should be told that in some form on a test of reading speed and ability. If you get the questions read out loud to you and answer verbally, which is not an uncommon accommodation at my school, colleges should see that information along with your score. Especially on the ACT, where the questions are fairly simple and time is often the main factor in the reading comprehension and science sections, extra time, getting questions read to you at your own pace, and even in some cases unlimited time are enormous benefits that can lead to perfect scores. Percentile is hugely important in SAT and ACT scores and affects and outlying scores affect everyone's score. The main problem with accommodations based on learning disabilities is that it is hugely class based and leads to more unfair advantages and opportunities for cheating for privileged kids with pushy parents. As a student at a fairly elite private school where a majority of kids are applying to highly selective universities and almost half of the student population gets accommodations of some kind on standardized tests, I hear kids and parents talking all the time about strategies to get accommodations, a process that requires a lot of time and money from involved parents concerned with college admissions, attentive teachers in small classes, tutors, and school learning specialists and college counselors, none of which are available to many kids in this country, many of whom probably have real learning problems that go undiagnosed. Many kids in my class have perfect 2400s or 36s earned with accommodations, and a huge percentage of the kids at my school have accommodations of some sort. In some parts of the country, the SAT is treated as a literacy test for state or community college admission, and yet in my extremely wealthy community, kids get questions read out loud to them if they read slower than the average kid their age. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't help feeling that this system isn't fair, it's biased against kids and families who need the most help, and it prevents the standardized test from doing its job. I'm starting to feel really guilty about this, though, and I think it probably is coming from the frustration of the standardized test process. Please change my view, reddit.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>College entry standardized testing is designed to see if you can read, use logic, compute, demonstrate mastery of the English language, comprehend, write, and use basic mathematical and literary intuition and skills quickly and accurately. If you can't do one of these things, it should be reflected in your score because that is what the test is trying to show colleges. Whether you can't read quickly because you are dyslexic, you can't focus well, or you just aren't good at reading doesn't seem to be of that much relevance to the purpose for which colleges want test scores, which is presumably to see if you have the abilities and skills necessary to succeed in their classes. A common argument seems to be that these skills aren't important and mastery of them doesn't indicate people who have great ideas, are driven, or will succeed in college or life. This is absolutely true, but then we should get rid of this style of standardized testing altogether instead of punishing students who have minor problems testing quickly and giving accommodations to those with huge problems testing quickly. If colleges want this information and College Board and the ACT have agreed to give it to them, they should at least give it to them accurately or have an asterisk or letter accompanying the scores to reflect the unusual testing conditions. If you are illiterate for any reason, colleges should be told that in some form on a test of reading speed and ability. If you get the questions read out loud to you and answer verbally, which is not an uncommon accommodation at my school, colleges should see that information along with your score. Especially on the ACT, where the questions are fairly simple and time is often the main factor in the reading comprehension and science sections, extra time, getting questions read to you at your own pace, and even in some cases unlimited time are enormous benefits that can lead to perfect scores. Percentile is hugely important in SAT and ACT scores and affects and outlying scores affect everyone's score. The main problem with accommodations based on learning disabilities is that it is hugely class based and leads to more unfair advantages and opportunities for cheating for privileged kids with pushy parents. As a student at a fairly elite private school where a majority of kids are applying to highly selective universities and almost half of the student population gets accommodations of some kind on standardized tests, I hear kids and parents talking all the time about strategies to get accommodations, a process that requires a lot of time and money from involved parents concerned with college admissions, attentive teachers in small classes, tutors, and school learning specialists and college counselors, none of which are available to many kids in this country, many of whom probably have real learning problems that go undiagnosed. Many kids in my class have perfect 2400s or 36s earned with accommodations, and a huge percentage of the kids at my school have accommodations of some sort. In some parts of the country, the SAT is treated as a literacy test for state or community college admission, and yet in my extremely wealthy community, kids get questions read out loud to them if they read slower than the average kid their age. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't help feeling that this system isn't fair, it's biased against kids and families who need the most help, and it prevents the standardized test from doing its job. I'm starting to feel really guilty about this, though, and I think it probably is coming from the frustration of the standardized test process. Please change my view, reddit.<|TARGETS|>a fairly elite private school where a majority of kids are applying to highly selective universities and almost half of the student population gets accommodations of some kind on standardized tests, A common argument, getting questions read to you at your own pace and even in some cases unlimited time, Whether you ca n't read quickly because you are dyslexic you ca n't focus well or you just are n't good at reading, to see if you have the abilities and skills necessary to succeed in their classes ., Please change my view reddit .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>College entry standardized testing is designed to see if you can read, use logic, compute, demonstrate mastery of the English language, comprehend, write, and use basic mathematical and literary intuition and skills quickly and accurately. If you can't do one of these things, it should be reflected in your score because that is what the test is trying to show colleges. Whether you can't read quickly because you are dyslexic, you can't focus well, or you just aren't good at reading doesn't seem to be of that much relevance to the purpose for which colleges want test scores, which is presumably to see if you have the abilities and skills necessary to succeed in their classes. A common argument seems to be that these skills aren't important and mastery of them doesn't indicate people who have great ideas, are driven, or will succeed in college or life. This is absolutely true, but then we should get rid of this style of standardized testing altogether instead of punishing students who have minor problems testing quickly and giving accommodations to those with huge problems testing quickly. If colleges want this information and College Board and the ACT have agreed to give it to them, they should at least give it to them accurately or have an asterisk or letter accompanying the scores to reflect the unusual testing conditions. If you are illiterate for any reason, colleges should be told that in some form on a test of reading speed and ability. If you get the questions read out loud to you and answer verbally, which is not an uncommon accommodation at my school, colleges should see that information along with your score. Especially on the ACT, where the questions are fairly simple and time is often the main factor in the reading comprehension and science sections, extra time, getting questions read to you at your own pace, and even in some cases unlimited time are enormous benefits that can lead to perfect scores. Percentile is hugely important in SAT and ACT scores and affects and outlying scores affect everyone's score. The main problem with accommodations based on learning disabilities is that it is hugely class based and leads to more unfair advantages and opportunities for cheating for privileged kids with pushy parents. As a student at a fairly elite private school where a majority of kids are applying to highly selective universities and almost half of the student population gets accommodations of some kind on standardized tests, I hear kids and parents talking all the time about strategies to get accommodations, a process that requires a lot of time and money from involved parents concerned with college admissions, attentive teachers in small classes, tutors, and school learning specialists and college counselors, none of which are available to many kids in this country, many of whom probably have real learning problems that go undiagnosed. Many kids in my class have perfect 2400s or 36s earned with accommodations, and a huge percentage of the kids at my school have accommodations of some sort. In some parts of the country, the SAT is treated as a literacy test for state or community college admission, and yet in my extremely wealthy community, kids get questions read out loud to them if they read slower than the average kid their age. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't help feeling that this system isn't fair, it's biased against kids and families who need the most help, and it prevents the standardized test from doing its job. I'm starting to feel really guilty about this, though, and I think it probably is coming from the frustration of the standardized test process. Please change my view, reddit.<|ASPECTS|>mastery of the english, unfair advantages, skills, read quickly, perfect scores, abilities, sat, slower, score, succeed, comprehension, cheating, mastery, learning problems, illiterate, guilty, accommodations, outlying scores, problems testing quickly, standardized testing, dyslexic, standardized test, make sense, fair, test scores, great ideas, class based, verbally, intuition, important, questions read out loud, literacy test, biased against kids, focus well, learning disabilities, standardized test process, time, minor problems testing quickly, reading speed and ability, scores, unlimited time, punishing, unusual testing conditions, earned, frustration, college, driven<|CONCLUSION|>","College entry standardized testing is designed to see if you can read, use logic, compute, demonstrate mastery of the English language, comprehend, write, and use basic mathematical and literary intuition and skills quickly and accurately. If you can't do one of these things, it should be reflected in your score because that is what the test is trying to show colleges. Whether you can't read quickly because you are dyslexic, you can't focus well, or you just aren't good at reading doesn't seem to be of that much relevance to the purpose for which colleges want test scores, which is presumably to see if you have the abilities and skills necessary to succeed in their classes. A common argument seems to be that these skills aren't important and mastery of them doesn't indicate people who have great ideas, are driven, or will succeed in college or life. This is absolutely true, but then we should get rid of this style of standardized testing altogether instead of punishing students who have minor problems testing quickly and giving accommodations to those with huge problems testing quickly. If colleges want this information and College Board and the ACT have agreed to give it to them, they should at least give it to them accurately or have an asterisk or letter accompanying the scores to reflect the unusual testing conditions. If you are illiterate for any reason, colleges should be told that in some form on a test of reading speed and ability. If you get the questions read out loud to you and answer verbally, which is not an uncommon accommodation at my school, colleges should see that information along with your score. Especially on the ACT, where the questions are fairly simple and time is often the main factor in the reading comprehension and science sections, extra time, getting questions read to you at your own pace, and even in some cases unlimited time are enormous benefits that can lead to perfect scores. Percentile is hugely important in SAT and ACT scores and affects and outlying scores affect everyone's score. The main problem with accommodations based on learning disabilities is that it is hugely class based and leads to more unfair advantages and opportunities for cheating for privileged kids with pushy parents. As a student at a fairly elite private school where a majority of kids are applying to highly selective universities and almost half of the student population gets accommodations of some kind on standardized tests, I hear kids and parents talking all the time about strategies to get accommodations, a process that requires a lot of time and money from involved parents concerned with college admissions, attentive teachers in small classes, tutors, and school learning specialists and college counselors, none of which are available to many kids in this country, many of whom probably have real learning problems that go undiagnosed. Many kids in my class have perfect 2400s or 36s earned with accommodations, and a huge percentage of the kids at my school have accommodations of some sort. In some parts of the country, the SAT is treated as a literacy test for state or community college admission, and yet in my extremely wealthy community, kids get questions read out loud to them if they read slower than the average kid their age. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't help feeling that this system isn't fair, it's biased against kids and families who need the most help, and it prevents the standardized test from doing its job. I'm starting to feel really guilty about this, though, and I think it probably is coming from the frustration of the standardized test process. Please change my view, reddit.",I think accommodations undisclosed to colleges on the SAT and ACT for people with learning disabilities are unfair and counterproductive. please.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT When I said forgive , I meant forgiving and continuing the relationship. I've looked up similar posts and still don't understand the argument for cheating. I noticed that cheating has been normalized in the media and in real life. People have straight up told me to expect to be cheated on because men are like mindless animals that lack self control, which I won't believe so please don't use this argument. It's sexist if you ask me. Let me first define cheating. Cheating is telling your partner you won't be having a sexual or romantic relationship outside your relationship, but still doing it. It's not considered cheating to me if it's an open relationship or you were forced with violence and whatnot. Also, when talking of relationships, I mean mutual relationships that have or had love in them. I don't want to hear of forced marriages, abusive relationships, or bad arranged marriages cause those have a very different dynamic from what I'm thinking about. If the passion has died in your relationship, it is better to break off the relationship. I don't mean divorce though cause I know that involves money and can be messy, but people can acknowledge the death of a relationship and separate at least. To me, if you cheat that means you don't love your SO. If you really love your SO and understand the pain it would cause them, you wouldn't consider cheating. It's a horrible thing to do and serial cheaters come off as sociopaths. If your SO is having problems sexually and you cheat, that's basically showing that sexual satisfaction was more important than the emotional bond you shared. There's also many ways to attempt to resolve this issue. And if it's that big of a deal and unsolvable, you can move on to an open relationship or separate break up. Cheating is a form of emotional abuse and forgiving it and getting back together is pretty naive. They say they won't do it again until they are doing it again except this abuse is more covert. People who take back those who cheat come off as extremely desperate for the financial benefits in the relationship and or the emotional support they felt in the relationship. I feel when people take back people who cheat, it's because they don't feel they'll ever find anyone to replace what they had which can be a valid point, but still sad desperate . IMO I feel it's a better bet to live the rest of your life without a cheater than with someone who will disrespect your emotions like that. I feel this all makes perfect sense, but it's like the older I get the more people are acting like I'm living in fantasy land. Beautiful independent women are taking back horrible men after cheating with multiple women. Great men are taking back women who cheat too. What's going on?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT When I said forgive , I meant forgiving and continuing the relationship. I've looked up similar posts and still don't understand the argument for cheating. I noticed that cheating has been normalized in the media and in real life. People have straight up told me to expect to be cheated on because men are like mindless animals that lack self control, which I won't believe so please don't use this argument. It's sexist if you ask me. Let me first define cheating. Cheating is telling your partner you won't be having a sexual or romantic relationship outside your relationship, but still doing it. It's not considered cheating to me if it's an open relationship or you were forced with violence and whatnot. Also, when talking of relationships, I mean mutual relationships that have or had love in them. I don't want to hear of forced marriages, abusive relationships, or bad arranged marriages cause those have a very different dynamic from what I'm thinking about. If the passion has died in your relationship, it is better to break off the relationship. I don't mean divorce though cause I know that involves money and can be messy, but people can acknowledge the death of a relationship and separate at least. To me, if you cheat that means you don't love your SO. If you really love your SO and understand the pain it would cause them, you wouldn't consider cheating. It's a horrible thing to do and serial cheaters come off as sociopaths. If your SO is having problems sexually and you cheat, that's basically showing that sexual satisfaction was more important than the emotional bond you shared. There's also many ways to attempt to resolve this issue. And if it's that big of a deal and unsolvable, you can move on to an open relationship or separate break up. Cheating is a form of emotional abuse and forgiving it and getting back together is pretty naive. They say they won't do it again until they are doing it again except this abuse is more covert. People who take back those who cheat come off as extremely desperate for the financial benefits in the relationship and or the emotional support they felt in the relationship. I feel when people take back people who cheat, it's because they don't feel they'll ever find anyone to replace what they had which can be a valid point, but still sad desperate . IMO I feel it's a better bet to live the rest of your life without a cheater than with someone who will disrespect your emotions like that. I feel this all makes perfect sense, but it's like the older I get the more people are acting like I'm living in fantasy land. Beautiful independent women are taking back horrible men after cheating with multiple women. Great men are taking back women who cheat too. What's going on?<|TARGETS|>If the passion has died in your relationship, divorce though cause I know that involves money and can be messy but people can acknowledge the death of a relationship and separate at least ., to live the rest of your life without a cheater than with someone who will disrespect your emotions like that ., to break off the relationship ., the older I get the more people are acting like I 'm living in fantasy land ., to attempt to resolve this issue .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT When I said forgive , I meant forgiving and continuing the relationship. I've looked up similar posts and still don't understand the argument for cheating. I noticed that cheating has been normalized in the media and in real life. People have straight up told me to expect to be cheated on because men are like mindless animals that lack self control, which I won't believe so please don't use this argument. It's sexist if you ask me. Let me first define cheating. Cheating is telling your partner you won't be having a sexual or romantic relationship outside your relationship, but still doing it. It's not considered cheating to me if it's an open relationship or you were forced with violence and whatnot. Also, when talking of relationships, I mean mutual relationships that have or had love in them. I don't want to hear of forced marriages, abusive relationships, or bad arranged marriages cause those have a very different dynamic from what I'm thinking about. If the passion has died in your relationship, it is better to break off the relationship. I don't mean divorce though cause I know that involves money and can be messy, but people can acknowledge the death of a relationship and separate at least. To me, if you cheat that means you don't love your SO. If you really love your SO and understand the pain it would cause them, you wouldn't consider cheating. It's a horrible thing to do and serial cheaters come off as sociopaths. If your SO is having problems sexually and you cheat, that's basically showing that sexual satisfaction was more important than the emotional bond you shared. There's also many ways to attempt to resolve this issue. And if it's that big of a deal and unsolvable, you can move on to an open relationship or separate break up. Cheating is a form of emotional abuse and forgiving it and getting back together is pretty naive. They say they won't do it again until they are doing it again except this abuse is more covert. People who take back those who cheat come off as extremely desperate for the financial benefits in the relationship and or the emotional support they felt in the relationship. I feel when people take back people who cheat, it's because they don't feel they'll ever find anyone to replace what they had which can be a valid point, but still sad desperate . IMO I feel it's a better bet to live the rest of your life without a cheater than with someone who will disrespect your emotions like that. I feel this all makes perfect sense, but it's like the older I get the more people are acting like I'm living in fantasy land. Beautiful independent women are taking back horrible men after cheating with multiple women. Great men are taking back women who cheat too. What's going on?<|ASPECTS|>, self control, death, multiple, pain, independent women, different dynamic, financial benefits, money, divorce, separate break, messy, mindless animals, unsolvable, emotional support, forgiving, women, cheated, cheating, issue, sad desperate, fantasy land, replace, arranged marriages, serial cheaters, forced marriages, forced, continuing the relationship, violence, cheat, resolve, abusive relationships, sexual satisfaction, died, disrespect, cheater, open relationship, horrible, covert, sexist, relationships, normalized, emotional bond, sexual or romantic relationship, sense, emotional abuse, emotions, taking, argument for cheating, separate, sociopaths, taking back horrible men, passion, mutual relationships, break off the relationship, abuse, love<|CONCLUSION|>","EDIT When I said forgive , I meant forgiving and continuing the relationship. I've looked up similar posts and still don't understand the argument for cheating. I noticed that cheating has been normalized in the media and in real life. People have straight up told me to expect to be cheated on because men are like mindless animals that lack self control, which I won't believe so please don't use this argument. It's sexist if you ask me. Let me first define cheating. Cheating is telling your partner you won't be having a sexual or romantic relationship outside your relationship, but still doing it. It's not considered cheating to me if it's an open relationship or you were forced with violence and whatnot. Also, when talking of relationships, I mean mutual relationships that have or had love in them. I don't want to hear of forced marriages, abusive relationships, or bad arranged marriages cause those have a very different dynamic from what I'm thinking about. If the passion has died in your relationship, it is better to break off the relationship. I don't mean divorce though cause I know that involves money and can be messy, but people can acknowledge the death of a relationship and separate at least. To me, if you cheat that means you don't love your SO. If you really love your SO and understand the pain it would cause them, you wouldn't consider cheating. It's a horrible thing to do and serial cheaters come off as sociopaths. If your SO is having problems sexually and you cheat, that's basically showing that sexual satisfaction was more important than the emotional bond you shared. There's also many ways to attempt to resolve this issue. And if it's that big of a deal and unsolvable, you can move on to an open relationship or separate break up. Cheating is a form of emotional abuse and forgiving it and getting back together is pretty naive. They say they won't do it again until they are doing it again except this abuse is more covert. People who take back those who cheat come off as extremely desperate for the financial benefits in the relationship and or the emotional support they felt in the relationship. I feel when people take back people who cheat, it's because they don't feel they'll ever find anyone to replace what they had which can be a valid point, but still sad desperate . IMO I feel it's a better bet to live the rest of your life without a cheater than with someone who will disrespect your emotions like that. I feel this all makes perfect sense, but it's like the older I get the more people are acting like I'm living in fantasy land. Beautiful independent women are taking back horrible men after cheating with multiple women. Great men are taking back women who cheat too. What's going on?",Cheating is unforgivable because it shows horrible character and lack of self control. Forgiving this shows lack of self respect.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I need to preface my thoughts initially by saying that holding this view does not mean I devalue cheerleading in any way. I have attended competitions, and known several friends who cheerlead, and though I am a very active, physically fit person, I would still find it challenging to learn and execute many moves in cheerleading, and find it impressive and enjoyable to watch. However, I don't consider it a sport. This is not a pejorative assertion, but even so, I have experienced pushback for it in the past. I also don't subscribe to the Olympic definition of sport. In my view, a sport needs to be able to be won by objective means. That is to say, you need to have a goal that can be reached make it to a certain point first, score more points, lift the most weight, etc. Obviously, officials make wrong calls, and goals in hockey soccer for instance are wrongly disallowed wrongly given occasionally, but at the end of the day, there is still an objective result outcome, but for the number of games they decide on the merit of the mistake alone, I'm willing to consider them a reasonable minority. Team A 4 3 Team B, Usain Bolt wins race with time of 9.68 seconds, etc. I believe events decided solely by judges cannot be sports, and will always be subjective in nature. Sports like boxing, with judging elements, are still sports in my view because there is an objective way to win knocking the opponent out so they cannot respond to a 10 count, for instance. The judging is a tiebreaker, and I am fine with that. But in judge only events, an identical routine could win one contest, and lose another, simply by virtue of human subjectivity alone. For this reason, I lump cheerleading in with figure skating, diving, and other events as athletic activities.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I need to preface my thoughts initially by saying that holding this view does not mean I devalue cheerleading in any way. I have attended competitions, and known several friends who cheerlead, and though I am a very active, physically fit person, I would still find it challenging to learn and execute many moves in cheerleading, and find it impressive and enjoyable to watch. However, I don't consider it a sport. This is not a pejorative assertion, but even so, I have experienced pushback for it in the past. I also don't subscribe to the Olympic definition of sport. In my view, a sport needs to be able to be won by objective means. That is to say, you need to have a goal that can be reached make it to a certain point first, score more points, lift the most weight, etc. Obviously, officials make wrong calls, and goals in hockey soccer for instance are wrongly disallowed wrongly given occasionally, but at the end of the day, there is still an objective result outcome, but for the number of games they decide on the merit of the mistake alone, I'm willing to consider them a reasonable minority. Team A 4 3 Team B, Usain Bolt wins race with time of 9.68 seconds, etc. I believe events decided solely by judges cannot be sports, and will always be subjective in nature. Sports like boxing, with judging elements, are still sports in my view because there is an objective way to win knocking the opponent out so they cannot respond to a 10 count, for instance. The judging is a tiebreaker, and I am fine with that. But in judge only events, an identical routine could win one contest, and lose another, simply by virtue of human subjectivity alone. For this reason, I lump cheerleading in with figure skating, diving, and other events as athletic activities.<|TARGETS|>the number of games they decide on the merit of the mistake alone, Sports like boxing with judging elements, Usain Bolt, devalue cheerleading in any way ., to consider them a reasonable minority ., to learn and execute many moves in cheerleading<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I need to preface my thoughts initially by saying that holding this view does not mean I devalue cheerleading in any way. I have attended competitions, and known several friends who cheerlead, and though I am a very active, physically fit person, I would still find it challenging to learn and execute many moves in cheerleading, and find it impressive and enjoyable to watch. However, I don't consider it a sport. This is not a pejorative assertion, but even so, I have experienced pushback for it in the past. I also don't subscribe to the Olympic definition of sport. In my view, a sport needs to be able to be won by objective means. That is to say, you need to have a goal that can be reached make it to a certain point first, score more points, lift the most weight, etc. Obviously, officials make wrong calls, and goals in hockey soccer for instance are wrongly disallowed wrongly given occasionally, but at the end of the day, there is still an objective result outcome, but for the number of games they decide on the merit of the mistake alone, I'm willing to consider them a reasonable minority. Team A 4 3 Team B, Usain Bolt wins race with time of 9.68 seconds, etc. I believe events decided solely by judges cannot be sports, and will always be subjective in nature. Sports like boxing, with judging elements, are still sports in my view because there is an objective way to win knocking the opponent out so they cannot respond to a 10 count, for instance. The judging is a tiebreaker, and I am fine with that. But in judge only events, an identical routine could win one contest, and lose another, simply by virtue of human subjectivity alone. For this reason, I lump cheerleading in with figure skating, diving, and other events as athletic activities.<|ASPECTS|>, impressive, nature, subjective, judging, sport, objective result outcome, win, score, wrong calls, challenging to learn, physically fit, tiebreaker, race, pushback, lift, judging elements, human subjectivity, wrongly disallowed wrongly, athletic activities, devalue cheerleading, objective means, olympic definition of sport, enjoyable, sports, goal, lose, objective way<|CONCLUSION|>","I need to preface my thoughts initially by saying that holding this view does not mean I devalue cheerleading in any way. I have attended competitions, and known several friends who cheerlead, and though I am a very active, physically fit person, I would still find it challenging to learn and execute many moves in cheerleading, and find it impressive and enjoyable to watch. However, I don't consider it a sport. This is not a pejorative assertion, but even so, I have experienced pushback for it in the past. I also don't subscribe to the Olympic definition of sport. In my view, a sport needs to be able to be won by objective means. That is to say, you need to have a goal that can be reached make it to a certain point first, score more points, lift the most weight, etc. Obviously, officials make wrong calls, and goals in hockey soccer for instance are wrongly disallowed wrongly given occasionally, but at the end of the day, there is still an objective result outcome, but for the number of games they decide on the merit of the mistake alone, I'm willing to consider them a reasonable minority. Team A 4 3 Team B, Usain Bolt wins race with time of 9.68 seconds, etc. I believe events decided solely by judges cannot be sports, and will always be subjective in nature. Sports like boxing, with judging elements, are still sports in my view because there is an objective way to win knocking the opponent out so they cannot respond to a 10 count, for instance. The judging is a tiebreaker, and I am fine with that. But in judge only events, an identical routine could win one contest, and lose another, simply by virtue of human subjectivity alone. For this reason, I lump cheerleading in with figure skating, diving, and other events as athletic activities.",Cheerleading is not a sport
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe in gender equality, and the great progress feminism has made. Feminism deserves praise and glory for what it's done, and it will go down in history. But maybe now it's won it's time to move on. I'm not against feminism and I take no joy in this. 1 Like emancipation of slaves, feminists won. It makes no sense to label current anti racism as slave emancipation. That battle was won. New battle are under a different label. 2 It makes no sense to label gender equality with a female term. Feminism is close to femininity and it doesn't matter how to define it. 3 If you care about the principle, rather than the tribe, does it matter what you call it? You can respect the past while moving on. 4 Women still have issues but they are now close enough to men's potential issues to have them under one banner of gender equality. And they both affect each other. Most people believe in gender equality, we just need to influence them. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe in gender equality, and the great progress feminism has made. Feminism deserves praise and glory for what it's done, and it will go down in history. But maybe now it's won it's time to move on. I'm not against feminism and I take no joy in this. 1 Like emancipation of slaves, feminists won. It makes no sense to label current anti racism as slave emancipation. That battle was won. New battle are under a different label. 2 It makes no sense to label gender equality with a female term. Feminism is close to femininity and it doesn't matter how to define it. 3 If you care about the principle, rather than the tribe, does it matter what you call it? You can respect the past while moving on. 4 Women still have issues but they are now close enough to men's potential issues to have them under one banner of gender equality. And they both affect each other. Most people believe in gender equality, we just need to influence them. <|TARGETS|>to label gender equality with a female term ., That battle, New battle, Feminism, to label current anti racism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe in gender equality, and the great progress feminism has made. Feminism deserves praise and glory for what it's done, and it will go down in history. But maybe now it's won it's time to move on. I'm not against feminism and I take no joy in this. 1 Like emancipation of slaves, feminists won. It makes no sense to label current anti racism as slave emancipation. That battle was won. New battle are under a different label. 2 It makes no sense to label gender equality with a female term. Feminism is close to femininity and it doesn't matter how to define it. 3 If you care about the principle, rather than the tribe, does it matter what you call it? You can respect the past while moving on. 4 Women still have issues but they are now close enough to men's potential issues to have them under one banner of gender equality. And they both affect each other. Most people believe in gender equality, we just need to influence them. <|ASPECTS|>affect each, different label, gender equality, principle, respect the past, feminists, praise and glory, femininity, history, feminism, influence, battle, time to move, tribe, emancipation of slaves, issues, racism, progress, joy, slave emancipation, men 's potential issues<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe in gender equality, and the great progress feminism has made. Feminism deserves praise and glory for what it's done, and it will go down in history. But maybe now it's won it's time to move on. I'm not against feminism and I take no joy in this. 1 Like emancipation of slaves, feminists won. It makes no sense to label current anti racism as slave emancipation. That battle was won. New battle are under a different label. 2 It makes no sense to label gender equality with a female term. Feminism is close to femininity and it doesn't matter how to define it. 3 If you care about the principle, rather than the tribe, does it matter what you call it? You can respect the past while moving on. 4 Women still have issues but they are now close enough to men's potential issues to have them under one banner of gender equality. And they both affect each other. Most people believe in gender equality, we just need to influence them.","Feminism won, Egalitarianism is the future"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not just advocating nuclear reactors, that's a rather pedestrian view in itself. I will start out by trying to succinctly and directly stating my position and follow that by some expounding on it. Funding for research and projects is limited and I feel that we could possibly transcend our reliance on fossil fuels by developing advanced and new nuclear power and thereby solve the energy crisis. We could divert resources and funding from plans to improve the efficiency of coal plants, from funding to improve solar and wind energy and divert it to developing new and advanced nuclear reactors and be in a better position to create sustainable energy I will admit on the outset that I am not very well read on this subject and I'm very open to education here. I am aware this is a very complex issue spanning many areas of knowledge. I guess I just wish there were more large scale funding for scientific research like this.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not just advocating nuclear reactors, that's a rather pedestrian view in itself. I will start out by trying to succinctly and directly stating my position and follow that by some expounding on it. Funding for research and projects is limited and I feel that we could possibly transcend our reliance on fossil fuels by developing advanced and new nuclear power and thereby solve the energy crisis. We could divert resources and funding from plans to improve the efficiency of coal plants, from funding to improve solar and wind energy and divert it to developing new and advanced nuclear reactors and be in a better position to create sustainable energy I will admit on the outset that I am not very well read on this subject and I'm very open to education here. I am aware this is a very complex issue spanning many areas of knowledge. I guess I just wish there were more large scale funding for scientific research like this.<|TARGETS|>Funding for research and projects, advocating nuclear reactors, more large scale funding for scientific research, trying to succinctly and directly stating my position and follow that by some expounding on it .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not just advocating nuclear reactors, that's a rather pedestrian view in itself. I will start out by trying to succinctly and directly stating my position and follow that by some expounding on it. Funding for research and projects is limited and I feel that we could possibly transcend our reliance on fossil fuels by developing advanced and new nuclear power and thereby solve the energy crisis. We could divert resources and funding from plans to improve the efficiency of coal plants, from funding to improve solar and wind energy and divert it to developing new and advanced nuclear reactors and be in a better position to create sustainable energy I will admit on the outset that I am not very well read on this subject and I'm very open to education here. I am aware this is a very complex issue spanning many areas of knowledge. I guess I just wish there were more large scale funding for scientific research like this.<|ASPECTS|>large scale funding, reactors, limited, position, complex issue, reliance, resources, efficiency of coal, scientific research, sustainable energy, fossil fuels, pedestrian view, education, divert, energy crisis, funding, knowledge<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm not just advocating nuclear reactors, that's a rather pedestrian view in itself. I will start out by trying to succinctly and directly stating my position and follow that by some expounding on it. Funding for research and projects is limited and I feel that we could possibly transcend our reliance on fossil fuels by developing advanced and new nuclear power and thereby solve the energy crisis. We could divert resources and funding from plans to improve the efficiency of coal plants, from funding to improve solar and wind energy and divert it to developing new and advanced nuclear reactors and be in a better position to create sustainable energy I will admit on the outset that I am not very well read on this subject and I'm very open to education here. I am aware this is a very complex issue spanning many areas of knowledge. I guess I just wish there were more large scale funding for scientific research like this.","I think we should solve the ""energy crisis"" by diverting resources from other ""green"" projects to research of advanced and new types of nuclear reactors."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's start with the premise that most sport leagues organizations have 2 divisions the male division, but it's not really male. it invariably becomes a non sex restricted open division as it's argued that otherwise is discriminatory. and the female division, which maintains a positive sex segregation in that only females women can participate. a sex gender segregated division on these terms is morally unjustifiable. i can't identify a singular reason to justify it other than a cynical marketing based perspective by creating an artificial and meaningless second league, you can sell a sports product to more people by appealing to the discrimination. the standard response in justification of female leagues is of the well girls need role models heroes too type. but that just seems to just reinforce stereotyping and discrimination, so I don't find it particularly valid. transgenderism for lack of a better term further poses serious questions about the nature of a female athlete and how they qualify for the segregated league. that's not just an argument of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that, even though we have difficulty with a few fringe cases, the women's league works in 99 of the cases transgender issues in womens leagues serve to highlight another issue with a fundamentally discriminatory system. so, CMV why ought female segregated sports leagues continue to exist, especially in light of continued issues in identifying female athletes?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's start with the premise that most sport leagues organizations have 2 divisions the male division, but it's not really male. it invariably becomes a non sex restricted open division as it's argued that otherwise is discriminatory. and the female division, which maintains a positive sex segregation in that only females women can participate. a sex gender segregated division on these terms is morally unjustifiable. i can't identify a singular reason to justify it other than a cynical marketing based perspective by creating an artificial and meaningless second league, you can sell a sports product to more people by appealing to the discrimination. the standard response in justification of female leagues is of the well girls need role models heroes too type. but that just seems to just reinforce stereotyping and discrimination, so I don't find it particularly valid. transgenderism for lack of a better term further poses serious questions about the nature of a female athlete and how they qualify for the segregated league. that's not just an argument of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that, even though we have difficulty with a few fringe cases, the women's league works in 99 of the cases transgender issues in womens leagues serve to highlight another issue with a fundamentally discriminatory system. so, CMV why ought female segregated sports leagues continue to exist, especially in light of continued issues in identifying female athletes?<|TARGETS|>a sex gender segregated division on these terms, a singular reason to justify it other than a cynical marketing based perspective by creating an artificial and meaningless second league, transgenderism for lack of a better term further, the standard response in justification of female leagues<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's start with the premise that most sport leagues organizations have 2 divisions the male division, but it's not really male. it invariably becomes a non sex restricted open division as it's argued that otherwise is discriminatory. and the female division, which maintains a positive sex segregation in that only females women can participate. a sex gender segregated division on these terms is morally unjustifiable. i can't identify a singular reason to justify it other than a cynical marketing based perspective by creating an artificial and meaningless second league, you can sell a sports product to more people by appealing to the discrimination. the standard response in justification of female leagues is of the well girls need role models heroes too type. but that just seems to just reinforce stereotyping and discrimination, so I don't find it particularly valid. transgenderism for lack of a better term further poses serious questions about the nature of a female athlete and how they qualify for the segregated league. that's not just an argument of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that, even though we have difficulty with a few fringe cases, the women's league works in 99 of the cases transgender issues in womens leagues serve to highlight another issue with a fundamentally discriminatory system. so, CMV why ought female segregated sports leagues continue to exist, especially in light of continued issues in identifying female athletes?<|ASPECTS|>segregated league, division, meaningless, male, female athlete, sex restricted open division, nature, stereotyping, morally unjustifiable, gender segregated division, divisions, female athletes, discriminatory system, discrimination, discriminatory, female segregated sports leagues, positive sex segregation, female division, role models heroes<|CONCLUSION|>","Let's start with the premise that most sport leagues organizations have 2 divisions the male division, but it's not really male. it invariably becomes a non sex restricted open division as it's argued that otherwise is discriminatory. and the female division, which maintains a positive sex segregation in that only females women can participate. a sex gender segregated division on these terms is morally unjustifiable. i can't identify a singular reason to justify it other than a cynical marketing based perspective by creating an artificial and meaningless second league, you can sell a sports product to more people by appealing to the discrimination. the standard response in justification of female leagues is of the well girls need role models heroes too type. but that just seems to just reinforce stereotyping and discrimination, so I don't find it particularly valid. transgenderism for lack of a better term further poses serious questions about the nature of a female athlete and how they qualify for the segregated league. that's not just an argument of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that, even though we have difficulty with a few fringe cases, the women's league works in 99 of the cases transgender issues in womens leagues serve to highlight another issue with a fundamentally discriminatory system. so,  why ought female segregated sports leagues continue to exist, especially in light of continued issues in identifying female athletes?","""Women's"" divisions in sport leagues are completely unjustifiable and should be replaced with a ""B-level"" or just all together eliminated"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It is my view that Greed does not exist as it can never be objectively determined. It's all based on the perception of each party involved. Party A thinks they have just enough, Party B thinks Party A has too much. This is usually found in claims of a person having more than they could ever need. Who's to decide how much a person needs? In the past 3 years, I've doubled my annual income. Am I greedy? I was able to live semi comfortably before, so why did I need more income? If I'm not greedy, why is a billionaire greedy? Greed is completely subjective. Milton Friedman said it best with It's only the other side that's ever greedy. It's never you. I'd be open to the idea that \ everyone\ is greedy, but if everyone is greedy, then, in my view, the term has no meaning no one is greedy and people are just people looking out for themselves. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It is my view that Greed does not exist as it can never be objectively determined. It's all based on the perception of each party involved. Party A thinks they have just enough, Party B thinks Party A has too much. This is usually found in claims of a person having more than they could ever need. Who's to decide how much a person needs? In the past 3 years, I've doubled my annual income. Am I greedy? I was able to live semi comfortably before, so why did I need more income? If I'm not greedy, why is a billionaire greedy? Greed is completely subjective. Milton Friedman said it best with It's only the other side that's ever greedy. It's never you. I'd be open to the idea that \ everyone\ is greedy, but if everyone is greedy, then, in my view, the term has no meaning no one is greedy and people are just people looking out for themselves. CMV.<|TARGETS|>a billionaire greedy, to live semi comfortably before, Greed, Milton Friedman, open to the idea that everyone is greedy but if everyone is greedy then in my view the term<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It is my view that Greed does not exist as it can never be objectively determined. It's all based on the perception of each party involved. Party A thinks they have just enough, Party B thinks Party A has too much. This is usually found in claims of a person having more than they could ever need. Who's to decide how much a person needs? In the past 3 years, I've doubled my annual income. Am I greedy? I was able to live semi comfortably before, so why did I need more income? If I'm not greedy, why is a billionaire greedy? Greed is completely subjective. Milton Friedman said it best with It's only the other side that's ever greedy. It's never you. I'd be open to the idea that \ everyone\ is greedy, but if everyone is greedy, then, in my view, the term has no meaning no one is greedy and people are just people looking out for themselves. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>greedy, , live, income, never, enough, objectively determined, doubled, need, subjective, perception of each party, needs, semi comfortably, billionaire, greed, annual income<|CONCLUSION|>","It is my view that Greed does not exist as it can never be objectively determined. It's all based on the perception of each party involved. Party A thinks they have just enough, Party B thinks Party A has too much. This is usually found in claims of a person having more than they could ever need. Who's to decide how much a person needs? In the past 3 years, I've doubled my annual income. Am I greedy? I was able to live semi comfortably before, so why did I need more income? If I'm not greedy, why is a billionaire greedy? Greed is completely subjective. Milton Friedman said it best with It's only the other side that's ever greedy. It's never you. I'd be open to the idea that everyone is greedy, but if everyone is greedy, then, in my view, the term has no meaning no one is greedy and people are just people looking out for themselves. .",People are not greedy
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently 20 years old attending college. College was never my goal in life, in fact until the final semester of high school I was set in enlisting in the Navy. My goal is to become a Navy SEAL. I decided to attend college to appease my mother and my grandfather who want me to have a degree encase something happens during training or during my career where I cannot continue being a SEAL or don't make it. I'm about to start my fourth semester of college, assuming I take nine hours over the summer I will be able to graduate in three years as opposed to the typical four. I'm good at college. I'm a political science major with a minor in strategic studies and am currently running a 3.74 GPA. The problem is I'm absolutely miserable in college. I hate being in classes and I feel like it's a detriment to my actual goal of becoming a Navy SEAL. Any day I have to forgo training towards the SEALs working out to work on classwork just depresses me further. Navy SEALs have an expiration date. It's a high stress job both on the mind and body that one cannot do forever. I feel that every year I'm here in college is a year taken away from me on a SEAL team. Almost everyone I know tells me to finish out college but is it worth my misery? It's not as if I won't finish college after the Navy with the GI Bill I won't have to owe anyone for my degree either. Please, Change my view and convince me to stay in college and somehow be happy here for the next year and a half to two years.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently 20 years old attending college. College was never my goal in life, in fact until the final semester of high school I was set in enlisting in the Navy. My goal is to become a Navy SEAL. I decided to attend college to appease my mother and my grandfather who want me to have a degree encase something happens during training or during my career where I cannot continue being a SEAL or don't make it. I'm about to start my fourth semester of college, assuming I take nine hours over the summer I will be able to graduate in three years as opposed to the typical four. I'm good at college. I'm a political science major with a minor in strategic studies and am currently running a 3.74 GPA. The problem is I'm absolutely miserable in college. I hate being in classes and I feel like it's a detriment to my actual goal of becoming a Navy SEAL. Any day I have to forgo training towards the SEALs working out to work on classwork just depresses me further. Navy SEALs have an expiration date. It's a high stress job both on the mind and body that one cannot do forever. I feel that every year I'm here in college is a year taken away from me on a SEAL team. Almost everyone I know tells me to finish out college but is it worth my misery? It's not as if I won't finish college after the Navy with the GI Bill I won't have to owe anyone for my degree either. Please, Change my view and convince me to stay in college and somehow be happy here for the next year and a half to two years.<|TARGETS|>to start my fourth semester of college, Navy SEALs, the Navy with the GI Bill I wo n't have to owe anyone for my degree either ., Please Change my view and convince me to stay in college and somehow be happy here for the next year and a half to two years ., to finish out college, to attend college to appease my mother and my grandfather who want me to have a degree encase something happens during training or during my career where I cannot continue being a SEAL or do n't make it .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently 20 years old attending college. College was never my goal in life, in fact until the final semester of high school I was set in enlisting in the Navy. My goal is to become a Navy SEAL. I decided to attend college to appease my mother and my grandfather who want me to have a degree encase something happens during training or during my career where I cannot continue being a SEAL or don't make it. I'm about to start my fourth semester of college, assuming I take nine hours over the summer I will be able to graduate in three years as opposed to the typical four. I'm good at college. I'm a political science major with a minor in strategic studies and am currently running a 3.74 GPA. The problem is I'm absolutely miserable in college. I hate being in classes and I feel like it's a detriment to my actual goal of becoming a Navy SEAL. Any day I have to forgo training towards the SEALs working out to work on classwork just depresses me further. Navy SEALs have an expiration date. It's a high stress job both on the mind and body that one cannot do forever. I feel that every year I'm here in college is a year taken away from me on a SEAL team. Almost everyone I know tells me to finish out college but is it worth my misery? It's not as if I won't finish college after the Navy with the GI Bill I won't have to owe anyone for my degree either. Please, Change my view and convince me to stay in college and somehow be happy here for the next year and a half to two years.<|ASPECTS|>, expiration date, goal in life, year taken away, misery, finish college, depresses, finish out college, hate, stress job, happy, navy seal, classes, high, seal, mind, good, owe anyone, training, classwork, strategic studies, detriment, old, miserable, college, graduate, worth<|CONCLUSION|>","I am currently 20 years old attending college. College was never my goal in life, in fact until the final semester of high school I was set in enlisting in the Navy. My goal is to become a Navy SEAL. I decided to attend college to appease my mother and my grandfather who want me to have a degree encase something happens during training or during my career where I cannot continue being a SEAL or don't make it. I'm about to start my fourth semester of college, assuming I take nine hours over the summer I will be able to graduate in three years as opposed to the typical four. I'm good at college. I'm a political science major with a minor in strategic studies and am currently running a 3.74 GPA. The problem is I'm absolutely miserable in college. I hate being in classes and I feel like it's a detriment to my actual goal of becoming a Navy SEAL. Any day I have to forgo training towards the SEALs working out to work on classwork just depresses me further. Navy SEALs have an expiration date. It's a high stress job both on the mind and body that one cannot do forever. I feel that every year I'm here in college is a year taken away from me on a SEAL team. Almost everyone I know tells me to finish out college but is it worth my misery? It's not as if I won't finish college after the Navy with the GI Bill I won't have to owe anyone for my degree either. Please, Change my view and convince me to stay in college and somehow be happy here for the next year and a half to two years.",I want to drop out of college and enlist in the Navy
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A few years ago, there was a statistic floating around saying that 1 in 12 transgender people would be murdered. Politifact and others found this to be untrue, but I haven't been able to find better estimates. I just came across an article on a non scientific website, linked here stating that the murder rate of transgender people in the U.S. population seemed to be lower than the murder rate for nontransgender people. These rates are based on Bureau of Justice data for nontransgender people, and then UCLA estimates of the number of transgender people in the US and numbers off of Wikipedia for the number of American transgender people murdered in 2015 since the Bureau of Justice doesn't track transgender murders. The last two sources seem like the weakest sources, but after googling, I can’t find anything more formalized. I tried posting this in r asksocialscience but the thread didn’t get any responses. Also, the FBI homicide trends represent the entire racial makeup of the US, whereas 90 of transgender homicide victims in 2015 were people of color for 2015 , and mostly black, meaning that trans people of color were about ten times more likely to be murdered than white trans people. I don’t think people of color as a whole are ten times more likely to be murdered than white people although the proportion is very well likely higher . So thus far, it looks like the homicide victimization rate of transgender people is much lower than the US overall, with the rate for white transgender people even lower. I get the possibility of underreporting due to no systematic way of tracking this, but I’d imagine that the rate of identifying as transgender is also underreported. The sources are weak, but the disparity in rates is extremely curious. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A few years ago, there was a statistic floating around saying that 1 in 12 transgender people would be murdered. Politifact and others found this to be untrue, but I haven't been able to find better estimates. I just came across an article on a non scientific website, linked here stating that the murder rate of transgender people in the U.S. population seemed to be lower than the murder rate for nontransgender people. These rates are based on Bureau of Justice data for nontransgender people, and then UCLA estimates of the number of transgender people in the US and numbers off of Wikipedia for the number of American transgender people murdered in 2015 since the Bureau of Justice doesn't track transgender murders. The last two sources seem like the weakest sources, but after googling, I can’t find anything more formalized. I tried posting this in r asksocialscience but the thread didn’t get any responses. Also, the FBI homicide trends represent the entire racial makeup of the US, whereas 90 of transgender homicide victims in 2015 were people of color for 2015 , and mostly black, meaning that trans people of color were about ten times more likely to be murdered than white trans people. I don’t think people of color as a whole are ten times more likely to be murdered than white people although the proportion is very well likely higher . So thus far, it looks like the homicide victimization rate of transgender people is much lower than the US overall, with the rate for white transgender people even lower. I get the possibility of underreporting due to no systematic way of tracking this, but I’d imagine that the rate of identifying as transgender is also underreported. The sources are weak, but the disparity in rates is extremely curious. <|TARGETS|>an article on a non scientific website linked here stating that the murder rate of transgender people in the U.S. population, think people of color as a whole are ten times more likely to be murdered than white people although the proportion, The last two sources, The sources, posting this in r asksocialscience but the thread, the FBI homicide trends<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A few years ago, there was a statistic floating around saying that 1 in 12 transgender people would be murdered. Politifact and others found this to be untrue, but I haven't been able to find better estimates. I just came across an article on a non scientific website, linked here stating that the murder rate of transgender people in the U.S. population seemed to be lower than the murder rate for nontransgender people. These rates are based on Bureau of Justice data for nontransgender people, and then UCLA estimates of the number of transgender people in the US and numbers off of Wikipedia for the number of American transgender people murdered in 2015 since the Bureau of Justice doesn't track transgender murders. The last two sources seem like the weakest sources, but after googling, I can’t find anything more formalized. I tried posting this in r asksocialscience but the thread didn’t get any responses. Also, the FBI homicide trends represent the entire racial makeup of the US, whereas 90 of transgender homicide victims in 2015 were people of color for 2015 , and mostly black, meaning that trans people of color were about ten times more likely to be murdered than white trans people. I don’t think people of color as a whole are ten times more likely to be murdered than white people although the proportion is very well likely higher . So thus far, it looks like the homicide victimization rate of transgender people is much lower than the US overall, with the rate for white transgender people even lower. I get the possibility of underreporting due to no systematic way of tracking this, but I’d imagine that the rate of identifying as transgender is also underreported. The sources are weak, but the disparity in rates is extremely curious. <|ASPECTS|>, disparity in rates, underreporting, underreported, murdered, weakest sources, transgender murders, responses, better estimates, racial makeup, formalized, homicide victimization rate, transgender, homicide, likely to, rate, untrue, transgender people, numbers, asksocialscience, murder rate, likely<|CONCLUSION|>","A few years ago, there was a statistic floating around saying that 1 in 12 transgender people would be murdered. Politifact and others found this to be untrue, but I haven't been able to find better estimates. I just came across an article on a non scientific website, linked here stating that the murder rate of transgender people in the U.S. population seemed to be lower than the murder rate for nontransgender people. These rates are based on Bureau of Justice data for nontransgender people, and then UCLA estimates of the number of transgender people in the US and numbers off of Wikipedia for the number of American transgender people murdered in 2015 since the Bureau of Justice doesn't track transgender murders. The last two sources seem like the weakest sources, but after googling, I can’t find anything more formalized. I tried posting this in r asksocialscience but the thread didn’t get any responses. Also, the FBI homicide trends represent the entire racial makeup of the US, whereas 90 of transgender homicide victims in 2015 were people of color for 2015 , and mostly black, meaning that trans people of color were about ten times more likely to be murdered than white trans people. I don’t think people of color as a whole are ten times more likely to be murdered than white people although the proportion is very well likely higher . So thus far, it looks like the homicide victimization rate of transgender people is much lower than the US overall, with the rate for white transgender people even lower. I get the possibility of underreporting due to no systematic way of tracking this, but I’d imagine that the rate of identifying as transgender is also underreported. The sources are weak, but the disparity in rates is extremely curious.",There is no substantial evidence to indicate that transgender people in the U.S. are murdered at a higher rate than nontransgender people
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So a lot of the criticism towards TRP has been that they hate women. There was a post in r foodforthought can't find where the main mod theredpillschool claimed that it does not advocate rape. However, the fact that women can orgasm from rape just proves that we are all a product of our biology. Not that we should rape, or that women should get raped, it's that they have used it as a point in their arguments. TRP just teaches how we are a product of our hormones. Which science has shown us that hormones influence emotions, and psychology has shown us that emotions fuel our actions. Science also has shown us that men and women's brains work differently. How, we aren't 100 sure in what ways they work differently, and we can't really jump to sexist conclusions based on that one small fact. However, a lot of their points might be true. I am drawn to it, because it seems like they are fairly intellectual. They have a huge following and often seem to be good at debates. Another reason I'm drawn to it is because I'm 24, never have been in a serious romantic relationship. Keep in mind that I'm not some fat kid with no friends. I do have a handful of friends, a lot of them female. I'm also far from misogynistic because I've had more female influence in my life than male influence. I'm 100 straight but have a lot of feminine qualities. TRP would consider me to be a beta male and would say that my lack of relationships would probably do to me being a beta. I'm really scared of getting into it because I don't want to turn into an asshole. However, I think it might be the answer to my prayers.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So a lot of the criticism towards TRP has been that they hate women. There was a post in r foodforthought can't find where the main mod theredpillschool claimed that it does not advocate rape. However, the fact that women can orgasm from rape just proves that we are all a product of our biology. Not that we should rape, or that women should get raped, it's that they have used it as a point in their arguments. TRP just teaches how we are a product of our hormones. Which science has shown us that hormones influence emotions, and psychology has shown us that emotions fuel our actions. Science also has shown us that men and women's brains work differently. How, we aren't 100 sure in what ways they work differently, and we can't really jump to sexist conclusions based on that one small fact. However, a lot of their points might be true. I am drawn to it, because it seems like they are fairly intellectual. They have a huge following and often seem to be good at debates. Another reason I'm drawn to it is because I'm 24, never have been in a serious romantic relationship. Keep in mind that I'm not some fat kid with no friends. I do have a handful of friends, a lot of them female. I'm also far from misogynistic because I've had more female influence in my life than male influence. I'm 100 straight but have a lot of feminine qualities. TRP would consider me to be a beta male and would say that my lack of relationships would probably do to me being a beta. I'm really scared of getting into it because I don't want to turn into an asshole. However, I think it might be the answer to my prayers.<|TARGETS|>a lot of the criticism towards TRP, TRP, Which science, had more female influence in my life than male influence ., what ways they work differently and we ca n't really jump to sexist conclusions based on that one small fact ., Science<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So a lot of the criticism towards TRP has been that they hate women. There was a post in r foodforthought can't find where the main mod theredpillschool claimed that it does not advocate rape. However, the fact that women can orgasm from rape just proves that we are all a product of our biology. Not that we should rape, or that women should get raped, it's that they have used it as a point in their arguments. TRP just teaches how we are a product of our hormones. Which science has shown us that hormones influence emotions, and psychology has shown us that emotions fuel our actions. Science also has shown us that men and women's brains work differently. How, we aren't 100 sure in what ways they work differently, and we can't really jump to sexist conclusions based on that one small fact. However, a lot of their points might be true. I am drawn to it, because it seems like they are fairly intellectual. They have a huge following and often seem to be good at debates. Another reason I'm drawn to it is because I'm 24, never have been in a serious romantic relationship. Keep in mind that I'm not some fat kid with no friends. I do have a handful of friends, a lot of them female. I'm also far from misogynistic because I've had more female influence in my life than male influence. I'm 100 straight but have a lot of feminine qualities. TRP would consider me to be a beta male and would say that my lack of relationships would probably do to me being a beta. I'm really scared of getting into it because I don't want to turn into an asshole. However, I think it might be the answer to my prayers.<|ASPECTS|>, asshole, feminine qualities, points, brains work differently, serious, friends, following, lack, female influence, beta, debates, beta male, female, romantic relationship, differently, fuel our actions, intellectual, scared, rape, biology, misogynistic, hormones, raped, relationships, hate women, emotions, answer to my prayers, product, sexist conclusions, male influence, hormones influence, fat kid, orgasm from rape<|CONCLUSION|>","So a lot of the criticism towards TRP has been that they hate women. There was a post in r foodforthought can't find where the main mod theredpillschool claimed that it does not advocate rape. However, the fact that women can orgasm from rape just proves that we are all a product of our biology. Not that we should rape, or that women should get raped, it's that they have used it as a point in their arguments. TRP just teaches how we are a product of our hormones. Which science has shown us that hormones influence emotions, and psychology has shown us that emotions fuel our actions. Science also has shown us that men and women's brains work differently. How, we aren't 100 sure in what ways they work differently, and we can't really jump to sexist conclusions based on that one small fact. However, a lot of their points might be true. I am drawn to it, because it seems like they are fairly intellectual. They have a huge following and often seem to be good at debates. Another reason I'm drawn to it is because I'm 24, never have been in a serious romantic relationship. Keep in mind that I'm not some fat kid with no friends. I do have a handful of friends, a lot of them female. I'm also far from misogynistic because I've had more female influence in my life than male influence. I'm 100 straight but have a lot of feminine qualities. TRP would consider me to be a beta male and would say that my lack of relationships would probably do to me being a beta. I'm really scared of getting into it because I don't want to turn into an asshole. However, I think it might be the answer to my prayers.",I think that /r/TheRedPill has some good points and is onto something. I feel terrible about this ?
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT The delta I awarded in this thread is to u new grass for convincing me that I shouldn't be using the metaphor of purpose in the way that I did. If you replace the word 'purpose' with 'moral goal' you'll get a better picture of what I believe. Original Post I wouldn't be surprised if you had to re read the title, but this is my genuine belief. After looking at many of the arguments in favour of various moral systems, I found them all to be unjustified. Most of them fall to David Hume's famous is ought guillotine, which if you're not aware is essentially that you can't deduce an 'ought' statement from an 'is' statement. For example, we should save that girl because she is drowning is fallacious because it assumes that it is better that she survives. Similarly, her life is valuable because she's a famous comedian who makes people happy assumes that people being happy is valuable and happiness is good because it's natural assumes things that are natural are good. Subjectivism as in you create your own purpose also doesn't work because any purpose you 'create' is arbitrary and meaningless because you could have chosen any purpose. Just because you choose to abide by a particular purpose doesn't make it justified. So that's basically why I don't accept other systems of value, but why doesn't searching for purpose fail in the same way? Let me walk you through my reasoning. We can be wrong about pretty much anything, and therefore there is a possibility that there is an objective purpose and I'm just not aware of it yet. Now, consider this choice I can either try to search for this purpose or not. If there isn't a purpose, then it doesn't matter what I choose since either way my actions are meaningless. However, if there is a purpose then it is preferable to try and search for it since if I find it I'd be able to alter my actions towards what is more moral and therefore searching would have had positive value whereas if I don't try I would miss out on that. If I can't seem to find a true purpose, then I believe I'm obliged to essentially keep looking just in case I missed something since I can always be wrong. This assumes I won't mistakenly believe a purpose that isn't true. All I can say about that is I hope I'm diligent enough that that doesn't happen. Also, I should clarify that I believe this applies to every individual and not just me. As for my openness to changing my mind about this, I would love to. If there's a better value system someone can convince me of then I will have achieved my current goal, and that'd make me very happy. If someone convinces me that my current purpose value system is flawed I'll also be happy, because then I'll just content myself with focusing my life on helping others not that I won't be doing that anyway . So CMV and don't hold back TL DR I believe it's unlikely that there is a true objective purpose but if there is we should try to find it and if there isn't it doesn't matter anyway. Therefore, our current purpose is to try and find that purpose.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT The delta I awarded in this thread is to u new grass for convincing me that I shouldn't be using the metaphor of purpose in the way that I did. If you replace the word 'purpose' with 'moral goal' you'll get a better picture of what I believe. Original Post I wouldn't be surprised if you had to re read the title, but this is my genuine belief. After looking at many of the arguments in favour of various moral systems, I found them all to be unjustified. Most of them fall to David Hume's famous is ought guillotine, which if you're not aware is essentially that you can't deduce an 'ought' statement from an 'is' statement. For example, we should save that girl because she is drowning is fallacious because it assumes that it is better that she survives. Similarly, her life is valuable because she's a famous comedian who makes people happy assumes that people being happy is valuable and happiness is good because it's natural assumes things that are natural are good. Subjectivism as in you create your own purpose also doesn't work because any purpose you 'create' is arbitrary and meaningless because you could have chosen any purpose. Just because you choose to abide by a particular purpose doesn't make it justified. So that's basically why I don't accept other systems of value, but why doesn't searching for purpose fail in the same way? Let me walk you through my reasoning. We can be wrong about pretty much anything, and therefore there is a possibility that there is an objective purpose and I'm just not aware of it yet. Now, consider this choice I can either try to search for this purpose or not. If there isn't a purpose, then it doesn't matter what I choose since either way my actions are meaningless. However, if there is a purpose then it is preferable to try and search for it since if I find it I'd be able to alter my actions towards what is more moral and therefore searching would have had positive value whereas if I don't try I would miss out on that. If I can't seem to find a true purpose, then I believe I'm obliged to essentially keep looking just in case I missed something since I can always be wrong. This assumes I won't mistakenly believe a purpose that isn't true. All I can say about that is I hope I'm diligent enough that that doesn't happen. Also, I should clarify that I believe this applies to every individual and not just me. As for my openness to changing my mind about this, I would love to. If there's a better value system someone can convince me of then I will have achieved my current goal, and that'd make me very happy. If someone convinces me that my current purpose value system is flawed I'll also be happy, because then I'll just content myself with focusing my life on helping others not that I won't be doing that anyway . So CMV and don't hold back TL DR I believe it's unlikely that there is a true objective purpose but if there is we should try to find it and if there isn't it doesn't matter anyway. Therefore, our current purpose is to try and find that purpose.<|TARGETS|>After looking at many of the arguments in favour of various moral systems, If someone convinces me that my current purpose value system, should save that girl because she is drowning, Let me walk you through my reasoning ., to essentially keep looking just in case I missed something since I can always be wrong ., to find it and if there is n't it<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT The delta I awarded in this thread is to u new grass for convincing me that I shouldn't be using the metaphor of purpose in the way that I did. If you replace the word 'purpose' with 'moral goal' you'll get a better picture of what I believe. Original Post I wouldn't be surprised if you had to re read the title, but this is my genuine belief. After looking at many of the arguments in favour of various moral systems, I found them all to be unjustified. Most of them fall to David Hume's famous is ought guillotine, which if you're not aware is essentially that you can't deduce an 'ought' statement from an 'is' statement. For example, we should save that girl because she is drowning is fallacious because it assumes that it is better that she survives. Similarly, her life is valuable because she's a famous comedian who makes people happy assumes that people being happy is valuable and happiness is good because it's natural assumes things that are natural are good. Subjectivism as in you create your own purpose also doesn't work because any purpose you 'create' is arbitrary and meaningless because you could have chosen any purpose. Just because you choose to abide by a particular purpose doesn't make it justified. So that's basically why I don't accept other systems of value, but why doesn't searching for purpose fail in the same way? Let me walk you through my reasoning. We can be wrong about pretty much anything, and therefore there is a possibility that there is an objective purpose and I'm just not aware of it yet. Now, consider this choice I can either try to search for this purpose or not. If there isn't a purpose, then it doesn't matter what I choose since either way my actions are meaningless. However, if there is a purpose then it is preferable to try and search for it since if I find it I'd be able to alter my actions towards what is more moral and therefore searching would have had positive value whereas if I don't try I would miss out on that. If I can't seem to find a true purpose, then I believe I'm obliged to essentially keep looking just in case I missed something since I can always be wrong. This assumes I won't mistakenly believe a purpose that isn't true. All I can say about that is I hope I'm diligent enough that that doesn't happen. Also, I should clarify that I believe this applies to every individual and not just me. As for my openness to changing my mind about this, I would love to. If there's a better value system someone can convince me of then I will have achieved my current goal, and that'd make me very happy. If someone convinces me that my current purpose value system is flawed I'll also be happy, because then I'll just content myself with focusing my life on helping others not that I won't be doing that anyway . So CMV and don't hold back TL DR I believe it's unlikely that there is a true objective purpose but if there is we should try to find it and if there isn't it doesn't matter anyway. Therefore, our current purpose is to try and find that purpose.<|ASPECTS|>flawed, meaningless, wrong, unjustified, alter, actions, chosen, moral, diligent enough, moral systems, helping others, changing my mind, better value system, drowning, happy, natural, save, life, systems of value, justified, objective purpose, believe, true purpose, looking, survives, new, happiness, search, valuable, subjectivism, purpose value system, individual, reasoning, metaphor of purpose, better, purpose, positive value, genuine belief, fallacious, arbitrary, goal<|CONCLUSION|>","EDIT The delta I awarded in this thread is to u new grass for convincing me that I shouldn't be using the metaphor of purpose in the way that I did. If you replace the word 'purpose' with 'moral goal' you'll get a better picture of what I believe. Original Post I wouldn't be surprised if you had to re read the title, but this is my genuine belief. After looking at many of the arguments in favour of various moral systems, I found them all to be unjustified. Most of them fall to David Hume's famous is ought guillotine, which if you're not aware is essentially that you can't deduce an 'ought' statement from an 'is' statement. For example, we should save that girl because she is drowning is fallacious because it assumes that it is better that she survives. Similarly, her life is valuable because she's a famous comedian who makes people happy assumes that people being happy is valuable and happiness is good because it's natural assumes things that are natural are good. Subjectivism as in you create your own purpose also doesn't work because any purpose you 'create' is arbitrary and meaningless because you could have chosen any purpose. Just because you choose to abide by a particular purpose doesn't make it justified. So that's basically why I don't accept other systems of value, but why doesn't searching for purpose fail in the same way? Let me walk you through my reasoning. We can be wrong about pretty much anything, and therefore there is a possibility that there is an objective purpose and I'm just not aware of it yet. Now, consider this choice I can either try to search for this purpose or not. If there isn't a purpose, then it doesn't matter what I choose since either way my actions are meaningless. However, if there is a purpose then it is preferable to try and search for it since if I find it I'd be able to alter my actions towards what is more moral and therefore searching would have had positive value whereas if I don't try I would miss out on that. If I can't seem to find a true purpose, then I believe I'm obliged to essentially keep looking just in case I missed something since I can always be wrong. This assumes I won't mistakenly believe a purpose that isn't true. All I can say about that is I hope I'm diligent enough that that doesn't happen. Also, I should clarify that I believe this applies to every individual and not just me. As for my openness to changing my mind about this, I would love to. If there's a better value system someone can convince me of then I will have achieved my current goal, and that'd make me very happy. If someone convinces me that my current purpose value system is flawed I'll also be happy, because then I'll just content myself with focusing my life on helping others not that I won't be doing that anyway . So  and don't hold back TL DR I believe it's unlikely that there is a true objective purpose but if there is we should try to find it and if there isn't it doesn't matter anyway. Therefore, our current purpose is to try and find that purpose.",I believe our only purpose is to search for purpose.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me open with this the ACT and SAT exams are inaccurate measures of a student's potential. However, at the moment, they're the best we have. The ACT and SAT exams are used to compare students. Very simply, it is a numerical number used to compare one student's ability to do well on the test to another. Because grades are different everywhere, it is important to have some standard number on a college application to compare apples to apples. A core component of the SAT and especially the ACT is the time constraints. Given a really long time, most students could do extremely well on the test. However, students have to be able to think quickly to answer the questions in the given time. If the point of the test is to be able to compare one student to another, why should extra time be allotted? Yes a student will struggle if they have a learning disability, but that disability is not going to go away, and tests are not going to get easier at the collegiate level. I think that this is an important issue. Students with extra time WILL do much worse without it. However, if this were to happen, it would reveal the underlying issue with the college application process ACTs and SATs, in my opinion, are important, but they aren't all a student brings to the table. There's a lot of things in a student's profile, and there needs to be more holistic ways to measure this outside of a testing environment , and these methods need to be valued by college admissions officers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me open with this the ACT and SAT exams are inaccurate measures of a student's potential. However, at the moment, they're the best we have. The ACT and SAT exams are used to compare students. Very simply, it is a numerical number used to compare one student's ability to do well on the test to another. Because grades are different everywhere, it is important to have some standard number on a college application to compare apples to apples. A core component of the SAT and especially the ACT is the time constraints. Given a really long time, most students could do extremely well on the test. However, students have to be able to think quickly to answer the questions in the given time. If the point of the test is to be able to compare one student to another, why should extra time be allotted? Yes a student will struggle if they have a learning disability, but that disability is not going to go away, and tests are not going to get easier at the collegiate level. I think that this is an important issue. Students with extra time WILL do much worse without it. However, if this were to happen, it would reveal the underlying issue with the college application process ACTs and SATs, in my opinion, are important, but they aren't all a student brings to the table. There's a lot of things in a student's profile, and there needs to be more holistic ways to measure this outside of a testing environment , and these methods need to be valued by college admissions officers<|TARGETS|>a numerical number used to compare one student 's ability to do well on the test to another ., The ACT and SAT exams, to have some standard number on a college application to compare apples to apples ., Let me open with this the ACT and SAT exams, If the point of the test, to be able to think quickly to answer the questions in the given time .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me open with this the ACT and SAT exams are inaccurate measures of a student's potential. However, at the moment, they're the best we have. The ACT and SAT exams are used to compare students. Very simply, it is a numerical number used to compare one student's ability to do well on the test to another. Because grades are different everywhere, it is important to have some standard number on a college application to compare apples to apples. A core component of the SAT and especially the ACT is the time constraints. Given a really long time, most students could do extremely well on the test. However, students have to be able to think quickly to answer the questions in the given time. If the point of the test is to be able to compare one student to another, why should extra time be allotted? Yes a student will struggle if they have a learning disability, but that disability is not going to go away, and tests are not going to get easier at the collegiate level. I think that this is an important issue. Students with extra time WILL do much worse without it. However, if this were to happen, it would reveal the underlying issue with the college application process ACTs and SATs, in my opinion, are important, but they aren't all a student brings to the table. There's a lot of things in a student's profile, and there needs to be more holistic ways to measure this outside of a testing environment , and these methods need to be valued by college admissions officers<|ASPECTS|>inaccurate, worse, student, testing, valued, ability to do well, tests, college application process, disability, think quickly, student 's potential, student 's profile, compare, learning disability, time constraints, best, compare students, admissions, extra time, grades, underlying issue, extremely well, students, holistic, important issue, struggle, standard number, questions, numerical number<|CONCLUSION|>","Let me open with this the ACT and SAT exams are inaccurate measures of a student's potential. However, at the moment, they're the best we have. The ACT and SAT exams are used to compare students. Very simply, it is a numerical number used to compare one student's ability to do well on the test to another. Because grades are different everywhere, it is important to have some standard number on a college application to compare apples to apples. A core component of the SAT and especially the ACT is the time constraints. Given a really long time, most students could do extremely well on the test. However, students have to be able to think quickly to answer the questions in the given time. If the point of the test is to be able to compare one student to another, why should extra time be allotted? Yes a student will struggle if they have a learning disability, but that disability is not going to go away, and tests are not going to get easier at the collegiate level. I think that this is an important issue. Students with extra time WILL do much worse without it. However, if this were to happen, it would reveal the underlying issue with the college application process ACTs and SATs, in my opinion, are important, but they aren't all a student brings to the table. There's a lot of things in a student's profile, and there needs to be more holistic ways to measure this outside of a testing environment , and these methods need to be valued by college admissions officers",I don't think standardized tests should allot extra time for students with learning disabilities
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The main reason I think that philosophy is useless is because, as John McDowell has said, the point of philosophy is to leave everything as it is . It is a passive intellectual pursuit that seems to tell you how things are, but upon closer inspection it turns out that those things do not have any bearing upon everyday life. Moreover, philosophy cannot tell you what to do. Moral philosophy describes ways to get to the truth about what to do, but these ways are already understood implicitly by everyone and so never needed to be made explicit. Therefore, there is no point in being interested in philosophy. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The main reason I think that philosophy is useless is because, as John McDowell has said, the point of philosophy is to leave everything as it is . It is a passive intellectual pursuit that seems to tell you how things are, but upon closer inspection it turns out that those things do not have any bearing upon everyday life. Moreover, philosophy cannot tell you what to do. Moral philosophy describes ways to get to the truth about what to do, but these ways are already understood implicitly by everyone and so never needed to be made explicit. Therefore, there is no point in being interested in philosophy. <|TARGETS|>to get to the truth about what to do but these ways are already understood implicitly by everyone and so never needed to be made explicit .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The main reason I think that philosophy is useless is because, as John McDowell has said, the point of philosophy is to leave everything as it is . It is a passive intellectual pursuit that seems to tell you how things are, but upon closer inspection it turns out that those things do not have any bearing upon everyday life. Moreover, philosophy cannot tell you what to do. Moral philosophy describes ways to get to the truth about what to do, but these ways are already understood implicitly by everyone and so never needed to be made explicit. Therefore, there is no point in being interested in philosophy. <|ASPECTS|>everyday life, , leave everything, interested, truth, passive intellectual pursuit, moral, useless, understood, tell, philosophy<|CONCLUSION|>","The main reason I think that philosophy is useless is because, as John McDowell has said, the point of philosophy is to leave everything as it is . It is a passive intellectual pursuit that seems to tell you how things are, but upon closer inspection it turns out that those things do not have any bearing upon everyday life. Moreover, philosophy cannot tell you what to do. Moral philosophy describes ways to get to the truth about what to do, but these ways are already understood implicitly by everyone and so never needed to be made explicit. Therefore, there is no point in being interested in philosophy.",Philosophy is useless.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be clear, I could care less what people put in their bodies and think we're free to do what we want to ourselves. However, absolutely horrific crimes are committed and groups are created in order to provide those who want to illegally partake with their product. However indirectly, funding these enterprises has horribly affected lives and even nations Columbia, Mexico . The moral thing to do would be to take all the energy applied to trying to find dealers and get away with using drugs to force legislation to make it legal advancing our society and ending cartels in one stroke. Just like prohibition a century ago.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be clear, I could care less what people put in their bodies and think we're free to do what we want to ourselves. However, absolutely horrific crimes are committed and groups are created in order to provide those who want to illegally partake with their product. However indirectly, funding these enterprises has horribly affected lives and even nations Columbia, Mexico . The moral thing to do would be to take all the energy applied to trying to find dealers and get away with using drugs to force legislation to make it legal advancing our society and ending cartels in one stroke. Just like prohibition a century ago.<|TARGETS|>free to do what we want to ourselves ., to take all the energy applied to trying to find dealers and get away with using drugs to force legislation, funding these enterprises, to provide those who want to illegally partake with their product .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be clear, I could care less what people put in their bodies and think we're free to do what we want to ourselves. However, absolutely horrific crimes are committed and groups are created in order to provide those who want to illegally partake with their product. However indirectly, funding these enterprises has horribly affected lives and even nations Columbia, Mexico . The moral thing to do would be to take all the energy applied to trying to find dealers and get away with using drugs to force legislation to make it legal advancing our society and ending cartels in one stroke. Just like prohibition a century ago.<|ASPECTS|>groups, legal advancing our society, affected lives, illegally, free to, energy, dealers, horribly, ending cartels, horrific crimes, care less<|CONCLUSION|>","To be clear, I could care less what people put in their bodies and think we're free to do what we want to ourselves. However, absolutely horrific crimes are committed and groups are created in order to provide those who want to illegally partake with their product. However indirectly, funding these enterprises has horribly affected lives and even nations Columbia, Mexico . The moral thing to do would be to take all the energy applied to trying to find dealers and get away with using drugs to force legislation to make it legal advancing our society and ending cartels in one stroke. Just like prohibition a century ago.","With the current practical reality, using illegal drugs is immoral."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Something just doesn't add up to me. It almost seems too perfect, a hero they know we love heroes , an escape and a mission to deliver the secret message to the world that the government has a total lock down of all human communications. A hero that all dissenters, theorists, anti whatevers, old school leakers and whistleblowers could all rally behind. Now step back a second. From what we now know from the leaks, the government does, potentially, have the ability to record much if not most of modern technology based human communication. But, how are they ever able to use that on the people if it is secret? How would they ever be able to let the masses know with causing a minimal amount of stress to the populations, i.e. not cause unmanageable mass outrage? They do need to let it be known publicly so that they can start incorporating the survelleince state into the public legal systems. If the government does have such a vastly developed network of survelleince, and keeping the network secret from the public was critical to the functioning of the network, they would absolutely have backup failsafes in place to deal with info leaks and dumps, especially in the age of Mannings and wikileaks. There is 0 chance that this would have been unanticipated from this organization, 0 . There actually would be though, a very high percentage chance that this organization could engage in some sort of pre emptive operation, especially in light of articles on social media engineering and legalized propaganda. If Snowden was some sort of agent, everyone he has worked with would not necessarily have to have been in on it, as he has only worked with a very limited amount of people. Also because of this small circle of associates, they may be in on it too, who knows. not to mention that this seems to me to cause a unverifyable bottleneck for the info, which is now magnified by the new media sub industry that has sprung up around the Snowden leaks My two biggest questions that really keep me wondering are, Why has there been no other Snowdens to corroborate him? Why hasn't he ever named any names? I think this is because he could still be an active government agent, and part of a controlled info release campaign, CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Something just doesn't add up to me. It almost seems too perfect, a hero they know we love heroes , an escape and a mission to deliver the secret message to the world that the government has a total lock down of all human communications. A hero that all dissenters, theorists, anti whatevers, old school leakers and whistleblowers could all rally behind. Now step back a second. From what we now know from the leaks, the government does, potentially, have the ability to record much if not most of modern technology based human communication. But, how are they ever able to use that on the people if it is secret? How would they ever be able to let the masses know with causing a minimal amount of stress to the populations, i.e. not cause unmanageable mass outrage? They do need to let it be known publicly so that they can start incorporating the survelleince state into the public legal systems. If the government does have such a vastly developed network of survelleince, and keeping the network secret from the public was critical to the functioning of the network, they would absolutely have backup failsafes in place to deal with info leaks and dumps, especially in the age of Mannings and wikileaks. There is 0 chance that this would have been unanticipated from this organization, 0 . There actually would be though, a very high percentage chance that this organization could engage in some sort of pre emptive operation, especially in light of articles on social media engineering and legalized propaganda. If Snowden was some sort of agent, everyone he has worked with would not necessarily have to have been in on it, as he has only worked with a very limited amount of people. Also because of this small circle of associates, they may be in on it too, who knows. not to mention that this seems to me to cause a unverifyable bottleneck for the info, which is now magnified by the new media sub industry that has sprung up around the Snowden leaks My two biggest questions that really keep me wondering are, Why has there been no other Snowdens to corroborate him? Why hasn't he ever named any names? I think this is because he could still be an active government agent, and part of a controlled info release campaign, CMV.<|TARGETS|>How would they ever be able to let the masses know with causing a minimal amount of stress to the populations, If Snowden was some sort of agent everyone he has worked with would not necessarily have to have been in on it, the new media sub industry, this organization could engage in some sort of pre emptive operation, an escape and a mission to deliver the secret message to the world that the government, to let it be known publicly so that they can start incorporating the survelleince state into the public legal systems<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Something just doesn't add up to me. It almost seems too perfect, a hero they know we love heroes , an escape and a mission to deliver the secret message to the world that the government has a total lock down of all human communications. A hero that all dissenters, theorists, anti whatevers, old school leakers and whistleblowers could all rally behind. Now step back a second. From what we now know from the leaks, the government does, potentially, have the ability to record much if not most of modern technology based human communication. But, how are they ever able to use that on the people if it is secret? How would they ever be able to let the masses know with causing a minimal amount of stress to the populations, i.e. not cause unmanageable mass outrage? They do need to let it be known publicly so that they can start incorporating the survelleince state into the public legal systems. If the government does have such a vastly developed network of survelleince, and keeping the network secret from the public was critical to the functioning of the network, they would absolutely have backup failsafes in place to deal with info leaks and dumps, especially in the age of Mannings and wikileaks. There is 0 chance that this would have been unanticipated from this organization, 0 . There actually would be though, a very high percentage chance that this organization could engage in some sort of pre emptive operation, especially in light of articles on social media engineering and legalized propaganda. If Snowden was some sort of agent, everyone he has worked with would not necessarily have to have been in on it, as he has only worked with a very limited amount of people. Also because of this small circle of associates, they may be in on it too, who knows. not to mention that this seems to me to cause a unverifyable bottleneck for the info, which is now magnified by the new media sub industry that has sprung up around the Snowden leaks My two biggest questions that really keep me wondering are, Why has there been no other Snowdens to corroborate him? Why hasn't he ever named any names? I think this is because he could still be an active government agent, and part of a controlled info release campaign, CMV.<|ASPECTS|>dumps, known, controlled info release, human communication, human communications, active government agent, unverifyable bottleneck, info leaks, names, unmanageable mass outrage, circle, masses, whistleblowers, associates, limited amount of people, backup failsafes, lock, dissenters, named, survelleince, stress, unanticipated, survelleince state, secret, pre emptive operation, hero, propaganda<|CONCLUSION|>","Something just doesn't add up to me. It almost seems too perfect, a hero they know we love heroes , an escape and a mission to deliver the secret message to the world that the government has a total lock down of all human communications. A hero that all dissenters, theorists, anti whatevers, old school leakers and whistleblowers could all rally behind. Now step back a second. From what we now know from the leaks, the government does, potentially, have the ability to record much if not most of modern technology based human communication. But, how are they ever able to use that on the people if it is secret? How would they ever be able to let the masses know with causing a minimal amount of stress to the populations, i.e. not cause unmanageable mass outrage? They do need to let it be known publicly so that they can start incorporating the survelleince state into the public legal systems. If the government does have such a vastly developed network of survelleince, and keeping the network secret from the public was critical to the functioning of the network, they would absolutely have backup failsafes in place to deal with info leaks and dumps, especially in the age of Mannings and wikileaks. There is 0 chance that this would have been unanticipated from this organization, 0 . There actually would be though, a very high percentage chance that this organization could engage in some sort of pre emptive operation, especially in light of articles on social media engineering and legalized propaganda. If Snowden was some sort of agent, everyone he has worked with would not necessarily have to have been in on it, as he has only worked with a very limited amount of people. Also because of this small circle of associates, they may be in on it too, who knows. not to mention that this seems to me to cause a unverifyable bottleneck for the info, which is now magnified by the new media sub industry that has sprung up around the Snowden leaks My two biggest questions that really keep me wondering are, Why has there been no other Snowdens to corroborate him? Why hasn't he ever named any names? I think this is because he could still be an active government agent, and part of a controlled info release campaign, .","I am worried that there is a good chance that Snowden is not a rogue hero, but an active government agent, sent like the Silver Surfer, on a harbinger mission to herald the survelleince state,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Whenever I see reddit harping on pre orders I always ask what's so bad about them. No one has ever offered even a half decent argument about why they're so terrible. See this most recent thread for an example. But the game might suck. The only decent argument I ever hear is that you're putting up money for something you may not like. However, you can easily minimize this risk by doing some research on the games. Nowadays it's not unheard of for a game to be thoroughly reviewed by YouTubers or other folks who usually aren't out to sell you the game. There's tons of news, screenshots, subreddit with speculation and discussion. eg. Check out r dragonage for all the DA I info you could want. It's very easy to get a good idea of what you're buying. Also, this risk is almost completely taken out of the picture if you pre order games from franchises or companies you know and like Saints Row, Borderlands, Tomb Raider, etc. and don't throw money at unknown devs. Just buy it when it comes out, after you see the reviews. You can usually see many reviews beforehand, or get an idea for the feel of the game with methods in my previous point. So, given that information, if you're fairly certain you're going to buy the game anytime near release there's no reason not to. In fact , there's incentive to do so, given as pre order bonuses. I've gotten Steam discounts, free DLC, free games, etc., hundreds of dollars worth. Wait for it to be cheaper or on sale. Admittedly this one's great if you're the type who doesn't need to play something on release. However, for games I truly love, I want to play it quick, when all my friends are also playing, so we can talk about it and I'm not sitting here in 2013 saying Hey, you guys heard about that Skyrim game? If you're a sale searcher then, yes, preorders are rarely a good deal. But if you'll be buying near release day you may as well buy before. No, but seriously, the game might suck. I made the mistake of buying a game without much research once. What was the game? WarZ. And what happened? I requested a refund and was promptly refunded. I believe GameStop has some sort of limited duration full return policy, I know WalMart does. If you are led astray via research it's not a big deal to return the game for a refund in most cases. I've even received refunds for mistaken, non pre order purchases from Steam. And so, my view, is that anyone who is going to buy a game near release is best off pre ordering in any situation that you're given free DLC or rewards, which is most big name titles these days. Can anyone CMV?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Whenever I see reddit harping on pre orders I always ask what's so bad about them. No one has ever offered even a half decent argument about why they're so terrible. See this most recent thread for an example. But the game might suck. The only decent argument I ever hear is that you're putting up money for something you may not like. However, you can easily minimize this risk by doing some research on the games. Nowadays it's not unheard of for a game to be thoroughly reviewed by YouTubers or other folks who usually aren't out to sell you the game. There's tons of news, screenshots, subreddit with speculation and discussion. eg. Check out r dragonage for all the DA I info you could want. It's very easy to get a good idea of what you're buying. Also, this risk is almost completely taken out of the picture if you pre order games from franchises or companies you know and like Saints Row, Borderlands, Tomb Raider, etc. and don't throw money at unknown devs. Just buy it when it comes out, after you see the reviews. You can usually see many reviews beforehand, or get an idea for the feel of the game with methods in my previous point. So, given that information, if you're fairly certain you're going to buy the game anytime near release there's no reason not to. In fact , there's incentive to do so, given as pre order bonuses. I've gotten Steam discounts, free DLC, free games, etc., hundreds of dollars worth. Wait for it to be cheaper or on sale. Admittedly this one's great if you're the type who doesn't need to play something on release. However, for games I truly love, I want to play it quick, when all my friends are also playing, so we can talk about it and I'm not sitting here in 2013 saying Hey, you guys heard about that Skyrim game? If you're a sale searcher then, yes, preorders are rarely a good deal. But if you'll be buying near release day you may as well buy before. No, but seriously, the game might suck. I made the mistake of buying a game without much research once. What was the game? WarZ. And what happened? I requested a refund and was promptly refunded. I believe GameStop has some sort of limited duration full return policy, I know WalMart does. If you are led astray via research it's not a big deal to return the game for a refund in most cases. I've even received refunds for mistaken, non pre order purchases from Steam. And so, my view, is that anyone who is going to buy a game near release is best off pre ordering in any situation that you're given free DLC or rewards, which is most big name titles these days. Can anyone CMV?<|TARGETS|>refunds for mistaken non pre order purchases from Steam, free DLC or rewards, GameStop, to play something on release ., WarZ, WalMart<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Whenever I see reddit harping on pre orders I always ask what's so bad about them. No one has ever offered even a half decent argument about why they're so terrible. See this most recent thread for an example. But the game might suck. The only decent argument I ever hear is that you're putting up money for something you may not like. However, you can easily minimize this risk by doing some research on the games. Nowadays it's not unheard of for a game to be thoroughly reviewed by YouTubers or other folks who usually aren't out to sell you the game. There's tons of news, screenshots, subreddit with speculation and discussion. eg. Check out r dragonage for all the DA I info you could want. It's very easy to get a good idea of what you're buying. Also, this risk is almost completely taken out of the picture if you pre order games from franchises or companies you know and like Saints Row, Borderlands, Tomb Raider, etc. and don't throw money at unknown devs. Just buy it when it comes out, after you see the reviews. You can usually see many reviews beforehand, or get an idea for the feel of the game with methods in my previous point. So, given that information, if you're fairly certain you're going to buy the game anytime near release there's no reason not to. In fact , there's incentive to do so, given as pre order bonuses. I've gotten Steam discounts, free DLC, free games, etc., hundreds of dollars worth. Wait for it to be cheaper or on sale. Admittedly this one's great if you're the type who doesn't need to play something on release. However, for games I truly love, I want to play it quick, when all my friends are also playing, so we can talk about it and I'm not sitting here in 2013 saying Hey, you guys heard about that Skyrim game? If you're a sale searcher then, yes, preorders are rarely a good deal. But if you'll be buying near release day you may as well buy before. No, but seriously, the game might suck. I made the mistake of buying a game without much research once. What was the game? WarZ. And what happened? I requested a refund and was promptly refunded. I believe GameStop has some sort of limited duration full return policy, I know WalMart does. If you are led astray via research it's not a big deal to return the game for a refund in most cases. I've even received refunds for mistaken, non pre order purchases from Steam. And so, my view, is that anyone who is going to buy a game near release is best off pre ordering in any situation that you're given free DLC or rewards, which is most big name titles these days. Can anyone CMV?<|ASPECTS|>return, steam discounts, mistaken, discussion, money, reviews, suck, skyrim, astray, free games, research, cheaper, unknown devs, cmv, idea, speculation, sale, pre order bonuses, anytime, minimize, buy, incentive, risk, screenshots, free, release day, terrible, play, searcher, full return policy, quick, limited duration, buying, refund, game, argument, preorders, order purchases, news, feel, refunds, putting, throw money, easy, refunded, thoroughly reviewed, rewards, r dragonage, pre ordering<|CONCLUSION|>","Whenever I see reddit harping on pre orders I always ask what's so bad about them. No one has ever offered even a half decent argument about why they're so terrible. See this most recent thread for an example. But the game might suck. The only decent argument I ever hear is that you're putting up money for something you may not like. However, you can easily minimize this risk by doing some research on the games. Nowadays it's not unheard of for a game to be thoroughly reviewed by YouTubers or other folks who usually aren't out to sell you the game. There's tons of news, screenshots, subreddit with speculation and discussion. eg. Check out r dragonage for all the DA I info you could want. It's very easy to get a good idea of what you're buying. Also, this risk is almost completely taken out of the picture if you pre order games from franchises or companies you know and like Saints Row, Borderlands, Tomb Raider, etc. and don't throw money at unknown devs. Just buy it when it comes out, after you see the reviews. You can usually see many reviews beforehand, or get an idea for the feel of the game with methods in my previous point. So, given that information, if you're fairly certain you're going to buy the game anytime near release there's no reason not to. In fact , there's incentive to do so, given as pre order bonuses. I've gotten Steam discounts, free DLC, free games, etc., hundreds of dollars worth. Wait for it to be cheaper or on sale. Admittedly this one's great if you're the type who doesn't need to play something on release. However, for games I truly love, I want to play it quick, when all my friends are also playing, so we can talk about it and I'm not sitting here in 2013 saying Hey, you guys heard about that Skyrim game? If you're a sale searcher then, yes, preorders are rarely a good deal. But if you'll be buying near release day you may as well buy before. No, but seriously, the game might suck. I made the mistake of buying a game without much research once. What was the game? WarZ. And what happened? I requested a refund and was promptly refunded. I believe GameStop has some sort of limited duration full return policy, I know WalMart does. If you are led astray via research it's not a big deal to return the game for a refund in most cases. I've even received refunds for mistaken, non pre order purchases from Steam. And so, my view, is that anyone who is going to buy a game near release is best off pre ordering in any situation that you're given free DLC or rewards, which is most big name titles these days. Can anyone ?","I don't see anything wrong with pre-ordering games. In fact, I think it just makes sense for most consumers."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The most upvoted comments concerning Pirate Bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance. It comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods. I understand that Piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of Steam or Netflix. What I don't understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection. There is no situation where I would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released . That is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole. There is also no situation where I would pirate a recently released game for the same reason. Further, the argument of They don't deserve my money that people always throw around concerning the likes of Ubisoft or EA is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy. If there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it. I don't agree with the human rights violations that happen in China or Bangladesh, but that doesn't mean I'm justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them. I feel like I should add as an addendum that there is one situation where I have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if I had been able to. My father was bedridden while fighting Lung Cancer and wanted to see the second Hobbit. There was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he wouldn't be around long enough for a DVD release. That is such an extreme case though, that I hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the Pirate Bay. Edit Discovered that we're having car problems this morning x2 so I may not be around to respond for a couple hours, but I will Edit 2 Also glad that every comment I make, though being substantive and contributing to discussion, is getting downvoted. Read redditquette the side bar, hover over, and footnote included on every CMV op<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The most upvoted comments concerning Pirate Bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance. It comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods. I understand that Piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of Steam or Netflix. What I don't understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection. There is no situation where I would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released . That is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole. There is also no situation where I would pirate a recently released game for the same reason. Further, the argument of They don't deserve my money that people always throw around concerning the likes of Ubisoft or EA is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy. If there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it. I don't agree with the human rights violations that happen in China or Bangladesh, but that doesn't mean I'm justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them. I feel like I should add as an addendum that there is one situation where I have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if I had been able to. My father was bedridden while fighting Lung Cancer and wanted to see the second Hobbit. There was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he wouldn't be around long enough for a DVD release. That is such an extreme case though, that I hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the Pirate Bay. Edit Discovered that we're having car problems this morning x2 so I may not be around to respond for a couple hours, but I will Edit 2 Also glad that every comment I make, though being substantive and contributing to discussion, is getting downvoted. Read redditquette the side bar, hover over, and footnote included on every CMV op<|TARGETS|>having car problems this morning x2, to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them ., the human rights violations that happen in China or Bangladesh, Piracy, The most upvoted comments concerning Pirate Bay, to pirate a movie<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The most upvoted comments concerning Pirate Bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance. It comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods. I understand that Piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of Steam or Netflix. What I don't understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection. There is no situation where I would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released . That is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole. There is also no situation where I would pirate a recently released game for the same reason. Further, the argument of They don't deserve my money that people always throw around concerning the likes of Ubisoft or EA is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy. If there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it. I don't agree with the human rights violations that happen in China or Bangladesh, but that doesn't mean I'm justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them. I feel like I should add as an addendum that there is one situation where I have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if I had been able to. My father was bedridden while fighting Lung Cancer and wanted to see the second Hobbit. There was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he wouldn't be around long enough for a DVD release. That is such an extreme case though, that I hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the Pirate Bay. Edit Discovered that we're having car problems this morning x2 so I may not be around to respond for a couple hours, but I will Edit 2 Also glad that every comment I make, though being substantive and contributing to discussion, is getting downvoted. Read redditquette the side bar, hover over, and footnote included on every CMV op<|ASPECTS|>cancer, money, piracy, sat, harms the industry, justify, downvoted, easier access, existence, human rights violations, car problems, market, purchase, justified, stealing, illegally download, bedridden, pirate bay, lower prices, right to have access, steal, boycotting, pirate, charge, justification, consume, deserve my money, importance, adapt, internet connection<|CONCLUSION|>","The most upvoted comments concerning Pirate Bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance. It comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods. I understand that Piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of Steam or Netflix. What I don't understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection. There is no situation where I would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released . That is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole. There is also no situation where I would pirate a recently released game for the same reason. Further, the argument of They don't deserve my money that people always throw around concerning the likes of Ubisoft or EA is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy. If there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it. I don't agree with the human rights violations that happen in China or Bangladesh, but that doesn't mean I'm justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them. I feel like I should add as an addendum that there is one situation where I have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if I had been able to. My father was bedridden while fighting Lung Cancer and wanted to see the second Hobbit. There was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he wouldn't be around long enough for a DVD release. That is such an extreme case though, that I hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the Pirate Bay. Edit Discovered that we're having car problems this morning x2 so I may not be around to respond for a couple hours, but I will Edit 2 Also glad that every comment I make, though being substantive and contributing to discussion, is getting downvoted. Read redditquette the side bar, hover over, and footnote included on every  op",I'm glad that Pirate Bay was brought down. I see no moral justification for piracy of modern movies and games.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Most people say I have nothing to hide as a knee jerk response to any complaint made by someone who dislikes privacy invasion. The response almost never considers who's looking, why they're looking, or what their intentions are. Most of the time, the only sure thing you know about someone who says I have nothing to hide is that they don't understand basic privacy or risk management principles. There are many common retorts for this phrase that vary from kinda ok to fairly useless, but the simplest way I know to explain why it's so wrong is that giving information to strangers who's motives are unknown puts you and others at risk. Why give out information knowing it's a risk with no clear benefit or purpose? It's a fact that there are abusive and dangrous people out there and unless you have some way of telling them apart, giving information out carelessly is reckless. This is an irresponsible and potentially dangerous viewpoint and to even utter the words nothing to hide serves to further the perception that it's ok to be loose with your information and that there's something wrong with wanting to manage your information risk. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Most people say I have nothing to hide as a knee jerk response to any complaint made by someone who dislikes privacy invasion. The response almost never considers who's looking, why they're looking, or what their intentions are. Most of the time, the only sure thing you know about someone who says I have nothing to hide is that they don't understand basic privacy or risk management principles. There are many common retorts for this phrase that vary from kinda ok to fairly useless, but the simplest way I know to explain why it's so wrong is that giving information to strangers who's motives are unknown puts you and others at risk. Why give out information knowing it's a risk with no clear benefit or purpose? It's a fact that there are abusive and dangrous people out there and unless you have some way of telling them apart, giving information out carelessly is reckless. This is an irresponsible and potentially dangerous viewpoint and to even utter the words nothing to hide serves to further the perception that it's ok to be loose with your information and that there's something wrong with wanting to manage your information risk. CMV.<|TARGETS|>the only sure thing you know about someone who says I have nothing to hide is that they do n't understand basic privacy or risk management principles ., unless you have some way of telling them apart giving information out carelessly, to explain why it 's so wrong is that giving information to strangers who 's motives are unknown, an irresponsible and potentially dangerous viewpoint and to even utter the words nothing to hide, to be loose with your information and that there 's something wrong with wanting to manage your information risk ., to hide as a knee jerk response to any complaint made by someone who dislikes privacy invasion .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Most people say I have nothing to hide as a knee jerk response to any complaint made by someone who dislikes privacy invasion. The response almost never considers who's looking, why they're looking, or what their intentions are. Most of the time, the only sure thing you know about someone who says I have nothing to hide is that they don't understand basic privacy or risk management principles. There are many common retorts for this phrase that vary from kinda ok to fairly useless, but the simplest way I know to explain why it's so wrong is that giving information to strangers who's motives are unknown puts you and others at risk. Why give out information knowing it's a risk with no clear benefit or purpose? It's a fact that there are abusive and dangrous people out there and unless you have some way of telling them apart, giving information out carelessly is reckless. This is an irresponsible and potentially dangerous viewpoint and to even utter the words nothing to hide serves to further the perception that it's ok to be loose with your information and that there's something wrong with wanting to manage your information risk. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, abusive and dangrous people, carelessly, risk, benefit, information risk, irresponsible, jerk response, useless, privacy invasion, risk management principles, purpose, motives, 's looking, privacy, intentions, reckless<|CONCLUSION|>","Most people say I have nothing to hide as a knee jerk response to any complaint made by someone who dislikes privacy invasion. The response almost never considers who's looking, why they're looking, or what their intentions are. Most of the time, the only sure thing you know about someone who says I have nothing to hide is that they don't understand basic privacy or risk management principles. There are many common retorts for this phrase that vary from kinda ok to fairly useless, but the simplest way I know to explain why it's so wrong is that giving information to strangers who's motives are unknown puts you and others at risk. Why give out information knowing it's a risk with no clear benefit or purpose? It's a fact that there are abusive and dangrous people out there and unless you have some way of telling them apart, giving information out carelessly is reckless. This is an irresponsible and potentially dangerous viewpoint and to even utter the words nothing to hide serves to further the perception that it's ok to be loose with your information and that there's something wrong with wanting to manage your information risk. .","- I believe that saying ""I have nothing to hide"" is naive at best and is actually irresponsible in most cases"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ever since I was young, I've been terrified at the idea of death. I've thought about it in numerous different ways, and although I currently identify as agnostic, not believing in afterlife, every possible outcome after dying terrifies me deeply. The reason for which i go as far as to say that it isn't possible to be at peace with death is a result of the nature of death. The point of view of somebody who does not believe in afterlife is the most horrifying. After you die, that's it. Your brain ceases to function, and your consciousness being tied to your brain disappears. Forever. You will cease to exist for the rest of eternity. As a human, I'm already unable to grasp the concept of eternity an eternity where i do not exist is horrifying to me. Afterlife doesn't make the outcome much less grim in my opinion. Although it seems paradoxical, the concept of eternal consciousness christian islam heaven hell terrifies me almost as much. The first few thousand years would be wonderful, perhaps even the first million or billion. However eternity is eternity, and soon everything that could possibly be done seen has passed. I would be suffering in eternal boredom and lack of stimulation. Reincarnation is the least scary, but still horrifying. The premise of becoming a new conscience is attractive. However, what happens after you become every conscience, having lived through every life the universe has to offer. What are we left with. Although the beginning is comforting, we are eventually left with the eternities offered in the first two possibilities. I can understand that people can be and are at peace with the concept of their own mortality. However, I do not think I can ever be, and I do not think it is possible to do so unless one does not fully understand the implications of death or has a radically different take on it. Can you change my view? Edit Because I've been getting similar responses. Here are some answers to them. The experience of not being born was the same as your death and it didn't inconvenience you, why should death? Because the two are fundamentally different. Before I was born, I did had not existed, whereas after death I will have existed and stopped existing. As a living creature, not being suicidal, I am filled with desire to keep living. Furthermore, not being born was not eternal, and at most it was from the Big Bang until now. Non existence after death is perpetual an eternity where I do not exist after having done so. This is what terrifies me. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ever since I was young, I've been terrified at the idea of death. I've thought about it in numerous different ways, and although I currently identify as agnostic, not believing in afterlife, every possible outcome after dying terrifies me deeply. The reason for which i go as far as to say that it isn't possible to be at peace with death is a result of the nature of death. The point of view of somebody who does not believe in afterlife is the most horrifying. After you die, that's it. Your brain ceases to function, and your consciousness being tied to your brain disappears. Forever. You will cease to exist for the rest of eternity. As a human, I'm already unable to grasp the concept of eternity an eternity where i do not exist is horrifying to me. Afterlife doesn't make the outcome much less grim in my opinion. Although it seems paradoxical, the concept of eternal consciousness christian islam heaven hell terrifies me almost as much. The first few thousand years would be wonderful, perhaps even the first million or billion. However eternity is eternity, and soon everything that could possibly be done seen has passed. I would be suffering in eternal boredom and lack of stimulation. Reincarnation is the least scary, but still horrifying. The premise of becoming a new conscience is attractive. However, what happens after you become every conscience, having lived through every life the universe has to offer. What are we left with. Although the beginning is comforting, we are eventually left with the eternities offered in the first two possibilities. I can understand that people can be and are at peace with the concept of their own mortality. However, I do not think I can ever be, and I do not think it is possible to do so unless one does not fully understand the implications of death or has a radically different take on it. Can you change my view? Edit Because I've been getting similar responses. Here are some answers to them. The experience of not being born was the same as your death and it didn't inconvenience you, why should death? Because the two are fundamentally different. Before I was born, I did had not existed, whereas after death I will have existed and stopped existing. As a living creature, not being suicidal, I am filled with desire to keep living. Furthermore, not being born was not eternal, and at most it was from the Big Bang until now. Non existence after death is perpetual an eternity where I do not exist after having done so. This is what terrifies me. <|TARGETS|>to do so unless one does not fully understand the implications of death or has a radically different take on it ., the concept of eternal consciousness christian islam heaven hell, Afterlife, to say that it is n't possible to be at peace with death, soon everything that could possibly be done seen, The point of view of somebody who does not believe in afterlife<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ever since I was young, I've been terrified at the idea of death. I've thought about it in numerous different ways, and although I currently identify as agnostic, not believing in afterlife, every possible outcome after dying terrifies me deeply. The reason for which i go as far as to say that it isn't possible to be at peace with death is a result of the nature of death. The point of view of somebody who does not believe in afterlife is the most horrifying. After you die, that's it. Your brain ceases to function, and your consciousness being tied to your brain disappears. Forever. You will cease to exist for the rest of eternity. As a human, I'm already unable to grasp the concept of eternity an eternity where i do not exist is horrifying to me. Afterlife doesn't make the outcome much less grim in my opinion. Although it seems paradoxical, the concept of eternal consciousness christian islam heaven hell terrifies me almost as much. The first few thousand years would be wonderful, perhaps even the first million or billion. However eternity is eternity, and soon everything that could possibly be done seen has passed. I would be suffering in eternal boredom and lack of stimulation. Reincarnation is the least scary, but still horrifying. The premise of becoming a new conscience is attractive. However, what happens after you become every conscience, having lived through every life the universe has to offer. What are we left with. Although the beginning is comforting, we are eventually left with the eternities offered in the first two possibilities. I can understand that people can be and are at peace with the concept of their own mortality. However, I do not think I can ever be, and I do not think it is possible to do so unless one does not fully understand the implications of death or has a radically different take on it. Can you change my view? Edit Because I've been getting similar responses. Here are some answers to them. The experience of not being born was the same as your death and it didn't inconvenience you, why should death? Because the two are fundamentally different. Before I was born, I did had not existed, whereas after death I will have existed and stopped existing. As a living creature, not being suicidal, I am filled with desire to keep living. Furthermore, not being born was not eternal, and at most it was from the Big Bang until now. Non existence after death is perpetual an eternity where I do not exist after having done so. This is what terrifies me. <|ASPECTS|>death, wonderful, agnostic, afterlife, grim, stopped existing, ceases to function, outcome, cease to exist, reincarnation, scary, brain, boredom, implications of death, terrifies, existence, lack, conscience, idea, terrified, fundamentally, life, experience, die, mortality, attractive, forever, answers, perpetual, eternities, peace, stimulation, eternal consciousness, new, peace with death, change my view, desire to keep living, similar responses, nature of death, consciousness, every conscience, heaven, existed, horrifying, eternal, suicidal, different, inconvenience, eternity<|CONCLUSION|>","Ever since I was young, I've been terrified at the idea of death. I've thought about it in numerous different ways, and although I currently identify as agnostic, not believing in afterlife, every possible outcome after dying terrifies me deeply. The reason for which i go as far as to say that it isn't possible to be at peace with death is a result of the nature of death. The point of view of somebody who does not believe in afterlife is the most horrifying. After you die, that's it. Your brain ceases to function, and your consciousness being tied to your brain disappears. Forever. You will cease to exist for the rest of eternity. As a human, I'm already unable to grasp the concept of eternity an eternity where i do not exist is horrifying to me. Afterlife doesn't make the outcome much less grim in my opinion. Although it seems paradoxical, the concept of eternal consciousness christian islam heaven hell terrifies me almost as much. The first few thousand years would be wonderful, perhaps even the first million or billion. However eternity is eternity, and soon everything that could possibly be done seen has passed. I would be suffering in eternal boredom and lack of stimulation. Reincarnation is the least scary, but still horrifying. The premise of becoming a new conscience is attractive. However, what happens after you become every conscience, having lived through every life the universe has to offer. What are we left with. Although the beginning is comforting, we are eventually left with the eternities offered in the first two possibilities. I can understand that people can be and are at peace with the concept of their own mortality. However, I do not think I can ever be, and I do not think it is possible to do so unless one does not fully understand the implications of death or has a radically different take on it. Can you change my view? Edit Because I've been getting similar responses. Here are some answers to them. The experience of not being born was the same as your death and it didn't inconvenience you, why should death? Because the two are fundamentally different. Before I was born, I did had not existed, whereas after death I will have existed and stopped existing. As a living creature, not being suicidal, I am filled with desire to keep living. Furthermore, not being born was not eternal, and at most it was from the Big Bang until now. Non existence after death is perpetual an eternity where I do not exist after having done so. This is what terrifies me.","Death is terrifying, and people who are at peace with their own mortality do not fully grasp its implications."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have just taken the Mensa workout a 15 minute long test though anyone can answer it in far less time with 18 very simple questions. I imagine most would score at least 15. I scored 17 18, and was told I should go over to the Mensa website and order an IQ test For £25. Now, think about it. Mensa has an incentive to create a piss easy test, that most will ace, to gain revenue off of unsuspecting geniuses. It is utterly disgusting and I have lost all respect for the organisation. I guess being intelligent has no bearing on your moral fibre. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have just taken the Mensa workout a 15 minute long test though anyone can answer it in far less time with 18 very simple questions. I imagine most would score at least 15. I scored 17 18, and was told I should go over to the Mensa website and order an IQ test For £25. Now, think about it. Mensa has an incentive to create a piss easy test, that most will ace, to gain revenue off of unsuspecting geniuses. It is utterly disgusting and I have lost all respect for the organisation. I guess being intelligent has no bearing on your moral fibre. CMV<|TARGETS|>should go over to the Mensa website and order an IQ test For £ 25 ., the Mensa workout, Mensa<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have just taken the Mensa workout a 15 minute long test though anyone can answer it in far less time with 18 very simple questions. I imagine most would score at least 15. I scored 17 18, and was told I should go over to the Mensa website and order an IQ test For £25. Now, think about it. Mensa has an incentive to create a piss easy test, that most will ace, to gain revenue off of unsuspecting geniuses. It is utterly disgusting and I have lost all respect for the organisation. I guess being intelligent has no bearing on your moral fibre. CMV<|ASPECTS|>gain, respect, piss easy test, less time, iq test, intelligent, unsuspecting geniuses, disgusting, simple questions, moral fibre, revenue, score<|CONCLUSION|>","I have just taken the Mensa workout a 15 minute long test though anyone can answer it in far less time with 18 very simple questions. I imagine most would score at least 15. I scored 17 18, and was told I should go over to the Mensa website and order an IQ test For £25. Now, think about it. Mensa has an incentive to create a piss easy test, that most will ace, to gain revenue off of unsuspecting geniuses. It is utterly disgusting and I have lost all respect for the organisation. I guess being intelligent has no bearing on your moral fibre.",Mensa tries to scam low IQ people out of money
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now I'm sure I'll be called sexist for this, and I guess I kind of am. But not for the reason some might say. Women have made many great strides in the past half century. Society has accepted and proven time and again that women are every bit as mentally capable as a man. Women are CEOs, bankers, etc. It's quite possible the US elects a woman President in 2016. However, most of society has not and likely will never accept a man hitting a woman in any situation. and I agree. I would never hit a woman, for the same reason I would never hit a child. I'm an amateur boxer, and as such have some experience with fighting though almost always as a sport, with proper equipment, referee coaches, and medical staff at the ready . I understand the damage that can be caused in a very short amount of time. I never fight outside the ring unless I am attacked. I have never thrown the first punch outside the ring. The simple weight argument is pretty valid, however, an adult male who weighs 130 pounds that attacks me with his full force can expect to wake up in the hospital in a few hours. The same is not true for a woman, even one much larger than 130. Most adult men would agree with me. There is never a situation in which it is kosher to hit a woman unless your life is directly threatened. Again, for the same reason an adult male cannot punch a child. In the realm of the adult male, there is a mutual respect that will never be achieved with women for this simple fact. Every man knows that there are lines that you simply do not cross never touch another man's face, for instance , there are things you simply do not say. You can, but you also knwo you run the risk of serious physical harm. The same is not true for women. In this country, a woman can do or say anything without the consequence of serious physical harm from a man, as can a child. When a woman gets angry violent, it's more funny than anything else. Because both parties know that she is untouchable. This is, in my opinion, a clear indicator of the patriarchy and systemic sexism that runs deep to the core of our society. It's why female police officers and military personnel are a joke to their peers. Until the unspoken respect between all men, that there are lines that cannot be crossed without physical consequences, exists between men and women as it has for males for millenia, women will never be looked upon as fully equal. If that is a worth while trade off, then I accept that. Sure, violence is a remnant from our cavemen days. But we were pack hunter animals for a hell of a lot longer than we've been civilized human beings. Change my view. edit View has been changed by u ruk hai. The reason I wouldn't fight most women is not simply because they are women, it's because they aren't a physical threat. 8710<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now I'm sure I'll be called sexist for this, and I guess I kind of am. But not for the reason some might say. Women have made many great strides in the past half century. Society has accepted and proven time and again that women are every bit as mentally capable as a man. Women are CEOs, bankers, etc. It's quite possible the US elects a woman President in 2016. However, most of society has not and likely will never accept a man hitting a woman in any situation. and I agree. I would never hit a woman, for the same reason I would never hit a child. I'm an amateur boxer, and as such have some experience with fighting though almost always as a sport, with proper equipment, referee coaches, and medical staff at the ready . I understand the damage that can be caused in a very short amount of time. I never fight outside the ring unless I am attacked. I have never thrown the first punch outside the ring. The simple weight argument is pretty valid, however, an adult male who weighs 130 pounds that attacks me with his full force can expect to wake up in the hospital in a few hours. The same is not true for a woman, even one much larger than 130. Most adult men would agree with me. There is never a situation in which it is kosher to hit a woman unless your life is directly threatened. Again, for the same reason an adult male cannot punch a child. In the realm of the adult male, there is a mutual respect that will never be achieved with women for this simple fact. Every man knows that there are lines that you simply do not cross never touch another man's face, for instance , there are things you simply do not say. You can, but you also knwo you run the risk of serious physical harm. The same is not true for women. In this country, a woman can do or say anything without the consequence of serious physical harm from a man, as can a child. When a woman gets angry violent, it's more funny than anything else. Because both parties know that she is untouchable. This is, in my opinion, a clear indicator of the patriarchy and systemic sexism that runs deep to the core of our society. It's why female police officers and military personnel are a joke to their peers. Until the unspoken respect between all men, that there are lines that cannot be crossed without physical consequences, exists between men and women as it has for males for millenia, women will never be looked upon as fully equal. If that is a worth while trade off, then I accept that. Sure, violence is a remnant from our cavemen days. But we were pack hunter animals for a hell of a lot longer than we've been civilized human beings. Change my view. edit View has been changed by u ruk hai. The reason I wouldn't fight most women is not simply because they are women, it's because they aren't a physical threat. 8710<|TARGETS|>Until the unspoken respect between all men that there are lines that cannot be crossed without physical consequences exists between men and women as it has for males for millenia, When a woman gets angry violent, I never fight outside the ring unless I am attacked ., ruk hai, The simple weight argument, pack hunter animals<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now I'm sure I'll be called sexist for this, and I guess I kind of am. But not for the reason some might say. Women have made many great strides in the past half century. Society has accepted and proven time and again that women are every bit as mentally capable as a man. Women are CEOs, bankers, etc. It's quite possible the US elects a woman President in 2016. However, most of society has not and likely will never accept a man hitting a woman in any situation. and I agree. I would never hit a woman, for the same reason I would never hit a child. I'm an amateur boxer, and as such have some experience with fighting though almost always as a sport, with proper equipment, referee coaches, and medical staff at the ready . I understand the damage that can be caused in a very short amount of time. I never fight outside the ring unless I am attacked. I have never thrown the first punch outside the ring. The simple weight argument is pretty valid, however, an adult male who weighs 130 pounds that attacks me with his full force can expect to wake up in the hospital in a few hours. The same is not true for a woman, even one much larger than 130. Most adult men would agree with me. There is never a situation in which it is kosher to hit a woman unless your life is directly threatened. Again, for the same reason an adult male cannot punch a child. In the realm of the adult male, there is a mutual respect that will never be achieved with women for this simple fact. Every man knows that there are lines that you simply do not cross never touch another man's face, for instance , there are things you simply do not say. You can, but you also knwo you run the risk of serious physical harm. The same is not true for women. In this country, a woman can do or say anything without the consequence of serious physical harm from a man, as can a child. When a woman gets angry violent, it's more funny than anything else. Because both parties know that she is untouchable. This is, in my opinion, a clear indicator of the patriarchy and systemic sexism that runs deep to the core of our society. It's why female police officers and military personnel are a joke to their peers. Until the unspoken respect between all men, that there are lines that cannot be crossed without physical consequences, exists between men and women as it has for males for millenia, women will never be looked upon as fully equal. If that is a worth while trade off, then I accept that. Sure, violence is a remnant from our cavemen days. But we were pack hunter animals for a hell of a lot longer than we've been civilized human beings. Change my view. edit View has been changed by u ruk hai. The reason I wouldn't fight most women is not simply because they are women, it's because they aren't a physical threat. 8710<|ASPECTS|>, elects, woman president, remnant, kosher, agree, view, bankers, great, physical harm, first, amateur, adult men, serious, accept, patriarchy, weight argument, women, strides, equal, proper equipment, punch a child, hit a woman, medical, hit a child, funny, fight, systemic sexism, life, angry violent, threatened, violence, respect, joke, experience with fighting, damage, mentally capable, pack hunter animals, fully, physical consequences, ceos, sexist, lines, untouchable, mutual respect, man hitting a woman, changed, physical threat, attacked, worth while trade<|CONCLUSION|>","Now I'm sure I'll be called sexist for this, and I guess I kind of am. But not for the reason some might say. Women have made many great strides in the past half century. Society has accepted and proven time and again that women are every bit as mentally capable as a man. Women are CEOs, bankers, etc. It's quite possible the US elects a woman President in 2016. However, most of society has not and likely will never accept a man hitting a woman in any situation. and I agree. I would never hit a woman, for the same reason I would never hit a child. I'm an amateur boxer, and as such have some experience with fighting though almost always as a sport, with proper equipment, referee coaches, and medical staff at the ready . I understand the damage that can be caused in a very short amount of time. I never fight outside the ring unless I am attacked. I have never thrown the first punch outside the ring. The simple weight argument is pretty valid, however, an adult male who weighs 130 pounds that attacks me with his full force can expect to wake up in the hospital in a few hours. The same is not true for a woman, even one much larger than 130. Most adult men would agree with me. There is never a situation in which it is kosher to hit a woman unless your life is directly threatened. Again, for the same reason an adult male cannot punch a child. In the realm of the adult male, there is a mutual respect that will never be achieved with women for this simple fact. Every man knows that there are lines that you simply do not cross never touch another man's face, for instance , there are things you simply do not say. You can, but you also knwo you run the risk of serious physical harm. The same is not true for women. In this country, a woman can do or say anything without the consequence of serious physical harm from a man, as can a child. When a woman gets angry violent, it's more funny than anything else. Because both parties know that she is untouchable. This is, in my opinion, a clear indicator of the patriarchy and systemic sexism that runs deep to the core of our society. It's why female police officers and military personnel are a joke to their peers. Until the unspoken respect between all men, that there are lines that cannot be crossed without physical consequences, exists between men and women as it has for males for millenia, women will never be looked upon as fully equal. If that is a worth while trade off, then I accept that. Sure, violence is a remnant from our cavemen days. But we were pack hunter animals for a hell of a lot longer than we've been civilized human beings. Change my view. edit View has been changed by u ruk hai. The reason I wouldn't fight most women is not simply because they are women, it's because they aren't a physical threat. 8710","I would never hit a woman, but it is kind of hard to argue against ""equal rights, equal lefts"""
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello there Over this past week I've been reading up on free libre culture and piracy sharing, and thought a lot about it and read a lot of arguments on the concept of copyright, what it does, what it's intended to do, who it's for, what kind of behaviour it encourages in it's current form, etcetera. My previous view was that copyright is to protect authors and ensure they can make a living off of their work without someone else stealing it. It seemed a simple premise and based on all the arguments I had read from pro piracy and anti piracy sides it made sense. However this week I began to consider the viewpoint that I now believe copyright is meant to benefit the public, by being an incentive for authors to create works in return for being able to have temporary exclusive rights to their work, which feed the author if the idea is any good, and encourage innovation by other authors to think of new things, and by and importantly the author after the copyright has expired, so they can't just sit on a work and make no benefit to society. After five years which is arbitrary but small enough that I think that all benefit could be made from a work would be exhausted the work would be released in to the public domain for other authors to innovate upon. In this belief, copyright is to benefit the public and innovate. This is in contrast to the existing laws that have extended copyright lengths that do nothing but benefit the author and not have as much incentive to create new works, and crucially doesn't give back to society or allow building on top of it. I'd like to know the arguments against this as I'm still keen to have a well informed opinion. Thanks<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello there Over this past week I've been reading up on free libre culture and piracy sharing, and thought a lot about it and read a lot of arguments on the concept of copyright, what it does, what it's intended to do, who it's for, what kind of behaviour it encourages in it's current form, etcetera. My previous view was that copyright is to protect authors and ensure they can make a living off of their work without someone else stealing it. It seemed a simple premise and based on all the arguments I had read from pro piracy and anti piracy sides it made sense. However this week I began to consider the viewpoint that I now believe copyright is meant to benefit the public, by being an incentive for authors to create works in return for being able to have temporary exclusive rights to their work, which feed the author if the idea is any good, and encourage innovation by other authors to think of new things, and by and importantly the author after the copyright has expired, so they can't just sit on a work and make no benefit to society. After five years which is arbitrary but small enough that I think that all benefit could be made from a work would be exhausted the work would be released in to the public domain for other authors to innovate upon. In this belief, copyright is to benefit the public and innovate. This is in contrast to the existing laws that have extended copyright lengths that do nothing but benefit the author and not have as much incentive to create new works, and crucially doesn't give back to society or allow building on top of it. I'd like to know the arguments against this as I'm still keen to have a well informed opinion. Thanks<|TARGETS|>free libre culture and piracy sharing and thought a lot about it and read a lot of arguments on the concept of copyright what it does what it 's intended to do who it 's for what kind of behaviour it encourages in it 's current form, to have a well informed opinion ., to consider the viewpoint that I now believe copyright, all the arguments I had read from pro piracy and anti piracy sides, that all benefit could be made from a work would be exhausted the work would be released in to the public domain for other authors to innovate upon ., to know the arguments against this<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello there Over this past week I've been reading up on free libre culture and piracy sharing, and thought a lot about it and read a lot of arguments on the concept of copyright, what it does, what it's intended to do, who it's for, what kind of behaviour it encourages in it's current form, etcetera. My previous view was that copyright is to protect authors and ensure they can make a living off of their work without someone else stealing it. It seemed a simple premise and based on all the arguments I had read from pro piracy and anti piracy sides it made sense. However this week I began to consider the viewpoint that I now believe copyright is meant to benefit the public, by being an incentive for authors to create works in return for being able to have temporary exclusive rights to their work, which feed the author if the idea is any good, and encourage innovation by other authors to think of new things, and by and importantly the author after the copyright has expired, so they can't just sit on a work and make no benefit to society. After five years which is arbitrary but small enough that I think that all benefit could be made from a work would be exhausted the work would be released in to the public domain for other authors to innovate upon. In this belief, copyright is to benefit the public and innovate. This is in contrast to the existing laws that have extended copyright lengths that do nothing but benefit the author and not have as much incentive to create new works, and crucially doesn't give back to society or allow building on top of it. I'd like to know the arguments against this as I'm still keen to have a well informed opinion. Thanks<|ASPECTS|>incentive, innovation, arbitrary, simple, benefit the author, copyright lengths, benefit, well, informed opinion, free, benefit the public, protect authors, exclusive rights, benefit to society, piracy, copyright, culture, behaviour, living, innovate, give back to society<|CONCLUSION|>","Hello there Over this past week I've been reading up on free libre culture and piracy sharing, and thought a lot about it and read a lot of arguments on the concept of copyright, what it does, what it's intended to do, who it's for, what kind of behaviour it encourages in it's current form, etcetera. My previous view was that copyright is to protect authors and ensure they can make a living off of their work without someone else stealing it. It seemed a simple premise and based on all the arguments I had read from pro piracy and anti piracy sides it made sense. However this week I began to consider the viewpoint that I now believe copyright is meant to benefit the public, by being an incentive for authors to create works in return for being able to have temporary exclusive rights to their work, which feed the author if the idea is any good, and encourage innovation by other authors to think of new things, and by and importantly the author after the copyright has expired, so they can't just sit on a work and make no benefit to society. After five years which is arbitrary but small enough that I think that all benefit could be made from a work would be exhausted the work would be released in to the public domain for other authors to innovate upon. In this belief, copyright is to benefit the public and innovate. This is in contrast to the existing laws that have extended copyright lengths that do nothing but benefit the author and not have as much incentive to create new works, and crucially doesn't give back to society or allow building on top of it. I'd like to know the arguments against this as I'm still keen to have a well informed opinion. Thanks",Copyright should be reduced to five years.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi All, I am new to this subreddit and I have been hooked for the past couple of hours Apologies if I my title doesn't fit the style of questions posted on here, I promise I will get better with time On to my actual point. Why is betting allowed in some countries? As far as I understand it, this is how betting works. There is a bookie or an agency that takes bets on some event A. Let's assume there are a total of X people in this hypothetical world, and they all bet on this event A. The bookie is the one setting the odds for this event so he has some contextual knowledge of how many people have bet on the positive and negative outcomes of event A. It is in the best interest of the bookie to make sure that the odds are stacked in such a manner that he ends up making a profit. The money that a few people win based on the outcome of event A is basically the sum total of the money lost by the people losing their bets. That is how the betting odds are designed, aren't they? All this happens while making sure that the bookie booking agency takes a cut of every bet placed. How is this an acceptable thing? I have never bet a single cent in my whole life. Not in sports betting, not in friendly betting games. Whenever I think about the betting industry and think about making a bet, it only feels like I am taking someone else's hard earned money. I understand that the people who lose the money are fully aware of the consequences, but it still doesn't help me rid of the guilt that I am taking someone else's livelihood savings. I think there would be no gratification in the money earned through this, no sense of satisfaction of earning the money. I am not trying to argue this from a standpoint of the ethics of the players teams involved in the event on which the bets are placed. That is another can of worms that I do not wish to open at the moment. I merely want to understand this from an economics and ethical perspective of the people who make the bets. Why is it okay for me to take your money or for you to take mine? I am all for free choice, but doesn't the government society have a role to play in making sure that I don't make rash ill informed choices even though it is legal to do so? I am not sure if I am getting my view across correctly. I realize how hard it is to get my viewpoint across only when it comes down to putting pen to paper. I will gladly answer any and all questions that you might have regarding the clarity of my thought process here. Help me help you change my point of view <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi All, I am new to this subreddit and I have been hooked for the past couple of hours Apologies if I my title doesn't fit the style of questions posted on here, I promise I will get better with time On to my actual point. Why is betting allowed in some countries? As far as I understand it, this is how betting works. There is a bookie or an agency that takes bets on some event A. Let's assume there are a total of X people in this hypothetical world, and they all bet on this event A. The bookie is the one setting the odds for this event so he has some contextual knowledge of how many people have bet on the positive and negative outcomes of event A. It is in the best interest of the bookie to make sure that the odds are stacked in such a manner that he ends up making a profit. The money that a few people win based on the outcome of event A is basically the sum total of the money lost by the people losing their bets. That is how the betting odds are designed, aren't they? All this happens while making sure that the bookie booking agency takes a cut of every bet placed. How is this an acceptable thing? I have never bet a single cent in my whole life. Not in sports betting, not in friendly betting games. Whenever I think about the betting industry and think about making a bet, it only feels like I am taking someone else's hard earned money. I understand that the people who lose the money are fully aware of the consequences, but it still doesn't help me rid of the guilt that I am taking someone else's livelihood savings. I think there would be no gratification in the money earned through this, no sense of satisfaction of earning the money. I am not trying to argue this from a standpoint of the ethics of the players teams involved in the event on which the bets are placed. That is another can of worms that I do not wish to open at the moment. I merely want to understand this from an economics and ethical perspective of the people who make the bets. Why is it okay for me to take your money or for you to take mine? I am all for free choice, but doesn't the government society have a role to play in making sure that I don't make rash ill informed choices even though it is legal to do so? I am not sure if I am getting my view across correctly. I realize how hard it is to get my viewpoint across only when it comes down to putting pen to paper. I will gladly answer any and all questions that you might have regarding the clarity of my thought process here. Help me help you change my point of view <|TARGETS|>the money earned through this no sense of satisfaction of earning the money ., how betting works, gladly answer any and all questions that you might have regarding the clarity of my thought process here ., Not in sports betting, this subreddit and I have been hooked for the past couple of hours Apologies if I my title does n't fit the style of questions posted on here I promise I will get better with time On to my actual point ., to understand this from an economics and ethical perspective of the people who make the bets .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi All, I am new to this subreddit and I have been hooked for the past couple of hours Apologies if I my title doesn't fit the style of questions posted on here, I promise I will get better with time On to my actual point. Why is betting allowed in some countries? As far as I understand it, this is how betting works. There is a bookie or an agency that takes bets on some event A. Let's assume there are a total of X people in this hypothetical world, and they all bet on this event A. The bookie is the one setting the odds for this event so he has some contextual knowledge of how many people have bet on the positive and negative outcomes of event A. It is in the best interest of the bookie to make sure that the odds are stacked in such a manner that he ends up making a profit. The money that a few people win based on the outcome of event A is basically the sum total of the money lost by the people losing their bets. That is how the betting odds are designed, aren't they? All this happens while making sure that the bookie booking agency takes a cut of every bet placed. How is this an acceptable thing? I have never bet a single cent in my whole life. Not in sports betting, not in friendly betting games. Whenever I think about the betting industry and think about making a bet, it only feels like I am taking someone else's hard earned money. I understand that the people who lose the money are fully aware of the consequences, but it still doesn't help me rid of the guilt that I am taking someone else's livelihood savings. I think there would be no gratification in the money earned through this, no sense of satisfaction of earning the money. I am not trying to argue this from a standpoint of the ethics of the players teams involved in the event on which the bets are placed. That is another can of worms that I do not wish to open at the moment. I merely want to understand this from an economics and ethical perspective of the people who make the bets. Why is it okay for me to take your money or for you to take mine? I am all for free choice, but doesn't the government society have a role to play in making sure that I don't make rash ill informed choices even though it is legal to do so? I am not sure if I am getting my view across correctly. I realize how hard it is to get my viewpoint across only when it comes down to putting pen to paper. I will gladly answer any and all questions that you might have regarding the clarity of my thought process here. Help me help you change my point of view <|ASPECTS|>thought process, cut, event, consequences, money, betting, sports betting, betting odds, money lost, view across correctly, bets, point, positive and negative outcomes, satisfaction, ill informed choices, better with time, free choice, bet, livelihood savings, friendly betting, hard earned money, x people, odds are stacked, contextual knowledge, economics and ethical perspective, profit, ethics, acceptable thing, viewpoint, of worms, okay, gratification, guilt, clarity<|CONCLUSION|>","Hi All, I am new to this subreddit and I have been hooked for the past couple of hours Apologies if I my title doesn't fit the style of questions posted on here, I promise I will get better with time On to my actual point. Why is betting allowed in some countries? As far as I understand it, this is how betting works. There is a bookie or an agency that takes bets on some event A. Let's assume there are a total of X people in this hypothetical world, and they all bet on this event A. The bookie is the one setting the odds for this event so he has some contextual knowledge of how many people have bet on the positive and negative outcomes of event A. It is in the best interest of the bookie to make sure that the odds are stacked in such a manner that he ends up making a profit. The money that a few people win based on the outcome of event A is basically the sum total of the money lost by the people losing their bets. That is how the betting odds are designed, aren't they? All this happens while making sure that the bookie booking agency takes a cut of every bet placed. How is this an acceptable thing? I have never bet a single cent in my whole life. Not in sports betting, not in friendly betting games. Whenever I think about the betting industry and think about making a bet, it only feels like I am taking someone else's hard earned money. I understand that the people who lose the money are fully aware of the consequences, but it still doesn't help me rid of the guilt that I am taking someone else's livelihood savings. I think there would be no gratification in the money earned through this, no sense of satisfaction of earning the money. I am not trying to argue this from a standpoint of the ethics of the players teams involved in the event on which the bets are placed. That is another can of worms that I do not wish to open at the moment. I merely want to understand this from an economics and ethical perspective of the people who make the bets. Why is it okay for me to take your money or for you to take mine? I am all for free choice, but doesn't the government society have a role to play in making sure that I don't make rash ill informed choices even though it is legal to do so? I am not sure if I am getting my view across correctly. I realize how hard it is to get my viewpoint across only when it comes down to putting pen to paper. I will gladly answer any and all questions that you might have regarding the clarity of my thought process here. Help me help you change my point of view","Betting should be illegal. I think it is unethical to take someone else's money even thought it is ""legal"" to do so."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Simply put I feel white people don't deserve their own countries anymore. It's like a parent scolding a child, You played rough, you don't get to have big boy toys anymore. As it stands, I think people in the future will look back and realize that, historically speaking, white people are the most evil race and have contributed more suffering and disaster than any other people in the world. Wherever they go they oppress and destroy. Everyone else just wants to live simple happy lives in places like North America or Africa, but white people are always the ones to take that away. Well I think now it is our turn. It's time to take the keys from whites until they can prove they are responsible enough to handle nations again and overcome their bloodthirsty nature. Think about it, would there really have been not one but TWO world wars without white people? Seriously all they do is kill, everything else is just a shortcut to more killing. So yeah. I feel that the white population has to go down, nothing violent like they do but they just should breed less and meanwhile everyone should be making more of the percentage. This way eventually we can kind of shepherd them along instead of letting them run wild. I think it's already starting to happen and that this is a good thing. However, some of my admittedly white friends tell me this is racist and really it's creating a lot of tension with my friendships. I want to get their side of the story and see if that can change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Simply put I feel white people don't deserve their own countries anymore. It's like a parent scolding a child, You played rough, you don't get to have big boy toys anymore. As it stands, I think people in the future will look back and realize that, historically speaking, white people are the most evil race and have contributed more suffering and disaster than any other people in the world. Wherever they go they oppress and destroy. Everyone else just wants to live simple happy lives in places like North America or Africa, but white people are always the ones to take that away. Well I think now it is our turn. It's time to take the keys from whites until they can prove they are responsible enough to handle nations again and overcome their bloodthirsty nature. Think about it, would there really have been not one but TWO world wars without white people? Seriously all they do is kill, everything else is just a shortcut to more killing. So yeah. I feel that the white population has to go down, nothing violent like they do but they just should breed less and meanwhile everyone should be making more of the percentage. This way eventually we can kind of shepherd them along instead of letting them run wild. I think it's already starting to happen and that this is a good thing. However, some of my admittedly white friends tell me this is racist and really it's creating a lot of tension with my friendships. I want to get their side of the story and see if that can change my view.<|TARGETS|>the white population has to go down nothing violent like they do but they just should breed less and meanwhile everyone should be making more of the percentage ., to take that away ., to get their side of the story and see if that can change my view ., to have big boy toys, to take the keys from whites until they can prove they are responsible enough to handle nations again and overcome their bloodthirsty nature ., to live simple happy lives in places like North America or Africa<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Simply put I feel white people don't deserve their own countries anymore. It's like a parent scolding a child, You played rough, you don't get to have big boy toys anymore. As it stands, I think people in the future will look back and realize that, historically speaking, white people are the most evil race and have contributed more suffering and disaster than any other people in the world. Wherever they go they oppress and destroy. Everyone else just wants to live simple happy lives in places like North America or Africa, but white people are always the ones to take that away. Well I think now it is our turn. It's time to take the keys from whites until they can prove they are responsible enough to handle nations again and overcome their bloodthirsty nature. Think about it, would there really have been not one but TWO world wars without white people? Seriously all they do is kill, everything else is just a shortcut to more killing. So yeah. I feel that the white population has to go down, nothing violent like they do but they just should breed less and meanwhile everyone should be making more of the percentage. This way eventually we can kind of shepherd them along instead of letting them run wild. I think it's already starting to happen and that this is a good thing. However, some of my admittedly white friends tell me this is racist and really it's creating a lot of tension with my friendships. I want to get their side of the story and see if that can change my view.<|ASPECTS|>played rough, percentage, killing, white, bloodthirsty nature, side, shepherd, story, white population, kill, big boy toys, responsible enough to handle nations, white people, simple, deserve their own countries, run wild, scolding a child, world wars, tension, change my view, breed less, happen, good, racist, oppress and destroy, violent, turn, suffering and disaster, happy lives, shortcut, evil race<|CONCLUSION|>","Simply put I feel white people don't deserve their own countries anymore. It's like a parent scolding a child, You played rough, you don't get to have big boy toys anymore. As it stands, I think people in the future will look back and realize that, historically speaking, white people are the most evil race and have contributed more suffering and disaster than any other people in the world. Wherever they go they oppress and destroy. Everyone else just wants to live simple happy lives in places like North America or Africa, but white people are always the ones to take that away. Well I think now it is our turn. It's time to take the keys from whites until they can prove they are responsible enough to handle nations again and overcome their bloodthirsty nature. Think about it, would there really have been not one but TWO world wars without white people? Seriously all they do is kill, everything else is just a shortcut to more killing. So yeah. I feel that the white population has to go down, nothing violent like they do but they just should breed less and meanwhile everyone should be making more of the percentage. This way eventually we can kind of shepherd them along instead of letting them run wild. I think it's already starting to happen and that this is a good thing. However, some of my admittedly white friends tell me this is racist and really it's creating a lot of tension with my friendships. I want to get their side of the story and see if that can change my view.","I feel that the most important thing to do in the 21st century is make sure there are no ""white"" countries anymore."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People like to say they have needs that aren't being met, and therefore that is why they do , where is usually something that hurts the person who they believe should be fulfilling their needs. One is not entitled to the attentions of others. Nobody is required to care about you strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family. It is a privilege, and believing you are entitled to it is a false view. We see this with cases ranging from posters in r deadbedrooms who are at the end of their rope because their spouses won't touch them, to incel guys like Elliott Rodger who think sex would validate their existence and cure all the difficulties in their lives, and scapegoat women for their inability to get it. The only real biological needs we have are food, water, and excretion of waste. Everything else is a desire, some more urgent than others, and subject to social and psychological conditioning. The closest sex comes to a true need is the biological urge to procreate, manifested as the pressure to ejaculate in men and the biological clock in women. Still, this is a desire, and like all desires, it can be ignored or suppressed. True voluntary celibacy is possible, though most people do not have the willpower for it. Furthermore, sexual response is a powerful mind altering drug, and can become a compulsive or addictive behavior in those with personalities that are disposed to it. If you're unfortunate enough to fall into that category raises hand you must be extremely vigilant against the potential for using sex as simply another method of avoidance and self abuse. I'm also aware that most people don't think about sex in these kind of terms and are essentially slaves to their hormones. I would have fallen into this category as a younger man, but as I approach 40 I've gained a new perspective on the negatives of sex and emotional attachment. That's why I'm posting this here and not some one way rant subreddit. I'm willing to bet I'm wrong since there are so many people on the other side, but I can't think of a good argument against it that doesn't come down to an emotional appeal. So, CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People like to say they have needs that aren't being met, and therefore that is why they do , where is usually something that hurts the person who they believe should be fulfilling their needs. One is not entitled to the attentions of others. Nobody is required to care about you strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family. It is a privilege, and believing you are entitled to it is a false view. We see this with cases ranging from posters in r deadbedrooms who are at the end of their rope because their spouses won't touch them, to incel guys like Elliott Rodger who think sex would validate their existence and cure all the difficulties in their lives, and scapegoat women for their inability to get it. The only real biological needs we have are food, water, and excretion of waste. Everything else is a desire, some more urgent than others, and subject to social and psychological conditioning. The closest sex comes to a true need is the biological urge to procreate, manifested as the pressure to ejaculate in men and the biological clock in women. Still, this is a desire, and like all desires, it can be ignored or suppressed. True voluntary celibacy is possible, though most people do not have the willpower for it. Furthermore, sexual response is a powerful mind altering drug, and can become a compulsive or addictive behavior in those with personalities that are disposed to it. If you're unfortunate enough to fall into that category raises hand you must be extremely vigilant against the potential for using sex as simply another method of avoidance and self abuse. I'm also aware that most people don't think about sex in these kind of terms and are essentially slaves to their hormones. I would have fallen into this category as a younger man, but as I approach 40 I've gained a new perspective on the negatives of sex and emotional attachment. That's why I'm posting this here and not some one way rant subreddit. I'm willing to bet I'm wrong since there are so many people on the other side, but I can't think of a good argument against it that doesn't come down to an emotional appeal. So, CMV.<|TARGETS|>the biological urge to procreate manifested as the pressure to ejaculate in men and the biological clock in women, to incel guys like Elliott Rodger who think sex, to bet I 'm wrong since there are so many people on the other side but I ca n't think of a good argument against it that does n't come down to an emotional appeal ., a new perspective on the negatives of sex and emotional attachment ., voluntary celibacy, If you 're unfortunate enough to fall into that category<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People like to say they have needs that aren't being met, and therefore that is why they do , where is usually something that hurts the person who they believe should be fulfilling their needs. One is not entitled to the attentions of others. Nobody is required to care about you strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family. It is a privilege, and believing you are entitled to it is a false view. We see this with cases ranging from posters in r deadbedrooms who are at the end of their rope because their spouses won't touch them, to incel guys like Elliott Rodger who think sex would validate their existence and cure all the difficulties in their lives, and scapegoat women for their inability to get it. The only real biological needs we have are food, water, and excretion of waste. Everything else is a desire, some more urgent than others, and subject to social and psychological conditioning. The closest sex comes to a true need is the biological urge to procreate, manifested as the pressure to ejaculate in men and the biological clock in women. Still, this is a desire, and like all desires, it can be ignored or suppressed. True voluntary celibacy is possible, though most people do not have the willpower for it. Furthermore, sexual response is a powerful mind altering drug, and can become a compulsive or addictive behavior in those with personalities that are disposed to it. If you're unfortunate enough to fall into that category raises hand you must be extremely vigilant against the potential for using sex as simply another method of avoidance and self abuse. I'm also aware that most people don't think about sex in these kind of terms and are essentially slaves to their hormones. I would have fallen into this category as a younger man, but as I approach 40 I've gained a new perspective on the negatives of sex and emotional attachment. That's why I'm posting this here and not some one way rant subreddit. I'm willing to bet I'm wrong since there are so many people on the other side, but I can't think of a good argument against it that doesn't come down to an emotional appeal. So, CMV.<|ASPECTS|>false view, willpower, hurts, biological needs, entitled, subreddit, voluntary celibacy, waste, self abuse, emotional appeal, pressure to ejaculate, fulfilling their needs, mind altering drug, excretion, biological urge to procreate, social and psychological conditioning, slaves to their hormones, desire, care, addictive behavior, compulsive, ignored, difficulties, cure, avoidance, attentions of others, sex, emotional attachment, biological clock, negatives, strangers, privilege, needs, vigilant, validate their existence, sexual response, food, scapegoat, suppressed<|CONCLUSION|>","People like to say they have needs that aren't being met, and therefore that is why they do , where is usually something that hurts the person who they believe should be fulfilling their needs. One is not entitled to the attentions of others. Nobody is required to care about you strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family. It is a privilege, and believing you are entitled to it is a false view. We see this with cases ranging from posters in r deadbedrooms who are at the end of their rope because their spouses won't touch them, to incel guys like Elliott Rodger who think sex would validate their existence and cure all the difficulties in their lives, and scapegoat women for their inability to get it. The only real biological needs we have are food, water, and excretion of waste. Everything else is a desire, some more urgent than others, and subject to social and psychological conditioning. The closest sex comes to a true need is the biological urge to procreate, manifested as the pressure to ejaculate in men and the biological clock in women. Still, this is a desire, and like all desires, it can be ignored or suppressed. True voluntary celibacy is possible, though most people do not have the willpower for it. Furthermore, sexual response is a powerful mind altering drug, and can become a compulsive or addictive behavior in those with personalities that are disposed to it. If you're unfortunate enough to fall into that category raises hand you must be extremely vigilant against the potential for using sex as simply another method of avoidance and self abuse. I'm also aware that most people don't think about sex in these kind of terms and are essentially slaves to their hormones. I would have fallen into this category as a younger man, but as I approach 40 I've gained a new perspective on the negatives of sex and emotional attachment. That's why I'm posting this here and not some one way rant subreddit. I'm willing to bet I'm wrong since there are so many people on the other side, but I can't think of a good argument against it that doesn't come down to an emotional appeal. So, .",Nobody needs sex.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I mention an omnipotent creator I am referring to a universal creator that created the universe and subsequently humanity and all it's subsets. Specifically I am referring to the Abrahamic God because the Abrahamic religions are the major bringers of the free will argument. For the sake of the debate one must consider the beliefs of the three major Abrahamic religions Judeism, Christianity and Islam, which all worship the same omnipotent force who created the universe. Free will is to be considered the power of a sentient being to make decisions based on conflict, or more simply the ability to act of ones own discretion. The major argument of the Abrahamic religions is that the Deity creates the universe and life, and allows the life forms to make their own choices aka free will . This occurs in spite of the Deity's knowledge of the future and control over the environment. I am not here to debate the legitimacy of the religions, I simply wish to debate the idea of free will when given the existence of creator. My main argument behind my claim is that when a creator controls every aspect of a life forms life it becomes impossible for the life form to make it's own decisions. The life form thinks that it's decisions are it's own, but it's decisions are made because of the creators impact. The creator has created every brain cell and every neuron that impacts the decisions, so while the being makes decisions based off of it's brain it is in reality the creator who is making the decisions through the being. An omnipotent force would not only control the creation of life, it would also have knowledge of every decision they make. The creator knows everything that is going to happen and everything that has ever happened because he is omnipotent. I see it impossible that a human can make his own decisions when the creator knows what decision he is going to make and has programmed him like a computer to make that decision. Consider a computer that is programmed to make it's own decisions. Now consider that the creator knows every decision the computer is going to make, because he programmed it that way. Does this computer have free will? I would argue that it does not, because it is simply a puppet used by the creator to do a task. The computer believes it is making it's own decisions, but since sense the programmer has programmed the computer which decisions to make it is not truly the computer who is making those decisions. I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion, I just wish to see the opposing arguments that you all can offer. I am not attacking anyones religion and I am in no way telling you what to believe, I am simply stating my opinion on one of the more popular theories on the meaning of the universe. Sorry for rambling, I kind of got carried away with this. If you can, Change My View.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I mention an omnipotent creator I am referring to a universal creator that created the universe and subsequently humanity and all it's subsets. Specifically I am referring to the Abrahamic God because the Abrahamic religions are the major bringers of the free will argument. For the sake of the debate one must consider the beliefs of the three major Abrahamic religions Judeism, Christianity and Islam, which all worship the same omnipotent force who created the universe. Free will is to be considered the power of a sentient being to make decisions based on conflict, or more simply the ability to act of ones own discretion. The major argument of the Abrahamic religions is that the Deity creates the universe and life, and allows the life forms to make their own choices aka free will . This occurs in spite of the Deity's knowledge of the future and control over the environment. I am not here to debate the legitimacy of the religions, I simply wish to debate the idea of free will when given the existence of creator. My main argument behind my claim is that when a creator controls every aspect of a life forms life it becomes impossible for the life form to make it's own decisions. The life form thinks that it's decisions are it's own, but it's decisions are made because of the creators impact. The creator has created every brain cell and every neuron that impacts the decisions, so while the being makes decisions based off of it's brain it is in reality the creator who is making the decisions through the being. An omnipotent force would not only control the creation of life, it would also have knowledge of every decision they make. The creator knows everything that is going to happen and everything that has ever happened because he is omnipotent. I see it impossible that a human can make his own decisions when the creator knows what decision he is going to make and has programmed him like a computer to make that decision. Consider a computer that is programmed to make it's own decisions. Now consider that the creator knows every decision the computer is going to make, because he programmed it that way. Does this computer have free will? I would argue that it does not, because it is simply a puppet used by the creator to do a task. The computer believes it is making it's own decisions, but since sense the programmer has programmed the computer which decisions to make it is not truly the computer who is making those decisions. I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion, I just wish to see the opposing arguments that you all can offer. I am not attacking anyones religion and I am in no way telling you what to believe, I am simply stating my opinion on one of the more popular theories on the meaning of the universe. Sorry for rambling, I kind of got carried away with this. If you can, Change My View.<|TARGETS|>to debate the idea of free will when given the existence of creator ., The major argument of the Abrahamic religions, An omnipotent force, referring to the Abrahamic God because the Abrahamic religions, simply stating my opinion on one of the more popular theories on the meaning of the universe ., The life form<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I mention an omnipotent creator I am referring to a universal creator that created the universe and subsequently humanity and all it's subsets. Specifically I am referring to the Abrahamic God because the Abrahamic religions are the major bringers of the free will argument. For the sake of the debate one must consider the beliefs of the three major Abrahamic religions Judeism, Christianity and Islam, which all worship the same omnipotent force who created the universe. Free will is to be considered the power of a sentient being to make decisions based on conflict, or more simply the ability to act of ones own discretion. The major argument of the Abrahamic religions is that the Deity creates the universe and life, and allows the life forms to make their own choices aka free will . This occurs in spite of the Deity's knowledge of the future and control over the environment. I am not here to debate the legitimacy of the religions, I simply wish to debate the idea of free will when given the existence of creator. My main argument behind my claim is that when a creator controls every aspect of a life forms life it becomes impossible for the life form to make it's own decisions. The life form thinks that it's decisions are it's own, but it's decisions are made because of the creators impact. The creator has created every brain cell and every neuron that impacts the decisions, so while the being makes decisions based off of it's brain it is in reality the creator who is making the decisions through the being. An omnipotent force would not only control the creation of life, it would also have knowledge of every decision they make. The creator knows everything that is going to happen and everything that has ever happened because he is omnipotent. I see it impossible that a human can make his own decisions when the creator knows what decision he is going to make and has programmed him like a computer to make that decision. Consider a computer that is programmed to make it's own decisions. Now consider that the creator knows every decision the computer is going to make, because he programmed it that way. Does this computer have free will? I would argue that it does not, because it is simply a puppet used by the creator to do a task. The computer believes it is making it's own decisions, but since sense the programmer has programmed the computer which decisions to make it is not truly the computer who is making those decisions. I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion, I just wish to see the opposing arguments that you all can offer. I am not attacking anyones religion and I am in no way telling you what to believe, I am simply stating my opinion on one of the more popular theories on the meaning of the universe. Sorry for rambling, I kind of got carried away with this. If you can, Change My View.<|ASPECTS|>, decisions, meaning of the universe, conflict, universe, creator, away, puppet, creation of life, creators impact, legitimacy, future, abrahamic god, choices, deity, life, free, decision, control, change my view, power, control over the environment, controls, impacts, knowledge, force, omnipotent, universal creator, omnipotent force, religion, opposing arguments, free will argument, offend<|CONCLUSION|>","When I mention an omnipotent creator I am referring to a universal creator that created the universe and subsequently humanity and all it's subsets. Specifically I am referring to the Abrahamic God because the Abrahamic religions are the major bringers of the free will argument. For the sake of the debate one must consider the beliefs of the three major Abrahamic religions Judeism, Christianity and Islam, which all worship the same omnipotent force who created the universe. Free will is to be considered the power of a sentient being to make decisions based on conflict, or more simply the ability to act of ones own discretion. The major argument of the Abrahamic religions is that the Deity creates the universe and life, and allows the life forms to make their own choices aka free will . This occurs in spite of the Deity's knowledge of the future and control over the environment. I am not here to debate the legitimacy of the religions, I simply wish to debate the idea of free will when given the existence of creator. My main argument behind my claim is that when a creator controls every aspect of a life forms life it becomes impossible for the life form to make it's own decisions. The life form thinks that it's decisions are it's own, but it's decisions are made because of the creators impact. The creator has created every brain cell and every neuron that impacts the decisions, so while the being makes decisions based off of it's brain it is in reality the creator who is making the decisions through the being. An omnipotent force would not only control the creation of life, it would also have knowledge of every decision they make. The creator knows everything that is going to happen and everything that has ever happened because he is omnipotent. I see it impossible that a human can make his own decisions when the creator knows what decision he is going to make and has programmed him like a computer to make that decision. Consider a computer that is programmed to make it's own decisions. Now consider that the creator knows every decision the computer is going to make, because he programmed it that way. Does this computer have free will? I would argue that it does not, because it is simply a puppet used by the creator to do a task. The computer believes it is making it's own decisions, but since sense the programmer has programmed the computer which decisions to make it is not truly the computer who is making those decisions. I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion, I just wish to see the opposing arguments that you all can offer. I am not attacking anyones religion and I am in no way telling you what to believe, I am simply stating my opinion on one of the more popular theories on the meaning of the universe. Sorry for rambling, I kind of got carried away with this. If you can, Change My View.","Given the existence of an omnipotent creator, free will becomes impossible"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The obesity epidemic is only getting worse through the creation of the fat acceptance movement. There’s nothing wrong with being fat, so long as you are active in trying to change that or have a reason 300lb NFL nose tackles . Those who are obese should be more than encouraged to do whatever it takes to lose the weight, and those who support the idea that fat is pretty should be ashamed, as these views can literally kill people. Those with ailments that are outside of their control should be the ones who are encouraged to face and embrace their flaws. EDIT IMPORTANT I would like to clarify that I’m referring the the body positivity movement such as ‘Health at any size’ or mindsets that being obese is more beneficial or beautiful than being at a healthy weight. Also, in no way am I saying that this is the main factor or a major factor of the obesity epidemic, rather a potential contributing factor. Also, just because I’ve said these things does not mean I am advocation for things such as anorexic behaviour, etc.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The obesity epidemic is only getting worse through the creation of the fat acceptance movement. There’s nothing wrong with being fat, so long as you are active in trying to change that or have a reason 300lb NFL nose tackles . Those who are obese should be more than encouraged to do whatever it takes to lose the weight, and those who support the idea that fat is pretty should be ashamed, as these views can literally kill people. Those with ailments that are outside of their control should be the ones who are encouraged to face and embrace their flaws. EDIT IMPORTANT I would like to clarify that I’m referring the the body positivity movement such as ‘Health at any size’ or mindsets that being obese is more beneficial or beautiful than being at a healthy weight. Also, in no way am I saying that this is the main factor or a major factor of the obesity epidemic, rather a potential contributing factor. Also, just because I’ve said these things does not mean I am advocation for things such as anorexic behaviour, etc.<|TARGETS|>the obesity epidemic, the creation of the fat acceptance movement, to do whatever it takes to lose the weight and those who support the idea that fat, The obesity epidemic, Those with ailments that are outside of their control, to clarify that I ’m referring the the body positivity movement such as ‘ Health at any size’ or mindsets that being obese<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The obesity epidemic is only getting worse through the creation of the fat acceptance movement. There’s nothing wrong with being fat, so long as you are active in trying to change that or have a reason 300lb NFL nose tackles . Those who are obese should be more than encouraged to do whatever it takes to lose the weight, and those who support the idea that fat is pretty should be ashamed, as these views can literally kill people. Those with ailments that are outside of their control should be the ones who are encouraged to face and embrace their flaws. EDIT IMPORTANT I would like to clarify that I’m referring the the body positivity movement such as ‘Health at any size’ or mindsets that being obese is more beneficial or beautiful than being at a healthy weight. Also, in no way am I saying that this is the main factor or a major factor of the obesity epidemic, rather a potential contributing factor. Also, just because I’ve said these things does not mean I am advocation for things such as anorexic behaviour, etc.<|ASPECTS|>advocation, healthy, anorexic behaviour, ashamed, obesity epidemic, fat, kill people, beneficial, fat acceptance, beautiful, body positivity, lose, nose tackles, flaws<|CONCLUSION|>","The obesity epidemic is only getting worse through the creation of the fat acceptance movement. There’s nothing wrong with being fat, so long as you are active in trying to change that or have a reason 300lb NFL nose tackles . Those who are obese should be more than encouraged to do whatever it takes to lose the weight, and those who support the idea that fat is pretty should be ashamed, as these views can literally kill people. Those with ailments that are outside of their control should be the ones who are encouraged to face and embrace their flaws. EDIT IMPORTANT I would like to clarify that I’m referring the the body positivity movement such as ‘Health at any size’ or mindsets that being obese is more beneficial or beautiful than being at a healthy weight. Also, in no way am I saying that this is the main factor or a major factor of the obesity epidemic, rather a potential contributing factor. Also, just because I’ve said these things does not mean I am advocation for things such as anorexic behaviour, etc.","The term ‘bodypositivity’ should be discouraged for people suffering from obesity, and rather focus on those with ailments out of their control such as amputees, for example."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel people who watched it couldn't get past the animation style and initial raunchiness and shock. If you get past that, you get a truly compelling, politically neutral, social commentary about living in the hood. x200B It is unapologetic about what it says and how it says it. It is an absolutely amazing showcase of the problems that plague black communities affected by both internal and external factors. It is honestly one of the closest things that there are today to early South Park seasons a show whose quality has declined tremendously . x200B It is rounchy and gross. It is controversial but not offensive. It comments but doesn't push an agenda. It is just so fresh. Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The literally dozens of people who've watched the show, at least those whom I've seen online or commenting on reddit, absolutely despise the show, and I seriously don't get why. I feel like people couldn't get past the initial shock and honestly terrible animation style. I believe that if they had, they would have found a show so fresh it's, well, legendary.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel people who watched it couldn't get past the animation style and initial raunchiness and shock. If you get past that, you get a truly compelling, politically neutral, social commentary about living in the hood. x200B It is unapologetic about what it says and how it says it. It is an absolutely amazing showcase of the problems that plague black communities affected by both internal and external factors. It is honestly one of the closest things that there are today to early South Park seasons a show whose quality has declined tremendously . x200B It is rounchy and gross. It is controversial but not offensive. It comments but doesn't push an agenda. It is just so fresh. Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The literally dozens of people who've watched the show, at least those whom I've seen online or commenting on reddit, absolutely despise the show, and I seriously don't get why. I feel like people couldn't get past the initial shock and honestly terrible animation style. I believe that if they had, they would have found a show so fresh it's, well, legendary.<|TARGETS|>taking crazy pills ., the initial shock and honestly terrible animation style ., a truly compelling politically neutral social commentary about living in the hood ., The literally dozens of people who 've watched the show at least those whom I 've seen online or commenting on reddit, x200B<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel people who watched it couldn't get past the animation style and initial raunchiness and shock. If you get past that, you get a truly compelling, politically neutral, social commentary about living in the hood. x200B It is unapologetic about what it says and how it says it. It is an absolutely amazing showcase of the problems that plague black communities affected by both internal and external factors. It is honestly one of the closest things that there are today to early South Park seasons a show whose quality has declined tremendously . x200B It is rounchy and gross. It is controversial but not offensive. It comments but doesn't push an agenda. It is just so fresh. Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The literally dozens of people who've watched the show, at least those whom I've seen online or commenting on reddit, absolutely despise the show, and I seriously don't get why. I feel like people couldn't get past the initial shock and honestly terrible animation style. I believe that if they had, they would have found a show so fresh it's, well, legendary.<|ASPECTS|>unapologetic, problems, gross, show, factors, crazy pills, agenda, rounchy, offensive, terrible, social commentary, despise, fresh, politically neutral, push, internal, communities, legendary, quality has declined tremendously, animation style, shock, raunchiness, initial shock, controversial<|CONCLUSION|>","I feel people who watched it couldn't get past the animation style and initial raunchiness and shock. If you get past that, you get a truly compelling, politically neutral, social commentary about living in the hood. x200B It is unapologetic about what it says and how it says it. It is an absolutely amazing showcase of the problems that plague black communities affected by both internal and external factors. It is honestly one of the closest things that there are today to early South Park seasons a show whose quality has declined tremendously . x200B It is rounchy and gross. It is controversial but not offensive. It comments but doesn't push an agenda. It is just so fresh. Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The literally dozens of people who've watched the show, at least those whom I've seen online or commenting on reddit, absolutely despise the show, and I seriously don't get why. I feel like people couldn't get past the initial shock and honestly terrible animation style. I believe that if they had, they would have found a show so fresh it's, well, legendary.",Comedy Central's Legends Of Chamberlain Heights was one of the best animated western comedies of the decade.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I work in a small restaurant. Every morning I and my boss come to prepare stuff, and since we get along well and are alone, we typically listen to podcasts. This morning she wasn't feeling like it and put on some music instead. As you could've guessed from the title, the noise was actually a Kanye West's song. Not only did it surprise me my boss usually listens to different music , it also got me thinking. Two important side notes I'm not from the US, which means I'm looking at it from a somewhat different point of view, and also I'm not a fan of rap hip hop in general, which means I might very well be missing some finer aspects of Kanye's art and not be entirely fair to him as a result. ^That's ^why ^I'm ^on ^CMV, ^obviously. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to argue about anyone's music taste. We're all different and that's perfectly fine. However, what is completely beyond my understanding is all the hype, almost a cult, that constantly surrounds his persona and even makes those who generally avoid this kind of music to buy into his myth. He is not the second Jesus nor the second Elvis and I highly doubt he will ever come close even to some of his fellow rappers. By the way, I used to feel almost the same about Elvis for athe long time. After all, he wasn't exactly a saint either, didn't write any songs himself and wasn't necessarily the most gifted musician out there. Sure, he clearly was well above average, especially in his time, but I couldn't wrap my mind about his popularity unless someone explained to me that what Elvis really brought to the table was in fact the power of performance . His charisma and stage presence were stunning. That gained him a permanent place in music history along with millions of fans, and that's what still sends chills down my spine sometimes Now, what does Kanye West have to offer? Let's get lost tonight You could be my black Kate Moss tonight Play secretary, I'm the boss tonight And you don't give a fuck what they all say, right? Awesome, the Christian in Christian Dior Damn, they don't make em like this anymore I ask, cause I'm not sure Do anybody make real shit anymore? Bow in the presence of greatness 'Cause right now thou hast forsaken us You should be honored by my lateness That I would even show up to this fake shit So go ahead, go nuts, go apeshit Specially on my Pastel, on my Bape shit Act like you can't tell who made this New Gospel homey, take six and take this, haters More often than not the art we create mirrors our inner world our values, views, dreams. This is a bit from Stronger Kanye's probably most popular song, at least according to Spotify, and here's a part from Gold Digger , his most popular song according to billboard.com Cutie the bomb, met her at a beauty salon With a baby Louis Vuitton under her underarm She said I can tell you rock, I can tell by your charm Far as girls, you got a flock I can tell by your charm and your arm. But I'm lookin' for the one, have you seen her? My psychic told me she'll have a ass like Serena Trina, Jennifer Lopez, four kids And I gotta take all they bad asses to ShowBiz? Okay, get your kids, but then they got their friends I pulled up in the Benz, they all got up in We all went to din' and then I had to pay If you fuckin' with this girl, then you better be paid You know why? It take too much to touch her From what I heard she got a baby by Busta My best friend said she used to fuck with Usher I don't care what none of y'all say, I still love her This is shallow . Shallow to a point of being hard even to read it, let alone listen. Just like almost everything that is related to him, including the fanatical fans and his pathetic wife. To me, Kanye West seems to be an embodiment of human narcissism, shallowness and vanity an amusing case of fake it till you make it a perfect example of the fact that with enough hype and bluff even a rat's nutsack can become an international superstar, receive tens of awards and get to meet and talk to the President of the US instead of people who might actually deserve and need it. He's just another self appointed prodigy that will sooner or later deflate like an untied baloon once another starlet appears on the horizon, and fade away into the past without leaving much more than a microscopical mark on the society that was worshipping him just a minute ago. That's not to say that artists like Kanye don't have the right to exist and produce their own art, whatever pretentious garbage that might be in some people's opinion. It's just completely insane and a bit sad that it's happening on such an extraordinary scale. Of course, as I've said, I might be missing something important and am willing to adjust my views accordingly. The purpose of this post is not to argue with anybody, but rather for me either to understand the phenomenon correctly or confirm my current view. Thanks UPDATE Wow, that's a lot of answers and tons of interesting ideas and material to go through. I was writing the post more or less on the go, but will try to answer most of you. I feel that with many of the points that I've raised, it all boils down to my likes and dislikes and vague feelings about this and that. What's important is that none of that is objective, and while there still might be some point in having a discussion about these things, I simply have a hard time digesting rap and hip hop music and there's little to be done about it. I knew almost nothing about Kanye's production and his creativeness. It's a very interesting topic and thanks to some of you I now see that there's much more to him than meets the eye. It's definitely worth looking into, so thanks for the food for thought. Also, thanks a lot for the links to podcasts and Kanye's better and more substantial songs. I'm definitely guilty of cherry picking here, so thanks for pointing that out. I will give these other songs a listen and try to approach them as neutrally as possible. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I work in a small restaurant. Every morning I and my boss come to prepare stuff, and since we get along well and are alone, we typically listen to podcasts. This morning she wasn't feeling like it and put on some music instead. As you could've guessed from the title, the noise was actually a Kanye West's song. Not only did it surprise me my boss usually listens to different music , it also got me thinking. Two important side notes I'm not from the US, which means I'm looking at it from a somewhat different point of view, and also I'm not a fan of rap hip hop in general, which means I might very well be missing some finer aspects of Kanye's art and not be entirely fair to him as a result. ^That's ^why ^I'm ^on ^CMV, ^obviously. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to argue about anyone's music taste. We're all different and that's perfectly fine. However, what is completely beyond my understanding is all the hype, almost a cult, that constantly surrounds his persona and even makes those who generally avoid this kind of music to buy into his myth. He is not the second Jesus nor the second Elvis and I highly doubt he will ever come close even to some of his fellow rappers. By the way, I used to feel almost the same about Elvis for athe long time. After all, he wasn't exactly a saint either, didn't write any songs himself and wasn't necessarily the most gifted musician out there. Sure, he clearly was well above average, especially in his time, but I couldn't wrap my mind about his popularity unless someone explained to me that what Elvis really brought to the table was in fact the power of performance . His charisma and stage presence were stunning. That gained him a permanent place in music history along with millions of fans, and that's what still sends chills down my spine sometimes Now, what does Kanye West have to offer? Let's get lost tonight You could be my black Kate Moss tonight Play secretary, I'm the boss tonight And you don't give a fuck what they all say, right? Awesome, the Christian in Christian Dior Damn, they don't make em like this anymore I ask, cause I'm not sure Do anybody make real shit anymore? Bow in the presence of greatness 'Cause right now thou hast forsaken us You should be honored by my lateness That I would even show up to this fake shit So go ahead, go nuts, go apeshit Specially on my Pastel, on my Bape shit Act like you can't tell who made this New Gospel homey, take six and take this, haters More often than not the art we create mirrors our inner world our values, views, dreams. This is a bit from Stronger Kanye's probably most popular song, at least according to Spotify, and here's a part from Gold Digger , his most popular song according to billboard.com Cutie the bomb, met her at a beauty salon With a baby Louis Vuitton under her underarm She said I can tell you rock, I can tell by your charm Far as girls, you got a flock I can tell by your charm and your arm. But I'm lookin' for the one, have you seen her? My psychic told me she'll have a ass like Serena Trina, Jennifer Lopez, four kids And I gotta take all they bad asses to ShowBiz? Okay, get your kids, but then they got their friends I pulled up in the Benz, they all got up in We all went to din' and then I had to pay If you fuckin' with this girl, then you better be paid You know why? It take too much to touch her From what I heard she got a baby by Busta My best friend said she used to fuck with Usher I don't care what none of y'all say, I still love her This is shallow . Shallow to a point of being hard even to read it, let alone listen. Just like almost everything that is related to him, including the fanatical fans and his pathetic wife. To me, Kanye West seems to be an embodiment of human narcissism, shallowness and vanity an amusing case of fake it till you make it a perfect example of the fact that with enough hype and bluff even a rat's nutsack can become an international superstar, receive tens of awards and get to meet and talk to the President of the US instead of people who might actually deserve and need it. He's just another self appointed prodigy that will sooner or later deflate like an untied baloon once another starlet appears on the horizon, and fade away into the past without leaving much more than a microscopical mark on the society that was worshipping him just a minute ago. That's not to say that artists like Kanye don't have the right to exist and produce their own art, whatever pretentious garbage that might be in some people's opinion. It's just completely insane and a bit sad that it's happening on such an extraordinary scale. Of course, as I've said, I might be missing something important and am willing to adjust my views accordingly. The purpose of this post is not to argue with anybody, but rather for me either to understand the phenomenon correctly or confirm my current view. Thanks UPDATE Wow, that's a lot of answers and tons of interesting ideas and material to go through. I was writing the post more or less on the go, but will try to answer most of you. I feel that with many of the points that I've raised, it all boils down to my likes and dislikes and vague feelings about this and that. What's important is that none of that is objective, and while there still might be some point in having a discussion about these things, I simply have a hard time digesting rap and hip hop music and there's little to be done about it. I knew almost nothing about Kanye's production and his creativeness. It's a very interesting topic and thanks to some of you I now see that there's much more to him than meets the eye. It's definitely worth looking into, so thanks for the food for thought. Also, thanks a lot for the links to podcasts and Kanye's better and more substantial songs. I'm definitely guilty of cherry picking here, so thanks for pointing that out. I will give these other songs a listen and try to approach them as neutrally as possible. <|TARGETS|>to say that artists like Kanye do n't have the right to exist and produce their own art whatever pretentious garbage that might be in some people 's opinion ., having a discussion about these things, the second Jesus nor the second Elvis and I highly doubt he will ever come close even to some of his fellow rappers ., a flock I can tell by your charm and your arm ., to adjust my views accordingly ., Shallow to a point of being hard even to read it let alone listen .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I work in a small restaurant. Every morning I and my boss come to prepare stuff, and since we get along well and are alone, we typically listen to podcasts. This morning she wasn't feeling like it and put on some music instead. As you could've guessed from the title, the noise was actually a Kanye West's song. Not only did it surprise me my boss usually listens to different music , it also got me thinking. Two important side notes I'm not from the US, which means I'm looking at it from a somewhat different point of view, and also I'm not a fan of rap hip hop in general, which means I might very well be missing some finer aspects of Kanye's art and not be entirely fair to him as a result. ^That's ^why ^I'm ^on ^CMV, ^obviously. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to argue about anyone's music taste. We're all different and that's perfectly fine. However, what is completely beyond my understanding is all the hype, almost a cult, that constantly surrounds his persona and even makes those who generally avoid this kind of music to buy into his myth. He is not the second Jesus nor the second Elvis and I highly doubt he will ever come close even to some of his fellow rappers. By the way, I used to feel almost the same about Elvis for athe long time. After all, he wasn't exactly a saint either, didn't write any songs himself and wasn't necessarily the most gifted musician out there. Sure, he clearly was well above average, especially in his time, but I couldn't wrap my mind about his popularity unless someone explained to me that what Elvis really brought to the table was in fact the power of performance . His charisma and stage presence were stunning. That gained him a permanent place in music history along with millions of fans, and that's what still sends chills down my spine sometimes Now, what does Kanye West have to offer? Let's get lost tonight You could be my black Kate Moss tonight Play secretary, I'm the boss tonight And you don't give a fuck what they all say, right? Awesome, the Christian in Christian Dior Damn, they don't make em like this anymore I ask, cause I'm not sure Do anybody make real shit anymore? Bow in the presence of greatness 'Cause right now thou hast forsaken us You should be honored by my lateness That I would even show up to this fake shit So go ahead, go nuts, go apeshit Specially on my Pastel, on my Bape shit Act like you can't tell who made this New Gospel homey, take six and take this, haters More often than not the art we create mirrors our inner world our values, views, dreams. This is a bit from Stronger Kanye's probably most popular song, at least according to Spotify, and here's a part from Gold Digger , his most popular song according to billboard.com Cutie the bomb, met her at a beauty salon With a baby Louis Vuitton under her underarm She said I can tell you rock, I can tell by your charm Far as girls, you got a flock I can tell by your charm and your arm. But I'm lookin' for the one, have you seen her? My psychic told me she'll have a ass like Serena Trina, Jennifer Lopez, four kids And I gotta take all they bad asses to ShowBiz? Okay, get your kids, but then they got their friends I pulled up in the Benz, they all got up in We all went to din' and then I had to pay If you fuckin' with this girl, then you better be paid You know why? It take too much to touch her From what I heard she got a baby by Busta My best friend said she used to fuck with Usher I don't care what none of y'all say, I still love her This is shallow . Shallow to a point of being hard even to read it, let alone listen. Just like almost everything that is related to him, including the fanatical fans and his pathetic wife. To me, Kanye West seems to be an embodiment of human narcissism, shallowness and vanity an amusing case of fake it till you make it a perfect example of the fact that with enough hype and bluff even a rat's nutsack can become an international superstar, receive tens of awards and get to meet and talk to the President of the US instead of people who might actually deserve and need it. He's just another self appointed prodigy that will sooner or later deflate like an untied baloon once another starlet appears on the horizon, and fade away into the past without leaving much more than a microscopical mark on the society that was worshipping him just a minute ago. That's not to say that artists like Kanye don't have the right to exist and produce their own art, whatever pretentious garbage that might be in some people's opinion. It's just completely insane and a bit sad that it's happening on such an extraordinary scale. Of course, as I've said, I might be missing something important and am willing to adjust my views accordingly. The purpose of this post is not to argue with anybody, but rather for me either to understand the phenomenon correctly or confirm my current view. Thanks UPDATE Wow, that's a lot of answers and tons of interesting ideas and material to go through. I was writing the post more or less on the go, but will try to answer most of you. I feel that with many of the points that I've raised, it all boils down to my likes and dislikes and vague feelings about this and that. What's important is that none of that is objective, and while there still might be some point in having a discussion about these things, I simply have a hard time digesting rap and hip hop music and there's little to be done about it. I knew almost nothing about Kanye's production and his creativeness. It's a very interesting topic and thanks to some of you I now see that there's much more to him than meets the eye. It's definitely worth looking into, so thanks for the food for thought. Also, thanks a lot for the links to podcasts and Kanye's better and more substantial songs. I'm definitely guilty of cherry picking here, so thanks for pointing that out. I will give these other songs a listen and try to approach them as neutrally as possible. <|ASPECTS|>, interesting ideas and material, different music, pathetic wife, myth, understand the phenomenon correctly, answer, along, objective, fade, pretentious, history, hard, microscopical mark, bad asses, noise, prepare, stage presence, hype, cult, forsaken, elvis, guilty, deflate, cherry picking, read, ass, popularity, charm, thinking, interesting topic, paid, feeling like, views, shallowness, vanity, digesting, shallow, listen, important, answers, take, neutrally, human narcissism, little, insane, real shit, creativeness, fanatical fans, play, touch, sad, power of performance, extraordinary, small, values, gifted musician, second, jesus, feel, vague feelings, missing, greatness, stunning, saint, likes and dislikes, music taste, substantial songs, podcasts, charisma, different, food, chills, right to exist, adjust<|CONCLUSION|>","I work in a small restaurant. Every morning I and my boss come to prepare stuff, and since we get along well and are alone, we typically listen to podcasts. This morning she wasn't feeling like it and put on some music instead. As you could've guessed from the title, the noise was actually a Kanye West's song. Not only did it surprise me my boss usually listens to different music , it also got me thinking. Two important side notes I'm not from the US, which means I'm looking at it from a somewhat different point of view, and also I'm not a fan of rap hip hop in general, which means I might very well be missing some finer aspects of Kanye's art and not be entirely fair to him as a result. ^That's ^why ^I'm ^on ^, ^obviously. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to argue about anyone's music taste. We're all different and that's perfectly fine. However, what is completely beyond my understanding is all the hype, almost a cult, that constantly surrounds his persona and even makes those who generally avoid this kind of music to buy into his myth. He is not the second Jesus nor the second Elvis and I highly doubt he will ever come close even to some of his fellow rappers. By the way, I used to feel almost the same about Elvis for athe long time. After all, he wasn't exactly a saint either, didn't write any songs himself and wasn't necessarily the most gifted musician out there. Sure, he clearly was well above average, especially in his time, but I couldn't wrap my mind about his popularity unless someone explained to me that what Elvis really brought to the table was in fact the power of performance . His charisma and stage presence were stunning. That gained him a permanent place in music history along with millions of fans, and that's what still sends chills down my spine sometimes Now, what does Kanye West have to offer? Let's get lost tonight You could be my black Kate Moss tonight Play secretary, I'm the boss tonight And you don't give a fuck what they all say, right? Awesome, the Christian in Christian Dior Damn, they don't make em like this anymore I ask, cause I'm not sure Do anybody make real shit anymore? Bow in the presence of greatness 'Cause right now thou hast forsaken us You should be honored by my lateness That I would even show up to this fake shit So go ahead, go nuts, go apeshit Specially on my Pastel, on my Bape shit Act like you can't tell who made this New Gospel homey, take six and take this, haters More often than not the art we create mirrors our inner world our values, views, dreams. This is a bit from Stronger Kanye's probably most popular song, at least according to Spotify, and here's a part from Gold Digger , his most popular song according to billboard.com Cutie the bomb, met her at a beauty salon With a baby Louis Vuitton under her underarm She said I can tell you rock, I can tell by your charm Far as girls, you got a flock I can tell by your charm and your arm. But I'm lookin' for the one, have you seen her? My psychic told me she'll have a ass like Serena Trina, Jennifer Lopez, four kids And I gotta take all they bad asses to ShowBiz? Okay, get your kids, but then they got their friends I pulled up in the Benz, they all got up in We all went to din' and then I had to pay If you fuckin' with this girl, then you better be paid You know why? It take too much to touch her From what I heard she got a baby by Busta My best friend said she used to fuck with Usher I don't care what none of y'all say, I still love her This is shallow . Shallow to a point of being hard even to read it, let alone listen. Just like almost everything that is related to him, including the fanatical fans and his pathetic wife. To me, Kanye West seems to be an embodiment of human narcissism, shallowness and vanity an amusing case of fake it till you make it a perfect example of the fact that with enough hype and bluff even a rat's nutsack can become an international superstar, receive tens of awards and get to meet and talk to the President of the US instead of people who might actually deserve and need it. He's just another self appointed prodigy that will sooner or later deflate like an untied baloon once another starlet appears on the horizon, and fade away into the past without leaving much more than a microscopical mark on the society that was worshipping him just a minute ago. That's not to say that artists like Kanye don't have the right to exist and produce their own art, whatever pretentious garbage that might be in some people's opinion. It's just completely insane and a bit sad that it's happening on such an extraordinary scale. Of course, as I've said, I might be missing something important and am willing to adjust my views accordingly. The purpose of this post is not to argue with anybody, but rather for me either to understand the phenomenon correctly or confirm my current view. Thanks UPDATE Wow, that's a lot of answers and tons of interesting ideas and material to go through. I was writing the post more or less on the go, but will try to answer most of you. I feel that with many of the points that I've raised, it all boils down to my likes and dislikes and vague feelings about this and that. What's important is that none of that is objective, and while there still might be some point in having a discussion about these things, I simply have a hard time digesting rap and hip hop music and there's little to be done about it. I knew almost nothing about Kanye's production and his creativeness. It's a very interesting topic and thanks to some of you I now see that there's much more to him than meets the eye. It's definitely worth looking into, so thanks for the food for thought. Also, thanks a lot for the links to podcasts and Kanye's better and more substantial songs. I'm definitely guilty of cherry picking here, so thanks for pointing that out. I will give these other songs a listen and try to approach them as neutrally as possible.",Kanye West is pathetic.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been smoking for a couple years now and throughout this whole time period my grades haven't dropped, my general mood has only increased, and i've had absolutely no urge to try any other drugs. Not even alcohol. My parents recently caught me and are forcing me to stop. I disagree with them, however I respect their authority and I am agreeing to it. In my specific situation, I see nearly no negative to smoking. Only positives. However since i'm stopping, hopefully someone can point out a few things that will encourage my sobriety that currently has no personal motivation behind it.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been smoking for a couple years now and throughout this whole time period my grades haven't dropped, my general mood has only increased, and i've had absolutely no urge to try any other drugs. Not even alcohol. My parents recently caught me and are forcing me to stop. I disagree with them, however I respect their authority and I am agreeing to it. In my specific situation, I see nearly no negative to smoking. Only positives. However since i'm stopping, hopefully someone can point out a few things that will encourage my sobriety that currently has no personal motivation behind it.<|TARGETS|>agreeing to it ., forcing me to stop ., smoking for a couple years now and throughout this whole time period my grades, to try any other drugs .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been smoking for a couple years now and throughout this whole time period my grades haven't dropped, my general mood has only increased, and i've had absolutely no urge to try any other drugs. Not even alcohol. My parents recently caught me and are forcing me to stop. I disagree with them, however I respect their authority and I am agreeing to it. In my specific situation, I see nearly no negative to smoking. Only positives. However since i'm stopping, hopefully someone can point out a few things that will encourage my sobriety that currently has no personal motivation behind it.<|ASPECTS|>stop, respect, mood, urge, authority, alcohol, personal motivation, negative to smoking, general, sobriety, forcing, encourage, positives, grades, caught<|CONCLUSION|>","I have been smoking for a couple years now and throughout this whole time period my grades haven't dropped, my general mood has only increased, and i've had absolutely no urge to try any other drugs. Not even alcohol. My parents recently caught me and are forcing me to stop. I disagree with them, however I respect their authority and I am agreeing to it. In my specific situation, I see nearly no negative to smoking. Only positives. However since i'm stopping, hopefully someone can point out a few things that will encourage my sobriety that currently has no personal motivation behind it.","As a high schooler with good grades, a job, good friends, and that's living a happy and safe life, I believe that my parents shouldn't put in an effort to prevent me from smoking weed."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There has been much discussion about r atheism as a default lately across Reddit, and the recent CMV highlighted this. However, I have a different proposition change the default to r trueatheism instead of r atheism. I believe it would serve the original intent since a large amount of the userbase is non religious without de valuing the reddit experience. Truthfully I think it would make Reddit a better place for new users. Instead of being hit with a Sagan bomb they'd have a default that is higher quality, more tolerant, less jerky, and just an overall better experience. I think that anyone who has switched from r atheism to r trueatheism knows EXACTly what I'm talking about. Obvious disclosure, I'm an atheist but it really decreases the quality of Reddit and brain cells that something intended for intelligent discussion is such a joke. It would be like if r history had OMG GHENGIS KHAN jokes every other topic. In addition, this fuels the absurdly irritating anti r atheism circlejerk. I cannot say how many times I've made a legitimate point about religion when it was the topic of discussion only to have someone use brave enlightened quotemaker etc. Frankly it's even more annoying than the puns. TL DR Should we censor r atheism? Absolutely not. But should we continue to endorse it as a staple of the Reddit diet? I'd disagree with that. If you think we should leave it because it has so many subscribers I'd ask that you take it off for a week and see just how many people join it without it being a default. r trueatheism offers the same ideas and benefits at a much smaller cost.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There has been much discussion about r atheism as a default lately across Reddit, and the recent CMV highlighted this. However, I have a different proposition change the default to r trueatheism instead of r atheism. I believe it would serve the original intent since a large amount of the userbase is non religious without de valuing the reddit experience. Truthfully I think it would make Reddit a better place for new users. Instead of being hit with a Sagan bomb they'd have a default that is higher quality, more tolerant, less jerky, and just an overall better experience. I think that anyone who has switched from r atheism to r trueatheism knows EXACTly what I'm talking about. Obvious disclosure, I'm an atheist but it really decreases the quality of Reddit and brain cells that something intended for intelligent discussion is such a joke. It would be like if r history had OMG GHENGIS KHAN jokes every other topic. In addition, this fuels the absurdly irritating anti r atheism circlejerk. I cannot say how many times I've made a legitimate point about religion when it was the topic of discussion only to have someone use brave enlightened quotemaker etc. Frankly it's even more annoying than the puns. TL DR Should we censor r atheism? Absolutely not. But should we continue to endorse it as a staple of the Reddit diet? I'd disagree with that. If you think we should leave it because it has so many subscribers I'd ask that you take it off for a week and see just how many people join it without it being a default. r trueatheism offers the same ideas and benefits at a much smaller cost.<|TARGETS|>a legitimate point about religion when it was the topic of discussion only to have someone use brave enlightened quotemaker etc, to endorse it as a staple of the Reddit diet, censor r atheism, TL DR, the quality of Reddit and brain cells that something intended for intelligent discussion, r trueatheism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There has been much discussion about r atheism as a default lately across Reddit, and the recent CMV highlighted this. However, I have a different proposition change the default to r trueatheism instead of r atheism. I believe it would serve the original intent since a large amount of the userbase is non religious without de valuing the reddit experience. Truthfully I think it would make Reddit a better place for new users. Instead of being hit with a Sagan bomb they'd have a default that is higher quality, more tolerant, less jerky, and just an overall better experience. I think that anyone who has switched from r atheism to r trueatheism knows EXACTly what I'm talking about. Obvious disclosure, I'm an atheist but it really decreases the quality of Reddit and brain cells that something intended for intelligent discussion is such a joke. It would be like if r history had OMG GHENGIS KHAN jokes every other topic. In addition, this fuels the absurdly irritating anti r atheism circlejerk. I cannot say how many times I've made a legitimate point about religion when it was the topic of discussion only to have someone use brave enlightened quotemaker etc. Frankly it's even more annoying than the puns. TL DR Should we censor r atheism? Absolutely not. But should we continue to endorse it as a staple of the Reddit diet? I'd disagree with that. If you think we should leave it because it has so many subscribers I'd ask that you take it off for a week and see just how many people join it without it being a default. r trueatheism offers the same ideas and benefits at a much smaller cost.<|ASPECTS|>brain cells, less jerky, atheism, quality of reddit, better place, default, better experience, benefits, smaller, quotemaker, subscribers, tolerant, anti r atheism, annoying, r, original intent, ideas, r trueatheism, endorse, non religious, staple, diet, trueatheism, cost, religion, r atheism, intelligent discussion, higher quality, many, new users, decreases, irritating<|CONCLUSION|>","There has been much discussion about r atheism as a default lately across Reddit, and the recent  highlighted this. However, I have a different proposition change the default to r trueatheism instead of r atheism. I believe it would serve the original intent since a large amount of the userbase is non religious without de valuing the reddit experience. Truthfully I think it would make Reddit a better place for new users. Instead of being hit with a Sagan bomb they'd have a default that is higher quality, more tolerant, less jerky, and just an overall better experience. I think that anyone who has switched from r atheism to r trueatheism knows EXACTly what I'm talking about. Obvious disclosure, I'm an atheist but it really decreases the quality of Reddit and brain cells that something intended for intelligent discussion is such a joke. It would be like if r history had OMG GHENGIS KHAN jokes every other topic. In addition, this fuels the absurdly irritating anti r atheism circlejerk. I cannot say how many times I've made a legitimate point about religion when it was the topic of discussion only to have someone use brave enlightened quotemaker etc. Frankly it's even more annoying than the puns. TL DR Should we censor r atheism? Absolutely not. But should we continue to endorse it as a staple of the Reddit diet? I'd disagree with that. If you think we should leave it because it has so many subscribers I'd ask that you take it off for a week and see just how many people join it without it being a default. r trueatheism offers the same ideas and benefits at a much smaller cost.",I believe that r/atheism should be replaced with r/trueatheism as a default.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think after the trial, the criminals should be released immediately. Instead, convicted criminals should be labeled and exiled according to the severity of the crime. The labeling system can be invisible or visible or alarm able. All labels can be tracked. The exile system may restrict the criminal's accessibility to certain areas jobs which can scale up to the whole human society. For small crimes like single occurrence shop lifting, the label can be invisible and no restriction made on the criminals. For the most severe crime like massive killing, the criminal can be excluded from the society and can be killed if he she dares coming back. x200B Reasons for committing a crime are various. Some are unfortunate, they can't feed themselves by being lawful citizens. Some are just pure evil, they do harm because they desire. Regardless, the action of crime itself indicates that person is less suitable for the society. Of course we need to help those who can be helped, but it is equally important to purge those who are beyond saving. This system seems capable solving many issues I have seen with the jail time system. It is very friendly to innocent convicted. Judges can be wrong. If a wrongfully judged person goes to jail, whatever amount of jail time is deprived from his life and there is nothing could pay back. If that person is just labeled and exile, he she is likely to receive help from close friends and family members which would ease the tragedy. Also, that innocent person now has the hope to prove himself. Unfortunate people can be helped. Jail needs money. Those money could be directed to educate and help those unfortunate people. This system would bring equality for all people. Wealthy people tend to escape jail time. They can bail. They can hire great lawyers to reduce the jail time. What's worse is that when they are out, their connection can help them secure another executive job or advisory job as if nothing happened. Under this system, the punishment is only based on guilty or not. The lawyer need to completely dodge the accusations to keep his client clean which is much harder than reducing the jail time and bail strategy. Even if one dodged a severe accusation, he she can still be barred from certain jobs because of a less severe one. For example, one may dodged the accusation of rape, but still found guilty of sexual harassment, that person can still be excluded from executive positions because of the harassment. More forgiving and more cruel at the same time. Some criminals, like child raper, may face great hostility when released back to society with label and restrictions. Some criminals, like revenging father, may be understood and forgave by the society. And this is the true justice served. It also has many other advantages like easier to track crime organizations and so on. I think the above 4 points are the most important ones.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think after the trial, the criminals should be released immediately. Instead, convicted criminals should be labeled and exiled according to the severity of the crime. The labeling system can be invisible or visible or alarm able. All labels can be tracked. The exile system may restrict the criminal's accessibility to certain areas jobs which can scale up to the whole human society. For small crimes like single occurrence shop lifting, the label can be invisible and no restriction made on the criminals. For the most severe crime like massive killing, the criminal can be excluded from the society and can be killed if he she dares coming back. x200B Reasons for committing a crime are various. Some are unfortunate, they can't feed themselves by being lawful citizens. Some are just pure evil, they do harm because they desire. Regardless, the action of crime itself indicates that person is less suitable for the society. Of course we need to help those who can be helped, but it is equally important to purge those who are beyond saving. This system seems capable solving many issues I have seen with the jail time system. It is very friendly to innocent convicted. Judges can be wrong. If a wrongfully judged person goes to jail, whatever amount of jail time is deprived from his life and there is nothing could pay back. If that person is just labeled and exile, he she is likely to receive help from close friends and family members which would ease the tragedy. Also, that innocent person now has the hope to prove himself. Unfortunate people can be helped. Jail needs money. Those money could be directed to educate and help those unfortunate people. This system would bring equality for all people. Wealthy people tend to escape jail time. They can bail. They can hire great lawyers to reduce the jail time. What's worse is that when they are out, their connection can help them secure another executive job or advisory job as if nothing happened. Under this system, the punishment is only based on guilty or not. The lawyer need to completely dodge the accusations to keep his client clean which is much harder than reducing the jail time and bail strategy. Even if one dodged a severe accusation, he she can still be barred from certain jobs because of a less severe one. For example, one may dodged the accusation of rape, but still found guilty of sexual harassment, that person can still be excluded from executive positions because of the harassment. More forgiving and more cruel at the same time. Some criminals, like child raper, may face great hostility when released back to society with label and restrictions. Some criminals, like revenging father, may be understood and forgave by the society. And this is the true justice served. It also has many other advantages like easier to track crime organizations and so on. I think the above 4 points are the most important ones.<|TARGETS|>the action of crime itself, to purge those who are beyond saving ., Some criminals like child raper, The labeling system, This system, this system<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think after the trial, the criminals should be released immediately. Instead, convicted criminals should be labeled and exiled according to the severity of the crime. The labeling system can be invisible or visible or alarm able. All labels can be tracked. The exile system may restrict the criminal's accessibility to certain areas jobs which can scale up to the whole human society. For small crimes like single occurrence shop lifting, the label can be invisible and no restriction made on the criminals. For the most severe crime like massive killing, the criminal can be excluded from the society and can be killed if he she dares coming back. x200B Reasons for committing a crime are various. Some are unfortunate, they can't feed themselves by being lawful citizens. Some are just pure evil, they do harm because they desire. Regardless, the action of crime itself indicates that person is less suitable for the society. Of course we need to help those who can be helped, but it is equally important to purge those who are beyond saving. This system seems capable solving many issues I have seen with the jail time system. It is very friendly to innocent convicted. Judges can be wrong. If a wrongfully judged person goes to jail, whatever amount of jail time is deprived from his life and there is nothing could pay back. If that person is just labeled and exile, he she is likely to receive help from close friends and family members which would ease the tragedy. Also, that innocent person now has the hope to prove himself. Unfortunate people can be helped. Jail needs money. Those money could be directed to educate and help those unfortunate people. This system would bring equality for all people. Wealthy people tend to escape jail time. They can bail. They can hire great lawyers to reduce the jail time. What's worse is that when they are out, their connection can help them secure another executive job or advisory job as if nothing happened. Under this system, the punishment is only based on guilty or not. The lawyer need to completely dodge the accusations to keep his client clean which is much harder than reducing the jail time and bail strategy. Even if one dodged a severe accusation, he she can still be barred from certain jobs because of a less severe one. For example, one may dodged the accusation of rape, but still found guilty of sexual harassment, that person can still be excluded from executive positions because of the harassment. More forgiving and more cruel at the same time. Some criminals, like child raper, may face great hostility when released back to society with label and restrictions. Some criminals, like revenging father, may be understood and forgave by the society. And this is the true justice served. It also has many other advantages like easier to track crime organizations and so on. I think the above 4 points are the most important ones.<|ASPECTS|>forgave by the society, great lawyers, labels, , wrongfully judged person, crime, invisible, true, helped, accusation, jobs, labeled, executive positions, cruel, criminal 's, escape, understood, accessibility, innocent convicted, unfortunate people, hostility, wealthy, harm, justice served, forgiving, advisory job, ease, needs money, society, feed, visible, equality, guilty, sexual harassment, secure, deprived, tragedy, criminal, released immediately, judges can be wrong, less suitable for the society, life, purge, revenging father, small crimes, advantages, convicted criminals, important, alarm able, bail strategy, harassment, accusations, saving, executive job, hope, friendly, issues, barred, severity, killed, pure evil, lawful citizens, criminals, less, help, bail, reasons, label, excluded, connection, prove, tracked, massive killing, exile, educate, restriction, exiled, reduce, punishment, could pay, jail time, easier to track crime organizations, innocent person, restrictions<|CONCLUSION|>","I think after the trial, the criminals should be released immediately. Instead, convicted criminals should be labeled and exiled according to the severity of the crime. The labeling system can be invisible or visible or alarm able. All labels can be tracked. The exile system may restrict the criminal's accessibility to certain areas jobs which can scale up to the whole human society. For small crimes like single occurrence shop lifting, the label can be invisible and no restriction made on the criminals. For the most severe crime like massive killing, the criminal can be excluded from the society and can be killed if he she dares coming back. x200B Reasons for committing a crime are various. Some are unfortunate, they can't feed themselves by being lawful citizens. Some are just pure evil, they do harm because they desire. Regardless, the action of crime itself indicates that person is less suitable for the society. Of course we need to help those who can be helped, but it is equally important to purge those who are beyond saving. This system seems capable solving many issues I have seen with the jail time system. It is very friendly to innocent convicted. Judges can be wrong. If a wrongfully judged person goes to jail, whatever amount of jail time is deprived from his life and there is nothing could pay back. If that person is just labeled and exile, he she is likely to receive help from close friends and family members which would ease the tragedy. Also, that innocent person now has the hope to prove himself. Unfortunate people can be helped. Jail needs money. Those money could be directed to educate and help those unfortunate people. This system would bring equality for all people. Wealthy people tend to escape jail time. They can bail. They can hire great lawyers to reduce the jail time. What's worse is that when they are out, their connection can help them secure another executive job or advisory job as if nothing happened. Under this system, the punishment is only based on guilty or not. The lawyer need to completely dodge the accusations to keep his client clean which is much harder than reducing the jail time and bail strategy. Even if one dodged a severe accusation, he she can still be barred from certain jobs because of a less severe one. For example, one may dodged the accusation of rape, but still found guilty of sexual harassment, that person can still be excluded from executive positions because of the harassment. More forgiving and more cruel at the same time. Some criminals, like child raper, may face great hostility when released back to society with label and restrictions. Some criminals, like revenging father, may be understood and forgave by the society. And this is the true justice served. It also has many other advantages like easier to track crime organizations and so on. I think the above 4 points are the most important ones.","Instead of jail time, criminals should be labeled and exiled."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not looking to debate whether killing as an act of war is immoral, though the best responses might take the discussion there. Instead, my point is that killing a human being is a very serious thing and that if you don't personally believe in the cause for which your country is fighting, you are not treating the lives of the opposing soldiers with sufficient respect. Furthermore, offering to kill on behalf of a third party in order to secure personal financial gain is akin to contract killing, and is immoral. I know there are plenty of kids that join the military to support their country and for whom their government salary is an added benefit. I'm not talking about those people. I want to discuss those who go off to war so they can afford college. Edit I feel it would be beneficial to state my argument as a sequence of premises. It is morally reprehensible to kill a human being without a just cause. By enlisting in the military, you have agreed to kill someone on behalf of the cause for which that military is fighting. If you agree that the cause is just, that it is worth killing for, the morality of your actions rests on the morality of the cause itself. You can defend your actions based on whether or not the cause is justifiable. However, if you do not believe the cause is just, if you enlist purely for financial gain, you cannot defend your actions because you acknowledge that you are not killing for a just cause. Therefore, enlisting in the military for financial gain only is immoral.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not looking to debate whether killing as an act of war is immoral, though the best responses might take the discussion there. Instead, my point is that killing a human being is a very serious thing and that if you don't personally believe in the cause for which your country is fighting, you are not treating the lives of the opposing soldiers with sufficient respect. Furthermore, offering to kill on behalf of a third party in order to secure personal financial gain is akin to contract killing, and is immoral. I know there are plenty of kids that join the military to support their country and for whom their government salary is an added benefit. I'm not talking about those people. I want to discuss those who go off to war so they can afford college. Edit I feel it would be beneficial to state my argument as a sequence of premises. It is morally reprehensible to kill a human being without a just cause. By enlisting in the military, you have agreed to kill someone on behalf of the cause for which that military is fighting. If you agree that the cause is just, that it is worth killing for, the morality of your actions rests on the morality of the cause itself. You can defend your actions based on whether or not the cause is justifiable. However, if you do not believe the cause is just, if you enlist purely for financial gain, you cannot defend your actions because you acknowledge that you are not killing for a just cause. Therefore, enlisting in the military for financial gain only is immoral.<|TARGETS|>to kill someone on behalf of the cause for which that military, defend your actions based on whether or not the cause is justifiable ., if you do n't personally believe in the cause for which your country is fighting, to kill a human being without a just cause ., not treating the lives of the opposing soldiers with sufficient respect ., defend your actions because you acknowledge that you are not killing for a just cause .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not looking to debate whether killing as an act of war is immoral, though the best responses might take the discussion there. Instead, my point is that killing a human being is a very serious thing and that if you don't personally believe in the cause for which your country is fighting, you are not treating the lives of the opposing soldiers with sufficient respect. Furthermore, offering to kill on behalf of a third party in order to secure personal financial gain is akin to contract killing, and is immoral. I know there are plenty of kids that join the military to support their country and for whom their government salary is an added benefit. I'm not talking about those people. I want to discuss those who go off to war so they can afford college. Edit I feel it would be beneficial to state my argument as a sequence of premises. It is morally reprehensible to kill a human being without a just cause. By enlisting in the military, you have agreed to kill someone on behalf of the cause for which that military is fighting. If you agree that the cause is just, that it is worth killing for, the morality of your actions rests on the morality of the cause itself. You can defend your actions based on whether or not the cause is justifiable. However, if you do not believe the cause is just, if you enlist purely for financial gain, you cannot defend your actions because you acknowledge that you are not killing for a just cause. Therefore, enlisting in the military for financial gain only is immoral.<|ASPECTS|>killing a human, morality, actions, beneficial, killing, worth killing, government salary, afford college, justifiable, financial gain, people, immoral, kill someone, contract killing, cause, respect, support their country, defend, war, personal financial gain, agreed, lives, morally reprehensible<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm not looking to debate whether killing as an act of war is immoral, though the best responses might take the discussion there. Instead, my point is that killing a human being is a very serious thing and that if you don't personally believe in the cause for which your country is fighting, you are not treating the lives of the opposing soldiers with sufficient respect. Furthermore, offering to kill on behalf of a third party in order to secure personal financial gain is akin to contract killing, and is immoral. I know there are plenty of kids that join the military to support their country and for whom their government salary is an added benefit. I'm not talking about those people. I want to discuss those who go off to war so they can afford college. Edit I feel it would be beneficial to state my argument as a sequence of premises. It is morally reprehensible to kill a human being without a just cause. By enlisting in the military, you have agreed to kill someone on behalf of the cause for which that military is fighting. If you agree that the cause is just, that it is worth killing for, the morality of your actions rests on the morality of the cause itself. You can defend your actions based on whether or not the cause is justifiable. However, if you do not believe the cause is just, if you enlist purely for financial gain, you cannot defend your actions because you acknowledge that you are not killing for a just cause. Therefore, enlisting in the military for financial gain only is immoral.",Financial Aid is not a morally justifiable reason to join the military
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are reams of evidence supporting the fact that institutional racism and its effects, particularly targeting black Americans, still exist in the United States. Yet some people persist in claiming that institutional racism is gone. So I thought I would compile some evidence. Economics Wealth housing One area where we can see this is with wealth. The median black family has twenty times less wealth than the average white family. Much of this disparity is the result of institutionalized housing discrimination, called redlining. 2011 research from Brandeis university found that gt The number of years families owned their homes was the largest predictor of the gap in wealth growth by race Figure 2 . Residential segregation by government design has a long legacy in this country and underpins many of the challenges African American families face in buying homes and increasing equity. There are several reasons why home equity rises so much more for whites than African Americans gt Because residential segregation artificially lowers demand, placing a forced ceiling on home equity for AfricanAmericans who own homes in non white neighborhoods6 gt Because whites are far more able to give inheritances or family assistance for down payments due to historical wealth accumulation, white families buy homes and start acquiring equity an average eight years earlier than black families7 gt Because whites are far more able to give family financial assistance, larger up front payments by white homeowners lower interest rates and lending costs and gt Due to historic differences in access to credit, typically lower incomes, and factors such as residential segregation, the homeownership rate for white families is 28.4 percent higher than the homeownership rate for black families This discrimination is a product of government policy. Boston University historian David Lyons explains that gt In fact, federal policies promoted racial segregation. Consider housing. In the 1930s, federal agencies embraced the practice of redlining, which disqualifies applicants in African American and transitional neighborhoods from home purchase and home improvement In fact, federal policies promoted racial segregation. Consider housing. In the 1930s, federal agencies embraced the practice of redlining, which disqualifies applicants in African American and transitional The process of housing discrimination continued on into the 1980's Jobs Identical job applications with black sounding names get calls back 30 less than white sounding names. In bad economic periods, black people are fired before other people Black workers receive extra scrutiny from bosses, which can lead to worse performance reviews, lower wages, and even job loss. Criminal justice Black Americans are oppressed by our criminal justice system. White and black people use marijuana at the same rate, but black people about 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for it White people are more likely to deal drugs, but black people are more likely to be arrested Crack cocaine more common with black users carries harsher penalties than powder cocaine more common with white users . For murders with white victims, black people get executed 15 times more than white people, even though 82 of white victims are killed by white people. The end result of racism in criminal justice is that America now incarcerates black people at a higher rate than Apartheid South Africa. Voting Since 1982 and 2014, the Department of Justice overruled 2,400 racist voting laws policies in 10 states. See examples here pp. 46 48 Voter ID laws disenfranchize one in nine voters disproportionately black and hispanic In 2006, the Supreme Court found that Texas drew legislative districts in order to decrease minority voting power With all of this research, no one should be able to claim that institutional racism doesn't exist.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are reams of evidence supporting the fact that institutional racism and its effects, particularly targeting black Americans, still exist in the United States. Yet some people persist in claiming that institutional racism is gone. So I thought I would compile some evidence. Economics Wealth housing One area where we can see this is with wealth. The median black family has twenty times less wealth than the average white family. Much of this disparity is the result of institutionalized housing discrimination, called redlining. 2011 research from Brandeis university found that gt The number of years families owned their homes was the largest predictor of the gap in wealth growth by race Figure 2 . Residential segregation by government design has a long legacy in this country and underpins many of the challenges African American families face in buying homes and increasing equity. There are several reasons why home equity rises so much more for whites than African Americans gt Because residential segregation artificially lowers demand, placing a forced ceiling on home equity for AfricanAmericans who own homes in non white neighborhoods6 gt Because whites are far more able to give inheritances or family assistance for down payments due to historical wealth accumulation, white families buy homes and start acquiring equity an average eight years earlier than black families7 gt Because whites are far more able to give family financial assistance, larger up front payments by white homeowners lower interest rates and lending costs and gt Due to historic differences in access to credit, typically lower incomes, and factors such as residential segregation, the homeownership rate for white families is 28.4 percent higher than the homeownership rate for black families This discrimination is a product of government policy. Boston University historian David Lyons explains that gt In fact, federal policies promoted racial segregation. Consider housing. In the 1930s, federal agencies embraced the practice of redlining, which disqualifies applicants in African American and transitional neighborhoods from home purchase and home improvement In fact, federal policies promoted racial segregation. Consider housing. In the 1930s, federal agencies embraced the practice of redlining, which disqualifies applicants in African American and transitional The process of housing discrimination continued on into the 1980's Jobs Identical job applications with black sounding names get calls back 30 less than white sounding names. In bad economic periods, black people are fired before other people Black workers receive extra scrutiny from bosses, which can lead to worse performance reviews, lower wages, and even job loss. Criminal justice Black Americans are oppressed by our criminal justice system. White and black people use marijuana at the same rate, but black people about 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for it White people are more likely to deal drugs, but black people are more likely to be arrested Crack cocaine more common with black users carries harsher penalties than powder cocaine more common with white users . For murders with white victims, black people get executed 15 times more than white people, even though 82 of white victims are killed by white people. The end result of racism in criminal justice is that America now incarcerates black people at a higher rate than Apartheid South Africa. Voting Since 1982 and 2014, the Department of Justice overruled 2,400 racist voting laws policies in 10 states. See examples here pp. 46 48 Voter ID laws disenfranchize one in nine voters disproportionately black and hispanic In 2006, the Supreme Court found that Texas drew legislative districts in order to decrease minority voting power With all of this research, no one should be able to claim that institutional racism doesn't exist.<|TARGETS|>The median black family, 2011 research from Brandeis university, residential segregation, Boston University historian David Lyons, Residential segregation by government design, home equity<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are reams of evidence supporting the fact that institutional racism and its effects, particularly targeting black Americans, still exist in the United States. Yet some people persist in claiming that institutional racism is gone. So I thought I would compile some evidence. Economics Wealth housing One area where we can see this is with wealth. The median black family has twenty times less wealth than the average white family. Much of this disparity is the result of institutionalized housing discrimination, called redlining. 2011 research from Brandeis university found that gt The number of years families owned their homes was the largest predictor of the gap in wealth growth by race Figure 2 . Residential segregation by government design has a long legacy in this country and underpins many of the challenges African American families face in buying homes and increasing equity. There are several reasons why home equity rises so much more for whites than African Americans gt Because residential segregation artificially lowers demand, placing a forced ceiling on home equity for AfricanAmericans who own homes in non white neighborhoods6 gt Because whites are far more able to give inheritances or family assistance for down payments due to historical wealth accumulation, white families buy homes and start acquiring equity an average eight years earlier than black families7 gt Because whites are far more able to give family financial assistance, larger up front payments by white homeowners lower interest rates and lending costs and gt Due to historic differences in access to credit, typically lower incomes, and factors such as residential segregation, the homeownership rate for white families is 28.4 percent higher than the homeownership rate for black families This discrimination is a product of government policy. Boston University historian David Lyons explains that gt In fact, federal policies promoted racial segregation. Consider housing. In the 1930s, federal agencies embraced the practice of redlining, which disqualifies applicants in African American and transitional neighborhoods from home purchase and home improvement In fact, federal policies promoted racial segregation. Consider housing. In the 1930s, federal agencies embraced the practice of redlining, which disqualifies applicants in African American and transitional The process of housing discrimination continued on into the 1980's Jobs Identical job applications with black sounding names get calls back 30 less than white sounding names. In bad economic periods, black people are fired before other people Black workers receive extra scrutiny from bosses, which can lead to worse performance reviews, lower wages, and even job loss. Criminal justice Black Americans are oppressed by our criminal justice system. White and black people use marijuana at the same rate, but black people about 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for it White people are more likely to deal drugs, but black people are more likely to be arrested Crack cocaine more common with black users carries harsher penalties than powder cocaine more common with white users . For murders with white victims, black people get executed 15 times more than white people, even though 82 of white victims are killed by white people. The end result of racism in criminal justice is that America now incarcerates black people at a higher rate than Apartheid South Africa. Voting Since 1982 and 2014, the Department of Justice overruled 2,400 racist voting laws policies in 10 states. See examples here pp. 46 48 Voter ID laws disenfranchize one in nine voters disproportionately black and hispanic In 2006, the Supreme Court found that Texas drew legislative districts in order to decrease minority voting power With all of this research, no one should be able to claim that institutional racism doesn't exist.<|ASPECTS|>worse, african, credit, oppressed, black people, deal drugs, wealth growth, accumulation, incarcerates black people, disenfranchize, home equity, white victims, performance reviews, redlining, black, financial, economics, minority voting power, wealth, housing, discrimination, equity, racist voting laws policies, black americans, evidence, killed by white people, job loss, interest rates, racial segregation, neighborhoods, justice, increasing, less, lending costs, lower wages, harsher, criminal justice system, housing discrimination, disparity, compile, residential segregation, lowers demand, racism, scrutiny, wealth housing, disqualifies applicants, executed, penalties, institutional racism<|CONCLUSION|>","There are reams of evidence supporting the fact that institutional racism and its effects, particularly targeting black Americans, still exist in the United States. Yet some people persist in claiming that institutional racism is gone. So I thought I would compile some evidence. Economics Wealth housing One area where we can see this is with wealth. The median black family has twenty times less wealth than the average white family. Much of this disparity is the result of institutionalized housing discrimination, called redlining. 2011 research from Brandeis university found that gt The number of years families owned their homes was the largest predictor of the gap in wealth growth by race Figure 2 . Residential segregation by government design has a long legacy in this country and underpins many of the challenges African American families face in buying homes and increasing equity. There are several reasons why home equity rises so much more for whites than African Americans gt Because residential segregation artificially lowers demand, placing a forced ceiling on home equity for AfricanAmericans who own homes in non white neighborhoods6 gt Because whites are far more able to give inheritances or family assistance for down payments due to historical wealth accumulation, white families buy homes and start acquiring equity an average eight years earlier than black families7 gt Because whites are far more able to give family financial assistance, larger up front payments by white homeowners lower interest rates and lending costs and gt Due to historic differences in access to credit, typically lower incomes, and factors such as residential segregation, the homeownership rate for white families is 28.4 percent higher than the homeownership rate for black families This discrimination is a product of government policy. Boston University historian David Lyons explains that gt In fact, federal policies promoted racial segregation. Consider housing. In the 1930s, federal agencies embraced the practice of redlining, which disqualifies applicants in African American and transitional neighborhoods from home purchase and home improvement In fact, federal policies promoted racial segregation. Consider housing. In the 1930s, federal agencies embraced the practice of redlining, which disqualifies applicants in African American and transitional The process of housing discrimination continued on into the 1980's Jobs Identical job applications with black sounding names get calls back 30 less than white sounding names. In bad economic periods, black people are fired before other people Black workers receive extra scrutiny from bosses, which can lead to worse performance reviews, lower wages, and even job loss. Criminal justice Black Americans are oppressed by our criminal justice system. White and black people use marijuana at the same rate, but black people about 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for it White people are more likely to deal drugs, but black people are more likely to be arrested Crack cocaine more common with black users carries harsher penalties than powder cocaine more common with white users . For murders with white victims, black people get executed 15 times more than white people, even though 82 of white victims are killed by white people. The end result of racism in criminal justice is that America now incarcerates black people at a higher rate than Apartheid South Africa. Voting Since 1982 and 2014, the Department of Justice overruled 2,400 racist voting laws policies in 10 states. See examples here pp. 46 48 Voter ID laws disenfranchize one in nine voters disproportionately black and hispanic In 2006, the Supreme Court found that Texas drew legislative districts in order to decrease minority voting power With all of this research, no one should be able to claim that institutional racism doesn't exist.",The evidence for institutionalized racism is undeniable.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A tank's job is to keep the team alive and well by tanking damage, right? Rein has a shield Orisa has a deployable barrier D.va has her defense matrix and Zarya has her bubbles other than that, they all have a decent level of armour except zarya and have abilities based around what they can do to help the team overall Roadhog, winston, and specifically wrecking ball have little to no such abilities. The fact of the matter is, they simply weren't designed to tank for the team, they were designed to get kills and tank for themselves Take roadhog, for instance, his only abilities are primary and alt fire, his hook, and his healing Short of bodyblocking for others which they never do , all he does is rack up kills and let his team die WInston, though he has a barrier with a small amount of health, usually plays behind the enemy team killing supports and sometimes snipers. His health drops very quickly and is an overall nuisance for everyone involved. Wrecking ball has zero ability to defend his team other than bodyblocking which, again never happens . his abilities are based around using high mobility and velocity. If his protective barrier was able to give shields to his allies, then he'd have a way of protecting his team directly, but most people just roll around on point or spend half the match above the team, dealing knockup and then immediately dying. Additionally, the tendency of players to charge in alone as hammond can severely hamper a team's efforts to push. Tl dr winston, roadhog and hammond suck. why do they have SO MUCH HEALTH BUT NO WAY TO PROTECT PEOPLE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE change my mind.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A tank's job is to keep the team alive and well by tanking damage, right? Rein has a shield Orisa has a deployable barrier D.va has her defense matrix and Zarya has her bubbles other than that, they all have a decent level of armour except zarya and have abilities based around what they can do to help the team overall Roadhog, winston, and specifically wrecking ball have little to no such abilities. The fact of the matter is, they simply weren't designed to tank for the team, they were designed to get kills and tank for themselves Take roadhog, for instance, his only abilities are primary and alt fire, his hook, and his healing Short of bodyblocking for others which they never do , all he does is rack up kills and let his team die WInston, though he has a barrier with a small amount of health, usually plays behind the enemy team killing supports and sometimes snipers. His health drops very quickly and is an overall nuisance for everyone involved. Wrecking ball has zero ability to defend his team other than bodyblocking which, again never happens . his abilities are based around using high mobility and velocity. If his protective barrier was able to give shields to his allies, then he'd have a way of protecting his team directly, but most people just roll around on point or spend half the match above the team, dealing knockup and then immediately dying. Additionally, the tendency of players to charge in alone as hammond can severely hamper a team's efforts to push. Tl dr winston, roadhog and hammond suck. why do they have SO MUCH HEALTH BUT NO WAY TO PROTECT PEOPLE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE change my mind.<|TARGETS|>A tank 's job, If his protective barrier was able to give shields to his allies, the tendency of players to charge in alone as hammond, Wrecking ball, TO PROTECT PEOPLE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE change my mind ., Rein<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A tank's job is to keep the team alive and well by tanking damage, right? Rein has a shield Orisa has a deployable barrier D.va has her defense matrix and Zarya has her bubbles other than that, they all have a decent level of armour except zarya and have abilities based around what they can do to help the team overall Roadhog, winston, and specifically wrecking ball have little to no such abilities. The fact of the matter is, they simply weren't designed to tank for the team, they were designed to get kills and tank for themselves Take roadhog, for instance, his only abilities are primary and alt fire, his hook, and his healing Short of bodyblocking for others which they never do , all he does is rack up kills and let his team die WInston, though he has a barrier with a small amount of health, usually plays behind the enemy team killing supports and sometimes snipers. His health drops very quickly and is an overall nuisance for everyone involved. Wrecking ball has zero ability to defend his team other than bodyblocking which, again never happens . his abilities are based around using high mobility and velocity. If his protective barrier was able to give shields to his allies, then he'd have a way of protecting his team directly, but most people just roll around on point or spend half the match above the team, dealing knockup and then immediately dying. Additionally, the tendency of players to charge in alone as hammond can severely hamper a team's efforts to push. Tl dr winston, roadhog and hammond suck. why do they have SO MUCH HEALTH BUT NO WAY TO PROTECT PEOPLE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE change my mind.<|ASPECTS|>, protect, deployable barrier, mobility and velocity, abilities, dying, health drops, ability to defend, high, tank, shields, health, tanking damage, zero, efforts, team, bodyblocking, armour, kills, team alive and well, charge, defense matrix, protecting, protective barrier, hamper, nuisance<|CONCLUSION|>","A tank's job is to keep the team alive and well by tanking damage, right? Rein has a shield Orisa has a deployable barrier D.va has her defense matrix and Zarya has her bubbles other than that, they all have a decent level of armour except zarya and have abilities based around what they can do to help the team overall Roadhog, winston, and specifically wrecking ball have little to no such abilities. The fact of the matter is, they simply weren't designed to tank for the team, they were designed to get kills and tank for themselves Take roadhog, for instance, his only abilities are primary and alt fire, his hook, and his healing Short of bodyblocking for others which they never do , all he does is rack up kills and let his team die WInston, though he has a barrier with a small amount of health, usually plays behind the enemy team killing supports and sometimes snipers. His health drops very quickly and is an overall nuisance for everyone involved. Wrecking ball has zero ability to defend his team other than bodyblocking which, again never happens . his abilities are based around using high mobility and velocity. If his protective barrier was able to give shields to his allies, then he'd have a way of protecting his team directly, but most people just roll around on point or spend half the match above the team, dealing knockup and then immediately dying. Additionally, the tendency of players to charge in alone as hammond can severely hamper a team's efforts to push. Tl dr winston, roadhog and hammond suck. why do they have SO MUCH HEALTH BUT NO WAY TO PROTECT PEOPLE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE change my mind.",There are only 3-4 proper tanks in overwatch
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been revisiting the 1992 LA riots and recently watched the documentary on Netflix Let It Fall . Even with the strongly biased perspective of the documentary, I thought it came through quite clear that King was a violent criminal who was subdued by officers following proper police protocol. Some of the facts of the case King had been watching a game with his friends and drinking heavily. He left with two friends and drove erratically at high speeds on the highway. Patrol officers attempted a traffic stop but King refused to pull over. He later testified he refused to stop because of his criminal record including being on felony parole for robbery. King gets off the highway and begins driving at high speeds through a residential sector. So we are five minutes into this and King has already endangered hundreds of innocent lives. Officers corner King. His two passengers exit the car and cooperate with police. King refuses to get out of the car. From here I suppose you need to watch the tape yourself. A neighbor heard the commotion and recorded the incident with a home movie camera. Watch the unedited version. The first 10 seconds of the tape show King charging at several officers and attacking them. These 10 seconds were cut from the tape before the media played it on the news. The Netflix documentary also neglects to show this footage. But it seems pretty clear to me that King was the initial aggressor. At the very minimum he refuses to cooperate for the entire video. LAPD used to use choke holds but they were banned after a handful of deaths. Instead, the officers used their batons in an attempt to subdue King. The cops were acquitted on nearly every charge which led to race riots in LA. Hundreds of buildings were burned down, thousands were injured, dozens were killed. All because some criminal attacked police officers, endangered hundreds of lives, and got what he deserved. Anyone seeking to challenge my view should be prepared to explain how the LAPD should have approached the situation. How do you non violently subdue a violent, non cooperative offender? As a citizen, I am more concerned with the safety of the community then the civil rights of a criminal. You earn those rights by being part of society, and you forfeit them when you commit crimes against that society. That is the principle of the criminal justice system. I think this probably has a lot to do with race. Black people and white people see the country differently. But I have trouble seeing how what the cops did to Rodney King was in any way unjustified at all. He wasn't even hurt that bad. I grew up in a poor area and my friends and I have all been arrested at various times and yeah you get beat up a bit especially if you fight the cops or tried to run. The media sensationalized the entire incident and even today I think most people are unaware of the true facts.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been revisiting the 1992 LA riots and recently watched the documentary on Netflix Let It Fall . Even with the strongly biased perspective of the documentary, I thought it came through quite clear that King was a violent criminal who was subdued by officers following proper police protocol. Some of the facts of the case King had been watching a game with his friends and drinking heavily. He left with two friends and drove erratically at high speeds on the highway. Patrol officers attempted a traffic stop but King refused to pull over. He later testified he refused to stop because of his criminal record including being on felony parole for robbery. King gets off the highway and begins driving at high speeds through a residential sector. So we are five minutes into this and King has already endangered hundreds of innocent lives. Officers corner King. His two passengers exit the car and cooperate with police. King refuses to get out of the car. From here I suppose you need to watch the tape yourself. A neighbor heard the commotion and recorded the incident with a home movie camera. Watch the unedited version. The first 10 seconds of the tape show King charging at several officers and attacking them. These 10 seconds were cut from the tape before the media played it on the news. The Netflix documentary also neglects to show this footage. But it seems pretty clear to me that King was the initial aggressor. At the very minimum he refuses to cooperate for the entire video. LAPD used to use choke holds but they were banned after a handful of deaths. Instead, the officers used their batons in an attempt to subdue King. The cops were acquitted on nearly every charge which led to race riots in LA. Hundreds of buildings were burned down, thousands were injured, dozens were killed. All because some criminal attacked police officers, endangered hundreds of lives, and got what he deserved. Anyone seeking to challenge my view should be prepared to explain how the LAPD should have approached the situation. How do you non violently subdue a violent, non cooperative offender? As a citizen, I am more concerned with the safety of the community then the civil rights of a criminal. You earn those rights by being part of society, and you forfeit them when you commit crimes against that society. That is the principle of the criminal justice system. I think this probably has a lot to do with race. Black people and white people see the country differently. But I have trouble seeing how what the cops did to Rodney King was in any way unjustified at all. He wasn't even hurt that bad. I grew up in a poor area and my friends and I have all been arrested at various times and yeah you get beat up a bit especially if you fight the cops or tried to run. The media sensationalized the entire incident and even today I think most people are unaware of the true facts.<|TARGETS|>Anyone seeking to challenge my view, the strongly biased perspective of the documentary, LAPD used to use choke, Patrol officers, a poor area and my friends and I have all been arrested at various times and yeah you get beat up a bit especially if you fight the cops or tried to run ., revisiting the 1992 LA riots<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been revisiting the 1992 LA riots and recently watched the documentary on Netflix Let It Fall . Even with the strongly biased perspective of the documentary, I thought it came through quite clear that King was a violent criminal who was subdued by officers following proper police protocol. Some of the facts of the case King had been watching a game with his friends and drinking heavily. He left with two friends and drove erratically at high speeds on the highway. Patrol officers attempted a traffic stop but King refused to pull over. He later testified he refused to stop because of his criminal record including being on felony parole for robbery. King gets off the highway and begins driving at high speeds through a residential sector. So we are five minutes into this and King has already endangered hundreds of innocent lives. Officers corner King. His two passengers exit the car and cooperate with police. King refuses to get out of the car. From here I suppose you need to watch the tape yourself. A neighbor heard the commotion and recorded the incident with a home movie camera. Watch the unedited version. The first 10 seconds of the tape show King charging at several officers and attacking them. These 10 seconds were cut from the tape before the media played it on the news. The Netflix documentary also neglects to show this footage. But it seems pretty clear to me that King was the initial aggressor. At the very minimum he refuses to cooperate for the entire video. LAPD used to use choke holds but they were banned after a handful of deaths. Instead, the officers used their batons in an attempt to subdue King. The cops were acquitted on nearly every charge which led to race riots in LA. Hundreds of buildings were burned down, thousands were injured, dozens were killed. All because some criminal attacked police officers, endangered hundreds of lives, and got what he deserved. Anyone seeking to challenge my view should be prepared to explain how the LAPD should have approached the situation. How do you non violently subdue a violent, non cooperative offender? As a citizen, I am more concerned with the safety of the community then the civil rights of a criminal. You earn those rights by being part of society, and you forfeit them when you commit crimes against that society. That is the principle of the criminal justice system. I think this probably has a lot to do with race. Black people and white people see the country differently. But I have trouble seeing how what the cops did to Rodney King was in any way unjustified at all. He wasn't even hurt that bad. I grew up in a poor area and my friends and I have all been arrested at various times and yeah you get beat up a bit especially if you fight the cops or tried to run. The media sensationalized the entire incident and even today I think most people are unaware of the true facts.<|ASPECTS|>endangered hundreds, violent criminal, refuses to cooperate, unjustified, rights, criminal record, cut, rodney, subdue king, beat, neglects, white, crimes, buildings, drinking heavily, race riots, arrested, fight the cops, watch, king charging, burned, residential, society, situation, unedited, commotion, corner king, black, see the country differently, unaware, drove, forfeit, cooperate with police, race, felony parole, sensationalized, acquitted, hurt that bad, choke holds, deaths, cooperative offender, injured, non, protocol, high speeds, attacking, poor area, innocent lives, erratically, true facts, safety of the community, footage, killed, initial aggressor, subdue, criminal justice system, violent, endangered, criminal attacked police officers, tape, subdued, civil rights, traffic stop, lives, riots, earn<|CONCLUSION|>","I have been revisiting the 1992 LA riots and recently watched the documentary on Netflix Let It Fall . Even with the strongly biased perspective of the documentary, I thought it came through quite clear that King was a violent criminal who was subdued by officers following proper police protocol. Some of the facts of the case King had been watching a game with his friends and drinking heavily. He left with two friends and drove erratically at high speeds on the highway. Patrol officers attempted a traffic stop but King refused to pull over. He later testified he refused to stop because of his criminal record including being on felony parole for robbery. King gets off the highway and begins driving at high speeds through a residential sector. So we are five minutes into this and King has already endangered hundreds of innocent lives. Officers corner King. His two passengers exit the car and cooperate with police. King refuses to get out of the car. From here I suppose you need to watch the tape yourself. A neighbor heard the commotion and recorded the incident with a home movie camera. Watch the unedited version. The first 10 seconds of the tape show King charging at several officers and attacking them. These 10 seconds were cut from the tape before the media played it on the news. The Netflix documentary also neglects to show this footage. But it seems pretty clear to me that King was the initial aggressor. At the very minimum he refuses to cooperate for the entire video. LAPD used to use choke holds but they were banned after a handful of deaths. Instead, the officers used their batons in an attempt to subdue King. The cops were acquitted on nearly every charge which led to race riots in LA. Hundreds of buildings were burned down, thousands were injured, dozens were killed. All because some criminal attacked police officers, endangered hundreds of lives, and got what he deserved. Anyone seeking to challenge my view should be prepared to explain how the LAPD should have approached the situation. How do you non violently subdue a violent, non cooperative offender? As a citizen, I am more concerned with the safety of the community then the civil rights of a criminal. You earn those rights by being part of society, and you forfeit them when you commit crimes against that society. That is the principle of the criminal justice system. I think this probably has a lot to do with race. Black people and white people see the country differently. But I have trouble seeing how what the cops did to Rodney King was in any way unjustified at all. He wasn't even hurt that bad. I grew up in a poor area and my friends and I have all been arrested at various times and yeah you get beat up a bit especially if you fight the cops or tried to run. The media sensationalized the entire incident and even today I think most people are unaware of the true facts.",Rodney King got what he deserved
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am interested in this issue as the technology is relatively new. I couldn't find much information on it other than an NPR article. The only counters I can see are pretty much administrative. I think that the police should not get a guarantee that the tapes will not be looked over for infractions and that they should be randomly chosen for auditing. I also think that if the officer is dealing someone, that person should have access to the video. Also, there's an argument regarding when an officer sees identification that it should be blurred out. While I agree, I feel this issue would not be very difficult and should be done alongside the proposal. Edit I found some of these responses great. I hadn't thought of some of them at all. But I was under the impression that the footage would only be available to Internal Affairs and the citizen who requested it and maybe the officer if he or she needed to make a statement as per the article . I forgot to mention this. Edit 2 thank you guys. I have a lot to consider now. Many of you pointed out that this is similar to the NSA surveillance, which I think is incorrect. These are officers of the public, and their actions should not be private while interacting with the public. What I took away from this was mainly the following The use of these cameras would most likely be taken advantage of. A higher ranking officer could use it to scrutinize the actions of an officer s he did not like Officers would very much limit the warnings they give the public. The most important point to consider is that this is more of a quick fix than a solution. Whatever problems that cause the police to behave as though they are not public servants would remain. This problem is a mystery to me. It may be part of the police sub culture, or the recruitment a redditor noted in a recent police video that some states have a maximum IQ for new officers last edit I guess this was an idea for reformation. It was not complete enough. Share your ideas with me<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am interested in this issue as the technology is relatively new. I couldn't find much information on it other than an NPR article. The only counters I can see are pretty much administrative. I think that the police should not get a guarantee that the tapes will not be looked over for infractions and that they should be randomly chosen for auditing. I also think that if the officer is dealing someone, that person should have access to the video. Also, there's an argument regarding when an officer sees identification that it should be blurred out. While I agree, I feel this issue would not be very difficult and should be done alongside the proposal. Edit I found some of these responses great. I hadn't thought of some of them at all. But I was under the impression that the footage would only be available to Internal Affairs and the citizen who requested it and maybe the officer if he or she needed to make a statement as per the article . I forgot to mention this. Edit 2 thank you guys. I have a lot to consider now. Many of you pointed out that this is similar to the NSA surveillance, which I think is incorrect. These are officers of the public, and their actions should not be private while interacting with the public. What I took away from this was mainly the following The use of these cameras would most likely be taken advantage of. A higher ranking officer could use it to scrutinize the actions of an officer s he did not like Officers would very much limit the warnings they give the public. The most important point to consider is that this is more of a quick fix than a solution. Whatever problems that cause the police to behave as though they are not public servants would remain. This problem is a mystery to me. It may be part of the police sub culture, or the recruitment a redditor noted in a recent police video that some states have a maximum IQ for new officers last edit I guess this was an idea for reformation. It was not complete enough. Share your ideas with me<|TARGETS|>a guarantee that the tapes, to make a statement as per the article ., to mention this ., Share your ideas with me, much information on it other than an NPR article, A higher ranking officer<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am interested in this issue as the technology is relatively new. I couldn't find much information on it other than an NPR article. The only counters I can see are pretty much administrative. I think that the police should not get a guarantee that the tapes will not be looked over for infractions and that they should be randomly chosen for auditing. I also think that if the officer is dealing someone, that person should have access to the video. Also, there's an argument regarding when an officer sees identification that it should be blurred out. While I agree, I feel this issue would not be very difficult and should be done alongside the proposal. Edit I found some of these responses great. I hadn't thought of some of them at all. But I was under the impression that the footage would only be available to Internal Affairs and the citizen who requested it and maybe the officer if he or she needed to make a statement as per the article . I forgot to mention this. Edit 2 thank you guys. I have a lot to consider now. Many of you pointed out that this is similar to the NSA surveillance, which I think is incorrect. These are officers of the public, and their actions should not be private while interacting with the public. What I took away from this was mainly the following The use of these cameras would most likely be taken advantage of. A higher ranking officer could use it to scrutinize the actions of an officer s he did not like Officers would very much limit the warnings they give the public. The most important point to consider is that this is more of a quick fix than a solution. Whatever problems that cause the police to behave as though they are not public servants would remain. This problem is a mystery to me. It may be part of the police sub culture, or the recruitment a redditor noted in a recent police video that some states have a maximum IQ for new officers last edit I guess this was an idea for reformation. It was not complete enough. Share your ideas with me<|ASPECTS|>access to the video, available, problems, technology, limit, warnings, relatively new, public, public servants, someone, responses, scrutinize the actions, police sub culture, randomly chosen, recruitment, administrative, private, auditing, complete enough, ideas, information, quick fix, officers of the public, mystery, problem, infractions, identification, maximum iq, taken advantage, nsa surveillance, internal, difficult, blurred<|CONCLUSION|>","I am interested in this issue as the technology is relatively new. I couldn't find much information on it other than an NPR article. The only counters I can see are pretty much administrative. I think that the police should not get a guarantee that the tapes will not be looked over for infractions and that they should be randomly chosen for auditing. I also think that if the officer is dealing someone, that person should have access to the video. Also, there's an argument regarding when an officer sees identification that it should be blurred out. While I agree, I feel this issue would not be very difficult and should be done alongside the proposal. Edit I found some of these responses great. I hadn't thought of some of them at all. But I was under the impression that the footage would only be available to Internal Affairs and the citizen who requested it and maybe the officer if he or she needed to make a statement as per the article . I forgot to mention this. Edit 2 thank you guys. I have a lot to consider now. Many of you pointed out that this is similar to the NSA surveillance, which I think is incorrect. These are officers of the public, and their actions should not be private while interacting with the public. What I took away from this was mainly the following The use of these cameras would most likely be taken advantage of. A higher ranking officer could use it to scrutinize the actions of an officer s he did not like Officers would very much limit the warnings they give the public. The most important point to consider is that this is more of a quick fix than a solution. Whatever problems that cause the police to behave as though they are not public servants would remain. This problem is a mystery to me. It may be part of the police sub culture, or the recruitment a redditor noted in a recent police video that some states have a maximum IQ for new officers last edit I guess this was an idea for reformation. It was not complete enough. Share your ideas with me",I think that the police should start wearing small cameras to record what they do.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People drink for many reasons, to help them socialize, to calm them, to drown out depression, to let loose, but very few people ever stop and see a problem with their reliance on a drug literal poison for their body. They use drugs or have other addictions in a similar way, to get through life without going insane. Now, I'd like to stop being so cynical about how I view drinking drug use, but I just can't seem to let it go, because I hate seeing people be dishonest with themselves and give in to the society trap we are living in If people were happy with their lives, why would they need to drink? To summarize If you drink, you are hiding deeper issues like your social anxiety depression and should work on healthier ways of overcoming them, instead of taking the easy way out<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People drink for many reasons, to help them socialize, to calm them, to drown out depression, to let loose, but very few people ever stop and see a problem with their reliance on a drug literal poison for their body. They use drugs or have other addictions in a similar way, to get through life without going insane. Now, I'd like to stop being so cynical about how I view drinking drug use, but I just can't seem to let it go, because I hate seeing people be dishonest with themselves and give in to the society trap we are living in If people were happy with their lives, why would they need to drink? To summarize If you drink, you are hiding deeper issues like your social anxiety depression and should work on healthier ways of overcoming them, instead of taking the easy way out<|TARGETS|>to let it go because I hate seeing people be dishonest with themselves and give in to the society trap we are living in If people were happy with their lives why would they need to drink, To summarize If you drink, to help them socialize to calm them to drown out depression to let loose but very few people ever stop and see a problem with their reliance on a drug literal poison for their body, to stop being so cynical about how I view drinking drug use<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People drink for many reasons, to help them socialize, to calm them, to drown out depression, to let loose, but very few people ever stop and see a problem with their reliance on a drug literal poison for their body. They use drugs or have other addictions in a similar way, to get through life without going insane. Now, I'd like to stop being so cynical about how I view drinking drug use, but I just can't seem to let it go, because I hate seeing people be dishonest with themselves and give in to the society trap we are living in If people were happy with their lives, why would they need to drink? To summarize If you drink, you are hiding deeper issues like your social anxiety depression and should work on healthier ways of overcoming them, instead of taking the easy way out<|ASPECTS|>addictions, depression, happy with their lives, drown, literal poison, society trap, drug use, dishonest, insane, deeper issues, socialize, life, healthier ways, drugs, calm, social anxiety depression<|CONCLUSION|>","People drink for many reasons, to help them socialize, to calm them, to drown out depression, to let loose, but very few people ever stop and see a problem with their reliance on a drug literal poison for their body. They use drugs or have other addictions in a similar way, to get through life without going insane. Now, I'd like to stop being so cynical about how I view drinking drug use, but I just can't seem to let it go, because I hate seeing people be dishonest with themselves and give in to the society trap we are living in If people were happy with their lives, why would they need to drink? To summarize If you drink, you are hiding deeper issues like your social anxiety depression and should work on healthier ways of overcoming them, instead of taking the easy way out","If you drink, or use any addiction to get through life, you are inherently admitting you can't enjoy life without said drug substance/addiction"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a white Canadian citizen, I have grown up with the idea that the First Nations people had their land unfairly taken away from them by the European settlers through unfair treaties, and as a result of this, the Government of Canada throws various freebies at the First Nations people, such as Specific job opportunities only open to First Nations. Thousands of dollars in scholarships only available to First Nations. They allow the First Nations people to govern themselves, yet supply utilities, free healthcare, sanitation systems, etc. Major subsidies to certain post secondary programs only available to First Nations. Free land housing available only to First Nations on Native reserves. Still, every year I hear in the news the First Nations people wanting more special treatment, more freebies. Now arguably, the Government of Canada has been attempting to assimilate First Nations people for the past 100 years, so perhaps the whole First Nations should be happy with what they've got idea has been imprinted into my brain through mass media. I am supposed to sympathize with the First Nations people, but I am finding it difficult to do so. Please Change My View.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a white Canadian citizen, I have grown up with the idea that the First Nations people had their land unfairly taken away from them by the European settlers through unfair treaties, and as a result of this, the Government of Canada throws various freebies at the First Nations people, such as Specific job opportunities only open to First Nations. Thousands of dollars in scholarships only available to First Nations. They allow the First Nations people to govern themselves, yet supply utilities, free healthcare, sanitation systems, etc. Major subsidies to certain post secondary programs only available to First Nations. Free land housing available only to First Nations on Native reserves. Still, every year I hear in the news the First Nations people wanting more special treatment, more freebies. Now arguably, the Government of Canada has been attempting to assimilate First Nations people for the past 100 years, so perhaps the whole First Nations should be happy with what they've got idea has been imprinted into my brain through mass media. I am supposed to sympathize with the First Nations people, but I am finding it difficult to do so. Please Change My View.<|TARGETS|>the idea that the First Nations people had their land unfairly taken away from them by the European settlers through unfair treaties, the whole First Nations should be happy with what they 've got idea has been imprinted into my brain through mass media, Free land housing, Major subsidies to certain post secondary programs, to sympathize with the First Nations people<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a white Canadian citizen, I have grown up with the idea that the First Nations people had their land unfairly taken away from them by the European settlers through unfair treaties, and as a result of this, the Government of Canada throws various freebies at the First Nations people, such as Specific job opportunities only open to First Nations. Thousands of dollars in scholarships only available to First Nations. They allow the First Nations people to govern themselves, yet supply utilities, free healthcare, sanitation systems, etc. Major subsidies to certain post secondary programs only available to First Nations. Free land housing available only to First Nations on Native reserves. Still, every year I hear in the news the First Nations people wanting more special treatment, more freebies. Now arguably, the Government of Canada has been attempting to assimilate First Nations people for the past 100 years, so perhaps the whole First Nations should be happy with what they've got idea has been imprinted into my brain through mass media. I am supposed to sympathize with the First Nations people, but I am finding it difficult to do so. Please Change My View.<|ASPECTS|>free land housing, sympathize, land, assimilate, unfair treaties, free healthcare, special treatment, job opportunities, unfairly taken, change my view, freebies, first nations people, people, first, supply utilities, subsidies, govern, sanitation systems, scholarships, difficult<|CONCLUSION|>","As a white Canadian citizen, I have grown up with the idea that the First Nations people had their land unfairly taken away from them by the European settlers through unfair treaties, and as a result of this, the Government of Canada throws various freebies at the First Nations people, such as Specific job opportunities only open to First Nations. Thousands of dollars in scholarships only available to First Nations. They allow the First Nations people to govern themselves, yet supply utilities, free healthcare, sanitation systems, etc. Major subsidies to certain post secondary programs only available to First Nations. Free land housing available only to First Nations on Native reserves. Still, every year I hear in the news the First Nations people wanting more special treatment, more freebies. Now arguably, the Government of Canada has been attempting to assimilate First Nations people for the past 100 years, so perhaps the whole First Nations should be happy with what they've got idea has been imprinted into my brain through mass media. I am supposed to sympathize with the First Nations people, but I am finding it difficult to do so. Please Change My View.","First Nations people are already given enough freebies in society, and should stop asking for further special treatment."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've looked through other CMVs and none of them really seem to address why piracy is actually legal. I understand why it's less wrong than stealing a car or a handbag because you're not stealing something physical and depriving someone else of using it , but to me it still seems unethical in the same way that fraud is unethical. You're essentially ripping off the artist and the record label who negotiated a contract, and even though no one is losing access to the music the artist label are still losing access to the money that is generated. The main arguments that I've seen in favor of piracy are that you're not taking something from anyone and the record label's pricing is bullshit because there is zero marginal cost. If you disagree with someone's pricing model, don't buy the fucking product. And yes, I am aware of the practical difficulties of separating illegal piracy from legally protected fair use like timeshifting what's the financial or legal difference between taping a song you hear on the radio, taping a song you hear on Spotify or Vevo, and getting the song from a torrent? , but from an ethical and moral issue piracy seems very sleazy to me.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've looked through other CMVs and none of them really seem to address why piracy is actually legal. I understand why it's less wrong than stealing a car or a handbag because you're not stealing something physical and depriving someone else of using it , but to me it still seems unethical in the same way that fraud is unethical. You're essentially ripping off the artist and the record label who negotiated a contract, and even though no one is losing access to the music the artist label are still losing access to the money that is generated. The main arguments that I've seen in favor of piracy are that you're not taking something from anyone and the record label's pricing is bullshit because there is zero marginal cost. If you disagree with someone's pricing model, don't buy the fucking product. And yes, I am aware of the practical difficulties of separating illegal piracy from legally protected fair use like timeshifting what's the financial or legal difference between taping a song you hear on the radio, taping a song you hear on Spotify or Vevo, and getting the song from a torrent? , but from an ethical and moral issue piracy seems very sleazy to me.<|TARGETS|>not stealing something physical and depriving someone else of using it, the fucking product, an ethical and moral issue piracy, not taking something from anyone and the record label 's pricing, The main arguments that I 've seen in favor of piracy, the practical difficulties of separating illegal piracy from legally protected fair use like timeshifting what 's the financial or legal difference between taping a song you hear on the radio taping a song you hear on Spotify or Vevo and getting the song from a torrent<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've looked through other CMVs and none of them really seem to address why piracy is actually legal. I understand why it's less wrong than stealing a car or a handbag because you're not stealing something physical and depriving someone else of using it , but to me it still seems unethical in the same way that fraud is unethical. You're essentially ripping off the artist and the record label who negotiated a contract, and even though no one is losing access to the music the artist label are still losing access to the money that is generated. The main arguments that I've seen in favor of piracy are that you're not taking something from anyone and the record label's pricing is bullshit because there is zero marginal cost. If you disagree with someone's pricing model, don't buy the fucking product. And yes, I am aware of the practical difficulties of separating illegal piracy from legally protected fair use like timeshifting what's the financial or legal difference between taping a song you hear on the radio, taping a song you hear on Spotify or Vevo, and getting the song from a torrent? , but from an ethical and moral issue piracy seems very sleazy to me.<|ASPECTS|>ethical and moral, sleazy, unethical, pricing model, fraud, piracy, money, losing, practical difficulties, protected fair use, marginal cost, less wrong, ripping off the artist, financial or legal difference, depriving, disagree, legal<|CONCLUSION|>","I've looked through other s and none of them really seem to address why piracy is actually legal. I understand why it's less wrong than stealing a car or a handbag because you're not stealing something physical and depriving someone else of using it , but to me it still seems unethical in the same way that fraud is unethical. You're essentially ripping off the artist and the record label who negotiated a contract, and even though no one is losing access to the music the artist label are still losing access to the money that is generated. The main arguments that I've seen in favor of piracy are that you're not taking something from anyone and the record label's pricing is bullshit because there is zero marginal cost. If you disagree with someone's pricing model, don't buy the fucking product. And yes, I am aware of the practical difficulties of separating illegal piracy from legally protected fair use like timeshifting what's the financial or legal difference between taping a song you hear on the radio, taping a song you hear on Spotify or Vevo, and getting the song from a torrent? , but from an ethical and moral issue piracy seems very sleazy to me.","Internet ""piracy"" downloading music and movies that you haven't paid for is morally suspect."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Exhibit A Torture. I realize this is a divisive issue, but frankly I think it's only divisive because the supporters have not done any research of the actual facts and are relying on preconceptions. Based on what I've read, it is very clear that the CIA conducted torture during the War on Terror, and that it was completely ineffectual. Not only is there virtually no evidence that actionable information was ever obtained via Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, but these practices often interfered with conventional interrogations, which were actually effective. I've even read an eyewitness report of an interrogator performing an interrogation while visibly erect. It seems to me that the CIA engaged in depraved, sadistic acts that caused direct harm to the country by wasting valuable intelligence assets, hurting our reputation, and motivating our enemies for literally zero benefit. Exhibit B Mohammad Mosadegh and the Republic of Iran. Back in the 50's, Iran had a peaceful, liberal republic. They had a monarch, the Shah, but power was gradually transitioning towards parliament. Prime Minister Mosadegh was a progressive reformer who had the idea the government should draw on natural resources for funding and idea that's been endorsed by many economists including Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. But when he placed a tax on oil, the company now called BP refused to pay, and the government responded by seizing their assets. The CIA responded by launching a coup covering up their involvement for decades , overthrowing parliament and granting power to the Shah, who kept the oil flowing. The Shah was very authoritarian, sending secret police to hunt down political dissidents, and forcing the country to adopt Western customs the police would even rip burkas off of women in public. Eventually, public discontent mounted to the point of revolution, and with the leftists elements suppressed by secret police , religious extremists were able to take power. Had the CIA simply not done anything, it's easily possible that the Republic of Iran would still exist today rather than the Islamic Republic of Iran , and it could've easily been a US ally. Imagine a world where Iran had worked alongside the US in the War on Terror, offering their insight into local customs and so forth. They could've been a force for peace and stability in the region, but instead the CIA launched a coup and now they shout, Death to America Once again, we see that the CIA used morally wrong methods overthrowing a peaceful republic , and in doing so produced disastrous results. Iran is by no means the only example of this. But I find this example to be particularly inexcusable. Mosadegh was not a Communist and had zero ties whatsoever to the Soviet Union. And the coup didn't just screw over the people of Iran it screwed over Americans too. They've shown that they are not an asset, but a liability. Consistently we can see that their actions only hurt and endanger us. I am perfectly willing to accept the standpoint of, The ends justify the means, but that changes nothing because the end results are just as negative as the means they use. Tbh I don't know if I'm open to changing my view entirely, but I'd certainly like to be able to tone down my feelings on the topic, because I find myself kind of obsessing about this stuff. It bothers me to be a part of a society where an organization that I see as quite frankly even evil is just accepted and even admired.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Exhibit A Torture. I realize this is a divisive issue, but frankly I think it's only divisive because the supporters have not done any research of the actual facts and are relying on preconceptions. Based on what I've read, it is very clear that the CIA conducted torture during the War on Terror, and that it was completely ineffectual. Not only is there virtually no evidence that actionable information was ever obtained via Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, but these practices often interfered with conventional interrogations, which were actually effective. I've even read an eyewitness report of an interrogator performing an interrogation while visibly erect. It seems to me that the CIA engaged in depraved, sadistic acts that caused direct harm to the country by wasting valuable intelligence assets, hurting our reputation, and motivating our enemies for literally zero benefit. Exhibit B Mohammad Mosadegh and the Republic of Iran. Back in the 50's, Iran had a peaceful, liberal republic. They had a monarch, the Shah, but power was gradually transitioning towards parliament. Prime Minister Mosadegh was a progressive reformer who had the idea the government should draw on natural resources for funding and idea that's been endorsed by many economists including Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. But when he placed a tax on oil, the company now called BP refused to pay, and the government responded by seizing their assets. The CIA responded by launching a coup covering up their involvement for decades , overthrowing parliament and granting power to the Shah, who kept the oil flowing. The Shah was very authoritarian, sending secret police to hunt down political dissidents, and forcing the country to adopt Western customs the police would even rip burkas off of women in public. Eventually, public discontent mounted to the point of revolution, and with the leftists elements suppressed by secret police , religious extremists were able to take power. Had the CIA simply not done anything, it's easily possible that the Republic of Iran would still exist today rather than the Islamic Republic of Iran , and it could've easily been a US ally. Imagine a world where Iran had worked alongside the US in the War on Terror, offering their insight into local customs and so forth. They could've been a force for peace and stability in the region, but instead the CIA launched a coup and now they shout, Death to America Once again, we see that the CIA used morally wrong methods overthrowing a peaceful republic , and in doing so produced disastrous results. Iran is by no means the only example of this. But I find this example to be particularly inexcusable. Mosadegh was not a Communist and had zero ties whatsoever to the Soviet Union. And the coup didn't just screw over the people of Iran it screwed over Americans too. They've shown that they are not an asset, but a liability. Consistently we can see that their actions only hurt and endanger us. I am perfectly willing to accept the standpoint of, The ends justify the means, but that changes nothing because the end results are just as negative as the means they use. Tbh I don't know if I'm open to changing my view entirely, but I'd certainly like to be able to tone down my feelings on the topic, because I find myself kind of obsessing about this stuff. It bothers me to be a part of a society where an organization that I see as quite frankly even evil is just accepted and even admired.<|TARGETS|>that actionable information was ever obtained via Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, to be able to tone down my feelings on the topic because I find myself kind of obsessing about this stuff ., Tbh, to accept the standpoint of The ends justify the means, Had the CIA, open to changing my view entirely<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Exhibit A Torture. I realize this is a divisive issue, but frankly I think it's only divisive because the supporters have not done any research of the actual facts and are relying on preconceptions. Based on what I've read, it is very clear that the CIA conducted torture during the War on Terror, and that it was completely ineffectual. Not only is there virtually no evidence that actionable information was ever obtained via Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, but these practices often interfered with conventional interrogations, which were actually effective. I've even read an eyewitness report of an interrogator performing an interrogation while visibly erect. It seems to me that the CIA engaged in depraved, sadistic acts that caused direct harm to the country by wasting valuable intelligence assets, hurting our reputation, and motivating our enemies for literally zero benefit. Exhibit B Mohammad Mosadegh and the Republic of Iran. Back in the 50's, Iran had a peaceful, liberal republic. They had a monarch, the Shah, but power was gradually transitioning towards parliament. Prime Minister Mosadegh was a progressive reformer who had the idea the government should draw on natural resources for funding and idea that's been endorsed by many economists including Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. But when he placed a tax on oil, the company now called BP refused to pay, and the government responded by seizing their assets. The CIA responded by launching a coup covering up their involvement for decades , overthrowing parliament and granting power to the Shah, who kept the oil flowing. The Shah was very authoritarian, sending secret police to hunt down political dissidents, and forcing the country to adopt Western customs the police would even rip burkas off of women in public. Eventually, public discontent mounted to the point of revolution, and with the leftists elements suppressed by secret police , religious extremists were able to take power. Had the CIA simply not done anything, it's easily possible that the Republic of Iran would still exist today rather than the Islamic Republic of Iran , and it could've easily been a US ally. Imagine a world where Iran had worked alongside the US in the War on Terror, offering their insight into local customs and so forth. They could've been a force for peace and stability in the region, but instead the CIA launched a coup and now they shout, Death to America Once again, we see that the CIA used morally wrong methods overthrowing a peaceful republic , and in doing so produced disastrous results. Iran is by no means the only example of this. But I find this example to be particularly inexcusable. Mosadegh was not a Communist and had zero ties whatsoever to the Soviet Union. And the coup didn't just screw over the people of Iran it screwed over Americans too. They've shown that they are not an asset, but a liability. Consistently we can see that their actions only hurt and endanger us. I am perfectly willing to accept the standpoint of, The ends justify the means, but that changes nothing because the end results are just as negative as the means they use. Tbh I don't know if I'm open to changing my view entirely, but I'd certainly like to be able to tone down my feelings on the topic, because I find myself kind of obsessing about this stuff. It bothers me to be a part of a society where an organization that I see as quite frankly even evil is just accepted and even admired.<|ASPECTS|>, death, screwed over americans, view, actionable information, sadistic acts, ends, depraved, progressive reformer, harm, ties, morally wrong methods, torture, research, preconceptions, tax, coup, local customs, hurting our reputation, enemies, liability, women, obsessing, religious extremists, asset, divisive, authoritarian, assets, feelings, inexcusable, negative, admired, shah, overthrowing parliament, granting, oil flowing, parliament, people, zero, endanger us, public discontent, interrogations, effective, peaceful republic, peace, stability, hurt, leftists, intelligence assets, seizing, visibly erect, political dissidents, power, monarch, natural resources, evil, funding, rip burkas, wasting, us ally, end results, western, peaceful, interfered, revolution, disastrous results, changing, facts, ineffectual, accepted, republic, screw, liberal republic<|CONCLUSION|>","Exhibit A Torture. I realize this is a divisive issue, but frankly I think it's only divisive because the supporters have not done any research of the actual facts and are relying on preconceptions. Based on what I've read, it is very clear that the CIA conducted torture during the War on Terror, and that it was completely ineffectual. Not only is there virtually no evidence that actionable information was ever obtained via Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, but these practices often interfered with conventional interrogations, which were actually effective. I've even read an eyewitness report of an interrogator performing an interrogation while visibly erect. It seems to me that the CIA engaged in depraved, sadistic acts that caused direct harm to the country by wasting valuable intelligence assets, hurting our reputation, and motivating our enemies for literally zero benefit. Exhibit B Mohammad Mosadegh and the Republic of Iran. Back in the 50's, Iran had a peaceful, liberal republic. They had a monarch, the Shah, but power was gradually transitioning towards parliament. Prime Minister Mosadegh was a progressive reformer who had the idea the government should draw on natural resources for funding and idea that's been endorsed by many economists including Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. But when he placed a tax on oil, the company now called BP refused to pay, and the government responded by seizing their assets. The CIA responded by launching a coup covering up their involvement for decades , overthrowing parliament and granting power to the Shah, who kept the oil flowing. The Shah was very authoritarian, sending secret police to hunt down political dissidents, and forcing the country to adopt Western customs the police would even rip burkas off of women in public. Eventually, public discontent mounted to the point of revolution, and with the leftists elements suppressed by secret police , religious extremists were able to take power. Had the CIA simply not done anything, it's easily possible that the Republic of Iran would still exist today rather than the Islamic Republic of Iran , and it could've easily been a US ally. Imagine a world where Iran had worked alongside the US in the War on Terror, offering their insight into local customs and so forth. They could've been a force for peace and stability in the region, but instead the CIA launched a coup and now they shout, Death to America Once again, we see that the CIA used morally wrong methods overthrowing a peaceful republic , and in doing so produced disastrous results. Iran is by no means the only example of this. But I find this example to be particularly inexcusable. Mosadegh was not a Communist and had zero ties whatsoever to the Soviet Union. And the coup didn't just screw over the people of Iran it screwed over Americans too. They've shown that they are not an asset, but a liability. Consistently we can see that their actions only hurt and endanger us. I am perfectly willing to accept the standpoint of, The ends justify the means, but that changes nothing because the end results are just as negative as the means they use. Tbh I don't know if I'm open to changing my view entirely, but I'd certainly like to be able to tone down my feelings on the topic, because I find myself kind of obsessing about this stuff. It bothers me to be a part of a society where an organization that I see as quite frankly even evil is just accepted and even admired.","The CIA only causes harm, and should be abolished"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi guys, I know that the death penalty is controversial and tends to fall along party lines. Why can't we have a compromise? Let's say someone murdered one of your parents and lets say you don't personally agree with the death penalty. Whether the murderer is executed or not is largely out of your control, and it may only worsen your anguish to see them die. Conversely, what if the murderer is given life in prison, but you live in constant fear that they will escape and kill you some day? If the point of the courts is to bring justice for those who've been wronged, then why can't we give victims any power of choice when they alone must bear the burden of the murderer's deeds? <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi guys, I know that the death penalty is controversial and tends to fall along party lines. Why can't we have a compromise? Let's say someone murdered one of your parents and lets say you don't personally agree with the death penalty. Whether the murderer is executed or not is largely out of your control, and it may only worsen your anguish to see them die. Conversely, what if the murderer is given life in prison, but you live in constant fear that they will escape and kill you some day? If the point of the courts is to bring justice for those who've been wronged, then why can't we give victims any power of choice when they alone must bear the burden of the murderer's deeds? <|TARGETS|>to bring justice for those who 've been wronged then why ca n't we give victims any power of choice when they alone must bear the burden of the murderer 's deeds, if the murderer is given life in prison but you live in constant fear that they will escape and kill you some day, Let 's say someone murdered one of your parents and lets say you do n't personally agree with the death penalty ., Whether the murderer is executed or not is largely out of your control, the death penalty<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi guys, I know that the death penalty is controversial and tends to fall along party lines. Why can't we have a compromise? Let's say someone murdered one of your parents and lets say you don't personally agree with the death penalty. Whether the murderer is executed or not is largely out of your control, and it may only worsen your anguish to see them die. Conversely, what if the murderer is given life in prison, but you live in constant fear that they will escape and kill you some day? If the point of the courts is to bring justice for those who've been wronged, then why can't we give victims any power of choice when they alone must bear the burden of the murderer's deeds? <|ASPECTS|>power of choice, murdered, worsen, fear, controversial, kill, murderer 's deeds, anguish, bring, burden, control, life in prison, party lines, compromise, justice, death penalty, escape, murderer<|CONCLUSION|>","Hi guys, I know that the death penalty is controversial and tends to fall along party lines. Why can't we have a compromise? Let's say someone murdered one of your parents and lets say you don't personally agree with the death penalty. Whether the murderer is executed or not is largely out of your control, and it may only worsen your anguish to see them die. Conversely, what if the murderer is given life in prison, but you live in constant fear that they will escape and kill you some day? If the point of the courts is to bring justice for those who've been wronged, then why can't we give victims any power of choice when they alone must bear the burden of the murderer's deeds?",Death penalty should be decided by those impacted by the crime
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay, so the title is somewhat apocalyptic and certainly hyperbolic but that is indeed the gist of my belief. With only a few minor exceptions and debatable ones, at that , Democratic Peace Theory is largely true. A quick re cap of DPT Essentially Western style liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. Not included in DPT but included in my theory is the fact that Western style liberal democracies rank the highest in nearly all important measures of development, from literacy to mortality to education to security to finances and beyond. It holds true that nations that reach a certain level of economic prosperity, and with it the accompanying representative and at least somewhat non corrupt political systems, do not fight with other, similar nations. If that is true, then it must be the duty of the West, who espouses these liberal, democratic values to convince or coerce everyone else into following these systems. We have seen that you don't need the institutional history behind Western European economic and political liberalism for it to succeed. Consider Japan Forced in the mid 1800's to accept Western influence, it proceeded to modernise, turning itself into a Western style imperial power. After the Second World War, under the guidance of the victorious Allied powers, Japan became a liberal democracy, and despite a near uninterrupted three thousand year history of totalitarianism and feudalism, the Japanese now rank among the most prosperous and peaceful nations on Earth. Similar examples can be found from South Korea to Chile to Israel and beyond. This all goes to prove that you don't need to be European, or former European colonies US, Australia, SA, etc. to successfully Westernise and thus fall into Democratic Peace Theory. If, then, it is true that A Western style liberal democracies are peaceful, prosperous and progressive comparatively , and B You don't actually have to be Western to successfully adopt the Western system, then it must logically follow that it is the duty of those in the Western style liberal democracies to spread this system, unique in world history, to every corner of the globe. To that end, and, truly, with great sadness, I believe we must be committed to the destruction of all other economic political social systems, or, if not the destruction, then the alteration of those systems to the point that they are compatible with ours which many people would consider destruction anyway . Of course, I am not advocating the death of the adherents to or physical destruction of the locations in which these other systems exist absolutely not It is my sincerest wish that all people could co exist in peace, prosperity and harmony, and I have immense respect for and interest in the works and accomplishments of all the civilisations that have yet arisen on our planet, from the Islamic Golden Age in Baghdad to the Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history that brought us Confucius, Lau Tse and Sun Tzu, and beyond. Even so, it remains true that the countries of the Middle East as an example there are plenty of other regions of the world that are similarly un Westernised, like Central Asia, most of Africa, some of South America, much of South east and East Asia, etc. , with the exception of Israel and formerly Turkey worrying developments there, eh? , are neither liberal nor democratic, and this must be changed, by force if necessary. It is with this theory in mind that I advocate the West's cultural imperialism across the globe, and where necessary and possible, the West's physical intervention, in order to as soon as possible bring about a peaceful, prosperous and stable international order. Change My View, I'm intensely interested in hearing critiques and rebuttals TL DR Western style liberal democracies are peaceful, prosperous and progressive, and they do not fight each other. Because of this, all countries should be coerced or forced into becoming Western style liberal democracies. PS I hope this won't be necessary, but I will make it explicitly clear I am absolutely not a white supremacist or anything like that, and an Arab American or Pakistani Briton is every bit as Western as a French American or Scotsman, provided they are indeed Westernised.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay, so the title is somewhat apocalyptic and certainly hyperbolic but that is indeed the gist of my belief. With only a few minor exceptions and debatable ones, at that , Democratic Peace Theory is largely true. A quick re cap of DPT Essentially Western style liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. Not included in DPT but included in my theory is the fact that Western style liberal democracies rank the highest in nearly all important measures of development, from literacy to mortality to education to security to finances and beyond. It holds true that nations that reach a certain level of economic prosperity, and with it the accompanying representative and at least somewhat non corrupt political systems, do not fight with other, similar nations. If that is true, then it must be the duty of the West, who espouses these liberal, democratic values to convince or coerce everyone else into following these systems. We have seen that you don't need the institutional history behind Western European economic and political liberalism for it to succeed. Consider Japan Forced in the mid 1800's to accept Western influence, it proceeded to modernise, turning itself into a Western style imperial power. After the Second World War, under the guidance of the victorious Allied powers, Japan became a liberal democracy, and despite a near uninterrupted three thousand year history of totalitarianism and feudalism, the Japanese now rank among the most prosperous and peaceful nations on Earth. Similar examples can be found from South Korea to Chile to Israel and beyond. This all goes to prove that you don't need to be European, or former European colonies US, Australia, SA, etc. to successfully Westernise and thus fall into Democratic Peace Theory. If, then, it is true that A Western style liberal democracies are peaceful, prosperous and progressive comparatively , and B You don't actually have to be Western to successfully adopt the Western system, then it must logically follow that it is the duty of those in the Western style liberal democracies to spread this system, unique in world history, to every corner of the globe. To that end, and, truly, with great sadness, I believe we must be committed to the destruction of all other economic political social systems, or, if not the destruction, then the alteration of those systems to the point that they are compatible with ours which many people would consider destruction anyway . Of course, I am not advocating the death of the adherents to or physical destruction of the locations in which these other systems exist absolutely not It is my sincerest wish that all people could co exist in peace, prosperity and harmony, and I have immense respect for and interest in the works and accomplishments of all the civilisations that have yet arisen on our planet, from the Islamic Golden Age in Baghdad to the Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history that brought us Confucius, Lau Tse and Sun Tzu, and beyond. Even so, it remains true that the countries of the Middle East as an example there are plenty of other regions of the world that are similarly un Westernised, like Central Asia, most of Africa, some of South America, much of South east and East Asia, etc. , with the exception of Israel and formerly Turkey worrying developments there, eh? , are neither liberal nor democratic, and this must be changed, by force if necessary. It is with this theory in mind that I advocate the West's cultural imperialism across the globe, and where necessary and possible, the West's physical intervention, in order to as soon as possible bring about a peaceful, prosperous and stable international order. Change My View, I'm intensely interested in hearing critiques and rebuttals TL DR Western style liberal democracies are peaceful, prosperous and progressive, and they do not fight each other. Because of this, all countries should be coerced or forced into becoming Western style liberal democracies. PS I hope this won't be necessary, but I will make it explicitly clear I am absolutely not a white supremacist or anything like that, and an Arab American or Pakistani Briton is every bit as Western as a French American or Scotsman, provided they are indeed Westernised.<|TARGETS|>to be Western to successfully adopt the Western system then it must logically follow that it is the duty of those in the Western style liberal democracies to spread this system unique in world history to every corner of the globe ., A Western style liberal democracies, Western style liberal democracies, Change My View, nations that reach a certain level of economic prosperity and with it the accompanying representative and at least somewhat non corrupt political systems, these liberal democratic values to convince or coerce everyone else into following these systems .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay, so the title is somewhat apocalyptic and certainly hyperbolic but that is indeed the gist of my belief. With only a few minor exceptions and debatable ones, at that , Democratic Peace Theory is largely true. A quick re cap of DPT Essentially Western style liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. Not included in DPT but included in my theory is the fact that Western style liberal democracies rank the highest in nearly all important measures of development, from literacy to mortality to education to security to finances and beyond. It holds true that nations that reach a certain level of economic prosperity, and with it the accompanying representative and at least somewhat non corrupt political systems, do not fight with other, similar nations. If that is true, then it must be the duty of the West, who espouses these liberal, democratic values to convince or coerce everyone else into following these systems. We have seen that you don't need the institutional history behind Western European economic and political liberalism for it to succeed. Consider Japan Forced in the mid 1800's to accept Western influence, it proceeded to modernise, turning itself into a Western style imperial power. After the Second World War, under the guidance of the victorious Allied powers, Japan became a liberal democracy, and despite a near uninterrupted three thousand year history of totalitarianism and feudalism, the Japanese now rank among the most prosperous and peaceful nations on Earth. Similar examples can be found from South Korea to Chile to Israel and beyond. This all goes to prove that you don't need to be European, or former European colonies US, Australia, SA, etc. to successfully Westernise and thus fall into Democratic Peace Theory. If, then, it is true that A Western style liberal democracies are peaceful, prosperous and progressive comparatively , and B You don't actually have to be Western to successfully adopt the Western system, then it must logically follow that it is the duty of those in the Western style liberal democracies to spread this system, unique in world history, to every corner of the globe. To that end, and, truly, with great sadness, I believe we must be committed to the destruction of all other economic political social systems, or, if not the destruction, then the alteration of those systems to the point that they are compatible with ours which many people would consider destruction anyway . Of course, I am not advocating the death of the adherents to or physical destruction of the locations in which these other systems exist absolutely not It is my sincerest wish that all people could co exist in peace, prosperity and harmony, and I have immense respect for and interest in the works and accomplishments of all the civilisations that have yet arisen on our planet, from the Islamic Golden Age in Baghdad to the Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history that brought us Confucius, Lau Tse and Sun Tzu, and beyond. Even so, it remains true that the countries of the Middle East as an example there are plenty of other regions of the world that are similarly un Westernised, like Central Asia, most of Africa, some of South America, much of South east and East Asia, etc. , with the exception of Israel and formerly Turkey worrying developments there, eh? , are neither liberal nor democratic, and this must be changed, by force if necessary. It is with this theory in mind that I advocate the West's cultural imperialism across the globe, and where necessary and possible, the West's physical intervention, in order to as soon as possible bring about a peaceful, prosperous and stable international order. Change My View, I'm intensely interested in hearing critiques and rebuttals TL DR Western style liberal democracies are peaceful, prosperous and progressive, and they do not fight each other. Because of this, all countries should be coerced or forced into becoming Western style liberal democracies. PS I hope this won't be necessary, but I will make it explicitly clear I am absolutely not a white supremacist or anything like that, and an Arab American or Pakistani Briton is every bit as Western as a French American or Scotsman, provided they are indeed Westernised.<|ASPECTS|>, democratic peace theory, death, westernised, harmony, liberal democracies, destruction, democratic, liberal, political social, coerce, literacy, stable international order, political liberalism, totalitarianism, cultural imperialism, economic prosperity, fight each, liberal democracy, white supremacist, european, feudalism, physical destruction, duty of the west, finances, respect, mortality, prosperous, western influence, peace, prosperity, hyperbolic, un westernised, westernise, former, apocalyptic, western, worrying developments, peaceful, system, war, education, prosperous and progressive, coerced, western style, institutional history, style, security, democratic values, imperial power<|CONCLUSION|>","Okay, so the title is somewhat apocalyptic and certainly hyperbolic but that is indeed the gist of my belief. With only a few minor exceptions and debatable ones, at that , Democratic Peace Theory is largely true. A quick re cap of DPT Essentially Western style liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. Not included in DPT but included in my theory is the fact that Western style liberal democracies rank the highest in nearly all important measures of development, from literacy to mortality to education to security to finances and beyond. It holds true that nations that reach a certain level of economic prosperity, and with it the accompanying representative and at least somewhat non corrupt political systems, do not fight with other, similar nations. If that is true, then it must be the duty of the West, who espouses these liberal, democratic values to convince or coerce everyone else into following these systems. We have seen that you don't need the institutional history behind Western European economic and political liberalism for it to succeed. Consider Japan Forced in the mid 1800's to accept Western influence, it proceeded to modernise, turning itself into a Western style imperial power. After the Second World War, under the guidance of the victorious Allied powers, Japan became a liberal democracy, and despite a near uninterrupted three thousand year history of totalitarianism and feudalism, the Japanese now rank among the most prosperous and peaceful nations on Earth. Similar examples can be found from South Korea to Chile to Israel and beyond. This all goes to prove that you don't need to be European, or former European colonies US, Australia, SA, etc. to successfully Westernise and thus fall into Democratic Peace Theory. If, then, it is true that A Western style liberal democracies are peaceful, prosperous and progressive comparatively , and B You don't actually have to be Western to successfully adopt the Western system, then it must logically follow that it is the duty of those in the Western style liberal democracies to spread this system, unique in world history, to every corner of the globe. To that end, and, truly, with great sadness, I believe we must be committed to the destruction of all other economic political social systems, or, if not the destruction, then the alteration of those systems to the point that they are compatible with ours which many people would consider destruction anyway . Of course, I am not advocating the death of the adherents to or physical destruction of the locations in which these other systems exist absolutely not It is my sincerest wish that all people could co exist in peace, prosperity and harmony, and I have immense respect for and interest in the works and accomplishments of all the civilisations that have yet arisen on our planet, from the Islamic Golden Age in Baghdad to the Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history that brought us Confucius, Lau Tse and Sun Tzu, and beyond. Even so, it remains true that the countries of the Middle East as an example there are plenty of other regions of the world that are similarly un Westernised, like Central Asia, most of Africa, some of South America, much of South east and East Asia, etc. , with the exception of Israel and formerly Turkey worrying developments there, eh? , are neither liberal nor democratic, and this must be changed, by force if necessary. It is with this theory in mind that I advocate the West's cultural imperialism across the globe, and where necessary and possible, the West's physical intervention, in order to as soon as possible bring about a peaceful, prosperous and stable international order. Change My View, I'm intensely interested in hearing critiques and rebuttals TL DR Western style liberal democracies are peaceful, prosperous and progressive, and they do not fight each other. Because of this, all countries should be coerced or forced into becoming Western style liberal democracies. PS I hope this won't be necessary, but I will make it explicitly clear I am absolutely not a white supremacist or anything like that, and an Arab American or Pakistani Briton is every bit as Western as a French American or Scotsman, provided they are indeed Westernised.",I believe lasting peace will only occur once we have destroyed the other civilisations of the world and replace them with our own.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>World real GDP per capita is on a continuous long run upward trend and this rising prosperity is seen in almost every country on earth real GDP per capita is strongly related to human development Human Development Reports also released this god awful graph that shows that HDI is also increasing , this economic growth is also good for the poor and the environment , . Furthermore, while there is some debate about how to measure absolute poverty it is certainly decreasing Things are better than you think in the US and UK too with poverty much lower than you think and wages not stagnating as much as most people believe None of this is to say that things are perfect or that they can’t get better but I think that we need to take a moment to look and just appreciate how much better the world is getting every day.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>World real GDP per capita is on a continuous long run upward trend and this rising prosperity is seen in almost every country on earth real GDP per capita is strongly related to human development Human Development Reports also released this god awful graph that shows that HDI is also increasing , this economic growth is also good for the poor and the environment , . Furthermore, while there is some debate about how to measure absolute poverty it is certainly decreasing Things are better than you think in the US and UK too with poverty much lower than you think and wages not stagnating as much as most people believe None of this is to say that things are perfect or that they can’t get better but I think that we need to take a moment to look and just appreciate how much better the world is getting every day.<|TARGETS|>World real GDP per capita, to take a moment to look and just appreciate how much better the world is getting every day ., some debate about how to measure absolute poverty it, the US and UK too with poverty much lower than you think and wages not stagnating as much as most people believe None of this is to say that things are perfect or that they ca n’t get better<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>World real GDP per capita is on a continuous long run upward trend and this rising prosperity is seen in almost every country on earth real GDP per capita is strongly related to human development Human Development Reports also released this god awful graph that shows that HDI is also increasing , this economic growth is also good for the poor and the environment , . Furthermore, while there is some debate about how to measure absolute poverty it is certainly decreasing Things are better than you think in the US and UK too with poverty much lower than you think and wages not stagnating as much as most people believe None of this is to say that things are perfect or that they can’t get better but I think that we need to take a moment to look and just appreciate how much better the world is getting every day.<|ASPECTS|>better, prosperity, absolute, economic growth, poverty, poor, rising, wages, environment, perfect<|CONCLUSION|>","World real GDP per capita is on a continuous long run upward trend and this rising prosperity is seen in almost every country on earth real GDP per capita is strongly related to human development Human Development Reports also released this god awful graph that shows that HDI is also increasing , this economic growth is also good for the poor and the environment , . Furthermore, while there is some debate about how to measure absolute poverty it is certainly decreasing Things are better than you think in the US and UK too with poverty much lower than you think and wages not stagnating as much as most people believe None of this is to say that things are perfect or that they can’t get better but I think that we need to take a moment to look and just appreciate how much better the world is getting every day.",the wporld is becoming a better place
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Currently the only reason I can think of to make a bed is to make it look pretty, which, if you don’t care about aesthetics, is meaningless. Otherwise, a making your bed only has cons. It is more difficult to get into, meaning you are putting extra effort into making your life more difficult. Yes, it can help with self discipline, but that is related to an entirely different issue than just making your bed. There are many things that making your bed can help with, like relaxation, but what I am trying to say is that the made bed itself has no practical purpose.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Currently the only reason I can think of to make a bed is to make it look pretty, which, if you don’t care about aesthetics, is meaningless. Otherwise, a making your bed only has cons. It is more difficult to get into, meaning you are putting extra effort into making your life more difficult. Yes, it can help with self discipline, but that is related to an entirely different issue than just making your bed. There are many things that making your bed can help with, like relaxation, but what I am trying to say is that the made bed itself has no practical purpose.<|TARGETS|>making your bed can help with like relaxation but what I am trying to say is that the made bed itself, to make a bed, if you do n’t care about aesthetics, putting extra effort into making your life more difficult ., a making your bed<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Currently the only reason I can think of to make a bed is to make it look pretty, which, if you don’t care about aesthetics, is meaningless. Otherwise, a making your bed only has cons. It is more difficult to get into, meaning you are putting extra effort into making your life more difficult. Yes, it can help with self discipline, but that is related to an entirely different issue than just making your bed. There are many things that making your bed can help with, like relaxation, but what I am trying to say is that the made bed itself has no practical purpose.<|ASPECTS|>, meaningless, cons, self discipline, practical purpose, look, aesthetics, life more difficult, relaxation, pretty, difficult<|CONCLUSION|>","Currently the only reason I can think of to make a bed is to make it look pretty, which, if you don’t care about aesthetics, is meaningless. Otherwise, a making your bed only has cons. It is more difficult to get into, meaning you are putting extra effort into making your life more difficult. Yes, it can help with self discipline, but that is related to an entirely different issue than just making your bed. There are many things that making your bed can help with, like relaxation, but what I am trying to say is that the made bed itself has no practical purpose.",A messy bed is more practical than a made one
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a hard determinist. Determinism is basically the philosophy that the future has already been decided by the natural forces of the Universe interactions at the atomic level, gravity, etc. , and can't be changed. Everything we do, have done, or ever will do has already been decided. Nothing else can happen. But I can decide to pick up this cup right now You're not making that decision. The decision is being made for you, by the neurons in your brain, as a defense mechanism. Neurons are just electrically charged or uncharged cells. We have a lot of them, so we think we have a mind of our own and autonomy over ourselves. We really don't. Consciousness is just an illusion developed over countless years of evolution to help us outwit other animals. In the end, our brain is just a giant mass of particles. Therefore, there is a finite limit to its complexity. Sure, it feels like we have free will, but we don't have absolute free will. The future has already been decided. When you think of yourself as nothing more than a soulless mass of particles, I know it may shatter your worldview and you'll want to wholeheartedly deny it, but our minds are so simple that we just stop caring a few minutes later. Hell, after writing this post about how I'm nothing but particles and forces, I'll probably go and play Pokemon or something like it was nothing. Our brains don't give a shit about any of that philosophical mumbo jumbo at least not for extended periods of time. Our brain only cares about the simple things, such as survival, acceptance, and entertainment. So don't be mad at yourself for doing that stupid thing you did at a party years ago. It was bound to happen, anyway. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a hard determinist. Determinism is basically the philosophy that the future has already been decided by the natural forces of the Universe interactions at the atomic level, gravity, etc. , and can't be changed. Everything we do, have done, or ever will do has already been decided. Nothing else can happen. But I can decide to pick up this cup right now You're not making that decision. The decision is being made for you, by the neurons in your brain, as a defense mechanism. Neurons are just electrically charged or uncharged cells. We have a lot of them, so we think we have a mind of our own and autonomy over ourselves. We really don't. Consciousness is just an illusion developed over countless years of evolution to help us outwit other animals. In the end, our brain is just a giant mass of particles. Therefore, there is a finite limit to its complexity. Sure, it feels like we have free will, but we don't have absolute free will. The future has already been decided. When you think of yourself as nothing more than a soulless mass of particles, I know it may shatter your worldview and you'll want to wholeheartedly deny it, but our minds are so simple that we just stop caring a few minutes later. Hell, after writing this post about how I'm nothing but particles and forces, I'll probably go and play Pokemon or something like it was nothing. Our brains don't give a shit about any of that philosophical mumbo jumbo at least not for extended periods of time. Our brain only cares about the simple things, such as survival, acceptance, and entertainment. So don't be mad at yourself for doing that stupid thing you did at a party years ago. It was bound to happen, anyway. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>The decision, to wholeheartedly deny it but our minds, to remind you of a couple of things ., Neurons, stop caring a few minutes later ., a shit about any of that philosophical mumbo jumbo<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a hard determinist. Determinism is basically the philosophy that the future has already been decided by the natural forces of the Universe interactions at the atomic level, gravity, etc. , and can't be changed. Everything we do, have done, or ever will do has already been decided. Nothing else can happen. But I can decide to pick up this cup right now You're not making that decision. The decision is being made for you, by the neurons in your brain, as a defense mechanism. Neurons are just electrically charged or uncharged cells. We have a lot of them, so we think we have a mind of our own and autonomy over ourselves. We really don't. Consciousness is just an illusion developed over countless years of evolution to help us outwit other animals. In the end, our brain is just a giant mass of particles. Therefore, there is a finite limit to its complexity. Sure, it feels like we have free will, but we don't have absolute free will. The future has already been decided. When you think of yourself as nothing more than a soulless mass of particles, I know it may shatter your worldview and you'll want to wholeheartedly deny it, but our minds are so simple that we just stop caring a few minutes later. Hell, after writing this post about how I'm nothing but particles and forces, I'll probably go and play Pokemon or something like it was nothing. Our brains don't give a shit about any of that philosophical mumbo jumbo at least not for extended periods of time. Our brain only cares about the simple things, such as survival, acceptance, and entertainment. So don't be mad at yourself for doing that stupid thing you did at a party years ago. It was bound to happen, anyway. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>, natural forces, complexity, defense mechanism, entertainment, finite limit, outwit other animals, brains, survival, decided, particles and forces, remind, determinism, brain, popular topics, philosophical mumbo jumbo, mad, future, simple things, already, giant mass of particles, hard determinist, concerns, cares, shatter, effective, free, downvotes, decision, happy cmving, worldview, stupid, acceptance, soulless mass of particles, electrically charged, consciousness, message us, change, downvote, nothing else can happen, questions, illusion, changed, ca n't, uncharged cells, autonomy over<|CONCLUSION|>","I am a hard determinist. Determinism is basically the philosophy that the future has already been decided by the natural forces of the Universe interactions at the atomic level, gravity, etc. , and can't be changed. Everything we do, have done, or ever will do has already been decided. Nothing else can happen. But I can decide to pick up this cup right now You're not making that decision. The decision is being made for you, by the neurons in your brain, as a defense mechanism. Neurons are just electrically charged or uncharged cells. We have a lot of them, so we think we have a mind of our own and autonomy over ourselves. We really don't. Consciousness is just an illusion developed over countless years of evolution to help us outwit other animals. In the end, our brain is just a giant mass of particles. Therefore, there is a finite limit to its complexity. Sure, it feels like we have free will, but we don't have absolute free will. The future has already been decided. When you think of yourself as nothing more than a soulless mass of particles, I know it may shatter your worldview and you'll want to wholeheartedly deny it, but our minds are so simple that we just stop caring a few minutes later. Hell, after writing this post about how I'm nothing but particles and forces, I'll probably go and play Pokemon or something like it was nothing. Our brains don't give a shit about any of that philosophical mumbo jumbo at least not for extended periods of time. Our brain only cares about the simple things, such as survival, acceptance, and entertainment. So don't be mad at yourself for doing that stupid thing you did at a party years ago. It was bound to happen, anyway. gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing",Free will does not exist.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's start with some statistics 40 years ago vs now, so 1978 vs. 2018. In 1978, real personal median income adjusting for inflation was ~ 23,700 Please note The graph uses 2017 dollars, so I am using this to adjust to August 2018 dollars. In 2018, using the same graph and inflation to August 2018 adjustment, it is 32,000 In 1978, a household was 2.78 people living in a 1,655 square foot home The median price of a home was, again adjusted for Aug 2018 dollars 214k. So a house 40 years ago would cost 129 square foot, and there were 595 sq ft person and 2.78 persons. A house would cost 9x the median personal income. In 2018, real median personal income is 32,000. Median home price is 310,000. At face value, a house is now 9.7x median personal income vs 9.0x 40 years ago. However, a household now contains roughly 2.54 people and is roughly 2426 square feet This means the price per square foot in 2018 is 128. gt So a house 40 years ago would cost 129 square foot, and there were 595 sq ft person and 2.78 persons. A house would cost 9x the median personal income. And a house today would cost 128 square foot, and there are 955 sq feet person and 2.54 persons. A house would cost 9.7x median personal income. but people are buying larger houses. Based on this data, 2.54 people 40 years ago would have purchased a ~1500 square foot home, and today the same 2.54 people would purchase a ~2400 square foot home. People are buying 60 larger homes today, and that's where the difference is. I know at this point, may will mention student loans. Average student loan debt per graduate again adjusting for 2018 dollars, is ~ 39k. In 1978, roughly 14 of those 25 had a college degree. Now, 33 of adults have a college degree. In 2018 Q2, median yearly earnings for those with a bachelor's was ~ 68k In 1978, median earnings adjusted for those with a college degree were ~ 56k in 2018 dollars. If you assume a 500 monthly payment on the debt which is a payoff timeline of 8 years assuming 6 interest , that reduces current college graduate income yearly to 62,000. That is still an 11 increase since 1978 even factoring in loans, while competition via more people with bachelor's degrees has increased exponentially, and home prices are pretty much exactly the same on a square foot basis. The earnings and home affordability for those without a college education has plummeted, however, and those who did not go to college. I will admit, this actually only makes the argument for college stronger in my view because wages have significantly declined for those with only a HS degree. Assuming home prices remained stagnant by sq ft , this means that for 67 of the population without a degree, it is a near impossibility to own living space. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's start with some statistics 40 years ago vs now, so 1978 vs. 2018. In 1978, real personal median income adjusting for inflation was ~ 23,700 Please note The graph uses 2017 dollars, so I am using this to adjust to August 2018 dollars. In 2018, using the same graph and inflation to August 2018 adjustment, it is 32,000 In 1978, a household was 2.78 people living in a 1,655 square foot home The median price of a home was, again adjusted for Aug 2018 dollars 214k. So a house 40 years ago would cost 129 square foot, and there were 595 sq ft person and 2.78 persons. A house would cost 9x the median personal income. In 2018, real median personal income is 32,000. Median home price is 310,000. At face value, a house is now 9.7x median personal income vs 9.0x 40 years ago. However, a household now contains roughly 2.54 people and is roughly 2426 square feet This means the price per square foot in 2018 is 128. gt So a house 40 years ago would cost 129 square foot, and there were 595 sq ft person and 2.78 persons. A house would cost 9x the median personal income. And a house today would cost 128 square foot, and there are 955 sq feet person and 2.54 persons. A house would cost 9.7x median personal income. but people are buying larger houses. Based on this data, 2.54 people 40 years ago would have purchased a ~1500 square foot home, and today the same 2.54 people would purchase a ~2400 square foot home. People are buying 60 larger homes today, and that's where the difference is. I know at this point, may will mention student loans. Average student loan debt per graduate again adjusting for 2018 dollars, is ~ 39k. In 1978, roughly 14 of those 25 had a college degree. Now, 33 of adults have a college degree. In 2018 Q2, median yearly earnings for those with a bachelor's was ~ 68k In 1978, median earnings adjusted for those with a college degree were ~ 56k in 2018 dollars. If you assume a 500 monthly payment on the debt which is a payoff timeline of 8 years assuming 6 interest , that reduces current college graduate income yearly to 62,000. That is still an 11 increase since 1978 even factoring in loans, while competition via more people with bachelor's degrees has increased exponentially, and home prices are pretty much exactly the same on a square foot basis. The earnings and home affordability for those without a college education has plummeted, however, and those who did not go to college. I will admit, this actually only makes the argument for college stronger in my view because wages have significantly declined for those with only a HS degree. Assuming home prices remained stagnant by sq ft , this means that for 67 of the population without a degree, it is a near impossibility to own living space. <|TARGETS|>buying larger houses, a 500 monthly payment on the debt, Assuming home prices remained stagnant by sq ft, A house, competition via more people with bachelor 's degrees, Median home price<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's start with some statistics 40 years ago vs now, so 1978 vs. 2018. In 1978, real personal median income adjusting for inflation was ~ 23,700 Please note The graph uses 2017 dollars, so I am using this to adjust to August 2018 dollars. In 2018, using the same graph and inflation to August 2018 adjustment, it is 32,000 In 1978, a household was 2.78 people living in a 1,655 square foot home The median price of a home was, again adjusted for Aug 2018 dollars 214k. So a house 40 years ago would cost 129 square foot, and there were 595 sq ft person and 2.78 persons. A house would cost 9x the median personal income. In 2018, real median personal income is 32,000. Median home price is 310,000. At face value, a house is now 9.7x median personal income vs 9.0x 40 years ago. However, a household now contains roughly 2.54 people and is roughly 2426 square feet This means the price per square foot in 2018 is 128. gt So a house 40 years ago would cost 129 square foot, and there were 595 sq ft person and 2.78 persons. A house would cost 9x the median personal income. And a house today would cost 128 square foot, and there are 955 sq feet person and 2.54 persons. A house would cost 9.7x median personal income. but people are buying larger houses. Based on this data, 2.54 people 40 years ago would have purchased a ~1500 square foot home, and today the same 2.54 people would purchase a ~2400 square foot home. People are buying 60 larger homes today, and that's where the difference is. I know at this point, may will mention student loans. Average student loan debt per graduate again adjusting for 2018 dollars, is ~ 39k. In 1978, roughly 14 of those 25 had a college degree. Now, 33 of adults have a college degree. In 2018 Q2, median yearly earnings for those with a bachelor's was ~ 68k In 1978, median earnings adjusted for those with a college degree were ~ 56k in 2018 dollars. If you assume a 500 monthly payment on the debt which is a payoff timeline of 8 years assuming 6 interest , that reduces current college graduate income yearly to 62,000. That is still an 11 increase since 1978 even factoring in loans, while competition via more people with bachelor's degrees has increased exponentially, and home prices are pretty much exactly the same on a square foot basis. The earnings and home affordability for those without a college education has plummeted, however, and those who did not go to college. I will admit, this actually only makes the argument for college stronger in my view because wages have significantly declined for those with only a HS degree. Assuming home prices remained stagnant by sq ft , this means that for 67 of the population without a degree, it is a near impossibility to own living space. <|ASPECTS|>real, student loan debt per, price per, personal income, impossibility, student loans, wages have significantly declined, home prices, median, home price, median price, adults, home affordability, stagnant, buying larger houses, median personal income, buying, competition, statistics, larger homes, yearly earnings, earnings, college degree, cost, personal median income, payoff, college, living space, college graduate income<|CONCLUSION|>","Let's start with some statistics 40 years ago vs now, so 1978 vs. 2018. In 1978, real personal median income adjusting for inflation was ~ 23,700 Please note The graph uses 2017 dollars, so I am using this to adjust to August 2018 dollars. In 2018, using the same graph and inflation to August 2018 adjustment, it is 32,000 In 1978, a household was 2.78 people living in a 1,655 square foot home The median price of a home was, again adjusted for Aug 2018 dollars 214k. So a house 40 years ago would cost 129 square foot, and there were 595 sq ft person and 2.78 persons. A house would cost 9x the median personal income. In 2018, real median personal income is 32,000. Median home price is 310,000. At face value, a house is now 9.7x median personal income vs 9.0x 40 years ago. However, a household now contains roughly 2.54 people and is roughly 2426 square feet This means the price per square foot in 2018 is 128. gt So a house 40 years ago would cost 129 square foot, and there were 595 sq ft person and 2.78 persons. A house would cost 9x the median personal income. And a house today would cost 128 square foot, and there are 955 sq feet person and 2.54 persons. A house would cost 9.7x median personal income. but people are buying larger houses. Based on this data, 2.54 people 40 years ago would have purchased a ~1500 square foot home, and today the same 2.54 people would purchase a ~2400 square foot home. People are buying 60 larger homes today, and that's where the difference is. I know at this point, may will mention student loans. Average student loan debt per graduate again adjusting for 2018 dollars, is ~ 39k. In 1978, roughly 14 of those 25 had a college degree. Now, 33 of adults have a college degree. In 2018 Q2, median yearly earnings for those with a bachelor's was ~ 68k In 1978, median earnings adjusted for those with a college degree were ~ 56k in 2018 dollars. If you assume a 500 monthly payment on the debt which is a payoff timeline of 8 years assuming 6 interest , that reduces current college graduate income yearly to 62,000. That is still an 11 increase since 1978 even factoring in loans, while competition via more people with bachelor's degrees has increased exponentially, and home prices are pretty much exactly the same on a square foot basis. The earnings and home affordability for those without a college education has plummeted, however, and those who did not go to college. I will admit, this actually only makes the argument for college stronger in my view because wages have significantly declined for those with only a HS degree. Assuming home prices remained stagnant by sq ft , this means that for 67 of the population without a degree, it is a near impossibility to own living space.","Living Space is actually more affordable than it was in decades past, and college-educated Millennials are significantly better off relative to non-graduates compared to 40 years ago, especially when measured by wages and house affordability"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that if a person is seriously in so much pain, it’s understandable that suicide seems like a desirable answer. I think just about every suicidal person ever has obviously considered those around them and their context, and the impact it may have on others. They may identify that it would significantly impact others, or they may have a skewed view and believe that nobody would really care. Either way they come to the conclusion that their own pain is too great despite having empathy for those close to you if any and they shouldn’t deserve to suffer like this. Is it really their fault if their mind functions in such a way that they believe their pain is greater than the impact their suicide will have? Depression is a disease the same as any other and some people, despite all their fighting, unfortunately lose their battle. I do not believe that is a selfish thing to do when you consider their pain, although I’m being told by almost everyone that I ask that it is terribly selfish.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that if a person is seriously in so much pain, it’s understandable that suicide seems like a desirable answer. I think just about every suicidal person ever has obviously considered those around them and their context, and the impact it may have on others. They may identify that it would significantly impact others, or they may have a skewed view and believe that nobody would really care. Either way they come to the conclusion that their own pain is too great despite having empathy for those close to you if any and they shouldn’t deserve to suffer like this. Is it really their fault if their mind functions in such a way that they believe their pain is greater than the impact their suicide will have? Depression is a disease the same as any other and some people, despite all their fighting, unfortunately lose their battle. I do not believe that is a selfish thing to do when you consider their pain, although I’m being told by almost everyone that I ask that it is terribly selfish.<|TARGETS|>just about every suicidal person ever has obviously considered those around them and their context and the impact it may have on others ., if their mind functions in such a way that they believe their pain, to do when you consider their pain although I ’m being told by almost everyone that I ask that it is terribly selfish ., Either way they come to the conclusion that their own pain, if a person is seriously in so much pain it ’s understandable that suicide, having empathy for those close to you if any and they should n’t deserve to suffer like this .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that if a person is seriously in so much pain, it’s understandable that suicide seems like a desirable answer. I think just about every suicidal person ever has obviously considered those around them and their context, and the impact it may have on others. They may identify that it would significantly impact others, or they may have a skewed view and believe that nobody would really care. Either way they come to the conclusion that their own pain is too great despite having empathy for those close to you if any and they shouldn’t deserve to suffer like this. Is it really their fault if their mind functions in such a way that they believe their pain is greater than the impact their suicide will have? Depression is a disease the same as any other and some people, despite all their fighting, unfortunately lose their battle. I do not believe that is a selfish thing to do when you consider their pain, although I’m being told by almost everyone that I ask that it is terribly selfish.<|ASPECTS|>context, depression, desirable answer, pain, skewed view, suicidal person, disease, suicide, selfish, pain is, empathy, impact, significantly, impact others, lose their battle, suffer, mind functions<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that if a person is seriously in so much pain, it’s understandable that suicide seems like a desirable answer. I think just about every suicidal person ever has obviously considered those around them and their context, and the impact it may have on others. They may identify that it would significantly impact others, or they may have a skewed view and believe that nobody would really care. Either way they come to the conclusion that their own pain is too great despite having empathy for those close to you if any and they shouldn’t deserve to suffer like this. Is it really their fault if their mind functions in such a way that they believe their pain is greater than the impact their suicide will have? Depression is a disease the same as any other and some people, despite all their fighting, unfortunately lose their battle. I do not believe that is a selfish thing to do when you consider their pain, although I’m being told by almost everyone that I ask that it is terribly selfish.",Suicide is not selfish
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When you consider how the majority of dog attacks are by pitbulls and that the vast majority of attacks on small children are unprovoked, I feel it is difficult to argue that pitbulls are not predispositioned towards extreme violence. Using newspaper articles, the CDC was able to obtain breed identifications for 238 of the 327 cases of fatal dog attacks of which pit bull terrier or mixes thereof were reportedly involved in 76 cases. The breed with the next highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities. 10 Pit bulls have constituted approximately 2 of the dogs in the U.S., and a 9 year 1979–88 review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the attacks in which breed was recorded. I know many pitbull owners argue that attacks are instigated by formerly abused dogs. Firstly, I'm not entirely convinced that abuse always produces violence anecdotally, I know about three formerly abused dogs who are all readily submissive and prone to flinching, not aggression . Secondly, how do they know this? No matter what the context, many comments on news articles about pitbull attacks involves some owner condemning the actions of either the victim the parents should've been watching or the owner what an idiot, I would never do that . It just seems to be one giant just world fallacy. I've never seen any statistical data into pitbull cases proving that a majority of lethal pitbulls were abused. I'm not entirely sure what I feel the solution should be. Maybe pitbull owners should be required to muzzle their dogs whenever they leave their property? What happens to dog owners whose dogs attack others? I hear about pit bull owners being sued, but why shouldn't this be a criminal offence? EDIT My conclusion Firstly, I'm seriously impressed by how awesome these comments are. This is easily my new favourite subreddit. I still believe that certain dog breeds are more aggressive than others, but I changed by view and think that other factors are more significant than breed. This post in particular really focused on things like reproductive status, sex, age, and socialization. Many other posters have mentioned that criminals and anti social people are more likely to own pitbulls. These people are probably less educated, and are therefore more likely to buy their pitbull based on the stereotype of their aggression and lack the means to properly care for their pet. All of these other factors appear to take precedent over breed. I do not think that pit bulls are the most dangerous dog breeds anymore at least in terms of which dog attacks people the most. However, a few users have mentioned that the issue is not the frequency of pitbull attacks, but the severity of them. Because of the severity not frequency of pitbull attacks, the jury is still out for me on the issue of legislation. As for legislation, this post provided a lot of great links to organizations that argue against legislation. In particular, this link to the Humane Society was helpful. Some reasons why breed specific legislation doesn't work include the difficulty in identifying breeds, something that Isabelle50 also brought up. Maybe it hasn't changed my view, but it's definitely muddled it. With that said, the Humane Society argues that breed specific legislation does not work, which is false. This website very clearly established that breed specific legislation does work. Mind you, breed specific legislation is a very broad term. I now believe that owners are the most important factor so if we can improve the quality of owners than the severity and frequency of pitbull attacks should go down. Instead of putting chips or banning these dogs completely, I think that mandatory spaying neutering or specific breed licenses would work fine. In Canada, for example, people who want to legally own guns need to attend a safety course to get their license. I see no reason why that wouldn't work with dog breeds.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When you consider how the majority of dog attacks are by pitbulls and that the vast majority of attacks on small children are unprovoked, I feel it is difficult to argue that pitbulls are not predispositioned towards extreme violence. Using newspaper articles, the CDC was able to obtain breed identifications for 238 of the 327 cases of fatal dog attacks of which pit bull terrier or mixes thereof were reportedly involved in 76 cases. The breed with the next highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities. 10 Pit bulls have constituted approximately 2 of the dogs in the U.S., and a 9 year 1979–88 review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the attacks in which breed was recorded. I know many pitbull owners argue that attacks are instigated by formerly abused dogs. Firstly, I'm not entirely convinced that abuse always produces violence anecdotally, I know about three formerly abused dogs who are all readily submissive and prone to flinching, not aggression . Secondly, how do they know this? No matter what the context, many comments on news articles about pitbull attacks involves some owner condemning the actions of either the victim the parents should've been watching or the owner what an idiot, I would never do that . It just seems to be one giant just world fallacy. I've never seen any statistical data into pitbull cases proving that a majority of lethal pitbulls were abused. I'm not entirely sure what I feel the solution should be. Maybe pitbull owners should be required to muzzle their dogs whenever they leave their property? What happens to dog owners whose dogs attack others? I hear about pit bull owners being sued, but why shouldn't this be a criminal offence? EDIT My conclusion Firstly, I'm seriously impressed by how awesome these comments are. This is easily my new favourite subreddit. I still believe that certain dog breeds are more aggressive than others, but I changed by view and think that other factors are more significant than breed. This post in particular really focused on things like reproductive status, sex, age, and socialization. Many other posters have mentioned that criminals and anti social people are more likely to own pitbulls. These people are probably less educated, and are therefore more likely to buy their pitbull based on the stereotype of their aggression and lack the means to properly care for their pet. All of these other factors appear to take precedent over breed. I do not think that pit bulls are the most dangerous dog breeds anymore at least in terms of which dog attacks people the most. However, a few users have mentioned that the issue is not the frequency of pitbull attacks, but the severity of them. Because of the severity not frequency of pitbull attacks, the jury is still out for me on the issue of legislation. As for legislation, this post provided a lot of great links to organizations that argue against legislation. In particular, this link to the Humane Society was helpful. Some reasons why breed specific legislation doesn't work include the difficulty in identifying breeds, something that Isabelle50 also brought up. Maybe it hasn't changed my view, but it's definitely muddled it. With that said, the Humane Society argues that breed specific legislation does not work, which is false. This website very clearly established that breed specific legislation does work. Mind you, breed specific legislation is a very broad term. I now believe that owners are the most important factor so if we can improve the quality of owners than the severity and frequency of pitbull attacks should go down. Instead of putting chips or banning these dogs completely, I think that mandatory spaying neutering or specific breed licenses would work fine. In Canada, for example, people who want to legally own guns need to attend a safety course to get their license. I see no reason why that wouldn't work with dog breeds.<|TARGETS|>pitbull owners, Using newspaper articles, When you consider how the majority of dog attacks are by pitbulls and that the vast majority of attacks on small children, any statistical data into pitbull cases, to legally own guns, to buy their pitbull based on the stereotype of their aggression<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When you consider how the majority of dog attacks are by pitbulls and that the vast majority of attacks on small children are unprovoked, I feel it is difficult to argue that pitbulls are not predispositioned towards extreme violence. Using newspaper articles, the CDC was able to obtain breed identifications for 238 of the 327 cases of fatal dog attacks of which pit bull terrier or mixes thereof were reportedly involved in 76 cases. The breed with the next highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities. 10 Pit bulls have constituted approximately 2 of the dogs in the U.S., and a 9 year 1979–88 review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the attacks in which breed was recorded. I know many pitbull owners argue that attacks are instigated by formerly abused dogs. Firstly, I'm not entirely convinced that abuse always produces violence anecdotally, I know about three formerly abused dogs who are all readily submissive and prone to flinching, not aggression . Secondly, how do they know this? No matter what the context, many comments on news articles about pitbull attacks involves some owner condemning the actions of either the victim the parents should've been watching or the owner what an idiot, I would never do that . It just seems to be one giant just world fallacy. I've never seen any statistical data into pitbull cases proving that a majority of lethal pitbulls were abused. I'm not entirely sure what I feel the solution should be. Maybe pitbull owners should be required to muzzle their dogs whenever they leave their property? What happens to dog owners whose dogs attack others? I hear about pit bull owners being sued, but why shouldn't this be a criminal offence? EDIT My conclusion Firstly, I'm seriously impressed by how awesome these comments are. This is easily my new favourite subreddit. I still believe that certain dog breeds are more aggressive than others, but I changed by view and think that other factors are more significant than breed. This post in particular really focused on things like reproductive status, sex, age, and socialization. Many other posters have mentioned that criminals and anti social people are more likely to own pitbulls. These people are probably less educated, and are therefore more likely to buy their pitbull based on the stereotype of their aggression and lack the means to properly care for their pet. All of these other factors appear to take precedent over breed. I do not think that pit bulls are the most dangerous dog breeds anymore at least in terms of which dog attacks people the most. However, a few users have mentioned that the issue is not the frequency of pitbull attacks, but the severity of them. Because of the severity not frequency of pitbull attacks, the jury is still out for me on the issue of legislation. As for legislation, this post provided a lot of great links to organizations that argue against legislation. In particular, this link to the Humane Society was helpful. Some reasons why breed specific legislation doesn't work include the difficulty in identifying breeds, something that Isabelle50 also brought up. Maybe it hasn't changed my view, but it's definitely muddled it. With that said, the Humane Society argues that breed specific legislation does not work, which is false. This website very clearly established that breed specific legislation does work. Mind you, breed specific legislation is a very broad term. I now believe that owners are the most important factor so if we can improve the quality of owners than the severity and frequency of pitbull attacks should go down. Instead of putting chips or banning these dogs completely, I think that mandatory spaying neutering or specific breed licenses would work fine. In Canada, for example, people who want to legally own guns need to attend a safety course to get their license. I see no reason why that wouldn't work with dog breeds.<|ASPECTS|>fine, attack others, flinching, lethal pitbulls, attacks, actions, criminal offence, view, aggression, pitbull cases, subreddit, breed identifications, age, dog breeds, dog owners, pit, solution, humane society, factors, instigated, pitbull, unprovoked, favourite, pit bull owners, fatal dog attacks, extreme violence, pitbulls, attributed, reproductive status, violence, legislation, breed specific, identifying breeds, buy, pitbull owners, abused, dog attacks, less educated, world fallacy, dangerous dog breeds, safety course, pitbull attacks, precedent over breed, links, anti social people, severity, breed licenses, awesome, aggressive, criminals, socialization, sex, difficulty, muzzle their dogs, children, abused dogs, breed specific legislation, quality of owners, link, fatalities, muddled, statistical data, changed, frequency, pet, mandatory spaying neutering, properly care, submissive<|CONCLUSION|>","When you consider how the majority of dog attacks are by pitbulls and that the vast majority of attacks on small children are unprovoked, I feel it is difficult to argue that pitbulls are not predispositioned towards extreme violence. Using newspaper articles, the CDC was able to obtain breed identifications for 238 of the 327 cases of fatal dog attacks of which pit bull terrier or mixes thereof were reportedly involved in 76 cases. The breed with the next highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities. 10 Pit bulls have constituted approximately 2 of the dogs in the U.S., and a 9 year 1979–88 review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the attacks in which breed was recorded. I know many pitbull owners argue that attacks are instigated by formerly abused dogs. Firstly, I'm not entirely convinced that abuse always produces violence anecdotally, I know about three formerly abused dogs who are all readily submissive and prone to flinching, not aggression . Secondly, how do they know this? No matter what the context, many comments on news articles about pitbull attacks involves some owner condemning the actions of either the victim the parents should've been watching or the owner what an idiot, I would never do that . It just seems to be one giant just world fallacy. I've never seen any statistical data into pitbull cases proving that a majority of lethal pitbulls were abused. I'm not entirely sure what I feel the solution should be. Maybe pitbull owners should be required to muzzle their dogs whenever they leave their property? What happens to dog owners whose dogs attack others? I hear about pit bull owners being sued, but why shouldn't this be a criminal offence? EDIT My conclusion Firstly, I'm seriously impressed by how awesome these comments are. This is easily my new favourite subreddit. I still believe that certain dog breeds are more aggressive than others, but I changed by view and think that other factors are more significant than breed. This post in particular really focused on things like reproductive status, sex, age, and socialization. Many other posters have mentioned that criminals and anti social people are more likely to own pitbulls. These people are probably less educated, and are therefore more likely to buy their pitbull based on the stereotype of their aggression and lack the means to properly care for their pet. All of these other factors appear to take precedent over breed. I do not think that pit bulls are the most dangerous dog breeds anymore at least in terms of which dog attacks people the most. However, a few users have mentioned that the issue is not the frequency of pitbull attacks, but the severity of them. Because of the severity not frequency of pitbull attacks, the jury is still out for me on the issue of legislation. As for legislation, this post provided a lot of great links to organizations that argue against legislation. In particular, this link to the Humane Society was helpful. Some reasons why breed specific legislation doesn't work include the difficulty in identifying breeds, something that Isabelle50 also brought up. Maybe it hasn't changed my view, but it's definitely muddled it. With that said, the Humane Society argues that breed specific legislation does not work, which is false. This website very clearly established that breed specific legislation does work. Mind you, breed specific legislation is a very broad term. I now believe that owners are the most important factor so if we can improve the quality of owners than the severity and frequency of pitbull attacks should go down. Instead of putting chips or banning these dogs completely, I think that mandatory spaying neutering or specific breed licenses would work fine. In Canada, for example, people who want to legally own guns need to attend a safety course to get their license. I see no reason why that wouldn't work with dog breeds.",I reluctantly believe that pitbulls are inherently dangerous animals.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not vegan bashing. I do have some built in prejudices agains vegans and I'm open to dismantling them. I do not get it. To me it feels like a game of one upmanship I'm the better vegan, I don't eat honey, ad infinitum. It is not exploitation to get honey. Bees are not screaming in pain. They are not caused emotional distress. So CMV, tell me why excluding honey makes one a better vegan OR is even necessary or desirable, because it just seems like a silly rich country problem.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not vegan bashing. I do have some built in prejudices agains vegans and I'm open to dismantling them. I do not get it. To me it feels like a game of one upmanship I'm the better vegan, I don't eat honey, ad infinitum. It is not exploitation to get honey. Bees are not screaming in pain. They are not caused emotional distress. So CMV, tell me why excluding honey makes one a better vegan OR is even necessary or desirable, because it just seems like a silly rich country problem.<|TARGETS|>vegan bashing ., Bees<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not vegan bashing. I do have some built in prejudices agains vegans and I'm open to dismantling them. I do not get it. To me it feels like a game of one upmanship I'm the better vegan, I don't eat honey, ad infinitum. It is not exploitation to get honey. Bees are not screaming in pain. They are not caused emotional distress. So CMV, tell me why excluding honey makes one a better vegan OR is even necessary or desirable, because it just seems like a silly rich country problem.<|ASPECTS|>get, dismantling, vegan bashing, better, vegan, eat, necessary, desirable, screaming in pain, prejudices, rich country problem, honey, emotional distress, game, exploitation<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm not vegan bashing. I do have some built in prejudices agains vegans and I'm open to dismantling them. I do not get it. To me it feels like a game of one upmanship I'm the better vegan, I don't eat honey, ad infinitum. It is not exploitation to get honey. Bees are not screaming in pain. They are not caused emotional distress. So , tell me why excluding honey makes one a better vegan OR is even necessary or desirable, because it just seems like a silly rich country problem.",I think it is silly for a vegan to exclude honey from their diet.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems like people generally believe that drugs produce their own exceptional pleasure or euphoria which can be appealing and seductive for everyone. However, based on my own experiences, it seems that drugs aren't better than sober happiness. They can only seem especially good compared to an unhappy state. This implies those who find drugs especially enjoyable and use them regularly are probably unhappy in their baseline state. It also implies that anti drug people who view drugs as a trap or moral weakness are failing to understand how it is a result of unhappiness. Drugs are certainly interesting in terms of how they produce various diffrent experiences, and I think it's understandable to want to explore that. I'm just saying that regular use past that is a sign of unhappiness. Also note that boredom is a type of unhappiness. I've used a variety of drugs, though I have to admit I haven't explored the strong stimulants and strong opioids much. That plus the thought that others may experience things differently makes me a bit skeptical about my view. Though, I also think that people who disagree may just not really know sober happiness. The Rat Park experiment using morphine seems to agree with my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems like people generally believe that drugs produce their own exceptional pleasure or euphoria which can be appealing and seductive for everyone. However, based on my own experiences, it seems that drugs aren't better than sober happiness. They can only seem especially good compared to an unhappy state. This implies those who find drugs especially enjoyable and use them regularly are probably unhappy in their baseline state. It also implies that anti drug people who view drugs as a trap or moral weakness are failing to understand how it is a result of unhappiness. Drugs are certainly interesting in terms of how they produce various diffrent experiences, and I think it's understandable to want to explore that. I'm just saying that regular use past that is a sign of unhappiness. Also note that boredom is a type of unhappiness. I've used a variety of drugs, though I have to admit I haven't explored the strong stimulants and strong opioids much. That plus the thought that others may experience things differently makes me a bit skeptical about my view. Though, I also think that people who disagree may just not really know sober happiness. The Rat Park experiment using morphine seems to agree with my view.<|TARGETS|>saying that regular use past that, The Rat Park experiment using morphine, Drugs, to want to explore that ., used a variety of drugs, that people who disagree may just not really know sober happiness .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems like people generally believe that drugs produce their own exceptional pleasure or euphoria which can be appealing and seductive for everyone. However, based on my own experiences, it seems that drugs aren't better than sober happiness. They can only seem especially good compared to an unhappy state. This implies those who find drugs especially enjoyable and use them regularly are probably unhappy in their baseline state. It also implies that anti drug people who view drugs as a trap or moral weakness are failing to understand how it is a result of unhappiness. Drugs are certainly interesting in terms of how they produce various diffrent experiences, and I think it's understandable to want to explore that. I'm just saying that regular use past that is a sign of unhappiness. Also note that boredom is a type of unhappiness. I've used a variety of drugs, though I have to admit I haven't explored the strong stimulants and strong opioids much. That plus the thought that others may experience things differently makes me a bit skeptical about my view. Though, I also think that people who disagree may just not really know sober happiness. The Rat Park experiment using morphine seems to agree with my view.<|ASPECTS|>appealing, unhappy state, unhappiness, strong stimulants, morphine, boredom, rat park, pleasure, baseline state, trap, skeptical, experience things differently, moral weakness, sober happiness, good, seductive, euphoria, diffrent experiences, unhappy, enjoyable, use, exceptional, strong opioids<|CONCLUSION|>","It seems like people generally believe that drugs produce their own exceptional pleasure or euphoria which can be appealing and seductive for everyone. However, based on my own experiences, it seems that drugs aren't better than sober happiness. They can only seem especially good compared to an unhappy state. This implies those who find drugs especially enjoyable and use them regularly are probably unhappy in their baseline state. It also implies that anti drug people who view drugs as a trap or moral weakness are failing to understand how it is a result of unhappiness. Drugs are certainly interesting in terms of how they produce various diffrent experiences, and I think it's understandable to want to explore that. I'm just saying that regular use past that is a sign of unhappiness. Also note that boredom is a type of unhappiness. I've used a variety of drugs, though I have to admit I haven't explored the strong stimulants and strong opioids much. That plus the thought that others may experience things differently makes me a bit skeptical about my view. Though, I also think that people who disagree may just not really know sober happiness. The Rat Park experiment using morphine seems to agree with my view.","Drugs aren't better than sober happiness, and people who use them regularly are compensating for unhappiness"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As the title says. Here's a map of voting patterns Basically, we need Scotland to keep the tories out. If they gain independence, we'll be subject to the whims of little Englanders and their enviable insight into matters of social welfare and foreign relations. That's about all I have to say, but it would be nice if someone could show me that some sort of political homeostasis would occur within the new UK that would establish a political balance similar to what we used to have.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As the title says. Here's a map of voting patterns Basically, we need Scotland to keep the tories out. If they gain independence, we'll be subject to the whims of little Englanders and their enviable insight into matters of social welfare and foreign relations. That's about all I have to say, but it would be nice if someone could show me that some sort of political homeostasis would occur within the new UK that would establish a political balance similar to what we used to have.<|TARGETS|>If they gain independence, a map of voting patterns, to keep the tories out ., the whims of little Englanders and their enviable insight into matters of social welfare and foreign relations ., if someone could show me that some sort of political homeostasis<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As the title says. Here's a map of voting patterns Basically, we need Scotland to keep the tories out. If they gain independence, we'll be subject to the whims of little Englanders and their enviable insight into matters of social welfare and foreign relations. That's about all I have to say, but it would be nice if someone could show me that some sort of political homeostasis would occur within the new UK that would establish a political balance similar to what we used to have.<|ASPECTS|>independence, voting patterns, whims, social welfare, political homeostasis, foreign relations, political balance<|CONCLUSION|>","As the title says. Here's a map of voting patterns Basically, we need Scotland to keep the tories out. If they gain independence, we'll be subject to the whims of little Englanders and their enviable insight into matters of social welfare and foreign relations. That's about all I have to say, but it would be nice if someone could show me that some sort of political homeostasis would occur within the new UK that would establish a political balance similar to what we used to have.",Scotland as part of the UK is the only thing between the UK and an unbroken succession of tory governments.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading the Bell Curve and a number of other sociological texts I've come to the conclusion that individual capacity for abstract reasoning is to a significant degree heritable and that different racial groups do have different average capacities for this just as different racial groups have different average heights, hair eye skin coloration, lung capacity indigenous Andean people have significantly greater lung capacity on average than sea level dwelling peoples . It doesn't make sense that abstract reasoning being the product of a number of phenotypic traits isn't also heritable to a degree. To clarify this is on average there are outliers in every group and this is not motivated by racial animus I believe in equality of opportunity but I think we should let the pieces fall where they may. I believe that our current unwillingness to acknowledge this has been bred by the excesses of empire, fascist regimes in the early 20th century, Intra American racial tension and a shift towards cosmopolitanism in the western world across the latter half of the twentieth and early twenty first century.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading the Bell Curve and a number of other sociological texts I've come to the conclusion that individual capacity for abstract reasoning is to a significant degree heritable and that different racial groups do have different average capacities for this just as different racial groups have different average heights, hair eye skin coloration, lung capacity indigenous Andean people have significantly greater lung capacity on average than sea level dwelling peoples . It doesn't make sense that abstract reasoning being the product of a number of phenotypic traits isn't also heritable to a degree. To clarify this is on average there are outliers in every group and this is not motivated by racial animus I believe in equality of opportunity but I think we should let the pieces fall where they may. I believe that our current unwillingness to acknowledge this has been bred by the excesses of empire, fascist regimes in the early 20th century, Intra American racial tension and a shift towards cosmopolitanism in the western world across the latter half of the twentieth and early twenty first century.<|TARGETS|>To clarify this is on average there are outliers in every group and this is not motivated by racial animus I believe in equality of opportunity, our current unwillingness to acknowledge this has been bred by the excesses of empire fascist regimes, reading the Bell Curve and a number of other sociological texts I 've come to the conclusion that individual capacity for abstract reasoning, that abstract reasoning being the product of a number of phenotypic traits<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading the Bell Curve and a number of other sociological texts I've come to the conclusion that individual capacity for abstract reasoning is to a significant degree heritable and that different racial groups do have different average capacities for this just as different racial groups have different average heights, hair eye skin coloration, lung capacity indigenous Andean people have significantly greater lung capacity on average than sea level dwelling peoples . It doesn't make sense that abstract reasoning being the product of a number of phenotypic traits isn't also heritable to a degree. To clarify this is on average there are outliers in every group and this is not motivated by racial animus I believe in equality of opportunity but I think we should let the pieces fall where they may. I believe that our current unwillingness to acknowledge this has been bred by the excesses of empire, fascist regimes in the early 20th century, Intra American racial tension and a shift towards cosmopolitanism in the western world across the latter half of the twentieth and early twenty first century.<|ASPECTS|>equality of opportunity, heritable, excesses of empire, outliers, racial tension, cosmopolitanism, lung capacity, racial animus, individual capacity, phenotypic traits, abstract reasoning, average capacities, fascist regimes<|CONCLUSION|>","After reading the Bell Curve and a number of other sociological texts I've come to the conclusion that individual capacity for abstract reasoning is to a significant degree heritable and that different racial groups do have different average capacities for this just as different racial groups have different average heights, hair eye skin coloration, lung capacity indigenous Andean people have significantly greater lung capacity on average than sea level dwelling peoples . It doesn't make sense that abstract reasoning being the product of a number of phenotypic traits isn't also heritable to a degree. To clarify this is on average there are outliers in every group and this is not motivated by racial animus I believe in equality of opportunity but I think we should let the pieces fall where they may. I believe that our current unwillingness to acknowledge this has been bred by the excesses of empire, fascist regimes in the early 20th century, Intra American racial tension and a shift towards cosmopolitanism in the western world across the latter half of the twentieth and early twenty first century.",I believe that intelligence is to a large degree heritable and that different racial groups have different average intelligence
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I mean, I think it's pretty self explanatory. I think arguing or debating over any form of social media is mostly pointless and just makes people more angry. On top of that it's very easy to take what people say the wrong way or take it out of context. Has anyone actually had there opinion changed over politics on Facebook? I have seen friends and family members unfriend and block people over a silly debate on social media. If you actually want to change their mind sit down with them and have a conversation. You are communicating with eye contact without body language and tone of voice which, I think, causes people to assume the worst. People take the smallest things the wrong way, like putting a period at the end of every sentence, not using emojis, using to many emojis, not using the right emojis and all the other things we read into. Where as if you were in the same room there wouldn't be as much of a question as to where they are from. Change my mind. 😉<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I mean, I think it's pretty self explanatory. I think arguing or debating over any form of social media is mostly pointless and just makes people more angry. On top of that it's very easy to take what people say the wrong way or take it out of context. Has anyone actually had there opinion changed over politics on Facebook? I have seen friends and family members unfriend and block people over a silly debate on social media. If you actually want to change their mind sit down with them and have a conversation. You are communicating with eye contact without body language and tone of voice which, I think, causes people to assume the worst. People take the smallest things the wrong way, like putting a period at the end of every sentence, not using emojis, using to many emojis, not using the right emojis and all the other things we read into. Where as if you were in the same room there wouldn't be as much of a question as to where they are from. Change my mind. 😉<|TARGETS|>to change their mind sit down with them and have a conversation ., Has anyone actually had there opinion changed over politics on Facebook, Where as if you were in the same room there, communicating with eye contact without body language and tone of voice, I have seen friends and family members unfriend and block people over a silly debate on social media, arguing or debating over any form of social media<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I mean, I think it's pretty self explanatory. I think arguing or debating over any form of social media is mostly pointless and just makes people more angry. On top of that it's very easy to take what people say the wrong way or take it out of context. Has anyone actually had there opinion changed over politics on Facebook? I have seen friends and family members unfriend and block people over a silly debate on social media. If you actually want to change their mind sit down with them and have a conversation. You are communicating with eye contact without body language and tone of voice which, I think, causes people to assume the worst. People take the smallest things the wrong way, like putting a period at the end of every sentence, not using emojis, using to many emojis, not using the right emojis and all the other things we read into. Where as if you were in the same room there wouldn't be as much of a question as to where they are from. Change my mind. 😉<|ASPECTS|>context, politics, wrong, pointless, change, eye contact, self explanatory, body language, angry, unfriend, question, block people, easy, assume, opinion changed, smallest things, conversation, tone<|CONCLUSION|>","I mean, I think it's pretty self explanatory. I think arguing or debating over any form of social media is mostly pointless and just makes people more angry. On top of that it's very easy to take what people say the wrong way or take it out of context. Has anyone actually had there opinion changed over politics on Facebook? I have seen friends and family members unfriend and block people over a silly debate on social media. If you actually want to change their mind sit down with them and have a conversation. You are communicating with eye contact without body language and tone of voice which, I think, causes people to assume the worst. People take the smallest things the wrong way, like putting a period at the end of every sentence, not using emojis, using to many emojis, not using the right emojis and all the other things we read into. Where as if you were in the same room there wouldn't be as much of a question as to where they are from. Change my mind. 😉",Arguing over social media is pointless.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit Wow this received a ton of responses. I guess the conclusion is I shouldn't be disappointed in my country but instead the two party system and the Democratic Party for choosing Hillary to go against Trump. Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses. I'm very disappointed in my country for electing Donald Trump as our next president. I feel like this might be because I'm influenced by living near a major mostly Liberal city and by the news I read and Reddit seems to have a more liberal leaning. I'm disappointed because of how he carries himself as a character. I respect the keep your mouth shut and carry a big stick and after seeing all these ridiculous tweets, I can't respect how he handles conflict. I'm disappointed how anti science he seems. Tweets about vaccinations causing autism, thinking climate change is a hoax, etc. Although these might be two valid reasons I'd like for someone to change my view and think otherwise. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit Wow this received a ton of responses. I guess the conclusion is I shouldn't be disappointed in my country but instead the two party system and the Democratic Party for choosing Hillary to go against Trump. Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses. I'm very disappointed in my country for electing Donald Trump as our next president. I feel like this might be because I'm influenced by living near a major mostly Liberal city and by the news I read and Reddit seems to have a more liberal leaning. I'm disappointed because of how he carries himself as a character. I respect the keep your mouth shut and carry a big stick and after seeing all these ridiculous tweets, I can't respect how he handles conflict. I'm disappointed how anti science he seems. Tweets about vaccinations causing autism, thinking climate change is a hoax, etc. Although these might be two valid reasons I'd like for someone to change my view and think otherwise. <|TARGETS|>electing Donald Trump, to change my view and think otherwise ., Tweets about vaccinations, n't be disappointed in my country but instead the two party system and the Democratic Party for choosing Hillary to go against Trump ., living near a major mostly Liberal city and by the news I read and Reddit, the keep your mouth shut and carry a big stick and after seeing all these ridiculous tweets<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit Wow this received a ton of responses. I guess the conclusion is I shouldn't be disappointed in my country but instead the two party system and the Democratic Party for choosing Hillary to go against Trump. Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses. I'm very disappointed in my country for electing Donald Trump as our next president. I feel like this might be because I'm influenced by living near a major mostly Liberal city and by the news I read and Reddit seems to have a more liberal leaning. I'm disappointed because of how he carries himself as a character. I respect the keep your mouth shut and carry a big stick and after seeing all these ridiculous tweets, I can't respect how he handles conflict. I'm disappointed how anti science he seems. Tweets about vaccinations causing autism, thinking climate change is a hoax, etc. Although these might be two valid reasons I'd like for someone to change my view and think otherwise. <|ASPECTS|>autism, country, handles conflict, thoughtful responses, change, vaccinations, view, think, anti science, liberal leaning, influenced, carries, character, two party system, climate change, disappointed<|CONCLUSION|>","Edit Wow this received a ton of responses. I guess the conclusion is I shouldn't be disappointed in my country but instead the two party system and the Democratic Party for choosing Hillary to go against Trump. Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses. I'm very disappointed in my country for electing Donald Trump as our next president. I feel like this might be because I'm influenced by living near a major mostly Liberal city and by the news I read and Reddit seems to have a more liberal leaning. I'm disappointed because of how he carries himself as a character. I respect the keep your mouth shut and carry a big stick and after seeing all these ridiculous tweets, I can't respect how he handles conflict. I'm disappointed how anti science he seems. Tweets about vaccinations causing autism, thinking climate change is a hoax, etc. Although these might be two valid reasons I'd like for someone to change my view and think otherwise.",I'm very disappointed in my country for electing Donald Trump.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When you make a sandwich, you need something other than mushy shit. Crunchy fixes that. It adds some good texture and shit to the sandwich. If you use creamy, it's all mushy and fucking disgusting. At that point you might as well smear shit all over your sandwich cause that's basically what creamy peanut butter is. The ONLY time I can defend the use of creamy peanut butter is when you put it on crackers, because you already have the crunch. Having no crunch or anything in your sandwich is just fucked up IMO.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When you make a sandwich, you need something other than mushy shit. Crunchy fixes that. It adds some good texture and shit to the sandwich. If you use creamy, it's all mushy and fucking disgusting. At that point you might as well smear shit all over your sandwich cause that's basically what creamy peanut butter is. The ONLY time I can defend the use of creamy peanut butter is when you put it on crackers, because you already have the crunch. Having no crunch or anything in your sandwich is just fucked up IMO.<|TARGETS|>Having no crunch or anything in your sandwich, the use of creamy peanut butter, When you make a sandwich, Crunchy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When you make a sandwich, you need something other than mushy shit. Crunchy fixes that. It adds some good texture and shit to the sandwich. If you use creamy, it's all mushy and fucking disgusting. At that point you might as well smear shit all over your sandwich cause that's basically what creamy peanut butter is. The ONLY time I can defend the use of creamy peanut butter is when you put it on crackers, because you already have the crunch. Having no crunch or anything in your sandwich is just fucked up IMO.<|ASPECTS|>crunch, peanut, fucked, mushy, disgusting, good, mushy shit, texture and shit, imo, fucking, smear shit<|CONCLUSION|>","When you make a sandwich, you need something other than mushy shit. Crunchy fixes that. It adds some good texture and shit to the sandwich. If you use creamy, it's all mushy and fucking disgusting. At that point you might as well smear shit all over your sandwich cause that's basically what creamy peanut butter is. The ONLY time I can defend the use of creamy peanut butter is when you put it on crackers, because you already have the crunch. Having no crunch or anything in your sandwich is just fucked up IMO.",Creamy peanut butter is absolutely disgusting.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've asked about this in other subs before, and I just don't understand why this is such a thing. I don't get why people freak out when a not white actor is cast in a role that was previously a white actor that guy in the Thor movie, the idea of Elba playing Bond, Jordan as Human Torch, etc . Race isn't the central theme of these characters. Bond has multiple important character traits, but none of them factor in his race. Why does it matter if the actor that plays him next is black? In what way does that make the movie less enjoyable, or the character less compelling? And basically the same with any other character. And I don't get the idea that an actor needs to be X, so that people of X race can relate to them. One of my favorite movies of all time is Pursuit of Happyness. I strongly related to Smith's character from that movie. I never thought I really relate to this character, despite the fact that he's black . In the same way, I can't comprehend how someone could think Wow, this character's life story is almost identical to mine, but he's Asian and I'm Hispanic, so I can't relate to them at all . Or, this character is nothing like me at all, but she's the same race as me So I can relate to them. Maybe context will help? I'd really like to get this, so will give some background info that I think possibly might explain why this is such a hard concept for me to grasp. I'm a 90's GenX kid. I strongly remember two things from when I was growing up about race. One, was a kid in my class had this shirt that stated in big bold letters race doesn't matter . He wore it at least once a week. That was essentially how I was taught growing up Race doesn't matter, character does. Don't pre judge somebody because of their race. The other was a scene with Chi McBride's character in Boston Public. He stated I want to be known as The Principal, not The Black Principal. I think that captured the attitudes I grew up with as well. This may have nothing to do with my view at all, but just thought I'd mention it in case it does. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've asked about this in other subs before, and I just don't understand why this is such a thing. I don't get why people freak out when a not white actor is cast in a role that was previously a white actor that guy in the Thor movie, the idea of Elba playing Bond, Jordan as Human Torch, etc . Race isn't the central theme of these characters. Bond has multiple important character traits, but none of them factor in his race. Why does it matter if the actor that plays him next is black? In what way does that make the movie less enjoyable, or the character less compelling? And basically the same with any other character. And I don't get the idea that an actor needs to be X, so that people of X race can relate to them. One of my favorite movies of all time is Pursuit of Happyness. I strongly related to Smith's character from that movie. I never thought I really relate to this character, despite the fact that he's black . In the same way, I can't comprehend how someone could think Wow, this character's life story is almost identical to mine, but he's Asian and I'm Hispanic, so I can't relate to them at all . Or, this character is nothing like me at all, but she's the same race as me So I can relate to them. Maybe context will help? I'd really like to get this, so will give some background info that I think possibly might explain why this is such a hard concept for me to grasp. I'm a 90's GenX kid. I strongly remember two things from when I was growing up about race. One, was a kid in my class had this shirt that stated in big bold letters race doesn't matter . He wore it at least once a week. That was essentially how I was taught growing up Race doesn't matter, character does. Don't pre judge somebody because of their race. The other was a scene with Chi McBride's character in Boston Public. He stated I want to be known as The Principal, not The Black Principal. I think that captured the attitudes I grew up with as well. This may have nothing to do with my view at all, but just thought I'd mention it in case it does. <|TARGETS|>Bond, the idea that an actor needs to be X so that people of X race, to be known as The Principal not The Black Principal ., how I was taught growing up Race, if the actor that plays him next, Race<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've asked about this in other subs before, and I just don't understand why this is such a thing. I don't get why people freak out when a not white actor is cast in a role that was previously a white actor that guy in the Thor movie, the idea of Elba playing Bond, Jordan as Human Torch, etc . Race isn't the central theme of these characters. Bond has multiple important character traits, but none of them factor in his race. Why does it matter if the actor that plays him next is black? In what way does that make the movie less enjoyable, or the character less compelling? And basically the same with any other character. And I don't get the idea that an actor needs to be X, so that people of X race can relate to them. One of my favorite movies of all time is Pursuit of Happyness. I strongly related to Smith's character from that movie. I never thought I really relate to this character, despite the fact that he's black . In the same way, I can't comprehend how someone could think Wow, this character's life story is almost identical to mine, but he's Asian and I'm Hispanic, so I can't relate to them at all . Or, this character is nothing like me at all, but she's the same race as me So I can relate to them. Maybe context will help? I'd really like to get this, so will give some background info that I think possibly might explain why this is such a hard concept for me to grasp. I'm a 90's GenX kid. I strongly remember two things from when I was growing up about race. One, was a kid in my class had this shirt that stated in big bold letters race doesn't matter . He wore it at least once a week. That was essentially how I was taught growing up Race doesn't matter, character does. Don't pre judge somebody because of their race. The other was a scene with Chi McBride's character in Boston Public. He stated I want to be known as The Principal, not The Black Principal. I think that captured the attitudes I grew up with as well. This may have nothing to do with my view at all, but just thought I'd mention it in case it does. <|ASPECTS|>asian, view, character less compelling, white, theme, character, black principal, smith, pursuit of happyness, x, black, race, identical, attitudes, important, chi, background info, genx kid, x race, hard concept, context, judge somebody, related, less enjoyable, freak, character traits, relate<|CONCLUSION|>","I've asked about this in other subs before, and I just don't understand why this is such a thing. I don't get why people freak out when a not white actor is cast in a role that was previously a white actor that guy in the Thor movie, the idea of Elba playing Bond, Jordan as Human Torch, etc . Race isn't the central theme of these characters. Bond has multiple important character traits, but none of them factor in his race. Why does it matter if the actor that plays him next is black? In what way does that make the movie less enjoyable, or the character less compelling? And basically the same with any other character. And I don't get the idea that an actor needs to be X, so that people of X race can relate to them. One of my favorite movies of all time is Pursuit of Happyness. I strongly related to Smith's character from that movie. I never thought I really relate to this character, despite the fact that he's black . In the same way, I can't comprehend how someone could think Wow, this character's life story is almost identical to mine, but he's Asian and I'm Hispanic, so I can't relate to them at all . Or, this character is nothing like me at all, but she's the same race as me So I can relate to them. Maybe context will help? I'd really like to get this, so will give some background info that I think possibly might explain why this is such a hard concept for me to grasp. I'm a 90's GenX kid. I strongly remember two things from when I was growing up about race. One, was a kid in my class had this shirt that stated in big bold letters race doesn't matter . He wore it at least once a week. That was essentially how I was taught growing up Race doesn't matter, character does. Don't pre judge somebody because of their race. The other was a scene with Chi McBride's character in Boston Public. He stated I want to be known as The Principal, not The Black Principal. I think that captured the attitudes I grew up with as well. This may have nothing to do with my view at all, but just thought I'd mention it in case it does.","I just don't understand the deal with actor's race in movies. Both people freaking out over a not-white cast member, and the idea of not-white actors allowing not-white people to ""relate"" to them."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Please don't speculate i.e. saying Everyone will be high all the time and its dangerous man Drug use is usually a victimless crime. The culture spawned from its illicit nature is what creates potential for much more crime. I don't have a source for this, but this should be evident. There are more unknowns when you buy drugs from a stranger, or even a guy you know, rather than when you buy a bottle of alcohol from the store. Is this person going to rob me? A corporation is more willing to lose 1000 then require an employee fight a thief. A drug dealer might need that money to feed his family. Is this person a cop? Is this drug legitimate? Is it cut with something? Is it too pure, and will it possibly kill me? Maybe you don't know the effects of the drug at all. Yet, this would be on the box bottle if it were sold in a store. If drugs were legalized, there would no longer be a need for a war on drugs , which has cost US taxpayers 18 billion so far in 2013 It has been done before, and been shown to work with a smaller population. Two months before 9 11, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. Their number of drug addicted people has been halved. There are differences between Portugal and the US. Portugal has 10.6 million people the US has 30 times that. However, I don't see how the US's increased population would change the end result. Drug addiction is a disease, not an intentional malicious disruption to society.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Please don't speculate i.e. saying Everyone will be high all the time and its dangerous man Drug use is usually a victimless crime. The culture spawned from its illicit nature is what creates potential for much more crime. I don't have a source for this, but this should be evident. There are more unknowns when you buy drugs from a stranger, or even a guy you know, rather than when you buy a bottle of alcohol from the store. Is this person going to rob me? A corporation is more willing to lose 1000 then require an employee fight a thief. A drug dealer might need that money to feed his family. Is this person a cop? Is this drug legitimate? Is it cut with something? Is it too pure, and will it possibly kill me? Maybe you don't know the effects of the drug at all. Yet, this would be on the box bottle if it were sold in a store. If drugs were legalized, there would no longer be a need for a war on drugs , which has cost US taxpayers 18 billion so far in 2013 It has been done before, and been shown to work with a smaller population. Two months before 9 11, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. Their number of drug addicted people has been halved. There are differences between Portugal and the US. Portugal has 10.6 million people the US has 30 times that. However, I don't see how the US's increased population would change the end result. Drug addiction is a disease, not an intentional malicious disruption to society.<|TARGETS|>when you buy drugs from a stranger or even a guy you know rather than when you buy a bottle of alcohol from the store, how the US 's increased population, Portugal, saying Everyone will be high all the time and its dangerous man Drug use, decriminalized all drugs, If drugs were legalized<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Please don't speculate i.e. saying Everyone will be high all the time and its dangerous man Drug use is usually a victimless crime. The culture spawned from its illicit nature is what creates potential for much more crime. I don't have a source for this, but this should be evident. There are more unknowns when you buy drugs from a stranger, or even a guy you know, rather than when you buy a bottle of alcohol from the store. Is this person going to rob me? A corporation is more willing to lose 1000 then require an employee fight a thief. A drug dealer might need that money to feed his family. Is this person a cop? Is this drug legitimate? Is it cut with something? Is it too pure, and will it possibly kill me? Maybe you don't know the effects of the drug at all. Yet, this would be on the box bottle if it were sold in a store. If drugs were legalized, there would no longer be a need for a war on drugs , which has cost US taxpayers 18 billion so far in 2013 It has been done before, and been shown to work with a smaller population. Two months before 9 11, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. Their number of drug addicted people has been halved. There are differences between Portugal and the US. Portugal has 10.6 million people the US has 30 times that. However, I don't see how the US's increased population would change the end result. Drug addiction is a disease, not an intentional malicious disruption to society.<|ASPECTS|>drug addicted people, increased population, crime, cut, money, drug addiction, unknowns, smaller population, differences, speculate, fight a thief, halved, war on drugs, drug, decriminalized all drugs, society, feed his family, kill, drug use, end result, people, pure, cop, disease, dangerous man, legitimate, rob, number, victimless crime, effects, cost, lose 1000, illicit, malicious disruption, taxpayers<|CONCLUSION|>","Please don't speculate i.e. saying Everyone will be high all the time and its dangerous man Drug use is usually a victimless crime. The culture spawned from its illicit nature is what creates potential for much more crime. I don't have a source for this, but this should be evident. There are more unknowns when you buy drugs from a stranger, or even a guy you know, rather than when you buy a bottle of alcohol from the store. Is this person going to rob me? A corporation is more willing to lose 1000 then require an employee fight a thief. A drug dealer might need that money to feed his family. Is this person a cop? Is this drug legitimate? Is it cut with something? Is it too pure, and will it possibly kill me? Maybe you don't know the effects of the drug at all. Yet, this would be on the box bottle if it were sold in a store. If drugs were legalized, there would no longer be a need for a war on drugs , which has cost US taxpayers 18 billion so far in 2013 It has been done before, and been shown to work with a smaller population. Two months before 9 11, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. Their number of drug addicted people has been halved. There are differences between Portugal and the US. Portugal has 10.6 million people the US has 30 times that. However, I don't see how the US's increased population would change the end result. Drug addiction is a disease, not an intentional malicious disruption to society.","All Drugs Should Be Legalized In The United States,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that in some situations a nazi comparison can be a useful and valid tool in an argument, and that when such useful comparisons are made, Godwin's Law and other similar cultural memes serve only to make the discussion less fruitful. An example showed up earlier today in an r Foodforthought thread. u Westlondonwannabe said gt Don't totally disagree with you. But something someone said to me once has always stuck The death penalty is society saying, we collectively, choose to remove you from our group due to your heinous actions. The government is simply acting on our wishes as a society. To which u tvrr replied gt This one didn't fly to well in Nazi Germany. u tvrr was downvoted and people replied with comments about Godwin's law, and how you just can't compare the two. Now, I'm not saying that the comparison is exactly correct, but rather that elucidating exactly how the death penalty is different from the holocaust i.e. actually responding to the content of the comparison, rather than just dismissing it would be an important contribution to the conversation, allowing us to more clearly understand the parameters under which u Westlondonwannabe's statement is true, which to me is at the heart of what people are trying to get from this discussion. On the other hand, I'm not saying that there are no circumstances under which Nazi comparisons can be wrongly used. Two examples that I think of immediately are Person A makes the comparison, to which person B responds with 'This situation is different because and then person A comes back with 'Oh, so you're on the Nazi's side?' The comparison is 'The Nazis did X too', when X has nothing to do with why people hate the Nazis. So, go ahead and CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that in some situations a nazi comparison can be a useful and valid tool in an argument, and that when such useful comparisons are made, Godwin's Law and other similar cultural memes serve only to make the discussion less fruitful. An example showed up earlier today in an r Foodforthought thread. u Westlondonwannabe said gt Don't totally disagree with you. But something someone said to me once has always stuck The death penalty is society saying, we collectively, choose to remove you from our group due to your heinous actions. The government is simply acting on our wishes as a society. To which u tvrr replied gt This one didn't fly to well in Nazi Germany. u tvrr was downvoted and people replied with comments about Godwin's law, and how you just can't compare the two. Now, I'm not saying that the comparison is exactly correct, but rather that elucidating exactly how the death penalty is different from the holocaust i.e. actually responding to the content of the comparison, rather than just dismissing it would be an important contribution to the conversation, allowing us to more clearly understand the parameters under which u Westlondonwannabe's statement is true, which to me is at the heart of what people are trying to get from this discussion. On the other hand, I'm not saying that there are no circumstances under which Nazi comparisons can be wrongly used. Two examples that I think of immediately are Person A makes the comparison, to which person B responds with 'This situation is different because and then person A comes back with 'Oh, so you're on the Nazi's side?' The comparison is 'The Nazis did X too', when X has nothing to do with why people hate the Nazis. So, go ahead and CMV<|TARGETS|>Godwin 's Law and other similar cultural memes, The comparison, u tvrr, actually responding to the content of the comparison, u Westlondonwannabe, to remove you from our group due to your heinous actions .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that in some situations a nazi comparison can be a useful and valid tool in an argument, and that when such useful comparisons are made, Godwin's Law and other similar cultural memes serve only to make the discussion less fruitful. An example showed up earlier today in an r Foodforthought thread. u Westlondonwannabe said gt Don't totally disagree with you. But something someone said to me once has always stuck The death penalty is society saying, we collectively, choose to remove you from our group due to your heinous actions. The government is simply acting on our wishes as a society. To which u tvrr replied gt This one didn't fly to well in Nazi Germany. u tvrr was downvoted and people replied with comments about Godwin's law, and how you just can't compare the two. Now, I'm not saying that the comparison is exactly correct, but rather that elucidating exactly how the death penalty is different from the holocaust i.e. actually responding to the content of the comparison, rather than just dismissing it would be an important contribution to the conversation, allowing us to more clearly understand the parameters under which u Westlondonwannabe's statement is true, which to me is at the heart of what people are trying to get from this discussion. On the other hand, I'm not saying that there are no circumstances under which Nazi comparisons can be wrongly used. Two examples that I think of immediately are Person A makes the comparison, to which person B responds with 'This situation is different because and then person A comes back with 'Oh, so you're on the Nazi's side?' The comparison is 'The Nazis did X too', when X has nothing to do with why people hate the Nazis. So, go ahead and CMV<|ASPECTS|>downvoted, situation, parameters, fly to well, useful comparisons, actions, nazis, hate the nazis, wishes, nazi 's, different, useful and valid tool, disagree, death penalty, nazi comparisons, nazi comparison, holocaust, wrongly used, godwin 's<|CONCLUSION|>","My view is that in some situations a nazi comparison can be a useful and valid tool in an argument, and that when such useful comparisons are made, Godwin's Law and other similar cultural memes serve only to make the discussion less fruitful. An example showed up earlier today in an r Foodforthought thread. u Westlondonwannabe said gt Don't totally disagree with you. But something someone said to me once has always stuck The death penalty is society saying, we collectively, choose to remove you from our group due to your heinous actions. The government is simply acting on our wishes as a society. To which u tvrr replied gt This one didn't fly to well in Nazi Germany. u tvrr was downvoted and people replied with comments about Godwin's law, and how you just can't compare the two. Now, I'm not saying that the comparison is exactly correct, but rather that elucidating exactly how the death penalty is different from the holocaust i.e. actually responding to the content of the comparison, rather than just dismissing it would be an important contribution to the conversation, allowing us to more clearly understand the parameters under which u Westlondonwannabe's statement is true, which to me is at the heart of what people are trying to get from this discussion. On the other hand, I'm not saying that there are no circumstances under which Nazi comparisons can be wrongly used. Two examples that I think of immediately are Person A makes the comparison, to which person B responds with 'This situation is different because and then person A comes back with 'Oh, so you're on the Nazi's side?' The comparison is 'The Nazis did X too', when X has nothing to do with why people hate the Nazis. So, go ahead and",Using Nazi comparisons can be a valid way of discussing a point
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I went through and did some back of the envelope math to try to figure out the pocketbook impacts of a carbon tax of 100 US Dollars per Metric Ton of CO2 equivalent, and it seems like such a tax would have minimal impact on actual behavior. Starting with gasoline. Per EPA the average family sedan in the US emits 4.6 tons of CO2 per year. That's 460 dollars per year on average. Given that the average fuel consumption according to the Energy Information Administration as cited here is 656 gallons per year, that comes out to an effective increase of roughly 70 cents per gallon. Given that many drivers make few trips that were not already necessary and that fuel prices already vary significantly across both time and geography, such a small price increase seems unlikely to make a significant impact on total fuel consumption. Second, I looked at flights. According to this calculator a nonstop one way flight from LAX to JFK produces 0.746 tons of CO2, for a carbon tax fee of 74.6 dollars. This is well within the variation of flight prices and thus also unlikely to significantly reduce the total number of trips Third, I looked at beef. According to The University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems a serving of beef produces 6.6 pounds of CO2e, or 0.003 metric tons. That would increase the price of a serving of beef by 30 cents, again not likely enough to significantly impact consumption. A 100 dollar per ton tax is also on the high end of proposals that I've seen. The recent carbon tax bill that was defeated in Washington State would have started at 15 ton and increased steadily to cap at 100 ton, and many other proposals or enacted laws also seem to be on the order of tens to dozens of dollars per ton. For a carbon tax to have real impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, it must be sufficiently high that emissions are actually reduced, which means that it must be sufficiently high that the rate of behaviors that result in emissions is also reduced. And 100 dollars per ton which, as I mentioned, is on the high end of proposed or enacted carbon prices is simply too low to significantly impact behavior. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I went through and did some back of the envelope math to try to figure out the pocketbook impacts of a carbon tax of 100 US Dollars per Metric Ton of CO2 equivalent, and it seems like such a tax would have minimal impact on actual behavior. Starting with gasoline. Per EPA the average family sedan in the US emits 4.6 tons of CO2 per year. That's 460 dollars per year on average. Given that the average fuel consumption according to the Energy Information Administration as cited here is 656 gallons per year, that comes out to an effective increase of roughly 70 cents per gallon. Given that many drivers make few trips that were not already necessary and that fuel prices already vary significantly across both time and geography, such a small price increase seems unlikely to make a significant impact on total fuel consumption. Second, I looked at flights. According to this calculator a nonstop one way flight from LAX to JFK produces 0.746 tons of CO2, for a carbon tax fee of 74.6 dollars. This is well within the variation of flight prices and thus also unlikely to significantly reduce the total number of trips Third, I looked at beef. According to The University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems a serving of beef produces 6.6 pounds of CO2e, or 0.003 metric tons. That would increase the price of a serving of beef by 30 cents, again not likely enough to significantly impact consumption. A 100 dollar per ton tax is also on the high end of proposals that I've seen. The recent carbon tax bill that was defeated in Washington State would have started at 15 ton and increased steadily to cap at 100 ton, and many other proposals or enacted laws also seem to be on the order of tens to dozens of dollars per ton. For a carbon tax to have real impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, it must be sufficiently high that emissions are actually reduced, which means that it must be sufficiently high that the rate of behaviors that result in emissions is also reduced. And 100 dollars per ton which, as I mentioned, is on the high end of proposed or enacted carbon prices is simply too low to significantly impact behavior. <|TARGETS|>the rate of behaviors that result in emissions, the high end of proposed or enacted carbon prices, A 100 dollar per ton tax, a carbon tax to have real impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, Given that many drivers make few trips that were not already necessary and that fuel prices, the envelope math to try to figure out the pocketbook impacts of a carbon tax of 100 US Dollars per Metric Ton of CO2 equivalent<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I went through and did some back of the envelope math to try to figure out the pocketbook impacts of a carbon tax of 100 US Dollars per Metric Ton of CO2 equivalent, and it seems like such a tax would have minimal impact on actual behavior. Starting with gasoline. Per EPA the average family sedan in the US emits 4.6 tons of CO2 per year. That's 460 dollars per year on average. Given that the average fuel consumption according to the Energy Information Administration as cited here is 656 gallons per year, that comes out to an effective increase of roughly 70 cents per gallon. Given that many drivers make few trips that were not already necessary and that fuel prices already vary significantly across both time and geography, such a small price increase seems unlikely to make a significant impact on total fuel consumption. Second, I looked at flights. According to this calculator a nonstop one way flight from LAX to JFK produces 0.746 tons of CO2, for a carbon tax fee of 74.6 dollars. This is well within the variation of flight prices and thus also unlikely to significantly reduce the total number of trips Third, I looked at beef. According to The University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems a serving of beef produces 6.6 pounds of CO2e, or 0.003 metric tons. That would increase the price of a serving of beef by 30 cents, again not likely enough to significantly impact consumption. A 100 dollar per ton tax is also on the high end of proposals that I've seen. The recent carbon tax bill that was defeated in Washington State would have started at 15 ton and increased steadily to cap at 100 ton, and many other proposals or enacted laws also seem to be on the order of tens to dozens of dollars per ton. For a carbon tax to have real impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, it must be sufficiently high that emissions are actually reduced, which means that it must be sufficiently high that the rate of behaviors that result in emissions is also reduced. And 100 dollars per ton which, as I mentioned, is on the high end of proposed or enacted carbon prices is simply too low to significantly impact behavior. <|ASPECTS|>carbon prices, family sedan, gasoline, price, small price increase, carbon tax fee, high end of proposals, impact consumption, carbon tax, co2e, emissions, total, trips, fuel consumption, number, co2, fuel prices, impacts, variation, flight prices, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, rate, impact behavior, impact, behaviors, pocketbook, actual behavior<|CONCLUSION|>","I went through and did some back of the envelope math to try to figure out the pocketbook impacts of a carbon tax of 100 US Dollars per Metric Ton of CO2 equivalent, and it seems like such a tax would have minimal impact on actual behavior. Starting with gasoline. Per EPA the average family sedan in the US emits 4.6 tons of CO2 per year. That's 460 dollars per year on average. Given that the average fuel consumption according to the Energy Information Administration as cited here is 656 gallons per year, that comes out to an effective increase of roughly 70 cents per gallon. Given that many drivers make few trips that were not already necessary and that fuel prices already vary significantly across both time and geography, such a small price increase seems unlikely to make a significant impact on total fuel consumption. Second, I looked at flights. According to this calculator a nonstop one way flight from LAX to JFK produces 0.746 tons of CO2, for a carbon tax fee of 74.6 dollars. This is well within the variation of flight prices and thus also unlikely to significantly reduce the total number of trips Third, I looked at beef. According to The University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Systems a serving of beef produces 6.6 pounds of CO2e, or 0.003 metric tons. That would increase the price of a serving of beef by 30 cents, again not likely enough to significantly impact consumption. A 100 dollar per ton tax is also on the high end of proposals that I've seen. The recent carbon tax bill that was defeated in Washington State would have started at 15 ton and increased steadily to cap at 100 ton, and many other proposals or enacted laws also seem to be on the order of tens to dozens of dollars per ton. For a carbon tax to have real impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, it must be sufficiently high that emissions are actually reduced, which means that it must be sufficiently high that the rate of behaviors that result in emissions is also reduced. And 100 dollars per ton which, as I mentioned, is on the high end of proposed or enacted carbon prices is simply too low to significantly impact behavior.",a 100 dollar per ton CO2e carbon tax is too low to significantly change consumptive behaviors
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello all. I’ve had this idea for a while. I’ve felt that it is more of a stop gap given ignorance of moral facts, but I’ve failed to find an argument against it that I find compelling. I’ve found myself making some life choices given this opinion, which can be dangerous since it becomes harder to divest oneself of incorrect opinions the more one invests in them. So, CMV. This argument rests on the following premises We haven’t proven that objective moral facts do not exist. If there is something I ought to do, then I ought to do it regardless of my whims. Ignorance of moral truths, if they exist, would not release me from my normative duty. Assuming I am currently ignorant of any objective moral truths, it makes sense to try and discover as many moral truths as possible and then to live my life according to them. If there are moral truths, then this is my duty regardless of my whims or how difficult it seems. If there are not moral truths, then relativism or nihilism takes over and my futile search is just as good as any other pursuit. I have debated this with some of my friends and family. Here are some of their arguments and my rebuttals gt It is absurd to believe in moral facts. Morality is constructed it doesn’t arise out of the laws of the universe. A rock will fall if you drop it it can’t do anything else. But, there is no equivalent for moral “truths”. You can act immorally and then society has to make things right because the universe won’t. I’m not confident that this disproves the existence of moral facts. For example, game theory is the study of ways one should act within particular scenarios. Consciousness doesn’t seem to be required for the mathematical results of these games to be true. For example, trees have settled into an equilibrium in a sort of Prisoner’s Dilemma trees will invest the energy to grow tall because trees that don’t get deprived of sunlight by trees that did. gt You are repressing your true self by committing yourself to this search. What if these truths do not exist? You will have wasted your life. What is my “true self”? Are you claiming that there is something objective which I should stay true to? Otherwise, I don’t see why I shouldn’t change myself to subjectively value the search for objective truth. Then it doesn’t matter if my search is futile. gt Morality is not what one ought to do in the universal sense, but rather a code of conduct that enables civilized society to exist. Part of this code is not attempting to force your whim on others since, historically, it tends to result in things like crusades, purges, and genocide. I worry that your search for this “truth” could harm others if you “find” it. Couldn’t this regress to a dangerous sort of dogmatism that should be discouraged to protect others? This is a way of looking at morality that is novel to me. But, doesn’t it somewhat affirm my program of fulfilling my objective duty? I suppose, if we’ve found all moral truths, then further searching could potentially be dangerous as you are describing. But, you would agree that humans are fallible, right? And therefore we should have some doubt for whatever set of truths we settle on. It would seem that there will always be a reasonable tradeoff to be made between societal stability and questioning our moral beliefs. EDIT Thanks so much for all your responses. I have to head off soon, but I intend to try and reply to everyone in the next few days. Some clarifications that should be made I included my evolutionary argument about trees to show a possible explanation of why ethical realism seems reasonable enough to consider and not reject outright. I think it is a good theory and perhaps worthy of a separate CMV, but ultimately I feel its validity is irrelevant to the central point of this OP since I am only relying on the possibility that objective moral facts exist. If you have a knock down argument against moral realism in general, I would like to hear it. But, if you focus your attention on any individual theory as opposed to killing it at the root then you likely have committed yourself to a perpetual game of whack a mole. In regards to my first premise, I am not making the assertion that objective morality exists because we haven't disproved it yet, I am making the assertion that we don't know that it does not. I don't think that this should be particularly controversial. My argument only relies on the possibility that there is something that I ought to be doing. Several arguments made the point that we need to have an idea about how we want the universe to be before we can say we ought to do something since there seems to be an implicit value judgement in normative statements. For instance Given that we value social harmony, we ought not murder people randomly. . I think that this is perhaps begging the question since it is assuming that the preferences of individuals matter. If moral facts exists, then they would be similar to other natural facts. If you could change my view in regards to moral realism, this avenue of attack would tear down my confidence in objective moral non realism. EDIT 2 Several people have asked about the practical implications of living life with faith in an unknown objective goal. So, to elaborate I find the basic algorithm of utilitarianism to be a fairly uncontroversial system for deciding how to act. The major problem with utilitarianism in my opinion is that no one can agree upon the value theory with which to measure potential outcomes. If I act with the presumption that there exists some as of yet undiscovered objective value theory, then I can start deriving instrumental goals to serve this purpose. For instance I should be doing something that is objectively meaningful, but I don't know what form that should take, so I should try to learn more about philosophy and the universe in addition to improving my mental capabilities. I should be doing something that is objectively meaningful, but it is highly likely I'll die at some point, I should document my experience and invest in society so others can carry on making an progress on these problems after I'm gone. EDIT 3 This topic received more attention than I was expecting. I'm having trouble responding to everyone, but I do still intend to engage everyone. Thank you for your patience. EDIT 4 I awarded a delta to account number 7 for weakening my perception of the argument in the OP as providing an universally applicable guiding principle for how to act. Here<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello all. I’ve had this idea for a while. I’ve felt that it is more of a stop gap given ignorance of moral facts, but I’ve failed to find an argument against it that I find compelling. I’ve found myself making some life choices given this opinion, which can be dangerous since it becomes harder to divest oneself of incorrect opinions the more one invests in them. So, CMV. This argument rests on the following premises We haven’t proven that objective moral facts do not exist. If there is something I ought to do, then I ought to do it regardless of my whims. Ignorance of moral truths, if they exist, would not release me from my normative duty. Assuming I am currently ignorant of any objective moral truths, it makes sense to try and discover as many moral truths as possible and then to live my life according to them. If there are moral truths, then this is my duty regardless of my whims or how difficult it seems. If there are not moral truths, then relativism or nihilism takes over and my futile search is just as good as any other pursuit. I have debated this with some of my friends and family. Here are some of their arguments and my rebuttals gt It is absurd to believe in moral facts. Morality is constructed it doesn’t arise out of the laws of the universe. A rock will fall if you drop it it can’t do anything else. But, there is no equivalent for moral “truths”. You can act immorally and then society has to make things right because the universe won’t. I’m not confident that this disproves the existence of moral facts. For example, game theory is the study of ways one should act within particular scenarios. Consciousness doesn’t seem to be required for the mathematical results of these games to be true. For example, trees have settled into an equilibrium in a sort of Prisoner’s Dilemma trees will invest the energy to grow tall because trees that don’t get deprived of sunlight by trees that did. gt You are repressing your true self by committing yourself to this search. What if these truths do not exist? You will have wasted your life. What is my “true self”? Are you claiming that there is something objective which I should stay true to? Otherwise, I don’t see why I shouldn’t change myself to subjectively value the search for objective truth. Then it doesn’t matter if my search is futile. gt Morality is not what one ought to do in the universal sense, but rather a code of conduct that enables civilized society to exist. Part of this code is not attempting to force your whim on others since, historically, it tends to result in things like crusades, purges, and genocide. I worry that your search for this “truth” could harm others if you “find” it. Couldn’t this regress to a dangerous sort of dogmatism that should be discouraged to protect others? This is a way of looking at morality that is novel to me. But, doesn’t it somewhat affirm my program of fulfilling my objective duty? I suppose, if we’ve found all moral truths, then further searching could potentially be dangerous as you are describing. But, you would agree that humans are fallible, right? And therefore we should have some doubt for whatever set of truths we settle on. It would seem that there will always be a reasonable tradeoff to be made between societal stability and questioning our moral beliefs. EDIT Thanks so much for all your responses. I have to head off soon, but I intend to try and reply to everyone in the next few days. Some clarifications that should be made I included my evolutionary argument about trees to show a possible explanation of why ethical realism seems reasonable enough to consider and not reject outright. I think it is a good theory and perhaps worthy of a separate CMV, but ultimately I feel its validity is irrelevant to the central point of this OP since I am only relying on the possibility that objective moral facts exist. If you have a knock down argument against moral realism in general, I would like to hear it. But, if you focus your attention on any individual theory as opposed to killing it at the root then you likely have committed yourself to a perpetual game of whack a mole. In regards to my first premise, I am not making the assertion that objective morality exists because we haven't disproved it yet, I am making the assertion that we don't know that it does not. I don't think that this should be particularly controversial. My argument only relies on the possibility that there is something that I ought to be doing. Several arguments made the point that we need to have an idea about how we want the universe to be before we can say we ought to do something since there seems to be an implicit value judgement in normative statements. For instance Given that we value social harmony, we ought not murder people randomly. . I think that this is perhaps begging the question since it is assuming that the preferences of individuals matter. If moral facts exists, then they would be similar to other natural facts. If you could change my view in regards to moral realism, this avenue of attack would tear down my confidence in objective moral non realism. EDIT 2 Several people have asked about the practical implications of living life with faith in an unknown objective goal. So, to elaborate I find the basic algorithm of utilitarianism to be a fairly uncontroversial system for deciding how to act. The major problem with utilitarianism in my opinion is that no one can agree upon the value theory with which to measure potential outcomes. If I act with the presumption that there exists some as of yet undiscovered objective value theory, then I can start deriving instrumental goals to serve this purpose. For instance I should be doing something that is objectively meaningful, but I don't know what form that should take, so I should try to learn more about philosophy and the universe in addition to improving my mental capabilities. I should be doing something that is objectively meaningful, but it is highly likely I'll die at some point, I should document my experience and invest in society so others can carry on making an progress on these problems after I'm gone. EDIT 3 This topic received more attention than I was expecting. I'm having trouble responding to everyone, but I do still intend to engage everyone. Thank you for your patience. EDIT 4 I awarded a delta to account number 7 for weakening my perception of the argument in the OP as providing an universally applicable guiding principle for how to act. Here<|TARGETS|>to find an argument against it that I find compelling ., some doubt for whatever set of truths we settle on ., the basic algorithm of utilitarianism to be a fairly uncontroversial system for deciding how to act ., gt Morality, A rock, to try and reply to everyone in the next few days .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello all. I’ve had this idea for a while. I’ve felt that it is more of a stop gap given ignorance of moral facts, but I’ve failed to find an argument against it that I find compelling. I’ve found myself making some life choices given this opinion, which can be dangerous since it becomes harder to divest oneself of incorrect opinions the more one invests in them. So, CMV. This argument rests on the following premises We haven’t proven that objective moral facts do not exist. If there is something I ought to do, then I ought to do it regardless of my whims. Ignorance of moral truths, if they exist, would not release me from my normative duty. Assuming I am currently ignorant of any objective moral truths, it makes sense to try and discover as many moral truths as possible and then to live my life according to them. If there are moral truths, then this is my duty regardless of my whims or how difficult it seems. If there are not moral truths, then relativism or nihilism takes over and my futile search is just as good as any other pursuit. I have debated this with some of my friends and family. Here are some of their arguments and my rebuttals gt It is absurd to believe in moral facts. Morality is constructed it doesn’t arise out of the laws of the universe. A rock will fall if you drop it it can’t do anything else. But, there is no equivalent for moral “truths”. You can act immorally and then society has to make things right because the universe won’t. I’m not confident that this disproves the existence of moral facts. For example, game theory is the study of ways one should act within particular scenarios. Consciousness doesn’t seem to be required for the mathematical results of these games to be true. For example, trees have settled into an equilibrium in a sort of Prisoner’s Dilemma trees will invest the energy to grow tall because trees that don’t get deprived of sunlight by trees that did. gt You are repressing your true self by committing yourself to this search. What if these truths do not exist? You will have wasted your life. What is my “true self”? Are you claiming that there is something objective which I should stay true to? Otherwise, I don’t see why I shouldn’t change myself to subjectively value the search for objective truth. Then it doesn’t matter if my search is futile. gt Morality is not what one ought to do in the universal sense, but rather a code of conduct that enables civilized society to exist. Part of this code is not attempting to force your whim on others since, historically, it tends to result in things like crusades, purges, and genocide. I worry that your search for this “truth” could harm others if you “find” it. Couldn’t this regress to a dangerous sort of dogmatism that should be discouraged to protect others? This is a way of looking at morality that is novel to me. But, doesn’t it somewhat affirm my program of fulfilling my objective duty? I suppose, if we’ve found all moral truths, then further searching could potentially be dangerous as you are describing. But, you would agree that humans are fallible, right? And therefore we should have some doubt for whatever set of truths we settle on. It would seem that there will always be a reasonable tradeoff to be made between societal stability and questioning our moral beliefs. EDIT Thanks so much for all your responses. I have to head off soon, but I intend to try and reply to everyone in the next few days. Some clarifications that should be made I included my evolutionary argument about trees to show a possible explanation of why ethical realism seems reasonable enough to consider and not reject outright. I think it is a good theory and perhaps worthy of a separate CMV, but ultimately I feel its validity is irrelevant to the central point of this OP since I am only relying on the possibility that objective moral facts exist. If you have a knock down argument against moral realism in general, I would like to hear it. But, if you focus your attention on any individual theory as opposed to killing it at the root then you likely have committed yourself to a perpetual game of whack a mole. In regards to my first premise, I am not making the assertion that objective morality exists because we haven't disproved it yet, I am making the assertion that we don't know that it does not. I don't think that this should be particularly controversial. My argument only relies on the possibility that there is something that I ought to be doing. Several arguments made the point that we need to have an idea about how we want the universe to be before we can say we ought to do something since there seems to be an implicit value judgement in normative statements. For instance Given that we value social harmony, we ought not murder people randomly. . I think that this is perhaps begging the question since it is assuming that the preferences of individuals matter. If moral facts exists, then they would be similar to other natural facts. If you could change my view in regards to moral realism, this avenue of attack would tear down my confidence in objective moral non realism. EDIT 2 Several people have asked about the practical implications of living life with faith in an unknown objective goal. So, to elaborate I find the basic algorithm of utilitarianism to be a fairly uncontroversial system for deciding how to act. The major problem with utilitarianism in my opinion is that no one can agree upon the value theory with which to measure potential outcomes. If I act with the presumption that there exists some as of yet undiscovered objective value theory, then I can start deriving instrumental goals to serve this purpose. For instance I should be doing something that is objectively meaningful, but I don't know what form that should take, so I should try to learn more about philosophy and the universe in addition to improving my mental capabilities. I should be doing something that is objectively meaningful, but it is highly likely I'll die at some point, I should document my experience and invest in society so others can carry on making an progress on these problems after I'm gone. EDIT 3 This topic received more attention than I was expecting. I'm having trouble responding to everyone, but I do still intend to engage everyone. Thank you for your patience. EDIT 4 I awarded a delta to account number 7 for weakening my perception of the argument in the OP as providing an universally applicable guiding principle for how to act. Here<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, nihilism, objective, whack a mole, moral non realism, society, reasonable tradeoff, ignorance, deprived, moral truths, divest, objective goal, engage everyone, die, normative duty, purges, perpetual, relativism, evolutionary argument, stop gap, duty, futile, instrumental goals, controversial, morality, genocide, energy, wasted your life, code of conduct, act, reply, sunlight, futile search, universally applicable, fall, civilized society, truths, perception, discouraged, invest in society, individual theory, immorally, trouble, protect others, value theory, societal stability, scenarios, humans, doubt, objective morality, dogmatism, objectively meaningful, ethical realism, attention, mathematical results, measure, objective moral facts, guiding principle, value judgement, harm others, utilitarianism, potential outcomes, objective value, make things right, experience, true self, incorrect opinions, validity, search, crusades, mental capabilities, equilibrium, consciousness, subjectively, fulfilling, whims, objective truth, life choices, faith, social harmony, grow tall, moral beliefs, rock, moral “ truths, murder people randomly, patience, fallible, uncontroversial system, similar, responding to everyone, preferences of individuals, practical implications, objective duty, repressing your true self, game, philosophy, force your whim, moral realism, natural facts, anything, moral facts<|CONCLUSION|>","Hello all. I’ve had this idea for a while. I’ve felt that it is more of a stop gap given ignorance of moral facts, but I’ve failed to find an argument against it that I find compelling. I’ve found myself making some life choices given this opinion, which can be dangerous since it becomes harder to divest oneself of incorrect opinions the more one invests in them. So, . This argument rests on the following premises We haven’t proven that objective moral facts do not exist. If there is something I ought to do, then I ought to do it regardless of my whims. Ignorance of moral truths, if they exist, would not release me from my normative duty. Assuming I am currently ignorant of any objective moral truths, it makes sense to try and discover as many moral truths as possible and then to live my life according to them. If there are moral truths, then this is my duty regardless of my whims or how difficult it seems. If there are not moral truths, then relativism or nihilism takes over and my futile search is just as good as any other pursuit. I have debated this with some of my friends and family. Here are some of their arguments and my rebuttals gt It is absurd to believe in moral facts. Morality is constructed it doesn’t arise out of the laws of the universe. A rock will fall if you drop it it can’t do anything else. But, there is no equivalent for moral “truths”. You can act immorally and then society has to make things right because the universe won’t. I’m not confident that this disproves the existence of moral facts. For example, game theory is the study of ways one should act within particular scenarios. Consciousness doesn’t seem to be required for the mathematical results of these games to be true. For example, trees have settled into an equilibrium in a sort of Prisoner’s Dilemma trees will invest the energy to grow tall because trees that don’t get deprived of sunlight by trees that did. gt You are repressing your true self by committing yourself to this search. What if these truths do not exist? You will have wasted your life. What is my “true self”? Are you claiming that there is something objective which I should stay true to? Otherwise, I don’t see why I shouldn’t change myself to subjectively value the search for objective truth. Then it doesn’t matter if my search is futile. gt Morality is not what one ought to do in the universal sense, but rather a code of conduct that enables civilized society to exist. Part of this code is not attempting to force your whim on others since, historically, it tends to result in things like crusades, purges, and genocide. I worry that your search for this “truth” could harm others if you “find” it. Couldn’t this regress to a dangerous sort of dogmatism that should be discouraged to protect others? This is a way of looking at morality that is novel to me. But, doesn’t it somewhat affirm my program of fulfilling my objective duty? I suppose, if we’ve found all moral truths, then further searching could potentially be dangerous as you are describing. But, you would agree that humans are fallible, right? And therefore we should have some doubt for whatever set of truths we settle on. It would seem that there will always be a reasonable tradeoff to be made between societal stability and questioning our moral beliefs. EDIT Thanks so much for all your responses. I have to head off soon, but I intend to try and reply to everyone in the next few days. Some clarifications that should be made I included my evolutionary argument about trees to show a possible explanation of why ethical realism seems reasonable enough to consider and not reject outright. I think it is a good theory and perhaps worthy of a separate , but ultimately I feel its validity is irrelevant to the central point of this OP since I am only relying on the possibility that objective moral facts exist. If you have a knock down argument against moral realism in general, I would like to hear it. But, if you focus your attention on any individual theory as opposed to killing it at the root then you likely have committed yourself to a perpetual game of whack a mole. In regards to my first premise, I am not making the assertion that objective morality exists because we haven't disproved it yet, I am making the assertion that we don't know that it does not. I don't think that this should be particularly controversial. My argument only relies on the possibility that there is something that I ought to be doing. Several arguments made the point that we need to have an idea about how we want the universe to be before we can say we ought to do something since there seems to be an implicit value judgement in normative statements. For instance Given that we value social harmony, we ought not murder people randomly. . I think that this is perhaps begging the question since it is assuming that the preferences of individuals matter. If moral facts exists, then they would be similar to other natural facts. If you could change my view in regards to moral realism, this avenue of attack would tear down my confidence in objective moral non realism. EDIT 2 Several people have asked about the practical implications of living life with faith in an unknown objective goal. So, to elaborate I find the basic algorithm of utilitarianism to be a fairly uncontroversial system for deciding how to act. The major problem with utilitarianism in my opinion is that no one can agree upon the value theory with which to measure potential outcomes. If I act with the presumption that there exists some as of yet undiscovered objective value theory, then I can start deriving instrumental goals to serve this purpose. For instance I should be doing something that is objectively meaningful, but I don't know what form that should take, so I should try to learn more about philosophy and the universe in addition to improving my mental capabilities. I should be doing something that is objectively meaningful, but it is highly likely I'll die at some point, I should document my experience and invest in society so others can carry on making an progress on these problems after I'm gone. EDIT 3 This topic received more attention than I was expecting. I'm having trouble responding to everyone, but I do still intend to engage everyone. Thank you for your patience. EDIT 4 I awarded a delta to account number 7 for weakening my perception of the argument in the OP as providing an universally applicable guiding principle for how to act. Here","Until given a strong, knock-down argument against moral realism, I am obliged to act as if objective moral truths exist."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Private financing systems have been working for a really long time. The system has been the standard, and although there have been occasions of devious politicians, the U.S.A. as we know it is still around and doing a okay.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Private financing systems have been working for a really long time. The system has been the standard, and although there have been occasions of devious politicians, the U.S.A. as we know it is still around and doing a okay.<|TARGETS|>The system, Private financing systems<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Private financing systems have been working for a really long time. The system has been the standard, and although there have been occasions of devious politicians, the U.S.A. as we know it is still around and doing a okay.<|ASPECTS|>devious politicians, private financing systems<|CONCLUSION|>","Private financing systems have been working for a really long time. The system has been the standard, and although there have been occasions of devious politicians, the U.S.A. as we know it is still around and doing a okay.",I believe that private financing systems rather than publicly financed for campaigns should be the standard for the U.S.A.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, I was raised in a lower middle class household, my family was borderline poor. So I don't have a stake in this. That said, it strikes me as distinctly counter to the American Dream to deride others as trust fund babies. Part of the American Dream, surely, is to become successful enough to provide for your children. The natural end game of that goal, if you are very successful, is to set up a fund to make sure your kids are healthy and happy even after you're gone. So why do we blame these kids for their parent's success? I would hope one day I could be so fortunate to set up a trust fund for my own children. It seems like something to aspire to. I believe the American dream is making something for yourself in this world, and by extension taking care of your family. So calling someone's kids trust fund babies in an attempt to deride this situation is counter to the American Dream. To change my view, you'd have to convince me that most kids with trust funds are worthy of this derision and or parents who set up these funds aren't in fact living the American Dream. Change my view<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, I was raised in a lower middle class household, my family was borderline poor. So I don't have a stake in this. That said, it strikes me as distinctly counter to the American Dream to deride others as trust fund babies. Part of the American Dream, surely, is to become successful enough to provide for your children. The natural end game of that goal, if you are very successful, is to set up a fund to make sure your kids are healthy and happy even after you're gone. So why do we blame these kids for their parent's success? I would hope one day I could be so fortunate to set up a trust fund for my own children. It seems like something to aspire to. I believe the American dream is making something for yourself in this world, and by extension taking care of your family. So calling someone's kids trust fund babies in an attempt to deride this situation is counter to the American Dream. To change my view, you'd have to convince me that most kids with trust funds are worthy of this derision and or parents who set up these funds aren't in fact living the American Dream. Change my view<|TARGETS|>to set up a fund to make sure your kids, Part of the American Dream, extension taking care of your family ., To change my view, calling someone 's kids trust fund babies in an attempt to deride this situation, to deride others as trust fund babies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, I was raised in a lower middle class household, my family was borderline poor. So I don't have a stake in this. That said, it strikes me as distinctly counter to the American Dream to deride others as trust fund babies. Part of the American Dream, surely, is to become successful enough to provide for your children. The natural end game of that goal, if you are very successful, is to set up a fund to make sure your kids are healthy and happy even after you're gone. So why do we blame these kids for their parent's success? I would hope one day I could be so fortunate to set up a trust fund for my own children. It seems like something to aspire to. I believe the American dream is making something for yourself in this world, and by extension taking care of your family. So calling someone's kids trust fund babies in an attempt to deride this situation is counter to the American Dream. To change my view, you'd have to convince me that most kids with trust funds are worthy of this derision and or parents who set up these funds aren't in fact living the American Dream. Change my view<|ASPECTS|>healthy and happy, fortunate, successful enough, american dream, counter, trust fund babies, lower middle class household, become, taking care of your family, dream, derision, aspire, trust fund, parent 's success, poor, living, something, provide for your children, stake, trust funds, worthy<|CONCLUSION|>","First off, I was raised in a lower middle class household, my family was borderline poor. So I don't have a stake in this. That said, it strikes me as distinctly counter to the American Dream to deride others as trust fund babies. Part of the American Dream, surely, is to become successful enough to provide for your children. The natural end game of that goal, if you are very successful, is to set up a fund to make sure your kids are healthy and happy even after you're gone. So why do we blame these kids for their parent's success? I would hope one day I could be so fortunate to set up a trust fund for my own children. It seems like something to aspire to. I believe the American dream is making something for yourself in this world, and by extension taking care of your family. So calling someone's kids trust fund babies in an attempt to deride this situation is counter to the American Dream. To change my view, you'd have to convince me that most kids with trust funds are worthy of this derision and or parents who set up these funds aren't in fact living the American Dream. Change my view","Use of the term ""trust fund baby"" is counter to the American Dream"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a personal quarrel with this one because I had a boyfriend who was into this. It made me extremely uncomfortable because he always wanted me to play his mommy and would guilt trip me if I didn't do it. The reason I complied was because I have severe abuse and abandonment issues and I didn't want to lose other aspects of him. Plus, he lied that it wasn't sexual for him at first. Let's get this out of the way I don't think little play is bad, really. When you bring the sex aspect in, it is disgusting and we have every right to kinkshame these people because it's literally the fetishization of children. People with this fetish often seem to not keep it in the bedroom, either, and to see what is considered a sexual act for them in public view is wrong and they should be punished for their perversion. Interested to hear your thoughts. Sorry about the delta nonsense guys, this is my first post here and I screwed something up with the intructions.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a personal quarrel with this one because I had a boyfriend who was into this. It made me extremely uncomfortable because he always wanted me to play his mommy and would guilt trip me if I didn't do it. The reason I complied was because I have severe abuse and abandonment issues and I didn't want to lose other aspects of him. Plus, he lied that it wasn't sexual for him at first. Let's get this out of the way I don't think little play is bad, really. When you bring the sex aspect in, it is disgusting and we have every right to kinkshame these people because it's literally the fetishization of children. People with this fetish often seem to not keep it in the bedroom, either, and to see what is considered a sexual act for them in public view is wrong and they should be punished for their perversion. Interested to hear your thoughts. Sorry about the delta nonsense guys, this is my first post here and I screwed something up with the intructions.<|TARGETS|>When you bring the sex aspect in, Interested to hear your thoughts ., to not keep it in the bedroom either and to see what is considered a sexual act for them in public view, to play his mommy and would guilt trip me if I did n't do it ., to kinkshame these people because it 's literally the fetishization of children ., Let 's get this out of the way I do n't think little play<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a personal quarrel with this one because I had a boyfriend who was into this. It made me extremely uncomfortable because he always wanted me to play his mommy and would guilt trip me if I didn't do it. The reason I complied was because I have severe abuse and abandonment issues and I didn't want to lose other aspects of him. Plus, he lied that it wasn't sexual for him at first. Let's get this out of the way I don't think little play is bad, really. When you bring the sex aspect in, it is disgusting and we have every right to kinkshame these people because it's literally the fetishization of children. People with this fetish often seem to not keep it in the bedroom, either, and to see what is considered a sexual act for them in public view is wrong and they should be punished for their perversion. Interested to hear your thoughts. Sorry about the delta nonsense guys, this is my first post here and I screwed something up with the intructions.<|ASPECTS|>severe, guilt trip, sexual, lose, abandonment issues, fetishization of children, hear your thoughts, delta nonsense, screwed, personal quarrel, little play, perversion, disgusting, play his mommy, right to kinkshame, sexual act, intructions, abuse, uncomfortable<|CONCLUSION|>","I have a personal quarrel with this one because I had a boyfriend who was into this. It made me extremely uncomfortable because he always wanted me to play his mommy and would guilt trip me if I didn't do it. The reason I complied was because I have severe abuse and abandonment issues and I didn't want to lose other aspects of him. Plus, he lied that it wasn't sexual for him at first. Let's get this out of the way I don't think little play is bad, really. When you bring the sex aspect in, it is disgusting and we have every right to kinkshame these people because it's literally the fetishization of children. People with this fetish often seem to not keep it in the bedroom, either, and to see what is considered a sexual act for them in public view is wrong and they should be punished for their perversion. Interested to hear your thoughts. Sorry about the delta nonsense guys, this is my first post here and I screwed something up with the intructions.",Daddy and little fetishes are borderline pedophilia and promote the idea of thinking of small children as sexual.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Almost no one else I know stores eggs in the refrigerator, and yet none of them seem to be able to give me a good answer as to why that is the case. Before now, people have said 'the eggs absorb the smells in the fridge', as chefs have apparently said something to that effect on TV. I have never seen or tasted any evidence of this fact however. They've also argued that because supermarkets don't put the eggs in refrigerators, that they obviously shouldn't go there. However, I'm of the mind that they sell quick enough that they don't need to. In my experience refrigerating eggs keeps them fresh for longer and doesn't change the taste. So is there any real argument for keeping them out of the refrigerator? I would like to know, so pleeeease CMV EDIT To clarify, limited refrigerator space is a good argument for keeping eggs out, however I know plenty of people do it despite having plenty of room in the refrigerator Also, I live in the UK, so eggs do not get washed before getting into the supermarket.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Almost no one else I know stores eggs in the refrigerator, and yet none of them seem to be able to give me a good answer as to why that is the case. Before now, people have said 'the eggs absorb the smells in the fridge', as chefs have apparently said something to that effect on TV. I have never seen or tasted any evidence of this fact however. They've also argued that because supermarkets don't put the eggs in refrigerators, that they obviously shouldn't go there. However, I'm of the mind that they sell quick enough that they don't need to. In my experience refrigerating eggs keeps them fresh for longer and doesn't change the taste. So is there any real argument for keeping them out of the refrigerator? I would like to know, so pleeeease CMV EDIT To clarify, limited refrigerator space is a good argument for keeping eggs out, however I know plenty of people do it despite having plenty of room in the refrigerator Also, I live in the UK, so eggs do not get washed before getting into the supermarket.<|TARGETS|>keeping them out of the refrigerator, having plenty of room in the refrigerator, I know stores eggs in the refrigerator, the eggs in refrigerators, refrigerating eggs<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Almost no one else I know stores eggs in the refrigerator, and yet none of them seem to be able to give me a good answer as to why that is the case. Before now, people have said 'the eggs absorb the smells in the fridge', as chefs have apparently said something to that effect on TV. I have never seen or tasted any evidence of this fact however. They've also argued that because supermarkets don't put the eggs in refrigerators, that they obviously shouldn't go there. However, I'm of the mind that they sell quick enough that they don't need to. In my experience refrigerating eggs keeps them fresh for longer and doesn't change the taste. So is there any real argument for keeping them out of the refrigerator? I would like to know, so pleeeease CMV EDIT To clarify, limited refrigerator space is a good argument for keeping eggs out, however I know plenty of people do it despite having plenty of room in the refrigerator Also, I live in the UK, so eggs do not get washed before getting into the supermarket.<|ASPECTS|>refrigerator space, change, limited, absorb, answer, smells, eggs, sell quick, fresh, taste, argument<|CONCLUSION|>","Almost no one else I know stores eggs in the refrigerator, and yet none of them seem to be able to give me a good answer as to why that is the case. Before now, people have said 'the eggs absorb the smells in the fridge', as chefs have apparently said something to that effect on TV. I have never seen or tasted any evidence of this fact however. They've also argued that because supermarkets don't put the eggs in refrigerators, that they obviously shouldn't go there. However, I'm of the mind that they sell quick enough that they don't need to. In my experience refrigerating eggs keeps them fresh for longer and doesn't change the taste. So is there any real argument for keeping them out of the refrigerator? I would like to know, so pleeeease  EDIT To clarify, limited refrigerator space is a good argument for keeping eggs out, however I know plenty of people do it despite having plenty of room in the refrigerator Also, I live in the UK, so eggs do not get washed before getting into the supermarket.",I Believe the Optimal Storage Place for Eggs is the Refrigerator.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I have not played a lot of Mario Party, and haven't played in a long time, so maybe things have changed since the last time I played it, but this CMV is based on my experiences. I think the Mario Party series is terrible, and would probably even call it the worst video game intended for parties. It is not skill based at all. The mini games are basically meaningless as you can lose them all and still win the game just by someone else having a lucky die roll and swapping stars with you. Likewise, you can win them all and still come in last place because you just had bad luck and couldn't get stars for whatever reason And there were PLENTY of reasons . It is mostly a game of luck, not skill, which in turn makes it a terrible party game, in my opinion. Monopoly has a strong luck element in dice rolls, sure, but there's still a lot of skill in deciding which properties to upgrade, if its worth mortgaging a property to buy a new one or upgrade one, and trading with other players Side note If you don't trade with other players when playing Monopoly, you're really doing it wrong . But back on topic, Mario Party is a shitty party game. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I have not played a lot of Mario Party, and haven't played in a long time, so maybe things have changed since the last time I played it, but this CMV is based on my experiences. I think the Mario Party series is terrible, and would probably even call it the worst video game intended for parties. It is not skill based at all. The mini games are basically meaningless as you can lose them all and still win the game just by someone else having a lucky die roll and swapping stars with you. Likewise, you can win them all and still come in last place because you just had bad luck and couldn't get stars for whatever reason And there were PLENTY of reasons . It is mostly a game of luck, not skill, which in turn makes it a terrible party game, in my opinion. Monopoly has a strong luck element in dice rolls, sure, but there's still a lot of skill in deciding which properties to upgrade, if its worth mortgaging a property to buy a new one or upgrade one, and trading with other players Side note If you don't trade with other players when playing Monopoly, you're really doing it wrong . But back on topic, Mario Party is a shitty party game. CMV.<|TARGETS|>Mario Party, the Mario Party series, having a lucky die roll and swapping stars with you ., mortgaging a property to buy a new one or upgrade one and trading with other players Side note If you do n't trade with other players when playing Monopoly, Disclaimer, The mini games<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I have not played a lot of Mario Party, and haven't played in a long time, so maybe things have changed since the last time I played it, but this CMV is based on my experiences. I think the Mario Party series is terrible, and would probably even call it the worst video game intended for parties. It is not skill based at all. The mini games are basically meaningless as you can lose them all and still win the game just by someone else having a lucky die roll and swapping stars with you. Likewise, you can win them all and still come in last place because you just had bad luck and couldn't get stars for whatever reason And there were PLENTY of reasons . It is mostly a game of luck, not skill, which in turn makes it a terrible party game, in my opinion. Monopoly has a strong luck element in dice rolls, sure, but there's still a lot of skill in deciding which properties to upgrade, if its worth mortgaging a property to buy a new one or upgrade one, and trading with other players Side note If you don't trade with other players when playing Monopoly, you're really doing it wrong . But back on topic, Mario Party is a shitty party game. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>last, bad luck, meaningless, game of luck, terrible, worst, party game, luck element, shitty party game, skill, stars, win, lose, experiences, swapping stars, skill based<|CONCLUSION|>","Disclaimer I have not played a lot of Mario Party, and haven't played in a long time, so maybe things have changed since the last time I played it, but this  is based on my experiences. I think the Mario Party series is terrible, and would probably even call it the worst video game intended for parties. It is not skill based at all. The mini games are basically meaningless as you can lose them all and still win the game just by someone else having a lucky die roll and swapping stars with you. Likewise, you can win them all and still come in last place because you just had bad luck and couldn't get stars for whatever reason And there were PLENTY of reasons . It is mostly a game of luck, not skill, which in turn makes it a terrible party game, in my opinion. Monopoly has a strong luck element in dice rolls, sure, but there's still a lot of skill in deciding which properties to upgrade, if its worth mortgaging a property to buy a new one or upgrade one, and trading with other players Side note If you don't trade with other players when playing Monopoly, you're really doing it wrong . But back on topic, Mario Party is a shitty party game. .",The Mario Party series is terrible
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nobody likes to lose their job. I get it, if you can't find work, then you should have a safety net that pays you. But after nearly two years, I think you should have to earn further payments. After 99 weeks, you should be required to do community service in order to keep your benefits. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, help a veteran build a home, pick up litter. It doesn't matter, as long as you help out. This was originally an idea by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and I think it would greatly improve the United States. Go ahead. Change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nobody likes to lose their job. I get it, if you can't find work, then you should have a safety net that pays you. But after nearly two years, I think you should have to earn further payments. After 99 weeks, you should be required to do community service in order to keep your benefits. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, help a veteran build a home, pick up litter. It doesn't matter, as long as you help out. This was originally an idea by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and I think it would greatly improve the United States. Go ahead. Change my view.<|TARGETS|>Volunteer at a soup kitchen, to earn further payments ., a safety net that pays you ., to lose their job ., to do community service in order to keep your benefits .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nobody likes to lose their job. I get it, if you can't find work, then you should have a safety net that pays you. But after nearly two years, I think you should have to earn further payments. After 99 weeks, you should be required to do community service in order to keep your benefits. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, help a veteran build a home, pick up litter. It doesn't matter, as long as you help out. This was originally an idea by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and I think it would greatly improve the United States. Go ahead. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>home, improve the united states, pick, greatly, view, community service, litter, benefits, lose their job, safety net, matter, earn further payments, veteran<|CONCLUSION|>","Nobody likes to lose their job. I get it, if you can't find work, then you should have a safety net that pays you. But after nearly two years, I think you should have to earn further payments. After 99 weeks, you should be required to do community service in order to keep your benefits. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, help a veteran build a home, pick up litter. It doesn't matter, as long as you help out. This was originally an idea by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and I think it would greatly improve the United States. Go ahead. Change my view.",I think you be required to do community service if you want to keep unemployment insurance after 99 weeks.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here are the reasons why I think the average redditor is happier than the average orangutan Orangutans' major worry is losing their habitat due to deforestation. Reddit's major worry is that Netflix will take too long to buffer. Orangutans live under the constant threat of being eaten by tigers. Redditors constantly post pictures and gifs of cats, who they either mock or dismiss as aesthetic objects. Orangutans live a largely solitary life, which gets lonely. Redditors have access to a myriad of social networking options. Furthermore, even if orangutans could use social networks, they have burnt orange fur which doesn't really look good with most Instagram filters. Female orangutans display a strong mating preference for males with puffy cheeks flanges and there is little unflanged males can do about this. In contrast, male redditors who have enjoyed limited success with women are able to convince themselves they still have a shot, either by learning to just be themselves or by completely changing their personality, depending on who you ask. Whatever you feel about Red Pillers, I think we can agree that they would become very frustrated if every debate about being alpha was really just about cheek puffiness. Newborn orangutans are so dependent on their mothers that they never break physical contact for the first four months of their lives. On the other hand, women have access to day cares and nannies, which allows them to temporarily get away from their babies to relax or share think pieces about having it all. Sources and www.reddit.com<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here are the reasons why I think the average redditor is happier than the average orangutan Orangutans' major worry is losing their habitat due to deforestation. Reddit's major worry is that Netflix will take too long to buffer. Orangutans live under the constant threat of being eaten by tigers. Redditors constantly post pictures and gifs of cats, who they either mock or dismiss as aesthetic objects. Orangutans live a largely solitary life, which gets lonely. Redditors have access to a myriad of social networking options. Furthermore, even if orangutans could use social networks, they have burnt orange fur which doesn't really look good with most Instagram filters. Female orangutans display a strong mating preference for males with puffy cheeks flanges and there is little unflanged males can do about this. In contrast, male redditors who have enjoyed limited success with women are able to convince themselves they still have a shot, either by learning to just be themselves or by completely changing their personality, depending on who you ask. Whatever you feel about Red Pillers, I think we can agree that they would become very frustrated if every debate about being alpha was really just about cheek puffiness. Newborn orangutans are so dependent on their mothers that they never break physical contact for the first four months of their lives. On the other hand, women have access to day cares and nannies, which allows them to temporarily get away from their babies to relax or share think pieces about having it all. Sources and www.reddit.com<|TARGETS|>Netflix, access to day cares and nannies, to convince themselves they still have a shot either by learning to just be themselves or by completely changing their personality depending on who you ask ., if orangutans could use social networks, Newborn orangutans, Redditors<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here are the reasons why I think the average redditor is happier than the average orangutan Orangutans' major worry is losing their habitat due to deforestation. Reddit's major worry is that Netflix will take too long to buffer. Orangutans live under the constant threat of being eaten by tigers. Redditors constantly post pictures and gifs of cats, who they either mock or dismiss as aesthetic objects. Orangutans live a largely solitary life, which gets lonely. Redditors have access to a myriad of social networking options. Furthermore, even if orangutans could use social networks, they have burnt orange fur which doesn't really look good with most Instagram filters. Female orangutans display a strong mating preference for males with puffy cheeks flanges and there is little unflanged males can do about this. In contrast, male redditors who have enjoyed limited success with women are able to convince themselves they still have a shot, either by learning to just be themselves or by completely changing their personality, depending on who you ask. Whatever you feel about Red Pillers, I think we can agree that they would become very frustrated if every debate about being alpha was really just about cheek puffiness. Newborn orangutans are so dependent on their mothers that they never break physical contact for the first four months of their lives. On the other hand, women have access to day cares and nannies, which allows them to temporarily get away from their babies to relax or share think pieces about having it all. Sources and www.reddit.com<|ASPECTS|>frustrated, day cares, mothers, shot, aesthetic objects, mating preference, gifs, , eaten by tigers, social networking options, buffer, constant, limited success, dependent, cheek puffiness, threat, losing, netflix, happier, personality, solitary life, break physical contact, nannies, take, lonely, habitat, relax, unflanged, changing, burnt orange fur, deforestation, think pieces, get away, long<|CONCLUSION|>","Here are the reasons why I think the average redditor is happier than the average orangutan Orangutans' major worry is losing their habitat due to deforestation. Reddit's major worry is that Netflix will take too long to buffer. Orangutans live under the constant threat of being eaten by tigers. Redditors constantly post pictures and gifs of cats, who they either mock or dismiss as aesthetic objects. Orangutans live a largely solitary life, which gets lonely. Redditors have access to a myriad of social networking options. Furthermore, even if orangutans could use social networks, they have burnt orange fur which doesn't really look good with most Instagram filters. Female orangutans display a strong mating preference for males with puffy cheeks flanges and there is little unflanged males can do about this. In contrast, male redditors who have enjoyed limited success with women are able to convince themselves they still have a shot, either by learning to just be themselves or by completely changing their personality, depending on who you ask. Whatever you feel about Red Pillers, I think we can agree that they would become very frustrated if every debate about being alpha was really just about cheek puffiness. Newborn orangutans are so dependent on their mothers that they never break physical contact for the first four months of their lives. On the other hand, women have access to day cares and nannies, which allows them to temporarily get away from their babies to relax or share think pieces about having it all. Sources and www.reddit.com",The average Redditor is happier than the average Orangutan
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Title taken from this article in GQ. My belief here is that there are, for a majority of the US voting population, very few reasons to vote for the GOP Tradition . People who’ve always voted R , and will continue to do so out of sheer aversion to change. Propaganda . Over the course of decades the Republican party has marketed themselves as fighting for ”the little guy”. When given power however, they have spared no time giving immense tax cuts to the rich something that barely, if at all, helps anyone but the wealthiest. arguing against policies like Medicare for all that would almost certainly save everyday people money. and voted for letting corporations off the hook after screwing over millions of consumers. Open, or non admitted, racism . I have come to believe that a lot of people accept these Republican stances simply because the GOP also institute policies that negatively affect the chances minorities have at finding success or making their voices heard in the democratic system. Of course I understand the need for immigration control, and even though I see little reason to support the current Republican party I also don’t support initiatives such as AbolishICE or 100 open borders. But I do feel that many republicans have crossed a line here, and passed only wanting a ”strong border” to actively voicing blatantly racist ideas. As this is CMV I do truly want my view changed, and the only way that happens is through civil and thoughtful discussion, if your comment is going to consist of nothing but ”darn libtards”, take it elsewhere.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Title taken from this article in GQ. My belief here is that there are, for a majority of the US voting population, very few reasons to vote for the GOP Tradition . People who’ve always voted R , and will continue to do so out of sheer aversion to change. Propaganda . Over the course of decades the Republican party has marketed themselves as fighting for ”the little guy”. When given power however, they have spared no time giving immense tax cuts to the rich something that barely, if at all, helps anyone but the wealthiest. arguing against policies like Medicare for all that would almost certainly save everyday people money. and voted for letting corporations off the hook after screwing over millions of consumers. Open, or non admitted, racism . I have come to believe that a lot of people accept these Republican stances simply because the GOP also institute policies that negatively affect the chances minorities have at finding success or making their voices heard in the democratic system. Of course I understand the need for immigration control, and even though I see little reason to support the current Republican party I also don’t support initiatives such as AbolishICE or 100 open borders. But I do feel that many republicans have crossed a line here, and passed only wanting a ”strong border” to actively voicing blatantly racist ideas. As this is CMV I do truly want my view changed, and the only way that happens is through civil and thoughtful discussion, if your comment is going to consist of nothing but ”darn libtards”, take it elsewhere.<|TARGETS|>Open, to do so out of sheer aversion to change ., wanting a ” strong border ” to actively voicing blatantly racist ideas ., to support the current Republican party, letting corporations off the hook after screwing over millions of consumers, to vote for the GOP Tradition .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Title taken from this article in GQ. My belief here is that there are, for a majority of the US voting population, very few reasons to vote for the GOP Tradition . People who’ve always voted R , and will continue to do so out of sheer aversion to change. Propaganda . Over the course of decades the Republican party has marketed themselves as fighting for ”the little guy”. When given power however, they have spared no time giving immense tax cuts to the rich something that barely, if at all, helps anyone but the wealthiest. arguing against policies like Medicare for all that would almost certainly save everyday people money. and voted for letting corporations off the hook after screwing over millions of consumers. Open, or non admitted, racism . I have come to believe that a lot of people accept these Republican stances simply because the GOP also institute policies that negatively affect the chances minorities have at finding success or making their voices heard in the democratic system. Of course I understand the need for immigration control, and even though I see little reason to support the current Republican party I also don’t support initiatives such as AbolishICE or 100 open borders. But I do feel that many republicans have crossed a line here, and passed only wanting a ”strong border” to actively voicing blatantly racist ideas. As this is CMV I do truly want my view changed, and the only way that happens is through civil and thoughtful discussion, if your comment is going to consist of nothing but ”darn libtards”, take it elsewhere.<|ASPECTS|>population, , republican stances, view changed, negatively, success, millions, border, tax cuts, civil and thoughtful discussion, immigration control, chances, screwing, racist ideas, open, little guy, open borders, corporations off the hook, aversion to change, democratic system, reasons, consumers, wealthiest, save everyday people money, racism, spared, propaganda, minorities<|CONCLUSION|>","Title taken from this article in GQ. My belief here is that there are, for a majority of the US voting population, very few reasons to vote for the GOP Tradition . People who’ve always voted R , and will continue to do so out of sheer aversion to change. Propaganda . Over the course of decades the Republican party has marketed themselves as fighting for ”the little guy”. When given power however, they have spared no time giving immense tax cuts to the rich something that barely, if at all, helps anyone but the wealthiest. arguing against policies like Medicare for all that would almost certainly save everyday people money. and voted for letting corporations off the hook after screwing over millions of consumers. Open, or non admitted, racism . I have come to believe that a lot of people accept these Republican stances simply because the GOP also institute policies that negatively affect the chances minorities have at finding success or making their voices heard in the democratic system. Of course I understand the need for immigration control, and even though I see little reason to support the current Republican party I also don’t support initiatives such as AbolishICE or 100 open borders. But I do feel that many republicans have crossed a line here, and passed only wanting a ”strong border” to actively voicing blatantly racist ideas. As this is  I do truly want my view changed, and the only way that happens is through civil and thoughtful discussion, if your comment is going to consist of nothing but ”darn libtards”, take it elsewhere.",The Republican Party Stands for Despising Brown People and Not Much Else
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I can understand disagreeing with tipping but don't think non tippers should be allowed the free ride they get from tippers. A waiter doesn't know who the tippers are so they treat everyone equally. But it is unfair that non tippers knowing that they aren't going to tip don't speak up about it. They allow the waiter to believe that they probably are tippers since the vast majority of people are tippers and enjoy the quality service that they may not get if the waiter knew the truth. They are being dishonest by not speaking up and they're piggybacking on the generosity of others.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I can understand disagreeing with tipping but don't think non tippers should be allowed the free ride they get from tippers. A waiter doesn't know who the tippers are so they treat everyone equally. But it is unfair that non tippers knowing that they aren't going to tip don't speak up about it. They allow the waiter to believe that they probably are tippers since the vast majority of people are tippers and enjoy the quality service that they may not get if the waiter knew the truth. They are being dishonest by not speaking up and they're piggybacking on the generosity of others.<|TARGETS|>the free ride they get from tippers, A waiter, piggybacking on the generosity of others .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I can understand disagreeing with tipping but don't think non tippers should be allowed the free ride they get from tippers. A waiter doesn't know who the tippers are so they treat everyone equally. But it is unfair that non tippers knowing that they aren't going to tip don't speak up about it. They allow the waiter to believe that they probably are tippers since the vast majority of people are tippers and enjoy the quality service that they may not get if the waiter knew the truth. They are being dishonest by not speaking up and they're piggybacking on the generosity of others.<|ASPECTS|>tip, quality service, non tippers, dishonest, free ride, tippers, treat everyone equally, unfair, disagreeing with tipping, generosity, piggybacking<|CONCLUSION|>",I can understand disagreeing with tipping but don't think non tippers should be allowed the free ride they get from tippers. A waiter doesn't know who the tippers are so they treat everyone equally. But it is unfair that non tippers knowing that they aren't going to tip don't speak up about it. They allow the waiter to believe that they probably are tippers since the vast majority of people are tippers and enjoy the quality service that they may not get if the waiter knew the truth. They are being dishonest by not speaking up and they're piggybacking on the generosity of others.,Those who don't tip waiters should tell their waiter not to expect a tip.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello r changemyview, I'm here today because I believe Islam is an inherently intolerant religion that not only condones violence against non believers but actually commands it. To this end I believe that Islam will never be able to fully reconcile with the West and that humans in general have a moral and ethical responsibility to eradicate it. Of course I do not condone violent means. Quite frankly I believe that if the US and other 1st world secular countries such as in Europe began to fund universities all over the Middle East that Islam would fall apart naturally, as its persistence throughout the world is predicated upon ignorance and the valuing of the Ummah above all else. That being out of the way, Id like to breakdown my indictment of Islam into three main points The first is the Islamic theology of abrogation, which is the idea that God can contradict Himself and change reality from the rules He previously set this is dangerous for many reasons one can argue that the surah saying to respect other people is chronologically prior to God's commandment to destroy the infidels. I would say is the ummah nation , which is actually a departing from the Semitic thought of what a community was until that point Syriac and Christian Arabs use the word for people instead . The very idea of the Ummah creates an unreconcilable us v. them mentality, inherently incompatible with multiculturalism or even coexistence. It also perpetuates ideas of petty tribalism and poverty by denouncing the importance of education and societal advancement in benefit of reproduction and growing the Ummah . Which yields the last Jihad is much more dangerous than people think, despite it being a buzz word. Jihad as saif, or struggle of the sword , is the idea that anyone in the common body of Islam is obliged to join in physical resistance against infidels anywhere they threaten Islam. This is basically the theological justification of the aggression of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, ISIS, etc. It's very dangerous because the Western mind compartmentalizes groups into nations this transcends national boundaries because many Islamic fundamentalists deny states even legitimately exist. So for instance when Afghanistan was fighting against the USSR, there were muslims from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, etc. fighting for Islam in Afghanistan. Likewise, these same countries even muslims from the US and Britain have joined in fighting those they view as evil secular leaders, such as Bashar al Assad. I know what most of you will respond, that I am a bigot who cannot see over the shortcomings of other Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Judaism, and that just as many atrocities have been committed under those faiths. I would say to you that these acts were committed by representatives of the faith but not sanctioned by the faith. Christianity itself dos not sanction violence, but Islam does. Jesus taught to love your enemies, and Mohammed sought to destroy them. This leaves no room for interpretation and very specifically calls all Muslims to fight against enemies of the faith read Non Muslims wherever they may be. With regard to my three points, people would argue that the first point is not an issue because Islam knows the proper order of the Surat, and that the only reason why God commanded Mohammed to kill everyone is because they were threatened and it is analogous to the Israelites being commanded to fight surrounding tribes. To this I would emphatically say Yea, right. To my second point, they would say that nothing about the idea of the Ummah excludes non Muslims, they're just not equal, but that's every religious society. They might even go so far as to say that the Ummah isn't even necessary for Islam, just Muslim dominant countries. I passionately disagree with this, and Islam CANNOT exist as a minority religion anywhere by its own nature. Wherever it exists it seeks to establish Sharia, and must be the ruling religion at least by its own mechanics. I don't have the source here but a recent survey stated for instance that 4 out of 10 Muslims in the UK seek to institute Sharia law. And there are already muslim arbitrated courthouses in the country. This desire to force sharia is not a product of extremism but rather an actual tennet of the faith, and that difference is crucial. Lastly they would say that jihad as saif is only one type of jihad the one normally portrayed in the media and that only extremists would commit this act. To them I would say that they are bad Muslims because technically their prophet and hadith commands this form. M Surah 9 5, also known as the Verse of the Sword, proves this. Well that isn't a very strong argument just because Christianity doesn't inherently sanction use of violence, more so examples like the crusades were a specific historical incident not to mention they killed other Christians, sacking Constantinople and killing many Greeks, Copts and Syriacs whereas at least Copts and Syriacs have lived centuries under the yoke of Islam with no theology of violent reaction . Islam is very much a material reality of political philosophy. No one is an Islamic theologian the biggest names in Islam are Sharia interpreters. Islam's entire existence supervenes on the ruling of the Ummah, whereas Christianity can exist in Christian countries or in pagan countries. Many moderate and so called modern Muslims would no doubt be offended by what I'm saying, and assert that I am touching on only the extreme points of the faith and that most Muslims don't practice these things. To them I would say unapologetically, you are bad Muslims. Let me unpack that statement. I do not mean to say they are bad people, and in fact I find their modernism and willingness to compromise refreshing. However, they are bad Muslims in the sense that they are not following a path that their faith is explicitly calling them down. Most modern Muslims are humanists, and their faith is more of an inherited cultural identity than anything else. Back to extremism. There are many modern nations where Islam exists in the minority, such as the USA and Europe, and it is relatively tolerated. I do not know an example of a Islamic majority country where minority religions exist without a noticeable and tangible degree of persecution. So reddit, CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello r changemyview, I'm here today because I believe Islam is an inherently intolerant religion that not only condones violence against non believers but actually commands it. To this end I believe that Islam will never be able to fully reconcile with the West and that humans in general have a moral and ethical responsibility to eradicate it. Of course I do not condone violent means. Quite frankly I believe that if the US and other 1st world secular countries such as in Europe began to fund universities all over the Middle East that Islam would fall apart naturally, as its persistence throughout the world is predicated upon ignorance and the valuing of the Ummah above all else. That being out of the way, Id like to breakdown my indictment of Islam into three main points The first is the Islamic theology of abrogation, which is the idea that God can contradict Himself and change reality from the rules He previously set this is dangerous for many reasons one can argue that the surah saying to respect other people is chronologically prior to God's commandment to destroy the infidels. I would say is the ummah nation , which is actually a departing from the Semitic thought of what a community was until that point Syriac and Christian Arabs use the word for people instead . The very idea of the Ummah creates an unreconcilable us v. them mentality, inherently incompatible with multiculturalism or even coexistence. It also perpetuates ideas of petty tribalism and poverty by denouncing the importance of education and societal advancement in benefit of reproduction and growing the Ummah . Which yields the last Jihad is much more dangerous than people think, despite it being a buzz word. Jihad as saif, or struggle of the sword , is the idea that anyone in the common body of Islam is obliged to join in physical resistance against infidels anywhere they threaten Islam. This is basically the theological justification of the aggression of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, ISIS, etc. It's very dangerous because the Western mind compartmentalizes groups into nations this transcends national boundaries because many Islamic fundamentalists deny states even legitimately exist. So for instance when Afghanistan was fighting against the USSR, there were muslims from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, etc. fighting for Islam in Afghanistan. Likewise, these same countries even muslims from the US and Britain have joined in fighting those they view as evil secular leaders, such as Bashar al Assad. I know what most of you will respond, that I am a bigot who cannot see over the shortcomings of other Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Judaism, and that just as many atrocities have been committed under those faiths. I would say to you that these acts were committed by representatives of the faith but not sanctioned by the faith. Christianity itself dos not sanction violence, but Islam does. Jesus taught to love your enemies, and Mohammed sought to destroy them. This leaves no room for interpretation and very specifically calls all Muslims to fight against enemies of the faith read Non Muslims wherever they may be. With regard to my three points, people would argue that the first point is not an issue because Islam knows the proper order of the Surat, and that the only reason why God commanded Mohammed to kill everyone is because they were threatened and it is analogous to the Israelites being commanded to fight surrounding tribes. To this I would emphatically say Yea, right. To my second point, they would say that nothing about the idea of the Ummah excludes non Muslims, they're just not equal, but that's every religious society. They might even go so far as to say that the Ummah isn't even necessary for Islam, just Muslim dominant countries. I passionately disagree with this, and Islam CANNOT exist as a minority religion anywhere by its own nature. Wherever it exists it seeks to establish Sharia, and must be the ruling religion at least by its own mechanics. I don't have the source here but a recent survey stated for instance that 4 out of 10 Muslims in the UK seek to institute Sharia law. And there are already muslim arbitrated courthouses in the country. This desire to force sharia is not a product of extremism but rather an actual tennet of the faith, and that difference is crucial. Lastly they would say that jihad as saif is only one type of jihad the one normally portrayed in the media and that only extremists would commit this act. To them I would say that they are bad Muslims because technically their prophet and hadith commands this form. M Surah 9 5, also known as the Verse of the Sword, proves this. Well that isn't a very strong argument just because Christianity doesn't inherently sanction use of violence, more so examples like the crusades were a specific historical incident not to mention they killed other Christians, sacking Constantinople and killing many Greeks, Copts and Syriacs whereas at least Copts and Syriacs have lived centuries under the yoke of Islam with no theology of violent reaction . Islam is very much a material reality of political philosophy. No one is an Islamic theologian the biggest names in Islam are Sharia interpreters. Islam's entire existence supervenes on the ruling of the Ummah, whereas Christianity can exist in Christian countries or in pagan countries. Many moderate and so called modern Muslims would no doubt be offended by what I'm saying, and assert that I am touching on only the extreme points of the faith and that most Muslims don't practice these things. To them I would say unapologetically, you are bad Muslims. Let me unpack that statement. I do not mean to say they are bad people, and in fact I find their modernism and willingness to compromise refreshing. However, they are bad Muslims in the sense that they are not following a path that their faith is explicitly calling them down. Most modern Muslims are humanists, and their faith is more of an inherited cultural identity than anything else. Back to extremism. There are many modern nations where Islam exists in the minority, such as the USA and Europe, and it is relatively tolerated. I do not know an example of a Islamic majority country where minority religions exist without a noticeable and tangible degree of persecution. So reddit, CMV.<|TARGETS|>The very idea of the Ummah, Let me unpack that statement ., the proper order of the Surat and that the only reason why God commanded Mohammed to kill everyone, sanction use of violence more so examples like the crusades, to fully reconcile with the West and that humans in general have a moral and ethical responsibility to eradicate it ., a bigot who cannot see over the shortcomings of other Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Judaism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello r changemyview, I'm here today because I believe Islam is an inherently intolerant religion that not only condones violence against non believers but actually commands it. To this end I believe that Islam will never be able to fully reconcile with the West and that humans in general have a moral and ethical responsibility to eradicate it. Of course I do not condone violent means. Quite frankly I believe that if the US and other 1st world secular countries such as in Europe began to fund universities all over the Middle East that Islam would fall apart naturally, as its persistence throughout the world is predicated upon ignorance and the valuing of the Ummah above all else. That being out of the way, Id like to breakdown my indictment of Islam into three main points The first is the Islamic theology of abrogation, which is the idea that God can contradict Himself and change reality from the rules He previously set this is dangerous for many reasons one can argue that the surah saying to respect other people is chronologically prior to God's commandment to destroy the infidels. I would say is the ummah nation , which is actually a departing from the Semitic thought of what a community was until that point Syriac and Christian Arabs use the word for people instead . The very idea of the Ummah creates an unreconcilable us v. them mentality, inherently incompatible with multiculturalism or even coexistence. It also perpetuates ideas of petty tribalism and poverty by denouncing the importance of education and societal advancement in benefit of reproduction and growing the Ummah . Which yields the last Jihad is much more dangerous than people think, despite it being a buzz word. Jihad as saif, or struggle of the sword , is the idea that anyone in the common body of Islam is obliged to join in physical resistance against infidels anywhere they threaten Islam. This is basically the theological justification of the aggression of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, ISIS, etc. It's very dangerous because the Western mind compartmentalizes groups into nations this transcends national boundaries because many Islamic fundamentalists deny states even legitimately exist. So for instance when Afghanistan was fighting against the USSR, there were muslims from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, etc. fighting for Islam in Afghanistan. Likewise, these same countries even muslims from the US and Britain have joined in fighting those they view as evil secular leaders, such as Bashar al Assad. I know what most of you will respond, that I am a bigot who cannot see over the shortcomings of other Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Judaism, and that just as many atrocities have been committed under those faiths. I would say to you that these acts were committed by representatives of the faith but not sanctioned by the faith. Christianity itself dos not sanction violence, but Islam does. Jesus taught to love your enemies, and Mohammed sought to destroy them. This leaves no room for interpretation and very specifically calls all Muslims to fight against enemies of the faith read Non Muslims wherever they may be. With regard to my three points, people would argue that the first point is not an issue because Islam knows the proper order of the Surat, and that the only reason why God commanded Mohammed to kill everyone is because they were threatened and it is analogous to the Israelites being commanded to fight surrounding tribes. To this I would emphatically say Yea, right. To my second point, they would say that nothing about the idea of the Ummah excludes non Muslims, they're just not equal, but that's every religious society. They might even go so far as to say that the Ummah isn't even necessary for Islam, just Muslim dominant countries. I passionately disagree with this, and Islam CANNOT exist as a minority religion anywhere by its own nature. Wherever it exists it seeks to establish Sharia, and must be the ruling religion at least by its own mechanics. I don't have the source here but a recent survey stated for instance that 4 out of 10 Muslims in the UK seek to institute Sharia law. And there are already muslim arbitrated courthouses in the country. This desire to force sharia is not a product of extremism but rather an actual tennet of the faith, and that difference is crucial. Lastly they would say that jihad as saif is only one type of jihad the one normally portrayed in the media and that only extremists would commit this act. To them I would say that they are bad Muslims because technically their prophet and hadith commands this form. M Surah 9 5, also known as the Verse of the Sword, proves this. Well that isn't a very strong argument just because Christianity doesn't inherently sanction use of violence, more so examples like the crusades were a specific historical incident not to mention they killed other Christians, sacking Constantinople and killing many Greeks, Copts and Syriacs whereas at least Copts and Syriacs have lived centuries under the yoke of Islam with no theology of violent reaction . Islam is very much a material reality of political philosophy. No one is an Islamic theologian the biggest names in Islam are Sharia interpreters. Islam's entire existence supervenes on the ruling of the Ummah, whereas Christianity can exist in Christian countries or in pagan countries. Many moderate and so called modern Muslims would no doubt be offended by what I'm saying, and assert that I am touching on only the extreme points of the faith and that most Muslims don't practice these things. To them I would say unapologetically, you are bad Muslims. Let me unpack that statement. I do not mean to say they are bad people, and in fact I find their modernism and willingness to compromise refreshing. However, they are bad Muslims in the sense that they are not following a path that their faith is explicitly calling them down. Most modern Muslims are humanists, and their faith is more of an inherited cultural identity than anything else. Back to extremism. There are many modern nations where Islam exists in the minority, such as the USA and Europe, and it is relatively tolerated. I do not know an example of a Islamic majority country where minority religions exist without a noticeable and tangible degree of persecution. So reddit, CMV.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, , extreme points, representatives, struggle of, cultural identity, islamic fundamentalists, excludes non muslims, ignorance, love your enemies, proper order, sharia law, islamic theologian, threatened, offended, intolerant religion, change reality, west, use, physical resistance, muslim dominant, extremism, enemies of the faith, bad muslims, minority religions, equal, ruling religion, religious society, shortcomings, people, societal advancement, material reality, violence, willingness, sharia, al qaeda, multiculturalism, ummah, difference, unapologetically, political philosophy, ruling of, poverty, tennet, moral and ethical responsibility, infidels, minority religion, evil secular leaders, sharia interpreters, violent means, relatively, national boundaries, committed, extremists, violence against non believers, incompatible, compromise, historical, ummah nation, bad people, jihad, humanists, necessary for islam, destroy, minority, faith, modernism, education, petty tribalism, abrogation, contradict, aggression, god, prophet, interpretation, compartmentalizes groups, muslim arbitrated courthouses, muslims, violent reaction, tolerated, islam, islam exists, inherited, coexistence, atrocities, surrounding, persecution, christianity, unreconcilable us, sanctioned, theological justification, benefit of reproduction, acts, reconcile<|CONCLUSION|>","Hello r changemyview, I'm here today because I believe Islam is an inherently intolerant religion that not only condones violence against non believers but actually commands it. To this end I believe that Islam will never be able to fully reconcile with the West and that humans in general have a moral and ethical responsibility to eradicate it. Of course I do not condone violent means. Quite frankly I believe that if the US and other 1st world secular countries such as in Europe began to fund universities all over the Middle East that Islam would fall apart naturally, as its persistence throughout the world is predicated upon ignorance and the valuing of the Ummah above all else. That being out of the way, Id like to breakdown my indictment of Islam into three main points The first is the Islamic theology of abrogation, which is the idea that God can contradict Himself and change reality from the rules He previously set this is dangerous for many reasons one can argue that the surah saying to respect other people is chronologically prior to God's commandment to destroy the infidels. I would say is the ummah nation , which is actually a departing from the Semitic thought of what a community was until that point Syriac and Christian Arabs use the word for people instead . The very idea of the Ummah creates an unreconcilable us v. them mentality, inherently incompatible with multiculturalism or even coexistence. It also perpetuates ideas of petty tribalism and poverty by denouncing the importance of education and societal advancement in benefit of reproduction and growing the Ummah . Which yields the last Jihad is much more dangerous than people think, despite it being a buzz word. Jihad as saif, or struggle of the sword , is the idea that anyone in the common body of Islam is obliged to join in physical resistance against infidels anywhere they threaten Islam. This is basically the theological justification of the aggression of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, ISIS, etc. It's very dangerous because the Western mind compartmentalizes groups into nations this transcends national boundaries because many Islamic fundamentalists deny states even legitimately exist. So for instance when Afghanistan was fighting against the USSR, there were muslims from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, etc. fighting for Islam in Afghanistan. Likewise, these same countries even muslims from the US and Britain have joined in fighting those they view as evil secular leaders, such as Bashar al Assad. I know what most of you will respond, that I am a bigot who cannot see over the shortcomings of other Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Judaism, and that just as many atrocities have been committed under those faiths. I would say to you that these acts were committed by representatives of the faith but not sanctioned by the faith. Christianity itself dos not sanction violence, but Islam does. Jesus taught to love your enemies, and Mohammed sought to destroy them. This leaves no room for interpretation and very specifically calls all Muslims to fight against enemies of the faith read Non Muslims wherever they may be. With regard to my three points, people would argue that the first point is not an issue because Islam knows the proper order of the Surat, and that the only reason why God commanded Mohammed to kill everyone is because they were threatened and it is analogous to the Israelites being commanded to fight surrounding tribes. To this I would emphatically say Yea, right. To my second point, they would say that nothing about the idea of the Ummah excludes non Muslims, they're just not equal, but that's every religious society. They might even go so far as to say that the Ummah isn't even necessary for Islam, just Muslim dominant countries. I passionately disagree with this, and Islam CANNOT exist as a minority religion anywhere by its own nature. Wherever it exists it seeks to establish Sharia, and must be the ruling religion at least by its own mechanics. I don't have the source here but a recent survey stated for instance that 4 out of 10 Muslims in the UK seek to institute Sharia law. And there are already muslim arbitrated courthouses in the country. This desire to force sharia is not a product of extremism but rather an actual tennet of the faith, and that difference is crucial. Lastly they would say that jihad as saif is only one type of jihad the one normally portrayed in the media and that only extremists would commit this act. To them I would say that they are bad Muslims because technically their prophet and hadith commands this form. M Surah 9 5, also known as the Verse of the Sword, proves this. Well that isn't a very strong argument just because Christianity doesn't inherently sanction use of violence, more so examples like the crusades were a specific historical incident not to mention they killed other Christians, sacking Constantinople and killing many Greeks, Copts and Syriacs whereas at least Copts and Syriacs have lived centuries under the yoke of Islam with no theology of violent reaction . Islam is very much a material reality of political philosophy. No one is an Islamic theologian the biggest names in Islam are Sharia interpreters. Islam's entire existence supervenes on the ruling of the Ummah, whereas Christianity can exist in Christian countries or in pagan countries. Many moderate and so called modern Muslims would no doubt be offended by what I'm saying, and assert that I am touching on only the extreme points of the faith and that most Muslims don't practice these things. To them I would say unapologetically, you are bad Muslims. Let me unpack that statement. I do not mean to say they are bad people, and in fact I find their modernism and willingness to compromise refreshing. However, they are bad Muslims in the sense that they are not following a path that their faith is explicitly calling them down. Most modern Muslims are humanists, and their faith is more of an inherited cultural identity than anything else. Back to extremism. There are many modern nations where Islam exists in the minority, such as the USA and Europe, and it is relatively tolerated. I do not know an example of a Islamic majority country where minority religions exist without a noticeable and tangible degree of persecution. So reddit, .",I believe that Islam is an inherently violent religion that is incompatible with Western society and for moral and ethical reasons must be non-violently eradicated.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While Google generally used to have a very positive reputation on reddit, it seems as of late, users have been more untrustworthy of them. People frequently bring up their Don't be Evil motto mockingly. Yet I have yet to see any reason to mistrust them, or avoid their services due to questions about their ethics with data. To me, Google has demonstrated they can be trusted with user data because They allow users to clearly see all the data they have on them They show they take the security of their platform very seriously. They offer large bounties to those that discover security vulnerabilities with their products. Google resists government overreach in accessing user data. They are involved in multiple court cases to fight giving the US government access to certain users' data. While I know they likely wouldn't be safe to use if you were a person of high interest to the government e.g. Edward Snowden , I do not fault Google for this or think they are unethical because they have no choice. Change my view <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While Google generally used to have a very positive reputation on reddit, it seems as of late, users have been more untrustworthy of them. People frequently bring up their Don't be Evil motto mockingly. Yet I have yet to see any reason to mistrust them, or avoid their services due to questions about their ethics with data. To me, Google has demonstrated they can be trusted with user data because They allow users to clearly see all the data they have on them They show they take the security of their platform very seriously. They offer large bounties to those that discover security vulnerabilities with their products. Google resists government overreach in accessing user data. They are involved in multiple court cases to fight giving the US government access to certain users' data. While I know they likely wouldn't be safe to use if you were a person of high interest to the government e.g. Edward Snowden , I do not fault Google for this or think they are unethical because they have no choice. Change my view <|TARGETS|>Edward Snowden, to use if you were a person of high interest to the government e.g ., the US government access to certain users' data, to see any reason to mistrust them or avoid their services due to questions about their ethics with data ., Google, They allow users to clearly see all the data they have on them They show they take the security of their platform<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While Google generally used to have a very positive reputation on reddit, it seems as of late, users have been more untrustworthy of them. People frequently bring up their Don't be Evil motto mockingly. Yet I have yet to see any reason to mistrust them, or avoid their services due to questions about their ethics with data. To me, Google has demonstrated they can be trusted with user data because They allow users to clearly see all the data they have on them They show they take the security of their platform very seriously. They offer large bounties to those that discover security vulnerabilities with their products. Google resists government overreach in accessing user data. They are involved in multiple court cases to fight giving the US government access to certain users' data. While I know they likely wouldn't be safe to use if you were a person of high interest to the government e.g. Edward Snowden , I do not fault Google for this or think they are unethical because they have no choice. Change my view <|ASPECTS|>, unethical, high interest, bounties, positive reputation, security vulnerabilities, government overreach, cases, accessing user data, mistrust, ethics with data, users ' data, trusted with user data, safe to use, avoid, untrustworthy, evil, security, choice, access<|CONCLUSION|>","While Google generally used to have a very positive reputation on reddit, it seems as of late, users have been more untrustworthy of them. People frequently bring up their Don't be Evil motto mockingly. Yet I have yet to see any reason to mistrust them, or avoid their services due to questions about their ethics with data. To me, Google has demonstrated they can be trusted with user data because They allow users to clearly see all the data they have on them They show they take the security of their platform very seriously. They offer large bounties to those that discover security vulnerabilities with their products. Google resists government overreach in accessing user data. They are involved in multiple court cases to fight giving the US government access to certain users' data. While I know they likely wouldn't be safe to use if you were a person of high interest to the government e.g. Edward Snowden , I do not fault Google for this or think they are unethical because they have no choice. Change my view",Google has not done anything to demonstrate it is untrustworthy with user data
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Coming from a purely environmental standpoint so ignoring all moral concerns regarding animal welfare I think that veganism produces the smallest footprint, followed by vegetarianism, followed by diets high in meat and dairy. I love eating meat, but I recognise that it has largely unacceptable environmental impacts when consumed in the quantities we eat today, so I have cut back significantly but still occasionally treat myself. It occurred to me recently however, that the fact that I still consume dairy at about the same rate as before might mitigate some or all of my efforts. However after a quick google to find some numbers to crunch I found this The average Brit consumes 18.4kg of beef per year The average steer yields 222kg of beef So we can take from that the a single steer would give enough meat for a single Brit to live off for around 12 years. Meanwhile on the dairy side The average American drink 18 gallons of milk per year The average cow produces 2,500 gallons of milk per year This means that the average American could get all their milk needs from a single cow if it lived that long for 139 years. So put another way, you need ~11.5 steers slaughtered for meat for every 1 cow producing milk. I couldn’t find equivalent statistics regarding dairy products as a whole but let’s be generous and say we need double the amount of milk drunk to produce a years supply of dairy products like cheese and cream and butter, this would mean ~5.75 slaughtered cattle to every one dairy cow. So my calculations here tell me that compared to a meat and dairy diet, a vegetarian diet would require around 5.75x fewer animals to be bred and slaughtered while a vegan diet would be while vegans would improve on that only by having that solitary dairy cow not exist. So while it seems better to go vegan, that, for many people is very hard, but you can achieve the lions share of the environmental benefits of going vegan by just going vegetarian. This is just a back of the napkin calculation based on some quick googling so if I’ve made an error in my calculations please tell me me no do maths so good or if my sources are wrong. I am also sure that there are other complicating factors I’ve missed out. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Coming from a purely environmental standpoint so ignoring all moral concerns regarding animal welfare I think that veganism produces the smallest footprint, followed by vegetarianism, followed by diets high in meat and dairy. I love eating meat, but I recognise that it has largely unacceptable environmental impacts when consumed in the quantities we eat today, so I have cut back significantly but still occasionally treat myself. It occurred to me recently however, that the fact that I still consume dairy at about the same rate as before might mitigate some or all of my efforts. However after a quick google to find some numbers to crunch I found this The average Brit consumes 18.4kg of beef per year The average steer yields 222kg of beef So we can take from that the a single steer would give enough meat for a single Brit to live off for around 12 years. Meanwhile on the dairy side The average American drink 18 gallons of milk per year The average cow produces 2,500 gallons of milk per year This means that the average American could get all their milk needs from a single cow if it lived that long for 139 years. So put another way, you need ~11.5 steers slaughtered for meat for every 1 cow producing milk. I couldn’t find equivalent statistics regarding dairy products as a whole but let’s be generous and say we need double the amount of milk drunk to produce a years supply of dairy products like cheese and cream and butter, this would mean ~5.75 slaughtered cattle to every one dairy cow. So my calculations here tell me that compared to a meat and dairy diet, a vegetarian diet would require around 5.75x fewer animals to be bred and slaughtered while a vegan diet would be while vegans would improve on that only by having that solitary dairy cow not exist. So while it seems better to go vegan, that, for many people is very hard, but you can achieve the lions share of the environmental benefits of going vegan by just going vegetarian. This is just a back of the napkin calculation based on some quick googling so if I’ve made an error in my calculations please tell me me no do maths so good or if my sources are wrong. I am also sure that there are other complicating factors I’ve missed out. CMV<|TARGETS|>a vegan diet, a vegetarian diet, a meat and dairy diet, to go vegan, the napkin calculation based on some quick googling so if I ’ve made an error in my calculations please tell me me no do maths so good or if my sources, when consumed in the quantities we eat today<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Coming from a purely environmental standpoint so ignoring all moral concerns regarding animal welfare I think that veganism produces the smallest footprint, followed by vegetarianism, followed by diets high in meat and dairy. I love eating meat, but I recognise that it has largely unacceptable environmental impacts when consumed in the quantities we eat today, so I have cut back significantly but still occasionally treat myself. It occurred to me recently however, that the fact that I still consume dairy at about the same rate as before might mitigate some or all of my efforts. However after a quick google to find some numbers to crunch I found this The average Brit consumes 18.4kg of beef per year The average steer yields 222kg of beef So we can take from that the a single steer would give enough meat for a single Brit to live off for around 12 years. Meanwhile on the dairy side The average American drink 18 gallons of milk per year The average cow produces 2,500 gallons of milk per year This means that the average American could get all their milk needs from a single cow if it lived that long for 139 years. So put another way, you need ~11.5 steers slaughtered for meat for every 1 cow producing milk. I couldn’t find equivalent statistics regarding dairy products as a whole but let’s be generous and say we need double the amount of milk drunk to produce a years supply of dairy products like cheese and cream and butter, this would mean ~5.75 slaughtered cattle to every one dairy cow. So my calculations here tell me that compared to a meat and dairy diet, a vegetarian diet would require around 5.75x fewer animals to be bred and slaughtered while a vegan diet would be while vegans would improve on that only by having that solitary dairy cow not exist. So while it seems better to go vegan, that, for many people is very hard, but you can achieve the lions share of the environmental benefits of going vegan by just going vegetarian. This is just a back of the napkin calculation based on some quick googling so if I’ve made an error in my calculations please tell me me no do maths so good or if my sources are wrong. I am also sure that there are other complicating factors I’ve missed out. CMV<|ASPECTS|>vegetarian diet, consume dairy, live, milk needs, complicating factors, error, environmental impacts, environmental benefits, milk drunk, slaughtered cattle, steers, environmental, moral concerns, footprint, meat, slaughtered for meat, animals, dairy products<|CONCLUSION|>","Coming from a purely environmental standpoint so ignoring all moral concerns regarding animal welfare I think that veganism produces the smallest footprint, followed by vegetarianism, followed by diets high in meat and dairy. I love eating meat, but I recognise that it has largely unacceptable environmental impacts when consumed in the quantities we eat today, so I have cut back significantly but still occasionally treat myself. It occurred to me recently however, that the fact that I still consume dairy at about the same rate as before might mitigate some or all of my efforts. However after a quick google to find some numbers to crunch I found this The average Brit consumes 18.4kg of beef per year The average steer yields 222kg of beef So we can take from that the a single steer would give enough meat for a single Brit to live off for around 12 years. Meanwhile on the dairy side The average American drink 18 gallons of milk per year The average cow produces 2,500 gallons of milk per year This means that the average American could get all their milk needs from a single cow if it lived that long for 139 years. So put another way, you need ~11.5 steers slaughtered for meat for every 1 cow producing milk. I couldn’t find equivalent statistics regarding dairy products as a whole but let’s be generous and say we need double the amount of milk drunk to produce a years supply of dairy products like cheese and cream and butter, this would mean ~5.75 slaughtered cattle to every one dairy cow. So my calculations here tell me that compared to a meat and dairy diet, a vegetarian diet would require around 5.75x fewer animals to be bred and slaughtered while a vegan diet would be while vegans would improve on that only by having that solitary dairy cow not exist. So while it seems better to go vegan, that, for many people is very hard, but you can achieve the lions share of the environmental benefits of going vegan by just going vegetarian. This is just a back of the napkin calculation based on some quick googling so if I’ve made an error in my calculations please tell me me no do maths so good or if my sources are wrong. I am also sure that there are other complicating factors I’ve missed out.",Vegan is best but vegetarian is best bang for your buck
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Regardless of where they live and which language they speak in day to day life, the vast majority of Muslims study the Quran in Arabic, Hindus study the Vedas in Sanskrit, Sikhs study the Gurū Granth Sāhib in Sant Bhāṣā, Jews study the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic, and Taoists study Tao Te Ching in Chinese Buddhist texts were originally oral sayings, and have no original language as per se . However, only a tiny percentage of Christians have ever been exposed to their scriptures in the original language the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek most of them learn it in the vernacular, while some Catholics learn it in the Latin translation, and some Orthodox learn the New Testament in the original Greek and the Bible in the Greek translation. This results in Christians' understanding of their scriptures being limited to the way the translators understood them, and not necessarily the way they were originally written. Of course, it takes time to learn new languages but the same way a scholar of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky would never dream of relying on translated versions and not learning Russian and French for War and Peace so they can understand them in the original context, and a classical historian would never think of studying the works of Herodotus and Suetonius in anything but the original languages, people who base their lives around religious scriptures shouldn't be relying on translations and should study them in their original languages. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Regardless of where they live and which language they speak in day to day life, the vast majority of Muslims study the Quran in Arabic, Hindus study the Vedas in Sanskrit, Sikhs study the Gurū Granth Sāhib in Sant Bhāṣā, Jews study the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic, and Taoists study Tao Te Ching in Chinese Buddhist texts were originally oral sayings, and have no original language as per se . However, only a tiny percentage of Christians have ever been exposed to their scriptures in the original language the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek most of them learn it in the vernacular, while some Catholics learn it in the Latin translation, and some Orthodox learn the New Testament in the original Greek and the Bible in the Greek translation. This results in Christians' understanding of their scriptures being limited to the way the translators understood them, and not necessarily the way they were originally written. Of course, it takes time to learn new languages but the same way a scholar of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky would never dream of relying on translated versions and not learning Russian and French for War and Peace so they can understand them in the original context, and a classical historian would never think of studying the works of Herodotus and Suetonius in anything but the original languages, people who base their lives around religious scriptures shouldn't be relying on translations and should study them in their original languages. <|TARGETS|>where they live and which language they speak in day to day life the vast majority of Muslims study the Quran in Arabic, to learn new languages but the same way a scholar of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky would never dream of relying on translated versions and not learning Russian and French for War and Peace so they can understand them in the original context and a classical historian would never think of studying the works of Herodotus and Suetonius in anything but the original languages people who base their lives around religious scriptures, Tao Te Ching in Chinese Buddhist texts, a tiny percentage of Christians have ever been exposed to their scriptures in the original language the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Regardless of where they live and which language they speak in day to day life, the vast majority of Muslims study the Quran in Arabic, Hindus study the Vedas in Sanskrit, Sikhs study the Gurū Granth Sāhib in Sant Bhāṣā, Jews study the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic, and Taoists study Tao Te Ching in Chinese Buddhist texts were originally oral sayings, and have no original language as per se . However, only a tiny percentage of Christians have ever been exposed to their scriptures in the original language the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek most of them learn it in the vernacular, while some Catholics learn it in the Latin translation, and some Orthodox learn the New Testament in the original Greek and the Bible in the Greek translation. This results in Christians' understanding of their scriptures being limited to the way the translators understood them, and not necessarily the way they were originally written. Of course, it takes time to learn new languages but the same way a scholar of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky would never dream of relying on translated versions and not learning Russian and French for War and Peace so they can understand them in the original context, and a classical historian would never think of studying the works of Herodotus and Suetonius in anything but the original languages, people who base their lives around religious scriptures shouldn't be relying on translations and should study them in their original languages. <|ASPECTS|>new languages, exposed to, oral sayings, religious scriptures, original language, versions, scriptures, understanding of<|CONCLUSION|>","Regardless of where they live and which language they speak in day to day life, the vast majority of Muslims study the Quran in Arabic, Hindus study the Vedas in Sanskrit, Sikhs study the Gurū Granth Sāhib in Sant Bhāṣā, Jews study the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic, and Taoists study Tao Te Ching in Chinese Buddhist texts were originally oral sayings, and have no original language as per se . However, only a tiny percentage of Christians have ever been exposed to their scriptures in the original language the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek most of them learn it in the vernacular, while some Catholics learn it in the Latin translation, and some Orthodox learn the New Testament in the original Greek and the Bible in the Greek translation. This results in Christians' understanding of their scriptures being limited to the way the translators understood them, and not necessarily the way they were originally written. Of course, it takes time to learn new languages but the same way a scholar of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky would never dream of relying on translated versions and not learning Russian and French for War and Peace so they can understand them in the original context, and a classical historian would never think of studying the works of Herodotus and Suetonius in anything but the original languages, people who base their lives around religious scriptures shouldn't be relying on translations and should study them in their original languages.",It makes absolutely no sense that Christians don't study their scriptures in the original languages
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For one thing, the way taxes work in the US seems convoluted in general. Why am I getting money back or paying more money at the end of the year? It's just confusing and inefficient, and inefficiencies cost taxpayer money. The taxes on people in the lower income bracket are way too high. I lose almost a quarter of my money before I even see it see Edit 2 below and that money means a lot more to me, as a person who doesn't make a whole lot to begin with, than it does to someone in the upper middle class. An extra 200 400 a month would be a huge deal. The taxes on people in the 1 percent are too easy to circumvent. They hire tax experts and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to save them money. They must be saving quite a bit of money for that to be worth it. And even if that wasn't the case, higher taxes on them just translates to lower wages to their employees and higher prices on the goods they provide. In contrast, a higher sales tax would be impossible to circumvent, unless you plan on never spending your money. Corporations would no longer have a reason to store their money in banks overseas. I also think the sales tax should be much lower or non existent on necessities such as food and clothing with exceptions for options in those categories that are more luxurious , which would mean that you only pay a lot in taxes if you buy expensive things that you don't really need. And, no tax returns. No ridiculously convoluted tax system. Just a simple, fair tax that taxes the people who are able to pay taxes without it significantly affecting their quality of life. Also, everyone gets more take home pay, which means more spending on goods and services, which means more taxes for the government. It seems to me everybody wins in this scenario. But I must be missing something. Otherwise, why isn't this a more popular idea? Edit I think I should clarify something I was thinking about typical income taxes on salaries and wages when I wrote this post, not things like investment income, which I would still be in favor of taxing. Edit 2 Some people seem quite concerned about the specific numbers, so here, I'll humor the math nerds I make about 30k a year, and my total taxes end up being a little over 20 , which is where I got almost a quarter . This is including Medicare and SS the income tax alone is closer to 12 of my gross income. But, by my calculations, that 12 of 30k per year totals to 300 per month, exactly in line with my 200 400 a month estimate. So please, calm down. Edit 3 I bolded the paragraph about having little or no sales tax on necessities like groceries and clothing, as people seem to be missing that part for some reason. Yes, if that wasn't the case, the poor would be taxed more than the rich. But with my specific plan, they could buy everything they need to continue existing while paying nothing in taxes. This is an essential part of my plan.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For one thing, the way taxes work in the US seems convoluted in general. Why am I getting money back or paying more money at the end of the year? It's just confusing and inefficient, and inefficiencies cost taxpayer money. The taxes on people in the lower income bracket are way too high. I lose almost a quarter of my money before I even see it see Edit 2 below and that money means a lot more to me, as a person who doesn't make a whole lot to begin with, than it does to someone in the upper middle class. An extra 200 400 a month would be a huge deal. The taxes on people in the 1 percent are too easy to circumvent. They hire tax experts and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to save them money. They must be saving quite a bit of money for that to be worth it. And even if that wasn't the case, higher taxes on them just translates to lower wages to their employees and higher prices on the goods they provide. In contrast, a higher sales tax would be impossible to circumvent, unless you plan on never spending your money. Corporations would no longer have a reason to store their money in banks overseas. I also think the sales tax should be much lower or non existent on necessities such as food and clothing with exceptions for options in those categories that are more luxurious , which would mean that you only pay a lot in taxes if you buy expensive things that you don't really need. And, no tax returns. No ridiculously convoluted tax system. Just a simple, fair tax that taxes the people who are able to pay taxes without it significantly affecting their quality of life. Also, everyone gets more take home pay, which means more spending on goods and services, which means more taxes for the government. It seems to me everybody wins in this scenario. But I must be missing something. Otherwise, why isn't this a more popular idea? Edit I think I should clarify something I was thinking about typical income taxes on salaries and wages when I wrote this post, not things like investment income, which I would still be in favor of taxing. Edit 2 Some people seem quite concerned about the specific numbers, so here, I'll humor the math nerds I make about 30k a year, and my total taxes end up being a little over 20 , which is where I got almost a quarter . This is including Medicare and SS the income tax alone is closer to 12 of my gross income. But, by my calculations, that 12 of 30k per year totals to 300 per month, exactly in line with my 200 400 a month estimate. So please, calm down. Edit 3 I bolded the paragraph about having little or no sales tax on necessities like groceries and clothing, as people seem to be missing that part for some reason. Yes, if that wasn't the case, the poor would be taxed more than the rich. But with my specific plan, they could buy everything they need to continue existing while paying nothing in taxes. This is an essential part of my plan.<|TARGETS|>more spending on goods and services, An extra 200 400 a month, The taxes on people in the lower income bracket, The taxes on people in the 1 percent, to store their money in banks overseas, the way taxes work in the US<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For one thing, the way taxes work in the US seems convoluted in general. Why am I getting money back or paying more money at the end of the year? It's just confusing and inefficient, and inefficiencies cost taxpayer money. The taxes on people in the lower income bracket are way too high. I lose almost a quarter of my money before I even see it see Edit 2 below and that money means a lot more to me, as a person who doesn't make a whole lot to begin with, than it does to someone in the upper middle class. An extra 200 400 a month would be a huge deal. The taxes on people in the 1 percent are too easy to circumvent. They hire tax experts and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to save them money. They must be saving quite a bit of money for that to be worth it. And even if that wasn't the case, higher taxes on them just translates to lower wages to their employees and higher prices on the goods they provide. In contrast, a higher sales tax would be impossible to circumvent, unless you plan on never spending your money. Corporations would no longer have a reason to store their money in banks overseas. I also think the sales tax should be much lower or non existent on necessities such as food and clothing with exceptions for options in those categories that are more luxurious , which would mean that you only pay a lot in taxes if you buy expensive things that you don't really need. And, no tax returns. No ridiculously convoluted tax system. Just a simple, fair tax that taxes the people who are able to pay taxes without it significantly affecting their quality of life. Also, everyone gets more take home pay, which means more spending on goods and services, which means more taxes for the government. It seems to me everybody wins in this scenario. But I must be missing something. Otherwise, why isn't this a more popular idea? Edit I think I should clarify something I was thinking about typical income taxes on salaries and wages when I wrote this post, not things like investment income, which I would still be in favor of taxing. Edit 2 Some people seem quite concerned about the specific numbers, so here, I'll humor the math nerds I make about 30k a year, and my total taxes end up being a little over 20 , which is where I got almost a quarter . This is including Medicare and SS the income tax alone is closer to 12 of my gross income. But, by my calculations, that 12 of 30k per year totals to 300 per month, exactly in line with my 200 400 a month estimate. So please, calm down. Edit 3 I bolded the paragraph about having little or no sales tax on necessities like groceries and clothing, as people seem to be missing that part for some reason. Yes, if that wasn't the case, the poor would be taxed more than the rich. But with my specific plan, they could buy everything they need to continue existing while paying nothing in taxes. This is an essential part of my plan.<|ASPECTS|>sales tax, store their money, spending on goods, fair tax, money back, middle, money, take home pay, confusing, wins, banks, taxes on people, cost taxpayer money, buy everything, higher taxes, luxurious, money means, taxed, higher prices, save, impossible to circumvent, math, convoluted, convoluted tax system, tax returns, expensive things, taxes, necessities, quality of life, income taxes, income tax, tax experts, spending, gross income, investment income, saving, lower income, easy to circumvent, paying, reason, specific numbers, lower wages, lose, continue existing, lower, inefficiencies, missing, inefficient, essential, rich, poor, total taxes, paying more money, popular<|CONCLUSION|>","For one thing, the way taxes work in the US seems convoluted in general. Why am I getting money back or paying more money at the end of the year? It's just confusing and inefficient, and inefficiencies cost taxpayer money. The taxes on people in the lower income bracket are way too high. I lose almost a quarter of my money before I even see it see Edit 2 below and that money means a lot more to me, as a person who doesn't make a whole lot to begin with, than it does to someone in the upper middle class. An extra 200 400 a month would be a huge deal. The taxes on people in the 1 percent are too easy to circumvent. They hire tax experts and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to save them money. They must be saving quite a bit of money for that to be worth it. And even if that wasn't the case, higher taxes on them just translates to lower wages to their employees and higher prices on the goods they provide. In contrast, a higher sales tax would be impossible to circumvent, unless you plan on never spending your money. Corporations would no longer have a reason to store their money in banks overseas. I also think the sales tax should be much lower or non existent on necessities such as food and clothing with exceptions for options in those categories that are more luxurious , which would mean that you only pay a lot in taxes if you buy expensive things that you don't really need. And, no tax returns. No ridiculously convoluted tax system. Just a simple, fair tax that taxes the people who are able to pay taxes without it significantly affecting their quality of life. Also, everyone gets more take home pay, which means more spending on goods and services, which means more taxes for the government. It seems to me everybody wins in this scenario. But I must be missing something. Otherwise, why isn't this a more popular idea? Edit I think I should clarify something I was thinking about typical income taxes on salaries and wages when I wrote this post, not things like investment income, which I would still be in favor of taxing. Edit 2 Some people seem quite concerned about the specific numbers, so here, I'll humor the math nerds I make about 30k a year, and my total taxes end up being a little over 20 , which is where I got almost a quarter . This is including Medicare and SS the income tax alone is closer to 12 of my gross income. But, by my calculations, that 12 of 30k per year totals to 300 per month, exactly in line with my 200 400 a month estimate. So please, calm down. Edit 3 I bolded the paragraph about having little or no sales tax on necessities like groceries and clothing, as people seem to be missing that part for some reason. Yes, if that wasn't the case, the poor would be taxed more than the rich. But with my specific plan, they could buy everything they need to continue existing while paying nothing in taxes. This is an essential part of my plan.",Income tax should be much lower or even non-existent in favor of a higher sales tax
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Warning This CMV is about a super boring topic. I was just reading about a bill in US Congress about reinstating Glass Steagall. Apparently the gist of the law is separating investment and not investment banks. I know there have been scandals in the past with banks losing their customers' money with risky investments. And I consider myself progressive and in favor of reasonable restraints on money and power. I've always been confused that we separate our government into three branches to mitigate against one group having all the power, but we don't think the same rules apply to power derived from wealth. However, I want to allow financial institutions to be innovative within ethical boundaries. I want to hold banks responsible for taking inappropriate risks with people's money, but I can't think of a good reason to separate banks along these lines. Sure, make them be super transparent about how they're investing individuals' money. Break up financial institutions over a certain size. But I don't think I agree that separating banks along these commercial investment lines makes any sense. Bonus points to people who correct my bad assumptions about the gist of Glass Steagall.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Warning This CMV is about a super boring topic. I was just reading about a bill in US Congress about reinstating Glass Steagall. Apparently the gist of the law is separating investment and not investment banks. I know there have been scandals in the past with banks losing their customers' money with risky investments. And I consider myself progressive and in favor of reasonable restraints on money and power. I've always been confused that we separate our government into three branches to mitigate against one group having all the power, but we don't think the same rules apply to power derived from wealth. However, I want to allow financial institutions to be innovative within ethical boundaries. I want to hold banks responsible for taking inappropriate risks with people's money, but I can't think of a good reason to separate banks along these lines. Sure, make them be super transparent about how they're investing individuals' money. Break up financial institutions over a certain size. But I don't think I agree that separating banks along these commercial investment lines makes any sense. Bonus points to people who correct my bad assumptions about the gist of Glass Steagall.<|TARGETS|>banks losing their customers' money with risky investments, that we separate our government into three branches to mitigate against one group having all the power, investing individuals' money ., to allow financial institutions to be innovative within ethical boundaries ., to separate banks along these lines ., Bonus points to people who correct my bad assumptions about the gist of Glass Steagall<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Warning This CMV is about a super boring topic. I was just reading about a bill in US Congress about reinstating Glass Steagall. Apparently the gist of the law is separating investment and not investment banks. I know there have been scandals in the past with banks losing their customers' money with risky investments. And I consider myself progressive and in favor of reasonable restraints on money and power. I've always been confused that we separate our government into three branches to mitigate against one group having all the power, but we don't think the same rules apply to power derived from wealth. However, I want to allow financial institutions to be innovative within ethical boundaries. I want to hold banks responsible for taking inappropriate risks with people's money, but I can't think of a good reason to separate banks along these lines. Sure, make them be super transparent about how they're investing individuals' money. Break up financial institutions over a certain size. But I don't think I agree that separating banks along these commercial investment lines makes any sense. Bonus points to people who correct my bad assumptions about the gist of Glass Steagall.<|ASPECTS|>bad assumptions, power derived, money, investing individuals ', innovative, separating investment, reasonable restraints, commercial investment, financial institutions, inappropriate risks, ethical boundaries, losing, risky investments, money and power, wealth, super, reinstating, power, transparent, separating banks, boring topic, scandals, separate, investment banks<|CONCLUSION|>","Warning This  is about a super boring topic. I was just reading about a bill in US Congress about reinstating Glass Steagall. Apparently the gist of the law is separating investment and not investment banks. I know there have been scandals in the past with banks losing their customers' money with risky investments. And I consider myself progressive and in favor of reasonable restraints on money and power. I've always been confused that we separate our government into three branches to mitigate against one group having all the power, but we don't think the same rules apply to power derived from wealth. However, I want to allow financial institutions to be innovative within ethical boundaries. I want to hold banks responsible for taking inappropriate risks with people's money, but I can't think of a good reason to separate banks along these lines. Sure, make them be super transparent about how they're investing individuals' money. Break up financial institutions over a certain size. But I don't think I agree that separating banks along these commercial investment lines makes any sense. Bonus points to people who correct my bad assumptions about the gist of Glass Steagall.",Breaking up banks along investment/commercial lines is arbitrary and senseless.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe the predisposing factor for the decreasing quality in the reddit community is the increasing numbers on reddit. It is following a path where the most visible content is that which is designed to be attention seeking and panders to upvotes not quality. Posts containing errors, propaganda, bias, and or topics that garner easy karma, but have no real substance are more prevalent than ever before The increase in population makes it harder for new content and in jokes to gain momentum, so the status quo of circlejerking is perpetuated Higher traffic higher corporate intrigue and people are as corruptible as ever. Censorship goes far beyond Ellen pao. Voting algorithms, Changes to AMA structure, admins, moderators, etc have all been targets of allegations of corruption. May or may not be true, just speculating as to what I think could potentially contribute to a poorer reddit community Redditors are resistant to change. Alternative hypotheses the change actually lies with me, I have become disillusioned or for some reason perceive content differently. Reddit is actually improving as a community but I am out of touch with the userbase. no it's the kids who are wrong I filter my reddit experience in some way that shows me content that I perceive as circlejerking or too repetitive<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe the predisposing factor for the decreasing quality in the reddit community is the increasing numbers on reddit. It is following a path where the most visible content is that which is designed to be attention seeking and panders to upvotes not quality. Posts containing errors, propaganda, bias, and or topics that garner easy karma, but have no real substance are more prevalent than ever before The increase in population makes it harder for new content and in jokes to gain momentum, so the status quo of circlejerking is perpetuated Higher traffic higher corporate intrigue and people are as corruptible as ever. Censorship goes far beyond Ellen pao. Voting algorithms, Changes to AMA structure, admins, moderators, etc have all been targets of allegations of corruption. May or may not be true, just speculating as to what I think could potentially contribute to a poorer reddit community Redditors are resistant to change. Alternative hypotheses the change actually lies with me, I have become disillusioned or for some reason perceive content differently. Reddit is actually improving as a community but I am out of touch with the userbase. no it's the kids who are wrong I filter my reddit experience in some way that shows me content that I perceive as circlejerking or too repetitive<|TARGETS|>Voting algorithms, just speculating as to what I think could potentially contribute to a poorer reddit community Redditors, Reddit, filter my reddit experience in some way that, Posts containing errors propaganda, Censorship<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe the predisposing factor for the decreasing quality in the reddit community is the increasing numbers on reddit. It is following a path where the most visible content is that which is designed to be attention seeking and panders to upvotes not quality. Posts containing errors, propaganda, bias, and or topics that garner easy karma, but have no real substance are more prevalent than ever before The increase in population makes it harder for new content and in jokes to gain momentum, so the status quo of circlejerking is perpetuated Higher traffic higher corporate intrigue and people are as corruptible as ever. Censorship goes far beyond Ellen pao. Voting algorithms, Changes to AMA structure, admins, moderators, etc have all been targets of allegations of corruption. May or may not be true, just speculating as to what I think could potentially contribute to a poorer reddit community Redditors are resistant to change. Alternative hypotheses the change actually lies with me, I have become disillusioned or for some reason perceive content differently. Reddit is actually improving as a community but I am out of touch with the userbase. no it's the kids who are wrong I filter my reddit experience in some way that shows me content that I perceive as circlejerking or too repetitive<|ASPECTS|>population, bias, disillusioned, traffic, userbase, poorer reddit, perceive content differently, corruption, decreasing, content, community, improving, attention seeking, experience, visible content, circlejerking, structure, algorithms, easy karma, resistant to change, upvotes, quality, corporate intrigue, new content, numbers, corruptible, propaganda, errors, censorship<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe the predisposing factor for the decreasing quality in the reddit community is the increasing numbers on reddit. It is following a path where the most visible content is that which is designed to be attention seeking and panders to upvotes not quality. Posts containing errors, propaganda, bias, and or topics that garner easy karma, but have no real substance are more prevalent than ever before The increase in population makes it harder for new content and in jokes to gain momentum, so the status quo of circlejerking is perpetuated Higher traffic higher corporate intrigue and people are as corruptible as ever. Censorship goes far beyond Ellen pao. Voting algorithms, Changes to AMA structure, admins, moderators, etc have all been targets of allegations of corruption. May or may not be true, just speculating as to what I think could potentially contribute to a poorer reddit community Redditors are resistant to change. Alternative hypotheses the change actually lies with me, I have become disillusioned or for some reason perceive content differently. Reddit is actually improving as a community but I am out of touch with the userbase. no it's the kids who are wrong I filter my reddit experience in some way that shows me content that I perceive as circlejerking or too repetitive","Reddit is becoming perceptibly worse, and if it hasn't already, will most likely evolve into a complete cesspool of mindless repetition and non-ironic circle jerks"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The basis of this CMV is my understanding of what the different letter grades are meant to be C 70 79 The student demonstrates an understanding of the concept B 80 89 The student demonstrates an above understanding of the concept content A 90 100 The student demonstrates a complete mastery of content D 65 69 The student demonstrates a below average understanding of the content F 65 gt The student demonstrates a failure to grasp the content To me it seems as if we treat it more like this A C, B D, and a C or lower is a F. When I was in school I didnt put too much effort into classes, but managed to pull an A in most classes. In reality students like me probably should have gotten an A, in comparison with briliant students who get A's that really deserve it. Most students should be getting C's in classes as in theory most students have an average understanding of the subject matter. Students who are really good can get an A, and those that are pretty good get a B. Unfortunately though we treat those who have attained a C as basicly failing passing by the skin of their teeth. That should be seen of students who attain a D, those students are viewed as flat out failures. I think that if we embraced the 'C' as a more accepted grade, and pushed down averages to that area then it would really help to differentiate students with exceptional skills in whatever class subject area is being discussed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The basis of this CMV is my understanding of what the different letter grades are meant to be C 70 79 The student demonstrates an understanding of the concept B 80 89 The student demonstrates an above understanding of the concept content A 90 100 The student demonstrates a complete mastery of content D 65 69 The student demonstrates a below average understanding of the content F 65 gt The student demonstrates a failure to grasp the content To me it seems as if we treat it more like this A C, B D, and a C or lower is a F. When I was in school I didnt put too much effort into classes, but managed to pull an A in most classes. In reality students like me probably should have gotten an A, in comparison with briliant students who get A's that really deserve it. Most students should be getting C's in classes as in theory most students have an average understanding of the subject matter. Students who are really good can get an A, and those that are pretty good get a B. Unfortunately though we treat those who have attained a C as basicly failing passing by the skin of their teeth. That should be seen of students who attain a D, those students are viewed as flat out failures. I think that if we embraced the 'C' as a more accepted grade, and pushed down averages to that area then it would really help to differentiate students with exceptional skills in whatever class subject area is being discussed.<|TARGETS|>the ' C ' as a more accepted grade and pushed down averages to that area, getting C 's in classes as in theory most students, put too much effort into classes, to pull an A in most classes ., to differentiate students with exceptional skills in whatever class subject area is being discussed .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The basis of this CMV is my understanding of what the different letter grades are meant to be C 70 79 The student demonstrates an understanding of the concept B 80 89 The student demonstrates an above understanding of the concept content A 90 100 The student demonstrates a complete mastery of content D 65 69 The student demonstrates a below average understanding of the content F 65 gt The student demonstrates a failure to grasp the content To me it seems as if we treat it more like this A C, B D, and a C or lower is a F. When I was in school I didnt put too much effort into classes, but managed to pull an A in most classes. In reality students like me probably should have gotten an A, in comparison with briliant students who get A's that really deserve it. Most students should be getting C's in classes as in theory most students have an average understanding of the subject matter. Students who are really good can get an A, and those that are pretty good get a B. Unfortunately though we treat those who have attained a C as basicly failing passing by the skin of their teeth. That should be seen of students who attain a D, those students are viewed as flat out failures. I think that if we embraced the 'C' as a more accepted grade, and pushed down averages to that area then it would really help to differentiate students with exceptional skills in whatever class subject area is being discussed.<|ASPECTS|>accepted grade, , content, understanding, effort, flat, differentiate, failure, failures, exceptional skills, average, understanding of the subject matter, failing, mastery of content<|CONCLUSION|>","The basis of this  is my understanding of what the different letter grades are meant to be C 70 79 The student demonstrates an understanding of the concept B 80 89 The student demonstrates an above understanding of the concept content A 90 100 The student demonstrates a complete mastery of content D 65 69 The student demonstrates a below average understanding of the content F 65 gt The student demonstrates a failure to grasp the content To me it seems as if we treat it more like this A C, B D, and a C or lower is a F. When I was in school I didnt put too much effort into classes, but managed to pull an A in most classes. In reality students like me probably should have gotten an A, in comparison with briliant students who get A's that really deserve it. Most students should be getting C's in classes as in theory most students have an average understanding of the subject matter. Students who are really good can get an A, and those that are pretty good get a B. Unfortunately though we treat those who have attained a C as basicly failing passing by the skin of their teeth. That should be seen of students who attain a D, those students are viewed as flat out failures. I think that if we embraced the 'C' as a more accepted grade, and pushed down averages to that area then it would really help to differentiate students with exceptional skills in whatever class subject area is being discussed.",Grades in American Education are inflated/too high
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is going to be a bit more personal than I'd like but I feel I should get it off my chest. We're talking mostly real life instances here. I work just like most other people in the world and I see things that reasonably should make a person very upset. Things like car crashes, random mugging, unforeseen unfortunate events like medical stuff , etc. These are all very serious things and it'd be very strange to see a person not get very upset. But for other things that might range from mildly annoying to serious problems that can still be fixed, I see people absolutely blow up . Just this morning when going to a coffee shop I saw multiple people looking like they were going to bust a vein at how slow the barista was filling orders even though the barista already explained that the shop was very short staffed and that it might take a much longer time than normal. I assume it didn't end well. I left before it all ended because I just couldn't bear to see it anymore. There have been multiple isolated instances throughout the past three years that I've bothered to pay attention to how other people handle annoyances, grievances, or fixable serious problems, and very rarely do I see people handle these things with restraint. I have to admit that for the vast majority of people that I meet who behave this way, I don't know and can't possibly know what else is going on in their lives without getting to know them too and it's not exactly feasible for me to do that with most people either. I'd probably perceive them much differently if I did know. As it currently stands, almost everyone that I meet, when something goes wrong regardless of what it is, is perceived as unreasonably high strung due to how upset they get in relation to what's happening. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is going to be a bit more personal than I'd like but I feel I should get it off my chest. We're talking mostly real life instances here. I work just like most other people in the world and I see things that reasonably should make a person very upset. Things like car crashes, random mugging, unforeseen unfortunate events like medical stuff , etc. These are all very serious things and it'd be very strange to see a person not get very upset. But for other things that might range from mildly annoying to serious problems that can still be fixed, I see people absolutely blow up . Just this morning when going to a coffee shop I saw multiple people looking like they were going to bust a vein at how slow the barista was filling orders even though the barista already explained that the shop was very short staffed and that it might take a much longer time than normal. I assume it didn't end well. I left before it all ended because I just couldn't bear to see it anymore. There have been multiple isolated instances throughout the past three years that I've bothered to pay attention to how other people handle annoyances, grievances, or fixable serious problems, and very rarely do I see people handle these things with restraint. I have to admit that for the vast majority of people that I meet who behave this way, I don't know and can't possibly know what else is going on in their lives without getting to know them too and it's not exactly feasible for me to do that with most people either. I'd probably perceive them much differently if I did know. As it currently stands, almost everyone that I meet, when something goes wrong regardless of what it is, is perceived as unreasonably high strung due to how upset they get in relation to what's happening. <|TARGETS|>to pay attention to how other people handle annoyances grievances or fixable serious problems and very rarely do I see people handle these things with restraint ., get it off my chest ., to see it anymore ., to admit that for the vast majority of people that I meet who behave this way I do n't know and ca n't possibly know what else is going on in their lives without getting to know them too and it, to see a person not get very upset ., to do that with most people either .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is going to be a bit more personal than I'd like but I feel I should get it off my chest. We're talking mostly real life instances here. I work just like most other people in the world and I see things that reasonably should make a person very upset. Things like car crashes, random mugging, unforeseen unfortunate events like medical stuff , etc. These are all very serious things and it'd be very strange to see a person not get very upset. But for other things that might range from mildly annoying to serious problems that can still be fixed, I see people absolutely blow up . Just this morning when going to a coffee shop I saw multiple people looking like they were going to bust a vein at how slow the barista was filling orders even though the barista already explained that the shop was very short staffed and that it might take a much longer time than normal. I assume it didn't end well. I left before it all ended because I just couldn't bear to see it anymore. There have been multiple isolated instances throughout the past three years that I've bothered to pay attention to how other people handle annoyances, grievances, or fixable serious problems, and very rarely do I see people handle these things with restraint. I have to admit that for the vast majority of people that I meet who behave this way, I don't know and can't possibly know what else is going on in their lives without getting to know them too and it's not exactly feasible for me to do that with most people either. I'd probably perceive them much differently if I did know. As it currently stands, almost everyone that I meet, when something goes wrong regardless of what it is, is perceived as unreasonably high strung due to how upset they get in relation to what's happening. <|ASPECTS|>, upset, high strung, fixable serious problems, grievances, short staffed, mildly, end well, perceive, restraint, serious, personal, serious problems, unfortunate events, unforeseen, medical, isolated instances, annoying, annoyances, differently, car crashes, orders, random mugging, unreasonably, goes wrong, strange, bear, real life instances, feasible, bust a vein, longer time<|CONCLUSION|>","This is going to be a bit more personal than I'd like but I feel I should get it off my chest. We're talking mostly real life instances here. I work just like most other people in the world and I see things that reasonably should make a person very upset. Things like car crashes, random mugging, unforeseen unfortunate events like medical stuff , etc. These are all very serious things and it'd be very strange to see a person not get very upset. But for other things that might range from mildly annoying to serious problems that can still be fixed, I see people absolutely blow up . Just this morning when going to a coffee shop I saw multiple people looking like they were going to bust a vein at how slow the barista was filling orders even though the barista already explained that the shop was very short staffed and that it might take a much longer time than normal. I assume it didn't end well. I left before it all ended because I just couldn't bear to see it anymore. There have been multiple isolated instances throughout the past three years that I've bothered to pay attention to how other people handle annoyances, grievances, or fixable serious problems, and very rarely do I see people handle these things with restraint. I have to admit that for the vast majority of people that I meet who behave this way, I don't know and can't possibly know what else is going on in their lives without getting to know them too and it's not exactly feasible for me to do that with most people either. I'd probably perceive them much differently if I did know. As it currently stands, almost everyone that I meet, when something goes wrong regardless of what it is, is perceived as unreasonably high strung due to how upset they get in relation to what's happening.",I perceive almost everybody I meet as being unreasonably high-strung.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yes, I was cheated on recently. So, all you people saying, “found the jilted male,” can go fuck right off. And fuck the person next to you too. And then the person next to them also. My ex claimed I was not accepting of her “polyamorous” lifestyle. I laughed at that, and she said that was hateful and abusive. I take abuse seriously, so I want to know if I really do have a toxic view on polyamory. In my opinion, if you come to me and ask if you want to sleep with other people, and I say no, and you do it, then how in the world am I in the wrong on this? I’ve heard this said elsewhere by “true” polyamorous people, that monogamy is a social norm. Yeah, obviously. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Are you really going to shame me into submitting to your wayward pleasures? It’s your life. Go fuck who you want. But the whole reason for a relationship in my opinion is loyalty. Presenting and entrusting yourself to someone else increases the risk of disease, and that makes it your partners’ problem. Call me a bigot. Whatever. Update Your responses were very logical, and I changed my view. Cheating is violating an agreement, polyamory makes no such agreement, therefore it’s not cheating. Monos can cheat polys can cheat. It’s all about the rules you set.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yes, I was cheated on recently. So, all you people saying, “found the jilted male,” can go fuck right off. And fuck the person next to you too. And then the person next to them also. My ex claimed I was not accepting of her “polyamorous” lifestyle. I laughed at that, and she said that was hateful and abusive. I take abuse seriously, so I want to know if I really do have a toxic view on polyamory. In my opinion, if you come to me and ask if you want to sleep with other people, and I say no, and you do it, then how in the world am I in the wrong on this? I’ve heard this said elsewhere by “true” polyamorous people, that monogamy is a social norm. Yeah, obviously. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Are you really going to shame me into submitting to your wayward pleasures? It’s your life. Go fuck who you want. But the whole reason for a relationship in my opinion is loyalty. Presenting and entrusting yourself to someone else increases the risk of disease, and that makes it your partners’ problem. Call me a bigot. Whatever. Update Your responses were very logical, and I changed my view. Cheating is violating an agreement, polyamory makes no such agreement, therefore it’s not cheating. Monos can cheat polys can cheat. It’s all about the rules you set.<|TARGETS|>if you come to me and ask if you want to sleep with other people and I say no and you do it then how in the world am I in the wrong on this, Cheating, a relationship in my opinion, Update Your responses, submitting to your wayward pleasures, this said elsewhere by “ true ” polyamorous people that monogamy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yes, I was cheated on recently. So, all you people saying, “found the jilted male,” can go fuck right off. And fuck the person next to you too. And then the person next to them also. My ex claimed I was not accepting of her “polyamorous” lifestyle. I laughed at that, and she said that was hateful and abusive. I take abuse seriously, so I want to know if I really do have a toxic view on polyamory. In my opinion, if you come to me and ask if you want to sleep with other people, and I say no, and you do it, then how in the world am I in the wrong on this? I’ve heard this said elsewhere by “true” polyamorous people, that monogamy is a social norm. Yeah, obviously. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Are you really going to shame me into submitting to your wayward pleasures? It’s your life. Go fuck who you want. But the whole reason for a relationship in my opinion is loyalty. Presenting and entrusting yourself to someone else increases the risk of disease, and that makes it your partners’ problem. Call me a bigot. Whatever. Update Your responses were very logical, and I changed my view. Cheating is violating an agreement, polyamory makes no such agreement, therefore it’s not cheating. Monos can cheat polys can cheat. It’s all about the rules you set.<|ASPECTS|>polyamory, bad thing, wrong, agreement, cheated on recently, toxic view, fuck right, social norm, jilted male, cheating, shame, bigot, monogamy, life, logical, risk of disease, cheat, partners ’ problem, fuck, wayward pleasures, sleep with other people, hateful, abusive, polyamorous ” lifestyle, loyalty, abuse, rules<|CONCLUSION|>","Yes, I was cheated on recently. So, all you people saying, “found the jilted male,” can go fuck right off. And fuck the person next to you too. And then the person next to them also. My ex claimed I was not accepting of her “polyamorous” lifestyle. I laughed at that, and she said that was hateful and abusive. I take abuse seriously, so I want to know if I really do have a toxic view on polyamory. In my opinion, if you come to me and ask if you want to sleep with other people, and I say no, and you do it, then how in the world am I in the wrong on this? I’ve heard this said elsewhere by “true” polyamorous people, that monogamy is a social norm. Yeah, obviously. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Are you really going to shame me into submitting to your wayward pleasures? It’s your life. Go fuck who you want. But the whole reason for a relationship in my opinion is loyalty. Presenting and entrusting yourself to someone else increases the risk of disease, and that makes it your partners’ problem. Call me a bigot. Whatever. Update Your responses were very logical, and I changed my view. Cheating is violating an agreement, polyamory makes no such agreement, therefore it’s not cheating. Monos can cheat polys can cheat. It’s all about the rules you set.",Polyamory is just a word cheaters use to feel better about themselves.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that there are many times when violating consent is acceptable, or even ethical. Now it is easy to jump to sexual consent. I want to restrict my purview here. I violate consent all the time, but I am selective in that violation. Sometimes I feed people things they may not like after lying to them in an effort to get them to like it. I won't do it if they are allergic or have ethical reservations about it I won't feed a vegan milk or a vegetarian meat , but I think it is perfectly acceptable to goad them into eating things they may not otherwise try. This may be to expand their palate or maybe because I'm just lazy. Sometimes I will pester them to try things, which is problematic due to elements of coercion. I will play music they don't like. And these are just a few of the many instances where I violate consent. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. At worst this leads to some minor annoyance and generally works out well, though sometimes people don't enjoy it I ensure that the limits of their not enjoying something are reasonably managed by me. I won't extrapolate this behaviour to more serious spheres like sex because the resulting fallout can be extremely traumatic. I will also not do it if there is reason to believe it will have long term repercussions, or even short term effects beyond the other party ies being slightly annoyed. I intend to continue to live my life like this CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that there are many times when violating consent is acceptable, or even ethical. Now it is easy to jump to sexual consent. I want to restrict my purview here. I violate consent all the time, but I am selective in that violation. Sometimes I feed people things they may not like after lying to them in an effort to get them to like it. I won't do it if they are allergic or have ethical reservations about it I won't feed a vegan milk or a vegetarian meat , but I think it is perfectly acceptable to goad them into eating things they may not otherwise try. This may be to expand their palate or maybe because I'm just lazy. Sometimes I will pester them to try things, which is problematic due to elements of coercion. I will play music they don't like. And these are just a few of the many instances where I violate consent. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. At worst this leads to some minor annoyance and generally works out well, though sometimes people don't enjoy it I ensure that the limits of their not enjoying something are reasonably managed by me. I won't extrapolate this behaviour to more serious spheres like sex because the resulting fallout can be extremely traumatic. I will also not do it if there is reason to believe it will have long term repercussions, or even short term effects beyond the other party ies being slightly annoyed. I intend to continue to live my life like this CMV.<|TARGETS|>to restrict my purview here ., I feed people things they may not like after lying to them in an effort to get them to like it ., to jump to sexual consent ., to believe it will have long term repercussions or even short term effects beyond the other party ies being slightly annoyed ., extrapolate this behaviour to more serious spheres like sex because the resulting fallout, to goad them into eating things they may not otherwise try .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that there are many times when violating consent is acceptable, or even ethical. Now it is easy to jump to sexual consent. I want to restrict my purview here. I violate consent all the time, but I am selective in that violation. Sometimes I feed people things they may not like after lying to them in an effort to get them to like it. I won't do it if they are allergic or have ethical reservations about it I won't feed a vegan milk or a vegetarian meat , but I think it is perfectly acceptable to goad them into eating things they may not otherwise try. This may be to expand their palate or maybe because I'm just lazy. Sometimes I will pester them to try things, which is problematic due to elements of coercion. I will play music they don't like. And these are just a few of the many instances where I violate consent. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. At worst this leads to some minor annoyance and generally works out well, though sometimes people don't enjoy it I ensure that the limits of their not enjoying something are reasonably managed by me. I won't extrapolate this behaviour to more serious spheres like sex because the resulting fallout can be extremely traumatic. I will also not do it if there is reason to believe it will have long term repercussions, or even short term effects beyond the other party ies being slightly annoyed. I intend to continue to live my life like this CMV.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, violation, restrict, minor, selective, lazy, try, ethical reservations, annoyance, allergic, traumatic, feed people, reasonably managed, music, expand their palate, coercion, fallout, violating consent, violate consent, live my life, sexual consent, play, short term effects, ethical, long term repercussions, purview<|CONCLUSION|>","I think that there are many times when violating consent is acceptable, or even ethical. Now it is easy to jump to sexual consent. I want to restrict my purview here. I violate consent all the time, but I am selective in that violation. Sometimes I feed people things they may not like after lying to them in an effort to get them to like it. I won't do it if they are allergic or have ethical reservations about it I won't feed a vegan milk or a vegetarian meat , but I think it is perfectly acceptable to goad them into eating things they may not otherwise try. This may be to expand their palate or maybe because I'm just lazy. Sometimes I will pester them to try things, which is problematic due to elements of coercion. I will play music they don't like. And these are just a few of the many instances where I violate consent. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. At worst this leads to some minor annoyance and generally works out well, though sometimes people don't enjoy it I ensure that the limits of their not enjoying something are reasonably managed by me. I won't extrapolate this behaviour to more serious spheres like sex because the resulting fallout can be extremely traumatic. I will also not do it if there is reason to believe it will have long term repercussions, or even short term effects beyond the other party ies being slightly annoyed. I intend to continue to live my life like this .",I don't think violating consent is necessarily unethical more general than sexual consent
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Trickle down Theory is supposed to be the idea that, by allowing wealthy people tax breaks, their wealth will then pass down to poorer people through their increased economic activity afforded by their greater wealth. At least, it would be, were it not for the whole idea of a Trickle down theory even existing as a seriously considered idea among any economists or policy makers simply being a strawman rebuttal to any suggestion that taxes be lowered. As far as I am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned 'trickle down' as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of 'trickle down'. The only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons. Obama has famously said on Trickle Down 'It doesn't work, it has never worked while completely forgetting the reality that trickle down has never been policy or even seriously advocated for. Therefore, it is my view that 'Trickle Down Theory' is just a stock left wing phrase used in to denounce those who advocate lower taxes.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Trickle down Theory is supposed to be the idea that, by allowing wealthy people tax breaks, their wealth will then pass down to poorer people through their increased economic activity afforded by their greater wealth. At least, it would be, were it not for the whole idea of a Trickle down theory even existing as a seriously considered idea among any economists or policy makers simply being a strawman rebuttal to any suggestion that taxes be lowered. As far as I am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned 'trickle down' as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of 'trickle down'. The only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons. Obama has famously said on Trickle Down 'It doesn't work, it has never worked while completely forgetting the reality that trickle down has never been policy or even seriously advocated for. Therefore, it is my view that 'Trickle Down Theory' is just a stock left wing phrase used in to denounce those who advocate lower taxes.<|TARGETS|>no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned ' trickle down ' as an ideal to move towards or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of ' trickle down ' ., Trickle down Theory, forgetting the reality that trickle down, Trickle Down Theory ', The only groups that seriously discuss the idea, a stock left wing phrase used in to denounce those who advocate lower taxes .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Trickle down Theory is supposed to be the idea that, by allowing wealthy people tax breaks, their wealth will then pass down to poorer people through their increased economic activity afforded by their greater wealth. At least, it would be, were it not for the whole idea of a Trickle down theory even existing as a seriously considered idea among any economists or policy makers simply being a strawman rebuttal to any suggestion that taxes be lowered. As far as I am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned 'trickle down' as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of 'trickle down'. The only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons. Obama has famously said on Trickle Down 'It doesn't work, it has never worked while completely forgetting the reality that trickle down has never been policy or even seriously advocated for. Therefore, it is my view that 'Trickle Down Theory' is just a stock left wing phrase used in to denounce those who advocate lower taxes.<|ASPECTS|>taxes, wealth, increased, policy, economic activity, poorer, lower taxes, lower tax rates, left wing, greater, strawman argument<|CONCLUSION|>","Trickle down Theory is supposed to be the idea that, by allowing wealthy people tax breaks, their wealth will then pass down to poorer people through their increased economic activity afforded by their greater wealth. At least, it would be, were it not for the whole idea of a Trickle down theory even existing as a seriously considered idea among any economists or policy makers simply being a strawman rebuttal to any suggestion that taxes be lowered. As far as I am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned 'trickle down' as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of 'trickle down'. The only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons. Obama has famously said on Trickle Down 'It doesn't work, it has never worked while completely forgetting the reality that trickle down has never been policy or even seriously advocated for. Therefore, it is my view that 'Trickle Down Theory' is just a stock left wing phrase used in to denounce those who advocate lower taxes.",'Trickle-down Theory' has never existed and is simply used as a strawman against those advocating lower taxes for other reasons.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently seeking psychological help regarding a depression that I may have been fighting with for a very long time I recently realized that I had had suicidal ideations before I even knew what suicide was . While I do understand that a large part of depression coincides with a chemical imbalance in brain chemistry, I feel like it wouldn't be organically getting better, like it would be artificial normal. CMV that anti depressants can do result in achieving less depression closer to normal after coming off them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently seeking psychological help regarding a depression that I may have been fighting with for a very long time I recently realized that I had had suicidal ideations before I even knew what suicide was . While I do understand that a large part of depression coincides with a chemical imbalance in brain chemistry, I feel like it wouldn't be organically getting better, like it would be artificial normal. CMV that anti depressants can do result in achieving less depression closer to normal after coming off them.<|TARGETS|>seeking psychological help regarding a depression that I may have been fighting with for a very long time I recently realized that I had had suicidal ideations before I even knew what suicide was ., a large part of depression<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently seeking psychological help regarding a depression that I may have been fighting with for a very long time I recently realized that I had had suicidal ideations before I even knew what suicide was . While I do understand that a large part of depression coincides with a chemical imbalance in brain chemistry, I feel like it wouldn't be organically getting better, like it would be artificial normal. CMV that anti depressants can do result in achieving less depression closer to normal after coming off them.<|ASPECTS|>suicidal ideations, depression, psychological help, less depression, suicide, organically getting, chemical imbalance, artificial normal<|CONCLUSION|>","I am currently seeking psychological help regarding a depression that I may have been fighting with for a very long time I recently realized that I had had suicidal ideations before I even knew what suicide was . While I do understand that a large part of depression coincides with a chemical imbalance in brain chemistry, I feel like it wouldn't be organically getting better, like it would be artificial normal.  that anti depressants can do result in achieving less depression closer to normal after coming off them.","I believe that taking anti-depressants is similar to taking mind-altering drugs like marijuana and alcohol, and that the drug is only a band-aid to the problem rather than a solution."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Donald Trump keeps saying the electoral process is rigged. He's right about that. But the real rigging isn't against Republicans, it's against outsiders. The most obvious how hard it is for third parties to get on a ballot. Then you have laws against fusion tickets, which violate freedom of association. Then you have campaign finance rules which don't keep money out of politics, but do make it very hard for third parties to raise money. The voting itself is fair, but that means nothing. The rigging happens by keeping candidates from running.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Donald Trump keeps saying the electoral process is rigged. He's right about that. But the real rigging isn't against Republicans, it's against outsiders. The most obvious how hard it is for third parties to get on a ballot. Then you have laws against fusion tickets, which violate freedom of association. Then you have campaign finance rules which don't keep money out of politics, but do make it very hard for third parties to raise money. The voting itself is fair, but that means nothing. The rigging happens by keeping candidates from running.<|TARGETS|>campaign finance rules, Donald Trump, The rigging, The voting itself<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Donald Trump keeps saying the electoral process is rigged. He's right about that. But the real rigging isn't against Republicans, it's against outsiders. The most obvious how hard it is for third parties to get on a ballot. Then you have laws against fusion tickets, which violate freedom of association. Then you have campaign finance rules which don't keep money out of politics, but do make it very hard for third parties to raise money. The voting itself is fair, but that means nothing. The rigging happens by keeping candidates from running.<|ASPECTS|>third parties, politics, rigged, keeping, electoral process, freedom of association, keep, money, raise money, rigging, violate, rigging happens, voting, fair, campaign finance rules, fusion tickets, third, outsiders<|CONCLUSION|>","Donald Trump keeps saying the electoral process is rigged. He's right about that. But the real rigging isn't against Republicans, it's against outsiders. The most obvious how hard it is for third parties to get on a ballot. Then you have laws against fusion tickets, which violate freedom of association. Then you have campaign finance rules which don't keep money out of politics, but do make it very hard for third parties to raise money. The voting itself is fair, but that means nothing. The rigging happens by keeping candidates from running.",The electoral process is rigged - against outsiders.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't understand how so many people are against hearing it, against broadcasting it on tv, against saying it in front of children etc. At the end of the day, the concept of swear words are just a construct. The only reason we consider bad words to be bad is because we historically have done. Say the word Fuck for example. Why is it that this word more offensive than just the literal translation of sex? It is because we've been told it is. Why is Shit worse than Poo? It means the same thing. The difference is when you use swears at someone, rather than just casually. If you're not causing any hatred, there's no real reason for it to cause upset. Words only have the meaning that we choose to give to them anyway. The only sort of slurs that really have objective harm is one that incites harm to group of people races, sexualities etc. I don't have kids myself, but I wouldn't have any problem with hearing them use a lot of swear words because they don't generally mean anything beyond synonyms with other non offensive words. The only reason I might warn them from using them is because I would know that they could cause offense to others. anyway, so what makes non hateful swear words any worse than other words? CMV. EDIT I want to make a clear distinction in saying that I'm not refuting the fact that people do get offended by your choice of language. In this current world, it is a bad idea to use swears in the wrong context. What I am arguing, is that there's no real reason people should be offended by swears. There's no difference between me saying I had a shitty day and I had a bad day , but the first statement it taboo. UPDATE Been away for a while, just getting to reply to things again now.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't understand how so many people are against hearing it, against broadcasting it on tv, against saying it in front of children etc. At the end of the day, the concept of swear words are just a construct. The only reason we consider bad words to be bad is because we historically have done. Say the word Fuck for example. Why is it that this word more offensive than just the literal translation of sex? It is because we've been told it is. Why is Shit worse than Poo? It means the same thing. The difference is when you use swears at someone, rather than just casually. If you're not causing any hatred, there's no real reason for it to cause upset. Words only have the meaning that we choose to give to them anyway. The only sort of slurs that really have objective harm is one that incites harm to group of people races, sexualities etc. I don't have kids myself, but I wouldn't have any problem with hearing them use a lot of swear words because they don't generally mean anything beyond synonyms with other non offensive words. The only reason I might warn them from using them is because I would know that they could cause offense to others. anyway, so what makes non hateful swear words any worse than other words? CMV. EDIT I want to make a clear distinction in saying that I'm not refuting the fact that people do get offended by your choice of language. In this current world, it is a bad idea to use swears in the wrong context. What I am arguing, is that there's no real reason people should be offended by swears. There's no difference between me saying I had a shitty day and I had a bad day , but the first statement it taboo. UPDATE Been away for a while, just getting to reply to things again now.<|TARGETS|>it that this word more offensive than just the literal translation of sex, non hateful swear words any worse than other words, would n't have any problem with hearing them use a lot of swear words because they do n't generally mean anything beyond synonyms with other non offensive words ., a shitty day and I had a bad day but the first statement it taboo ., What I am arguing is that there 's no real reason people should be offended by swears ., how so many people are against hearing it against broadcasting it on tv against saying it in front of children etc .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't understand how so many people are against hearing it, against broadcasting it on tv, against saying it in front of children etc. At the end of the day, the concept of swear words are just a construct. The only reason we consider bad words to be bad is because we historically have done. Say the word Fuck for example. Why is it that this word more offensive than just the literal translation of sex? It is because we've been told it is. Why is Shit worse than Poo? It means the same thing. The difference is when you use swears at someone, rather than just casually. If you're not causing any hatred, there's no real reason for it to cause upset. Words only have the meaning that we choose to give to them anyway. The only sort of slurs that really have objective harm is one that incites harm to group of people races, sexualities etc. I don't have kids myself, but I wouldn't have any problem with hearing them use a lot of swear words because they don't generally mean anything beyond synonyms with other non offensive words. The only reason I might warn them from using them is because I would know that they could cause offense to others. anyway, so what makes non hateful swear words any worse than other words? CMV. EDIT I want to make a clear distinction in saying that I'm not refuting the fact that people do get offended by your choice of language. In this current world, it is a bad idea to use swears in the wrong context. What I am arguing, is that there's no real reason people should be offended by swears. There's no difference between me saying I had a shitty day and I had a bad day , but the first statement it taboo. UPDATE Been away for a while, just getting to reply to things again now.<|ASPECTS|>upset, worse, casually, bad, day, harm, meaning, historically, construct, reply to things, swears at someone, cause, hatred, wrong context, shit, offended, hateful swear words, offensive, bad words, synonyms, taboo, offense to others, choice of language, sexualities, objective harm, swear words, shitty day<|CONCLUSION|>","I don't understand how so many people are against hearing it, against broadcasting it on tv, against saying it in front of children etc. At the end of the day, the concept of swear words are just a construct. The only reason we consider bad words to be bad is because we historically have done. Say the word Fuck for example. Why is it that this word more offensive than just the literal translation of sex? It is because we've been told it is. Why is Shit worse than Poo? It means the same thing. The difference is when you use swears at someone, rather than just casually. If you're not causing any hatred, there's no real reason for it to cause upset. Words only have the meaning that we choose to give to them anyway. The only sort of slurs that really have objective harm is one that incites harm to group of people races, sexualities etc. I don't have kids myself, but I wouldn't have any problem with hearing them use a lot of swear words because they don't generally mean anything beyond synonyms with other non offensive words. The only reason I might warn them from using them is because I would know that they could cause offense to others. anyway, so what makes non hateful swear words any worse than other words? . EDIT I want to make a clear distinction in saying that I'm not refuting the fact that people do get offended by your choice of language. In this current world, it is a bad idea to use swears in the wrong context. What I am arguing, is that there's no real reason people should be offended by swears. There's no difference between me saying I had a shitty day and I had a bad day , but the first statement it taboo. UPDATE Been away for a while, just getting to reply to things again now.",There is nothing inherently bad about swearing.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As today is voting day, I have been bombarded with, You have to vote Your vote counts You have no right to complain if you don't vote I want to want to vote, but the problem is I do not feel like I can vote for what I believe in, but rather against what I do not believe. x200B My reasoning for this is that unless I vote Republican or Democrat my vote is essentially the same as if I did not vote. In my mind this is because there are too many people who just vote with their party because it is, their team. The amount of people I heard during the presidential elections saying I'm voting Trump Hillary just because it isn't Hillary Trump was astounding. They didn't like the candidate they were voting for or agree with a lot of what they were saying but they still voted for them because they didn't want to lose. Voting should not be like that, people should be voting for the person that will actually work for what they want to happen. Additionally with the two party system, options are cut out early in primaries because neither party can push forward multiple candidates because it separates the vote and ensures that the other party wins. While I am in no way familiar with the intricacies of politics, it seems like having no parties, or at least a greater number of parties, would be better. By having only two viable parties it becomes a battle of two extremes, rather than a selection across a spectrum of views. Political views, while often related, are not cut and dry, there are too many individual things to look at for two parties to encompass the range of views. x200B I realize many of my points have been said with the presidential election in mind however I do believe that they are still mostly relevant to the election this year as well.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As today is voting day, I have been bombarded with, You have to vote Your vote counts You have no right to complain if you don't vote I want to want to vote, but the problem is I do not feel like I can vote for what I believe in, but rather against what I do not believe. x200B My reasoning for this is that unless I vote Republican or Democrat my vote is essentially the same as if I did not vote. In my mind this is because there are too many people who just vote with their party because it is, their team. The amount of people I heard during the presidential elections saying I'm voting Trump Hillary just because it isn't Hillary Trump was astounding. They didn't like the candidate they were voting for or agree with a lot of what they were saying but they still voted for them because they didn't want to lose. Voting should not be like that, people should be voting for the person that will actually work for what they want to happen. Additionally with the two party system, options are cut out early in primaries because neither party can push forward multiple candidates because it separates the vote and ensures that the other party wins. While I am in no way familiar with the intricacies of politics, it seems like having no parties, or at least a greater number of parties, would be better. By having only two viable parties it becomes a battle of two extremes, rather than a selection across a spectrum of views. Political views, while often related, are not cut and dry, there are too many individual things to look at for two parties to encompass the range of views. x200B I realize many of my points have been said with the presidential election in mind however I do believe that they are still mostly relevant to the election this year as well.<|TARGETS|>the two party system, having only two viable parties, Hillary Trump, voting Trump Hillary, to vote Your vote counts You have no right to complain if you do n't vote I want to want to vote but the problem is I do not feel like I can vote for what I believe in but rather against what I do not believe ., the presidential election in mind<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As today is voting day, I have been bombarded with, You have to vote Your vote counts You have no right to complain if you don't vote I want to want to vote, but the problem is I do not feel like I can vote for what I believe in, but rather against what I do not believe. x200B My reasoning for this is that unless I vote Republican or Democrat my vote is essentially the same as if I did not vote. In my mind this is because there are too many people who just vote with their party because it is, their team. The amount of people I heard during the presidential elections saying I'm voting Trump Hillary just because it isn't Hillary Trump was astounding. They didn't like the candidate they were voting for or agree with a lot of what they were saying but they still voted for them because they didn't want to lose. Voting should not be like that, people should be voting for the person that will actually work for what they want to happen. Additionally with the two party system, options are cut out early in primaries because neither party can push forward multiple candidates because it separates the vote and ensures that the other party wins. While I am in no way familiar with the intricacies of politics, it seems like having no parties, or at least a greater number of parties, would be better. By having only two viable parties it becomes a battle of two extremes, rather than a selection across a spectrum of views. Political views, while often related, are not cut and dry, there are too many individual things to look at for two parties to encompass the range of views. x200B I realize many of my points have been said with the presidential election in mind however I do believe that they are still mostly relevant to the election this year as well.<|ASPECTS|>cut, agree, wins, voting, individual things, voting trump hillary, relevant, vote, forward multiple candidates, views, work, team, battle of two extremes, intricacies, political views, like, options, separates the vote, politics, hillary trump, right to complain, range, voted, lose<|CONCLUSION|>","As today is voting day, I have been bombarded with, You have to vote Your vote counts You have no right to complain if you don't vote I want to want to vote, but the problem is I do not feel like I can vote for what I believe in, but rather against what I do not believe. x200B My reasoning for this is that unless I vote Republican or Democrat my vote is essentially the same as if I did not vote. In my mind this is because there are too many people who just vote with their party because it is, their team. The amount of people I heard during the presidential elections saying I'm voting Trump Hillary just because it isn't Hillary Trump was astounding. They didn't like the candidate they were voting for or agree with a lot of what they were saying but they still voted for them because they didn't want to lose. Voting should not be like that, people should be voting for the person that will actually work for what they want to happen. Additionally with the two party system, options are cut out early in primaries because neither party can push forward multiple candidates because it separates the vote and ensures that the other party wins. While I am in no way familiar with the intricacies of politics, it seems like having no parties, or at least a greater number of parties, would be better. By having only two viable parties it becomes a battle of two extremes, rather than a selection across a spectrum of views. Political views, while often related, are not cut and dry, there are too many individual things to look at for two parties to encompass the range of views. x200B I realize many of my points have been said with the presidential election in mind however I do believe that they are still mostly relevant to the election this year as well.",The party system in the U.S. is deleterious to politics as a whole.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If I as a parent tell my son or daughter to do the dishes, or mow the lawn, that is justified. I feed them, I give them beds to sleep on, and protect them from harm. If a government tells its citizens to pay some of their income back to the government, that is entirely justified as well. Who builds the roads, makes the rules, and educates your kids? And that does not come cheap. For a person to hate being taxed shows a poor sense of awareness for how they got to where they are, and how they are nothing if not for what came before them, and gave them the chance to succeed and live their life.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If I as a parent tell my son or daughter to do the dishes, or mow the lawn, that is justified. I feed them, I give them beds to sleep on, and protect them from harm. If a government tells its citizens to pay some of their income back to the government, that is entirely justified as well. Who builds the roads, makes the rules, and educates your kids? And that does not come cheap. For a person to hate being taxed shows a poor sense of awareness for how they got to where they are, and how they are nothing if not for what came before them, and gave them the chance to succeed and live their life.<|TARGETS|>If a government tells its citizens to pay some of their income back to the government, them beds to sleep on and protect them from harm ., the chance to succeed and live their life ., For a person to hate being taxed, If I as a parent tell my son or daughter to do the dishes or mow the lawn<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If I as a parent tell my son or daughter to do the dishes, or mow the lawn, that is justified. I feed them, I give them beds to sleep on, and protect them from harm. If a government tells its citizens to pay some of their income back to the government, that is entirely justified as well. Who builds the roads, makes the rules, and educates your kids? And that does not come cheap. For a person to hate being taxed shows a poor sense of awareness for how they got to where they are, and how they are nothing if not for what came before them, and gave them the chance to succeed and live their life.<|ASPECTS|>, live, hate, protect, income back, cheap, sense of awareness, roads, beds, educates your kids, harm, poor, life, justified, rules, succeed<|CONCLUSION|>","If I as a parent tell my son or daughter to do the dishes, or mow the lawn, that is justified. I feed them, I give them beds to sleep on, and protect them from harm. If a government tells its citizens to pay some of their income back to the government, that is entirely justified as well. Who builds the roads, makes the rules, and educates your kids? And that does not come cheap. For a person to hate being taxed shows a poor sense of awareness for how they got to where they are, and how they are nothing if not for what came before them, and gave them the chance to succeed and live their life.","Taxes are completely reasonable in a functioning, productive government"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So my dad and i got into a discussion as to whether the Adolf Eichmann defense, also known as the Nuremberg defense, of i was only following orders was a good enough reason for anyone to plea, and we were both stuck neither of us could really decide if it was or wasn't. So i will let r changemyview be the decider. To be clear in my research, i never found and evidence of Adolf Eichmann saying I was only following orders , the closest he ever said was during his 1961 trial was as follows I cannot recognize the verdict of guilty. . . . It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office, and in addition, once the war started, there was also martial law. . . . I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate. Adolf Eichmann I went into the discussion with my father leaning towards a no towards this question, but, through playing devil's advocate, i came out of it leaning towards yes . I keep coming to this example if Eichmann had been told in person by Adolf Hitler to murder someone, and Eichmann said no to Hitler's face, Hitler would certainly ordered Eichmann in front of a firing squad. With this I argued that the higher up the Chain of Command you are, the more guilty you are. But Eichmann was not near the bottom at all. He oversaw the execution of Jews in Budapest. Eichmann, in my opinion, had justice served to him by being convicted. He stated over and over that he was too insignificant to do anything about the genocide, but that simply isn't true. He claimed he was ashamed of what he did but, while he might have been after the war, during the war he showed no remorse. I am so unsure on this. Reddit CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So my dad and i got into a discussion as to whether the Adolf Eichmann defense, also known as the Nuremberg defense, of i was only following orders was a good enough reason for anyone to plea, and we were both stuck neither of us could really decide if it was or wasn't. So i will let r changemyview be the decider. To be clear in my research, i never found and evidence of Adolf Eichmann saying I was only following orders , the closest he ever said was during his 1961 trial was as follows I cannot recognize the verdict of guilty. . . . It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office, and in addition, once the war started, there was also martial law. . . . I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate. Adolf Eichmann I went into the discussion with my father leaning towards a no towards this question, but, through playing devil's advocate, i came out of it leaning towards yes . I keep coming to this example if Eichmann had been told in person by Adolf Hitler to murder someone, and Eichmann said no to Hitler's face, Hitler would certainly ordered Eichmann in front of a firing squad. With this I argued that the higher up the Chain of Command you are, the more guilty you are. But Eichmann was not near the bottom at all. He oversaw the execution of Jews in Budapest. Eichmann, in my opinion, had justice served to him by being convicted. He stated over and over that he was too insignificant to do anything about the genocide, but that simply isn't true. He claimed he was ashamed of what he did but, while he might have been after the war, during the war he showed no remorse. I am so unsure on this. Reddit CMV<|TARGETS|>a discussion as to whether the Adolf Eichmann defense also known as the Nuremberg defense, Eichmann, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office and in addition once the war started, To be clear in my research, Adolf Eichmann, Adolf Eichmann saying I was only following orders the closest he ever said was during his 1961 trial<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So my dad and i got into a discussion as to whether the Adolf Eichmann defense, also known as the Nuremberg defense, of i was only following orders was a good enough reason for anyone to plea, and we were both stuck neither of us could really decide if it was or wasn't. So i will let r changemyview be the decider. To be clear in my research, i never found and evidence of Adolf Eichmann saying I was only following orders , the closest he ever said was during his 1961 trial was as follows I cannot recognize the verdict of guilty. . . . It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office, and in addition, once the war started, there was also martial law. . . . I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate. Adolf Eichmann I went into the discussion with my father leaning towards a no towards this question, but, through playing devil's advocate, i came out of it leaning towards yes . I keep coming to this example if Eichmann had been told in person by Adolf Hitler to murder someone, and Eichmann said no to Hitler's face, Hitler would certainly ordered Eichmann in front of a firing squad. With this I argued that the higher up the Chain of Command you are, the more guilty you are. But Eichmann was not near the bottom at all. He oversaw the execution of Jews in Budapest. Eichmann, in my opinion, had justice served to him by being convicted. He stated over and over that he was too insignificant to do anything about the genocide, but that simply isn't true. He claimed he was ashamed of what he did but, while he might have been after the war, during the war he showed no remorse. I am so unsure on this. Reddit CMV<|ASPECTS|>genocide, war service, firing, government, entangled, justice served, martial law, misfortune, guilty, demanded, obedient, murder someone, avidity and passion, unsure, remorse, slay people, atrocities, obligations, misdeeds, wish, bottom, adolf, insignificant, verdict of guilty, official duties, ashamed, persecute jews, 's advocate, obedience, execution of jews, following orders, changemyview<|CONCLUSION|>","So my dad and i got into a discussion as to whether the Adolf Eichmann defense, also known as the Nuremberg defense, of i was only following orders was a good enough reason for anyone to plea, and we were both stuck neither of us could really decide if it was or wasn't. So i will let r changemyview be the decider. To be clear in my research, i never found and evidence of Adolf Eichmann saying I was only following orders , the closest he ever said was during his 1961 trial was as follows I cannot recognize the verdict of guilty. . . . It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office, and in addition, once the war started, there was also martial law. . . . I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate. Adolf Eichmann I went into the discussion with my father leaning towards a no towards this question, but, through playing devil's advocate, i came out of it leaning towards yes . I keep coming to this example if Eichmann had been told in person by Adolf Hitler to murder someone, and Eichmann said no to Hitler's face, Hitler would certainly ordered Eichmann in front of a firing squad. With this I argued that the higher up the Chain of Command you are, the more guilty you are. But Eichmann was not near the bottom at all. He oversaw the execution of Jews in Budapest. Eichmann, in my opinion, had justice served to him by being convicted. He stated over and over that he was too insignificant to do anything about the genocide, but that simply isn't true. He claimed he was ashamed of what he did but, while he might have been after the war, during the war he showed no remorse. I am so unsure on this. Reddit","""I was only following orders"" is an.....iffy defense."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a starting point Nihilism can be defined as the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value Alan Pratt, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy IEP similar wordings define nihilism as the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless Google dictionary, and Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. IEP x200B All arguments of morality, ethics, religous values, etc. eventually boil down to some sort of intrinsic value something is right or wrong because it is right or wrong. Take the argument that murder is immoral, and question why. One could argue for the impact of a valuable, contributing member of society being removed. Why is that wrong? Because it negatively effects others in society? Why does that matter? Arguments like this can spin on and on until you come to the ultimate assertion that human life has an intrinsic value, in and of itself. And that belief can be argued through a number of means, such as faith. Human life is valuable because God created and values us. And that argument can be countered with another why Why does god matter? Eventually this circles back again to intrinsic value God's will matters because it matters. It's an argument of belief, either you believe that God matters, or that human life is intrinsically valuable, or you don't, and this can apply to any moral assertion. Because of this, it's just as valid for a person to believe that nothing matters and there is no morality as it is for one to believe in the value of life or in god. x200B Nihilism is logically supportable. x200B But it accomplishes nothing. If you establish a belief that nothing matters, so what? Why does it matter that nothing matters? A nihilist may use that defend acts that others see immoral, but if nothing matters why commit those acts? To satisfy basic desires and impulses? Those don't matter. The argument of nihilism defeats itself, because if nothing has meaning, then nothing is without meaning. Human beings choose to believe that something matters, even if it doesn't. Any action a nihilist takes implies a reason, even if that reason is as simple as because they want to, and therefore implies that they value that reason. x200B Essentially even if nothing matters objectively, something still must matter subjectively. Human beings are not capable of being objective. x200B Edit u nowyourmad helped point out a missing point to what I'm trying to say. My claim is that Nihilism can be logically supported in theory, but in practice is useless because it cannot exist. A person cannot claim that nothing matters or has value because any action they take implies that they are doing so for some reason or motive that matters to them . x200B Please help my change my view<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a starting point Nihilism can be defined as the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value Alan Pratt, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy IEP similar wordings define nihilism as the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless Google dictionary, and Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. IEP x200B All arguments of morality, ethics, religous values, etc. eventually boil down to some sort of intrinsic value something is right or wrong because it is right or wrong. Take the argument that murder is immoral, and question why. One could argue for the impact of a valuable, contributing member of society being removed. Why is that wrong? Because it negatively effects others in society? Why does that matter? Arguments like this can spin on and on until you come to the ultimate assertion that human life has an intrinsic value, in and of itself. And that belief can be argued through a number of means, such as faith. Human life is valuable because God created and values us. And that argument can be countered with another why Why does god matter? Eventually this circles back again to intrinsic value God's will matters because it matters. It's an argument of belief, either you believe that God matters, or that human life is intrinsically valuable, or you don't, and this can apply to any moral assertion. Because of this, it's just as valid for a person to believe that nothing matters and there is no morality as it is for one to believe in the value of life or in god. x200B Nihilism is logically supportable. x200B But it accomplishes nothing. If you establish a belief that nothing matters, so what? Why does it matter that nothing matters? A nihilist may use that defend acts that others see immoral, but if nothing matters why commit those acts? To satisfy basic desires and impulses? Those don't matter. The argument of nihilism defeats itself, because if nothing has meaning, then nothing is without meaning. Human beings choose to believe that something matters, even if it doesn't. Any action a nihilist takes implies a reason, even if that reason is as simple as because they want to, and therefore implies that they value that reason. x200B Essentially even if nothing matters objectively, something still must matter subjectively. Human beings are not capable of being objective. x200B Edit u nowyourmad helped point out a missing point to what I'm trying to say. My claim is that Nihilism can be logically supported in theory, but in practice is useless because it cannot exist. A person cannot claim that nothing matters or has value because any action they take implies that they are doing so for some reason or motive that matters to them . x200B Please help my change my view<|TARGETS|>A person cannot claim that nothing matters or has value because any action they take, Eventually this circles back again to intrinsic value God 's, To satisfy basic desires and impulses, x200B Nihilism, Human life, IEP x200B All arguments of morality ethics religous values<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a starting point Nihilism can be defined as the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value Alan Pratt, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy IEP similar wordings define nihilism as the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless Google dictionary, and Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. IEP x200B All arguments of morality, ethics, religous values, etc. eventually boil down to some sort of intrinsic value something is right or wrong because it is right or wrong. Take the argument that murder is immoral, and question why. One could argue for the impact of a valuable, contributing member of society being removed. Why is that wrong? Because it negatively effects others in society? Why does that matter? Arguments like this can spin on and on until you come to the ultimate assertion that human life has an intrinsic value, in and of itself. And that belief can be argued through a number of means, such as faith. Human life is valuable because God created and values us. And that argument can be countered with another why Why does god matter? Eventually this circles back again to intrinsic value God's will matters because it matters. It's an argument of belief, either you believe that God matters, or that human life is intrinsically valuable, or you don't, and this can apply to any moral assertion. Because of this, it's just as valid for a person to believe that nothing matters and there is no morality as it is for one to believe in the value of life or in god. x200B Nihilism is logically supportable. x200B But it accomplishes nothing. If you establish a belief that nothing matters, so what? Why does it matter that nothing matters? A nihilist may use that defend acts that others see immoral, but if nothing matters why commit those acts? To satisfy basic desires and impulses? Those don't matter. The argument of nihilism defeats itself, because if nothing has meaning, then nothing is without meaning. Human beings choose to believe that something matters, even if it doesn't. Any action a nihilist takes implies a reason, even if that reason is as simple as because they want to, and therefore implies that they value that reason. x200B Essentially even if nothing matters objectively, something still must matter subjectively. Human beings are not capable of being objective. x200B Edit u nowyourmad helped point out a missing point to what I'm trying to say. My claim is that Nihilism can be logically supported in theory, but in practice is useless because it cannot exist. A person cannot claim that nothing matters or has value because any action they take implies that they are doing so for some reason or motive that matters to them . x200B Please help my change my view<|ASPECTS|>meaningless, matters objectively, logically supported, nihilism, negatively effects others, satisfy, morality, objective, god, right or wrong, religous values, basic desires and impulses, nihilist, human life, society, value of life, god matter, god created, useless, value that reason, choose, immoral, life, intrinsic value, god matters, intrinsically valuable, defend acts, god 's, contributing member of society, religious and moral principles, ethics, murder, moral assertion, nothing matters, valuable, baseless, something matters, logically supportable, reason, accomplishes nothing, intrinsic meaning or value, value, values, change, matter subjectively, faith, impact, missing point, meaning, belief<|CONCLUSION|>","As a starting point Nihilism can be defined as the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value Alan Pratt, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy IEP similar wordings define nihilism as the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless Google dictionary, and Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. IEP x200B All arguments of morality, ethics, religous values, etc. eventually boil down to some sort of intrinsic value something is right or wrong because it is right or wrong. Take the argument that murder is immoral, and question why. One could argue for the impact of a valuable, contributing member of society being removed. Why is that wrong? Because it negatively effects others in society? Why does that matter? Arguments like this can spin on and on until you come to the ultimate assertion that human life has an intrinsic value, in and of itself. And that belief can be argued through a number of means, such as faith. Human life is valuable because God created and values us. And that argument can be countered with another why Why does god matter? Eventually this circles back again to intrinsic value God's will matters because it matters. It's an argument of belief, either you believe that God matters, or that human life is intrinsically valuable, or you don't, and this can apply to any moral assertion. Because of this, it's just as valid for a person to believe that nothing matters and there is no morality as it is for one to believe in the value of life or in god. x200B Nihilism is logically supportable. x200B But it accomplishes nothing. If you establish a belief that nothing matters, so what? Why does it matter that nothing matters? A nihilist may use that defend acts that others see immoral, but if nothing matters why commit those acts? To satisfy basic desires and impulses? Those don't matter. The argument of nihilism defeats itself, because if nothing has meaning, then nothing is without meaning. Human beings choose to believe that something matters, even if it doesn't. Any action a nihilist takes implies a reason, even if that reason is as simple as because they want to, and therefore implies that they value that reason. x200B Essentially even if nothing matters objectively, something still must matter subjectively. Human beings are not capable of being objective. x200B Edit u nowyourmad helped point out a missing point to what I'm trying to say. My claim is that Nihilism can be logically supported in theory, but in practice is useless because it cannot exist. A person cannot claim that nothing matters or has value because any action they take implies that they are doing so for some reason or motive that matters to them . x200B Please help my change my view","Nihilism can be supported rationally, but is a useless belief."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hundreds of years ago, Native Americans were oppressed and driven out of their land by Whites. I feel bad for those who were oppressed. However, I other Americans don't owe them anything, nor should I other Americans be expected to help them just because of what happened 200 years ago. Modern Native Americans haven't gone through any of the pain of their ancestors, so they shouldn't be compensated for it. Modern Whites haven't driven Native Americans off their land, so they shouldn't be responsible for it. The same thing applies to similar situations, like Americans and Japanese for concentration camps during WWII , Germans and Jews, etc. NOTE When I say ancestors, I mean people that lived so long ago that nobody alive today knew them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hundreds of years ago, Native Americans were oppressed and driven out of their land by Whites. I feel bad for those who were oppressed. However, I other Americans don't owe them anything, nor should I other Americans be expected to help them just because of what happened 200 years ago. Modern Native Americans haven't gone through any of the pain of their ancestors, so they shouldn't be compensated for it. Modern Whites haven't driven Native Americans off their land, so they shouldn't be responsible for it. The same thing applies to similar situations, like Americans and Japanese for concentration camps during WWII , Germans and Jews, etc. NOTE When I say ancestors, I mean people that lived so long ago that nobody alive today knew them.<|TARGETS|>Modern Whites, to help them just because of what happened 200 years ago ., people that lived so long ago that nobody alive today knew them .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hundreds of years ago, Native Americans were oppressed and driven out of their land by Whites. I feel bad for those who were oppressed. However, I other Americans don't owe them anything, nor should I other Americans be expected to help them just because of what happened 200 years ago. Modern Native Americans haven't gone through any of the pain of their ancestors, so they shouldn't be compensated for it. Modern Whites haven't driven Native Americans off their land, so they shouldn't be responsible for it. The same thing applies to similar situations, like Americans and Japanese for concentration camps during WWII , Germans and Jews, etc. NOTE When I say ancestors, I mean people that lived so long ago that nobody alive today knew them.<|ASPECTS|>help, owe, bad, responsible, native americans, feel, oppressed, ancestors, whites, pain of their ancestors, similar situations, driven native americans, driven<|CONCLUSION|>","Hundreds of years ago, Native Americans were oppressed and driven out of their land by Whites. I feel bad for those who were oppressed. However, I other Americans don't owe them anything, nor should I other Americans be expected to help them just because of what happened 200 years ago. Modern Native Americans haven't gone through any of the pain of their ancestors, so they shouldn't be compensated for it. Modern Whites haven't driven Native Americans off their land, so they shouldn't be responsible for it. The same thing applies to similar situations, like Americans and Japanese for concentration camps during WWII , Germans and Jews, etc. NOTE When I say ancestors, I mean people that lived so long ago that nobody alive today knew them.",It doesn't matter what your ancestors accomplished or went through.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Maybe I'm completely wrong or just misunderstanding, but every argument in defense of anarcho capitalism seems to assume that all actors are both rational and moral and that society will simply come to 'naturally align' in a free market which I believe couldn't be further from the truth . Additionally, I feel that the arguments I've read about anarcho capitalism resolving the corruption present in society don't acknowledge the fact that a largely privatized society could result in an even greater concentration of power and wealth among the upper crust, and higher likelihood prevalence of corruption on all levels. I admit I might be reading into it wrong, so let's go ahead and change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Maybe I'm completely wrong or just misunderstanding, but every argument in defense of anarcho capitalism seems to assume that all actors are both rational and moral and that society will simply come to 'naturally align' in a free market which I believe couldn't be further from the truth . Additionally, I feel that the arguments I've read about anarcho capitalism resolving the corruption present in society don't acknowledge the fact that a largely privatized society could result in an even greater concentration of power and wealth among the upper crust, and higher likelihood prevalence of corruption on all levels. I admit I might be reading into it wrong, so let's go ahead and change my view.<|TARGETS|>to ' naturally align ' in a free market which I believe, be reading into it wrong so let 's go ahead and change my view ., the arguments I 've read about anarcho capitalism resolving the corruption present in society, completely wrong or just misunderstanding but every argument in defense of anarcho capitalism, a largely privatized society<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Maybe I'm completely wrong or just misunderstanding, but every argument in defense of anarcho capitalism seems to assume that all actors are both rational and moral and that society will simply come to 'naturally align' in a free market which I believe couldn't be further from the truth . Additionally, I feel that the arguments I've read about anarcho capitalism resolving the corruption present in society don't acknowledge the fact that a largely privatized society could result in an even greater concentration of power and wealth among the upper crust, and higher likelihood prevalence of corruption on all levels. I admit I might be reading into it wrong, so let's go ahead and change my view.<|ASPECTS|>rational, free market, corruption, concentration, power and wealth, moral, view, misunderstanding<|CONCLUSION|>","Maybe I'm completely wrong or just misunderstanding, but every argument in defense of anarcho capitalism seems to assume that all actors are both rational and moral and that society will simply come to 'naturally align' in a free market which I believe couldn't be further from the truth . Additionally, I feel that the arguments I've read about anarcho capitalism resolving the corruption present in society don't acknowledge the fact that a largely privatized society could result in an even greater concentration of power and wealth among the upper crust, and higher likelihood prevalence of corruption on all levels. I admit I might be reading into it wrong, so let's go ahead and change my view.",Anarcho-capitalism is morally solipsistic and self-defeating
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The definition of psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. I claim that people who follow r TheRedPill meet the criteria for psychopathy antisocial behavior r TheRedPill openly states that its followers should not pursue friendships with women, and they also state that women make terrible friends. Source diminished empathy and remorse r TheRedPill encourages its followers to have many sexual partners, and they glorify men who are in multiple relationships concurrently. They dissuade their followers from being monogamous, despite the fact that they encourage women to sleep with as few men as possible, thus creating unequal standards for men and women. r TheRedPill uses a variety of negative terms for women, including plates and Hamsters, and they never discuss or care how women feel about these terms. Source disinhibited or bold behavior r TheRedPill encourages men circumvent women's last minute resistance when a woman displays sudden reluctance to having sex, they encourage men to seek methods for overcoming this resistance. They also encourage men to dump their girlfriends when their girlfriends decline to have sex. r TheRedPill also encourages men to display Dark Triad traits, which include narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. They believe that women are attracted to men who display these traits. Source Please support all arguments using reference posts from r TheRedPill Edit multiple deltas have been awarded. If you want to continue this discussion, please focus on other arguments besides the ones that others have used. Deltas awarded to<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The definition of psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. I claim that people who follow r TheRedPill meet the criteria for psychopathy antisocial behavior r TheRedPill openly states that its followers should not pursue friendships with women, and they also state that women make terrible friends. Source diminished empathy and remorse r TheRedPill encourages its followers to have many sexual partners, and they glorify men who are in multiple relationships concurrently. They dissuade their followers from being monogamous, despite the fact that they encourage women to sleep with as few men as possible, thus creating unequal standards for men and women. r TheRedPill uses a variety of negative terms for women, including plates and Hamsters, and they never discuss or care how women feel about these terms. Source disinhibited or bold behavior r TheRedPill encourages men circumvent women's last minute resistance when a woman displays sudden reluctance to having sex, they encourage men to seek methods for overcoming this resistance. They also encourage men to dump their girlfriends when their girlfriends decline to have sex. r TheRedPill also encourages men to display Dark Triad traits, which include narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. They believe that women are attracted to men who display these traits. Source Please support all arguments using reference posts from r TheRedPill Edit multiple deltas have been awarded. If you want to continue this discussion, please focus on other arguments besides the ones that others have used. Deltas awarded to<|TARGETS|>Source disinhibited or bold behavior r TheRedPill, Deltas, that people who follow r TheRedPill meet the criteria for psychopathy antisocial behavior r TheRedPill, Source diminished empathy and remorse r TheRedPill, to continue this discussion please focus on other arguments besides the ones that others have used ., The definition of psychopathy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The definition of psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. I claim that people who follow r TheRedPill meet the criteria for psychopathy antisocial behavior r TheRedPill openly states that its followers should not pursue friendships with women, and they also state that women make terrible friends. Source diminished empathy and remorse r TheRedPill encourages its followers to have many sexual partners, and they glorify men who are in multiple relationships concurrently. They dissuade their followers from being monogamous, despite the fact that they encourage women to sleep with as few men as possible, thus creating unequal standards for men and women. r TheRedPill uses a variety of negative terms for women, including plates and Hamsters, and they never discuss or care how women feel about these terms. Source disinhibited or bold behavior r TheRedPill encourages men circumvent women's last minute resistance when a woman displays sudden reluctance to having sex, they encourage men to seek methods for overcoming this resistance. They also encourage men to dump their girlfriends when their girlfriends decline to have sex. r TheRedPill also encourages men to display Dark Triad traits, which include narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. They believe that women are attracted to men who display these traits. Source Please support all arguments using reference posts from r TheRedPill Edit multiple deltas have been awarded. If you want to continue this discussion, please focus on other arguments besides the ones that others have used. Deltas awarded to<|ASPECTS|>personality disorder, bold, women, decline, unequal standards, women 's, empathy, remorse, dark triad traits, machiavellianism, reluctance, care, narcissism, deltas, dump their girlfriends, sexual partners, disinhibited or bold behavior, attracted to men, monogamous, relationships, psychopathy, last minute resistance, antisocial behavior, diminished, arguments, feel, negative terms, friendships with women, disinhibited, terrible friends, enduring, resistance<|CONCLUSION|>","The definition of psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. I claim that people who follow r TheRedPill meet the criteria for psychopathy antisocial behavior r TheRedPill openly states that its followers should not pursue friendships with women, and they also state that women make terrible friends. Source diminished empathy and remorse r TheRedPill encourages its followers to have many sexual partners, and they glorify men who are in multiple relationships concurrently. They dissuade their followers from being monogamous, despite the fact that they encourage women to sleep with as few men as possible, thus creating unequal standards for men and women. r TheRedPill uses a variety of negative terms for women, including plates and Hamsters, and they never discuss or care how women feel about these terms. Source disinhibited or bold behavior r TheRedPill encourages men circumvent women's last minute resistance when a woman displays sudden reluctance to having sex, they encourage men to seek methods for overcoming this resistance. They also encourage men to dump their girlfriends when their girlfriends decline to have sex. r TheRedPill also encourages men to display Dark Triad traits, which include narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. They believe that women are attracted to men who display these traits. Source Please support all arguments using reference posts from r TheRedPill Edit multiple deltas have been awarded. If you want to continue this discussion, please focus on other arguments besides the ones that others have used. Deltas awarded to",people who follow /r/TheRedPill are psychopaths
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that all sports should be open to both sexes. We don't separate any other competitions by gender, why sports? If women ever want to achieve equality we have to stop separating the sexes and start letting everyone play with everyone else.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that all sports should be open to both sexes. We don't separate any other competitions by gender, why sports? If women ever want to achieve equality we have to stop separating the sexes and start letting everyone play with everyone else.<|TARGETS|>to stop separating the sexes and start letting everyone play with everyone else .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that all sports should be open to both sexes. We don't separate any other competitions by gender, why sports? If women ever want to achieve equality we have to stop separating the sexes and start letting everyone play with everyone else.<|ASPECTS|>sports, competitions, separate, separating the sexes, play, open to both sexes, gender, equality<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that all sports should be open to both sexes. We don't separate any other competitions by gender, why sports? If women ever want to achieve equality we have to stop separating the sexes and start letting everyone play with everyone else.",Sports shouldn't be seperated by gender.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now, just as a disclaimer I mean to say the things that happen during war and fights in general are terrible, the murders and pillaging are awful. BUT, that is what war is. When someone fights for something, it is now theres. I'm primarily talking about the First Nations people, and how people in North America pay them subsidies, give them free service, and generally provide benefits to the relatives of old tribes. I believe this is a waste of tax money, and since we took it, it's ours, regardless of by which means. The way I look at it is that if someone steals your wallet, is it their responsibility to come back and give you a 20 every other week? Anyway, I know this is a poor way of thinking, but it's just the way I see things, feel free to change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now, just as a disclaimer I mean to say the things that happen during war and fights in general are terrible, the murders and pillaging are awful. BUT, that is what war is. When someone fights for something, it is now theres. I'm primarily talking about the First Nations people, and how people in North America pay them subsidies, give them free service, and generally provide benefits to the relatives of old tribes. I believe this is a waste of tax money, and since we took it, it's ours, regardless of by which means. The way I look at it is that if someone steals your wallet, is it their responsibility to come back and give you a 20 every other week? Anyway, I know this is a poor way of thinking, but it's just the way I see things, feel free to change my view.<|TARGETS|>if someone steals your wallet, primarily talking about the First Nations people and how people in North America pay them subsidies, to say the things that happen during war and fights in general, to come back and give you a 20 every other week, free to change my view .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now, just as a disclaimer I mean to say the things that happen during war and fights in general are terrible, the murders and pillaging are awful. BUT, that is what war is. When someone fights for something, it is now theres. I'm primarily talking about the First Nations people, and how people in North America pay them subsidies, give them free service, and generally provide benefits to the relatives of old tribes. I believe this is a waste of tax money, and since we took it, it's ours, regardless of by which means. The way I look at it is that if someone steals your wallet, is it their responsibility to come back and give you a 20 every other week? Anyway, I know this is a poor way of thinking, but it's just the way I see things, feel free to change my view.<|ASPECTS|>awful, murders, tribes, terrible, free service, pillaging, war, change my view, things, poor, benefits, waste, fights for something, subsidies, tax money, steals, responsibility<|CONCLUSION|>","Now, just as a disclaimer I mean to say the things that happen during war and fights in general are terrible, the murders and pillaging are awful. BUT, that is what war is. When someone fights for something, it is now theres. I'm primarily talking about the First Nations people, and how people in North America pay them subsidies, give them free service, and generally provide benefits to the relatives of old tribes. I believe this is a waste of tax money, and since we took it, it's ours, regardless of by which means. The way I look at it is that if someone steals your wallet, is it their responsibility to come back and give you a 20 every other week? Anyway, I know this is a poor way of thinking, but it's just the way I see things, feel free to change my view.",I believe that there is no need to pay any sort of compensation for the land/resources/people taken by means of war or force.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a 19 year old college student who goes on an athletic scholarship and my roommate works at a fast food joint on the weekends. All I hear from them is how The system screwed them over and not that they made bad decisions or have a poor work ethic. As someone who spent countless hours studying for school and working on my throwing mechanics I'm a Quarterback , staying after practice until it got very dark. I did not come from a great city or family and I am self made. Here's why I hold my view. The American school system is set up in a way that everyone can succeed. You can't drop out until 10th grade, so it's not like the 19th century where kids would be pulled out in first grade to help work on the farm or whatnot. The teachers may not be the best, but if you study hard enough and get good grades, you could go to higher education on an academic scholarship, so that nullifies the growing up poor argument Colleges give out scholarships for sports too. So even if you aren't the brightest bulb in the room, if you exercise and work out you could be an athlete. Again, work ethic is required. I play football, and trust me, I was not born with the ability to run a 4.7 40 and throw the ball 50 yards. Despite the high unemployment rate in the US today, there are a lot of jobs available. Do you want to know why their not filled? Because people either don't want to do it or think that they are above it . Around my hometown, there is a chicken plant that has had about a dozen open positions for 3 months They pay well mind you . You would think they would have made progress, right? Nope, they've been running ads on TV for 3 months. There are always jobs availiable for someone trying to make it in the world. I would really like to hear it from the other point of view. I'm sorry if I come across as the stereotypical jock who doesn't get what it's like to not be them, but these are just my views that I've grown up with. So please, CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a 19 year old college student who goes on an athletic scholarship and my roommate works at a fast food joint on the weekends. All I hear from them is how The system screwed them over and not that they made bad decisions or have a poor work ethic. As someone who spent countless hours studying for school and working on my throwing mechanics I'm a Quarterback , staying after practice until it got very dark. I did not come from a great city or family and I am self made. Here's why I hold my view. The American school system is set up in a way that everyone can succeed. You can't drop out until 10th grade, so it's not like the 19th century where kids would be pulled out in first grade to help work on the farm or whatnot. The teachers may not be the best, but if you study hard enough and get good grades, you could go to higher education on an academic scholarship, so that nullifies the growing up poor argument Colleges give out scholarships for sports too. So even if you aren't the brightest bulb in the room, if you exercise and work out you could be an athlete. Again, work ethic is required. I play football, and trust me, I was not born with the ability to run a 4.7 40 and throw the ball 50 yards. Despite the high unemployment rate in the US today, there are a lot of jobs available. Do you want to know why their not filled? Because people either don't want to do it or think that they are above it . Around my hometown, there is a chicken plant that has had about a dozen open positions for 3 months They pay well mind you . You would think they would have made progress, right? Nope, they've been running ads on TV for 3 months. There are always jobs availiable for someone trying to make it in the world. I would really like to hear it from the other point of view. I'm sorry if I come across as the stereotypical jock who doesn't get what it's like to not be them, but these are just my views that I've grown up with. So please, CMV.<|TARGETS|>Nope, higher education on an academic scholarship, the high unemployment rate in the US today, running ads on TV, The system screwed them over and not that they made bad decisions or have a poor work ethic ., to know why their not filled<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a 19 year old college student who goes on an athletic scholarship and my roommate works at a fast food joint on the weekends. All I hear from them is how The system screwed them over and not that they made bad decisions or have a poor work ethic. As someone who spent countless hours studying for school and working on my throwing mechanics I'm a Quarterback , staying after practice until it got very dark. I did not come from a great city or family and I am self made. Here's why I hold my view. The American school system is set up in a way that everyone can succeed. You can't drop out until 10th grade, so it's not like the 19th century where kids would be pulled out in first grade to help work on the farm or whatnot. The teachers may not be the best, but if you study hard enough and get good grades, you could go to higher education on an academic scholarship, so that nullifies the growing up poor argument Colleges give out scholarships for sports too. So even if you aren't the brightest bulb in the room, if you exercise and work out you could be an athlete. Again, work ethic is required. I play football, and trust me, I was not born with the ability to run a 4.7 40 and throw the ball 50 yards. Despite the high unemployment rate in the US today, there are a lot of jobs available. Do you want to know why their not filled? Because people either don't want to do it or think that they are above it . Around my hometown, there is a chicken plant that has had about a dozen open positions for 3 months They pay well mind you . You would think they would have made progress, right? Nope, they've been running ads on TV for 3 months. There are always jobs availiable for someone trying to make it in the world. I would really like to hear it from the other point of view. I'm sorry if I come across as the stereotypical jock who doesn't get what it's like to not be them, but these are just my views that I've grown up with. So please, CMV.<|ASPECTS|>, poor work ethic, brightest bulb, throw, made, view, running, exercise, want, ads on tv, scholarships, succeed, jobs availiable, high, pay well, study hard, views, work ethic, jobs available, athlete, family, good grades, unemployment rate, help work, self made, athletic scholarship, system screwed, stereotypical, system, great city, bad decisions, drop, academic scholarship, open positions, poor, progress<|CONCLUSION|>","I am a 19 year old college student who goes on an athletic scholarship and my roommate works at a fast food joint on the weekends. All I hear from them is how The system screwed them over and not that they made bad decisions or have a poor work ethic. As someone who spent countless hours studying for school and working on my throwing mechanics I'm a Quarterback , staying after practice until it got very dark. I did not come from a great city or family and I am self made. Here's why I hold my view. The American school system is set up in a way that everyone can succeed. You can't drop out until 10th grade, so it's not like the 19th century where kids would be pulled out in first grade to help work on the farm or whatnot. The teachers may not be the best, but if you study hard enough and get good grades, you could go to higher education on an academic scholarship, so that nullifies the growing up poor argument Colleges give out scholarships for sports too. So even if you aren't the brightest bulb in the room, if you exercise and work out you could be an athlete. Again, work ethic is required. I play football, and trust me, I was not born with the ability to run a 4.7 40 and throw the ball 50 yards. Despite the high unemployment rate in the US today, there are a lot of jobs available. Do you want to know why their not filled? Because people either don't want to do it or think that they are above it . Around my hometown, there is a chicken plant that has had about a dozen open positions for 3 months They pay well mind you . You would think they would have made progress, right? Nope, they've been running ads on TV for 3 months. There are always jobs availiable for someone trying to make it in the world. I would really like to hear it from the other point of view. I'm sorry if I come across as the stereotypical jock who doesn't get what it's like to not be them, but these are just my views that I've grown up with. So please, .","I believe every American, if they put in enough work, can succeed in life."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel sex has risks and a child is one of them. A couple could have agreed to raise a child together but when she gets pregnant he could decide he doesn't want to anymore. Then the woman was cheated and now has to raise a child by herself. A couple could have also agreed to abort any pregnancy that may come from having sex. If the woman does get pregnant and decides she wants it, the man is cheated. But he has taken on the risks of sex in the first place. I myself could never have an abortion. I am pro choice but I would feel incredibly guilty, though my family and friends are pro choice and I know I would not be judged. Another thing, the father doesn't always have to pay child support. My father doesn't, but he also has no parental rights. I know this is seen as unfair,but if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion because it could mess her up pretty bad mentally I don't think she has to have one. Edit I feel the exceptions to having the father pay child support is if he is mentally unfit, can't afford it or if he wants to raise the child with the mother but she refuses to.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel sex has risks and a child is one of them. A couple could have agreed to raise a child together but when she gets pregnant he could decide he doesn't want to anymore. Then the woman was cheated and now has to raise a child by herself. A couple could have also agreed to abort any pregnancy that may come from having sex. If the woman does get pregnant and decides she wants it, the man is cheated. But he has taken on the risks of sex in the first place. I myself could never have an abortion. I am pro choice but I would feel incredibly guilty, though my family and friends are pro choice and I know I would not be judged. Another thing, the father doesn't always have to pay child support. My father doesn't, but he also has no parental rights. I know this is seen as unfair,but if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion because it could mess her up pretty bad mentally I don't think she has to have one. Edit I feel the exceptions to having the father pay child support is if he is mentally unfit, can't afford it or if he wants to raise the child with the mother but she refuses to.<|TARGETS|>to raise a child by herself ., to raise the child with the mother but she refuses to ., to have an abortion because it could mess her up pretty bad mentally, to abort any pregnancy, to pay child support ., to raise a child together but when she gets pregnant<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel sex has risks and a child is one of them. A couple could have agreed to raise a child together but when she gets pregnant he could decide he doesn't want to anymore. Then the woman was cheated and now has to raise a child by herself. A couple could have also agreed to abort any pregnancy that may come from having sex. If the woman does get pregnant and decides she wants it, the man is cheated. But he has taken on the risks of sex in the first place. I myself could never have an abortion. I am pro choice but I would feel incredibly guilty, though my family and friends are pro choice and I know I would not be judged. Another thing, the father doesn't always have to pay child support. My father doesn't, but he also has no parental rights. I know this is seen as unfair,but if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion because it could mess her up pretty bad mentally I don't think she has to have one. Edit I feel the exceptions to having the father pay child support is if he is mentally unfit, can't afford it or if he wants to raise the child with the mother but she refuses to.<|ASPECTS|>, mess, mentally unfit, cheated, risks, guilty, child, parental rights, raise, support, father, judged, unfair, pay child support, sex, afford, man, abort, agreed, risks of sex, choice, woman<|CONCLUSION|>","I feel sex has risks and a child is one of them. A couple could have agreed to raise a child together but when she gets pregnant he could decide he doesn't want to anymore. Then the woman was cheated and now has to raise a child by herself. A couple could have also agreed to abort any pregnancy that may come from having sex. If the woman does get pregnant and decides she wants it, the man is cheated. But he has taken on the risks of sex in the first place. I myself could never have an abortion. I am pro choice but I would feel incredibly guilty, though my family and friends are pro choice and I know I would not be judged. Another thing, the father doesn't always have to pay child support. My father doesn't, but he also has no parental rights. I know this is seen as unfair,but if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion because it could mess her up pretty bad mentally I don't think she has to have one. Edit I feel the exceptions to having the father pay child support is if he is mentally unfit, can't afford it or if he wants to raise the child with the mother but she refuses to.",I think it's ok for a woman to have a child even if the father doesn't want it and have him pay child support.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>i get that its supposed to make it so the thing will appeal to the largest amount of people, but it makes said things sound so unappealing for people who are just looking for something interesting. only the truly amazing books can force how unique they are through that filter. lets take books for example. everything is described in such a way to make them all sound like i must defeat the emperor take revenge for my family insert generic fantasy plot here advertising should show why this book is unique, not why its like everything else in the genre <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>i get that its supposed to make it so the thing will appeal to the largest amount of people, but it makes said things sound so unappealing for people who are just looking for something interesting. only the truly amazing books can force how unique they are through that filter. lets take books for example. everything is described in such a way to make them all sound like i must defeat the emperor take revenge for my family insert generic fantasy plot here advertising should show why this book is unique, not why its like everything else in the genre <|TARGETS|>to make it so the thing will appeal to the largest amount of people, everything is described in such a way to make them all sound like i must defeat the emperor take revenge for my family insert generic fantasy plot here advertising<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>i get that its supposed to make it so the thing will appeal to the largest amount of people, but it makes said things sound so unappealing for people who are just looking for something interesting. only the truly amazing books can force how unique they are through that filter. lets take books for example. everything is described in such a way to make them all sound like i must defeat the emperor take revenge for my family insert generic fantasy plot here advertising should show why this book is unique, not why its like everything else in the genre <|ASPECTS|>unappealing, revenge, defeat the emperor, appeal, books, unique<|CONCLUSION|>","i get that its supposed to make it so the thing will appeal to the largest amount of people, but it makes said things sound so unappealing for people who are just looking for something interesting. only the truly amazing books can force how unique they are through that filter. lets take books for example. everything is described in such a way to make them all sound like i must defeat the emperor take revenge for my family insert generic fantasy plot here advertising should show why this book is unique, not why its like everything else in the genre",advertising these days make everything seem way too generic and boring
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nounself disgusts me because it invalidates legitimate trans otherkin mentally ill people by requesting to be referred to as tigerself, kelpself which i don't even know how to put into context. I feel like that, in this day and age, i should be feeling more open about subjects so micro aggressive, but the concept of someone literally identifying as a noun other than themselves is where my open mindedness ends. A tucute to my understanding is a person who believes that one does not require gender dysphoria to be transgender. The reasons i argue that tucutes are transphobic \ tucutes to my understanding believe that one does not need to have gender dysphoria to be transgender i personally disagree with this, because i don't understand one's motive to be transgender if they're comfortable being cisgender \ tucutes put trans people with dysphoria together with trans people without dysphoria. it creates a frustrating dynamic of trans people now having radical differences in experience as far as transitioning and oppression are concerned. for trans people with dysphoria, their experience is to a fair extent extremely rough not to say that anyone choosing do to be trans would be easy because it's not a socially acceptable thing, but someone without dysphoria would likely have a less horrible time mentally and emotionally . for those without the dysphoria, of course they don't have to struggle with the anxiety of having to secretly buy a masculine tee when their parents are around. The reasons i argue that tucutes are biased against otherkin \ OTHERKIN DEFINITION otherkin at least the subgroup i'm referring to are brought about when a child is unable to speak due to childhood trauma. They refer to TV shows and the like to try to express themselves vicariously, as they cannot express themselves through speech. They're often so tied to a character they feel they can relate to, that they believe they are that specific character, also known as kin. They believe that whatever their kin has done without their personal presence, they have done in a dream or a kind of alternate reality this varies per person . \ tucutes often lump otherkin together with trans people, due to their acceptance of the use of nounself when referring to trans people. imo animalkin furry, feathery, scaily doesn't exist and claiming that it's now another level of transgenderism is beyond me. but tucutes often insist that nounself identifying people are valid as not cis which, again, undermines the struggles of actually transgender people . If someone could provide more insight on the history of nounself and tucutes and why they identify how they do, it would put me more on the fence on this subject. I wish to be more open about this because my friends often talk about this and it makes me uncomfortable because its unfathomable at first glance. Honestly i have a feeling that i think i know what im talking about but there's so many other layers to the subject that my head is going to spin. In sum, i would like to gain more insight on the history of tucutes and otherkin, and the values of tucutes.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nounself disgusts me because it invalidates legitimate trans otherkin mentally ill people by requesting to be referred to as tigerself, kelpself which i don't even know how to put into context. I feel like that, in this day and age, i should be feeling more open about subjects so micro aggressive, but the concept of someone literally identifying as a noun other than themselves is where my open mindedness ends. A tucute to my understanding is a person who believes that one does not require gender dysphoria to be transgender. The reasons i argue that tucutes are transphobic \ tucutes to my understanding believe that one does not need to have gender dysphoria to be transgender i personally disagree with this, because i don't understand one's motive to be transgender if they're comfortable being cisgender \ tucutes put trans people with dysphoria together with trans people without dysphoria. it creates a frustrating dynamic of trans people now having radical differences in experience as far as transitioning and oppression are concerned. for trans people with dysphoria, their experience is to a fair extent extremely rough not to say that anyone choosing do to be trans would be easy because it's not a socially acceptable thing, but someone without dysphoria would likely have a less horrible time mentally and emotionally . for those without the dysphoria, of course they don't have to struggle with the anxiety of having to secretly buy a masculine tee when their parents are around. The reasons i argue that tucutes are biased against otherkin \ OTHERKIN DEFINITION otherkin at least the subgroup i'm referring to are brought about when a child is unable to speak due to childhood trauma. They refer to TV shows and the like to try to express themselves vicariously, as they cannot express themselves through speech. They're often so tied to a character they feel they can relate to, that they believe they are that specific character, also known as kin. They believe that whatever their kin has done without their personal presence, they have done in a dream or a kind of alternate reality this varies per person . \ tucutes often lump otherkin together with trans people, due to their acceptance of the use of nounself when referring to trans people. imo animalkin furry, feathery, scaily doesn't exist and claiming that it's now another level of transgenderism is beyond me. but tucutes often insist that nounself identifying people are valid as not cis which, again, undermines the struggles of actually transgender people . If someone could provide more insight on the history of nounself and tucutes and why they identify how they do, it would put me more on the fence on this subject. I wish to be more open about this because my friends often talk about this and it makes me uncomfortable because its unfathomable at first glance. Honestly i have a feeling that i think i know what im talking about but there's so many other layers to the subject that my head is going to spin. In sum, i would like to gain more insight on the history of tucutes and otherkin, and the values of tucutes.<|TARGETS|>to struggle with the anxiety of having to secretly buy a masculine tee when their parents are around ., A tucute to my understanding, to be more open about this because my friends often talk about this and it makes me uncomfortable because its unfathomable at first glance ., to say that anyone choosing do to be trans, to gain more insight on the history of tucutes and otherkin and the values of tucutes, imo animalkin furry<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nounself disgusts me because it invalidates legitimate trans otherkin mentally ill people by requesting to be referred to as tigerself, kelpself which i don't even know how to put into context. I feel like that, in this day and age, i should be feeling more open about subjects so micro aggressive, but the concept of someone literally identifying as a noun other than themselves is where my open mindedness ends. A tucute to my understanding is a person who believes that one does not require gender dysphoria to be transgender. The reasons i argue that tucutes are transphobic \ tucutes to my understanding believe that one does not need to have gender dysphoria to be transgender i personally disagree with this, because i don't understand one's motive to be transgender if they're comfortable being cisgender \ tucutes put trans people with dysphoria together with trans people without dysphoria. it creates a frustrating dynamic of trans people now having radical differences in experience as far as transitioning and oppression are concerned. for trans people with dysphoria, their experience is to a fair extent extremely rough not to say that anyone choosing do to be trans would be easy because it's not a socially acceptable thing, but someone without dysphoria would likely have a less horrible time mentally and emotionally . for those without the dysphoria, of course they don't have to struggle with the anxiety of having to secretly buy a masculine tee when their parents are around. The reasons i argue that tucutes are biased against otherkin \ OTHERKIN DEFINITION otherkin at least the subgroup i'm referring to are brought about when a child is unable to speak due to childhood trauma. They refer to TV shows and the like to try to express themselves vicariously, as they cannot express themselves through speech. They're often so tied to a character they feel they can relate to, that they believe they are that specific character, also known as kin. They believe that whatever their kin has done without their personal presence, they have done in a dream or a kind of alternate reality this varies per person . \ tucutes often lump otherkin together with trans people, due to their acceptance of the use of nounself when referring to trans people. imo animalkin furry, feathery, scaily doesn't exist and claiming that it's now another level of transgenderism is beyond me. but tucutes often insist that nounself identifying people are valid as not cis which, again, undermines the struggles of actually transgender people . If someone could provide more insight on the history of nounself and tucutes and why they identify how they do, it would put me more on the fence on this subject. I wish to be more open about this because my friends often talk about this and it makes me uncomfortable because its unfathomable at first glance. Honestly i have a feeling that i think i know what im talking about but there's so many other layers to the subject that my head is going to spin. In sum, i would like to gain more insight on the history of tucutes and otherkin, and the values of tucutes.<|ASPECTS|>, dysphoria, legitimate trans otherkin mentally ill people, nounself identifying, nounself, history, speak, disgusts, invalidates, uncomfortable, layers, mentally, vicariously, oppression, radical differences in experience, biased against otherkin, kin, childhood trauma, unfathomable, open mindedness, motive, open, animalkin, socially acceptable, masculine tee, otherkin, anxiety, personal presence, spin, transgenderism, acceptance, gender dysphoria, values, transphobic, alternate reality, express themselves through speech, horrible time, struggles, micro aggressive, transgender people, specific character, express, relate<|CONCLUSION|>","Nounself disgusts me because it invalidates legitimate trans otherkin mentally ill people by requesting to be referred to as tigerself, kelpself which i don't even know how to put into context. I feel like that, in this day and age, i should be feeling more open about subjects so micro aggressive, but the concept of someone literally identifying as a noun other than themselves is where my open mindedness ends. A tucute to my understanding is a person who believes that one does not require gender dysphoria to be transgender. The reasons i argue that tucutes are transphobic tucutes to my understanding believe that one does not need to have gender dysphoria to be transgender i personally disagree with this, because i don't understand one's motive to be transgender if they're comfortable being cisgender tucutes put trans people with dysphoria together with trans people without dysphoria. it creates a frustrating dynamic of trans people now having radical differences in experience as far as transitioning and oppression are concerned. for trans people with dysphoria, their experience is to a fair extent extremely rough not to say that anyone choosing do to be trans would be easy because it's not a socially acceptable thing, but someone without dysphoria would likely have a less horrible time mentally and emotionally . for those without the dysphoria, of course they don't have to struggle with the anxiety of having to secretly buy a masculine tee when their parents are around. The reasons i argue that tucutes are biased against otherkin OTHERKIN DEFINITION otherkin at least the subgroup i'm referring to are brought about when a child is unable to speak due to childhood trauma. They refer to TV shows and the like to try to express themselves vicariously, as they cannot express themselves through speech. They're often so tied to a character they feel they can relate to, that they believe they are that specific character, also known as kin. They believe that whatever their kin has done without their personal presence, they have done in a dream or a kind of alternate reality this varies per person . tucutes often lump otherkin together with trans people, due to their acceptance of the use of nounself when referring to trans people. imo animalkin furry, feathery, scaily doesn't exist and claiming that it's now another level of transgenderism is beyond me. but tucutes often insist that nounself identifying people are valid as not cis which, again, undermines the struggles of actually transgender people . If someone could provide more insight on the history of nounself and tucutes and why they identify how they do, it would put me more on the fence on this subject. I wish to be more open about this because my friends often talk about this and it makes me uncomfortable because its unfathomable at first glance. Honestly i have a feeling that i think i know what im talking about but there's so many other layers to the subject that my head is going to spin. In sum, i would like to gain more insight on the history of tucutes and otherkin, and the values of tucutes.",Tucutes are disgraceful
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The released intelligence report states We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President elect Trump. While the secondary goal may have been a preference for a Trump presidency, it makes one question why this would be the case. Russia is no fool, and I believe that they understood a Trump presidency would garner just the results that we see now a wildly unpopular president, at least with both the media and congress, and a much more divided nation. I don't think that anyone could disagree that half of the country that actually cares lost their minds when Trump won. We've seen unprecedented levels of vitriolic rhetoric in regards to his presidency, unprecedented levels of negative media coverage and even an attempt to assassinate republicans Trumps presidency has been overshadowed by scandalous allegations since he was elected, and six months into his term, articles of impeachment have already been introduced Now, much of negative coverage has been of Trump's own doing, but at the same time, I believe that the media focus on scandal is far outweighing and serious reporting on policy, and the Russian's knew that electing a divisive figure like Trump, with no political experience, would lead to exactly what we are seeing play out, a scandal ridden news cycle with nothing but negativity and division. So long as the media continues to focus on scandals and allegations rather than policy and results, and the congress continues to devote resources to investigations rather than legislation, then Russia has succeeded undermining our electoral processes by disrupting the focus of both the american people and the congress by focusing attention away from policy. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The released intelligence report states We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President elect Trump. While the secondary goal may have been a preference for a Trump presidency, it makes one question why this would be the case. Russia is no fool, and I believe that they understood a Trump presidency would garner just the results that we see now a wildly unpopular president, at least with both the media and congress, and a much more divided nation. I don't think that anyone could disagree that half of the country that actually cares lost their minds when Trump won. We've seen unprecedented levels of vitriolic rhetoric in regards to his presidency, unprecedented levels of negative media coverage and even an attempt to assassinate republicans Trumps presidency has been overshadowed by scandalous allegations since he was elected, and six months into his term, articles of impeachment have already been introduced Now, much of negative coverage has been of Trump's own doing, but at the same time, I believe that the media focus on scandal is far outweighing and serious reporting on policy, and the Russian's knew that electing a divisive figure like Trump, with no political experience, would lead to exactly what we are seeing play out, a scandal ridden news cycle with nothing but negativity and division. So long as the media continues to focus on scandals and allegations rather than policy and results, and the congress continues to devote resources to investigations rather than legislation, then Russia has succeeded undermining our electoral processes by disrupting the focus of both the american people and the congress by focusing attention away from policy. <|TARGETS|>Russia, unprecedented levels of vitriolic rhetoric in regards to his presidency unprecedented levels of negative media coverage and even an attempt to assassinate republicans Trumps presidency, that anyone could disagree that half of the country that actually cares lost their minds when Trump won ., The released intelligence report, electing a divisive figure like Trump with no political experience, the media focus on scandal<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The released intelligence report states We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President elect Trump. While the secondary goal may have been a preference for a Trump presidency, it makes one question why this would be the case. Russia is no fool, and I believe that they understood a Trump presidency would garner just the results that we see now a wildly unpopular president, at least with both the media and congress, and a much more divided nation. I don't think that anyone could disagree that half of the country that actually cares lost their minds when Trump won. We've seen unprecedented levels of vitriolic rhetoric in regards to his presidency, unprecedented levels of negative media coverage and even an attempt to assassinate republicans Trumps presidency has been overshadowed by scandalous allegations since he was elected, and six months into his term, articles of impeachment have already been introduced Now, much of negative coverage has been of Trump's own doing, but at the same time, I believe that the media focus on scandal is far outweighing and serious reporting on policy, and the Russian's knew that electing a divisive figure like Trump, with no political experience, would lead to exactly what we are seeing play out, a scandal ridden news cycle with nothing but negativity and division. So long as the media continues to focus on scandals and allegations rather than policy and results, and the congress continues to devote resources to investigations rather than legislation, then Russia has succeeded undermining our electoral processes by disrupting the focus of both the american people and the congress by focusing attention away from policy. <|ASPECTS|>influence campaign, harm, division, scandal ridden, scandalous allegations, undermine, potential presidency, wildly, unpopular president, negative media coverage, divided, preference, policy, scandals and allegations, public faith, denigrate, minds, negativity, electoral processes, scandal, trump presidency, negative coverage, electability, elect, vitriolic rhetoric<|CONCLUSION|>","The released intelligence report states We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President elect Trump. While the secondary goal may have been a preference for a Trump presidency, it makes one question why this would be the case. Russia is no fool, and I believe that they understood a Trump presidency would garner just the results that we see now a wildly unpopular president, at least with both the media and congress, and a much more divided nation. I don't think that anyone could disagree that half of the country that actually cares lost their minds when Trump won. We've seen unprecedented levels of vitriolic rhetoric in regards to his presidency, unprecedented levels of negative media coverage and even an attempt to assassinate republicans Trumps presidency has been overshadowed by scandalous allegations since he was elected, and six months into his term, articles of impeachment have already been introduced Now, much of negative coverage has been of Trump's own doing, but at the same time, I believe that the media focus on scandal is far outweighing and serious reporting on policy, and the Russian's knew that electing a divisive figure like Trump, with no political experience, would lead to exactly what we are seeing play out, a scandal ridden news cycle with nothing but negativity and division. So long as the media continues to focus on scandals and allegations rather than policy and results, and the congress continues to devote resources to investigations rather than legislation, then Russia has succeeded undermining our electoral processes by disrupting the focus of both the american people and the congress by focusing attention away from policy.","If Russia's goal in interfering with the 2016 election was to ""undermine public faith in the US democratic process"" then they have already succeeded."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>1 Devaluation of communication by facilitating instantaneous and unlimited exchange of information Why is it a good thing to be able to instantaneously look up facts? Uninformed, individualized interpretations provide the most stimulating intellectual environment. Focus less on the correct solutions, and more on the most interesting ones. 2 The ability to store information in digital form is a bad thing. A meaningful interaction of ideas cannot occur in an environment where information is not memorized. Externalization of information inhibits meaningful and spontaneous conversation, and leads one to hold contradictory opinions without any sense of cognitive dissonance. The art of conversation also suffers compare any dialogue in a nineteenth century novel to modern conversation clearly something is amiss here. Language is becoming less artistic and more pragmatic metaphor and wit are unnecessary when information is externalized in an infinitely available form. 3 Ambiguity and distance are the most fundamental incentives for intellectual and psychological growth. We should not be able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world at any time, and ought to be left to wonder at what could be happening rather than what is happening. In general we learn much more by speculating on what could be rather than evaluating what is.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>1 Devaluation of communication by facilitating instantaneous and unlimited exchange of information Why is it a good thing to be able to instantaneously look up facts? Uninformed, individualized interpretations provide the most stimulating intellectual environment. Focus less on the correct solutions, and more on the most interesting ones. 2 The ability to store information in digital form is a bad thing. A meaningful interaction of ideas cannot occur in an environment where information is not memorized. Externalization of information inhibits meaningful and spontaneous conversation, and leads one to hold contradictory opinions without any sense of cognitive dissonance. The art of conversation also suffers compare any dialogue in a nineteenth century novel to modern conversation clearly something is amiss here. Language is becoming less artistic and more pragmatic metaphor and wit are unnecessary when information is externalized in an infinitely available form. 3 Ambiguity and distance are the most fundamental incentives for intellectual and psychological growth. We should not be able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world at any time, and ought to be left to wonder at what could be happening rather than what is happening. In general we learn much more by speculating on what could be rather than evaluating what is.<|TARGETS|>Language, Uninformed individualized interpretations, A meaningful interaction of ideas, to be able to instantaneously look up facts, any dialogue in a nineteenth century novel to modern conversation, Externalization of information<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>1 Devaluation of communication by facilitating instantaneous and unlimited exchange of information Why is it a good thing to be able to instantaneously look up facts? Uninformed, individualized interpretations provide the most stimulating intellectual environment. Focus less on the correct solutions, and more on the most interesting ones. 2 The ability to store information in digital form is a bad thing. A meaningful interaction of ideas cannot occur in an environment where information is not memorized. Externalization of information inhibits meaningful and spontaneous conversation, and leads one to hold contradictory opinions without any sense of cognitive dissonance. The art of conversation also suffers compare any dialogue in a nineteenth century novel to modern conversation clearly something is amiss here. Language is becoming less artistic and more pragmatic metaphor and wit are unnecessary when information is externalized in an infinitely available form. 3 Ambiguity and distance are the most fundamental incentives for intellectual and psychological growth. We should not be able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world at any time, and ought to be left to wonder at what could be happening rather than what is happening. In general we learn much more by speculating on what could be rather than evaluating what is.<|ASPECTS|>, correct solutions, digital form, distance, amiss, available, wit, cognitive dissonance, intellectual and psychological growth, opinions, artistic, stimulating, meaningful and spontaneous conversation, interesting, intellectual environment, information, learn, communication, instantaneously, pragmatic metaphor, store information, uninformed, art of conversation, evaluating, less, meaningful, unnecessary, facts, communicate with anyone, wonder, interaction of ideas, unlimited exchange of information<|CONCLUSION|>","1 Devaluation of communication by facilitating instantaneous and unlimited exchange of information Why is it a good thing to be able to instantaneously look up facts? Uninformed, individualized interpretations provide the most stimulating intellectual environment. Focus less on the correct solutions, and more on the most interesting ones. 2 The ability to store information in digital form is a bad thing. A meaningful interaction of ideas cannot occur in an environment where information is not memorized. Externalization of information inhibits meaningful and spontaneous conversation, and leads one to hold contradictory opinions without any sense of cognitive dissonance. The art of conversation also suffers compare any dialogue in a nineteenth century novel to modern conversation clearly something is amiss here. Language is becoming less artistic and more pragmatic metaphor and wit are unnecessary when information is externalized in an infinitely available form. 3 Ambiguity and distance are the most fundamental incentives for intellectual and psychological growth. We should not be able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world at any time, and ought to be left to wonder at what could be happening rather than what is happening. In general we learn much more by speculating on what could be rather than evaluating what is.",The World Was a Better Place Before the Internet
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yesterday was Independent Bookstore Day, and it got me thinking that, sure, it gives me warm fuzzy feelings to buy a book from the indie bookstore in my neighborhood, but on Amazon I get a lot of information reviews, notes I wouldn't get from my friendly salesperson. Plus with Amazon Prime I can get the same book sometimes within hours, often for cheaper. Are warm, fuzzy feelings the only thing I get from shopping local? I'd love to have my view changed and spend my money around the corner rather than make Amazon richer .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yesterday was Independent Bookstore Day, and it got me thinking that, sure, it gives me warm fuzzy feelings to buy a book from the indie bookstore in my neighborhood, but on Amazon I get a lot of information reviews, notes I wouldn't get from my friendly salesperson. Plus with Amazon Prime I can get the same book sometimes within hours, often for cheaper. Are warm, fuzzy feelings the only thing I get from shopping local? I'd love to have my view changed and spend my money around the corner rather than make Amazon richer .<|TARGETS|>to have my view changed and spend my money around the corner rather than make Amazon, shopping local, to buy a book from the indie bookstore in my neighborhood, Independent Bookstore Day, Amazon Prime<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yesterday was Independent Bookstore Day, and it got me thinking that, sure, it gives me warm fuzzy feelings to buy a book from the indie bookstore in my neighborhood, but on Amazon I get a lot of information reviews, notes I wouldn't get from my friendly salesperson. Plus with Amazon Prime I can get the same book sometimes within hours, often for cheaper. Are warm, fuzzy feelings the only thing I get from shopping local? I'd love to have my view changed and spend my money around the corner rather than make Amazon richer .<|ASPECTS|>view changed, spend, money, amazon richer, information reviews, book, warm, cheaper, fuzzy feelings<|CONCLUSION|>","Yesterday was Independent Bookstore Day, and it got me thinking that, sure, it gives me warm fuzzy feelings to buy a book from the indie bookstore in my neighborhood, but on Amazon I get a lot of information reviews, notes I wouldn't get from my friendly salesperson. Plus with Amazon Prime I can get the same book sometimes within hours, often for cheaper. Are warm, fuzzy feelings the only thing I get from shopping local? I'd love to have my view changed and spend my money around the corner rather than make Amazon richer .",It's better to buy books from Amazon than from an independent bookstore
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The FCC minds are already made up, and they are likely getting kickbacks or other favors in exchange for voting to repeal net neutrality. Our emails are like pennies to a millionaire, they don't care about them and more than likely will not even open them or read them. On the off chance that you do change my viewpoint, or disagree with it, here are the members of the FCC and their emails These are the emails of the 5 people on the FCC roster. These are the five people deciding the future of the internet. The two women have come out as No votes. We need only to convince ONE of the other members to flip to a No vote to save Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai Ajit.Pai fcc.gov Mignon Clyburn Mignon.Clyburn fcc.gov Michael O'Reilly Mike.O'Reilly fcc.gov Brendan Carr Brendan.Carr fcc.gov Jessica Rosenworcel Jessica.Rosenworcel fcc.gov <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The FCC minds are already made up, and they are likely getting kickbacks or other favors in exchange for voting to repeal net neutrality. Our emails are like pennies to a millionaire, they don't care about them and more than likely will not even open them or read them. On the off chance that you do change my viewpoint, or disagree with it, here are the members of the FCC and their emails These are the emails of the 5 people on the FCC roster. These are the five people deciding the future of the internet. The two women have come out as No votes. We need only to convince ONE of the other members to flip to a No vote to save Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai Ajit.Pai fcc.gov Mignon Clyburn Mignon.Clyburn fcc.gov Michael O'Reilly Mike.O'Reilly fcc.gov Brendan Carr Brendan.Carr fcc.gov Jessica Rosenworcel Jessica.Rosenworcel fcc.gov <|TARGETS|>The FCC minds, Our emails, to convince ONE of the other members to flip to a No vote to save Net Neutrality ., the off chance that you do change my viewpoint or disagree with it here are the members of the FCC and their emails, Ajit<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The FCC minds are already made up, and they are likely getting kickbacks or other favors in exchange for voting to repeal net neutrality. Our emails are like pennies to a millionaire, they don't care about them and more than likely will not even open them or read them. On the off chance that you do change my viewpoint, or disagree with it, here are the members of the FCC and their emails These are the emails of the 5 people on the FCC roster. These are the five people deciding the future of the internet. The two women have come out as No votes. We need only to convince ONE of the other members to flip to a No vote to save Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai Ajit.Pai fcc.gov Mignon Clyburn Mignon.Clyburn fcc.gov Michael O'Reilly Mike.O'Reilly fcc.gov Brendan Carr Brendan.Carr fcc.gov Jessica Rosenworcel Jessica.Rosenworcel fcc.gov <|ASPECTS|>fcc, care, votes, change my viewpoint, kickbacks, net neutrality, save, future of the internet, favors, deciding<|CONCLUSION|>","The FCC minds are already made up, and they are likely getting kickbacks or other favors in exchange for voting to repeal net neutrality. Our emails are like pennies to a millionaire, they don't care about them and more than likely will not even open them or read them. On the off chance that you do change my viewpoint, or disagree with it, here are the members of the FCC and their emails These are the emails of the 5 people on the FCC roster. These are the five people deciding the future of the internet. The two women have come out as No votes. We need only to convince ONE of the other members to flip to a No vote to save Net Neutrality. Ajit Pai Ajit.Pai fcc.gov Mignon Clyburn Mignon.Clyburn fcc.gov Michael O'Reilly Mike.O'Reilly fcc.gov Brendan Carr Brendan.Carr fcc.gov Jessica Rosenworcel Jessica.Rosenworcel fcc.gov",Emailing FCC representatives will do nothing to prevent Net Neutrality from dying
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Where do I start? His guitar playing is rudimentary at best, using either the four basic chords, or power chords. His lyrics were a joke, as he admitted. And finally He was never on pitch singing, his howling was detestable, and easily replicated, and lastly Little known to most Nirvana fanboys girls , nirvana did not start the grunge revolution, bands like soundgarden and the melvins started it. Kurt Cobain is hailed as a voice of a generation, but sitting at a technical standpoint he's just not very good. Grunge isn't about being bad, or being different. It's about doing something new, adjacent to the rules. Like Vedders Falsetto chirps, or cornells nasal scales. Not being off pitch and being a bad singer.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Where do I start? His guitar playing is rudimentary at best, using either the four basic chords, or power chords. His lyrics were a joke, as he admitted. And finally He was never on pitch singing, his howling was detestable, and easily replicated, and lastly Little known to most Nirvana fanboys girls , nirvana did not start the grunge revolution, bands like soundgarden and the melvins started it. Kurt Cobain is hailed as a voice of a generation, but sitting at a technical standpoint he's just not very good. Grunge isn't about being bad, or being different. It's about doing something new, adjacent to the rules. Like Vedders Falsetto chirps, or cornells nasal scales. Not being off pitch and being a bad singer.<|TARGETS|>Vedders Falsetto chirps, Grunge, His guitar playing, Kurt Cobain, never on pitch singing his howling was detestable and easily replicated and lastly Little known to most Nirvana fanboys girls<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Where do I start? His guitar playing is rudimentary at best, using either the four basic chords, or power chords. His lyrics were a joke, as he admitted. And finally He was never on pitch singing, his howling was detestable, and easily replicated, and lastly Little known to most Nirvana fanboys girls , nirvana did not start the grunge revolution, bands like soundgarden and the melvins started it. Kurt Cobain is hailed as a voice of a generation, but sitting at a technical standpoint he's just not very good. Grunge isn't about being bad, or being different. It's about doing something new, adjacent to the rules. Like Vedders Falsetto chirps, or cornells nasal scales. Not being off pitch and being a bad singer.<|ASPECTS|>, joke, bad, nasal scales, new, technical, rudimentary, easily replicated, different, voice of a generation, pitch, detestable, bad singer, adjacent, grunge revolution<|CONCLUSION|>","Where do I start? His guitar playing is rudimentary at best, using either the four basic chords, or power chords. His lyrics were a joke, as he admitted. And finally He was never on pitch singing, his howling was detestable, and easily replicated, and lastly Little known to most Nirvana fanboys girls , nirvana did not start the grunge revolution, bands like soundgarden and the melvins started it. Kurt Cobain is hailed as a voice of a generation, but sitting at a technical standpoint he's just not very good. Grunge isn't about being bad, or being different. It's about doing something new, adjacent to the rules. Like Vedders Falsetto chirps, or cornells nasal scales. Not being off pitch and being a bad singer.",Kurt Cobain Is a bad musician.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Of course, this is not applicable to someone who is deadset on a iphone no matter what. I’m not in the market for a new phone at the moment, but these are my thoughts at the heels of the new pixel unveiling. 1.A phone with a headphone jack has the same Bluetooth capabilities have a phone without. The only difference is that a phone without a jack doesn't have the option to have a jack without adapters. 2.If Bluetooth was actually superior I would already be using it over my wired headphones, but I don’t. Therefore my experience is going to be compromised to an extent 3.For the hassle from the above, I would need to have significant additional incentives elsewhere to buy a jack less phone. That could come from…. 3.1 Price Nope, prices aren’t significantly lower, if not increased. Definitely the biggest factor 3.2 Build Phones still fucked without a case anyways 3.3 Waterproofing Even though in theory, this is one less place to waterproof, devices are ip67 68 regardless of the headphone jack or not 3.4 Software? Not really a thing atm hardware? in theory, but nothing revolutionary has been added in place of that space yet, not even battery life. All in all, it looks to me as one is only paying the same amount for roughly the same features sans the jack. At best it seems like a neutral change with some mental gymnastics, but definitely feels like a lesser product.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Of course, this is not applicable to someone who is deadset on a iphone no matter what. I’m not in the market for a new phone at the moment, but these are my thoughts at the heels of the new pixel unveiling. 1.A phone with a headphone jack has the same Bluetooth capabilities have a phone without. The only difference is that a phone without a jack doesn't have the option to have a jack without adapters. 2.If Bluetooth was actually superior I would already be using it over my wired headphones, but I don’t. Therefore my experience is going to be compromised to an extent 3.For the hassle from the above, I would need to have significant additional incentives elsewhere to buy a jack less phone. That could come from…. 3.1 Price Nope, prices aren’t significantly lower, if not increased. Definitely the biggest factor 3.2 Build Phones still fucked without a case anyways 3.3 Waterproofing Even though in theory, this is one less place to waterproof, devices are ip67 68 regardless of the headphone jack or not 3.4 Software? Not really a thing atm hardware? in theory, but nothing revolutionary has been added in place of that space yet, not even battery life. All in all, it looks to me as one is only paying the same amount for roughly the same features sans the jack. At best it seems like a neutral change with some mental gymnastics, but definitely feels like a lesser product.<|TARGETS|>a phone without a jack, 2.If Bluetooth, using it over my wired headphones, to have significant additional incentives elsewhere to buy a jack less phone, the market for a new phone, paying the same amount for roughly the same features sans the jack .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Of course, this is not applicable to someone who is deadset on a iphone no matter what. I’m not in the market for a new phone at the moment, but these are my thoughts at the heels of the new pixel unveiling. 1.A phone with a headphone jack has the same Bluetooth capabilities have a phone without. The only difference is that a phone without a jack doesn't have the option to have a jack without adapters. 2.If Bluetooth was actually superior I would already be using it over my wired headphones, but I don’t. Therefore my experience is going to be compromised to an extent 3.For the hassle from the above, I would need to have significant additional incentives elsewhere to buy a jack less phone. That could come from…. 3.1 Price Nope, prices aren’t significantly lower, if not increased. Definitely the biggest factor 3.2 Build Phones still fucked without a case anyways 3.3 Waterproofing Even though in theory, this is one less place to waterproof, devices are ip67 68 regardless of the headphone jack or not 3.4 Software? Not really a thing atm hardware? in theory, but nothing revolutionary has been added in place of that space yet, not even battery life. All in all, it looks to me as one is only paying the same amount for roughly the same features sans the jack. At best it seems like a neutral change with some mental gymnastics, but definitely feels like a lesser product.<|ASPECTS|>price, waterproof, revolutionary, battery life, jack without adapters, incentives, bluetooth capabilities, market, compromised, mental gymnastics, neutral change, fucked, lesser product, paying, amount, prices, deadset, hardware, bluetooth, waterproofing<|CONCLUSION|>","Of course, this is not applicable to someone who is deadset on a iphone no matter what. I’m not in the market for a new phone at the moment, but these are my thoughts at the heels of the new pixel unveiling. 1.A phone with a headphone jack has the same Bluetooth capabilities have a phone without. The only difference is that a phone without a jack doesn't have the option to have a jack without adapters. 2.If Bluetooth was actually superior I would already be using it over my wired headphones, but I don’t. Therefore my experience is going to be compromised to an extent 3.For the hassle from the above, I would need to have significant additional incentives elsewhere to buy a jack less phone. That could come from…. 3.1 Price Nope, prices aren’t significantly lower, if not increased. Definitely the biggest factor 3.2 Build Phones still fucked without a case anyways 3.3 Waterproofing Even though in theory, this is one less place to waterproof, devices are ip67 68 regardless of the headphone jack or not 3.4 Software? Not really a thing atm hardware? in theory, but nothing revolutionary has been added in place of that space yet, not even battery life. All in all, it looks to me as one is only paying the same amount for roughly the same features sans the jack. At best it seems like a neutral change with some mental gymnastics, but definitely feels like a lesser product.",There isn’t nearly enough marginal benefit for me to justify buying a phone without a headphone jack
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I want to preface this by saying I'm not interested in being psychologised. I hold this view for the following reasons The level of suffering in the world is too great, and vastly outweighs that of the pleasure. Despite admirable strides in human progress i.e modern medicine there are still too many issues plaguing the earth and humanity wherein suffering is too prevalent en masse. Very briefly, there is still absolute poverty, factory farming, warfare, etc. And then debilitating personal struggles, loss of loved ones, poor mental health, etc. What's more, animals in their state of nature suffer enormously. Their lives are brutish, and harsh, death in the natural world is often a slow process consisting of succumbing to infection, starvation, or gruesome deaths by predators or natural conditions. I would further justify this argument, through reference to Benatar's asymmetry, which I would love to see retort to, because I see it as almost iron clad. The asymmetry says that procreation, and thus existence, is undesirable because Existence Presence of pain bad Present of pleasure good Non existence Absence of pain good . Because Absence of pleasure neutral . Because no one is being deprived of pain. By not pressing the button, I would also be permitting humanity to continue forth on the path to progress, ensuring that even more suffering is inflicted upon future generations. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I want to preface this by saying I'm not interested in being psychologised. I hold this view for the following reasons The level of suffering in the world is too great, and vastly outweighs that of the pleasure. Despite admirable strides in human progress i.e modern medicine there are still too many issues plaguing the earth and humanity wherein suffering is too prevalent en masse. Very briefly, there is still absolute poverty, factory farming, warfare, etc. And then debilitating personal struggles, loss of loved ones, poor mental health, etc. What's more, animals in their state of nature suffer enormously. Their lives are brutish, and harsh, death in the natural world is often a slow process consisting of succumbing to infection, starvation, or gruesome deaths by predators or natural conditions. I would further justify this argument, through reference to Benatar's asymmetry, which I would love to see retort to, because I see it as almost iron clad. The asymmetry says that procreation, and thus existence, is undesirable because Existence Presence of pain bad Present of pleasure good Non existence Absence of pain good . Because Absence of pleasure neutral . Because no one is being deprived of pain. By not pressing the button, I would also be permitting humanity to continue forth on the path to progress, ensuring that even more suffering is inflicted upon future generations. <|TARGETS|>to preface this by saying I 'm not interested in being psychologised ., The asymmetry, not pressing the button, permitting humanity to continue forth on the path to progress ensuring that even more suffering is inflicted upon future generations ., this argument through reference to Benatar 's asymmetry which I would love to see retort to, I hold this view for the following reasons The level of suffering in the world<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I want to preface this by saying I'm not interested in being psychologised. I hold this view for the following reasons The level of suffering in the world is too great, and vastly outweighs that of the pleasure. Despite admirable strides in human progress i.e modern medicine there are still too many issues plaguing the earth and humanity wherein suffering is too prevalent en masse. Very briefly, there is still absolute poverty, factory farming, warfare, etc. And then debilitating personal struggles, loss of loved ones, poor mental health, etc. What's more, animals in their state of nature suffer enormously. Their lives are brutish, and harsh, death in the natural world is often a slow process consisting of succumbing to infection, starvation, or gruesome deaths by predators or natural conditions. I would further justify this argument, through reference to Benatar's asymmetry, which I would love to see retort to, because I see it as almost iron clad. The asymmetry says that procreation, and thus existence, is undesirable because Existence Presence of pain bad Present of pleasure good Non existence Absence of pain good . Because Absence of pleasure neutral . Because no one is being deprived of pain. By not pressing the button, I would also be permitting humanity to continue forth on the path to progress, ensuring that even more suffering is inflicted upon future generations. <|ASPECTS|>death, human progress, pleasure neutral, iron clad, pain, deprived of pain, infection, undesirable, pain good, psychologised, debilitating, harsh, slow, pleasure, personal struggles, natural, future generations, loss of loved ones, asymmetry, gruesome deaths, suffer enormously, warfare, mental health, brutish, factory farming, suffering, starvation, absolute, poverty, poor, state of nature, animals, progress<|CONCLUSION|>","I want to preface this by saying I'm not interested in being psychologised. I hold this view for the following reasons The level of suffering in the world is too great, and vastly outweighs that of the pleasure. Despite admirable strides in human progress i.e modern medicine there are still too many issues plaguing the earth and humanity wherein suffering is too prevalent en masse. Very briefly, there is still absolute poverty, factory farming, warfare, etc. And then debilitating personal struggles, loss of loved ones, poor mental health, etc. What's more, animals in their state of nature suffer enormously. Their lives are brutish, and harsh, death in the natural world is often a slow process consisting of succumbing to infection, starvation, or gruesome deaths by predators or natural conditions. I would further justify this argument, through reference to Benatar's asymmetry, which I would love to see retort to, because I see it as almost iron clad. The asymmetry says that procreation, and thus existence, is undesirable because Existence Presence of pain bad Present of pleasure good Non existence Absence of pain good . Because Absence of pleasure neutral . Because no one is being deprived of pain. By not pressing the button, I would also be permitting humanity to continue forth on the path to progress, ensuring that even more suffering is inflicted upon future generations.","If presented with a button, which if pressed would cause the instantaneous, and painless death of every single human and animal on earth, I would press it."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While there's no doubt that the movie will make an insane amount of money, pretty much anyone over the age of 12 will be disappointed. The first 3 movies were beloved because they were original and had breathtaking, innovative special effects, but in terms of plot and character development were pretty lame. So what options does J.J. Abrams have? He can make a good movie, on that actually stands on its own in terms of scriptwriting an acting. And everyone who loves the original will hate it because it doesn't have the spirit of the original. Or, he can try to replicate that spirit. But everyone who saw the first 3 when they were young are more mature and sophisticated now and it will seem like drivel. See episodes 1 3 for reference . What does that leave? The film will never be judged by its own merit. We've all seen great special effects in other recent scifi movies, so that's not going to make up for anything. Of course, if someone asked Abrams or Disney whether you'd be ok making a billion dollars if it means that fanboys will be bitching, I'm sure they'd agree to the deal, so I don't feel bad for them. But I do feel bad for the millions who are so excited about the movie coming out who are destined for be let down.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While there's no doubt that the movie will make an insane amount of money, pretty much anyone over the age of 12 will be disappointed. The first 3 movies were beloved because they were original and had breathtaking, innovative special effects, but in terms of plot and character development were pretty lame. So what options does J.J. Abrams have? He can make a good movie, on that actually stands on its own in terms of scriptwriting an acting. And everyone who loves the original will hate it because it doesn't have the spirit of the original. Or, he can try to replicate that spirit. But everyone who saw the first 3 when they were young are more mature and sophisticated now and it will seem like drivel. See episodes 1 3 for reference . What does that leave? The film will never be judged by its own merit. We've all seen great special effects in other recent scifi movies, so that's not going to make up for anything. Of course, if someone asked Abrams or Disney whether you'd be ok making a billion dollars if it means that fanboys will be bitching, I'm sure they'd agree to the deal, so I don't feel bad for them. But I do feel bad for the millions who are so excited about the movie coming out who are destined for be let down.<|TARGETS|>great special effects in other recent scifi movies, if someone asked Abrams or Disney, the millions who are so excited about the movie coming out who are destined for be let down ., The film, The first 3 movies, the movie<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While there's no doubt that the movie will make an insane amount of money, pretty much anyone over the age of 12 will be disappointed. The first 3 movies were beloved because they were original and had breathtaking, innovative special effects, but in terms of plot and character development were pretty lame. So what options does J.J. Abrams have? He can make a good movie, on that actually stands on its own in terms of scriptwriting an acting. And everyone who loves the original will hate it because it doesn't have the spirit of the original. Or, he can try to replicate that spirit. But everyone who saw the first 3 when they were young are more mature and sophisticated now and it will seem like drivel. See episodes 1 3 for reference . What does that leave? The film will never be judged by its own merit. We've all seen great special effects in other recent scifi movies, so that's not going to make up for anything. Of course, if someone asked Abrams or Disney whether you'd be ok making a billion dollars if it means that fanboys will be bitching, I'm sure they'd agree to the deal, so I don't feel bad for them. But I do feel bad for the millions who are so excited about the movie coming out who are destined for be let down.<|ASPECTS|>, bad, merit, money, spirit of the original, scriptwriting, hate, mature and sophisticated, spirit, good movie, replicate, drivel, options, character development, special effects, plot, breathtaking, original, feel, innovative special effects, fanboys, judged<|CONCLUSION|>","While there's no doubt that the movie will make an insane amount of money, pretty much anyone over the age of 12 will be disappointed. The first 3 movies were beloved because they were original and had breathtaking, innovative special effects, but in terms of plot and character development were pretty lame. So what options does J.J. Abrams have? He can make a good movie, on that actually stands on its own in terms of scriptwriting an acting. And everyone who loves the original will hate it because it doesn't have the spirit of the original. Or, he can try to replicate that spirit. But everyone who saw the first 3 when they were young are more mature and sophisticated now and it will seem like drivel. See episodes 1 3 for reference . What does that leave? The film will never be judged by its own merit. We've all seen great special effects in other recent scifi movies, so that's not going to make up for anything. Of course, if someone asked Abrams or Disney whether you'd be ok making a billion dollars if it means that fanboys will be bitching, I'm sure they'd agree to the deal, so I don't feel bad for them. But I do feel bad for the millions who are so excited about the movie coming out who are destined for be let down.",Star Wars: The Force Awakens will be a disappointment no matter what.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Something like 1984 or The Hunger Games is coming soon, I believe. I think this because there is so much disagreement and inability to compromise in today's world. Many people feel entitled and that their beliefs are correct and other beliefs are just plain wrong. This leads me to believe that a second civil war and possibly a dystopian like society is coming before the turn of the century. I'm not looking for my view about a entitlement and compromising to be changed. CMV about the realistic possibility of a dystopian society. TL DR Entitlement is driving us towards civil war and a dystopian society. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Something like 1984 or The Hunger Games is coming soon, I believe. I think this because there is so much disagreement and inability to compromise in today's world. Many people feel entitled and that their beliefs are correct and other beliefs are just plain wrong. This leads me to believe that a second civil war and possibly a dystopian like society is coming before the turn of the century. I'm not looking for my view about a entitlement and compromising to be changed. CMV about the realistic possibility of a dystopian society. TL DR Entitlement is driving us towards civil war and a dystopian society. CMV.<|TARGETS|>to believe that a second civil war and possibly a dystopian like society, TL DR Entitlement, The Hunger Games, Many people feel entitled and that their beliefs are correct and other beliefs, not looking for my view about a entitlement and compromising to be changed ., to compromise in today 's world .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Something like 1984 or The Hunger Games is coming soon, I believe. I think this because there is so much disagreement and inability to compromise in today's world. Many people feel entitled and that their beliefs are correct and other beliefs are just plain wrong. This leads me to believe that a second civil war and possibly a dystopian like society is coming before the turn of the century. I'm not looking for my view about a entitlement and compromising to be changed. CMV about the realistic possibility of a dystopian society. TL DR Entitlement is driving us towards civil war and a dystopian society. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, beliefs are correct, inability, second, entitled, feel, compromising, realistic, civil war, compromise, entitlement, disagreement, dystopian like society, hunger, dystopian society, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>","Something like 1984 or The Hunger Games is coming soon, I believe. I think this because there is so much disagreement and inability to compromise in today's world. Many people feel entitled and that their beliefs are correct and other beliefs are just plain wrong. This leads me to believe that a second civil war and possibly a dystopian like society is coming before the turn of the century. I'm not looking for my view about a entitlement and compromising to be changed.  about the realistic possibility of a dystopian society. TL DR Entitlement is driving us towards civil war and a dystopian society. .",The US is headed for a dystopian society.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Recently I watched a video where a question was posed that I began to think about. Is rape ever ok? Most people would answer no. And at that point I agreed with them. But that same night as I was looking through the different posts on Reddit I saw something about the pedophillia in the Catholic church. And I began to think about this awful subject matter. Now to the best of my knowledge pedophiles in prison often get 'punished' by others that hate pedophiles or have children. This 'punishment' isn't always rape but, I think that sometimes it is. I have conflicting thoughts and beliefs because I think that rapists should be put in prison, I don't think that it should go unpunished. But I have absolutely no sympathy for those who are repeat offenders in the act of pedophillia who are 'punished' while they are in prison. I don't think that all rape should go overlooked in prison, it is a terrible thing that I am sad is a part of society. I want someone to convince me why it is a thing that needs to be stop tell me why and how you think we would be able to stop this act. If you think this is some kind of justice for the children who will be changed forever tell me why you think that maybe this could be overlooked.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Recently I watched a video where a question was posed that I began to think about. Is rape ever ok? Most people would answer no. And at that point I agreed with them. But that same night as I was looking through the different posts on Reddit I saw something about the pedophillia in the Catholic church. And I began to think about this awful subject matter. Now to the best of my knowledge pedophiles in prison often get 'punished' by others that hate pedophiles or have children. This 'punishment' isn't always rape but, I think that sometimes it is. I have conflicting thoughts and beliefs because I think that rapists should be put in prison, I don't think that it should go unpunished. But I have absolutely no sympathy for those who are repeat offenders in the act of pedophillia who are 'punished' while they are in prison. I don't think that all rape should go overlooked in prison, it is a terrible thing that I am sad is a part of society. I want someone to convince me why it is a thing that needs to be stop tell me why and how you think we would be able to stop this act. If you think this is some kind of justice for the children who will be changed forever tell me why you think that maybe this could be overlooked.<|TARGETS|>to convince me why it is a thing that needs to be stop tell me why and how you think we would be able to stop this act ., Now to the best of my knowledge pedophiles in prison, to think about this awful subject matter ., some kind of justice for the children who will be changed forever tell me why you think that maybe this, This ' punishment ', no sympathy for those who are repeat offenders in the act of pedophillia<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Recently I watched a video where a question was posed that I began to think about. Is rape ever ok? Most people would answer no. And at that point I agreed with them. But that same night as I was looking through the different posts on Reddit I saw something about the pedophillia in the Catholic church. And I began to think about this awful subject matter. Now to the best of my knowledge pedophiles in prison often get 'punished' by others that hate pedophiles or have children. This 'punishment' isn't always rape but, I think that sometimes it is. I have conflicting thoughts and beliefs because I think that rapists should be put in prison, I don't think that it should go unpunished. But I have absolutely no sympathy for those who are repeat offenders in the act of pedophillia who are 'punished' while they are in prison. I don't think that all rape should go overlooked in prison, it is a terrible thing that I am sad is a part of society. I want someone to convince me why it is a thing that needs to be stop tell me why and how you think we would be able to stop this act. If you think this is some kind of justice for the children who will be changed forever tell me why you think that maybe this could be overlooked.<|ASPECTS|>awful, society, conflicting thoughts and beliefs, hate pedophiles, rape, sympathy, answer, terrible, pedophiles, question, think, pedophillia, agreed, justice, unpunished, subject matter, changed, repeat offenders, prison, overlooked, stop this act<|CONCLUSION|>","Recently I watched a video where a question was posed that I began to think about. Is rape ever ok? Most people would answer no. And at that point I agreed with them. But that same night as I was looking through the different posts on Reddit I saw something about the pedophillia in the Catholic church. And I began to think about this awful subject matter. Now to the best of my knowledge pedophiles in prison often get 'punished' by others that hate pedophiles or have children. This 'punishment' isn't always rape but, I think that sometimes it is. I have conflicting thoughts and beliefs because I think that rapists should be put in prison, I don't think that it should go unpunished. But I have absolutely no sympathy for those who are repeat offenders in the act of pedophillia who are 'punished' while they are in prison. I don't think that all rape should go overlooked in prison, it is a terrible thing that I am sad is a part of society. I want someone to convince me why it is a thing that needs to be stop tell me why and how you think we would be able to stop this act. If you think this is some kind of justice for the children who will be changed forever tell me why you think that maybe this could be overlooked.",The subject of pedophillia and rape in prison.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tourism is the major economy for many countries all over the world, especially developing ones. While it does provide people with jobs, and is effective in certain areas, I believe in it's most popular form it is not sustainable for the long term and does local economies more harm than good. I'm talking about places like Las Vegas, Cancun, island resorts, large casinos on Native American reservations, etc. Governments and large corporations use up natural resources to support the growing tourism industry, slowly destroying local heritage and the environment. I think that resorts have a high potential to fail and are not sustainable long term because there is no demand for them, especially in the wake of a global recession. That's why surrounding a lot of tourist areas, locals are actually really poor . Basically people can't afford to go on vacation gt resorts make no money gt locals are out of work or not paid well gt there are no other jobs because the entire economy is built around the tourism industry. Meanwhile, the development of worldwide resorts that are all the same eats up resources, damages the environment, causes dehumanisation of people and institutions and homogenises the travel experience. Is there anything I'm not considering? Can anyone provide evidence that these things are actually good for local economies long term? gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tourism is the major economy for many countries all over the world, especially developing ones. While it does provide people with jobs, and is effective in certain areas, I believe in it's most popular form it is not sustainable for the long term and does local economies more harm than good. I'm talking about places like Las Vegas, Cancun, island resorts, large casinos on Native American reservations, etc. Governments and large corporations use up natural resources to support the growing tourism industry, slowly destroying local heritage and the environment. I think that resorts have a high potential to fail and are not sustainable long term because there is no demand for them, especially in the wake of a global recession. That's why surrounding a lot of tourist areas, locals are actually really poor . Basically people can't afford to go on vacation gt resorts make no money gt locals are out of work or not paid well gt there are no other jobs because the entire economy is built around the tourism industry. Meanwhile, the development of worldwide resorts that are all the same eats up resources, damages the environment, causes dehumanisation of people and institutions and homogenises the travel experience. Is there anything I'm not considering? Can anyone provide evidence that these things are actually good for local economies long term? gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>Governments and large corporations, Tourism, Can anyone provide evidence that these things are actually good for local economies long term, talking about places like Las Vegas Cancun island resorts large casinos on Native American reservations, afford to go on vacation gt resorts make no money gt locals are out of work or not paid well gt there, to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tourism is the major economy for many countries all over the world, especially developing ones. While it does provide people with jobs, and is effective in certain areas, I believe in it's most popular form it is not sustainable for the long term and does local economies more harm than good. I'm talking about places like Las Vegas, Cancun, island resorts, large casinos on Native American reservations, etc. Governments and large corporations use up natural resources to support the growing tourism industry, slowly destroying local heritage and the environment. I think that resorts have a high potential to fail and are not sustainable long term because there is no demand for them, especially in the wake of a global recession. That's why surrounding a lot of tourist areas, locals are actually really poor . Basically people can't afford to go on vacation gt resorts make no money gt locals are out of work or not paid well gt there are no other jobs because the entire economy is built around the tourism industry. Meanwhile, the development of worldwide resorts that are all the same eats up resources, damages the environment, causes dehumanisation of people and institutions and homogenises the travel experience. Is there anything I'm not considering? Can anyone provide evidence that these things are actually good for local economies long term? gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>, jobs, of work, harm, remind, potential to fail, global recession, economies, popular topics, major, sustainable, economy, destroying local heritage, tourism, damages the environment, island, concerns, effective, downvotes, local economies, happy cmving, homogenises, paid well, good, natural resources, environment, dehumanisation of people, message us, change, downvote, eats up resources, demand, travel experience, native, questions, poor, afford to go<|CONCLUSION|>","Tourism is the major economy for many countries all over the world, especially developing ones. While it does provide people with jobs, and is effective in certain areas, I believe in it's most popular form it is not sustainable for the long term and does local economies more harm than good. I'm talking about places like Las Vegas, Cancun, island resorts, large casinos on Native American reservations, etc. Governments and large corporations use up natural resources to support the growing tourism industry, slowly destroying local heritage and the environment. I think that resorts have a high potential to fail and are not sustainable long term because there is no demand for them, especially in the wake of a global recession. That's why surrounding a lot of tourist areas, locals are actually really poor . Basically people can't afford to go on vacation gt resorts make no money gt locals are out of work or not paid well gt there are no other jobs because the entire economy is built around the tourism industry. Meanwhile, the development of worldwide resorts that are all the same eats up resources, damages the environment, causes dehumanisation of people and institutions and homogenises the travel experience. Is there anything I'm not considering? Can anyone provide evidence that these things are actually good for local economies long term? gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing",I believe that large resort developments for mass tourism are not sustainable and ultimately bad for local economies.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I hold this view because I see a lot of people born wealthy and are now successful, but aren't aware of how their privilege sets them up to do so. “Privilege checking” implies that any activity tainted by the unequal distribution of freedom to participate in it is “inherently bad” and should not be done, lest you “enact privilege” upon others. For example, traveling the world on your parents' dime, getting a job because of nepotism, etc. I know that this is probably not entirely correct, and I'd like to hear some of your viewpoints, especially because it's impossible to divorce from the way you were born and raised. Change my view<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I hold this view because I see a lot of people born wealthy and are now successful, but aren't aware of how their privilege sets them up to do so. “Privilege checking” implies that any activity tainted by the unequal distribution of freedom to participate in it is “inherently bad” and should not be done, lest you “enact privilege” upon others. For example, traveling the world on your parents' dime, getting a job because of nepotism, etc. I know that this is probably not entirely correct, and I'd like to hear some of your viewpoints, especially because it's impossible to divorce from the way you were born and raised. Change my view<|TARGETS|>traveling the world on your parents' dime, to hear some of your viewpoints, any activity tainted by the unequal distribution of freedom to participate in it is “ inherently bad ” and should not be done lest you “ enact privilege ” upon others ., to divorce from the way you were born and raised ., “ Privilege checking ”<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I hold this view because I see a lot of people born wealthy and are now successful, but aren't aware of how their privilege sets them up to do so. “Privilege checking” implies that any activity tainted by the unequal distribution of freedom to participate in it is “inherently bad” and should not be done, lest you “enact privilege” upon others. For example, traveling the world on your parents' dime, getting a job because of nepotism, etc. I know that this is probably not entirely correct, and I'd like to hear some of your viewpoints, especially because it's impossible to divorce from the way you were born and raised. Change my view<|ASPECTS|>freedom, bad, privilege, nepotism, privilege ”, successful, wealthy, impossible to divorce<|CONCLUSION|>","I hold this view because I see a lot of people born wealthy and are now successful, but aren't aware of how their privilege sets them up to do so. “Privilege checking” implies that any activity tainted by the unequal distribution of freedom to participate in it is “inherently bad” and should not be done, lest you “enact privilege” upon others. For example, traveling the world on your parents' dime, getting a job because of nepotism, etc. I know that this is probably not entirely correct, and I'd like to hear some of your viewpoints, especially because it's impossible to divorce from the way you were born and raised. Change my view","You shouldn't do anything that enacts your privilege upon others,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Especially in America , there seems to be a lot of controversy about people who look white and when those people identity as something else. I understand how it’s silly if someone identifies as something completely left field if they have genetic background to back it up, but maybe this racial dysphoria wouldn’t exist if there distinct identities allowed to be acknowledged through cultural background as opposed to just saying “I’m white” Today’s racial tension is kinda confusing too. Especially when there are people who racist towards Hispanics when even said Hispanic is white. Or maybe they hate Jews , even if said Jewish person is white. It’s just pretty confusing. Considering mixed people black white people such as famous pop singer Halsey identify as black when people who are Italian and Arab identity as white. Or when a seemingly white person is actually Native American. I’ve seen Italians and Puerto Ricans not identify as white when others have personally identified them as white. This also feeds a sort of ethnic cultural erasure. For example if someone who looked white was half Japanese half white was supposed to only identity as white , why would they acknowledge their Japanese heritage ? Speaking of Asians. There’s many articles on google talking about most Asians essentially worship white people. It’s implied by society that white people generally feel a certain way about black people , which most likely means that Asian people would feel a similar way. To me it seems that only Latinos and Italians who live in Italy identity more with their cultural heritage than their skin tone , and as a result experience less racial tension than the US does. If all physically white people only identified as white, including physically whites Hispanics, and white people have asian people at their hip then this sort of creates a society where black people are the only outlier.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Especially in America , there seems to be a lot of controversy about people who look white and when those people identity as something else. I understand how it’s silly if someone identifies as something completely left field if they have genetic background to back it up, but maybe this racial dysphoria wouldn’t exist if there distinct identities allowed to be acknowledged through cultural background as opposed to just saying “I’m white” Today’s racial tension is kinda confusing too. Especially when there are people who racist towards Hispanics when even said Hispanic is white. Or maybe they hate Jews , even if said Jewish person is white. It’s just pretty confusing. Considering mixed people black white people such as famous pop singer Halsey identify as black when people who are Italian and Arab identity as white. Or when a seemingly white person is actually Native American. I’ve seen Italians and Puerto Ricans not identify as white when others have personally identified them as white. This also feeds a sort of ethnic cultural erasure. For example if someone who looked white was half Japanese half white was supposed to only identity as white , why would they acknowledge their Japanese heritage ? Speaking of Asians. There’s many articles on google talking about most Asians essentially worship white people. It’s implied by society that white people generally feel a certain way about black people , which most likely means that Asian people would feel a similar way. To me it seems that only Latinos and Italians who live in Italy identity more with their cultural heritage than their skin tone , and as a result experience less racial tension than the US does. If all physically white people only identified as white, including physically whites Hispanics, and white people have asian people at their hip then this sort of creates a society where black people are the only outlier.<|TARGETS|>Considering mixed people black white people such as famous pop singer Halsey identify as black when people who are Italian and Arab identity as white ., if there distinct identities allowed to be acknowledged through cultural background as opposed to just saying “ I ’m white ” Today ’s racial tension, if someone identifies as something completely left field if they have genetic background to back it up but maybe this racial dysphoria, that only Latinos and Italians who live in Italy identity more with their cultural heritage than their skin tone, If all physically white people only identified as white including physically whites Hispanics and white people have asian people at their hip, a lot of controversy about people who look white and when those people identity as something else .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Especially in America , there seems to be a lot of controversy about people who look white and when those people identity as something else. I understand how it’s silly if someone identifies as something completely left field if they have genetic background to back it up, but maybe this racial dysphoria wouldn’t exist if there distinct identities allowed to be acknowledged through cultural background as opposed to just saying “I’m white” Today’s racial tension is kinda confusing too. Especially when there are people who racist towards Hispanics when even said Hispanic is white. Or maybe they hate Jews , even if said Jewish person is white. It’s just pretty confusing. Considering mixed people black white people such as famous pop singer Halsey identify as black when people who are Italian and Arab identity as white. Or when a seemingly white person is actually Native American. I’ve seen Italians and Puerto Ricans not identify as white when others have personally identified them as white. This also feeds a sort of ethnic cultural erasure. For example if someone who looked white was half Japanese half white was supposed to only identity as white , why would they acknowledge their Japanese heritage ? Speaking of Asians. There’s many articles on google talking about most Asians essentially worship white people. It’s implied by society that white people generally feel a certain way about black people , which most likely means that Asian people would feel a similar way. To me it seems that only Latinos and Italians who live in Italy identity more with their cultural heritage than their skin tone , and as a result experience less racial tension than the US does. If all physically white people only identified as white, including physically whites Hispanics, and white people have asian people at their hip then this sort of creates a society where black people are the only outlier.<|ASPECTS|>, black people, confusing, white, cultural background, racial dysphoria, black, cultural heritage, way, people, asians, racist towards hispanics, controversy, white person, native american, ethnic cultural erasure, identify as white, identity as white, identity, outlier, genetic background, worship white people, racial tension, feel, hate jews, japanese heritage, distinct identities<|CONCLUSION|>","Especially in America , there seems to be a lot of controversy about people who look white and when those people identity as something else. I understand how it’s silly if someone identifies as something completely left field if they have genetic background to back it up, but maybe this racial dysphoria wouldn’t exist if there distinct identities allowed to be acknowledged through cultural background as opposed to just saying “I’m white” Today’s racial tension is kinda confusing too. Especially when there are people who racist towards Hispanics when even said Hispanic is white. Or maybe they hate Jews , even if said Jewish person is white. It’s just pretty confusing. Considering mixed people black white people such as famous pop singer Halsey identify as black when people who are Italian and Arab identity as white. Or when a seemingly white person is actually Native American. I’ve seen Italians and Puerto Ricans not identify as white when others have personally identified them as white. This also feeds a sort of ethnic cultural erasure. For example if someone who looked white was half Japanese half white was supposed to only identity as white , why would they acknowledge their Japanese heritage ? Speaking of Asians. There’s many articles on google talking about most Asians essentially worship white people. It’s implied by society that white people generally feel a certain way about black people , which most likely means that Asian people would feel a similar way. To me it seems that only Latinos and Italians who live in Italy identity more with their cultural heritage than their skin tone , and as a result experience less racial tension than the US does. If all physically white people only identified as white, including physically whites Hispanics, and white people have asian people at their hip then this sort of creates a society where black people are the only outlier.","For the sake of preventing a society in which blacks are seen as outgroupe- People , even if they look white, should identity with their ethnic backgrounds as opposed to skin tone."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was having a discussion with my friend the other day. She has watched porn but does not use it on a regular basis. Her reason being that it has a negative effect on people, due to it's misogynistic and rapey vibes. These vibes according to her has a negative impact on how people perceive sex, intimacy, and relationships and mess up our beauty expectations. Now, I can see where she is going, but I guess I always felt that if porn is used moderately, it does not make one misogynistic or create unrealistic expectations. Most people are able to distinguish between porn and real life. Change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was having a discussion with my friend the other day. She has watched porn but does not use it on a regular basis. Her reason being that it has a negative effect on people, due to it's misogynistic and rapey vibes. These vibes according to her has a negative impact on how people perceive sex, intimacy, and relationships and mess up our beauty expectations. Now, I can see where she is going, but I guess I always felt that if porn is used moderately, it does not make one misogynistic or create unrealistic expectations. Most people are able to distinguish between porn and real life. Change my view.<|TARGETS|>if porn is used moderately, having a discussion with my friend the other day .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was having a discussion with my friend the other day. She has watched porn but does not use it on a regular basis. Her reason being that it has a negative effect on people, due to it's misogynistic and rapey vibes. These vibes according to her has a negative impact on how people perceive sex, intimacy, and relationships and mess up our beauty expectations. Now, I can see where she is going, but I guess I always felt that if porn is used moderately, it does not make one misogynistic or create unrealistic expectations. Most people are able to distinguish between porn and real life. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>porn, real life, watched, rapey vibes, mess, view, misogynistic, distinguish, discussion, negative effect, people, negative impact, intimacy, unrealistic expectations, beauty expectations<|CONCLUSION|>","I was having a discussion with my friend the other day. She has watched porn but does not use it on a regular basis. Her reason being that it has a negative effect on people, due to it's misogynistic and rapey vibes. These vibes according to her has a negative impact on how people perceive sex, intimacy, and relationships and mess up our beauty expectations. Now, I can see where she is going, but I guess I always felt that if porn is used moderately, it does not make one misogynistic or create unrealistic expectations. Most people are able to distinguish between porn and real life. Change my view.",Porn is normal and does not have a negative effect on people or society when used moderately.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a supporter of normalizing childhood vaccinations, and I think that they provide real benefit with negligible risk. However, I recently came across an interesting article that makes a compelling case against vaccinations. Of the highlights, records suggest that most of the worst diseases we vaccinate for were already becoming much less common at the advent of widespread vaccination, and that hygiene and access to clean water were more of a factor in eliminating disease than vaccines were. What really hooked my attention was the conspiracy theory aspect I'm a believer in science and value the truth, but I'm very cynical about corporate abuses of ethics. You can see that major pharma companies have billions of dollars of profit to be made in vaccinations, and they might be powerful and influential enough to try suppressing any evidence that would disrupt their market share. If anyone knows of something that addresses the points made in this article, please let me know because I want to read it. Please try to approach the issue by actually addressing the content of the article. Arguing to ignorance 'you aren't doing the clinical research yourself' , ad hominem 'conspiracy theorists are always wrong' , and appeals to authority 'the pharma company selling the drug says it's safe' are logically flimsy. I don't want to argue in favor of one side over another, I want to see someone address the points being made. EDIT I'm convinced that the issue is resolved. There are a lot of logical fallacies and misleading statistics in the article, which only pretends to make an airtight case against vaccines. Thanks much to everyone who took the time to make an argument, I appreciate your efforts<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a supporter of normalizing childhood vaccinations, and I think that they provide real benefit with negligible risk. However, I recently came across an interesting article that makes a compelling case against vaccinations. Of the highlights, records suggest that most of the worst diseases we vaccinate for were already becoming much less common at the advent of widespread vaccination, and that hygiene and access to clean water were more of a factor in eliminating disease than vaccines were. What really hooked my attention was the conspiracy theory aspect I'm a believer in science and value the truth, but I'm very cynical about corporate abuses of ethics. You can see that major pharma companies have billions of dollars of profit to be made in vaccinations, and they might be powerful and influential enough to try suppressing any evidence that would disrupt their market share. If anyone knows of something that addresses the points made in this article, please let me know because I want to read it. Please try to approach the issue by actually addressing the content of the article. Arguing to ignorance 'you aren't doing the clinical research yourself' , ad hominem 'conspiracy theorists are always wrong' , and appeals to authority 'the pharma company selling the drug says it's safe' are logically flimsy. I don't want to argue in favor of one side over another, I want to see someone address the points being made. EDIT I'm convinced that the issue is resolved. There are a lot of logical fallacies and misleading statistics in the article, which only pretends to make an airtight case against vaccines. Thanks much to everyone who took the time to make an argument, I appreciate your efforts<|TARGETS|>If anyone knows of something that addresses the points made in this article, to make an airtight case against vaccines, the pharma company selling the drug, to make an argument, to see someone address the points being made ., Please try to approach the issue by actually addressing the content of the article .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a supporter of normalizing childhood vaccinations, and I think that they provide real benefit with negligible risk. However, I recently came across an interesting article that makes a compelling case against vaccinations. Of the highlights, records suggest that most of the worst diseases we vaccinate for were already becoming much less common at the advent of widespread vaccination, and that hygiene and access to clean water were more of a factor in eliminating disease than vaccines were. What really hooked my attention was the conspiracy theory aspect I'm a believer in science and value the truth, but I'm very cynical about corporate abuses of ethics. You can see that major pharma companies have billions of dollars of profit to be made in vaccinations, and they might be powerful and influential enough to try suppressing any evidence that would disrupt their market share. If anyone knows of something that addresses the points made in this article, please let me know because I want to read it. Please try to approach the issue by actually addressing the content of the article. Arguing to ignorance 'you aren't doing the clinical research yourself' , ad hominem 'conspiracy theorists are always wrong' , and appeals to authority 'the pharma company selling the drug says it's safe' are logically flimsy. I don't want to argue in favor of one side over another, I want to see someone address the points being made. EDIT I'm convinced that the issue is resolved. There are a lot of logical fallacies and misleading statistics in the article, which only pretends to make an airtight case against vaccines. Thanks much to everyone who took the time to make an argument, I appreciate your efforts<|ASPECTS|>value the truth, powerful, points, safe, childhood vaccinations, hygiene, content, clean water, issue, ignorance, diseases, logical fallacies, eliminating disease, risk, profit, flimsy, airtight case, less, influential, corporate abuses of ethics, resolved, disrupt, benefit, market share, conspiracy, misleading statistics, vaccinations<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm a supporter of normalizing childhood vaccinations, and I think that they provide real benefit with negligible risk. However, I recently came across an interesting article that makes a compelling case against vaccinations. Of the highlights, records suggest that most of the worst diseases we vaccinate for were already becoming much less common at the advent of widespread vaccination, and that hygiene and access to clean water were more of a factor in eliminating disease than vaccines were. What really hooked my attention was the conspiracy theory aspect I'm a believer in science and value the truth, but I'm very cynical about corporate abuses of ethics. You can see that major pharma companies have billions of dollars of profit to be made in vaccinations, and they might be powerful and influential enough to try suppressing any evidence that would disrupt their market share. If anyone knows of something that addresses the points made in this article, please let me know because I want to read it. Please try to approach the issue by actually addressing the content of the article. Arguing to ignorance 'you aren't doing the clinical research yourself' , ad hominem 'conspiracy theorists are always wrong' , and appeals to authority 'the pharma company selling the drug says it's safe' are logically flimsy. I don't want to argue in favor of one side over another, I want to see someone address the points being made. EDIT I'm convinced that the issue is resolved. There are a lot of logical fallacies and misleading statistics in the article, which only pretends to make an airtight case against vaccines. Thanks much to everyone who took the time to make an argument, I appreciate your efforts",There is some scientifically valid evidence against compulsory childhood vaccines.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I may have my info wrong, but my understanding is this If I think a stock is going to lose value soon, I can sell shares of that company which I do not own, then buy them back later at a lower price to balance my sheet. Here are my issues First, no one should be allowed to sell anything they do not own. Second, this is a huge draw for insider trading. Third, this causes a pile on effect where a company might take a hit for a bad quarter, but now it's taking a much bigger hit because shorters are trying to drive down the price. Lastly, it can lead to a ridiculous scenario in which more stocks are for sale than actually exist. Example and yes it's an exaggeration for clarity An oil company has a massive spill. Everyone gets spooked. Owners of 70 of the shares dump it on the market, driving the price from 80 to 15. But with shorting, in addition to the 70 of the shares getting sold, another 50 of short shares are being sold. Now, 120 of the stocks are for sale and another 30 of the shares are held by people who aren't selling. That's 150<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I may have my info wrong, but my understanding is this If I think a stock is going to lose value soon, I can sell shares of that company which I do not own, then buy them back later at a lower price to balance my sheet. Here are my issues First, no one should be allowed to sell anything they do not own. Second, this is a huge draw for insider trading. Third, this causes a pile on effect where a company might take a hit for a bad quarter, but now it's taking a much bigger hit because shorters are trying to drive down the price. Lastly, it can lead to a ridiculous scenario in which more stocks are for sale than actually exist. Example and yes it's an exaggeration for clarity An oil company has a massive spill. Everyone gets spooked. Owners of 70 of the shares dump it on the market, driving the price from 80 to 15. But with shorting, in addition to the 70 of the shares getting sold, another 50 of short shares are being sold. Now, 120 of the stocks are for sale and another 30 of the shares are held by people who aren't selling. That's 150<|TARGETS|>An oil company, to sell anything they do not own ., a stock is going to lose value soon, can sell shares of that company which I do not own then buy them back later at a lower price to balance my sheet .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I may have my info wrong, but my understanding is this If I think a stock is going to lose value soon, I can sell shares of that company which I do not own, then buy them back later at a lower price to balance my sheet. Here are my issues First, no one should be allowed to sell anything they do not own. Second, this is a huge draw for insider trading. Third, this causes a pile on effect where a company might take a hit for a bad quarter, but now it's taking a much bigger hit because shorters are trying to drive down the price. Lastly, it can lead to a ridiculous scenario in which more stocks are for sale than actually exist. Example and yes it's an exaggeration for clarity An oil company has a massive spill. Everyone gets spooked. Owners of 70 of the shares dump it on the market, driving the price from 80 to 15. But with shorting, in addition to the 70 of the shares getting sold, another 50 of short shares are being sold. Now, 120 of the stocks are for sale and another 30 of the shares are held by people who aren't selling. That's 150<|ASPECTS|>price, short shares, shorting, spooked, sell anything, hit, insider trading, lose value, stocks, sale, dump, massive, draw, spill, stocks are for sale, pile on effect, ridiculous scenario<|CONCLUSION|>","I may have my info wrong, but my understanding is this If I think a stock is going to lose value soon, I can sell shares of that company which I do not own, then buy them back later at a lower price to balance my sheet. Here are my issues First, no one should be allowed to sell anything they do not own. Second, this is a huge draw for insider trading. Third, this causes a pile on effect where a company might take a hit for a bad quarter, but now it's taking a much bigger hit because shorters are trying to drive down the price. Lastly, it can lead to a ridiculous scenario in which more stocks are for sale than actually exist. Example and yes it's an exaggeration for clarity An oil company has a massive spill. Everyone gets spooked. Owners of 70 of the shares dump it on the market, driving the price from 80 to 15. But with shorting, in addition to the 70 of the shares getting sold, another 50 of short shares are being sold. Now, 120 of the stocks are for sale and another 30 of the shares are held by people who aren't selling. That's 150","I think that ""shorting"" stocks should not be legal."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me start of with a miniature rant. Why is is that soldiers peace keeper with military training are sent overseas to police in other countries, while the actual police get barely half the training and they police our own citizens? It doesn't make sense, our people deserve the highest level of protection, our own governing body should care more about the lives of its citizens than that of another country. Now lets narrow the viewpoint. In the event of a mass shooting. Military training vs police training to take down armed assailants in a crowded suburban or metropolitan area. Seems like an obvious choice. Okay now thats pretty extreme. Switch the scene. A domestic violence call. One officer responds and the wife is bleeding and the male is on edge. With a physical altercation being a possibility wouldn't someone with high level of hand to hand combat skills be preferable to end that struggle quickly, should one arise? Lets switch the scene again. A protest is getting out of hand, police have a line and the protesters may get violent. Soldiers have been trained to deal with crowd control and their much more rigorous training would keep them much more level headed in a high stress situation like this. Just one more situation please, a local thing that happened recently. Two adolescents tried to steal beer from a store and the cops were called. An officer stopped them and a kid came at him with a skateboard. The kid was shot and killed causing public outrage . I'm just thinking, he was shot because the officer was protecting himself. But if the officer had been more confident is his ability to fight back without the use of lethal force this kid may have been saved. I don't want police militarization i just want people who are as highly trained as possible to protect the citizens of my country. Please debate this with me, I don't understand what stopping it aside from public backlash from police militarization<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me start of with a miniature rant. Why is is that soldiers peace keeper with military training are sent overseas to police in other countries, while the actual police get barely half the training and they police our own citizens? It doesn't make sense, our people deserve the highest level of protection, our own governing body should care more about the lives of its citizens than that of another country. Now lets narrow the viewpoint. In the event of a mass shooting. Military training vs police training to take down armed assailants in a crowded suburban or metropolitan area. Seems like an obvious choice. Okay now thats pretty extreme. Switch the scene. A domestic violence call. One officer responds and the wife is bleeding and the male is on edge. With a physical altercation being a possibility wouldn't someone with high level of hand to hand combat skills be preferable to end that struggle quickly, should one arise? Lets switch the scene again. A protest is getting out of hand, police have a line and the protesters may get violent. Soldiers have been trained to deal with crowd control and their much more rigorous training would keep them much more level headed in a high stress situation like this. Just one more situation please, a local thing that happened recently. Two adolescents tried to steal beer from a store and the cops were called. An officer stopped them and a kid came at him with a skateboard. The kid was shot and killed causing public outrage . I'm just thinking, he was shot because the officer was protecting himself. But if the officer had been more confident is his ability to fight back without the use of lethal force this kid may have been saved. I don't want police militarization i just want people who are as highly trained as possible to protect the citizens of my country. Please debate this with me, I don't understand what stopping it aside from public backlash from police militarization<|TARGETS|>a miniature rant ., A domestic violence call, A protest, Military training, Please debate this with me I do n't understand what stopping it aside from public backlash from police militarization, the highest level of protection our own governing body should care more about the lives of its citizens than that of another country .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me start of with a miniature rant. Why is is that soldiers peace keeper with military training are sent overseas to police in other countries, while the actual police get barely half the training and they police our own citizens? It doesn't make sense, our people deserve the highest level of protection, our own governing body should care more about the lives of its citizens than that of another country. Now lets narrow the viewpoint. In the event of a mass shooting. Military training vs police training to take down armed assailants in a crowded suburban or metropolitan area. Seems like an obvious choice. Okay now thats pretty extreme. Switch the scene. A domestic violence call. One officer responds and the wife is bleeding and the male is on edge. With a physical altercation being a possibility wouldn't someone with high level of hand to hand combat skills be preferable to end that struggle quickly, should one arise? Lets switch the scene again. A protest is getting out of hand, police have a line and the protesters may get violent. Soldiers have been trained to deal with crowd control and their much more rigorous training would keep them much more level headed in a high stress situation like this. Just one more situation please, a local thing that happened recently. Two adolescents tried to steal beer from a store and the cops were called. An officer stopped them and a kid came at him with a skateboard. The kid was shot and killed causing public outrage . I'm just thinking, he was shot because the officer was protecting himself. But if the officer had been more confident is his ability to fight back without the use of lethal force this kid may have been saved. I don't want police militarization i just want people who are as highly trained as possible to protect the citizens of my country. Please debate this with me, I don't understand what stopping it aside from public backlash from police militarization<|ASPECTS|>protect, ability, lives, edge, fight back, public, steal beer, military, backlash, obvious choice, saved, extreme, mass shooting, lethal force, bleeding, public outrage, domestic violence call, peace keeper, combat skills, protest, narrow the viewpoint, scene, police militarization, struggle quickly, protection, armed assailants, wife, miniature, protesters, citizens, adolescents, violent, high stress, police, switch the scene, level headed, local, crowd control, protecting, physical altercation, cops<|CONCLUSION|>","Let me start of with a miniature rant. Why is is that soldiers peace keeper with military training are sent overseas to police in other countries, while the actual police get barely half the training and they police our own citizens? It doesn't make sense, our people deserve the highest level of protection, our own governing body should care more about the lives of its citizens than that of another country. Now lets narrow the viewpoint. In the event of a mass shooting. Military training vs police training to take down armed assailants in a crowded suburban or metropolitan area. Seems like an obvious choice. Okay now thats pretty extreme. Switch the scene. A domestic violence call. One officer responds and the wife is bleeding and the male is on edge. With a physical altercation being a possibility wouldn't someone with high level of hand to hand combat skills be preferable to end that struggle quickly, should one arise? Lets switch the scene again. A protest is getting out of hand, police have a line and the protesters may get violent. Soldiers have been trained to deal with crowd control and their much more rigorous training would keep them much more level headed in a high stress situation like this. Just one more situation please, a local thing that happened recently. Two adolescents tried to steal beer from a store and the cops were called. An officer stopped them and a kid came at him with a skateboard. The kid was shot and killed causing public outrage . I'm just thinking, he was shot because the officer was protecting himself. But if the officer had been more confident is his ability to fight back without the use of lethal force this kid may have been saved. I don't want police militarization i just want people who are as highly trained as possible to protect the citizens of my country. Please debate this with me, I don't understand what stopping it aside from public backlash from police militarization",Police should have military training
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was driving in the car with my girlfriend listening to NPR. Background she's Chinese American and very liberal, went to one of the most liberal colleges in the country. I'm of Italian English descent, and I'm more of a moderate independent. We had been dating for about 6 months with the occasional argument about institutional racism. We both live in the US. In the car, we heard a sound bite from Tom Brady. I have no negative feelings toward Mr Brady, but my girlfriend immediately said, Ugh, Tom Brady And I asked, What do you not like about Tom Brady? She scoffed and said, He's white. This immediately made me angry. I won't say I look like Tom Brady, but we have roughly the same color skin. I was shocked to hear my girlfriend of 6 months use Tom Brady's skin color as a mark against him, as if it's a totally normal and humorous thing to do. I asked my girlfriend in the car, somewhat angry but keeping it together, If Tom Brady were Black, and you said that you didn't like him because he was Black, wouldn't that be racist? She said this was a false equivalence. I heard that as, I accept a double standard for prejudice against whites and against non whites. Someone please convince me that it's not repugnant to say you dislike Tom Brady because he's white. Please convince me that I also need to accept what appears to me as a double standard for prejudices against people of certain skin colors. EDIT I followed up with her, and she explained to me that her negative feelings toward Mr Brady aren't due to his skin color, but really because of his alleged support of Trump and his criticism of Colin Kaepernick. I think the issue was just inexact and hasty speech, and we've resolved the issue. That said, I'm going to summarize the points on this thread that really stuck out to me as potential view changers. The fact that, in America, racism has different material effects on different groups of people due to a disproportionate distribution of power among those groups. The fact that, historically, white has referred to more than just skin color, and it has been used as an ideological tool of oppression. Thank you to everyone who engaged with me here. Maybe it wasn't the perfect post for this subreddit, but I really appreciate the time and effort you took to communicate with me. And sorry to all the clever one liners that got deleted by mods. I actually liked reading some of those. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was driving in the car with my girlfriend listening to NPR. Background she's Chinese American and very liberal, went to one of the most liberal colleges in the country. I'm of Italian English descent, and I'm more of a moderate independent. We had been dating for about 6 months with the occasional argument about institutional racism. We both live in the US. In the car, we heard a sound bite from Tom Brady. I have no negative feelings toward Mr Brady, but my girlfriend immediately said, Ugh, Tom Brady And I asked, What do you not like about Tom Brady? She scoffed and said, He's white. This immediately made me angry. I won't say I look like Tom Brady, but we have roughly the same color skin. I was shocked to hear my girlfriend of 6 months use Tom Brady's skin color as a mark against him, as if it's a totally normal and humorous thing to do. I asked my girlfriend in the car, somewhat angry but keeping it together, If Tom Brady were Black, and you said that you didn't like him because he was Black, wouldn't that be racist? She said this was a false equivalence. I heard that as, I accept a double standard for prejudice against whites and against non whites. Someone please convince me that it's not repugnant to say you dislike Tom Brady because he's white. Please convince me that I also need to accept what appears to me as a double standard for prejudices against people of certain skin colors. EDIT I followed up with her, and she explained to me that her negative feelings toward Mr Brady aren't due to his skin color, but really because of his alleged support of Trump and his criticism of Colin Kaepernick. I think the issue was just inexact and hasty speech, and we've resolved the issue. That said, I'm going to summarize the points on this thread that really stuck out to me as potential view changers. The fact that, in America, racism has different material effects on different groups of people due to a disproportionate distribution of power among those groups. The fact that, historically, white has referred to more than just skin color, and it has been used as an ideological tool of oppression. Thank you to everyone who engaged with me here. Maybe it wasn't the perfect post for this subreddit, but I really appreciate the time and effort you took to communicate with me. And sorry to all the clever one liners that got deleted by mods. I actually liked reading some of those. <|TARGETS|>his alleged support of Trump and his criticism of Colin Kaepernick, Tom Brady And I asked What do you not like about Tom Brady, a double standard for prejudice against whites and against non whites ., Thank you to everyone who engaged with me here ., that her negative feelings toward Mr Brady, to summarize the points on this thread that really stuck out to me as potential view changers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was driving in the car with my girlfriend listening to NPR. Background she's Chinese American and very liberal, went to one of the most liberal colleges in the country. I'm of Italian English descent, and I'm more of a moderate independent. We had been dating for about 6 months with the occasional argument about institutional racism. We both live in the US. In the car, we heard a sound bite from Tom Brady. I have no negative feelings toward Mr Brady, but my girlfriend immediately said, Ugh, Tom Brady And I asked, What do you not like about Tom Brady? She scoffed and said, He's white. This immediately made me angry. I won't say I look like Tom Brady, but we have roughly the same color skin. I was shocked to hear my girlfriend of 6 months use Tom Brady's skin color as a mark against him, as if it's a totally normal and humorous thing to do. I asked my girlfriend in the car, somewhat angry but keeping it together, If Tom Brady were Black, and you said that you didn't like him because he was Black, wouldn't that be racist? She said this was a false equivalence. I heard that as, I accept a double standard for prejudice against whites and against non whites. Someone please convince me that it's not repugnant to say you dislike Tom Brady because he's white. Please convince me that I also need to accept what appears to me as a double standard for prejudices against people of certain skin colors. EDIT I followed up with her, and she explained to me that her negative feelings toward Mr Brady aren't due to his skin color, but really because of his alleged support of Trump and his criticism of Colin Kaepernick. I think the issue was just inexact and hasty speech, and we've resolved the issue. That said, I'm going to summarize the points on this thread that really stuck out to me as potential view changers. The fact that, in America, racism has different material effects on different groups of people due to a disproportionate distribution of power among those groups. The fact that, historically, white has referred to more than just skin color, and it has been used as an ideological tool of oppression. Thank you to everyone who engaged with me here. Maybe it wasn't the perfect post for this subreddit, but I really appreciate the time and effort you took to communicate with me. And sorry to all the clever one liners that got deleted by mods. I actually liked reading some of those. <|ASPECTS|>, italian english, skin color, liberal colleges, non whites, liberal, clever one, sound bite, white, time and effort, prejudices, inexact, deleted, distribution of power, angry, liked, material effects, double standard, normal, potential, view changers, support, false equivalence, repugnant, humorous, colors, negative feelings, color skin, moderate independent, ideological tool of oppression, racist, resolved, prejudice against whites, racism, dislike, hasty speech, communicate, institutional racism<|CONCLUSION|>","I was driving in the car with my girlfriend listening to NPR. Background she's Chinese American and very liberal, went to one of the most liberal colleges in the country. I'm of Italian English descent, and I'm more of a moderate independent. We had been dating for about 6 months with the occasional argument about institutional racism. We both live in the US. In the car, we heard a sound bite from Tom Brady. I have no negative feelings toward Mr Brady, but my girlfriend immediately said, Ugh, Tom Brady And I asked, What do you not like about Tom Brady? She scoffed and said, He's white. This immediately made me angry. I won't say I look like Tom Brady, but we have roughly the same color skin. I was shocked to hear my girlfriend of 6 months use Tom Brady's skin color as a mark against him, as if it's a totally normal and humorous thing to do. I asked my girlfriend in the car, somewhat angry but keeping it together, If Tom Brady were Black, and you said that you didn't like him because he was Black, wouldn't that be racist? She said this was a false equivalence. I heard that as, I accept a double standard for prejudice against whites and against non whites. Someone please convince me that it's not repugnant to say you dislike Tom Brady because he's white. Please convince me that I also need to accept what appears to me as a double standard for prejudices against people of certain skin colors. EDIT I followed up with her, and she explained to me that her negative feelings toward Mr Brady aren't due to his skin color, but really because of his alleged support of Trump and his criticism of Colin Kaepernick. I think the issue was just inexact and hasty speech, and we've resolved the issue. That said, I'm going to summarize the points on this thread that really stuck out to me as potential view changers. The fact that, in America, racism has different material effects on different groups of people due to a disproportionate distribution of power among those groups. The fact that, historically, white has referred to more than just skin color, and it has been used as an ideological tool of oppression. Thank you to everyone who engaged with me here. Maybe it wasn't the perfect post for this subreddit, but I really appreciate the time and effort you took to communicate with me. And sorry to all the clever one liners that got deleted by mods. I actually liked reading some of those.","I believe that racial prejudice is repugnant, even if it's targeted toward a white person."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a huge fan of Star Wars. The movies and the EU so for the purposes of this discussion, I'd love to include the EU as well. But here's my thinking. Darth Vader is always seen as the ultimate badass. A tall powerful Sith lord with an awesome personal ship and his own Star Destroyer. He is the epitome of an intergalactic villain. However, I'd say that according to the traditional Sith myths including the Bane and post Bane era , he was the least influential and least Sith out of everyone. Every memorable Sith lord before him had some kind of ambition that lead them to where they were. Bane created the rule of 2 and started building a vast information money network for generations to come. He also restored a ton of old Sith lore and knowledge. Plagueis learned how to bring people back to life and used his power to manipulate Palpatine into Chancellorship. Sidious well, he created the Empire. Vader on the other hand is a manipulated victim of his circumstances and while he did strike fear into the hearts of the citizens of the Empire, he didn't contribute much as a Sith lord. He didn't expand the Sith rule, nor did he learn anything new, nor did he have any drive whatsoever to do anything. When Vader originally turned, it was partially because he wanted to have power like Plagueis to restore the newly dead and prolong life but he immediately dropped it after his beloved's death. We saw Vader try to overtake Emperor but with someone else's help. It's like he didn't crave the Sith Lord mantle, he just wanted to get rid of his maniacal master. We all know he's a skilled mechanic and pilot but he didn't do anything with that. Out of all the Sith, he could have restored the use of Force infused craftsmanship but he didn't. As a Sith pilot, he could have explored unknown reaches of the galaxy and expand the Empire's influence beyond known galactic space finding new hyper routes, enslaving nations, etc. but he didn't. So all in all, his contributions to the Sith were minor and he could hardly even be considered Sith.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a huge fan of Star Wars. The movies and the EU so for the purposes of this discussion, I'd love to include the EU as well. But here's my thinking. Darth Vader is always seen as the ultimate badass. A tall powerful Sith lord with an awesome personal ship and his own Star Destroyer. He is the epitome of an intergalactic villain. However, I'd say that according to the traditional Sith myths including the Bane and post Bane era , he was the least influential and least Sith out of everyone. Every memorable Sith lord before him had some kind of ambition that lead them to where they were. Bane created the rule of 2 and started building a vast information money network for generations to come. He also restored a ton of old Sith lore and knowledge. Plagueis learned how to bring people back to life and used his power to manipulate Palpatine into Chancellorship. Sidious well, he created the Empire. Vader on the other hand is a manipulated victim of his circumstances and while he did strike fear into the hearts of the citizens of the Empire, he didn't contribute much as a Sith lord. He didn't expand the Sith rule, nor did he learn anything new, nor did he have any drive whatsoever to do anything. When Vader originally turned, it was partially because he wanted to have power like Plagueis to restore the newly dead and prolong life but he immediately dropped it after his beloved's death. We saw Vader try to overtake Emperor but with someone else's help. It's like he didn't crave the Sith Lord mantle, he just wanted to get rid of his maniacal master. We all know he's a skilled mechanic and pilot but he didn't do anything with that. Out of all the Sith, he could have restored the use of Force infused craftsmanship but he didn't. As a Sith pilot, he could have explored unknown reaches of the galaxy and expand the Empire's influence beyond known galactic space finding new hyper routes, enslaving nations, etc. but he didn't. So all in all, his contributions to the Sith were minor and he could hardly even be considered Sith.<|TARGETS|>Darth Vader, The movies and the EU so for the purposes of this discussion, a manipulated victim of his circumstances and while he did strike fear into the hearts of the citizens of the Empire, Vader try to overtake Emperor but with someone else 's help ., expand the Sith rule, the Sith Lord mantle<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a huge fan of Star Wars. The movies and the EU so for the purposes of this discussion, I'd love to include the EU as well. But here's my thinking. Darth Vader is always seen as the ultimate badass. A tall powerful Sith lord with an awesome personal ship and his own Star Destroyer. He is the epitome of an intergalactic villain. However, I'd say that according to the traditional Sith myths including the Bane and post Bane era , he was the least influential and least Sith out of everyone. Every memorable Sith lord before him had some kind of ambition that lead them to where they were. Bane created the rule of 2 and started building a vast information money network for generations to come. He also restored a ton of old Sith lore and knowledge. Plagueis learned how to bring people back to life and used his power to manipulate Palpatine into Chancellorship. Sidious well, he created the Empire. Vader on the other hand is a manipulated victim of his circumstances and while he did strike fear into the hearts of the citizens of the Empire, he didn't contribute much as a Sith lord. He didn't expand the Sith rule, nor did he learn anything new, nor did he have any drive whatsoever to do anything. When Vader originally turned, it was partially because he wanted to have power like Plagueis to restore the newly dead and prolong life but he immediately dropped it after his beloved's death. We saw Vader try to overtake Emperor but with someone else's help. It's like he didn't crave the Sith Lord mantle, he just wanted to get rid of his maniacal master. We all know he's a skilled mechanic and pilot but he didn't do anything with that. Out of all the Sith, he could have restored the use of Force infused craftsmanship but he didn't. As a Sith pilot, he could have explored unknown reaches of the galaxy and expand the Empire's influence beyond known galactic space finding new hyper routes, enslaving nations, etc. but he didn't. So all in all, his contributions to the Sith were minor and he could hardly even be considered Sith.<|ASPECTS|>personal ship, information money network, minor, badass, restored, least sith, sith lord mantle, force infused craftsmanship, unknown reaches, empire, routes, fear, lore, enslaving nations, least, star wars, ultimate, overtake emperor, skilled mechanic and pilot, eu, sidious, fan, drive, sith, contributions, prolong life, manipulated victim, ambition, circumstances, learn, empire 's influence, power, intergalactic villain, bring people back to life, knowledge, influential, manipulate, old, sith rule, created, crave, maniacal master, restore the newly dead<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm a huge fan of Star Wars. The movies and the EU so for the purposes of this discussion, I'd love to include the EU as well. But here's my thinking. Darth Vader is always seen as the ultimate badass. A tall powerful Sith lord with an awesome personal ship and his own Star Destroyer. He is the epitome of an intergalactic villain. However, I'd say that according to the traditional Sith myths including the Bane and post Bane era , he was the least influential and least Sith out of everyone. Every memorable Sith lord before him had some kind of ambition that lead them to where they were. Bane created the rule of 2 and started building a vast information money network for generations to come. He also restored a ton of old Sith lore and knowledge. Plagueis learned how to bring people back to life and used his power to manipulate Palpatine into Chancellorship. Sidious well, he created the Empire. Vader on the other hand is a manipulated victim of his circumstances and while he did strike fear into the hearts of the citizens of the Empire, he didn't contribute much as a Sith lord. He didn't expand the Sith rule, nor did he learn anything new, nor did he have any drive whatsoever to do anything. When Vader originally turned, it was partially because he wanted to have power like Plagueis to restore the newly dead and prolong life but he immediately dropped it after his beloved's death. We saw Vader try to overtake Emperor but with someone else's help. It's like he didn't crave the Sith Lord mantle, he just wanted to get rid of his maniacal master. We all know he's a skilled mechanic and pilot but he didn't do anything with that. Out of all the Sith, he could have restored the use of Force infused craftsmanship but he didn't. As a Sith pilot, he could have explored unknown reaches of the galaxy and expand the Empire's influence beyond known galactic space finding new hyper routes, enslaving nations, etc. but he didn't. So all in all, his contributions to the Sith were minor and he could hardly even be considered Sith.",Darth Vader wasn't a good Sith lord whatsoever
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Since the discovery of telecommunications technology, humankind has had an interest in searching for intelligent life from other planets these attempts to find other thinking beings include SETI and disks on the Voyager spacecraft. However, I think it's unwise to alert potentially hostile civilizations, who are likely capable of superior space travel, of our presence until humanity itself is capable of reaching the stars, if only to flee the carnage of an invasion. One has to look no further than European explorers' treatment of New World residents to get a feel for what may be in store for a civilization at the hands of another with superior technology. EDIT Sorry I haven't been able to respond as much as I'd like there was a storm that took out the Internet where I live. I haven't abandoned the post. EDIT 2 I can see the merits of continuing some attempts at communication. However, I would still be concerned about the equivalent of a bored or cruel child who kicked over an anthill for no other reason than boredom cruelty. I'm not as worried about this now, though, given that if intelligent life is common, it would have an outlet nearby, and if life were uncommon, then it is likely to be too far away to justify that sort of action.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Since the discovery of telecommunications technology, humankind has had an interest in searching for intelligent life from other planets these attempts to find other thinking beings include SETI and disks on the Voyager spacecraft. However, I think it's unwise to alert potentially hostile civilizations, who are likely capable of superior space travel, of our presence until humanity itself is capable of reaching the stars, if only to flee the carnage of an invasion. One has to look no further than European explorers' treatment of New World residents to get a feel for what may be in store for a civilization at the hands of another with superior technology. EDIT Sorry I haven't been able to respond as much as I'd like there was a storm that took out the Internet where I live. I haven't abandoned the post. EDIT 2 I can see the merits of continuing some attempts at communication. However, I would still be concerned about the equivalent of a bored or cruel child who kicked over an anthill for no other reason than boredom cruelty. I'm not as worried about this now, though, given that if intelligent life is common, it would have an outlet nearby, and if life were uncommon, then it is likely to be too far away to justify that sort of action.<|TARGETS|>be concerned about the equivalent of a bored or cruel child who kicked over an anthill for no other reason than boredom cruelty ., the discovery of telecommunications technology, to respond as much as I 'd like there was a storm that took out the Internet where I live ., to alert potentially hostile civilizations who are likely capable of superior space travel of our presence until humanity itself<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Since the discovery of telecommunications technology, humankind has had an interest in searching for intelligent life from other planets these attempts to find other thinking beings include SETI and disks on the Voyager spacecraft. However, I think it's unwise to alert potentially hostile civilizations, who are likely capable of superior space travel, of our presence until humanity itself is capable of reaching the stars, if only to flee the carnage of an invasion. One has to look no further than European explorers' treatment of New World residents to get a feel for what may be in store for a civilization at the hands of another with superior technology. EDIT Sorry I haven't been able to respond as much as I'd like there was a storm that took out the Internet where I live. I haven't abandoned the post. EDIT 2 I can see the merits of continuing some attempts at communication. However, I would still be concerned about the equivalent of a bored or cruel child who kicked over an anthill for no other reason than boredom cruelty. I'm not as worried about this now, though, given that if intelligent life is common, it would have an outlet nearby, and if life were uncommon, then it is likely to be too far away to justify that sort of action.<|ASPECTS|>superior technology, abandoned the post, superior space travel, beings, storm, carnage, bored, respond, outlet, hostile civilizations, cruel child, boredom cruelty, communication, life, internet, intelligent life, attempts<|CONCLUSION|>","Since the discovery of telecommunications technology, humankind has had an interest in searching for intelligent life from other planets these attempts to find other thinking beings include SETI and disks on the Voyager spacecraft. However, I think it's unwise to alert potentially hostile civilizations, who are likely capable of superior space travel, of our presence until humanity itself is capable of reaching the stars, if only to flee the carnage of an invasion. One has to look no further than European explorers' treatment of New World residents to get a feel for what may be in store for a civilization at the hands of another with superior technology. EDIT Sorry I haven't been able to respond as much as I'd like there was a storm that took out the Internet where I live. I haven't abandoned the post. EDIT 2 I can see the merits of continuing some attempts at communication. However, I would still be concerned about the equivalent of a bored or cruel child who kicked over an anthill for no other reason than boredom cruelty. I'm not as worried about this now, though, given that if intelligent life is common, it would have an outlet nearby, and if life were uncommon, then it is likely to be too far away to justify that sort of action.",I think it's a terrible idea to attempt communications with extraterrestrials yet.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that the medical community AMA in the United States has discredited chiropractics for several decades now beginning with a political media campaign against the practice. Many people make the argument that it does carry benefits but only in the same sense as a massage, essentially equating it to quack treatment. The online dictionary produces the definition of medicine as the art or science of restoring or preserving health or due physical condition, as by means of drugs, surgical operations or appliances, or manipulations often divided into medicine proper, surgery, and obstetrics. So, given this definition and the context in which the AMA lobbies for its own interests, why should I consider chiropractics to be somehow unauthentic medicine or perhaps no different from deep massage?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that the medical community AMA in the United States has discredited chiropractics for several decades now beginning with a political media campaign against the practice. Many people make the argument that it does carry benefits but only in the same sense as a massage, essentially equating it to quack treatment. The online dictionary produces the definition of medicine as the art or science of restoring or preserving health or due physical condition, as by means of drugs, surgical operations or appliances, or manipulations often divided into medicine proper, surgery, and obstetrics. So, given this definition and the context in which the AMA lobbies for its own interests, why should I consider chiropractics to be somehow unauthentic medicine or perhaps no different from deep massage?<|TARGETS|>The online dictionary, the medical community AMA in the United States, the AMA lobbies for its own interests<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that the medical community AMA in the United States has discredited chiropractics for several decades now beginning with a political media campaign against the practice. Many people make the argument that it does carry benefits but only in the same sense as a massage, essentially equating it to quack treatment. The online dictionary produces the definition of medicine as the art or science of restoring or preserving health or due physical condition, as by means of drugs, surgical operations or appliances, or manipulations often divided into medicine proper, surgery, and obstetrics. So, given this definition and the context in which the AMA lobbies for its own interests, why should I consider chiropractics to be somehow unauthentic medicine or perhaps no different from deep massage?<|ASPECTS|>carry, preserving health, quack treatment, due, restoring, benefits, discredited chiropractics, physical condition, unauthentic medicine, political media<|CONCLUSION|>","I understand that the medical community AMA in the United States has discredited chiropractics for several decades now beginning with a political media campaign against the practice. Many people make the argument that it does carry benefits but only in the same sense as a massage, essentially equating it to quack treatment. The online dictionary produces the definition of medicine as the art or science of restoring or preserving health or due physical condition, as by means of drugs, surgical operations or appliances, or manipulations often divided into medicine proper, surgery, and obstetrics. So, given this definition and the context in which the AMA lobbies for its own interests, why should I consider chiropractics to be somehow unauthentic medicine or perhaps no different from deep massage?","I think that Chiropractic practice is a legitimate form of medicine,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I attend a University in a large ish city and thus there are often crimes that occur both off and very rarely on campus. Whenever a crime occurs an email is sent out to the student body with a description of the crime as well as a description of the suspect suspects. 99 of the crime reports sent out have the description for the suspect as either dark skinned or African American. To my knowledge the police have filed and sent out all the crime reports that have happened i.e. they don't only send out those with African American etc. . . in the description. They send out all of them regardless of race. Recently there has been an outcry on my campus for the police to avoid putting the description of the suspect in the crime reports to avoid promoting racism or racist attitudes stereotypes. My argument is that while I agree these reports are reinforcing stereotypes, that shouldn't be reason to avoid putting the suspects descriptions in the report. If it happened it happened. Race and skin color is a very big part of someone's physical description and I think that they should keep the description in there. Please help me see the other side to this because quite honestly it baffles me that some of my friends try to explain their reasoning. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I attend a University in a large ish city and thus there are often crimes that occur both off and very rarely on campus. Whenever a crime occurs an email is sent out to the student body with a description of the crime as well as a description of the suspect suspects. 99 of the crime reports sent out have the description for the suspect as either dark skinned or African American. To my knowledge the police have filed and sent out all the crime reports that have happened i.e. they don't only send out those with African American etc. . . in the description. They send out all of them regardless of race. Recently there has been an outcry on my campus for the police to avoid putting the description of the suspect in the crime reports to avoid promoting racism or racist attitudes stereotypes. My argument is that while I agree these reports are reinforcing stereotypes, that shouldn't be reason to avoid putting the suspects descriptions in the report. If it happened it happened. Race and skin color is a very big part of someone's physical description and I think that they should keep the description in there. Please help me see the other side to this because quite honestly it baffles me that some of my friends try to explain their reasoning. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>putting the description of the suspect in the crime reports to avoid promoting racism or racist attitudes stereotypes, Race and skin color, Please help me see the other side to this because quite honestly it baffles me that some of my friends try to explain their reasoning ., to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, to avoid putting the suspects descriptions in the report ., to remind you of a couple of things .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I attend a University in a large ish city and thus there are often crimes that occur both off and very rarely on campus. Whenever a crime occurs an email is sent out to the student body with a description of the crime as well as a description of the suspect suspects. 99 of the crime reports sent out have the description for the suspect as either dark skinned or African American. To my knowledge the police have filed and sent out all the crime reports that have happened i.e. they don't only send out those with African American etc. . . in the description. They send out all of them regardless of race. Recently there has been an outcry on my campus for the police to avoid putting the description of the suspect in the crime reports to avoid promoting racism or racist attitudes stereotypes. My argument is that while I agree these reports are reinforcing stereotypes, that shouldn't be reason to avoid putting the suspects descriptions in the report. If it happened it happened. Race and skin color is a very big part of someone's physical description and I think that they should keep the description in there. Please help me see the other side to this because quite honestly it baffles me that some of my friends try to explain their reasoning. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>racist attitudes, skin color, crime, stereotypes, crimes, remind, regardless, popular topics, physical description, african american, outcry, race, dark skinned, concerns, suspects descriptions, effective, downvotes, happy cmving, crime reports, explain, message us, change, downvote, reasoning, suspect suspects, questions, racism, description<|CONCLUSION|>","I attend a University in a large ish city and thus there are often crimes that occur both off and very rarely on campus. Whenever a crime occurs an email is sent out to the student body with a description of the crime as well as a description of the suspect suspects. 99 of the crime reports sent out have the description for the suspect as either dark skinned or African American. To my knowledge the police have filed and sent out all the crime reports that have happened i.e. they don't only send out those with African American etc. . . in the description. They send out all of them regardless of race. Recently there has been an outcry on my campus for the police to avoid putting the description of the suspect in the crime reports to avoid promoting racism or racist attitudes stereotypes. My argument is that while I agree these reports are reinforcing stereotypes, that shouldn't be reason to avoid putting the suspects descriptions in the report. If it happened it happened. Race and skin color is a very big part of someone's physical description and I think that they should keep the description in there. Please help me see the other side to this because quite honestly it baffles me that some of my friends try to explain their reasoning. gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing",Police Alert's on my campus considered racist
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My gf has gotten pretty into this current wave of true crime stuff. I love books like Helter Skelter , Onion Field , In Cold Blood , etc. I also have no problem with depictions of violence from The Shining to Silence of the Lambs , I can stomach it. I've also thought that the recent TV series on Michael Jackson and R. Kelly were pretty revelatory and important. So I thought I'd enjoy the Netflix doc Abducted in Plain Sight , but I found that I actually had to quit watching it after about half an hour. The works that I mentioned above, yes at times one could argue I was just hedonistically indulging my intellectual curiosity in the violent, dark side of humanity just in it for the thrills. But each and every one of those works and other similar ones that I like also offer more. To varying degrees, some reveal psychological traits and habits some reveal hard truths about pop culture and culture in general some dove into the topics of race relations, drug use and abuse, etc. Somehow, I felt that AIPS wasn't focused on that stuff, so much as it was just focused on holding up a gruesome story for us to rubberneck and squirm at. There are obviously lessons to be learned about trust, fidelity, etc., but a lot of the shit just didn't land or struck the wrong tone. Many of the family's mistakes were too baldly obvious to be teachable lessons for example, the mother waits 4 days before calling the phone when her daughter is missing. Sure one could argue this says something about misplaced priorities and concern for keeping up appearances, but again, it's just so obvious. This isn't the mothers tempted by fame and uncertain terms on a visit with superstar Michael Jackson, where we can imagine the conflicts and temptations. Same goes for the scenes where the parents both describe having affairs with the abductor. It feels like the story is told to get the viewer to shriek or even laugh at or judge the parents to say omg did you see this crazy abduction? more than to leave the viewer contemplating anything serious. Am I just being too harsh on this particular doc? Is it in fact more similar to the works I cited than I am arguing? Or is my view that they are essentially trying to make a popcorn flick out of a horrible abduction fair?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My gf has gotten pretty into this current wave of true crime stuff. I love books like Helter Skelter , Onion Field , In Cold Blood , etc. I also have no problem with depictions of violence from The Shining to Silence of the Lambs , I can stomach it. I've also thought that the recent TV series on Michael Jackson and R. Kelly were pretty revelatory and important. So I thought I'd enjoy the Netflix doc Abducted in Plain Sight , but I found that I actually had to quit watching it after about half an hour. The works that I mentioned above, yes at times one could argue I was just hedonistically indulging my intellectual curiosity in the violent, dark side of humanity just in it for the thrills. But each and every one of those works and other similar ones that I like also offer more. To varying degrees, some reveal psychological traits and habits some reveal hard truths about pop culture and culture in general some dove into the topics of race relations, drug use and abuse, etc. Somehow, I felt that AIPS wasn't focused on that stuff, so much as it was just focused on holding up a gruesome story for us to rubberneck and squirm at. There are obviously lessons to be learned about trust, fidelity, etc., but a lot of the shit just didn't land or struck the wrong tone. Many of the family's mistakes were too baldly obvious to be teachable lessons for example, the mother waits 4 days before calling the phone when her daughter is missing. Sure one could argue this says something about misplaced priorities and concern for keeping up appearances, but again, it's just so obvious. This isn't the mothers tempted by fame and uncertain terms on a visit with superstar Michael Jackson, where we can imagine the conflicts and temptations. Same goes for the scenes where the parents both describe having affairs with the abductor. It feels like the story is told to get the viewer to shriek or even laugh at or judge the parents to say omg did you see this crazy abduction? more than to leave the viewer contemplating anything serious. Am I just being too harsh on this particular doc? Is it in fact more similar to the works I cited than I am arguing? Or is my view that they are essentially trying to make a popcorn flick out of a horrible abduction fair?<|TARGETS|>Many of the family 's mistakes were too baldly obvious to be teachable lessons for example the mother, to quit watching it after about half an hour ., being too harsh on this particular doc, to be learned about trust fidelity etc. but a lot of the shit, To varying degrees some reveal psychological traits and habits some reveal hard truths about pop culture and culture, My gf<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My gf has gotten pretty into this current wave of true crime stuff. I love books like Helter Skelter , Onion Field , In Cold Blood , etc. I also have no problem with depictions of violence from The Shining to Silence of the Lambs , I can stomach it. I've also thought that the recent TV series on Michael Jackson and R. Kelly were pretty revelatory and important. So I thought I'd enjoy the Netflix doc Abducted in Plain Sight , but I found that I actually had to quit watching it after about half an hour. The works that I mentioned above, yes at times one could argue I was just hedonistically indulging my intellectual curiosity in the violent, dark side of humanity just in it for the thrills. But each and every one of those works and other similar ones that I like also offer more. To varying degrees, some reveal psychological traits and habits some reveal hard truths about pop culture and culture in general some dove into the topics of race relations, drug use and abuse, etc. Somehow, I felt that AIPS wasn't focused on that stuff, so much as it was just focused on holding up a gruesome story for us to rubberneck and squirm at. There are obviously lessons to be learned about trust, fidelity, etc., but a lot of the shit just didn't land or struck the wrong tone. Many of the family's mistakes were too baldly obvious to be teachable lessons for example, the mother waits 4 days before calling the phone when her daughter is missing. Sure one could argue this says something about misplaced priorities and concern for keeping up appearances, but again, it's just so obvious. This isn't the mothers tempted by fame and uncertain terms on a visit with superstar Michael Jackson, where we can imagine the conflicts and temptations. Same goes for the scenes where the parents both describe having affairs with the abductor. It feels like the story is told to get the viewer to shriek or even laugh at or judge the parents to say omg did you see this crazy abduction? more than to leave the viewer contemplating anything serious. Am I just being too harsh on this particular doc? Is it in fact more similar to the works I cited than I am arguing? Or is my view that they are essentially trying to make a popcorn flick out of a horrible abduction fair?<|ASPECTS|>keeping, dark side, viewer, race relations, drug use and abuse, contemplating, temptations, psychological traits, trust, serious, fidelity, mistakes, harsh, netflix doc, gruesome story, horrible abduction, obvious, mother, violence, family, important, shriek, quit, similar, depictions, revelatory, teachable lessons, conflicts, appearances, crazy abduction, laugh, misplaced priorities, affairs, humanity, violent, hard truths, judge, fame, uncertain terms, lessons, true crime, intellectual curiosity<|CONCLUSION|>","My gf has gotten pretty into this current wave of true crime stuff. I love books like Helter Skelter , Onion Field , In Cold Blood , etc. I also have no problem with depictions of violence from The Shining to Silence of the Lambs , I can stomach it. I've also thought that the recent TV series on Michael Jackson and R. Kelly were pretty revelatory and important. So I thought I'd enjoy the Netflix doc Abducted in Plain Sight , but I found that I actually had to quit watching it after about half an hour. The works that I mentioned above, yes at times one could argue I was just hedonistically indulging my intellectual curiosity in the violent, dark side of humanity just in it for the thrills. But each and every one of those works and other similar ones that I like also offer more. To varying degrees, some reveal psychological traits and habits some reveal hard truths about pop culture and culture in general some dove into the topics of race relations, drug use and abuse, etc. Somehow, I felt that AIPS wasn't focused on that stuff, so much as it was just focused on holding up a gruesome story for us to rubberneck and squirm at. There are obviously lessons to be learned about trust, fidelity, etc., but a lot of the shit just didn't land or struck the wrong tone. Many of the family's mistakes were too baldly obvious to be teachable lessons for example, the mother waits 4 days before calling the phone when her daughter is missing. Sure one could argue this says something about misplaced priorities and concern for keeping up appearances, but again, it's just so obvious. This isn't the mothers tempted by fame and uncertain terms on a visit with superstar Michael Jackson, where we can imagine the conflicts and temptations. Same goes for the scenes where the parents both describe having affairs with the abductor. It feels like the story is told to get the viewer to shriek or even laugh at or judge the parents to say omg did you see this crazy abduction? more than to leave the viewer contemplating anything serious. Am I just being too harsh on this particular doc? Is it in fact more similar to the works I cited than I am arguing? Or is my view that they are essentially trying to make a popcorn flick out of a horrible abduction fair?","""Abducted in Plain Sight"" Is Exploitative"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Objectively I believe there are no circumstances where anyone should feel a sense of pride or shame merely as a result of belonging to a particular racial group. In other words, one's race it carries no intrinsic value either negative or positive. Subjectively I further believe that if one actually does begin to take an intrinsic pride or shame in belonging to a particular racial group, this can only lead to bad results. If they take pride, it will almost always lead them to be exclusionary toward other people as a result of their race or even worse becoming outright hostile toward other races i.e. it will lead to racism. In they take shame, it will likely lead to them thinking less of themselves as a human being without any ways of alleviating this shame because race is an immutable characteristic . This will likely lead to depression of existential dread. How You Would CMV explain to me how there is objective value in being of a particular race or explain to me how one could achieve a positive subjective benefit from being proud or shamed by their race. How You Won't CMV arguing to me about how taking pride shame in your own race is a means of combating past or present racial injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Objectively I believe there are no circumstances where anyone should feel a sense of pride or shame merely as a result of belonging to a particular racial group. In other words, one's race it carries no intrinsic value either negative or positive. Subjectively I further believe that if one actually does begin to take an intrinsic pride or shame in belonging to a particular racial group, this can only lead to bad results. If they take pride, it will almost always lead them to be exclusionary toward other people as a result of their race or even worse becoming outright hostile toward other races i.e. it will lead to racism. In they take shame, it will likely lead to them thinking less of themselves as a human being without any ways of alleviating this shame because race is an immutable characteristic . This will likely lead to depression of existential dread. How You Would CMV explain to me how there is objective value in being of a particular race or explain to me how one could achieve a positive subjective benefit from being proud or shamed by their race. How You Won't CMV arguing to me about how taking pride shame in your own race is a means of combating past or present racial injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right.<|TARGETS|>further believe that if one actually does begin to take an intrinsic pride or shame in belonging to a particular racial group, to be exclusionary toward other people as a result of their race or even worse becoming outright hostile toward other races i.e ., If they take pride, no circumstances where anyone should feel a sense of pride or shame merely as a result of belonging to a particular racial group ., any ways of alleviating this shame because race<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Objectively I believe there are no circumstances where anyone should feel a sense of pride or shame merely as a result of belonging to a particular racial group. In other words, one's race it carries no intrinsic value either negative or positive. Subjectively I further believe that if one actually does begin to take an intrinsic pride or shame in belonging to a particular racial group, this can only lead to bad results. If they take pride, it will almost always lead them to be exclusionary toward other people as a result of their race or even worse becoming outright hostile toward other races i.e. it will lead to racism. In they take shame, it will likely lead to them thinking less of themselves as a human being without any ways of alleviating this shame because race is an immutable characteristic . This will likely lead to depression of existential dread. How You Would CMV explain to me how there is objective value in being of a particular race or explain to me how one could achieve a positive subjective benefit from being proud or shamed by their race. How You Won't CMV arguing to me about how taking pride shame in your own race is a means of combating past or present racial injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right.<|ASPECTS|>depression, exclusionary toward, proud, shame, positive subjective, pride shame, intrinsic, racial injustice, outright, hostile toward, objective value, wrongs, thinking less, racism, pride, race, immutable characteristic, right, bad results, existential dread, intrinsic value<|CONCLUSION|>","Objectively I believe there are no circumstances where anyone should feel a sense of pride or shame merely as a result of belonging to a particular racial group. In other words, one's race it carries no intrinsic value either negative or positive. Subjectively I further believe that if one actually does begin to take an intrinsic pride or shame in belonging to a particular racial group, this can only lead to bad results. If they take pride, it will almost always lead them to be exclusionary toward other people as a result of their race or even worse becoming outright hostile toward other races i.e. it will lead to racism. In they take shame, it will likely lead to them thinking less of themselves as a human being without any ways of alleviating this shame because race is an immutable characteristic . This will likely lead to depression of existential dread. How You Would  explain to me how there is objective value in being of a particular race or explain to me how one could achieve a positive subjective benefit from being proud or shamed by their race. How You Won't  arguing to me about how taking pride shame in your own race is a means of combating past or present racial injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right.",There is No Justification for Being Either Proud or Ashamed of Belonging to a Particular Race
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In light of reports coming out that the USSC is having internal disfunction as a result of Gorsuch, I think we fundamentally need to change how we select Supreme Court justices in order to save the institution. The current problem is that the court is hopelessly politicized. I am really liberal, but I don't actually think this is anyone's fault. The court is staggeringly important and is by its nature a political institution, and therefore it was rational for the GOP to do what they did with Gorsuch and Garland. While I hate it substantively, I don't really blame the GOP for what they did their. It was basic game theory. But it can't sustain A court which is packed by one side or another for purely abd blatantly political reasons will lose legitimacy. And that's bad for everyone. My fix is simple we need to pass a law which says that a USSC justice needs to be i recommended by a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee and ii approved by 2 3 or 3 4 of the Senate to be appointed. Essentially, you need a mechanism whereby people cannot just ram political choices down. If everyone knows that its basically impossible to elect a judge without broad consensus, then people will work within those boundaries and pick mutually acceptable choices. There is a constitutional issue with the judiciary committee point, I grant. So we might not be able to enforce that. But I think the Senate could impose an internal rule that it won't vote on any appointee that doesn't have unanimous judiciary committee approval. I think?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In light of reports coming out that the USSC is having internal disfunction as a result of Gorsuch, I think we fundamentally need to change how we select Supreme Court justices in order to save the institution. The current problem is that the court is hopelessly politicized. I am really liberal, but I don't actually think this is anyone's fault. The court is staggeringly important and is by its nature a political institution, and therefore it was rational for the GOP to do what they did with Gorsuch and Garland. While I hate it substantively, I don't really blame the GOP for what they did their. It was basic game theory. But it can't sustain A court which is packed by one side or another for purely abd blatantly political reasons will lose legitimacy. And that's bad for everyone. My fix is simple we need to pass a law which says that a USSC justice needs to be i recommended by a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee and ii approved by 2 3 or 3 4 of the Senate to be appointed. Essentially, you need a mechanism whereby people cannot just ram political choices down. If everyone knows that its basically impossible to elect a judge without broad consensus, then people will work within those boundaries and pick mutually acceptable choices. There is a constitutional issue with the judiciary committee point, I grant. So we might not be able to enforce that. But I think the Senate could impose an internal rule that it won't vote on any appointee that doesn't have unanimous judiciary committee approval. I think?<|TARGETS|>the GOP for what they did their ., The court, A court which is packed by one side or another for purely abd blatantly political reasons, the GOP to do what they did with Gorsuch and Garland ., to change how we select Supreme Court justices in order to save the institution ., Gorsuch<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In light of reports coming out that the USSC is having internal disfunction as a result of Gorsuch, I think we fundamentally need to change how we select Supreme Court justices in order to save the institution. The current problem is that the court is hopelessly politicized. I am really liberal, but I don't actually think this is anyone's fault. The court is staggeringly important and is by its nature a political institution, and therefore it was rational for the GOP to do what they did with Gorsuch and Garland. While I hate it substantively, I don't really blame the GOP for what they did their. It was basic game theory. But it can't sustain A court which is packed by one side or another for purely abd blatantly political reasons will lose legitimacy. And that's bad for everyone. My fix is simple we need to pass a law which says that a USSC justice needs to be i recommended by a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee and ii approved by 2 3 or 3 4 of the Senate to be appointed. Essentially, you need a mechanism whereby people cannot just ram political choices down. If everyone knows that its basically impossible to elect a judge without broad consensus, then people will work within those boundaries and pick mutually acceptable choices. There is a constitutional issue with the judiciary committee point, I grant. So we might not be able to enforce that. But I think the Senate could impose an internal rule that it won't vote on any appointee that doesn't have unanimous judiciary committee approval. I think?<|ASPECTS|>political choices, internal rule, game theory, liberal, mutually acceptable choices, unanimous, hopelessly, blame, broad consensus, internal disfunction, legitimacy, ram, fault, rational, constitutional issue, enforce, important, 's, bad for everyone, justice, politicized, political institution, political, basic, lose<|CONCLUSION|>","In light of reports coming out that the USSC is having internal disfunction as a result of Gorsuch, I think we fundamentally need to change how we select Supreme Court justices in order to save the institution. The current problem is that the court is hopelessly politicized. I am really liberal, but I don't actually think this is anyone's fault. The court is staggeringly important and is by its nature a political institution, and therefore it was rational for the GOP to do what they did with Gorsuch and Garland. While I hate it substantively, I don't really blame the GOP for what they did their. It was basic game theory. But it can't sustain A court which is packed by one side or another for purely abd blatantly political reasons will lose legitimacy. And that's bad for everyone. My fix is simple we need to pass a law which says that a USSC justice needs to be i recommended by a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee and ii approved by 2 3 or 3 4 of the Senate to be appointed. Essentially, you need a mechanism whereby people cannot just ram political choices down. If everyone knows that its basically impossible to elect a judge without broad consensus, then people will work within those boundaries and pick mutually acceptable choices. There is a constitutional issue with the judiciary committee point, I grant. So we might not be able to enforce that. But I think the Senate could impose an internal rule that it won't vote on any appointee that doesn't have unanimous judiciary committee approval. I think?",We need to change how we appoint Supreme Court justices in order to save the institution by requiring much higher thresholds for approval.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am in a loving, long term relationship with my girlfriend. She does not ask me to change myself or try to be something different, but is nevertheless hurt by some of the things that I do, and how those things reflect on a disconnect between our respective values. Moreover, she does not want me to just change my behavior for her sake as I have offered to do , but truly wants me to see things the way she does. This disconnect on specific issues is the primary issue in our relationship, and we have gone through cycles of frustrating discussions interspersed with long periods of avoiding the topic. First, she sees viewing porn as a form of infidelity. I would agree with her if I were in any way interacting with the subjects I view. I never watch camgirls or comment on gonewild posts. I don't even have porn stars that I know by name. I just use porn as a helpful tool to be able to relieve that desire when it arises and I am alone. I know that I can masturbate without porn, but it takes much longer and is more difficult, and I don't always have the time and mindset to do so. And frankly, I don't have the motivation to do so if I don't think that watching porn is wrong in the first place. Again, I have offered to and have for periods of time actually change d my behavior for her sake, but the mindset is key. Second, she thinks that having significant personal discussions with other girls that I don't know well is inappropriate. She is fine with me talking to my good female friends, but problems arise when I make a serious comment to any other girl. I have gone through a lot of personal change in the past 5 6 years, and part of that change has been to make myself more open and honest. I have reached a point where I truly have nothing to hide I would answer most any question about myself to a stranger. I have also always been very observant, as well as a good listener, and so people have come to me seeking advice throughout my life. People tell me things they don't tell anyone else. I love that I can sit down next to someone I've never met before and talk about literally anything. I love that I can make a connection with someone in a very short span of time. This ability has led to good friends and good stories. I know that words and actions can be misinterpreted, but since I am observant I think that I am very good at picking up when a girl might be developing an interest. Regardless, I make sure to always freely mention that I am in a relationship, and to carefully avoid physical contact in almost all forms. Finally, let me reiterate that she is not asking me to change. She is an incredibly loving and dedicated girlfriend who has been personally hurt and frustrated by these issues she has tried and continues to try to change her own views so that we can get past this. I continue to try to adjust my behavior, but I fear that these issues won't go away unless I can really change my view. I think for the most part very rationally, I have an overactive guilt complex about causing pain for others, and hope that someone here can help me to honestly see things her way.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am in a loving, long term relationship with my girlfriend. She does not ask me to change myself or try to be something different, but is nevertheless hurt by some of the things that I do, and how those things reflect on a disconnect between our respective values. Moreover, she does not want me to just change my behavior for her sake as I have offered to do , but truly wants me to see things the way she does. This disconnect on specific issues is the primary issue in our relationship, and we have gone through cycles of frustrating discussions interspersed with long periods of avoiding the topic. First, she sees viewing porn as a form of infidelity. I would agree with her if I were in any way interacting with the subjects I view. I never watch camgirls or comment on gonewild posts. I don't even have porn stars that I know by name. I just use porn as a helpful tool to be able to relieve that desire when it arises and I am alone. I know that I can masturbate without porn, but it takes much longer and is more difficult, and I don't always have the time and mindset to do so. And frankly, I don't have the motivation to do so if I don't think that watching porn is wrong in the first place. Again, I have offered to and have for periods of time actually change d my behavior for her sake, but the mindset is key. Second, she thinks that having significant personal discussions with other girls that I don't know well is inappropriate. She is fine with me talking to my good female friends, but problems arise when I make a serious comment to any other girl. I have gone through a lot of personal change in the past 5 6 years, and part of that change has been to make myself more open and honest. I have reached a point where I truly have nothing to hide I would answer most any question about myself to a stranger. I have also always been very observant, as well as a good listener, and so people have come to me seeking advice throughout my life. People tell me things they don't tell anyone else. I love that I can sit down next to someone I've never met before and talk about literally anything. I love that I can make a connection with someone in a very short span of time. This ability has led to good friends and good stories. I know that words and actions can be misinterpreted, but since I am observant I think that I am very good at picking up when a girl might be developing an interest. Regardless, I make sure to always freely mention that I am in a relationship, and to carefully avoid physical contact in almost all forms. Finally, let me reiterate that she is not asking me to change. She is an incredibly loving and dedicated girlfriend who has been personally hurt and frustrated by these issues she has tried and continues to try to change her own views so that we can get past this. I continue to try to adjust my behavior, but I fear that these issues won't go away unless I can really change my view. I think for the most part very rationally, I have an overactive guilt complex about causing pain for others, and hope that someone here can help me to honestly see things her way.<|TARGETS|>the motivation to do so if I do n't think that watching porn, to hide I would answer most any question about myself to a stranger ., to try to change her own views so that we can get past this ., to just change my behavior for her sake as I have offered to do but truly wants me to see things the way she does ., to try to adjust my behavior but I fear that these issues wo n't go away unless I can really change my view ., to change myself or try to be something different but is nevertheless hurt by some of the things that I do and how those things reflect on a disconnect between our respective values .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am in a loving, long term relationship with my girlfriend. She does not ask me to change myself or try to be something different, but is nevertheless hurt by some of the things that I do, and how those things reflect on a disconnect between our respective values. Moreover, she does not want me to just change my behavior for her sake as I have offered to do , but truly wants me to see things the way she does. This disconnect on specific issues is the primary issue in our relationship, and we have gone through cycles of frustrating discussions interspersed with long periods of avoiding the topic. First, she sees viewing porn as a form of infidelity. I would agree with her if I were in any way interacting with the subjects I view. I never watch camgirls or comment on gonewild posts. I don't even have porn stars that I know by name. I just use porn as a helpful tool to be able to relieve that desire when it arises and I am alone. I know that I can masturbate without porn, but it takes much longer and is more difficult, and I don't always have the time and mindset to do so. And frankly, I don't have the motivation to do so if I don't think that watching porn is wrong in the first place. Again, I have offered to and have for periods of time actually change d my behavior for her sake, but the mindset is key. Second, she thinks that having significant personal discussions with other girls that I don't know well is inappropriate. She is fine with me talking to my good female friends, but problems arise when I make a serious comment to any other girl. I have gone through a lot of personal change in the past 5 6 years, and part of that change has been to make myself more open and honest. I have reached a point where I truly have nothing to hide I would answer most any question about myself to a stranger. I have also always been very observant, as well as a good listener, and so people have come to me seeking advice throughout my life. People tell me things they don't tell anyone else. I love that I can sit down next to someone I've never met before and talk about literally anything. I love that I can make a connection with someone in a very short span of time. This ability has led to good friends and good stories. I know that words and actions can be misinterpreted, but since I am observant I think that I am very good at picking up when a girl might be developing an interest. Regardless, I make sure to always freely mention that I am in a relationship, and to carefully avoid physical contact in almost all forms. Finally, let me reiterate that she is not asking me to change. She is an incredibly loving and dedicated girlfriend who has been personally hurt and frustrated by these issues she has tried and continues to try to change her own views so that we can get past this. I continue to try to adjust my behavior, but I fear that these issues won't go away unless I can really change my view. I think for the most part very rationally, I have an overactive guilt complex about causing pain for others, and hope that someone here can help me to honestly see things her way.<|ASPECTS|>relationship, good listener, short, wrong, posts, pain, overactive guilt complex, actions, dedicated, good stories, interacting, talk, problems, advice, masturbate, connection with someone, interest, personally hurt and frustrated, personal change, avoiding, topic, porn stars, female, relieve, infidelity, mindset, specific issues, inappropriate, causing, adjust my behavior, motivation, desire, time and mindset, open and honest, literally anything, comment, misinterpreted, hurt, disconnect, behavior, change my view, issues, loving, avoid physical contact, difficult, observant, values, takes, change, see things, nothing to hide, frustrating discussions, change my behavior, personal discussions, long, good friends, helpful tool, longer<|CONCLUSION|>","I am in a loving, long term relationship with my girlfriend. She does not ask me to change myself or try to be something different, but is nevertheless hurt by some of the things that I do, and how those things reflect on a disconnect between our respective values. Moreover, she does not want me to just change my behavior for her sake as I have offered to do , but truly wants me to see things the way she does. This disconnect on specific issues is the primary issue in our relationship, and we have gone through cycles of frustrating discussions interspersed with long periods of avoiding the topic. First, she sees viewing porn as a form of infidelity. I would agree with her if I were in any way interacting with the subjects I view. I never watch camgirls or comment on gonewild posts. I don't even have porn stars that I know by name. I just use porn as a helpful tool to be able to relieve that desire when it arises and I am alone. I know that I can masturbate without porn, but it takes much longer and is more difficult, and I don't always have the time and mindset to do so. And frankly, I don't have the motivation to do so if I don't think that watching porn is wrong in the first place. Again, I have offered to and have for periods of time actually change d my behavior for her sake, but the mindset is key. Second, she thinks that having significant personal discussions with other girls that I don't know well is inappropriate. She is fine with me talking to my good female friends, but problems arise when I make a serious comment to any other girl. I have gone through a lot of personal change in the past 5 6 years, and part of that change has been to make myself more open and honest. I have reached a point where I truly have nothing to hide I would answer most any question about myself to a stranger. I have also always been very observant, as well as a good listener, and so people have come to me seeking advice throughout my life. People tell me things they don't tell anyone else. I love that I can sit down next to someone I've never met before and talk about literally anything. I love that I can make a connection with someone in a very short span of time. This ability has led to good friends and good stories. I know that words and actions can be misinterpreted, but since I am observant I think that I am very good at picking up when a girl might be developing an interest. Regardless, I make sure to always freely mention that I am in a relationship, and to carefully avoid physical contact in almost all forms. Finally, let me reiterate that she is not asking me to change. She is an incredibly loving and dedicated girlfriend who has been personally hurt and frustrated by these issues she has tried and continues to try to change her own views so that we can get past this. I continue to try to adjust my behavior, but I fear that these issues won't go away unless I can really change my view. I think for the most part very rationally, I have an overactive guilt complex about causing pain for others, and hope that someone here can help me to honestly see things her way.","I believe that viewing porn does not represent infidelity, and that having personal conversations with relative strangers of the opposite sex is not inappropriate."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me preface by saying that the point of my my argument is not to say that there is no God. My argument is that some of the most common and basic traits of God logically cannot coexist. So, what are the characteristic are we using? God is The creator of our universe and possibly others Omnipotent Omniscient Omnibenevolent NOTE This is not to say that everyone defines God this way, but these are certainly very common characteristics to God Now let's get in to the basis for my argument. We first need to define the two terms I believe are contradictory omnipotent and omniscient Both the Oxford Merriam Webster dictionaries define omnipotence as having unlimited power . If God is omnipotent then he has no limits to what he she it can do. Omniscient is define by Oxford and Merriam Webster as knowing everything and having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight respectively. As an omniscient being God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen. I don't think that either of these definitions and implications are highly disputed. If we take both of these to be true, however, a problem arises. God's omnipotence is limited by his own omniscience. This seems an ambitious claim, but consider the following scenario. God knows that in exactly thirty minutes he will raise his right hand. Because he is omniscient, he knows for certain that his right hand will be raise. This is a problem because it now means that God is limited to doing that specific action at that specific time. He is not able to to raise his left hand rather than his right because that would contradict his own knowledge that he would in fact raise his right hand. Similarly, every action he takes has already been seen by God. He cannot choose to deviate from any action that he has already foreseen. Thus every single one of his actions limited by is omniscience. If omnipotence is having unlimited power then God simply cannot be if he is truly omniscient. Again, the purpose of this CMV is not about the existence of God in general, but the existence of a God with the aforementioned characteristics. Tl dr God can't do anything he doesn't already know he's going to do<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me preface by saying that the point of my my argument is not to say that there is no God. My argument is that some of the most common and basic traits of God logically cannot coexist. So, what are the characteristic are we using? God is The creator of our universe and possibly others Omnipotent Omniscient Omnibenevolent NOTE This is not to say that everyone defines God this way, but these are certainly very common characteristics to God Now let's get in to the basis for my argument. We first need to define the two terms I believe are contradictory omnipotent and omniscient Both the Oxford Merriam Webster dictionaries define omnipotence as having unlimited power . If God is omnipotent then he has no limits to what he she it can do. Omniscient is define by Oxford and Merriam Webster as knowing everything and having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight respectively. As an omniscient being God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen. I don't think that either of these definitions and implications are highly disputed. If we take both of these to be true, however, a problem arises. God's omnipotence is limited by his own omniscience. This seems an ambitious claim, but consider the following scenario. God knows that in exactly thirty minutes he will raise his right hand. Because he is omniscient, he knows for certain that his right hand will be raise. This is a problem because it now means that God is limited to doing that specific action at that specific time. He is not able to to raise his left hand rather than his right because that would contradict his own knowledge that he would in fact raise his right hand. Similarly, every action he takes has already been seen by God. He cannot choose to deviate from any action that he has already foreseen. Thus every single one of his actions limited by is omniscience. If omnipotence is having unlimited power then God simply cannot be if he is truly omniscient. Again, the purpose of this CMV is not about the existence of God in general, but the existence of a God with the aforementioned characteristics. Tl dr God can't do anything he doesn't already know he's going to do<|TARGETS|>If omnipotence is having unlimited power then God, Now let 's get in to the basis for my argument ., As an omniscient being God knows everything that has happened, that either of these definitions and implications, anything he does n't already know he 's going to do, Omniscient<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me preface by saying that the point of my my argument is not to say that there is no God. My argument is that some of the most common and basic traits of God logically cannot coexist. So, what are the characteristic are we using? God is The creator of our universe and possibly others Omnipotent Omniscient Omnibenevolent NOTE This is not to say that everyone defines God this way, but these are certainly very common characteristics to God Now let's get in to the basis for my argument. We first need to define the two terms I believe are contradictory omnipotent and omniscient Both the Oxford Merriam Webster dictionaries define omnipotence as having unlimited power . If God is omnipotent then he has no limits to what he she it can do. Omniscient is define by Oxford and Merriam Webster as knowing everything and having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight respectively. As an omniscient being God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen. I don't think that either of these definitions and implications are highly disputed. If we take both of these to be true, however, a problem arises. God's omnipotence is limited by his own omniscience. This seems an ambitious claim, but consider the following scenario. God knows that in exactly thirty minutes he will raise his right hand. Because he is omniscient, he knows for certain that his right hand will be raise. This is a problem because it now means that God is limited to doing that specific action at that specific time. He is not able to to raise his left hand rather than his right because that would contradict his own knowledge that he would in fact raise his right hand. Similarly, every action he takes has already been seen by God. He cannot choose to deviate from any action that he has already foreseen. Thus every single one of his actions limited by is omniscience. If omnipotence is having unlimited power then God simply cannot be if he is truly omniscient. Again, the purpose of this CMV is not about the existence of God in general, but the existence of a God with the aforementioned characteristics. Tl dr God can't do anything he doesn't already know he's going to do<|ASPECTS|>omniscient, hand, contradict, god, insight, deviate, unlimited power, existence, implications, knowing everything, god is limited, choose, raise, god knows, definitions, limited, understanding, infinite, disputed, ambitious, god 's omnipotence, action, problem, characteristic, omnipotent, omniscience, awareness, basic traits, seen, limits, characteristics<|CONCLUSION|>","Let me preface by saying that the point of my my argument is not to say that there is no God. My argument is that some of the most common and basic traits of God logically cannot coexist. So, what are the characteristic are we using? God is The creator of our universe and possibly others Omnipotent Omniscient Omnibenevolent NOTE This is not to say that everyone defines God this way, but these are certainly very common characteristics to God Now let's get in to the basis for my argument. We first need to define the two terms I believe are contradictory omnipotent and omniscient Both the Oxford Merriam Webster dictionaries define omnipotence as having unlimited power . If God is omnipotent then he has no limits to what he she it can do. Omniscient is define by Oxford and Merriam Webster as knowing everything and having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight respectively. As an omniscient being God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen. I don't think that either of these definitions and implications are highly disputed. If we take both of these to be true, however, a problem arises. God's omnipotence is limited by his own omniscience. This seems an ambitious claim, but consider the following scenario. God knows that in exactly thirty minutes he will raise his right hand. Because he is omniscient, he knows for certain that his right hand will be raise. This is a problem because it now means that God is limited to doing that specific action at that specific time. He is not able to to raise his left hand rather than his right because that would contradict his own knowledge that he would in fact raise his right hand. Similarly, every action he takes has already been seen by God. He cannot choose to deviate from any action that he has already foreseen. Thus every single one of his actions limited by is omniscience. If omnipotence is having unlimited power then God simply cannot be if he is truly omniscient. Again, the purpose of this  is not about the existence of God in general, but the existence of a God with the aforementioned characteristics. Tl dr God can't do anything he doesn't already know he's going to do","God, as he is commonly described, logically cannot exist"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here my fundamental belief Gentrification is only a problem because people that are in the neighborhood already feel that their tribes area has been compromised. Gentrification is a natural cycle. Neighborhoods have low property value, people see an opportunity to invest, it attracts higher class people, and the area gets better. Seems logical to me. There aren’t any laws that are making this happen. It just makes sense. The only reason this is an issue is because people in these neighborhoods don’t want people of different cultures or ethnicities in the neighborhood that was for the most part homogeneous before. They used to be able to look around and see everyone was like them, and now outsiders are coming in and they don’t like it. However, at one point we considered this sentiment to be deplorable, but now this tribalism is being disguised with the label of “gentrification”. So, my view is anger of gentrification is a form of tribalism. CMV. Edit ok so after reading a lot of replies I think a better title for my post would’ve been “Anger at gentrifiers is a form of tribalism”. The anger I am talking about is toward the gentrifiers themselves.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here my fundamental belief Gentrification is only a problem because people that are in the neighborhood already feel that their tribes area has been compromised. Gentrification is a natural cycle. Neighborhoods have low property value, people see an opportunity to invest, it attracts higher class people, and the area gets better. Seems logical to me. There aren’t any laws that are making this happen. It just makes sense. The only reason this is an issue is because people in these neighborhoods don’t want people of different cultures or ethnicities in the neighborhood that was for the most part homogeneous before. They used to be able to look around and see everyone was like them, and now outsiders are coming in and they don’t like it. However, at one point we considered this sentiment to be deplorable, but now this tribalism is being disguised with the label of “gentrification”. So, my view is anger of gentrification is a form of tribalism. CMV. Edit ok so after reading a lot of replies I think a better title for my post would’ve been “Anger at gentrifiers is a form of tribalism”. The anger I am talking about is toward the gentrifiers themselves.<|TARGETS|>to be able to look around and see everyone was like them and now outsiders are coming in and they do n’t like it ., Gentrification, Here my fundamental belief Gentrification, a better title for my post would ’ve been “ Anger at gentrifiers, want people of different cultures or ethnicities in the neighborhood<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here my fundamental belief Gentrification is only a problem because people that are in the neighborhood already feel that their tribes area has been compromised. Gentrification is a natural cycle. Neighborhoods have low property value, people see an opportunity to invest, it attracts higher class people, and the area gets better. Seems logical to me. There aren’t any laws that are making this happen. It just makes sense. The only reason this is an issue is because people in these neighborhoods don’t want people of different cultures or ethnicities in the neighborhood that was for the most part homogeneous before. They used to be able to look around and see everyone was like them, and now outsiders are coming in and they don’t like it. However, at one point we considered this sentiment to be deplorable, but now this tribalism is being disguised with the label of “gentrification”. So, my view is anger of gentrification is a form of tribalism. CMV. Edit ok so after reading a lot of replies I think a better title for my post would’ve been “Anger at gentrifiers is a form of tribalism”. The anger I am talking about is toward the gentrifiers themselves.<|ASPECTS|>higher class people, around, opportunity to invest, anger at gentrifiers, anger, ethnicities, tribes area, outsiders, gentrifiers, natural cycle, compromised, logical, deplorable, gentrification, low property value, see everyone, laws, homogeneous, cultures, attracts, different, tribalism<|CONCLUSION|>","Here my fundamental belief Gentrification is only a problem because people that are in the neighborhood already feel that their tribes area has been compromised. Gentrification is a natural cycle. Neighborhoods have low property value, people see an opportunity to invest, it attracts higher class people, and the area gets better. Seems logical to me. There aren’t any laws that are making this happen. It just makes sense. The only reason this is an issue is because people in these neighborhoods don’t want people of different cultures or ethnicities in the neighborhood that was for the most part homogeneous before. They used to be able to look around and see everyone was like them, and now outsiders are coming in and they don’t like it. However, at one point we considered this sentiment to be deplorable, but now this tribalism is being disguised with the label of “gentrification”. So, my view is anger of gentrification is a form of tribalism. . Edit ok so after reading a lot of replies I think a better title for my post would’ve been “Anger at gentrifiers is a form of tribalism”. The anger I am talking about is toward the gentrifiers themselves.",Anger because of gentrification is a form of tribalism
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Of course I realize that the odds of winning the lottery are low and that one should not pin their future on a lottery win. I note I am in Canada, at one time the lottery draw was shown on television supposedly live with balls falling from machines much like in a BINGO hall now we just see the winning numbers posted online or at our local lottery retailer after the fact. I have come to think that perhaps those in power have some control over who wins and thusly who does not. My reason for thinking so is vast but it boils down to the fact that very few lottery winners do anything grand for the general population and mostly just keep the money to themselves. I mean if I won 12 million example random number I would keep some but would give some away to help strangers but you never hear of people doing this so it must be that only certain people, those who will keep the wealth among themselves win. Please CMV because this paranoia is killing me. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Of course I realize that the odds of winning the lottery are low and that one should not pin their future on a lottery win. I note I am in Canada, at one time the lottery draw was shown on television supposedly live with balls falling from machines much like in a BINGO hall now we just see the winning numbers posted online or at our local lottery retailer after the fact. I have come to think that perhaps those in power have some control over who wins and thusly who does not. My reason for thinking so is vast but it boils down to the fact that very few lottery winners do anything grand for the general population and mostly just keep the money to themselves. I mean if I won 12 million example random number I would keep some but would give some away to help strangers but you never hear of people doing this so it must be that only certain people, those who will keep the wealth among themselves win. Please CMV because this paranoia is killing me. <|TARGETS|>that the odds of winning the lottery, the fact that very few lottery winners do anything grand for the general population and mostly just keep the money to themselves ., the lottery draw was shown on television supposedly live with balls falling from machines, give some away to help strangers but you never hear of people doing this so it must be that only certain people those who will keep the wealth among themselves win ., if I won 12 million example random number<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Of course I realize that the odds of winning the lottery are low and that one should not pin their future on a lottery win. I note I am in Canada, at one time the lottery draw was shown on television supposedly live with balls falling from machines much like in a BINGO hall now we just see the winning numbers posted online or at our local lottery retailer after the fact. I have come to think that perhaps those in power have some control over who wins and thusly who does not. My reason for thinking so is vast but it boils down to the fact that very few lottery winners do anything grand for the general population and mostly just keep the money to themselves. I mean if I won 12 million example random number I would keep some but would give some away to help strangers but you never hear of people doing this so it must be that only certain people, those who will keep the wealth among themselves win. Please CMV because this paranoia is killing me. <|ASPECTS|>, low, winning numbers, odds, balls, machines, random number, money, lottery winners, help strangers, killing, control, future, wins, lottery win, wealth, paranoia<|CONCLUSION|>","Of course I realize that the odds of winning the lottery are low and that one should not pin their future on a lottery win. I note I am in Canada, at one time the lottery draw was shown on television supposedly live with balls falling from machines much like in a BINGO hall now we just see the winning numbers posted online or at our local lottery retailer after the fact. I have come to think that perhaps those in power have some control over who wins and thusly who does not. My reason for thinking so is vast but it boils down to the fact that very few lottery winners do anything grand for the general population and mostly just keep the money to themselves. I mean if I won 12 million example random number I would keep some but would give some away to help strangers but you never hear of people doing this so it must be that only certain people, those who will keep the wealth among themselves win. Please  because this paranoia is killing me.",The Lottery Could Be Rigged So That Only Certain People Win
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I just had a baby boy on Friday so this is weighing on my mind. We know that the west looks down on vaginal mutilation. In fact a couple doctors got charged for a vaginal mutilation scheme several months ago. And for good reason too. It's an unnecessary and tortuous procedure. It's also illegal, even though it's only done for religious reasons. Unlike circumcision, which is legal. And is only popular due to religions reasons. Ya know, gentiles and the Hebrews and all that. My doctor made it very clear there were no health benefits to this procedure other than it helps make things easier to clean. But my wife wants to do it anyway because it's normal. Which in and of itself is a can of worms, because id argue that what nature intended is what's normal. Not what a bunch of people do to their babies due to outdated reasoning and logic. Thankfully in some parts of the US this is changing and the procedure is on the decline. However it's still a huge thing and it's done all the time. I think it is morally wrong and medically unnecessary. Change my view. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I just had a baby boy on Friday so this is weighing on my mind. We know that the west looks down on vaginal mutilation. In fact a couple doctors got charged for a vaginal mutilation scheme several months ago. And for good reason too. It's an unnecessary and tortuous procedure. It's also illegal, even though it's only done for religious reasons. Unlike circumcision, which is legal. And is only popular due to religions reasons. Ya know, gentiles and the Hebrews and all that. My doctor made it very clear there were no health benefits to this procedure other than it helps make things easier to clean. But my wife wants to do it anyway because it's normal. Which in and of itself is a can of worms, because id argue that what nature intended is what's normal. Not what a bunch of people do to their babies due to outdated reasoning and logic. Thankfully in some parts of the US this is changing and the procedure is on the decline. However it's still a huge thing and it's done all the time. I think it is morally wrong and medically unnecessary. Change my view. <|TARGETS|>a vaginal mutilation scheme<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I just had a baby boy on Friday so this is weighing on my mind. We know that the west looks down on vaginal mutilation. In fact a couple doctors got charged for a vaginal mutilation scheme several months ago. And for good reason too. It's an unnecessary and tortuous procedure. It's also illegal, even though it's only done for religious reasons. Unlike circumcision, which is legal. And is only popular due to religions reasons. Ya know, gentiles and the Hebrews and all that. My doctor made it very clear there were no health benefits to this procedure other than it helps make things easier to clean. But my wife wants to do it anyway because it's normal. Which in and of itself is a can of worms, because id argue that what nature intended is what's normal. Not what a bunch of people do to their babies due to outdated reasoning and logic. Thankfully in some parts of the US this is changing and the procedure is on the decline. However it's still a huge thing and it's done all the time. I think it is morally wrong and medically unnecessary. Change my view. <|ASPECTS|>, health benefits, medically unnecessary, circumcision, view, illegal, procedure, religious reasons, decline, worms, normal, done, outdated reasoning, legal, logic, religions reasons, easier to clean, huge thing, morally wrong, nature intended, vaginal mutilation scheme, vaginal mutilation, gentiles, tortuous procedure, popular, unnecessary<|CONCLUSION|>","I just had a baby boy on Friday so this is weighing on my mind. We know that the west looks down on vaginal mutilation. In fact a couple doctors got charged for a vaginal mutilation scheme several months ago. And for good reason too. It's an unnecessary and tortuous procedure. It's also illegal, even though it's only done for religious reasons. Unlike circumcision, which is legal. And is only popular due to religions reasons. Ya know, gentiles and the Hebrews and all that. My doctor made it very clear there were no health benefits to this procedure other than it helps make things easier to clean. But my wife wants to do it anyway because it's normal. Which in and of itself is a can of worms, because id argue that what nature intended is what's normal. Not what a bunch of people do to their babies due to outdated reasoning and logic. Thankfully in some parts of the US this is changing and the procedure is on the decline. However it's still a huge thing and it's done all the time. I think it is morally wrong and medically unnecessary. Change my view.",Circumcision is no different than vaginal mutilation.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yep, I'm what you might call a militant vegetarian. I think for human civilization to survive we will have to abandon meat. Not necessarily all animal products, but certainly red meat. We know that the two main greenhouse gasses are methane and CO2. Contrary to CO2, methane has a much shorter half life, meaning that if we stop emitting methane we see a much faster impact on global temperatures. This is important, because although CO2 is a long term problem, our acute short term problem consists of staying beneath two degrees, to avoid positive feedbacks like droughts and the disappearance of north pole ice . From Wikipedia gt A 2006 UN FAO report reported that livestock generate more greenhouse gases as measured in CO2 equivalents than the entire transportation sector. Livestock accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2, 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide and 37 percent of anthropogenic methane. A senior UN official and co author of the report, Henning Steinfeld, said Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. 17 gt Nicholas Stern, the author of the 2006 Stern Review on climate change has stated people will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change . 21 President of the National Academy of Sciences Ralph Cicerone an atmospheric scientist , has indicated the contribution of methane by livestock flatulence and eructation to global warming is a “serious topic.” Cicerone states “Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere now. The population of beef cattle and dairy cattle has grown so much that methane from cows now is big. This is not a trivial issue. 22<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yep, I'm what you might call a militant vegetarian. I think for human civilization to survive we will have to abandon meat. Not necessarily all animal products, but certainly red meat. We know that the two main greenhouse gasses are methane and CO2. Contrary to CO2, methane has a much shorter half life, meaning that if we stop emitting methane we see a much faster impact on global temperatures. This is important, because although CO2 is a long term problem, our acute short term problem consists of staying beneath two degrees, to avoid positive feedbacks like droughts and the disappearance of north pole ice . From Wikipedia gt A 2006 UN FAO report reported that livestock generate more greenhouse gases as measured in CO2 equivalents than the entire transportation sector. Livestock accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2, 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide and 37 percent of anthropogenic methane. A senior UN official and co author of the report, Henning Steinfeld, said Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. 17 gt Nicholas Stern, the author of the 2006 Stern Review on climate change has stated people will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change . 21 President of the National Academy of Sciences Ralph Cicerone an atmospheric scientist , has indicated the contribution of methane by livestock flatulence and eructation to global warming is a “serious topic.” Cicerone states “Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere now. The population of beef cattle and dairy cattle has grown so much that methane from cows now is big. This is not a trivial issue. 22<|TARGETS|>what you might call a militant vegetarian ., CO2, Henning Steinfeld, The population of beef cattle and dairy cattle, to abandon meat ., Livestock<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yep, I'm what you might call a militant vegetarian. I think for human civilization to survive we will have to abandon meat. Not necessarily all animal products, but certainly red meat. We know that the two main greenhouse gasses are methane and CO2. Contrary to CO2, methane has a much shorter half life, meaning that if we stop emitting methane we see a much faster impact on global temperatures. This is important, because although CO2 is a long term problem, our acute short term problem consists of staying beneath two degrees, to avoid positive feedbacks like droughts and the disappearance of north pole ice . From Wikipedia gt A 2006 UN FAO report reported that livestock generate more greenhouse gases as measured in CO2 equivalents than the entire transportation sector. Livestock accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2, 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide and 37 percent of anthropogenic methane. A senior UN official and co author of the report, Henning Steinfeld, said Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. 17 gt Nicholas Stern, the author of the 2006 Stern Review on climate change has stated people will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change . 21 President of the National Academy of Sciences Ralph Cicerone an atmospheric scientist , has indicated the contribution of methane by livestock flatulence and eructation to global warming is a “serious topic.” Cicerone states “Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere now. The population of beef cattle and dairy cattle has grown so much that methane from cows now is big. This is not a trivial issue. 22<|ASPECTS|>trivial issue, ice, methane from cows, greenhouse gas, anthropogenic methane, red meat, abandon meat, greenhouse gasses, shorter half life, positive feedbacks, greenhouse gases, animal products, environmental problems, climate change, methane, co2, problem, vegetarian, flatulence, change, global warming, global temperatures, droughts, militant vegetarian, faster, anthropogenic nitrous oxide, impact, anthropogenic co2<|CONCLUSION|>","Yep, I'm what you might call a militant vegetarian. I think for human civilization to survive we will have to abandon meat. Not necessarily all animal products, but certainly red meat. We know that the two main greenhouse gasses are methane and CO2. Contrary to CO2, methane has a much shorter half life, meaning that if we stop emitting methane we see a much faster impact on global temperatures. This is important, because although CO2 is a long term problem, our acute short term problem consists of staying beneath two degrees, to avoid positive feedbacks like droughts and the disappearance of north pole ice . From Wikipedia gt A 2006 UN FAO report reported that livestock generate more greenhouse gases as measured in CO2 equivalents than the entire transportation sector. Livestock accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2, 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide and 37 percent of anthropogenic methane. A senior UN official and co author of the report, Henning Steinfeld, said Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. 17 gt Nicholas Stern, the author of the 2006 Stern Review on climate change has stated people will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change . 21 President of the National Academy of Sciences Ralph Cicerone an atmospheric scientist , has indicated the contribution of methane by livestock flatulence and eructation to global warming is a “serious topic.” Cicerone states “Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere now. The population of beef cattle and dairy cattle has grown so much that methane from cows now is big. This is not a trivial issue. 22",I believe people need to be banned from eating meat.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A lot of people have been saying that the series finale for Psych was amazing or they were talking about how great it is. I didn't really find it that great. The last two seasons have really sucked and it's lost the witty humor and subtle jokes that make the show funny although I heard that they changed writers for the show . The finale didn't provide that much closure it didn't clear up the whole Despereaux thing and Gus and Rachel breaking up was really badly thought out and I thought it would be explained in the finale. Lassiter's and Henry Spencer's stories don't have a definite conclusions and it seems like the writers just skipped over them. The focus was really on Shawn rather than on any other character. I really hope they make a movie to clear up everything.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A lot of people have been saying that the series finale for Psych was amazing or they were talking about how great it is. I didn't really find it that great. The last two seasons have really sucked and it's lost the witty humor and subtle jokes that make the show funny although I heard that they changed writers for the show . The finale didn't provide that much closure it didn't clear up the whole Despereaux thing and Gus and Rachel breaking up was really badly thought out and I thought it would be explained in the finale. Lassiter's and Henry Spencer's stories don't have a definite conclusions and it seems like the writers just skipped over them. The focus was really on Shawn rather than on any other character. I really hope they make a movie to clear up everything.<|TARGETS|>the witty humor and subtle jokes that make the show, the series finale for Psych, a movie to clear up everything ., Lassiter 's and Henry Spencer 's stories<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A lot of people have been saying that the series finale for Psych was amazing or they were talking about how great it is. I didn't really find it that great. The last two seasons have really sucked and it's lost the witty humor and subtle jokes that make the show funny although I heard that they changed writers for the show . The finale didn't provide that much closure it didn't clear up the whole Despereaux thing and Gus and Rachel breaking up was really badly thought out and I thought it would be explained in the finale. Lassiter's and Henry Spencer's stories don't have a definite conclusions and it seems like the writers just skipped over them. The focus was really on Shawn rather than on any other character. I really hope they make a movie to clear up everything.<|ASPECTS|>changed writers, closure, clear, witty humor, despereaux, amazing, subtle jokes, great, sucked, everything, conclusions, shawn<|CONCLUSION|>",A lot of people have been saying that the series finale for Psych was amazing or they were talking about how great it is. I didn't really find it that great. The last two seasons have really sucked and it's lost the witty humor and subtle jokes that make the show funny although I heard that they changed writers for the show . The finale didn't provide that much closure it didn't clear up the whole Despereaux thing and Gus and Rachel breaking up was really badly thought out and I thought it would be explained in the finale. Lassiter's and Henry Spencer's stories don't have a definite conclusions and it seems like the writers just skipped over them. The focus was really on Shawn rather than on any other character. I really hope they make a movie to clear up everything.,I didn't think the series finale for Psych was that great.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Many people would argue that they are on a moral high ground if they are advocating for the banning of zoos. They believe that it is morally wrong to torture animals, make them execute various tricks, to encage them for their lives. These same people would then resume eating their fillet steak entrée before enjoying some roast chicken for dinner. I am of the moral standpoint that I value humans more than animals, and therefore, I eat meat and I wear leather shoes. So why ban zoos? What are they doing wrong, in my view? I'm not vegan, I don't claim to care all too much about animal welfare, because of course, if I did I'd be a hypocrite. The vast majority of people, and zoos themselves push that these for profit establishments are to educate people. However, I believe zoos should just get straight to the point. I go to the butcher to purchase meat, I go to zoos to see animals forcefully locked up, viewed by hundreds of people every day and to top it off the animals don't act naturally at all. Out of their natural environment, of course they wouldn't, and in my opinion, this takes all of the educational value zoos claim to have, away. I have never personally seen a mantis shrimp in real life, or a giant isopod, however I now know so much about them by simply researching them on YouTube or other spaces of the web. The personal aspect of zoos is brought up a lot. People say that they were inspired to become a world famous biologist and write thesis upon thesis about their love for animals. In response to this, I'd like to bring up my previous point again. How does a distorted view of the reality of what happens in the wild influence someone to become said profession? If I'm committing a personal fallacy here, please tell me, however, I've become more inspired that I've even considered taking up marine science in college over the two creatures I had mentioned above. Since childhood I just thought of zoos as mundane, I took the animals there for granted. If these animals were so easy to access what worth were they in the first place? I heard them hundreds of times in books and in school, and everyone else in their toddler years took a trip to the zoo too. One argument against the banning of zoos is what to replace them with. Where will all the zookeepers go? Will they now become homeless? This is where, in my opinion, the distinction between zoos, and sanctuaries wildlife parks is made. Zoos are specifically for profit and for the public showing of confined animals. Yes, in animal shelters dogs may be confined in a cage. Their cause, on the other hand, differs greatly. Animals are specifically up for adoption. They don't claim to be educational, they are straight to the point. This is also the distinction between pet ownership and zoos. I might keep my Aunt's pug in the garden so it doesn't terrorise the other neighbours. A zoo locks monkeys in a cage for money. Yes, they conserve some species, however tat's the exception, not the rule. Yes, some zoos are good, and I'd like to say that's a no true scotsman, though I'm not well versed at all in fallacies so I could be wrong. Back to the point, where do the zookeepers go? To sanctuaries and other alternatives, of course.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Many people would argue that they are on a moral high ground if they are advocating for the banning of zoos. They believe that it is morally wrong to torture animals, make them execute various tricks, to encage them for their lives. These same people would then resume eating their fillet steak entrée before enjoying some roast chicken for dinner. I am of the moral standpoint that I value humans more than animals, and therefore, I eat meat and I wear leather shoes. So why ban zoos? What are they doing wrong, in my view? I'm not vegan, I don't claim to care all too much about animal welfare, because of course, if I did I'd be a hypocrite. The vast majority of people, and zoos themselves push that these for profit establishments are to educate people. However, I believe zoos should just get straight to the point. I go to the butcher to purchase meat, I go to zoos to see animals forcefully locked up, viewed by hundreds of people every day and to top it off the animals don't act naturally at all. Out of their natural environment, of course they wouldn't, and in my opinion, this takes all of the educational value zoos claim to have, away. I have never personally seen a mantis shrimp in real life, or a giant isopod, however I now know so much about them by simply researching them on YouTube or other spaces of the web. The personal aspect of zoos is brought up a lot. People say that they were inspired to become a world famous biologist and write thesis upon thesis about their love for animals. In response to this, I'd like to bring up my previous point again. How does a distorted view of the reality of what happens in the wild influence someone to become said profession? If I'm committing a personal fallacy here, please tell me, however, I've become more inspired that I've even considered taking up marine science in college over the two creatures I had mentioned above. Since childhood I just thought of zoos as mundane, I took the animals there for granted. If these animals were so easy to access what worth were they in the first place? I heard them hundreds of times in books and in school, and everyone else in their toddler years took a trip to the zoo too. One argument against the banning of zoos is what to replace them with. Where will all the zookeepers go? Will they now become homeless? This is where, in my opinion, the distinction between zoos, and sanctuaries wildlife parks is made. Zoos are specifically for profit and for the public showing of confined animals. Yes, in animal shelters dogs may be confined in a cage. Their cause, on the other hand, differs greatly. Animals are specifically up for adoption. They don't claim to be educational, they are straight to the point. This is also the distinction between pet ownership and zoos. I might keep my Aunt's pug in the garden so it doesn't terrorise the other neighbours. A zoo locks monkeys in a cage for money. Yes, they conserve some species, however tat's the exception, not the rule. Yes, some zoos are good, and I'd like to say that's a no true scotsman, though I'm not well versed at all in fallacies so I could be wrong. Back to the point, where do the zookeepers go? To sanctuaries and other alternatives, of course.<|TARGETS|>to torture animals make them execute various tricks to encage them for their lives ., a distorted view of the reality of what happens in the wild influence someone to become said profession, I go to the butcher to purchase meat I go to zoos to see animals forcefully locked up viewed by hundreds of people every day and to top it off the animals do n't act naturally at all ., the banning of zoos, keep my Aunt 's pug in the garden, taking up marine science in college over the two creatures I had mentioned above .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Many people would argue that they are on a moral high ground if they are advocating for the banning of zoos. They believe that it is morally wrong to torture animals, make them execute various tricks, to encage them for their lives. These same people would then resume eating their fillet steak entrée before enjoying some roast chicken for dinner. I am of the moral standpoint that I value humans more than animals, and therefore, I eat meat and I wear leather shoes. So why ban zoos? What are they doing wrong, in my view? I'm not vegan, I don't claim to care all too much about animal welfare, because of course, if I did I'd be a hypocrite. The vast majority of people, and zoos themselves push that these for profit establishments are to educate people. However, I believe zoos should just get straight to the point. I go to the butcher to purchase meat, I go to zoos to see animals forcefully locked up, viewed by hundreds of people every day and to top it off the animals don't act naturally at all. Out of their natural environment, of course they wouldn't, and in my opinion, this takes all of the educational value zoos claim to have, away. I have never personally seen a mantis shrimp in real life, or a giant isopod, however I now know so much about them by simply researching them on YouTube or other spaces of the web. The personal aspect of zoos is brought up a lot. People say that they were inspired to become a world famous biologist and write thesis upon thesis about their love for animals. In response to this, I'd like to bring up my previous point again. How does a distorted view of the reality of what happens in the wild influence someone to become said profession? If I'm committing a personal fallacy here, please tell me, however, I've become more inspired that I've even considered taking up marine science in college over the two creatures I had mentioned above. Since childhood I just thought of zoos as mundane, I took the animals there for granted. If these animals were so easy to access what worth were they in the first place? I heard them hundreds of times in books and in school, and everyone else in their toddler years took a trip to the zoo too. One argument against the banning of zoos is what to replace them with. Where will all the zookeepers go? Will they now become homeless? This is where, in my opinion, the distinction between zoos, and sanctuaries wildlife parks is made. Zoos are specifically for profit and for the public showing of confined animals. Yes, in animal shelters dogs may be confined in a cage. Their cause, on the other hand, differs greatly. Animals are specifically up for adoption. They don't claim to be educational, they are straight to the point. This is also the distinction between pet ownership and zoos. I might keep my Aunt's pug in the garden so it doesn't terrorise the other neighbours. A zoo locks monkeys in a cage for money. Yes, they conserve some species, however tat's the exception, not the rule. Yes, some zoos are good, and I'd like to say that's a no true scotsman, though I'm not well versed at all in fallacies so I could be wrong. Back to the point, where do the zookeepers go? To sanctuaries and other alternatives, of course.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, act naturally, moral, money, hypocrite, moral high ground, educational value, locked, steak, locks monkeys, point, easy to access, animal welfare, homeless, banning of zoos, natural environment, distorted view, replace, adoption, pet ownership, wildlife, zoos, confined animals, ban zoos, public showing, fallacies, confined, sanctuaries, educational, conserve some species, cause, mundane, leather shoes, scotsman, personal aspect, zookeepers, educate people, become, distinction, profit, love for animals, morally wrong, value humans, chicken, dogs, cage, personal fallacy, terrorise the other neighbours, inspired, alternatives, vegan, marine science, animals, differs, worth<|CONCLUSION|>","Many people would argue that they are on a moral high ground if they are advocating for the banning of zoos. They believe that it is morally wrong to torture animals, make them execute various tricks, to encage them for their lives. These same people would then resume eating their fillet steak entrée before enjoying some roast chicken for dinner. I am of the moral standpoint that I value humans more than animals, and therefore, I eat meat and I wear leather shoes. So why ban zoos? What are they doing wrong, in my view? I'm not vegan, I don't claim to care all too much about animal welfare, because of course, if I did I'd be a hypocrite. The vast majority of people, and zoos themselves push that these for profit establishments are to educate people. However, I believe zoos should just get straight to the point. I go to the butcher to purchase meat, I go to zoos to see animals forcefully locked up, viewed by hundreds of people every day and to top it off the animals don't act naturally at all. Out of their natural environment, of course they wouldn't, and in my opinion, this takes all of the educational value zoos claim to have, away. I have never personally seen a mantis shrimp in real life, or a giant isopod, however I now know so much about them by simply researching them on YouTube or other spaces of the web. The personal aspect of zoos is brought up a lot. People say that they were inspired to become a world famous biologist and write thesis upon thesis about their love for animals. In response to this, I'd like to bring up my previous point again. How does a distorted view of the reality of what happens in the wild influence someone to become said profession? If I'm committing a personal fallacy here, please tell me, however, I've become more inspired that I've even considered taking up marine science in college over the two creatures I had mentioned above. Since childhood I just thought of zoos as mundane, I took the animals there for granted. If these animals were so easy to access what worth were they in the first place? I heard them hundreds of times in books and in school, and everyone else in their toddler years took a trip to the zoo too. One argument against the banning of zoos is what to replace them with. Where will all the zookeepers go? Will they now become homeless? This is where, in my opinion, the distinction between zoos, and sanctuaries wildlife parks is made. Zoos are specifically for profit and for the public showing of confined animals. Yes, in animal shelters dogs may be confined in a cage. Their cause, on the other hand, differs greatly. Animals are specifically up for adoption. They don't claim to be educational, they are straight to the point. This is also the distinction between pet ownership and zoos. I might keep my Aunt's pug in the garden so it doesn't terrorise the other neighbours. A zoo locks monkeys in a cage for money. Yes, they conserve some species, however tat's the exception, not the rule. Yes, some zoos are good, and I'd like to say that's a no true scotsman, though I'm not well versed at all in fallacies so I could be wrong. Back to the point, where do the zookeepers go? To sanctuaries and other alternatives, of course.",Zoos Should be Banned
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I posted this Ryder before I went to sleep at like 4am so it was removed reposting this now first and foremost I'd like to consider myself a right leaning moderate meaning while I tend to agree more with Republican values I also agree on some democratic values which is why I wouldn't fully classify myself as a Republican. The reason I say this is for a few key reasons. 1 his approach to climate change is much more realistic than some other approaches. unlike Trump who says there's clean call and doesn't seem time with burning coal and unlike Alexandria ocasio cortez who thinks that by 2050 I think that was the year but I might be wrong we will be able to 100 run on renewable energy fight and seems to be more realistic and focus on nuclear energy and other forms of energy that will produce CO2 produce less CO2 that Coal. I agree with this approach because it's a much more realistic way of slowly getting off the reliance on coal I agree with some of his foreign policy like war with Iran would be a complete f disaster. I agree with some the social issues like keeping the death penalty. I don't pretend to be a master of everything this guy has supported and not I mostly want on to Wikipedia so I might be wrong about some of this stuff but I think he is the best damn running any has the highest chance of winning. I think he has the best chance of winning because he is more moderate than say Bernie Sanders and has a higher chance of appealing to more moderate Americans. Like there's no chance Bernie Sanders would appeal to a right leaning moderate but Biden has a much better chance. P.S I used voice to speech for most of us so I am extremely sorry if there is some horrifying spelling mistakes<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I posted this Ryder before I went to sleep at like 4am so it was removed reposting this now first and foremost I'd like to consider myself a right leaning moderate meaning while I tend to agree more with Republican values I also agree on some democratic values which is why I wouldn't fully classify myself as a Republican. The reason I say this is for a few key reasons. 1 his approach to climate change is much more realistic than some other approaches. unlike Trump who says there's clean call and doesn't seem time with burning coal and unlike Alexandria ocasio cortez who thinks that by 2050 I think that was the year but I might be wrong we will be able to 100 run on renewable energy fight and seems to be more realistic and focus on nuclear energy and other forms of energy that will produce CO2 produce less CO2 that Coal. I agree with this approach because it's a much more realistic way of slowly getting off the reliance on coal I agree with some of his foreign policy like war with Iran would be a complete f disaster. I agree with some the social issues like keeping the death penalty. I don't pretend to be a master of everything this guy has supported and not I mostly want on to Wikipedia so I might be wrong about some of this stuff but I think he is the best damn running any has the highest chance of winning. I think he has the best chance of winning because he is more moderate than say Bernie Sanders and has a higher chance of appealing to more moderate Americans. Like there's no chance Bernie Sanders would appeal to a right leaning moderate but Biden has a much better chance. P.S I used voice to speech for most of us so I am extremely sorry if there is some horrifying spelling mistakes<|TARGETS|>would n't fully classify myself as a Republican ., getting off the reliance on coal I agree with some of his foreign policy like war with Iran, be able to 100 run on renewable energy fight, to be a master of everything this guy has supported and not I mostly want on to Wikipedia so I might be wrong about some of this stuff, keeping the death penalty ., Bernie Sanders would appeal to a right leaning moderate but Biden<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I posted this Ryder before I went to sleep at like 4am so it was removed reposting this now first and foremost I'd like to consider myself a right leaning moderate meaning while I tend to agree more with Republican values I also agree on some democratic values which is why I wouldn't fully classify myself as a Republican. The reason I say this is for a few key reasons. 1 his approach to climate change is much more realistic than some other approaches. unlike Trump who says there's clean call and doesn't seem time with burning coal and unlike Alexandria ocasio cortez who thinks that by 2050 I think that was the year but I might be wrong we will be able to 100 run on renewable energy fight and seems to be more realistic and focus on nuclear energy and other forms of energy that will produce CO2 produce less CO2 that Coal. I agree with this approach because it's a much more realistic way of slowly getting off the reliance on coal I agree with some of his foreign policy like war with Iran would be a complete f disaster. I agree with some the social issues like keeping the death penalty. I don't pretend to be a master of everything this guy has supported and not I mostly want on to Wikipedia so I might be wrong about some of this stuff but I think he is the best damn running any has the highest chance of winning. I think he has the best chance of winning because he is more moderate than say Bernie Sanders and has a higher chance of appealing to more moderate Americans. Like there's no chance Bernie Sanders would appeal to a right leaning moderate but Biden has a much better chance. P.S I used voice to speech for most of us so I am extremely sorry if there is some horrifying spelling mistakes<|ASPECTS|>moderate americans, republican values, democratic values, voice to speech, moderate, winning, chance, death penalty, f disaster, social issues, appealing, right leaning moderate, climate change, clean call, master, realistic, co2, reliance on coal, less, renewable energy, horrifying spelling<|CONCLUSION|>",I posted this Ryder before I went to sleep at like 4am so it was removed reposting this now first and foremost I'd like to consider myself a right leaning moderate meaning while I tend to agree more with Republican values I also agree on some democratic values which is why I wouldn't fully classify myself as a Republican. The reason I say this is for a few key reasons. 1 his approach to climate change is much more realistic than some other approaches. unlike Trump who says there's clean call and doesn't seem time with burning coal and unlike Alexandria ocasio cortez who thinks that by 2050 I think that was the year but I might be wrong we will be able to 100 run on renewable energy fight and seems to be more realistic and focus on nuclear energy and other forms of energy that will produce CO2 produce less CO2 that Coal. I agree with this approach because it's a much more realistic way of slowly getting off the reliance on coal I agree with some of his foreign policy like war with Iran would be a complete f disaster. I agree with some the social issues like keeping the death penalty. I don't pretend to be a master of everything this guy has supported and not I mostly want on to Wikipedia so I might be wrong about some of this stuff but I think he is the best damn running any has the highest chance of winning. I think he has the best chance of winning because he is more moderate than say Bernie Sanders and has a higher chance of appealing to more moderate Americans. Like there's no chance Bernie Sanders would appeal to a right leaning moderate but Biden has a much better chance. P.S I used voice to speech for most of us so I am extremely sorry if there is some horrifying spelling mistakes,Biden had the best chance of winning and if the best Dem running
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tesla Motors have mostly been in the business pages of the news over their attempts at trying to convince states to allow them to do direct sales rather than have dealerships. However, it's often convenient to go to a dealership for automobiles servicing etc. and customers build loyalty, which in turn is what dealers want. One friend of mine has told me how her family have cross shopped, but often ended up going to the same dealer for some 30 or so years now. After all, Walkers don't do direct sales for potato chips well, except to schools and we buy many other things via retailers gadgets and homeware via TJ Hughes etc. Surely Tesla needs to realize the benefit of having a proper dealer and not just galleries even Ferrari have dealers despite selling high end vehicles and a small product range, and rarely do direct sales. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tesla Motors have mostly been in the business pages of the news over their attempts at trying to convince states to allow them to do direct sales rather than have dealerships. However, it's often convenient to go to a dealership for automobiles servicing etc. and customers build loyalty, which in turn is what dealers want. One friend of mine has told me how her family have cross shopped, but often ended up going to the same dealer for some 30 or so years now. After all, Walkers don't do direct sales for potato chips well, except to schools and we buy many other things via retailers gadgets and homeware via TJ Hughes etc. Surely Tesla needs to realize the benefit of having a proper dealer and not just galleries even Ferrari have dealers despite selling high end vehicles and a small product range, and rarely do direct sales. <|TARGETS|>Walkers, how her family have cross shopped, Tesla, having a proper dealer and not just galleries even Ferrari have dealers despite selling high end vehicles and a small product range, Tesla Motors, direct sales for potato chips<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tesla Motors have mostly been in the business pages of the news over their attempts at trying to convince states to allow them to do direct sales rather than have dealerships. However, it's often convenient to go to a dealership for automobiles servicing etc. and customers build loyalty, which in turn is what dealers want. One friend of mine has told me how her family have cross shopped, but often ended up going to the same dealer for some 30 or so years now. After all, Walkers don't do direct sales for potato chips well, except to schools and we buy many other things via retailers gadgets and homeware via TJ Hughes etc. Surely Tesla needs to realize the benefit of having a proper dealer and not just galleries even Ferrari have dealers despite selling high end vehicles and a small product range, and rarely do direct sales. <|ASPECTS|>benefit, convenient, build, proper dealer, direct sales, loyalty, cross shopped, business<|CONCLUSION|>","Tesla Motors have mostly been in the business pages of the news over their attempts at trying to convince states to allow them to do direct sales rather than have dealerships. However, it's often convenient to go to a dealership for automobiles servicing etc. and customers build loyalty, which in turn is what dealers want. One friend of mine has told me how her family have cross shopped, but often ended up going to the same dealer for some 30 or so years now. After all, Walkers don't do direct sales for potato chips well, except to schools and we buy many other things via retailers gadgets and homeware via TJ Hughes etc. Surely Tesla needs to realize the benefit of having a proper dealer and not just galleries even Ferrari have dealers despite selling high end vehicles and a small product range, and rarely do direct sales.","Tesla Motors should have a dealer network, even if they have a small product range, their attempt at direct sales is something that buyers may be put off by."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Why do I want to be a doctor? Here's my best attempt at distilling the major motivating factors Knowing that even if I end up being less than thrilled with the lifestyle, at least I will be making a difference in the lives of others Prestige More specifically, respect Job Security Opulence is not a motivating factor Intellectual Challenge Stimulation I love it Living up to potential I.e. feeling like I'm making the most of my natural abilities I don't want to look back on my life and feel like I took the easy way out by doing something less challenging So why am I posting this? I feel like some of my reasoning may be flawed that maybe I have preconceived notions that need changing. Willing to provide more info if anyone wants it. Curious to see how people respond to this.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Why do I want to be a doctor? Here's my best attempt at distilling the major motivating factors Knowing that even if I end up being less than thrilled with the lifestyle, at least I will be making a difference in the lives of others Prestige More specifically, respect Job Security Opulence is not a motivating factor Intellectual Challenge Stimulation I love it Living up to potential I.e. feeling like I'm making the most of my natural abilities I don't want to look back on my life and feel like I took the easy way out by doing something less challenging So why am I posting this? I feel like some of my reasoning may be flawed that maybe I have preconceived notions that need changing. Willing to provide more info if anyone wants it. Curious to see how people respond to this.<|TARGETS|>distilling the major motivating factors Knowing that even if I end up being less than thrilled with the lifestyle, posting this, making the most of my natural abilities I do n't want to look back on my life and feel like I took the easy way out by doing something less challenging, making a difference in the lives of others Prestige More specifically respect Job Security Opulence, to be a doctor<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Why do I want to be a doctor? Here's my best attempt at distilling the major motivating factors Knowing that even if I end up being less than thrilled with the lifestyle, at least I will be making a difference in the lives of others Prestige More specifically, respect Job Security Opulence is not a motivating factor Intellectual Challenge Stimulation I love it Living up to potential I.e. feeling like I'm making the most of my natural abilities I don't want to look back on my life and feel like I took the easy way out by doing something less challenging So why am I posting this? I feel like some of my reasoning may be flawed that maybe I have preconceived notions that need changing. Willing to provide more info if anyone wants it. Curious to see how people respond to this.<|ASPECTS|>motivating factors, , flawed, info, job security, reasoning, doctor, respond, challenge, preconceived notions, easy way, natural abilities<|CONCLUSION|>","Why do I want to be a doctor? Here's my best attempt at distilling the major motivating factors Knowing that even if I end up being less than thrilled with the lifestyle, at least I will be making a difference in the lives of others Prestige More specifically, respect Job Security Opulence is not a motivating factor Intellectual Challenge Stimulation I love it Living up to potential I.e. feeling like I'm making the most of my natural abilities I don't want to look back on my life and feel like I took the easy way out by doing something less challenging So why am I posting this? I feel like some of my reasoning may be flawed that maybe I have preconceived notions that need changing. Willing to provide more info if anyone wants it. Curious to see how people respond to this.",I want to be a Doctor of Medicine.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The current system, average wages and tenure encourages teachers to be mediocre, which results in mediocre students. First, they're not paid as if their job is truly important. When they behave as if their job isn't important, they're protected by tenure anyway. The students, who have to sit and listen to these teachers, have no choice in the matter. I truly believe the quality of education would improve if tenure were done away with and we listened to students feedback. I realize a teacher's job is difficult and stressful as it is, which is why they should be paid much more. I'm especially curious to hear from people who want to increase wages for teachers but change nothing else. What is the reasoning behind it? tl dr pretty much what the title says<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The current system, average wages and tenure encourages teachers to be mediocre, which results in mediocre students. First, they're not paid as if their job is truly important. When they behave as if their job isn't important, they're protected by tenure anyway. The students, who have to sit and listen to these teachers, have no choice in the matter. I truly believe the quality of education would improve if tenure were done away with and we listened to students feedback. I realize a teacher's job is difficult and stressful as it is, which is why they should be paid much more. I'm especially curious to hear from people who want to increase wages for teachers but change nothing else. What is the reasoning behind it? tl dr pretty much what the title says<|TARGETS|>to sit and listen to these teachers, to hear from people who want to increase wages for teachers, tl dr, When they behave as if their job, The current system, a teacher 's job<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The current system, average wages and tenure encourages teachers to be mediocre, which results in mediocre students. First, they're not paid as if their job is truly important. When they behave as if their job isn't important, they're protected by tenure anyway. The students, who have to sit and listen to these teachers, have no choice in the matter. I truly believe the quality of education would improve if tenure were done away with and we listened to students feedback. I realize a teacher's job is difficult and stressful as it is, which is why they should be paid much more. I'm especially curious to hear from people who want to increase wages for teachers but change nothing else. What is the reasoning behind it? tl dr pretty much what the title says<|ASPECTS|>stressful, change, important, tenure, reasoning, protected, mediocre students, feedback, mediocre, increase wages, quality of education, 's job, paid, teachers, job, choice, difficult<|CONCLUSION|>","The current system, average wages and tenure encourages teachers to be mediocre, which results in mediocre students. First, they're not paid as if their job is truly important. When they behave as if their job isn't important, they're protected by tenure anyway. The students, who have to sit and listen to these teachers, have no choice in the matter. I truly believe the quality of education would improve if tenure were done away with and we listened to students feedback. I realize a teacher's job is difficult and stressful as it is, which is why they should be paid much more. I'm especially curious to hear from people who want to increase wages for teachers but change nothing else. What is the reasoning behind it? tl dr pretty much what the title says","the quality of education would improve if teachers wages increased, were subject to student evaluation, and done away with tenure."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't understand why suicide is illegal. Okay I think I do my interpretation of it is that being against suicide, against birth control, against abortion, against priests being able to marry, and some other rules came from religion initially and those rules were important for that religion to be able to grow. They wanted their followers to have as many offspring as possible and for the priests to leave all their property to the church. And I think that suicide has perpetuated as an illegality because it really harms the banks when someone kills their self without paying back all their debt. But from a modern standpoint of pure morality, adult human beings, I feel, should be completely in charge of their own lives. I do think people often commit suicide in an emotional state that they could have worked through, but perhaps that only means there should be an assisted suicide law where you can kill yourself but you have to go through a proper channel <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't understand why suicide is illegal. Okay I think I do my interpretation of it is that being against suicide, against birth control, against abortion, against priests being able to marry, and some other rules came from religion initially and those rules were important for that religion to be able to grow. They wanted their followers to have as many offspring as possible and for the priests to leave all their property to the church. And I think that suicide has perpetuated as an illegality because it really harms the banks when someone kills their self without paying back all their debt. But from a modern standpoint of pure morality, adult human beings, I feel, should be completely in charge of their own lives. I do think people often commit suicide in an emotional state that they could have worked through, but perhaps that only means there should be an assisted suicide law where you can kill yourself but you have to go through a proper channel <|TARGETS|>an assisted suicide law where you can kill yourself but you have to go through a proper channel, that being against suicide against birth control against abortion against priests being able to marry and some other rules came from religion initially and those rules, commit suicide in an emotional state that they could have worked through<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't understand why suicide is illegal. Okay I think I do my interpretation of it is that being against suicide, against birth control, against abortion, against priests being able to marry, and some other rules came from religion initially and those rules were important for that religion to be able to grow. They wanted their followers to have as many offspring as possible and for the priests to leave all their property to the church. And I think that suicide has perpetuated as an illegality because it really harms the banks when someone kills their self without paying back all their debt. But from a modern standpoint of pure morality, adult human beings, I feel, should be completely in charge of their own lives. I do think people often commit suicide in an emotional state that they could have worked through, but perhaps that only means there should be an assisted suicide law where you can kill yourself but you have to go through a proper channel <|ASPECTS|>assisted suicide law, kill, religion, kills their self, grow, suicide, emotional state, illegal, lives, charge, debt, property, illegality, harms the banks, offspring, pure morality<|CONCLUSION|>","I don't understand why suicide is illegal. Okay I think I do my interpretation of it is that being against suicide, against birth control, against abortion, against priests being able to marry, and some other rules came from religion initially and those rules were important for that religion to be able to grow. They wanted their followers to have as many offspring as possible and for the priests to leave all their property to the church. And I think that suicide has perpetuated as an illegality because it really harms the banks when someone kills their self without paying back all their debt. But from a modern standpoint of pure morality, adult human beings, I feel, should be completely in charge of their own lives. I do think people often commit suicide in an emotional state that they could have worked through, but perhaps that only means there should be an assisted suicide law where you can kill yourself but you have to go through a proper channel",Suicide should be perfectly legal and acceptable for adults
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live on the east coast of the United States, in a major metropolitan area. Looking at Detroit as the latest example. In the 1960 s the Supreme Court ruled that the city was unconstitutionally keeping blacks out of white neighborhoods. When this changed, white flight took hold and they left Detroit in droves. It seems to me wherever there are large contiguous populations of blacks that town, city, country is in a desperate state, like Haiti. Even in Africa it is apparent. I don't believe racism can be blamed in all these cases, something else is happening. Why does black mean poverty and sub prime real estate? Are there good examples of black towns, cities that are thriving?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live on the east coast of the United States, in a major metropolitan area. Looking at Detroit as the latest example. In the 1960 s the Supreme Court ruled that the city was unconstitutionally keeping blacks out of white neighborhoods. When this changed, white flight took hold and they left Detroit in droves. It seems to me wherever there are large contiguous populations of blacks that town, city, country is in a desperate state, like Haiti. Even in Africa it is apparent. I don't believe racism can be blamed in all these cases, something else is happening. Why does black mean poverty and sub prime real estate? Are there good examples of black towns, cities that are thriving?<|TARGETS|>me wherever there are large contiguous populations of blacks that town city country<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live on the east coast of the United States, in a major metropolitan area. Looking at Detroit as the latest example. In the 1960 s the Supreme Court ruled that the city was unconstitutionally keeping blacks out of white neighborhoods. When this changed, white flight took hold and they left Detroit in droves. It seems to me wherever there are large contiguous populations of blacks that town, city, country is in a desperate state, like Haiti. Even in Africa it is apparent. I don't believe racism can be blamed in all these cases, something else is happening. Why does black mean poverty and sub prime real estate? Are there good examples of black towns, cities that are thriving?<|ASPECTS|>unconstitutionally keeping, racism can, sub, thriving, blacks, white neighborhoods, area, white flight, desperate state, poverty, detroit, real estate, blamed, black towns<|CONCLUSION|>","I live on the east coast of the United States, in a major metropolitan area. Looking at Detroit as the latest example. In the 1960 s the Supreme Court ruled that the city was unconstitutionally keeping blacks out of white neighborhoods. When this changed, white flight took hold and they left Detroit in droves. It seems to me wherever there are large contiguous populations of blacks that town, city, country is in a desperate state, like Haiti. Even in Africa it is apparent. I don't believe racism can be blamed in all these cases, something else is happening. Why does black mean poverty and sub prime real estate? Are there good examples of black towns, cities that are thriving?",No city populated by almost all blacks is doing well on the planet.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay, this sounds like a very pessimistic and ignorant way of looking at things, but I just can't shake the idea that people are not loyal enough to their partners to not be able to cheat on them at some point during a long term relationship. I would like to believe this isn't the case but I have seen infidelity among so many of my friends and have read so many stories of cheating taking place online that it makes me lose hope in the future of my relationships and romantic relationships as a whole. And then I look at divorce rates and how long a lot of marriages last and I become even more discouraged. I'm a hopeless romantic type of guy and the thought of not being able to find someone who is 100 committed to me as I am to them depresses me. So if someone could change my view and give me some reassurance as to why I shouldn't be so afraid of trusting future partners, that would be greatly appreciated.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay, this sounds like a very pessimistic and ignorant way of looking at things, but I just can't shake the idea that people are not loyal enough to their partners to not be able to cheat on them at some point during a long term relationship. I would like to believe this isn't the case but I have seen infidelity among so many of my friends and have read so many stories of cheating taking place online that it makes me lose hope in the future of my relationships and romantic relationships as a whole. And then I look at divorce rates and how long a lot of marriages last and I become even more discouraged. I'm a hopeless romantic type of guy and the thought of not being able to find someone who is 100 committed to me as I am to them depresses me. So if someone could change my view and give me some reassurance as to why I shouldn't be so afraid of trusting future partners, that would be greatly appreciated.<|TARGETS|>if someone could change my view and give me some reassurance as to why I should n't be so afraid of trusting future partners, the future of my relationships and romantic relationships as a whole ., the idea that people are not loyal enough to their partners to not be able to cheat on them at some point during a long term relationship ., a hopeless romantic type of guy and the thought of not being able to find someone who is 100 committed to me as I am to them, to believe this is n't the case but I have seen infidelity among so many of my friends and have read so many stories of cheating taking place online<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay, this sounds like a very pessimistic and ignorant way of looking at things, but I just can't shake the idea that people are not loyal enough to their partners to not be able to cheat on them at some point during a long term relationship. I would like to believe this isn't the case but I have seen infidelity among so many of my friends and have read so many stories of cheating taking place online that it makes me lose hope in the future of my relationships and romantic relationships as a whole. And then I look at divorce rates and how long a lot of marriages last and I become even more discouraged. I'm a hopeless romantic type of guy and the thought of not being able to find someone who is 100 committed to me as I am to them depresses me. So if someone could change my view and give me some reassurance as to why I shouldn't be so afraid of trusting future partners, that would be greatly appreciated.<|ASPECTS|>discouraged, committed, cheating, reassurance, divorce rates, depresses, view, trusting future partners, pessimistic, afraid, marriages, hopeless romantic type, romantic relationships, ignorant, infidelity, cheat, loyal enough<|CONCLUSION|>","Okay, this sounds like a very pessimistic and ignorant way of looking at things, but I just can't shake the idea that people are not loyal enough to their partners to not be able to cheat on them at some point during a long term relationship. I would like to believe this isn't the case but I have seen infidelity among so many of my friends and have read so many stories of cheating taking place online that it makes me lose hope in the future of my relationships and romantic relationships as a whole. And then I look at divorce rates and how long a lot of marriages last and I become even more discouraged. I'm a hopeless romantic type of guy and the thought of not being able to find someone who is 100 committed to me as I am to them depresses me. So if someone could change my view and give me some reassurance as to why I shouldn't be so afraid of trusting future partners, that would be greatly appreciated.",Cheating will almost always occur in a relationship at some point
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that Carson Wentz, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, is the best quarterback from the 2016 draft class. His main competition from this class comes from Dak Prescott and Jared Goff. I firmly believe that he is better than both of them, and these are the reasons why. Smarts Wentz was a 4.0 student in school and is a student of the game in football. These smarts show in his command of the offense and his ability to read a defense and make appropriate adjustments. Size Athleticism At 6'5 , 237 lbs, Carson Wentz is an imposing figure, but he is not a statue. He shows time and time again his ability to dodge sacks and make big plays with his feet. His size also allows him to take the hits that a running QB will get. Arm talent Wentz can make every throw in the book and has a rocket arm to back it up. His ability to thread the needle and make tough throws is excellent. Leadership Wentz is undeniably the face of the time. Being a kid from a small school in North Dakota and coming to play for some of the toughest fans in the NFL must have been terrifying. However Wentz handles it well and you can see how well his teammates respond to him. With all of these praises, there are some things I believe he still has things to work on. Pocket Presence Wentz will often hold onto the ball for a long time trying to make and play, and as a result he takes a lot of sacks and fumbles a decent amount. Accuracy Specifically his deep ball, but he has a general tendency to throw a bit high on catches that should be routine. Mechanics This was mostly a problem last year, but Wentz has a tendency for bringing the ball down before throwing it. This created elbow soreness and affected his ability to throw the ball. Now I know that some of you will come in and say, But look at Dak's stats, they were so much better Dak also had the best offensive line in the league, the league leader in rushing, a future hall of famer at tight end, and an excellent receivers. Put Wentz in that situation, and I guarantee he puts up better numbers. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that Carson Wentz, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, is the best quarterback from the 2016 draft class. His main competition from this class comes from Dak Prescott and Jared Goff. I firmly believe that he is better than both of them, and these are the reasons why. Smarts Wentz was a 4.0 student in school and is a student of the game in football. These smarts show in his command of the offense and his ability to read a defense and make appropriate adjustments. Size Athleticism At 6'5 , 237 lbs, Carson Wentz is an imposing figure, but he is not a statue. He shows time and time again his ability to dodge sacks and make big plays with his feet. His size also allows him to take the hits that a running QB will get. Arm talent Wentz can make every throw in the book and has a rocket arm to back it up. His ability to thread the needle and make tough throws is excellent. Leadership Wentz is undeniably the face of the time. Being a kid from a small school in North Dakota and coming to play for some of the toughest fans in the NFL must have been terrifying. However Wentz handles it well and you can see how well his teammates respond to him. With all of these praises, there are some things I believe he still has things to work on. Pocket Presence Wentz will often hold onto the ball for a long time trying to make and play, and as a result he takes a lot of sacks and fumbles a decent amount. Accuracy Specifically his deep ball, but he has a general tendency to throw a bit high on catches that should be routine. Mechanics This was mostly a problem last year, but Wentz has a tendency for bringing the ball down before throwing it. This created elbow soreness and affected his ability to throw the ball. Now I know that some of you will come in and say, But look at Dak's stats, they were so much better Dak also had the best offensive line in the league, the league leader in rushing, a future hall of famer at tight end, and an excellent receivers. Put Wentz in that situation, and I guarantee he puts up better numbers. <|TARGETS|>Dak 's stats, Dak Prescott and Jared Goff, Pocket Presence Wentz, Smarts Wentz, His ability to thread the needle and make tough throws, Wentz in that situation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that Carson Wentz, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, is the best quarterback from the 2016 draft class. His main competition from this class comes from Dak Prescott and Jared Goff. I firmly believe that he is better than both of them, and these are the reasons why. Smarts Wentz was a 4.0 student in school and is a student of the game in football. These smarts show in his command of the offense and his ability to read a defense and make appropriate adjustments. Size Athleticism At 6'5 , 237 lbs, Carson Wentz is an imposing figure, but he is not a statue. He shows time and time again his ability to dodge sacks and make big plays with his feet. His size also allows him to take the hits that a running QB will get. Arm talent Wentz can make every throw in the book and has a rocket arm to back it up. His ability to thread the needle and make tough throws is excellent. Leadership Wentz is undeniably the face of the time. Being a kid from a small school in North Dakota and coming to play for some of the toughest fans in the NFL must have been terrifying. However Wentz handles it well and you can see how well his teammates respond to him. With all of these praises, there are some things I believe he still has things to work on. Pocket Presence Wentz will often hold onto the ball for a long time trying to make and play, and as a result he takes a lot of sacks and fumbles a decent amount. Accuracy Specifically his deep ball, but he has a general tendency to throw a bit high on catches that should be routine. Mechanics This was mostly a problem last year, but Wentz has a tendency for bringing the ball down before throwing it. This created elbow soreness and affected his ability to throw the ball. Now I know that some of you will come in and say, But look at Dak's stats, they were so much better Dak also had the best offensive line in the league, the league leader in rushing, a future hall of famer at tight end, and an excellent receivers. Put Wentz in that situation, and I guarantee he puts up better numbers. <|ASPECTS|>, elbow soreness, handles, ability, best quarterback, sacks, routine, offensive line, student of the game, fumbles, big plays, rushing, rocket arm, respond, bringing, high, terrifying, athleticism, read a defense, toughest, teammates, dodge sacks, command, take, tough throws, excellent receivers, competition, catches, imposing figure, appropriate adjustments, better, hits, better numbers, size, face of<|CONCLUSION|>","My view is that Carson Wentz, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, is the best quarterback from the 2016 draft class. His main competition from this class comes from Dak Prescott and Jared Goff. I firmly believe that he is better than both of them, and these are the reasons why. Smarts Wentz was a 4.0 student in school and is a student of the game in football. These smarts show in his command of the offense and his ability to read a defense and make appropriate adjustments. Size Athleticism At 6'5 , 237 lbs, Carson Wentz is an imposing figure, but he is not a statue. He shows time and time again his ability to dodge sacks and make big plays with his feet. His size also allows him to take the hits that a running QB will get. Arm talent Wentz can make every throw in the book and has a rocket arm to back it up. His ability to thread the needle and make tough throws is excellent. Leadership Wentz is undeniably the face of the time. Being a kid from a small school in North Dakota and coming to play for some of the toughest fans in the NFL must have been terrifying. However Wentz handles it well and you can see how well his teammates respond to him. With all of these praises, there are some things I believe he still has things to work on. Pocket Presence Wentz will often hold onto the ball for a long time trying to make and play, and as a result he takes a lot of sacks and fumbles a decent amount. Accuracy Specifically his deep ball, but he has a general tendency to throw a bit high on catches that should be routine. Mechanics This was mostly a problem last year, but Wentz has a tendency for bringing the ball down before throwing it. This created elbow soreness and affected his ability to throw the ball. Now I know that some of you will come in and say, But look at Dak's stats, they were so much better Dak also had the best offensive line in the league, the league leader in rushing, a future hall of famer at tight end, and an excellent receivers. Put Wentz in that situation, and I guarantee he puts up better numbers.",Carson Wentz is the best quarterback from the 2016 NFL draft.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So let's say we applied fascism or communism to the USA starting tomorrow. I think both are terrible, but fascism often gets a worse rap but I believe it'd be better suited for our current modern world. Now, there's a lot of variation for these terms, especially fascism, so I'll define them and feel free to correct me on this Fascism A centralized, authoritarian state where the nation race is put above the individual. Communism A centralized, authoritarian state that values the worker and puts equality above all other values. Fascism Ok, so the government controls everything, we're dealing with a gift economy, and people need some sort of rallying cause, a common identity. I believe the aggressive expansionism of fascism could actually work pretty well. Where are we expanding too? Space. Just like how Mussolini romanticized the Roman Empire, Hitler romanticized the Aryans, the US romanticizes manifest destiny, charting the unknown. Also fascists hate communists, so what better reason to romanticize Neil Armstrong, after all, we beat the communist USSR to the moon We channel the militaristic expansionism to space. Massive increase in funding for space programs, lots of jobs created in related industries working only on gov projects of course . Set up our own star fleet academy kinda thing, heavily promote people participating in space colonization efforts. We could see tremendous progress focusing the national resources towards space. Asteroid mining to provide trillions of dollars in raw materials. Colonization of Mars, and then the solar system. Ludicrous projects like Solar sails and sending a probe to the next star system, too ambitious for NASA to attempt on our current system, now possible. And the best part is, unlike with fascist regimes of the past, our aggressive expansion isn't hurting anyone. Next is the scapegoat. Historically, fascist regimes tend to blame the nations problems on a particular race or ethnicity, leading to persecution. For 2019, the scapegoat could be illegal latino immigrants, but I'd argue it's more likely, especially in the near future, to be automation and AI. Automation is taking jobs at an unprecedented rate, especially from Middle Americans and the working class, the ones likely to get angry. The nice part about a fear of robots, is that although it could hold back some scientific progress, there's no genocide. Maybe some harassment of Silicon Valley people, but what can you do? Forcefully holding back AI could actually prove beneficial to humanity, in the very possible event that an AI could become so sophisticated it gains self awareness and turns on us. In an increasingly politically divisive US, a nationalistic rallying cry and a strong efficient central government could do us some good. I'd say it could focus on climate change, but we won't even need to address that issue if we're accelerating space travel so much. Some cons of fascism are that it often leads to great income inequality, as the elites rise to the top. Obviously a total loss of freedom, in a modern society with wire tapping devices this could be terrifying. But, not only would the same loss of privacy happen in communism, if we expand into space, constant digital monitoring is eventually made impossible, given it takes 20 minutes just to send an email to Mars. 2 Communism So the government controls everything and we're trying to enforce equality. The good news is that unlike in the past where communist regimes lead to mass starvation and malnutrition, due to genetic modification and other food energy innovations we could probably have enough food to feed everyone in the US. But without the competition of capitalism, or the expansionist drive of fascism, the people of a communist USA would have little reason to innovate or progress. As we've seen in history, socialist countries like Cuba, North Korea, and the USSR all remained pretty stagnate in tech development compared to their capitalist neighbors. Well, the USSR in its post stalinist years, I'll get to that. Communism could mesh decently well with automation. Even at the level we have now, automation has taken 4 million jobs. Unskilled laborers, instead of being poor and without a job, in a communist US would be supported by government forced equality. Income inequality in the US would be eliminated, all of the resources accumulated by the top 1 would be equally dispersed. But, like I said, with no competition and no nationalist drive, there is no reason for people to innovate or for technology to progress. Historically, fascist countries handsomely reward the businesses that drive progress, so long as they serve the state ofc. But the only way communist countries manage to industrialize and innovate is via disastrous forced labor projects. Stalin's 5 year plan, Mao's Great Leap, all of these resulted in resistance and ridiculous loss of life. With fascism, the mass murder came about from ethnic genocide, which could be averted if that anger was channeled towards the non human scapegoat of the 21st century, automation AI. But for communism, even though we already have some automation, in order to reach the level of automation to fully sustain society, or in order to solve any problems that arise in the future, such forced labor plans with human labor would still be unavoidable. Though communism could kill rampant income inequality, unequal access to education but so could fascism , and any racial inequality too, it'd mostly have the same drawbacks it did in the past. Until we reach the point where labor is all automated or run by AI, we'd still need people shoved behind the wheel, sometimes in an out of control industrialization movement to catch up. Space travel could probably happen, the USSR did it, but not at the rate of a fascist society putting it at their national priority. Interestingly, while wire tapping in Fascism would probably be used to make sure people aren't saying things against the state, in communism it could be used to further enforce equality, maybe banning speaking negatively to fellow comrades, or of the great party. But both systems would have issues with private data. Glory to the Revolution folks I'm glad we don't have either of these systems, though I think fascism and humanity's future in space travel could actually mesh pretty well together. What do y'all think?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So let's say we applied fascism or communism to the USA starting tomorrow. I think both are terrible, but fascism often gets a worse rap but I believe it'd be better suited for our current modern world. Now, there's a lot of variation for these terms, especially fascism, so I'll define them and feel free to correct me on this Fascism A centralized, authoritarian state where the nation race is put above the individual. Communism A centralized, authoritarian state that values the worker and puts equality above all other values. Fascism Ok, so the government controls everything, we're dealing with a gift economy, and people need some sort of rallying cause, a common identity. I believe the aggressive expansionism of fascism could actually work pretty well. Where are we expanding too? Space. Just like how Mussolini romanticized the Roman Empire, Hitler romanticized the Aryans, the US romanticizes manifest destiny, charting the unknown. Also fascists hate communists, so what better reason to romanticize Neil Armstrong, after all, we beat the communist USSR to the moon We channel the militaristic expansionism to space. Massive increase in funding for space programs, lots of jobs created in related industries working only on gov projects of course . Set up our own star fleet academy kinda thing, heavily promote people participating in space colonization efforts. We could see tremendous progress focusing the national resources towards space. Asteroid mining to provide trillions of dollars in raw materials. Colonization of Mars, and then the solar system. Ludicrous projects like Solar sails and sending a probe to the next star system, too ambitious for NASA to attempt on our current system, now possible. And the best part is, unlike with fascist regimes of the past, our aggressive expansion isn't hurting anyone. Next is the scapegoat. Historically, fascist regimes tend to blame the nations problems on a particular race or ethnicity, leading to persecution. For 2019, the scapegoat could be illegal latino immigrants, but I'd argue it's more likely, especially in the near future, to be automation and AI. Automation is taking jobs at an unprecedented rate, especially from Middle Americans and the working class, the ones likely to get angry. The nice part about a fear of robots, is that although it could hold back some scientific progress, there's no genocide. Maybe some harassment of Silicon Valley people, but what can you do? Forcefully holding back AI could actually prove beneficial to humanity, in the very possible event that an AI could become so sophisticated it gains self awareness and turns on us. In an increasingly politically divisive US, a nationalistic rallying cry and a strong efficient central government could do us some good. I'd say it could focus on climate change, but we won't even need to address that issue if we're accelerating space travel so much. Some cons of fascism are that it often leads to great income inequality, as the elites rise to the top. Obviously a total loss of freedom, in a modern society with wire tapping devices this could be terrifying. But, not only would the same loss of privacy happen in communism, if we expand into space, constant digital monitoring is eventually made impossible, given it takes 20 minutes just to send an email to Mars. 2 Communism So the government controls everything and we're trying to enforce equality. The good news is that unlike in the past where communist regimes lead to mass starvation and malnutrition, due to genetic modification and other food energy innovations we could probably have enough food to feed everyone in the US. But without the competition of capitalism, or the expansionist drive of fascism, the people of a communist USA would have little reason to innovate or progress. As we've seen in history, socialist countries like Cuba, North Korea, and the USSR all remained pretty stagnate in tech development compared to their capitalist neighbors. Well, the USSR in its post stalinist years, I'll get to that. Communism could mesh decently well with automation. Even at the level we have now, automation has taken 4 million jobs. Unskilled laborers, instead of being poor and without a job, in a communist US would be supported by government forced equality. Income inequality in the US would be eliminated, all of the resources accumulated by the top 1 would be equally dispersed. But, like I said, with no competition and no nationalist drive, there is no reason for people to innovate or for technology to progress. Historically, fascist countries handsomely reward the businesses that drive progress, so long as they serve the state ofc. But the only way communist countries manage to industrialize and innovate is via disastrous forced labor projects. Stalin's 5 year plan, Mao's Great Leap, all of these resulted in resistance and ridiculous loss of life. With fascism, the mass murder came about from ethnic genocide, which could be averted if that anger was channeled towards the non human scapegoat of the 21st century, automation AI. But for communism, even though we already have some automation, in order to reach the level of automation to fully sustain society, or in order to solve any problems that arise in the future, such forced labor plans with human labor would still be unavoidable. Though communism could kill rampant income inequality, unequal access to education but so could fascism , and any racial inequality too, it'd mostly have the same drawbacks it did in the past. Until we reach the point where labor is all automated or run by AI, we'd still need people shoved behind the wheel, sometimes in an out of control industrialization movement to catch up. Space travel could probably happen, the USSR did it, but not at the rate of a fascist society putting it at their national priority. Interestingly, while wire tapping in Fascism would probably be used to make sure people aren't saying things against the state, in communism it could be used to further enforce equality, maybe banning speaking negatively to fellow comrades, or of the great party. But both systems would have issues with private data. Glory to the Revolution folks I'm glad we don't have either of these systems, though I think fascism and humanity's future in space travel could actually mesh pretty well together. What do y'all think?<|TARGETS|>Forcefully holding back AI, automation, fascist regimes, such forced labor plans with human labor, to address that issue if we 're accelerating space travel, Colonization of Mars<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So let's say we applied fascism or communism to the USA starting tomorrow. I think both are terrible, but fascism often gets a worse rap but I believe it'd be better suited for our current modern world. Now, there's a lot of variation for these terms, especially fascism, so I'll define them and feel free to correct me on this Fascism A centralized, authoritarian state where the nation race is put above the individual. Communism A centralized, authoritarian state that values the worker and puts equality above all other values. Fascism Ok, so the government controls everything, we're dealing with a gift economy, and people need some sort of rallying cause, a common identity. I believe the aggressive expansionism of fascism could actually work pretty well. Where are we expanding too? Space. Just like how Mussolini romanticized the Roman Empire, Hitler romanticized the Aryans, the US romanticizes manifest destiny, charting the unknown. Also fascists hate communists, so what better reason to romanticize Neil Armstrong, after all, we beat the communist USSR to the moon We channel the militaristic expansionism to space. Massive increase in funding for space programs, lots of jobs created in related industries working only on gov projects of course . Set up our own star fleet academy kinda thing, heavily promote people participating in space colonization efforts. We could see tremendous progress focusing the national resources towards space. Asteroid mining to provide trillions of dollars in raw materials. Colonization of Mars, and then the solar system. Ludicrous projects like Solar sails and sending a probe to the next star system, too ambitious for NASA to attempt on our current system, now possible. And the best part is, unlike with fascist regimes of the past, our aggressive expansion isn't hurting anyone. Next is the scapegoat. Historically, fascist regimes tend to blame the nations problems on a particular race or ethnicity, leading to persecution. For 2019, the scapegoat could be illegal latino immigrants, but I'd argue it's more likely, especially in the near future, to be automation and AI. Automation is taking jobs at an unprecedented rate, especially from Middle Americans and the working class, the ones likely to get angry. The nice part about a fear of robots, is that although it could hold back some scientific progress, there's no genocide. Maybe some harassment of Silicon Valley people, but what can you do? Forcefully holding back AI could actually prove beneficial to humanity, in the very possible event that an AI could become so sophisticated it gains self awareness and turns on us. In an increasingly politically divisive US, a nationalistic rallying cry and a strong efficient central government could do us some good. I'd say it could focus on climate change, but we won't even need to address that issue if we're accelerating space travel so much. Some cons of fascism are that it often leads to great income inequality, as the elites rise to the top. Obviously a total loss of freedom, in a modern society with wire tapping devices this could be terrifying. But, not only would the same loss of privacy happen in communism, if we expand into space, constant digital monitoring is eventually made impossible, given it takes 20 minutes just to send an email to Mars. 2 Communism So the government controls everything and we're trying to enforce equality. The good news is that unlike in the past where communist regimes lead to mass starvation and malnutrition, due to genetic modification and other food energy innovations we could probably have enough food to feed everyone in the US. But without the competition of capitalism, or the expansionist drive of fascism, the people of a communist USA would have little reason to innovate or progress. As we've seen in history, socialist countries like Cuba, North Korea, and the USSR all remained pretty stagnate in tech development compared to their capitalist neighbors. Well, the USSR in its post stalinist years, I'll get to that. Communism could mesh decently well with automation. Even at the level we have now, automation has taken 4 million jobs. Unskilled laborers, instead of being poor and without a job, in a communist US would be supported by government forced equality. Income inequality in the US would be eliminated, all of the resources accumulated by the top 1 would be equally dispersed. But, like I said, with no competition and no nationalist drive, there is no reason for people to innovate or for technology to progress. Historically, fascist countries handsomely reward the businesses that drive progress, so long as they serve the state ofc. But the only way communist countries manage to industrialize and innovate is via disastrous forced labor projects. Stalin's 5 year plan, Mao's Great Leap, all of these resulted in resistance and ridiculous loss of life. With fascism, the mass murder came about from ethnic genocide, which could be averted if that anger was channeled towards the non human scapegoat of the 21st century, automation AI. But for communism, even though we already have some automation, in order to reach the level of automation to fully sustain society, or in order to solve any problems that arise in the future, such forced labor plans with human labor would still be unavoidable. Though communism could kill rampant income inequality, unequal access to education but so could fascism , and any racial inequality too, it'd mostly have the same drawbacks it did in the past. Until we reach the point where labor is all automated or run by AI, we'd still need people shoved behind the wheel, sometimes in an out of control industrialization movement to catch up. Space travel could probably happen, the USSR did it, but not at the rate of a fascist society putting it at their national priority. Interestingly, while wire tapping in Fascism would probably be used to make sure people aren't saying things against the state, in communism it could be used to further enforce equality, maybe banning speaking negatively to fellow comrades, or of the great party. But both systems would have issues with private data. Glory to the Revolution folks I'm glad we don't have either of these systems, though I think fascism and humanity's future in space travel could actually mesh pretty well together. What do y'all think?<|ASPECTS|>, negatively, elites, nations problems, forced labor plans, government, income inequality, drive progress, competition of capitalism, automation, aggressive expansionism, rallying cause, harassment of silicon valley people, space, suited, hate communists, unequal, fully, climate change, scientific progress, space colonization efforts, colonization of mars, innovate, scapegoat, national resources, well, genocide, expansionist drive, anger, loss of life, unavoidable, expanding, fear of robots, romanticizes, jobs created, raw materials, future, aggressive expansion, fascist society, mass starvation, enforce, forced labor projects, beneficial to humanity, competition, funding, access to education, variation, self awareness, loss of freedom, communism, sustain society, progress, food, values the worker, nationalistic rallying cry, efficient central government, solar sails, taking jobs, gains, manifest destiny, angry, resources, space travel, militaristic expansionism, race, hurting anyone, mesh decently well, equally dispersed, forced equality, reward, malnutrition, ambitious, fleet, trillions, loss of privacy, industrialize, nation race, ai, gift economy, politically divisive, private data, stagnate, fascist, resistance, fascism, jobs, racial inequality, feed, ethnic genocide, nationalist drive, mesh, digital monitoring, promote, taken, industrialization, national priority, tech development, technology to progress, illegal latino immigrants, controls everything, fascists, authoritarian state, businesses, persecution, state ofc, disastrous, common identity, individual, centralized, ludicrous, modern world, equality<|CONCLUSION|>","So let's say we applied fascism or communism to the USA starting tomorrow. I think both are terrible, but fascism often gets a worse rap but I believe it'd be better suited for our current modern world. Now, there's a lot of variation for these terms, especially fascism, so I'll define them and feel free to correct me on this Fascism A centralized, authoritarian state where the nation race is put above the individual. Communism A centralized, authoritarian state that values the worker and puts equality above all other values. Fascism Ok, so the government controls everything, we're dealing with a gift economy, and people need some sort of rallying cause, a common identity. I believe the aggressive expansionism of fascism could actually work pretty well. Where are we expanding too? Space. Just like how Mussolini romanticized the Roman Empire, Hitler romanticized the Aryans, the US romanticizes manifest destiny, charting the unknown. Also fascists hate communists, so what better reason to romanticize Neil Armstrong, after all, we beat the communist USSR to the moon We channel the militaristic expansionism to space. Massive increase in funding for space programs, lots of jobs created in related industries working only on gov projects of course . Set up our own star fleet academy kinda thing, heavily promote people participating in space colonization efforts. We could see tremendous progress focusing the national resources towards space. Asteroid mining to provide trillions of dollars in raw materials. Colonization of Mars, and then the solar system. Ludicrous projects like Solar sails and sending a probe to the next star system, too ambitious for NASA to attempt on our current system, now possible. And the best part is, unlike with fascist regimes of the past, our aggressive expansion isn't hurting anyone. Next is the scapegoat. Historically, fascist regimes tend to blame the nations problems on a particular race or ethnicity, leading to persecution. For 2019, the scapegoat could be illegal latino immigrants, but I'd argue it's more likely, especially in the near future, to be automation and AI. Automation is taking jobs at an unprecedented rate, especially from Middle Americans and the working class, the ones likely to get angry. The nice part about a fear of robots, is that although it could hold back some scientific progress, there's no genocide. Maybe some harassment of Silicon Valley people, but what can you do? Forcefully holding back AI could actually prove beneficial to humanity, in the very possible event that an AI could become so sophisticated it gains self awareness and turns on us. In an increasingly politically divisive US, a nationalistic rallying cry and a strong efficient central government could do us some good. I'd say it could focus on climate change, but we won't even need to address that issue if we're accelerating space travel so much. Some cons of fascism are that it often leads to great income inequality, as the elites rise to the top. Obviously a total loss of freedom, in a modern society with wire tapping devices this could be terrifying. But, not only would the same loss of privacy happen in communism, if we expand into space, constant digital monitoring is eventually made impossible, given it takes 20 minutes just to send an email to Mars. 2 Communism So the government controls everything and we're trying to enforce equality. The good news is that unlike in the past where communist regimes lead to mass starvation and malnutrition, due to genetic modification and other food energy innovations we could probably have enough food to feed everyone in the US. But without the competition of capitalism, or the expansionist drive of fascism, the people of a communist USA would have little reason to innovate or progress. As we've seen in history, socialist countries like Cuba, North Korea, and the USSR all remained pretty stagnate in tech development compared to their capitalist neighbors. Well, the USSR in its post stalinist years, I'll get to that. Communism could mesh decently well with automation. Even at the level we have now, automation has taken 4 million jobs. Unskilled laborers, instead of being poor and without a job, in a communist US would be supported by government forced equality. Income inequality in the US would be eliminated, all of the resources accumulated by the top 1 would be equally dispersed. But, like I said, with no competition and no nationalist drive, there is no reason for people to innovate or for technology to progress. Historically, fascist countries handsomely reward the businesses that drive progress, so long as they serve the state ofc. But the only way communist countries manage to industrialize and innovate is via disastrous forced labor projects. Stalin's 5 year plan, Mao's Great Leap, all of these resulted in resistance and ridiculous loss of life. With fascism, the mass murder came about from ethnic genocide, which could be averted if that anger was channeled towards the non human scapegoat of the 21st century, automation AI. But for communism, even though we already have some automation, in order to reach the level of automation to fully sustain society, or in order to solve any problems that arise in the future, such forced labor plans with human labor would still be unavoidable. Though communism could kill rampant income inequality, unequal access to education but so could fascism , and any racial inequality too, it'd mostly have the same drawbacks it did in the past. Until we reach the point where labor is all automated or run by AI, we'd still need people shoved behind the wheel, sometimes in an out of control industrialization movement to catch up. Space travel could probably happen, the USSR did it, but not at the rate of a fascist society putting it at their national priority. Interestingly, while wire tapping in Fascism would probably be used to make sure people aren't saying things against the state, in communism it could be used to further enforce equality, maybe banning speaking negatively to fellow comrades, or of the great party. But both systems would have issues with private data. Glory to the Revolution folks I'm glad we don't have either of these systems, though I think fascism and humanity's future in space travel could actually mesh pretty well together. What do y'all think?",Fascism Would be better than Communism for 2019
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey folks. Let me start out by saying that I am a tobacco user. I smoke cigarettes when I'm in public but more often I dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home. I am holding this view from this position. The following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises. I live in the south US in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common. That being said, I also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read loudly vocalized. When I smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 100 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property I'm subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc. The comments I receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it's gross and will discolor my teeth. So the premises I'm operating under are these 1 People have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend. less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 2 Tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death. 3 It is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so. 4 It is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless. This comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization . Furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk. 5 It is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks. This come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will doesn't significantly affect others. Reasons for using products that cause death constitute the specifics of this situation. 6 The specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning. 7 It can be argued about the specifics that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use. 8 A person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense I believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion. Furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance. So my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons. The argument goes like this Person A encounters person B using tobacco legally in a public place. Person A somehow expresses disapproval for person B's use. A's intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if B was not using tobacco. A has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 1 because it is defensible from 3 . Person B may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 3 and 4. However, B may then validly defend her choice by claiming 5. By either 6 or 7, A and B may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning. By 1 and 8, A is not in the wrong of any sort. Based on your views of 7, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use. So, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons? This post has ended up being way longer than I intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and I've given yall something to contend against. Cheers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey folks. Let me start out by saying that I am a tobacco user. I smoke cigarettes when I'm in public but more often I dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home. I am holding this view from this position. The following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises. I live in the south US in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common. That being said, I also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read loudly vocalized. When I smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 100 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property I'm subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc. The comments I receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it's gross and will discolor my teeth. So the premises I'm operating under are these 1 People have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend. less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 2 Tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death. 3 It is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so. 4 It is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless. This comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization . Furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk. 5 It is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks. This come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will doesn't significantly affect others. Reasons for using products that cause death constitute the specifics of this situation. 6 The specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning. 7 It can be argued about the specifics that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use. 8 A person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense I believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion. Furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance. So my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons. The argument goes like this Person A encounters person B using tobacco legally in a public place. Person A somehow expresses disapproval for person B's use. A's intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if B was not using tobacco. A has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 1 because it is defensible from 3 . Person B may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 3 and 4. However, B may then validly defend her choice by claiming 5. By either 6 or 7, A and B may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning. By 1 and 8, A is not in the wrong of any sort. Based on your views of 7, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use. So, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons? This post has ended up being way longer than I intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and I've given yall something to contend against. Cheers<|TARGETS|>to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so ., The comments I receive about dip, the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will, validly criticize a tobacco user, safely skip down tomy premises, to choose to use products<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey folks. Let me start out by saying that I am a tobacco user. I smoke cigarettes when I'm in public but more often I dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home. I am holding this view from this position. The following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises. I live in the south US in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common. That being said, I also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read loudly vocalized. When I smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 100 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property I'm subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc. The comments I receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it's gross and will discolor my teeth. So the premises I'm operating under are these 1 People have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend. less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 2 Tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death. 3 It is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so. 4 It is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless. This comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization . Furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk. 5 It is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks. This come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will doesn't significantly affect others. Reasons for using products that cause death constitute the specifics of this situation. 6 The specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning. 7 It can be argued about the specifics that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use. 8 A person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense I believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion. Furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance. So my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons. The argument goes like this Person A encounters person B using tobacco legally in a public place. Person A somehow expresses disapproval for person B's use. A's intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if B was not using tobacco. A has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 1 because it is defensible from 3 . Person B may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 3 and 4. However, B may then validly defend her choice by claiming 5. By either 6 or 7, A and B may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning. By 1 and 8, A is not in the wrong of any sort. Based on your views of 7, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use. So, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons? This post has ended up being way longer than I intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and I've given yall something to contend against. Cheers<|ASPECTS|>right to express their opinions, b, death, disapproving, grievously, wrong, tobacco road, cancer, disapproval, agree, consequences, view, safely, act wrongly, moral stance, freely read, gross, discolor my teeth, foot traffic, accept, tobacco, invalid reasons, defend her choice, committed, risks, obligation to understand our actions, offense, user, premises, ignorance, progressive, criticism, constrained, obligated, tobacco user, unfair opinion, justified, valid reasons, invalid reasoning, legally, functional legal, risk, skip, disapprove, acceptable, decision, harmless, tobacco use, right, defensible, valid and differing views, moral belief, criticize, argument, affect others, valid reasoning, validly, context, reasons, benefit, valid, better, bad views, general views, offend, individuals, discrimination, specifics, impermissible to defend tobacco, health implications, cost of tobacco use, longer<|CONCLUSION|>","Hey folks. Let me start out by saying that I am a tobacco user. I smoke cigarettes when I'm in public but more often I dip mouth tobacco placed between the lower lip and gum and spit out at home. I am holding this view from this position. The following is context and you can safely skip down tomy premises. I live in the south US in the heart of tobacco road and tobacco use is somewhat common. That being said, I also live in a college town where transportation is mostly dominated by foot traffic and the culture is such that views are most often progressive as well as freely read loudly vocalized. When I smoke outside, even in places legally ordained as smoking areas largely defined as 100 feet from a public door or walkway or on private property I'm subject to a sort of discrimination in the form of harshly disapproving stares, occasional statements concerning the health implications of smoking, over the top coughing fits, comments about smells, etc. The comments I receive about dip are more frequent, typically saying it's gross and will discolor my teeth. So the premises I'm operating under are these 1 People have a right to express their opinions to a point that does not grievously offend. less of a moral stance and more of a functional legal definition 2 Tobacco use causes cancer, which causes death. 3 It is always acceptable to disapprove of the use of products that cause death and there exist a myriad of good reasons to do so. 4 It is impermissible to defend tobacco by claiming, genuinely or deceptively, the tobacco is harmless. This comes from the moral belief that we have an obligation to understand our actions as well as possible before acting so as to not act wrongly or in bad faith existential generalization . Furthermore it should be assumed the user is aware of this risk. 5 It is permissible, however, to choose to use products that can cause death when a person is aware of the consequences, is not in denial of the consequences, and has determined whatever benefit is greater than the associated risks. This come from the right of individuals to not have constrained will to the minimum degree that the will doesn't significantly affect others. Reasons for using products that cause death constitute the specifics of this situation. 6 The specifics can be either valid or invalid reasoning. 7 It can be argued about the specifics that no benefit can outweigh the cost of tobacco use. 8 A person is not obligated and in a less defensible sense I believe they cannot be able to consider the specifics of every situation under which their general belief falls before expressing their opinion. Furthermore exceptions to general views do not constitute bad views or ignorance. So my argument is meant to conclude that a person can validly criticize a tobacco user even though the user may be using tobacco for valid reasons. The argument goes like this Person A encounters person B using tobacco legally in a public place. Person A somehow expresses disapproval for person B's use. A's intended meaning is that it would be better in whatever ways are relevant if B was not using tobacco. A has not committed an offense by expressing their opinion from 1 because it is defensible from 3 . Person B may then validly accept the criticism and agree because 3 and 4. However, B may then validly defend her choice by claiming 5. By either 6 or 7, A and B may have two valid and differing views, both supported by valid reasoning. By 1 and 8, A is not in the wrong of any sort. Based on your views of 7, the user may or may not be justified in their decision to use. So, is the critic wrong for voicing her potentially unfair opinion, or is the user acting for invalid reasons? This post has ended up being way longer than I intended but hopefully the argument is well outlined and I've given yall something to contend against. Cheers","People have every right to express their dislike for tobacco use in the form of eye rolls, intentional coughing around cigarettes, etc. in front of users."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The recent school shooting videos and pictures being released show the same format my high school employs hiding everyone in the classroom and just hoping nothing goes wrong. Using the same tactic, 17 people died, and many more were injured. I have no hope my school would do any better in this situation. On my campus it would extremely easy for a stranger to walk on and enter one of the buildings, or for a shooter to simply shoot the front office clerk without issue. With the mentally ill not receiving proper treatment, and being given access to guns, the possibility of danger really worries me. I have no doubt that one of my deranged peers would be able to get a weapon and shoot up my school and there would be nothing I could do to stop it. We have one officer on campus at all times, but I don't believe that's enough to stop a full fledged shooter Another thing is, of course there's other causes of death that have higher rates like car accidents. But at least with car accidents, or most illnesses, or other accidents, I at least feel some control. I have some ability to prevent it, or medicine does. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The recent school shooting videos and pictures being released show the same format my high school employs hiding everyone in the classroom and just hoping nothing goes wrong. Using the same tactic, 17 people died, and many more were injured. I have no hope my school would do any better in this situation. On my campus it would extremely easy for a stranger to walk on and enter one of the buildings, or for a shooter to simply shoot the front office clerk without issue. With the mentally ill not receiving proper treatment, and being given access to guns, the possibility of danger really worries me. I have no doubt that one of my deranged peers would be able to get a weapon and shoot up my school and there would be nothing I could do to stop it. We have one officer on campus at all times, but I don't believe that's enough to stop a full fledged shooter Another thing is, of course there's other causes of death that have higher rates like car accidents. But at least with car accidents, or most illnesses, or other accidents, I at least feel some control. I have some ability to prevent it, or medicine does. CMV<|TARGETS|>to get a weapon and shoot up my school, being given access to guns, to stop a full fledged shooter Another thing, The recent school shooting videos and pictures being released, Using the same tactic, to walk on and enter one of the buildings or for a shooter to simply shoot the front office clerk without issue .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The recent school shooting videos and pictures being released show the same format my high school employs hiding everyone in the classroom and just hoping nothing goes wrong. Using the same tactic, 17 people died, and many more were injured. I have no hope my school would do any better in this situation. On my campus it would extremely easy for a stranger to walk on and enter one of the buildings, or for a shooter to simply shoot the front office clerk without issue. With the mentally ill not receiving proper treatment, and being given access to guns, the possibility of danger really worries me. I have no doubt that one of my deranged peers would be able to get a weapon and shoot up my school and there would be nothing I could do to stop it. We have one officer on campus at all times, but I don't believe that's enough to stop a full fledged shooter Another thing is, of course there's other causes of death that have higher rates like car accidents. But at least with car accidents, or most illnesses, or other accidents, I at least feel some control. I have some ability to prevent it, or medicine does. CMV<|ASPECTS|>, deranged peers, walk, ability, danger, stranger, injured, higher rates, school, car accidents, prevent, died, shoot, control, weapon, goes wrong, shoot up my school, causes of death, better, office clerk, accidents, hiding everyone, easy, mentally ill<|CONCLUSION|>","The recent school shooting videos and pictures being released show the same format my high school employs hiding everyone in the classroom and just hoping nothing goes wrong. Using the same tactic, 17 people died, and many more were injured. I have no hope my school would do any better in this situation. On my campus it would extremely easy for a stranger to walk on and enter one of the buildings, or for a shooter to simply shoot the front office clerk without issue. With the mentally ill not receiving proper treatment, and being given access to guns, the possibility of danger really worries me. I have no doubt that one of my deranged peers would be able to get a weapon and shoot up my school and there would be nothing I could do to stop it. We have one officer on campus at all times, but I don't believe that's enough to stop a full fledged shooter Another thing is, of course there's other causes of death that have higher rates like car accidents. But at least with car accidents, or most illnesses, or other accidents, I at least feel some control. I have some ability to prevent it, or medicine does.","As a high school student, I should be actively concerned and worried of a school shooting."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Why I dislike Xmas heightened materialistic behavior Black Friday people misinterpret the holiday Jesus was said to be born in Autumn time, not December 25th. Also some people look to receive rather than give It doesn't make any sense religiously As I said before, not Jesus's birthday, and Jesus was the most non materialistic person you could ever meet, he downplayed material items and wealth of possessions Every year we get the classic media attempt of the War on Christmas Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas ? honestly who the fuck cares? It's a clear marketing ploy. Especially Black Friday. Christmas music plays from Halloween until January it seems. And there's only about 10 popular christmas songs that play over and over and over during this span in anywhere at all that is a public area. It's incredibly stressful I'd rather not have to get people gifts in exchange not to receive gifts simply to get rid of that holiday season stress. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Why I dislike Xmas heightened materialistic behavior Black Friday people misinterpret the holiday Jesus was said to be born in Autumn time, not December 25th. Also some people look to receive rather than give It doesn't make any sense religiously As I said before, not Jesus's birthday, and Jesus was the most non materialistic person you could ever meet, he downplayed material items and wealth of possessions Every year we get the classic media attempt of the War on Christmas Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas ? honestly who the fuck cares? It's a clear marketing ploy. Especially Black Friday. Christmas music plays from Halloween until January it seems. And there's only about 10 popular christmas songs that play over and over and over during this span in anywhere at all that is a public area. It's incredibly stressful I'd rather not have to get people gifts in exchange not to receive gifts simply to get rid of that holiday season stress. CMV<|TARGETS|>any sense religiously As I said before not Jesus 's birthday and Jesus was the most non materialistic person you could ever meet he downplayed material items and wealth of possessions Every year we get the classic media attempt of the War on Christmas Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas, to get people gifts in exchange not to receive gifts simply to get rid of that holiday season stress ., Christmas music, honestly who the fuck cares, Xmas heightened materialistic behavior Black Friday people misinterpret the holiday Jesus<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Why I dislike Xmas heightened materialistic behavior Black Friday people misinterpret the holiday Jesus was said to be born in Autumn time, not December 25th. Also some people look to receive rather than give It doesn't make any sense religiously As I said before, not Jesus's birthday, and Jesus was the most non materialistic person you could ever meet, he downplayed material items and wealth of possessions Every year we get the classic media attempt of the War on Christmas Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas ? honestly who the fuck cares? It's a clear marketing ploy. Especially Black Friday. Christmas music plays from Halloween until January it seems. And there's only about 10 popular christmas songs that play over and over and over during this span in anywhere at all that is a public area. It's incredibly stressful I'd rather not have to get people gifts in exchange not to receive gifts simply to get rid of that holiday season stress. CMV<|ASPECTS|>materialistic behavior, stressful, black friday, christmas music plays, clear, holiday, christmas songs, material items, misinterpret, stress, popular, holiday season, materialistic, marketing ploy, wealth of possessions<|CONCLUSION|>","Why I dislike Xmas heightened materialistic behavior Black Friday people misinterpret the holiday Jesus was said to be born in Autumn time, not December 25th. Also some people look to receive rather than give It doesn't make any sense religiously As I said before, not Jesus's birthday, and Jesus was the most non materialistic person you could ever meet, he downplayed material items and wealth of possessions Every year we get the classic media attempt of the War on Christmas Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas ? honestly who the fuck cares? It's a clear marketing ploy. Especially Black Friday. Christmas music plays from Halloween until January it seems. And there's only about 10 popular christmas songs that play over and over and over during this span in anywhere at all that is a public area. It's incredibly stressful I'd rather not have to get people gifts in exchange not to receive gifts simply to get rid of that holiday season stress.",I think Christmas is one of the worst holidays.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Quick pre note, im going to use the term Native when referring to the group because its quicker. So basically my logic is that the benefits are given out for 3 reasons First being the Natives were driven from their homes to land where they couldnt live, second they were killed, and third their culture was 'stolen'. Well my family is traced to living in Newfoundland from 1603 up until today. My ancestors back in England Pollard to be precise where driven from their home and forced to move to Newfoundland, a place notorious at the time for being difficult to live in and lots of deaths, especially in the winter. This was done by the English. The towns my family lived in were almost on the Avalon Peninsula, so near St. John's, which means that they were raided by both the French and the Dutch a few times so more than likely some of my ancestors were killed by the French and Dutch so they could take the resources from the surrounding area. The Dutch briefly held St. John's and in doing so changed the culture there, so much that the architecture on the island is extremely reminiscent of Dutch to this day. Over time as well, Newfoundland Gaelic died out because it wasnt instilled by the government to preserve and is now a lost language. Basically everything the Native groups can claim as their reason for 'deserving' I couldnt come up with a more fitting word these benefits has happened to me, or most likely any other old family in Canada so they shouldnt be entitled to more than I am legally and economically. TLDR The English drove my ancestors from their homes to inhospitable lands, the French killed them, and the Dutch 'stole their' culture so Im as entitled to the same handouts Native peoples get to be provided by the previous governments.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Quick pre note, im going to use the term Native when referring to the group because its quicker. So basically my logic is that the benefits are given out for 3 reasons First being the Natives were driven from their homes to land where they couldnt live, second they were killed, and third their culture was 'stolen'. Well my family is traced to living in Newfoundland from 1603 up until today. My ancestors back in England Pollard to be precise where driven from their home and forced to move to Newfoundland, a place notorious at the time for being difficult to live in and lots of deaths, especially in the winter. This was done by the English. The towns my family lived in were almost on the Avalon Peninsula, so near St. John's, which means that they were raided by both the French and the Dutch a few times so more than likely some of my ancestors were killed by the French and Dutch so they could take the resources from the surrounding area. The Dutch briefly held St. John's and in doing so changed the culture there, so much that the architecture on the island is extremely reminiscent of Dutch to this day. Over time as well, Newfoundland Gaelic died out because it wasnt instilled by the government to preserve and is now a lost language. Basically everything the Native groups can claim as their reason for 'deserving' I couldnt come up with a more fitting word these benefits has happened to me, or most likely any other old family in Canada so they shouldnt be entitled to more than I am legally and economically. TLDR The English drove my ancestors from their homes to inhospitable lands, the French killed them, and the Dutch 'stole their' culture so Im as entitled to the same handouts Native peoples get to be provided by the previous governments.<|TARGETS|>to use the term Native when referring to the group, the architecture on the island, Basically everything the Native groups can claim as their reason for ' deserving ' I couldnt come up with a more fitting word these benefits has happened to me or most likely any other old family in Canada so they shouldnt be entitled to more than I am legally and economically ., Pollard to be precise where driven from their home and forced to move to Newfoundland a place notorious at the time for being difficult to live in and lots of deaths, TLDR The English drove my ancestors from their homes to inhospitable lands, the Natives were driven from their homes to land where they couldnt live second they were killed and third their culture<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Quick pre note, im going to use the term Native when referring to the group because its quicker. So basically my logic is that the benefits are given out for 3 reasons First being the Natives were driven from their homes to land where they couldnt live, second they were killed, and third their culture was 'stolen'. Well my family is traced to living in Newfoundland from 1603 up until today. My ancestors back in England Pollard to be precise where driven from their home and forced to move to Newfoundland, a place notorious at the time for being difficult to live in and lots of deaths, especially in the winter. This was done by the English. The towns my family lived in were almost on the Avalon Peninsula, so near St. John's, which means that they were raided by both the French and the Dutch a few times so more than likely some of my ancestors were killed by the French and Dutch so they could take the resources from the surrounding area. The Dutch briefly held St. John's and in doing so changed the culture there, so much that the architecture on the island is extremely reminiscent of Dutch to this day. Over time as well, Newfoundland Gaelic died out because it wasnt instilled by the government to preserve and is now a lost language. Basically everything the Native groups can claim as their reason for 'deserving' I couldnt come up with a more fitting word these benefits has happened to me, or most likely any other old family in Canada so they shouldnt be entitled to more than I am legally and economically. TLDR The English drove my ancestors from their homes to inhospitable lands, the French killed them, and the Dutch 'stole their' culture so Im as entitled to the same handouts Native peoples get to be provided by the previous governments.<|ASPECTS|>reminiscent, family, inhospitable lands, gaelic, died, preserve, culture, difficult to live, entitled, resources, economically, native, benefits, handouts, changed, killed, quicker, raided, legally, deaths, lost language<|CONCLUSION|>","Quick pre note, im going to use the term Native when referring to the group because its quicker. So basically my logic is that the benefits are given out for 3 reasons First being the Natives were driven from their homes to land where they couldnt live, second they were killed, and third their culture was 'stolen'. Well my family is traced to living in Newfoundland from 1603 up until today. My ancestors back in England Pollard to be precise where driven from their home and forced to move to Newfoundland, a place notorious at the time for being difficult to live in and lots of deaths, especially in the winter. This was done by the English. The towns my family lived in were almost on the Avalon Peninsula, so near St. John's, which means that they were raided by both the French and the Dutch a few times so more than likely some of my ancestors were killed by the French and Dutch so they could take the resources from the surrounding area. The Dutch briefly held St. John's and in doing so changed the culture there, so much that the architecture on the island is extremely reminiscent of Dutch to this day. Over time as well, Newfoundland Gaelic died out because it wasnt instilled by the government to preserve and is now a lost language. Basically everything the Native groups can claim as their reason for 'deserving' I couldnt come up with a more fitting word these benefits has happened to me, or most likely any other old family in Canada so they shouldnt be entitled to more than I am legally and economically. TLDR The English drove my ancestors from their homes to inhospitable lands, the French killed them, and the Dutch 'stole their' culture so Im as entitled to the same handouts Native peoples get to be provided by the previous governments.","I, having a traceable lineage in Newfoundland back 400 years, should have the same benefits provided to Native Americans by the Canadian government from France, England, the Netherlands, and the Canadian Governments."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A prenuptial agreement seems like you are basically saying this is going to end badly, and when it does, I would like to keep all of my stuff. I feel it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after that.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A prenuptial agreement seems like you are basically saying this is going to end badly, and when it does, I would like to keep all of my stuff. I feel it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after that.<|TARGETS|>A prenuptial agreement, to keep all of my stuff .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A prenuptial agreement seems like you are basically saying this is going to end badly, and when it does, I would like to keep all of my stuff. I feel it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after that.<|ASPECTS|>prenuptial agreement, self fulfilling prophecy, end badly<|CONCLUSION|>","A prenuptial agreement seems like you are basically saying this is going to end badly, and when it does, I would like to keep all of my stuff. I feel it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after that.",I feel that asking for a pre-nup is like giving up on your marriage
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi there, I'm a young citizen of a developing country from America. I'll soon start working and generating income of course I'll be paid in my local currency. I've studied the story of the Latin American countries it hasn't been uncommon from them to engage in several debt crises, followed by defaults and hyperinflation. Just take a look at Venezuela, Argentina, Mexico or Ecuador which is now dollarized . Millions of people have seen their savings wiped out by inflation in a couple of years. In fact, I'd argue that my savings right now are being eroded banks are paying a measly 1.6 of interest per year, inflation is around 5 6 and the local stock market has been stagnant for the past years. What's worse, every time there is a crisis ANYWHERE in the world, investors flee from developing countries to hard currencies USD, EUR, GBP, CHF and cause my currency to crash. Thus, the most rational decision for me to take is to completely transform my long haul savings in my local, soft currency to a hard currency and foreign stocks, thus greatly benefiting from the perpetual devaluation my country is experiencing.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi there, I'm a young citizen of a developing country from America. I'll soon start working and generating income of course I'll be paid in my local currency. I've studied the story of the Latin American countries it hasn't been uncommon from them to engage in several debt crises, followed by defaults and hyperinflation. Just take a look at Venezuela, Argentina, Mexico or Ecuador which is now dollarized . Millions of people have seen their savings wiped out by inflation in a couple of years. In fact, I'd argue that my savings right now are being eroded banks are paying a measly 1.6 of interest per year, inflation is around 5 6 and the local stock market has been stagnant for the past years. What's worse, every time there is a crisis ANYWHERE in the world, investors flee from developing countries to hard currencies USD, EUR, GBP, CHF and cause my currency to crash. Thus, the most rational decision for me to take is to completely transform my long haul savings in my local, soft currency to a hard currency and foreign stocks, thus greatly benefiting from the perpetual devaluation my country is experiencing.<|TARGETS|>paying a measly 1.6 of interest per year inflation, the local stock market, soon start working and generating income of course I 'll be paid in my local currency ., to completely transform my long haul savings in my local soft currency to a hard currency and foreign stocks, the perpetual devaluation my country, argue that my savings right now are being eroded banks<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi there, I'm a young citizen of a developing country from America. I'll soon start working and generating income of course I'll be paid in my local currency. I've studied the story of the Latin American countries it hasn't been uncommon from them to engage in several debt crises, followed by defaults and hyperinflation. Just take a look at Venezuela, Argentina, Mexico or Ecuador which is now dollarized . Millions of people have seen their savings wiped out by inflation in a couple of years. In fact, I'd argue that my savings right now are being eroded banks are paying a measly 1.6 of interest per year, inflation is around 5 6 and the local stock market has been stagnant for the past years. What's worse, every time there is a crisis ANYWHERE in the world, investors flee from developing countries to hard currencies USD, EUR, GBP, CHF and cause my currency to crash. Thus, the most rational decision for me to take is to completely transform my long haul savings in my local, soft currency to a hard currency and foreign stocks, thus greatly benefiting from the perpetual devaluation my country is experiencing.<|ASPECTS|>investors, crisis, defaults, generating, hyperinflation, income, savings, young citizen, stagnant, savings wiped, developing, perpetual devaluation, flee, eroded, currencies, crash, debt crises, inflation, stock market, dollarized<|CONCLUSION|>","Hi there, I'm a young citizen of a developing country from America. I'll soon start working and generating income of course I'll be paid in my local currency. I've studied the story of the Latin American countries it hasn't been uncommon from them to engage in several debt crises, followed by defaults and hyperinflation. Just take a look at Venezuela, Argentina, Mexico or Ecuador which is now dollarized . Millions of people have seen their savings wiped out by inflation in a couple of years. In fact, I'd argue that my savings right now are being eroded banks are paying a measly 1.6 of interest per year, inflation is around 5 6 and the local stock market has been stagnant for the past years. What's worse, every time there is a crisis ANYWHERE in the world, investors flee from developing countries to hard currencies USD, EUR, GBP, CHF and cause my currency to crash. Thus, the most rational decision for me to take is to completely transform my long haul savings in my local, soft currency to a hard currency and foreign stocks, thus greatly benefiting from the perpetual devaluation my country is experiencing.","As a citizen of a developing country, there's no reason for me to have savings in my local currency"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been living in Romania and there have been almost 70 years since our Governments have been stealing our money and spent it on things which didn't concern our welfare but only the interests of an elite. That's why I formed this condition to consider paying taxes a stupid thing. Recently though, Romania has started to spend the budget more wisely thanks to our Justice which has been sending to jail lots of corrupt politicians , by my reflex seems to have survived I simply cannot cope with the idea of paying the Government. I feel it's a waste of money even though I know it isn't necessarily<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been living in Romania and there have been almost 70 years since our Governments have been stealing our money and spent it on things which didn't concern our welfare but only the interests of an elite. That's why I formed this condition to consider paying taxes a stupid thing. Recently though, Romania has started to spend the budget more wisely thanks to our Justice which has been sending to jail lots of corrupt politicians , by my reflex seems to have survived I simply cannot cope with the idea of paying the Government. I feel it's a waste of money even though I know it isn't necessarily<|TARGETS|>Romania, paying taxes a stupid thing ., stealing our money and spent it on things which did n't concern our welfare but only the interests of an elite ., sending to jail lots of corrupt politicians by my reflex<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been living in Romania and there have been almost 70 years since our Governments have been stealing our money and spent it on things which didn't concern our welfare but only the interests of an elite. That's why I formed this condition to consider paying taxes a stupid thing. Recently though, Romania has started to spend the budget more wisely thanks to our Justice which has been sending to jail lots of corrupt politicians , by my reflex seems to have survived I simply cannot cope with the idea of paying the Government. I feel it's a waste of money even though I know it isn't necessarily<|ASPECTS|>budget, welfare, paying taxes, stealing our money, waste of money, interests, corrupt politicians, elite, stupid, paying the government<|CONCLUSION|>","I've been living in Romania and there have been almost 70 years since our Governments have been stealing our money and spent it on things which didn't concern our welfare but only the interests of an elite. That's why I formed this condition to consider paying taxes a stupid thing. Recently though, Romania has started to spend the budget more wisely thanks to our Justice which has been sending to jail lots of corrupt politicians , by my reflex seems to have survived I simply cannot cope with the idea of paying the Government. I feel it's a waste of money even though I know it isn't necessarily","I know I am wrong, but I feel robbed when I have to pay taxes. I don't feel evasion as a crime and I hate the Government. Please, change my view."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>3D printed firearms are currently inferior to ones produced by firearms companies, yet history would suggest that technological improvements will usually be made when there is a demand to meet. I do not believe it is unreasonable to conclude that 3D printed firearms will approach match grade quality within the next 20 to 30 years. Tight controls or outright bans on 3D printers are against the public interest for a variety of reasons I won't get into here. I'll simply say that suppressing the growth of a new technology for the sake of gun control is absurd. I believe the age of gun control is coming to an end and alternative methods of preventing violence need to be sought out, or a certain amount of violence needs to be accepted as the cost of living in a free society.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>3D printed firearms are currently inferior to ones produced by firearms companies, yet history would suggest that technological improvements will usually be made when there is a demand to meet. I do not believe it is unreasonable to conclude that 3D printed firearms will approach match grade quality within the next 20 to 30 years. Tight controls or outright bans on 3D printers are against the public interest for a variety of reasons I won't get into here. I'll simply say that suppressing the growth of a new technology for the sake of gun control is absurd. I believe the age of gun control is coming to an end and alternative methods of preventing violence need to be sought out, or a certain amount of violence needs to be accepted as the cost of living in a free society.<|TARGETS|>suppressing the growth of a new technology for the sake of gun control, Tight controls or outright bans on 3D printers, the age of gun control, 3D printed firearms, to conclude that 3D printed firearms<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>3D printed firearms are currently inferior to ones produced by firearms companies, yet history would suggest that technological improvements will usually be made when there is a demand to meet. I do not believe it is unreasonable to conclude that 3D printed firearms will approach match grade quality within the next 20 to 30 years. Tight controls or outright bans on 3D printers are against the public interest for a variety of reasons I won't get into here. I'll simply say that suppressing the growth of a new technology for the sake of gun control is absurd. I believe the age of gun control is coming to an end and alternative methods of preventing violence need to be sought out, or a certain amount of violence needs to be accepted as the cost of living in a free society.<|ASPECTS|>inferior, outright bans, new technology, controls, absurd, free society, demand, firearms, cost of living, suppressing, technological improvements, match grade quality, growth, violence, public interest, gun control<|CONCLUSION|>","3D printed firearms are currently inferior to ones produced by firearms companies, yet history would suggest that technological improvements will usually be made when there is a demand to meet. I do not believe it is unreasonable to conclude that 3D printed firearms will approach match grade quality within the next 20 to 30 years. Tight controls or outright bans on 3D printers are against the public interest for a variety of reasons I won't get into here. I'll simply say that suppressing the growth of a new technology for the sake of gun control is absurd. I believe the age of gun control is coming to an end and alternative methods of preventing violence need to be sought out, or a certain amount of violence needs to be accepted as the cost of living in a free society.","I believe that the improvement and proliferation of 3D printing technology is inevitable, and will make most current methods of gun control/prohibition impossible. Governments need to acknowledge this and address the root causes if they wish to treat gun violence as a major public concern."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I suppose I should preface this by stating that I'm not saying anything even remotely similar to something like If a baby and a spider were in a burning building, I'd save the spider and let the infant roast . Nor do I wish ill upon people in favor of promoting or otherwise raising up other lifeforms. I simply don't believe that human life is by definition more important precious amazing complex sacred ect than every other living thing on this planet. I majored in organismal biology in college and fell in love with learning how all forms of life work to put it in the briefest form possible . There are so many beautiful and wonderful living things on this earth that, while I can conceptualize the reasons why people believe human life is 1, it just seems like such a narrow, nearly absurd viewpoint to hold. I mean, yes, people are extremely interesting and can be absolutely wonderful and that we have a definitive value But the same could be said of sponges, honeybees, and the the gut flora that aids in digestion, just in a different way. Before I ramble much more in the same tangent, I suppose most of my view is that life on earth and other places, if we ever find it is simply cool and I wish that people took more time to appreciate and value non human life because it's just as important in the world. Edit I have to leave for a bit, but will be happy to resume responding to questions when I get back. I know this isn't the most riveting CMV, but I'm very pleased with some of the propositions to counter my viewpoint that I've received and look forward to viewing more later I haven't had my view changed yet, but that could still happen<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I suppose I should preface this by stating that I'm not saying anything even remotely similar to something like If a baby and a spider were in a burning building, I'd save the spider and let the infant roast . Nor do I wish ill upon people in favor of promoting or otherwise raising up other lifeforms. I simply don't believe that human life is by definition more important precious amazing complex sacred ect than every other living thing on this planet. I majored in organismal biology in college and fell in love with learning how all forms of life work to put it in the briefest form possible . There are so many beautiful and wonderful living things on this earth that, while I can conceptualize the reasons why people believe human life is 1, it just seems like such a narrow, nearly absurd viewpoint to hold. I mean, yes, people are extremely interesting and can be absolutely wonderful and that we have a definitive value But the same could be said of sponges, honeybees, and the the gut flora that aids in digestion, just in a different way. Before I ramble much more in the same tangent, I suppose most of my view is that life on earth and other places, if we ever find it is simply cool and I wish that people took more time to appreciate and value non human life because it's just as important in the world. Edit I have to leave for a bit, but will be happy to resume responding to questions when I get back. I know this isn't the most riveting CMV, but I'm very pleased with some of the propositions to counter my viewpoint that I've received and look forward to viewing more later I haven't had my view changed yet, but that could still happen<|TARGETS|>Before I ramble much more in the same tangent I suppose most of my view is that life on earth and other places if we ever find it is simply cool and I wish that people took more time to appreciate and value non human life because it 's just as important in the world ., not saying anything even remotely similar to something like If a baby and a spider were in a burning building, that human life is by definition more important precious amazing complex sacred ect than every other living thing on this planet ., organismal biology in college and fell in love with learning how all forms of life work to put it in the briefest form possible ., I wish ill upon people in favor of promoting or otherwise raising up other lifeforms ., to counter my viewpoint that I 've received and look forward to viewing more later I have n't had my view changed yet<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I suppose I should preface this by stating that I'm not saying anything even remotely similar to something like If a baby and a spider were in a burning building, I'd save the spider and let the infant roast . Nor do I wish ill upon people in favor of promoting or otherwise raising up other lifeforms. I simply don't believe that human life is by definition more important precious amazing complex sacred ect than every other living thing on this planet. I majored in organismal biology in college and fell in love with learning how all forms of life work to put it in the briefest form possible . There are so many beautiful and wonderful living things on this earth that, while I can conceptualize the reasons why people believe human life is 1, it just seems like such a narrow, nearly absurd viewpoint to hold. I mean, yes, people are extremely interesting and can be absolutely wonderful and that we have a definitive value But the same could be said of sponges, honeybees, and the the gut flora that aids in digestion, just in a different way. Before I ramble much more in the same tangent, I suppose most of my view is that life on earth and other places, if we ever find it is simply cool and I wish that people took more time to appreciate and value non human life because it's just as important in the world. Edit I have to leave for a bit, but will be happy to resume responding to questions when I get back. I know this isn't the most riveting CMV, but I'm very pleased with some of the propositions to counter my viewpoint that I've received and look forward to viewing more later I haven't had my view changed yet, but that could still happen<|ASPECTS|>, organismal biology, wonderful, digestion, view, lifeforms, human life, riveting, responding to questions, cool, life, promoting, complex sacred ect, beautiful and wonderful living things, save the spider, important, interesting, value non human life, wish ill, appreciate, forms of life, definitive value, gut<|CONCLUSION|>","I suppose I should preface this by stating that I'm not saying anything even remotely similar to something like If a baby and a spider were in a burning building, I'd save the spider and let the infant roast . Nor do I wish ill upon people in favor of promoting or otherwise raising up other lifeforms. I simply don't believe that human life is by definition more important precious amazing complex sacred ect than every other living thing on this planet. I majored in organismal biology in college and fell in love with learning how all forms of life work to put it in the briefest form possible . There are so many beautiful and wonderful living things on this earth that, while I can conceptualize the reasons why people believe human life is 1, it just seems like such a narrow, nearly absurd viewpoint to hold. I mean, yes, people are extremely interesting and can be absolutely wonderful and that we have a definitive value But the same could be said of sponges, honeybees, and the the gut flora that aids in digestion, just in a different way. Before I ramble much more in the same tangent, I suppose most of my view is that life on earth and other places, if we ever find it is simply cool and I wish that people took more time to appreciate and value non human life because it's just as important in the world. Edit I have to leave for a bit, but will be happy to resume responding to questions when I get back. I know this isn't the most riveting , but I'm very pleased with some of the propositions to counter my viewpoint that I've received and look forward to viewing more later I haven't had my view changed yet, but that could still happen",I don't believe human life is inherently more valuable or more worthy of protection than other forms of life on earth
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When mythology is taught in schools within the United States it specifically includes only the myths, legends, and stories of now dead religions. I believe that society and teacher's personal beliefs have pressured the school system into only teaching non popular religions as mythology. Mythology is defined as 'a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.' yet when looking at Mythology in American schools, currently active religions are left off of the list. The purpose of this is unknown to me, be it intended to be non offensive, or in order to not challenge beliefs held by those in the class, or to anger parents as their children come home questioning the family religion. I believe that this reluctance to include these religions and myth sets push children to not question what is taught to them by their parents or by society as a whole. In the southern United States where I live it is a part of your involvement within society and your family to accept and participate in the local religious flavor and this could cause issues as well. Instead schools have turned a blind eye towards this part of education where it is almost certain that there will be no universal and fair education on religions and their practices beliefs from many families. While I can acknowledge that this could also be a slippery slope should the teacher begin to submit their own opinions or beliefs into the issue, that is a factor with other subjects as well as should be dealt with accordingly, as is done in other classes. In the end, I think that educating the people about the religious practices and stories traditions of other people around them will help to encourage a better understanding of others, reduce alienation and discrimination, and increase co existence within society.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When mythology is taught in schools within the United States it specifically includes only the myths, legends, and stories of now dead religions. I believe that society and teacher's personal beliefs have pressured the school system into only teaching non popular religions as mythology. Mythology is defined as 'a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.' yet when looking at Mythology in American schools, currently active religions are left off of the list. The purpose of this is unknown to me, be it intended to be non offensive, or in order to not challenge beliefs held by those in the class, or to anger parents as their children come home questioning the family religion. I believe that this reluctance to include these religions and myth sets push children to not question what is taught to them by their parents or by society as a whole. In the southern United States where I live it is a part of your involvement within society and your family to accept and participate in the local religious flavor and this could cause issues as well. Instead schools have turned a blind eye towards this part of education where it is almost certain that there will be no universal and fair education on religions and their practices beliefs from many families. While I can acknowledge that this could also be a slippery slope should the teacher begin to submit their own opinions or beliefs into the issue, that is a factor with other subjects as well as should be dealt with accordingly, as is done in other classes. In the end, I think that educating the people about the religious practices and stories traditions of other people around them will help to encourage a better understanding of others, reduce alienation and discrimination, and increase co existence within society.<|TARGETS|>When mythology is taught in schools within the United States, your involvement within society and your family to accept and participate in the local religious flavor and this, that society and teacher 's personal beliefs, this reluctance to include these religions and myth sets, Mythology, that educating the people about the religious practices and stories traditions of other people around them<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When mythology is taught in schools within the United States it specifically includes only the myths, legends, and stories of now dead religions. I believe that society and teacher's personal beliefs have pressured the school system into only teaching non popular religions as mythology. Mythology is defined as 'a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.' yet when looking at Mythology in American schools, currently active religions are left off of the list. The purpose of this is unknown to me, be it intended to be non offensive, or in order to not challenge beliefs held by those in the class, or to anger parents as their children come home questioning the family religion. I believe that this reluctance to include these religions and myth sets push children to not question what is taught to them by their parents or by society as a whole. In the southern United States where I live it is a part of your involvement within society and your family to accept and participate in the local religious flavor and this could cause issues as well. Instead schools have turned a blind eye towards this part of education where it is almost certain that there will be no universal and fair education on religions and their practices beliefs from many families. While I can acknowledge that this could also be a slippery slope should the teacher begin to submit their own opinions or beliefs into the issue, that is a factor with other subjects as well as should be dealt with accordingly, as is done in other classes. In the end, I think that educating the people about the religious practices and stories traditions of other people around them will help to encourage a better understanding of others, reduce alienation and discrimination, and increase co existence within society.<|ASPECTS|>family religion, religions, personal beliefs, myth sets, slippery slope, co existence within, myths, active religions, understanding of others, cause issues, collection, stories, non offensive, anger parents, religious flavor, fair education, legends, alienation, dead religions, mythology, universal, popular religions, involvement within society, better, reduce, religious or cultural tradition, discrimination, challenge beliefs, opinions, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>","When mythology is taught in schools within the United States it specifically includes only the myths, legends, and stories of now dead religions. I believe that society and teacher's personal beliefs have pressured the school system into only teaching non popular religions as mythology. Mythology is defined as 'a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.' yet when looking at Mythology in American schools, currently active religions are left off of the list. The purpose of this is unknown to me, be it intended to be non offensive, or in order to not challenge beliefs held by those in the class, or to anger parents as their children come home questioning the family religion. I believe that this reluctance to include these religions and myth sets push children to not question what is taught to them by their parents or by society as a whole. In the southern United States where I live it is a part of your involvement within society and your family to accept and participate in the local religious flavor and this could cause issues as well. Instead schools have turned a blind eye towards this part of education where it is almost certain that there will be no universal and fair education on religions and their practices beliefs from many families. While I can acknowledge that this could also be a slippery slope should the teacher begin to submit their own opinions or beliefs into the issue, that is a factor with other subjects as well as should be dealt with accordingly, as is done in other classes. In the end, I think that educating the people about the religious practices and stories traditions of other people around them will help to encourage a better understanding of others, reduce alienation and discrimination, and increase co existence within society.","I believe that when Mythology is taught in schools, it should include all religions, rather than just dead religions."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Apple built their modern product lines around a few simple ideas. Make the products attractive, make the hardware high quality, and make it easy to use. Since the iPhone and other apple products have gained a ton of popularity, I've noticed a trend in UI design for websites, apps, phones, games, everything, and that's to make things SIMPLE. The problem is that life is not simple, and products are being designed TOO simply to the point where they lose utility. The most recent example of this that prompted this post was Facebook. I wanted to make a simple status about a concert I'm going to next week. I made the post, clicked tag an event, searched the concert Except instead of giving me every result for that search, or giving me an option to see other options or really anything that could possibly have been useful, Facebook picked the top 10 related events within 5 days of the current date, and refused to show me anything else. Maybe it's different on the desktop site, but on the app there is literally no option whatsoever to expand your search. Just yesterday I was making an Instagram post. Some pictures were landscape, some we're portrait. On Instagram you can only see the crop size for the first picture of an album for no discernable reason. When you select multiple photos, it just resizes all the rest of them according to how the first one is sized, and you're just strictly not allowed to change them. I could list examples all day, but the trend in UI design is no longer how FUNCTIONAL can we make our products, it's how can we guess what people want so as not to confuse them with options. What happened to just putting more options or the three dots or three lines indicating a menu for people who wanted more options? Obviously this being tied to Apple is more just my idea and speculation, but the trend is what bothers me. I feel in the pursuit of making everything user friendly, we are making products do less and be less functional for no reason and in ways that could easily just be crammed into an options menu while still maintaining a modern and streamlined design. The new trend is to just straight up remove functionality from products which I think makes them harder to use.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Apple built their modern product lines around a few simple ideas. Make the products attractive, make the hardware high quality, and make it easy to use. Since the iPhone and other apple products have gained a ton of popularity, I've noticed a trend in UI design for websites, apps, phones, games, everything, and that's to make things SIMPLE. The problem is that life is not simple, and products are being designed TOO simply to the point where they lose utility. The most recent example of this that prompted this post was Facebook. I wanted to make a simple status about a concert I'm going to next week. I made the post, clicked tag an event, searched the concert Except instead of giving me every result for that search, or giving me an option to see other options or really anything that could possibly have been useful, Facebook picked the top 10 related events within 5 days of the current date, and refused to show me anything else. Maybe it's different on the desktop site, but on the app there is literally no option whatsoever to expand your search. Just yesterday I was making an Instagram post. Some pictures were landscape, some we're portrait. On Instagram you can only see the crop size for the first picture of an album for no discernable reason. When you select multiple photos, it just resizes all the rest of them according to how the first one is sized, and you're just strictly not allowed to change them. I could list examples all day, but the trend in UI design is no longer how FUNCTIONAL can we make our products, it's how can we guess what people want so as not to confuse them with options. What happened to just putting more options or the three dots or three lines indicating a menu for people who wanted more options? Obviously this being tied to Apple is more just my idea and speculation, but the trend is what bothers me. I feel in the pursuit of making everything user friendly, we are making products do less and be less functional for no reason and in ways that could easily just be crammed into an options menu while still maintaining a modern and streamlined design. The new trend is to just straight up remove functionality from products which I think makes them harder to use.<|TARGETS|>Apple, Instagram, to make a simple status about a concert, When you select multiple photos, the trend in UI design, The new trend<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Apple built their modern product lines around a few simple ideas. Make the products attractive, make the hardware high quality, and make it easy to use. Since the iPhone and other apple products have gained a ton of popularity, I've noticed a trend in UI design for websites, apps, phones, games, everything, and that's to make things SIMPLE. The problem is that life is not simple, and products are being designed TOO simply to the point where they lose utility. The most recent example of this that prompted this post was Facebook. I wanted to make a simple status about a concert I'm going to next week. I made the post, clicked tag an event, searched the concert Except instead of giving me every result for that search, or giving me an option to see other options or really anything that could possibly have been useful, Facebook picked the top 10 related events within 5 days of the current date, and refused to show me anything else. Maybe it's different on the desktop site, but on the app there is literally no option whatsoever to expand your search. Just yesterday I was making an Instagram post. Some pictures were landscape, some we're portrait. On Instagram you can only see the crop size for the first picture of an album for no discernable reason. When you select multiple photos, it just resizes all the rest of them according to how the first one is sized, and you're just strictly not allowed to change them. I could list examples all day, but the trend in UI design is no longer how FUNCTIONAL can we make our products, it's how can we guess what people want so as not to confuse them with options. What happened to just putting more options or the three dots or three lines indicating a menu for people who wanted more options? Obviously this being tied to Apple is more just my idea and speculation, but the trend is what bothers me. I feel in the pursuit of making everything user friendly, we are making products do less and be less functional for no reason and in ways that could easily just be crammed into an options menu while still maintaining a modern and streamlined design. The new trend is to just straight up remove functionality from products which I think makes them harder to use.<|ASPECTS|>concert, simple ideas, resizes, easy to use, ui design, landscape, portrait, modern, speculation, instagram, discernable, life, simple, functional, attractive, remove functionality, modern product lines, streamlined, crop size, harder, menu, options, high quality, expand your search, apple, less, hardware, option, less functional, trend, utility, user friendly, lose<|CONCLUSION|>","Apple built their modern product lines around a few simple ideas. Make the products attractive, make the hardware high quality, and make it easy to use. Since the iPhone and other apple products have gained a ton of popularity, I've noticed a trend in UI design for websites, apps, phones, games, everything, and that's to make things SIMPLE. The problem is that life is not simple, and products are being designed TOO simply to the point where they lose utility. The most recent example of this that prompted this post was Facebook. I wanted to make a simple status about a concert I'm going to next week. I made the post, clicked tag an event, searched the concert Except instead of giving me every result for that search, or giving me an option to see other options or really anything that could possibly have been useful, Facebook picked the top 10 related events within 5 days of the current date, and refused to show me anything else. Maybe it's different on the desktop site, but on the app there is literally no option whatsoever to expand your search. Just yesterday I was making an Instagram post. Some pictures were landscape, some we're portrait. On Instagram you can only see the crop size for the first picture of an album for no discernable reason. When you select multiple photos, it just resizes all the rest of them according to how the first one is sized, and you're just strictly not allowed to change them. I could list examples all day, but the trend in UI design is no longer how FUNCTIONAL can we make our products, it's how can we guess what people want so as not to confuse them with options. What happened to just putting more options or the three dots or three lines indicating a menu for people who wanted more options? Obviously this being tied to Apple is more just my idea and speculation, but the trend is what bothers me. I feel in the pursuit of making everything user friendly, we are making products do less and be less functional for no reason and in ways that could easily just be crammed into an options menu while still maintaining a modern and streamlined design. The new trend is to just straight up remove functionality from products which I think makes them harder to use.",UI design is and has been moving in the wrong direction since the rise in popularity of Apple devices.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is the video that inspired this view. I'll admit I did not check to see how reliable or correct the video is, but it seems legit to me. It is obvious that there is a ridiculous gap between the rich and the poor in America. I'm not advocating Communism, equal distribution of wealth, or any of that. But why the hell should somebody be making more in a year than I do in my lifetime? It doesn't make sense to me. I have a few points I'd like to address. First of all, doing this would not take away the incentive to work hard, get an education, and become filthy rich. But doesn't it get excessive at some point? What this point is can be argued, but honestly if you're making over 10 million a year, that should be enough. Make it 100 million, make it a billion, I don't care. There should be a limit. Who would decide where this money goes? I honestly don't know. If this idea was proposed, I'm sure something could be figured out. It could be given to organizations working towards a specific cause, and the money would just have to be tracked strictly to avoid payment to the members of the organization. For example, if you piled all the leftover money from a salary cap, and evenly distributed it to government created organizations, they could then use it for their cause. The cause could range from cures for cancer, education, infrastructure, and technology developments to smaller things such as churches, homeless shelters, charities, etc. I could go on forever, but it boils down to morality. This country is falling apart while Bill and Mary are trying to pick out how many 6 figure cars they should buy that they can park in their 9 figure mansion. All while people are starving, dying, and education and infrastructure are failing. The cap should be set somewhere high enough so that the wealth alone can support their children after they pass away, but after that it gets ridiculous. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is the video that inspired this view. I'll admit I did not check to see how reliable or correct the video is, but it seems legit to me. It is obvious that there is a ridiculous gap between the rich and the poor in America. I'm not advocating Communism, equal distribution of wealth, or any of that. But why the hell should somebody be making more in a year than I do in my lifetime? It doesn't make sense to me. I have a few points I'd like to address. First of all, doing this would not take away the incentive to work hard, get an education, and become filthy rich. But doesn't it get excessive at some point? What this point is can be argued, but honestly if you're making over 10 million a year, that should be enough. Make it 100 million, make it a billion, I don't care. There should be a limit. Who would decide where this money goes? I honestly don't know. If this idea was proposed, I'm sure something could be figured out. It could be given to organizations working towards a specific cause, and the money would just have to be tracked strictly to avoid payment to the members of the organization. For example, if you piled all the leftover money from a salary cap, and evenly distributed it to government created organizations, they could then use it for their cause. The cause could range from cures for cancer, education, infrastructure, and technology developments to smaller things such as churches, homeless shelters, charities, etc. I could go on forever, but it boils down to morality. This country is falling apart while Bill and Mary are trying to pick out how many 6 figure cars they should buy that they can park in their 9 figure mansion. All while people are starving, dying, and education and infrastructure are failing. The cap should be set somewhere high enough so that the wealth alone can support their children after they pass away, but after that it gets ridiculous. CMV.<|TARGETS|>The cap, advocating Communism equal distribution of wealth, If this idea was proposed, Bill and Mary are trying to pick out how many 6 figure cars they should buy that they can park in their 9 figure mansion, to see how reliable or correct the video, making more in a year than I do in my lifetime<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is the video that inspired this view. I'll admit I did not check to see how reliable or correct the video is, but it seems legit to me. It is obvious that there is a ridiculous gap between the rich and the poor in America. I'm not advocating Communism, equal distribution of wealth, or any of that. But why the hell should somebody be making more in a year than I do in my lifetime? It doesn't make sense to me. I have a few points I'd like to address. First of all, doing this would not take away the incentive to work hard, get an education, and become filthy rich. But doesn't it get excessive at some point? What this point is can be argued, but honestly if you're making over 10 million a year, that should be enough. Make it 100 million, make it a billion, I don't care. There should be a limit. Who would decide where this money goes? I honestly don't know. If this idea was proposed, I'm sure something could be figured out. It could be given to organizations working towards a specific cause, and the money would just have to be tracked strictly to avoid payment to the members of the organization. For example, if you piled all the leftover money from a salary cap, and evenly distributed it to government created organizations, they could then use it for their cause. The cause could range from cures for cancer, education, infrastructure, and technology developments to smaller things such as churches, homeless shelters, charities, etc. I could go on forever, but it boils down to morality. This country is falling apart while Bill and Mary are trying to pick out how many 6 figure cars they should buy that they can park in their 9 figure mansion. All while people are starving, dying, and education and infrastructure are failing. The cap should be set somewhere high enough so that the wealth alone can support their children after they pass away, but after that it gets ridiculous. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>excessive, support their children, figured, morality, money, points, specific, ridiculous, making, limit, gap, dying, failing, correct, wealth alone, equal, education and infrastructure, make sense, leftover money, cause, billion, incentive, starving, cures for cancer, filthy rich, avoid payment, money goes, falling apart, legit, work hard, communism, reliable, education, rich, poor, tracked strictly, distribution of wealth<|CONCLUSION|>","This is the video that inspired this view. I'll admit I did not check to see how reliable or correct the video is, but it seems legit to me. It is obvious that there is a ridiculous gap between the rich and the poor in America. I'm not advocating Communism, equal distribution of wealth, or any of that. But why the hell should somebody be making more in a year than I do in my lifetime? It doesn't make sense to me. I have a few points I'd like to address. First of all, doing this would not take away the incentive to work hard, get an education, and become filthy rich. But doesn't it get excessive at some point? What this point is can be argued, but honestly if you're making over 10 million a year, that should be enough. Make it 100 million, make it a billion, I don't care. There should be a limit. Who would decide where this money goes? I honestly don't know. If this idea was proposed, I'm sure something could be figured out. It could be given to organizations working towards a specific cause, and the money would just have to be tracked strictly to avoid payment to the members of the organization. For example, if you piled all the leftover money from a salary cap, and evenly distributed it to government created organizations, they could then use it for their cause. The cause could range from cures for cancer, education, infrastructure, and technology developments to smaller things such as churches, homeless shelters, charities, etc. I could go on forever, but it boils down to morality. This country is falling apart while Bill and Mary are trying to pick out how many 6 figure cars they should buy that they can park in their 9 figure mansion. All while people are starving, dying, and education and infrastructure are failing. The cap should be set somewhere high enough so that the wealth alone can support their children after they pass away, but after that it gets ridiculous. .",I think there needs to be a cap on how much money an individual can make a year.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that each other has morphed into one word with a specific meaning a connection between people or things. To back this up I want to point to some other examples of english bringing two words together and how we say them. Blackboard Firefighter Nowhere These are all conjunctions of two words and we pronounce them with the emphasis on the first word BLACKboard, FIREfighter, NOwhere. Linguist John McWhorter calls this a backshift, and it seems like a good way to determine when we have effectively brought two words together into one. If you say blackBOARD, fireFIGHTER, noWHERE, you end up changing the meaning of the word. I think the same is true of eachOTHER. Everyone front loads EACHother, and it has a more direct meaning than each other . Therefore it should be accepted that each other has become one word eachother. I will admit that eachother as a word looks weird though <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that each other has morphed into one word with a specific meaning a connection between people or things. To back this up I want to point to some other examples of english bringing two words together and how we say them. Blackboard Firefighter Nowhere These are all conjunctions of two words and we pronounce them with the emphasis on the first word BLACKboard, FIREfighter, NOwhere. Linguist John McWhorter calls this a backshift, and it seems like a good way to determine when we have effectively brought two words together into one. If you say blackBOARD, fireFIGHTER, noWHERE, you end up changing the meaning of the word. I think the same is true of eachOTHER. Everyone front loads EACHother, and it has a more direct meaning than each other . Therefore it should be accepted that each other has become one word eachother. I will admit that eachother as a word looks weird though <|TARGETS|>that eachother as a word, to point to some other examples of english bringing two words together and how we say them ., Linguist John McWhorter, Blackboard<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that each other has morphed into one word with a specific meaning a connection between people or things. To back this up I want to point to some other examples of english bringing two words together and how we say them. Blackboard Firefighter Nowhere These are all conjunctions of two words and we pronounce them with the emphasis on the first word BLACKboard, FIREfighter, NOwhere. Linguist John McWhorter calls this a backshift, and it seems like a good way to determine when we have effectively brought two words together into one. If you say blackBOARD, fireFIGHTER, noWHERE, you end up changing the meaning of the word. I think the same is true of eachOTHER. Everyone front loads EACHother, and it has a more direct meaning than each other . Therefore it should be accepted that each other has become one word eachother. I will admit that eachother as a word looks weird though <|ASPECTS|>changing, connection between people, direct meaning, looks weird, two words together, eachother, meaning, words, word eachother, backshift<|CONCLUSION|>","My view is that each other has morphed into one word with a specific meaning a connection between people or things. To back this up I want to point to some other examples of english bringing two words together and how we say them. Blackboard Firefighter Nowhere These are all conjunctions of two words and we pronounce them with the emphasis on the first word BLACKboard, FIREfighter, NOwhere. Linguist John McWhorter calls this a backshift, and it seems like a good way to determine when we have effectively brought two words together into one. If you say blackBOARD, fireFIGHTER, noWHERE, you end up changing the meaning of the word. I think the same is true of eachOTHER. Everyone front loads EACHother, and it has a more direct meaning than each other . Therefore it should be accepted that each other has become one word eachother. I will admit that eachother as a word looks weird though","""Each other"" should be written as ""eachother"""
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In all kinds of disciplines, the term “the Western World” is more or less axiomatic. It surprises me that people are so willing to use this term uncritically, especially in modern times. Obviously in any such division of the planet there will be edge cases along the borders “Is Tibet part of China?” “Is Turkey part of Europe?”, etc. Those are not the kinds of questions I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fundamental utility of the term “The Western World.” First of all, what is it? Europe and North America? Europe and the Americas? What about Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, which are highly European, culturally, because of imperialism? Is Russia part of the West? Russia and Germany didn’t get along so hot. Why do we speak about the Western World when both World Wars tore Europe apart? And what is “The West” supposed to be opposed to? The South? The East? Everything but the South and the East? How about religion? Okay, the Judeo Christian trunk of religions can be the defining factor. Oh wait, there is a comparable number of Buddhists in the US to the numbers in South Korea, which is now overwhelmingly Christian. Does South Korea count as “Western”? I have not been able to convince myself of a single cultural trait that defines the “Western World.”<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In all kinds of disciplines, the term “the Western World” is more or less axiomatic. It surprises me that people are so willing to use this term uncritically, especially in modern times. Obviously in any such division of the planet there will be edge cases along the borders “Is Tibet part of China?” “Is Turkey part of Europe?”, etc. Those are not the kinds of questions I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fundamental utility of the term “The Western World.” First of all, what is it? Europe and North America? Europe and the Americas? What about Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, which are highly European, culturally, because of imperialism? Is Russia part of the West? Russia and Germany didn’t get along so hot. Why do we speak about the Western World when both World Wars tore Europe apart? And what is “The West” supposed to be opposed to? The South? The East? Everything but the South and the East? How about religion? Okay, the Judeo Christian trunk of religions can be the defining factor. Oh wait, there is a comparable number of Buddhists in the US to the numbers in South Korea, which is now overwhelmingly Christian. Does South Korea count as “Western”? I have not been able to convince myself of a single cultural trait that defines the “Western World.”<|TARGETS|>the Judeo Christian trunk of religions, talking about the fundamental utility of the term “ The Western World, any such division of the planet there, to convince myself of a single cultural trait that, a comparable number of Buddhists in the US to the numbers in South Korea, Russia and Germany<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In all kinds of disciplines, the term “the Western World” is more or less axiomatic. It surprises me that people are so willing to use this term uncritically, especially in modern times. Obviously in any such division of the planet there will be edge cases along the borders “Is Tibet part of China?” “Is Turkey part of Europe?”, etc. Those are not the kinds of questions I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fundamental utility of the term “The Western World.” First of all, what is it? Europe and North America? Europe and the Americas? What about Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, which are highly European, culturally, because of imperialism? Is Russia part of the West? Russia and Germany didn’t get along so hot. Why do we speak about the Western World when both World Wars tore Europe apart? And what is “The West” supposed to be opposed to? The South? The East? Everything but the South and the East? How about religion? Okay, the Judeo Christian trunk of religions can be the defining factor. Oh wait, there is a comparable number of Buddhists in the US to the numbers in South Korea, which is now overwhelmingly Christian. Does South Korea count as “Western”? I have not been able to convince myself of a single cultural trait that defines the “Western World.”<|ASPECTS|>, judeo christian trunk of religions, edge cases, highly, defining, axiomatic, americas, european, south, opposed, tore europe apart, fundamental utility, cultural trait, west, western ”, western, east, part, religion, imperialism, uncritically, christian, hot, buddhists<|CONCLUSION|>","In all kinds of disciplines, the term “the Western World” is more or less axiomatic. It surprises me that people are so willing to use this term uncritically, especially in modern times. Obviously in any such division of the planet there will be edge cases along the borders “Is Tibet part of China?” “Is Turkey part of Europe?”, etc. Those are not the kinds of questions I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fundamental utility of the term “The Western World.” First of all, what is it? Europe and North America? Europe and the Americas? What about Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, which are highly European, culturally, because of imperialism? Is Russia part of the West? Russia and Germany didn’t get along so hot. Why do we speak about the Western World when both World Wars tore Europe apart? And what is “The West” supposed to be opposed to? The South? The East? Everything but the South and the East? How about religion? Okay, the Judeo Christian trunk of religions can be the defining factor. Oh wait, there is a comparable number of Buddhists in the US to the numbers in South Korea, which is now overwhelmingly Christian. Does South Korea count as “Western”? I have not been able to convince myself of a single cultural trait that defines the “Western World.”",I think the term “Western World” is mostly meaningless.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So in light of today's expansion of voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences in Virginia I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I think that there should be no restrictions on voting because of criminal acts, including voting while incarcerated. I see disenfranchisement of felons as a brute punishment measure which does not serve the purpose of protecting society, rehabilitating criminals, or seeking restoration for victims of crimes. I think that allowing felons to cast a ballot can indeed promote rehabilitation and reintegration of felons into society by giving them an equal basis of participation in democratic institutions. It is a small way of saying that society has not in fact given up on them as valued persons with something to contribute.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So in light of today's expansion of voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences in Virginia I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I think that there should be no restrictions on voting because of criminal acts, including voting while incarcerated. I see disenfranchisement of felons as a brute punishment measure which does not serve the purpose of protecting society, rehabilitating criminals, or seeking restoration for victims of crimes. I think that allowing felons to cast a ballot can indeed promote rehabilitation and reintegration of felons into society by giving them an equal basis of participation in democratic institutions. It is a small way of saying that society has not in fact given up on them as valued persons with something to contribute.<|TARGETS|>allowing felons to cast a ballot, no restrictions on voting because of criminal acts, today 's expansion of voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences in Virginia<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So in light of today's expansion of voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences in Virginia I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I think that there should be no restrictions on voting because of criminal acts, including voting while incarcerated. I see disenfranchisement of felons as a brute punishment measure which does not serve the purpose of protecting society, rehabilitating criminals, or seeking restoration for victims of crimes. I think that allowing felons to cast a ballot can indeed promote rehabilitation and reintegration of felons into society by giving them an equal basis of participation in democratic institutions. It is a small way of saying that society has not in fact given up on them as valued persons with something to contribute.<|ASPECTS|>criminal acts, participation, rehabilitating criminals, valued persons, democratic institutions, rehabilitation, reintegration of felons, punishment, protecting society, voting, disenfranchisement of felons, restoration, voting rights, victims of crimes, restrictions<|CONCLUSION|>","So in light of today's expansion of voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences in Virginia I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I think that there should be no restrictions on voting because of criminal acts, including voting while incarcerated. I see disenfranchisement of felons as a brute punishment measure which does not serve the purpose of protecting society, rehabilitating criminals, or seeking restoration for victims of crimes. I think that allowing felons to cast a ballot can indeed promote rehabilitation and reintegration of felons into society by giving them an equal basis of participation in democratic institutions. It is a small way of saying that society has not in fact given up on them as valued persons with something to contribute.",Felons should be allowed to vote.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me preface this by saying that I am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited. Yet I have always vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology, and greater metaphysical notion of the soul must explain its existence. I maintain that our consciousness is simply an expression of biology, and that there will come a point in time at which our understanding of the brain will catch up with our understanding of the rest of our body. At this stage, we would be capable of creating consciousness similar to our own. I believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology. I have no concrete scientific knowledge on which I rest my argument besides the fact I cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary. This ignorance about the brain is comparable to people in bygone era's being unaware of how our bodies functioned. As developments in anatomy allowed us to map each blood vessel in our bodies so to will neuroscience map each neuron in our brain. This is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality. I look forward to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me preface this by saying that I am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited. Yet I have always vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology, and greater metaphysical notion of the soul must explain its existence. I maintain that our consciousness is simply an expression of biology, and that there will come a point in time at which our understanding of the brain will catch up with our understanding of the rest of our body. At this stage, we would be capable of creating consciousness similar to our own. I believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology. I have no concrete scientific knowledge on which I rest my argument besides the fact I cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary. This ignorance about the brain is comparable to people in bygone era's being unaware of how our bodies functioned. As developments in anatomy allowed us to map each blood vessel in our bodies so to will neuroscience map each neuron in our brain. This is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality. I look forward to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit<|TARGETS|>that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness, This ignorance about the brain, vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology and greater metaphysical notion of the soul, Let me preface this by saying that I am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited ., a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me preface this by saying that I am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited. Yet I have always vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology, and greater metaphysical notion of the soul must explain its existence. I maintain that our consciousness is simply an expression of biology, and that there will come a point in time at which our understanding of the brain will catch up with our understanding of the rest of our body. At this stage, we would be capable of creating consciousness similar to our own. I believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology. I have no concrete scientific knowledge on which I rest my argument besides the fact I cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary. This ignorance about the brain is comparable to people in bygone era's being unaware of how our bodies functioned. As developments in anatomy allowed us to map each blood vessel in our bodies so to will neuroscience map each neuron in our brain. This is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality. I look forward to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit<|ASPECTS|>morality, functioned, metaphysical explanation, metaphysical notion, ignorance of our biology, determinism, unaware, consciousness similar, concrete, soul, neuroscientist, understanding, biology, true free, consciousness, knowledge, scientific knowledge, ignorance about the brain, self awareness, enlightenment, map each blood vessel, ignorant ideas, creating, expression of biology, neuroscience map<|CONCLUSION|>","Let me preface this by saying that I am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited. Yet I have always vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology, and greater metaphysical notion of the soul must explain its existence. I maintain that our consciousness is simply an expression of biology, and that there will come a point in time at which our understanding of the brain will catch up with our understanding of the rest of our body. At this stage, we would be capable of creating consciousness similar to our own. I believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology. I have no concrete scientific knowledge on which I rest my argument besides the fact I cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary. This ignorance about the brain is comparable to people in bygone era's being unaware of how our bodies functioned. As developments in anatomy allowed us to map each blood vessel in our bodies so to will neuroscience map each neuron in our brain. This is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality. I look forward to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit",I believe that human consciousness and self-awareness are merely products of a biological mechanismbrain that can be recreated it said mechanism is understood and perfectly recreated.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Money, Parents, Neighbourhood, Education all of those have been shown to have a significant impact on the future of a child. x200B Sure those are all factors to the future, but changeable with only so much effort. Give Money to everyone, so they are on an equal basis — Unrealistic. Take children away from 'bad' parents and give to 'better parents' — Self explanatory. Education — Sure, imo the second thing in my opinion we should change. Here's the catch. With great educational systems, great professors, or teachers for example are great to children who want to learn, however, there are too many that don't even want to do that. And I personally think that especially those in the poorer regions think the wrong way of education. Be that 'it is boring' or 'I don't want to be a nerd' or 'What can I change in the first place'. So great teachers neglect can't help those 'unwilling' children. Now the interesting point. If a child has the attitude, towards learning is interesting, enriching in a fun, social and yes even monetary way, learning is totally different from what it was previously. And for the time in which teachers, universities and colleges are not as great as we want them to be, those with the attitude will work around that problem, because they don't need the fast moving car to get far, they'll get creative because they want it , not some very motivating teacher. I've personally experienced those who have an interesting open attitude towards really anything, appear to be open towards any area, which makes them a great person all around. They are energetic, because they don't loose the drive at some point, because they think it's useless. They can have great conversations because they have this attitude which generates interesting approaches towards many things. Those features, in my eyes, seem to be good for job interviews, relationships, normal friend to friend conversation, normal stranger to stranger conversations, science. x200B I'd love to hear what you think about that.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Money, Parents, Neighbourhood, Education all of those have been shown to have a significant impact on the future of a child. x200B Sure those are all factors to the future, but changeable with only so much effort. Give Money to everyone, so they are on an equal basis — Unrealistic. Take children away from 'bad' parents and give to 'better parents' — Self explanatory. Education — Sure, imo the second thing in my opinion we should change. Here's the catch. With great educational systems, great professors, or teachers for example are great to children who want to learn, however, there are too many that don't even want to do that. And I personally think that especially those in the poorer regions think the wrong way of education. Be that 'it is boring' or 'I don't want to be a nerd' or 'What can I change in the first place'. So great teachers neglect can't help those 'unwilling' children. Now the interesting point. If a child has the attitude, towards learning is interesting, enriching in a fun, social and yes even monetary way, learning is totally different from what it was previously. And for the time in which teachers, universities and colleges are not as great as we want them to be, those with the attitude will work around that problem, because they don't need the fast moving car to get far, they'll get creative because they want it , not some very motivating teacher. I've personally experienced those who have an interesting open attitude towards really anything, appear to be open towards any area, which makes them a great person all around. They are energetic, because they don't loose the drive at some point, because they think it's useless. They can have great conversations because they have this attitude which generates interesting approaches towards many things. Those features, in my eyes, seem to be good for job interviews, relationships, normal friend to friend conversation, normal stranger to stranger conversations, science. x200B I'd love to hear what you think about that.<|TARGETS|>the fast moving car to get far, personally experienced those who have an interesting open attitude towards really anything appear to be open towards any area, to hear what you think about that ., x200B, If a child has the attitude towards learning, Take children away from ' bad ' parents and give to ' better parents' — Self explanatory .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Money, Parents, Neighbourhood, Education all of those have been shown to have a significant impact on the future of a child. x200B Sure those are all factors to the future, but changeable with only so much effort. Give Money to everyone, so they are on an equal basis — Unrealistic. Take children away from 'bad' parents and give to 'better parents' — Self explanatory. Education — Sure, imo the second thing in my opinion we should change. Here's the catch. With great educational systems, great professors, or teachers for example are great to children who want to learn, however, there are too many that don't even want to do that. And I personally think that especially those in the poorer regions think the wrong way of education. Be that 'it is boring' or 'I don't want to be a nerd' or 'What can I change in the first place'. So great teachers neglect can't help those 'unwilling' children. Now the interesting point. If a child has the attitude, towards learning is interesting, enriching in a fun, social and yes even monetary way, learning is totally different from what it was previously. And for the time in which teachers, universities and colleges are not as great as we want them to be, those with the attitude will work around that problem, because they don't need the fast moving car to get far, they'll get creative because they want it , not some very motivating teacher. I've personally experienced those who have an interesting open attitude towards really anything, appear to be open towards any area, which makes them a great person all around. They are energetic, because they don't loose the drive at some point, because they think it's useless. They can have great conversations because they have this attitude which generates interesting approaches towards many things. Those features, in my eyes, seem to be good for job interviews, relationships, normal friend to friend conversation, normal stranger to stranger conversations, science. x200B I'd love to hear what you think about that.<|ASPECTS|>, parents, money, everyone, enriching, nerd, motivating teacher, job interviews, great person, factors, unrealistic, open towards any area, fun, effort, changeable, useless, future, equal basis, stranger, energetic, drive, self explanatory, poorer, attitude, educational systems, learning, boring, open attitude, interesting approaches, teachers, relationships, change, wrong way, creative, children, conversations, education, impact, neglect, future of a child, conversation<|CONCLUSION|>","Money, Parents, Neighbourhood, Education all of those have been shown to have a significant impact on the future of a child. x200B Sure those are all factors to the future, but changeable with only so much effort. Give Money to everyone, so they are on an equal basis — Unrealistic. Take children away from 'bad' parents and give to 'better parents' — Self explanatory. Education — Sure, imo the second thing in my opinion we should change. Here's the catch. With great educational systems, great professors, or teachers for example are great to children who want to learn, however, there are too many that don't even want to do that. And I personally think that especially those in the poorer regions think the wrong way of education. Be that 'it is boring' or 'I don't want to be a nerd' or 'What can I change in the first place'. So great teachers neglect can't help those 'unwilling' children. Now the interesting point. If a child has the attitude, towards learning is interesting, enriching in a fun, social and yes even monetary way, learning is totally different from what it was previously. And for the time in which teachers, universities and colleges are not as great as we want them to be, those with the attitude will work around that problem, because they don't need the fast moving car to get far, they'll get creative because they want it , not some very motivating teacher. I've personally experienced those who have an interesting open attitude towards really anything, appear to be open towards any area, which makes them a great person all around. They are energetic, because they don't loose the drive at some point, because they think it's useless. They can have great conversations because they have this attitude which generates interesting approaches towards many things. Those features, in my eyes, seem to be good for job interviews, relationships, normal friend to friend conversation, normal stranger to stranger conversations, science. x200B I'd love to hear what you think about that.",Attitude is people most important 'feature'.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is obviously related to the killing of Daniel Shaver. If you haven't already, you can witness the footage here viewer discretion advised My argument is that no cop should be allowed to kill a man because the cop felt threatened. Killing a person should be the absolute last resort, when the situation is imperative and no other action is possible. An act like that cannot be based on feelings of threat. Judge jury cannot order a person to be executed just because they have a bad feeling about him. The conviction has to be based on evidence. Same here, even though response time is much shorter. Feeling is not enough, for two reasons Feelings can be influenced by a number of things. What if you slept really badly the night before? What if you had an argument with your wife and she said she wants a divorce? What if another vehicle nearly hit you on the way to the crime scene? Lot of things can influence how we feel, not merely what is happening at the scene. Feelings can also change rapidly. There is no way to prove a feeling. Only I truly know what I feel, no matter what I project to outside. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for others to prove I did not feel what I later swear I felt. If I am allowed to do what I want because of the way I feel, no one could hold me accountable for anything. All necessary punishments should be based on verifiable evidence and the punishment should fit the crime. But what if the person does not respond appropriately to orders? You know, like Daniel Shaver. Well, honestly there could be a number of reasons for that for example he might be drunk, on drugs, panicking having a breakdown, mentally handicapped or simply does not understand English well. Because reasons other than he is going to kill us exist, there needs to be at least another factor, like the suspect being verbally aggressive and threatening. I should not be killed just because I had a twitch on my leg and the cop had a stressful day. Not even if I reach to pull up my pants. If I am not armed, I pose no threat and ANY fatal shot is not justified. How can cops know if I can pose harm? Either by my aggressive behavior or witnessing the presence of a gun. But then the cops get shot right? No. The likelihood for that might increase, sure, but the likelihood for innocent person getting shot needlessly also vastly decreases. At worst, it's a zero sum game. At best, the society at large benefits, with fewer people dead. Also, I have to note that a cop that has his gun already out and pointed at the suspect, has a huge advantage in response time. It takes 0.5 seconds or less to pull the trigger. For the other to reach and pull out a gun, extend their shooting arm, aim and pull the trigger, it takes about 2 3 seconds. Odds simply favor the cop. So cop deaths might not even increase, even if cops have to wait an additional second to identify a gun. Nevertheless, in all scenarios the appropriate action should be the action of least harm. Frisking, restraining, detaining, taser, warning shot or non lethal shot first. Fatal shot should be the absolute last resort, when others are not available. Daniel Shaver should have been frisked and detained when he was on the ground. The cops outnumbered him 3 to 1, had their guns ready and he was unable to harm anyone when on the ground, hands over his head. Result from his non compliance should not have been a fatal shot. Maybe no first shots policy would be too much, but at least cops should not be able to shoot until the threat weapon has been verified to exist. Having a feeling of threat is not enough. Sudden twitches or movements towards waistband or glove compartment are not enough, as the suspect might be unable to rationally think about what his actions look like to a stressful cop. And even then, shots should be non lethal maybe use rubber bullets first and foremost, until all the other options have been exhausted or impossible. I don't think this is the case nowadays. Same goes for me, or anyone really. I cannot beat up a guy, just because his presence threatens me. Not even if his hand is in his pocket. If he threatens me verbally or non verbally like getting extremely close and touching me , I would should be allowed to do the action of least harm to protect myself. But even then I definitely should not be allowed to kill him as my first instinct . Only if I know for sure that my life is in mortal danger, and it's my life or his. Police should follow the same rules, pretty much. The bottom line I cannot be thrown into jail for robbery, if I was literally unable to rob that bank, no matter what the police thinks . And likewise, I cannot be shot to death, if I was unable to pose a serious threat, no matter what police thinks . And the fact is that if I face 2 3 armed police officers, my unarmed ass simply poses no threat to them. Just because they feel I might be dangerous or armed is not enough to sign my death warrant. Nor is death appropriate punishment for my failure to comply with all of their orders. EDIT Lot of good responses, no time to reply to them all. Thanks regardless <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is obviously related to the killing of Daniel Shaver. If you haven't already, you can witness the footage here viewer discretion advised My argument is that no cop should be allowed to kill a man because the cop felt threatened. Killing a person should be the absolute last resort, when the situation is imperative and no other action is possible. An act like that cannot be based on feelings of threat. Judge jury cannot order a person to be executed just because they have a bad feeling about him. The conviction has to be based on evidence. Same here, even though response time is much shorter. Feeling is not enough, for two reasons Feelings can be influenced by a number of things. What if you slept really badly the night before? What if you had an argument with your wife and she said she wants a divorce? What if another vehicle nearly hit you on the way to the crime scene? Lot of things can influence how we feel, not merely what is happening at the scene. Feelings can also change rapidly. There is no way to prove a feeling. Only I truly know what I feel, no matter what I project to outside. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for others to prove I did not feel what I later swear I felt. If I am allowed to do what I want because of the way I feel, no one could hold me accountable for anything. All necessary punishments should be based on verifiable evidence and the punishment should fit the crime. But what if the person does not respond appropriately to orders? You know, like Daniel Shaver. Well, honestly there could be a number of reasons for that for example he might be drunk, on drugs, panicking having a breakdown, mentally handicapped or simply does not understand English well. Because reasons other than he is going to kill us exist, there needs to be at least another factor, like the suspect being verbally aggressive and threatening. I should not be killed just because I had a twitch on my leg and the cop had a stressful day. Not even if I reach to pull up my pants. If I am not armed, I pose no threat and ANY fatal shot is not justified. How can cops know if I can pose harm? Either by my aggressive behavior or witnessing the presence of a gun. But then the cops get shot right? No. The likelihood for that might increase, sure, but the likelihood for innocent person getting shot needlessly also vastly decreases. At worst, it's a zero sum game. At best, the society at large benefits, with fewer people dead. Also, I have to note that a cop that has his gun already out and pointed at the suspect, has a huge advantage in response time. It takes 0.5 seconds or less to pull the trigger. For the other to reach and pull out a gun, extend their shooting arm, aim and pull the trigger, it takes about 2 3 seconds. Odds simply favor the cop. So cop deaths might not even increase, even if cops have to wait an additional second to identify a gun. Nevertheless, in all scenarios the appropriate action should be the action of least harm. Frisking, restraining, detaining, taser, warning shot or non lethal shot first. Fatal shot should be the absolute last resort, when others are not available. Daniel Shaver should have been frisked and detained when he was on the ground. The cops outnumbered him 3 to 1, had their guns ready and he was unable to harm anyone when on the ground, hands over his head. Result from his non compliance should not have been a fatal shot. Maybe no first shots policy would be too much, but at least cops should not be able to shoot until the threat weapon has been verified to exist. Having a feeling of threat is not enough. Sudden twitches or movements towards waistband or glove compartment are not enough, as the suspect might be unable to rationally think about what his actions look like to a stressful cop. And even then, shots should be non lethal maybe use rubber bullets first and foremost, until all the other options have been exhausted or impossible. I don't think this is the case nowadays. Same goes for me, or anyone really. I cannot beat up a guy, just because his presence threatens me. Not even if his hand is in his pocket. If he threatens me verbally or non verbally like getting extremely close and touching me , I would should be allowed to do the action of least harm to protect myself. But even then I definitely should not be allowed to kill him as my first instinct . Only if I know for sure that my life is in mortal danger, and it's my life or his. Police should follow the same rules, pretty much. The bottom line I cannot be thrown into jail for robbery, if I was literally unable to rob that bank, no matter what the police thinks . And likewise, I cannot be shot to death, if I was unable to pose a serious threat, no matter what police thinks . And the fact is that if I face 2 3 armed police officers, my unarmed ass simply poses no threat to them. Just because they feel I might be dangerous or armed is not enough to sign my death warrant. Nor is death appropriate punishment for my failure to comply with all of their orders. EDIT Lot of good responses, no time to reply to them all. Thanks regardless <|TARGETS|>Frisking, to comply with all of their orders ., be thrown into jail for robbery, allowed to do what I want because of the way I feel no one could hold me accountable for anything ., no first shots policy, All necessary punishments<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is obviously related to the killing of Daniel Shaver. If you haven't already, you can witness the footage here viewer discretion advised My argument is that no cop should be allowed to kill a man because the cop felt threatened. Killing a person should be the absolute last resort, when the situation is imperative and no other action is possible. An act like that cannot be based on feelings of threat. Judge jury cannot order a person to be executed just because they have a bad feeling about him. The conviction has to be based on evidence. Same here, even though response time is much shorter. Feeling is not enough, for two reasons Feelings can be influenced by a number of things. What if you slept really badly the night before? What if you had an argument with your wife and she said she wants a divorce? What if another vehicle nearly hit you on the way to the crime scene? Lot of things can influence how we feel, not merely what is happening at the scene. Feelings can also change rapidly. There is no way to prove a feeling. Only I truly know what I feel, no matter what I project to outside. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for others to prove I did not feel what I later swear I felt. If I am allowed to do what I want because of the way I feel, no one could hold me accountable for anything. All necessary punishments should be based on verifiable evidence and the punishment should fit the crime. But what if the person does not respond appropriately to orders? You know, like Daniel Shaver. Well, honestly there could be a number of reasons for that for example he might be drunk, on drugs, panicking having a breakdown, mentally handicapped or simply does not understand English well. Because reasons other than he is going to kill us exist, there needs to be at least another factor, like the suspect being verbally aggressive and threatening. I should not be killed just because I had a twitch on my leg and the cop had a stressful day. Not even if I reach to pull up my pants. If I am not armed, I pose no threat and ANY fatal shot is not justified. How can cops know if I can pose harm? Either by my aggressive behavior or witnessing the presence of a gun. But then the cops get shot right? No. The likelihood for that might increase, sure, but the likelihood for innocent person getting shot needlessly also vastly decreases. At worst, it's a zero sum game. At best, the society at large benefits, with fewer people dead. Also, I have to note that a cop that has his gun already out and pointed at the suspect, has a huge advantage in response time. It takes 0.5 seconds or less to pull the trigger. For the other to reach and pull out a gun, extend their shooting arm, aim and pull the trigger, it takes about 2 3 seconds. Odds simply favor the cop. So cop deaths might not even increase, even if cops have to wait an additional second to identify a gun. Nevertheless, in all scenarios the appropriate action should be the action of least harm. Frisking, restraining, detaining, taser, warning shot or non lethal shot first. Fatal shot should be the absolute last resort, when others are not available. Daniel Shaver should have been frisked and detained when he was on the ground. The cops outnumbered him 3 to 1, had their guns ready and he was unable to harm anyone when on the ground, hands over his head. Result from his non compliance should not have been a fatal shot. Maybe no first shots policy would be too much, but at least cops should not be able to shoot until the threat weapon has been verified to exist. Having a feeling of threat is not enough. Sudden twitches or movements towards waistband or glove compartment are not enough, as the suspect might be unable to rationally think about what his actions look like to a stressful cop. And even then, shots should be non lethal maybe use rubber bullets first and foremost, until all the other options have been exhausted or impossible. I don't think this is the case nowadays. Same goes for me, or anyone really. I cannot beat up a guy, just because his presence threatens me. Not even if his hand is in his pocket. If he threatens me verbally or non verbally like getting extremely close and touching me , I would should be allowed to do the action of least harm to protect myself. But even then I definitely should not be allowed to kill him as my first instinct . Only if I know for sure that my life is in mortal danger, and it's my life or his. Police should follow the same rules, pretty much. The bottom line I cannot be thrown into jail for robbery, if I was literally unable to rob that bank, no matter what the police thinks . And likewise, I cannot be shot to death, if I was unable to pose a serious threat, no matter what police thinks . And the fact is that if I face 2 3 armed police officers, my unarmed ass simply poses no threat to them. Just because they feel I might be dangerous or armed is not enough to sign my death warrant. Nor is death appropriate punishment for my failure to comply with all of their orders. EDIT Lot of good responses, no time to reply to them all. Thanks regardless <|ASPECTS|>dangerous, shot, fatal shot, serious, hit, exhausted, influenced, life, mortal danger, threatened, arm, twitches, response time, change rapidly, shoot, panicking, death appropriate punishment, rob, killed, time, difficult, dead, rubber bullets, society at large, innocent person getting shot, vehicle, rules, crime, killing, divorce, beat, harm, warning shot, reply, detaining, kill, feelings, prove a feeling, conviction, threat weapon, options, twitch, action, imperative, absolute, armed, detained, mentally handicapped, aggressive behavior, protect, viewer discretion, shot to death, benefits, cop deaths, zero sum game, slept really badly, last, movements, situation, punishments, threatens, first shots policy, feeling, non compliance, guy, stressful day, restraining, killing a person, based on evidence, jury, verifiable evidence, presence, favor the cop, understand english, punishment, order, good responses, feelings of threat, cops, accountable, unarmed ass, least harm, threat, fit, robbery, advantage, justified, death warrant, harm anyone, non lethal, jail, verbally aggressive, bad feeling, frisked, threatening, stressful, pose, know what i feel, unable, respond appropriately to orders, influence how we feel, frisking<|CONCLUSION|>","This is obviously related to the killing of Daniel Shaver. If you haven't already, you can witness the footage here viewer discretion advised My argument is that no cop should be allowed to kill a man because the cop felt threatened. Killing a person should be the absolute last resort, when the situation is imperative and no other action is possible. An act like that cannot be based on feelings of threat. Judge jury cannot order a person to be executed just because they have a bad feeling about him. The conviction has to be based on evidence. Same here, even though response time is much shorter. Feeling is not enough, for two reasons Feelings can be influenced by a number of things. What if you slept really badly the night before? What if you had an argument with your wife and she said she wants a divorce? What if another vehicle nearly hit you on the way to the crime scene? Lot of things can influence how we feel, not merely what is happening at the scene. Feelings can also change rapidly. There is no way to prove a feeling. Only I truly know what I feel, no matter what I project to outside. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for others to prove I did not feel what I later swear I felt. If I am allowed to do what I want because of the way I feel, no one could hold me accountable for anything. All necessary punishments should be based on verifiable evidence and the punishment should fit the crime. But what if the person does not respond appropriately to orders? You know, like Daniel Shaver. Well, honestly there could be a number of reasons for that for example he might be drunk, on drugs, panicking having a breakdown, mentally handicapped or simply does not understand English well. Because reasons other than he is going to kill us exist, there needs to be at least another factor, like the suspect being verbally aggressive and threatening. I should not be killed just because I had a twitch on my leg and the cop had a stressful day. Not even if I reach to pull up my pants. If I am not armed, I pose no threat and ANY fatal shot is not justified. How can cops know if I can pose harm? Either by my aggressive behavior or witnessing the presence of a gun. But then the cops get shot right? No. The likelihood for that might increase, sure, but the likelihood for innocent person getting shot needlessly also vastly decreases. At worst, it's a zero sum game. At best, the society at large benefits, with fewer people dead. Also, I have to note that a cop that has his gun already out and pointed at the suspect, has a huge advantage in response time. It takes 0.5 seconds or less to pull the trigger. For the other to reach and pull out a gun, extend their shooting arm, aim and pull the trigger, it takes about 2 3 seconds. Odds simply favor the cop. So cop deaths might not even increase, even if cops have to wait an additional second to identify a gun. Nevertheless, in all scenarios the appropriate action should be the action of least harm. Frisking, restraining, detaining, taser, warning shot or non lethal shot first. Fatal shot should be the absolute last resort, when others are not available. Daniel Shaver should have been frisked and detained when he was on the ground. The cops outnumbered him 3 to 1, had their guns ready and he was unable to harm anyone when on the ground, hands over his head. Result from his non compliance should not have been a fatal shot. Maybe no first shots policy would be too much, but at least cops should not be able to shoot until the threat weapon has been verified to exist. Having a feeling of threat is not enough. Sudden twitches or movements towards waistband or glove compartment are not enough, as the suspect might be unable to rationally think about what his actions look like to a stressful cop. And even then, shots should be non lethal maybe use rubber bullets first and foremost, until all the other options have been exhausted or impossible. I don't think this is the case nowadays. Same goes for me, or anyone really. I cannot beat up a guy, just because his presence threatens me. Not even if his hand is in his pocket. If he threatens me verbally or non verbally like getting extremely close and touching me , I would should be allowed to do the action of least harm to protect myself. But even then I definitely should not be allowed to kill him as my first instinct . Only if I know for sure that my life is in mortal danger, and it's my life or his. Police should follow the same rules, pretty much. The bottom line I cannot be thrown into jail for robbery, if I was literally unable to rob that bank, no matter what the police thinks . And likewise, I cannot be shot to death, if I was unable to pose a serious threat, no matter what police thinks . And the fact is that if I face 2 3 armed police officers, my unarmed ass simply poses no threat to them. Just because they feel I might be dangerous or armed is not enough to sign my death warrant. Nor is death appropriate punishment for my failure to comply with all of their orders. EDIT Lot of good responses, no time to reply to them all. Thanks regardless",Police should not be allowed to kill an unarmed man just because he felt threatening or failed to comply.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that moe is probably the most uninteresting and boring trend that's sweeping anime. If you're unfamiliar with it, It's cute characters who serve no purpose but to be cute and annoying. It's making anime into a mess where most of the most popular shows are exactly the same. A supreme example of Moe is the show K On which is about literally nothing. A plotless show about some cute high school girls who form a band and never have any real conflict or problems. Moe is terrible and it's really irritating that more and more shows are becoming moe to cater to its large audience. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that moe is probably the most uninteresting and boring trend that's sweeping anime. If you're unfamiliar with it, It's cute characters who serve no purpose but to be cute and annoying. It's making anime into a mess where most of the most popular shows are exactly the same. A supreme example of Moe is the show K On which is about literally nothing. A plotless show about some cute high school girls who form a band and never have any real conflict or problems. Moe is terrible and it's really irritating that more and more shows are becoming moe to cater to its large audience. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, that moe, A supreme example of Moe, making anime into a mess where most of the most popular shows, that more and more shows are becoming moe to cater to its large audience ., Moe<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that moe is probably the most uninteresting and boring trend that's sweeping anime. If you're unfamiliar with it, It's cute characters who serve no purpose but to be cute and annoying. It's making anime into a mess where most of the most popular shows are exactly the same. A supreme example of Moe is the show K On which is about literally nothing. A plotless show about some cute high school girls who form a band and never have any real conflict or problems. Moe is terrible and it's really irritating that more and more shows are becoming moe to cater to its large audience. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>nothing, mess, boring trend, remind, popular topics, uninteresting, cute characters, concerns, large audience, conflict or problems, anime, effective, downvotes, terrible, happy cmving, cute and annoying, plotless, message us, change, downvote, purpose, questions, irritating<|CONCLUSION|>","I think that moe is probably the most uninteresting and boring trend that's sweeping anime. If you're unfamiliar with it, It's cute characters who serve no purpose but to be cute and annoying. It's making anime into a mess where most of the most popular shows are exactly the same. A supreme example of Moe is the show K On which is about literally nothing. A plotless show about some cute high school girls who form a band and never have any real conflict or problems. Moe is terrible and it's really irritating that more and more shows are becoming moe to cater to its large audience. gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing","""Moe"" anime is annoying and uninteresting"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think it's safe to say that almost everyone in the world uses a keyboard now. And yet, the vast majority of people have no idea how to type without looking at the keys and often hunting and pecking. I personally consider this a major problem because I think it is holding us back to some extent. Some points that I use to support this argument Faster typing more productivity, businesses would benefit. You could do more paperwork, more homework, anything on the computer. I'd argue that if everybody could type, we'd all have more free time as well, or at the very least GDP would increase as we get more work done in less time. It's useful for personal and professional activities Even if all you do is type posts on facebook and write an email to your grandkids, knowing how to type will help you. It's easy to learn. It's all muscle memory, and if you practiced for an hour a day you'd be good in a month. Plus there are programs galore for it. So, my view is that if university required you to know how to touch type, perhaps with a modest WPM test on entry, or at least a freshman year course, people would be forced to learn it and would become better typists, thus benefiting everyone down the line. Why university? Because minimum wage workers don't usually need to type on a computer, making it less necessary at the high school level. Also, in university, you'll be typing a hell of a lot. I don't care what course you take, you'll need to type up essays and ultimately a thesis paper. Am I overblowing this? To quote the great Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. To me it's at least as important as learning how to write with a pen these days. I'd just like to understand why society currently seems to place no value in this skill, and that maybe I'm overreacting. Edit 1 Well, thanks for all the comments, it's been a very interesting discussion so far. The argument that's hanging onto me the most is that the keyboard may become obsolete, but I can't see that happening soon enough to justify ignoring a useful skill. For those who point out that we can learn it of our own free will and it's not the university's place, I feel that the long term benefits of such a policy change benefit us in the long term. Universities often require you to study other things they feel are beneficial, such as learning another language which is often taught inadequately , so I don't feel that it's outside the potential scope of a university to require typing. And for those pointing out that it isn't worth the time, I maintain that learning costs next to nothing, and it saves you time over the course of your life if you add up every time you type. Edit 2, View Changed u cheeseboyardee made the point that not everyone learns at the same rate and some people may not be able to learn to type well, and thus mandating it could exclude otherwise capable people. Thanks for all the posts and cordial discussion.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think it's safe to say that almost everyone in the world uses a keyboard now. And yet, the vast majority of people have no idea how to type without looking at the keys and often hunting and pecking. I personally consider this a major problem because I think it is holding us back to some extent. Some points that I use to support this argument Faster typing more productivity, businesses would benefit. You could do more paperwork, more homework, anything on the computer. I'd argue that if everybody could type, we'd all have more free time as well, or at the very least GDP would increase as we get more work done in less time. It's useful for personal and professional activities Even if all you do is type posts on facebook and write an email to your grandkids, knowing how to type will help you. It's easy to learn. It's all muscle memory, and if you practiced for an hour a day you'd be good in a month. Plus there are programs galore for it. So, my view is that if university required you to know how to touch type, perhaps with a modest WPM test on entry, or at least a freshman year course, people would be forced to learn it and would become better typists, thus benefiting everyone down the line. Why university? Because minimum wage workers don't usually need to type on a computer, making it less necessary at the high school level. Also, in university, you'll be typing a hell of a lot. I don't care what course you take, you'll need to type up essays and ultimately a thesis paper. Am I overblowing this? To quote the great Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. To me it's at least as important as learning how to write with a pen these days. I'd just like to understand why society currently seems to place no value in this skill, and that maybe I'm overreacting. Edit 1 Well, thanks for all the comments, it's been a very interesting discussion so far. The argument that's hanging onto me the most is that the keyboard may become obsolete, but I can't see that happening soon enough to justify ignoring a useful skill. For those who point out that we can learn it of our own free will and it's not the university's place, I feel that the long term benefits of such a policy change benefit us in the long term. Universities often require you to study other things they feel are beneficial, such as learning another language which is often taught inadequately , so I don't feel that it's outside the potential scope of a university to require typing. And for those pointing out that it isn't worth the time, I maintain that learning costs next to nothing, and it saves you time over the course of your life if you add up every time you type. Edit 2, View Changed u cheeseboyardee made the point that not everyone learns at the same rate and some people may not be able to learn to type well, and thus mandating it could exclude otherwise capable people. Thanks for all the posts and cordial discussion.<|TARGETS|>if you practiced for an hour a day, more free time as well or at the very least GDP, a modest WPM test on entry, holding us back to some extent ., how to write with a pen these days ., if university required you to know how to touch type<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think it's safe to say that almost everyone in the world uses a keyboard now. And yet, the vast majority of people have no idea how to type without looking at the keys and often hunting and pecking. I personally consider this a major problem because I think it is holding us back to some extent. Some points that I use to support this argument Faster typing more productivity, businesses would benefit. You could do more paperwork, more homework, anything on the computer. I'd argue that if everybody could type, we'd all have more free time as well, or at the very least GDP would increase as we get more work done in less time. It's useful for personal and professional activities Even if all you do is type posts on facebook and write an email to your grandkids, knowing how to type will help you. It's easy to learn. It's all muscle memory, and if you practiced for an hour a day you'd be good in a month. Plus there are programs galore for it. So, my view is that if university required you to know how to touch type, perhaps with a modest WPM test on entry, or at least a freshman year course, people would be forced to learn it and would become better typists, thus benefiting everyone down the line. Why university? Because minimum wage workers don't usually need to type on a computer, making it less necessary at the high school level. Also, in university, you'll be typing a hell of a lot. I don't care what course you take, you'll need to type up essays and ultimately a thesis paper. Am I overblowing this? To quote the great Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. To me it's at least as important as learning how to write with a pen these days. I'd just like to understand why society currently seems to place no value in this skill, and that maybe I'm overreacting. Edit 1 Well, thanks for all the comments, it's been a very interesting discussion so far. The argument that's hanging onto me the most is that the keyboard may become obsolete, but I can't see that happening soon enough to justify ignoring a useful skill. For those who point out that we can learn it of our own free will and it's not the university's place, I feel that the long term benefits of such a policy change benefit us in the long term. Universities often require you to study other things they feel are beneficial, such as learning another language which is often taught inadequately , so I don't feel that it's outside the potential scope of a university to require typing. And for those pointing out that it isn't worth the time, I maintain that learning costs next to nothing, and it saves you time over the course of your life if you add up every time you type. Edit 2, View Changed u cheeseboyardee made the point that not everyone learns at the same rate and some people may not be able to learn to type well, and thus mandating it could exclude otherwise capable people. Thanks for all the posts and cordial discussion.<|ASPECTS|>, muscle memory, another, beneficial, work done, thesis paper, benefits, paperwork, learns, easy to learn, useful, study, obsolete, essays, learning costs, university, interesting discussion, overreacting, typing, capable people, crazy pills, free time, keyboard, productivity, benefiting, touch type, policy, useful skill, learning how to write, personal and professional activities, less necessary, businesses, better typists, overblowing, time, cordial discussion, less, programs, long, benefit, value, saves, gdp, homework, learn to type well, type, taught inadequately, worth, holding us back<|CONCLUSION|>","I think it's safe to say that almost everyone in the world uses a keyboard now. And yet, the vast majority of people have no idea how to type without looking at the keys and often hunting and pecking. I personally consider this a major problem because I think it is holding us back to some extent. Some points that I use to support this argument Faster typing more productivity, businesses would benefit. You could do more paperwork, more homework, anything on the computer. I'd argue that if everybody could type, we'd all have more free time as well, or at the very least GDP would increase as we get more work done in less time. It's useful for personal and professional activities Even if all you do is type posts on facebook and write an email to your grandkids, knowing how to type will help you. It's easy to learn. It's all muscle memory, and if you practiced for an hour a day you'd be good in a month. Plus there are programs galore for it. So, my view is that if university required you to know how to touch type, perhaps with a modest WPM test on entry, or at least a freshman year course, people would be forced to learn it and would become better typists, thus benefiting everyone down the line. Why university? Because minimum wage workers don't usually need to type on a computer, making it less necessary at the high school level. Also, in university, you'll be typing a hell of a lot. I don't care what course you take, you'll need to type up essays and ultimately a thesis paper. Am I overblowing this? To quote the great Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. To me it's at least as important as learning how to write with a pen these days. I'd just like to understand why society currently seems to place no value in this skill, and that maybe I'm overreacting. Edit 1 Well, thanks for all the comments, it's been a very interesting discussion so far. The argument that's hanging onto me the most is that the keyboard may become obsolete, but I can't see that happening soon enough to justify ignoring a useful skill. For those who point out that we can learn it of our own free will and it's not the university's place, I feel that the long term benefits of such a policy change benefit us in the long term. Universities often require you to study other things they feel are beneficial, such as learning another language which is often taught inadequately , so I don't feel that it's outside the potential scope of a university to require typing. And for those pointing out that it isn't worth the time, I maintain that learning costs next to nothing, and it saves you time over the course of your life if you add up every time you type. Edit 2, View Changed u cheeseboyardee made the point that not everyone learns at the same rate and some people may not be able to learn to type well, and thus mandating it could exclude otherwise capable people. Thanks for all the posts and cordial discussion.",Touch-Typing should be a required skill for university.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not saying that any specific religion is objectively right or wrong, only that an objectively right religion exists. I think that, given proper discussion, ample research, and rational judgement, a single religion could either be confirmed as correct, or a new religion that bridges current religions could be formed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not saying that any specific religion is objectively right or wrong, only that an objectively right religion exists. I think that, given proper discussion, ample research, and rational judgement, a single religion could either be confirmed as correct, or a new religion that bridges current religions could be formed.<|TARGETS|>an objectively right religion, not saying that any specific religion, a new religion that bridges current religions<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not saying that any specific religion is objectively right or wrong, only that an objectively right religion exists. I think that, given proper discussion, ample research, and rational judgement, a single religion could either be confirmed as correct, or a new religion that bridges current religions could be formed.<|ASPECTS|>current religions, right religion, correct, rational judgement, right or wrong<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm not saying that any specific religion is objectively right or wrong, only that an objectively right religion exists. I think that, given proper discussion, ample research, and rational judgement, a single religion could either be confirmed as correct, or a new religion that bridges current religions could be formed.",I think that there is an objectively correct religion.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For context, I am a registered Democrat and consider myself a very liberal person. I think that Trump is a disgrace to the presidency, and I think that they way he has deemed all news that speaks badly of him “fake news” is extremely dangerous. However, it seems to me that CNN, MSNBC, etc have shot themselves in the foot by devoting so much time to the Muller investigation over the past two years, and by reporting on it as if they were 100 certain that the investigation would lead to clear collusion and or obstruction charges against Trump. I think that a lot of people, including myself, felt like these news sources laid out a clear path to a Trump impeachment as soon as Muller finished his investigation, and that Trump Fox News would end up making fools of themselves for calling the whole thing a “witch hunt.” However, it seems like the opposite has happened. Even when the full report comes out, I don’t see how this could be anything except for a huge win for Trump. I’ve always been skeptical of news sources and attempted to fact check anything I read. Someone please convince me that Fox News isn’t right in saying that I was blinded by my hatred for Trump when I believed everyone who was saying this investigation would be a bombshell against Trump. Edit woah that’s my first gold, thanks stranger IMPORTANT EDIT this really blew up, and it was brought to my attention that people are using this as evidence of liberals becoming pro trump or something along those lines. So if people are quoting this post, please include this I STILL DONT LIKE TRUMP. AT ALL. Regardless of my trust in liberal media, I STRONGLY disagree with almost everything Trump says, does, and stands for. It is insanely hypocritical to look at this post and say, “see, Fox News was telling the truth the whole time.” If you are agreeing with my criticism of CNN and MSNBC, you should be equally if not more outraged by Fox News. Thanks.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For context, I am a registered Democrat and consider myself a very liberal person. I think that Trump is a disgrace to the presidency, and I think that they way he has deemed all news that speaks badly of him “fake news” is extremely dangerous. However, it seems to me that CNN, MSNBC, etc have shot themselves in the foot by devoting so much time to the Muller investigation over the past two years, and by reporting on it as if they were 100 certain that the investigation would lead to clear collusion and or obstruction charges against Trump. I think that a lot of people, including myself, felt like these news sources laid out a clear path to a Trump impeachment as soon as Muller finished his investigation, and that Trump Fox News would end up making fools of themselves for calling the whole thing a “witch hunt.” However, it seems like the opposite has happened. Even when the full report comes out, I don’t see how this could be anything except for a huge win for Trump. I’ve always been skeptical of news sources and attempted to fact check anything I read. Someone please convince me that Fox News isn’t right in saying that I was blinded by my hatred for Trump when I believed everyone who was saying this investigation would be a bombshell against Trump. Edit woah that’s my first gold, thanks stranger IMPORTANT EDIT this really blew up, and it was brought to my attention that people are using this as evidence of liberals becoming pro trump or something along those lines. So if people are quoting this post, please include this I STILL DONT LIKE TRUMP. AT ALL. Regardless of my trust in liberal media, I STRONGLY disagree with almost everything Trump says, does, and stands for. It is insanely hypocritical to look at this post and say, “see, Fox News was telling the truth the whole time.” If you are agreeing with my criticism of CNN and MSNBC, you should be equally if not more outraged by Fox News. Thanks.<|TARGETS|>these news sources, that they way he has deemed all news that speaks badly of him “ fake news ”, saying that I was blinded by my hatred for Trump when I believed everyone who was saying this investigation, devoting so much time to the Muller investigation, been skeptical of news sources and attempted to fact check anything I read ., calling the whole thing a “ witch hunt<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For context, I am a registered Democrat and consider myself a very liberal person. I think that Trump is a disgrace to the presidency, and I think that they way he has deemed all news that speaks badly of him “fake news” is extremely dangerous. However, it seems to me that CNN, MSNBC, etc have shot themselves in the foot by devoting so much time to the Muller investigation over the past two years, and by reporting on it as if they were 100 certain that the investigation would lead to clear collusion and or obstruction charges against Trump. I think that a lot of people, including myself, felt like these news sources laid out a clear path to a Trump impeachment as soon as Muller finished his investigation, and that Trump Fox News would end up making fools of themselves for calling the whole thing a “witch hunt.” However, it seems like the opposite has happened. Even when the full report comes out, I don’t see how this could be anything except for a huge win for Trump. I’ve always been skeptical of news sources and attempted to fact check anything I read. Someone please convince me that Fox News isn’t right in saying that I was blinded by my hatred for Trump when I believed everyone who was saying this investigation would be a bombshell against Trump. Edit woah that’s my first gold, thanks stranger IMPORTANT EDIT this really blew up, and it was brought to my attention that people are using this as evidence of liberals becoming pro trump or something along those lines. So if people are quoting this post, please include this I STILL DONT LIKE TRUMP. AT ALL. Regardless of my trust in liberal media, I STRONGLY disagree with almost everything Trump says, does, and stands for. It is insanely hypocritical to look at this post and say, “see, Fox News was telling the truth the whole time.” If you are agreeing with my criticism of CNN and MSNBC, you should be equally if not more outraged by Fox News. Thanks.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, obstruction charges, hypocritical, clear, win, trust, witch hunt., trump, liberals, disgrace, like trump, skeptical of news sources, liberal media, trump impeachment, hatred for trump, collusion, liberal person, fake, pro trump, fact check, disagree, huge<|CONCLUSION|>","For context, I am a registered Democrat and consider myself a very liberal person. I think that Trump is a disgrace to the presidency, and I think that they way he has deemed all news that speaks badly of him “fake news” is extremely dangerous. However, it seems to me that CNN, MSNBC, etc have shot themselves in the foot by devoting so much time to the Muller investigation over the past two years, and by reporting on it as if they were 100 certain that the investigation would lead to clear collusion and or obstruction charges against Trump. I think that a lot of people, including myself, felt like these news sources laid out a clear path to a Trump impeachment as soon as Muller finished his investigation, and that Trump Fox News would end up making fools of themselves for calling the whole thing a “witch hunt.” However, it seems like the opposite has happened. Even when the full report comes out, I don’t see how this could be anything except for a huge win for Trump. I’ve always been skeptical of news sources and attempted to fact check anything I read. Someone please convince me that Fox News isn’t right in saying that I was blinded by my hatred for Trump when I believed everyone who was saying this investigation would be a bombshell against Trump. Edit woah that’s my first gold, thanks stranger IMPORTANT EDIT this really blew up, and it was brought to my attention that people are using this as evidence of liberals becoming pro trump or something along those lines. So if people are quoting this post, please include this I STILL DONT LIKE TRUMP. AT ALL. Regardless of my trust in liberal media, I STRONGLY disagree with almost everything Trump says, does, and stands for. It is insanely hypocritical to look at this post and say, “see, Fox News was telling the truth the whole time.” If you are agreeing with my criticism of CNN and MSNBC, you should be equally if not more outraged by Fox News. Thanks.",Liberal news sources have lost a lot of credibility because of the way they have reported on the Muller investigation
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I remember grilling people for years that their votes mattered and, if we all voted, we could really make a change I've been thinking a lot about this recently and I realized that right around the time that Citizens United passed, I started to think differently of our electoral process. Today I feel that my vote really doesn't matter in the broad scheme of things please note a lot of this hinges on the fact that I live in a very blue state with very few electoral votes, so if I lived in a swing state I might be more inclined to see my vote as some sort of civic duty to showing up on election day, but nonetheless Faithless Electors and incidents where electoral votes get cast for John Ewards when it's John Kerry that's running for president really test my faith in our democratic process. So I want to abstain. I don't consent to the current way that our leaders are elected and chosen. I also don't think it's fair to be told that if I don't vote I have no right to complain about it To me, that sounds a whole hell of a lot like well, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear and I think we should all take pause to really think about the meaning of phrase you can't complain if you don't vote. Shouldn't not voting be my way of not consenting to the process? Isn't it the only way to show my disapproval? How else could I go about it? I'm honestly hoping someone out there can give me something to chew on that might rekindle my faith in our current process because I'd rather be optimistic than jaded.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I remember grilling people for years that their votes mattered and, if we all voted, we could really make a change I've been thinking a lot about this recently and I realized that right around the time that Citizens United passed, I started to think differently of our electoral process. Today I feel that my vote really doesn't matter in the broad scheme of things please note a lot of this hinges on the fact that I live in a very blue state with very few electoral votes, so if I lived in a swing state I might be more inclined to see my vote as some sort of civic duty to showing up on election day, but nonetheless Faithless Electors and incidents where electoral votes get cast for John Ewards when it's John Kerry that's running for president really test my faith in our democratic process. So I want to abstain. I don't consent to the current way that our leaders are elected and chosen. I also don't think it's fair to be told that if I don't vote I have no right to complain about it To me, that sounds a whole hell of a lot like well, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear and I think we should all take pause to really think about the meaning of phrase you can't complain if you don't vote. Shouldn't not voting be my way of not consenting to the process? Isn't it the only way to show my disapproval? How else could I go about it? I'm honestly hoping someone out there can give me something to chew on that might rekindle my faith in our current process because I'd rather be optimistic than jaded.<|TARGETS|>a change I 've been thinking a lot about this recently and I realized that right around the time that Citizens United passed, hoping someone out there can give me something to chew on that might rekindle my faith in our current process, the broad scheme of things please note a lot of this hinges on the fact that I live in a very blue state with very few electoral votes so if I lived in a swing state, Should n't not voting be my way of not consenting to the process, to be told that if I do n't vote I have no right to complain about it To me that sounds a whole hell of a lot like well if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear and I think we should all take pause to really think about the meaning of phrase you ca n't complain if you do n't vote ., to see my vote as some sort of civic duty to showing up on election day<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I remember grilling people for years that their votes mattered and, if we all voted, we could really make a change I've been thinking a lot about this recently and I realized that right around the time that Citizens United passed, I started to think differently of our electoral process. Today I feel that my vote really doesn't matter in the broad scheme of things please note a lot of this hinges on the fact that I live in a very blue state with very few electoral votes, so if I lived in a swing state I might be more inclined to see my vote as some sort of civic duty to showing up on election day, but nonetheless Faithless Electors and incidents where electoral votes get cast for John Ewards when it's John Kerry that's running for president really test my faith in our democratic process. So I want to abstain. I don't consent to the current way that our leaders are elected and chosen. I also don't think it's fair to be told that if I don't vote I have no right to complain about it To me, that sounds a whole hell of a lot like well, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear and I think we should all take pause to really think about the meaning of phrase you can't complain if you don't vote. Shouldn't not voting be my way of not consenting to the process? Isn't it the only way to show my disapproval? How else could I go about it? I'm honestly hoping someone out there can give me something to chew on that might rekindle my faith in our current process because I'd rather be optimistic than jaded.<|ASPECTS|>abstain, leaders, jaded, right to complain, fear, electoral process, civic duty, faithless, disapproval, make a change, faith, consenting to the process, optimistic, think differently, elected and chosen, democratic process, votes mattered<|CONCLUSION|>","I remember grilling people for years that their votes mattered and, if we all voted, we could really make a change I've been thinking a lot about this recently and I realized that right around the time that Citizens United passed, I started to think differently of our electoral process. Today I feel that my vote really doesn't matter in the broad scheme of things please note a lot of this hinges on the fact that I live in a very blue state with very few electoral votes, so if I lived in a swing state I might be more inclined to see my vote as some sort of civic duty to showing up on election day, but nonetheless Faithless Electors and incidents where electoral votes get cast for John Ewards when it's John Kerry that's running for president really test my faith in our democratic process. So I want to abstain. I don't consent to the current way that our leaders are elected and chosen. I also don't think it's fair to be told that if I don't vote I have no right to complain about it To me, that sounds a whole hell of a lot like well, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear and I think we should all take pause to really think about the meaning of phrase you can't complain if you don't vote. Shouldn't not voting be my way of not consenting to the process? Isn't it the only way to show my disapproval? How else could I go about it? I'm honestly hoping someone out there can give me something to chew on that might rekindle my faith in our current process because I'd rather be optimistic than jaded.","""You can't complain if you don't vote"" is the new ""You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"" - they're both logical fallacies"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In his final moments, Darth Vader is viewed by most as redeemed for his past evil. He selflessly saved his son and killed the emperor, at sacrifice to his own life. In the eyes of the Force, he was redeemed to the light side. This is confirmed by his ghost appearing at the end. Throughout the movies, it is implied by Qui Gonn, and Obi Wan before this death that those who die on the Light Side have the power to become Force Ghosts. In Canon, we never see an evil force ghost, only good ones. Therefore, Darth Vader died having returned to the Light Side of the Force. His final actions, though, had almost no consequence on the well being of the galaxy, except for preserving his son's life. The Death Star would have been destroyed regardless of his actions, and the Emperor and himself would have been wiped from the Galaxy. Lando and friends did far more good to save the galaxy and bring balance to the force than Vader did. Regardless, from an objective moral viewpoint, Vader's final actions should not be considered redeeming of his past evils. This is a guy whose very first actions on the Dark Side were murdering youngins'. To say that Darth Vader was redeemed at the end of his life is comparable to say Hitler would have been redeemed before his suicide if had had killed his inner circle. No one would argue that, had he done that, Hitler would have died with a pure moral slate.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In his final moments, Darth Vader is viewed by most as redeemed for his past evil. He selflessly saved his son and killed the emperor, at sacrifice to his own life. In the eyes of the Force, he was redeemed to the light side. This is confirmed by his ghost appearing at the end. Throughout the movies, it is implied by Qui Gonn, and Obi Wan before this death that those who die on the Light Side have the power to become Force Ghosts. In Canon, we never see an evil force ghost, only good ones. Therefore, Darth Vader died having returned to the Light Side of the Force. His final actions, though, had almost no consequence on the well being of the galaxy, except for preserving his son's life. The Death Star would have been destroyed regardless of his actions, and the Emperor and himself would have been wiped from the Galaxy. Lando and friends did far more good to save the galaxy and bring balance to the force than Vader did. Regardless, from an objective moral viewpoint, Vader's final actions should not be considered redeeming of his past evils. This is a guy whose very first actions on the Dark Side were murdering youngins'. To say that Darth Vader was redeemed at the end of his life is comparable to say Hitler would have been redeemed before his suicide if had had killed his inner circle. No one would argue that, had he done that, Hitler would have died with a pure moral slate.<|TARGETS|>To say that Darth Vader was redeemed at the end of his life, Qui Gonn and Obi Wan before this death that those who die on the Light Side, an objective moral viewpoint Vader 's final actions, Lando and friends, Darth Vader, The Death Star<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In his final moments, Darth Vader is viewed by most as redeemed for his past evil. He selflessly saved his son and killed the emperor, at sacrifice to his own life. In the eyes of the Force, he was redeemed to the light side. This is confirmed by his ghost appearing at the end. Throughout the movies, it is implied by Qui Gonn, and Obi Wan before this death that those who die on the Light Side have the power to become Force Ghosts. In Canon, we never see an evil force ghost, only good ones. Therefore, Darth Vader died having returned to the Light Side of the Force. His final actions, though, had almost no consequence on the well being of the galaxy, except for preserving his son's life. The Death Star would have been destroyed regardless of his actions, and the Emperor and himself would have been wiped from the Galaxy. Lando and friends did far more good to save the galaxy and bring balance to the force than Vader did. Regardless, from an objective moral viewpoint, Vader's final actions should not be considered redeeming of his past evils. This is a guy whose very first actions on the Dark Side were murdering youngins'. To say that Darth Vader was redeemed at the end of his life is comparable to say Hitler would have been redeemed before his suicide if had had killed his inner circle. No one would argue that, had he done that, Hitler would have died with a pure moral slate.<|ASPECTS|>death, past evils, murdering youngins, well, returned, consequence, redeemed, evil force ghost, wiped, sacrifice, moral slate, saved, killed the emperor, circle, save the galaxy, past evil, preserving, light side, destroyed, pure, selflessly, died, force ghosts, power, good, killed, ghost, emperor, redeeming, balance, bring, 's life<|CONCLUSION|>","In his final moments, Darth Vader is viewed by most as redeemed for his past evil. He selflessly saved his son and killed the emperor, at sacrifice to his own life. In the eyes of the Force, he was redeemed to the light side. This is confirmed by his ghost appearing at the end. Throughout the movies, it is implied by Qui Gonn, and Obi Wan before this death that those who die on the Light Side have the power to become Force Ghosts. In Canon, we never see an evil force ghost, only good ones. Therefore, Darth Vader died having returned to the Light Side of the Force. His final actions, though, had almost no consequence on the well being of the galaxy, except for preserving his son's life. The Death Star would have been destroyed regardless of his actions, and the Emperor and himself would have been wiped from the Galaxy. Lando and friends did far more good to save the galaxy and bring balance to the force than Vader did. Regardless, from an objective moral viewpoint, Vader's final actions should not be considered redeeming of his past evils. This is a guy whose very first actions on the Dark Side were murdering youngins'. To say that Darth Vader was redeemed at the end of his life is comparable to say Hitler would have been redeemed before his suicide if had had killed his inner circle. No one would argue that, had he done that, Hitler would have died with a pure moral slate.","Darth Vader was an incredibly evil leader, and with that in mind: his actions during his final moments do not even come close to redeeming the unjust misery and death he put the galaxy through."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I made this comment on r flipping but I want to discuss it further, because it's something that I genuinely think is a social problem, however I'd like to be reassured otherwise. eBay are cancelling the accounts of sellers who get more than around 8 of less than five star ratings. By doing this, eBay are trying to force sellers to satisfy 100 of buyers. Because there is some irreducible percentage of buyers who are unreasonable, this is never going to actually work. Getting an unreasonable buyer is random, and accordingly there will be sellers who get pushed out due to nothing more than the bad luck of getting several unreasonable buyers in a row. No matter how good you are, your eBay account now has a half life. This is a consequence of an American cultural malaise, five star ism , the drive towards unreasonable standards of perfection, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. A pass is a good mark. Three star service is actually good service. Three stars means that it wasn't noticably great or noticably terrible you just got exactly what you wanted. Every transaction that you did today, that you didn't even notice, what you got there was three star service. You deserve three star service. What makes better service better, is that you didn't actually deserve it. In a sane world, if you get better than acceptable service, that's four stars. If you get the best service you've ever seen, that's five. If you were disappointed in some way which is clearly attributable to the service provider, but you still got more or less what you wanted, that's two stars. If they were completely incompetent and absolutely failed you, that's one star. Or zero, if they intentionally angered you. However, those who decide these things in eBay, Uber, Walmart, Blizzard, various American call centres, etc etc have all somehow come to the bizarre decision that acceptable should mean five stars, and anything less than five stars, is unacceptable. I took an Uber ride the other day. I rated the guy five stars, for no other reason than that I knew that if I did not, he would be punished. He had done nothing wrong. He did exactly what I expected of him. No more, no less. He deserved three stars. I wanted to be able to give him that rating without any concern for his continued employment well, his contract . This state of affairs completely grinds my gears. It destroys the very purpose of having rating systems at all. It converts the rating system back to a binary, bad good , with no meaningful distinction between those ratings. Worse, it makes no actual provision for recognition of genuinely good service. If you rate any seller who sent the thing out in acceptable condition within acceptable time as five star how do you fairly rate the one who sent it out quicker than you expected, better packed, and the item in better condition than you were told? How do you rate the Uber driver who showed up early, got you to your destination quickly, and had a great conversation with you? Am I wrong? Have I missed something here?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I made this comment on r flipping but I want to discuss it further, because it's something that I genuinely think is a social problem, however I'd like to be reassured otherwise. eBay are cancelling the accounts of sellers who get more than around 8 of less than five star ratings. By doing this, eBay are trying to force sellers to satisfy 100 of buyers. Because there is some irreducible percentage of buyers who are unreasonable, this is never going to actually work. Getting an unreasonable buyer is random, and accordingly there will be sellers who get pushed out due to nothing more than the bad luck of getting several unreasonable buyers in a row. No matter how good you are, your eBay account now has a half life. This is a consequence of an American cultural malaise, five star ism , the drive towards unreasonable standards of perfection, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. A pass is a good mark. Three star service is actually good service. Three stars means that it wasn't noticably great or noticably terrible you just got exactly what you wanted. Every transaction that you did today, that you didn't even notice, what you got there was three star service. You deserve three star service. What makes better service better, is that you didn't actually deserve it. In a sane world, if you get better than acceptable service, that's four stars. If you get the best service you've ever seen, that's five. If you were disappointed in some way which is clearly attributable to the service provider, but you still got more or less what you wanted, that's two stars. If they were completely incompetent and absolutely failed you, that's one star. Or zero, if they intentionally angered you. However, those who decide these things in eBay, Uber, Walmart, Blizzard, various American call centres, etc etc have all somehow come to the bizarre decision that acceptable should mean five stars, and anything less than five stars, is unacceptable. I took an Uber ride the other day. I rated the guy five stars, for no other reason than that I knew that if I did not, he would be punished. He had done nothing wrong. He did exactly what I expected of him. No more, no less. He deserved three stars. I wanted to be able to give him that rating without any concern for his continued employment well, his contract . This state of affairs completely grinds my gears. It destroys the very purpose of having rating systems at all. It converts the rating system back to a binary, bad good , with no meaningful distinction between those ratings. Worse, it makes no actual provision for recognition of genuinely good service. If you rate any seller who sent the thing out in acceptable condition within acceptable time as five star how do you fairly rate the one who sent it out quicker than you expected, better packed, and the item in better condition than you were told? How do you rate the Uber driver who showed up early, got you to your destination quickly, and had a great conversation with you? Am I wrong? Have I missed something here?<|TARGETS|>eBay, this comment on r flipping, the Uber driver who showed up early, your eBay account, A pass, Every transaction that you did today<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I made this comment on r flipping but I want to discuss it further, because it's something that I genuinely think is a social problem, however I'd like to be reassured otherwise. eBay are cancelling the accounts of sellers who get more than around 8 of less than five star ratings. By doing this, eBay are trying to force sellers to satisfy 100 of buyers. Because there is some irreducible percentage of buyers who are unreasonable, this is never going to actually work. Getting an unreasonable buyer is random, and accordingly there will be sellers who get pushed out due to nothing more than the bad luck of getting several unreasonable buyers in a row. No matter how good you are, your eBay account now has a half life. This is a consequence of an American cultural malaise, five star ism , the drive towards unreasonable standards of perfection, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. A pass is a good mark. Three star service is actually good service. Three stars means that it wasn't noticably great or noticably terrible you just got exactly what you wanted. Every transaction that you did today, that you didn't even notice, what you got there was three star service. You deserve three star service. What makes better service better, is that you didn't actually deserve it. In a sane world, if you get better than acceptable service, that's four stars. If you get the best service you've ever seen, that's five. If you were disappointed in some way which is clearly attributable to the service provider, but you still got more or less what you wanted, that's two stars. If they were completely incompetent and absolutely failed you, that's one star. Or zero, if they intentionally angered you. However, those who decide these things in eBay, Uber, Walmart, Blizzard, various American call centres, etc etc have all somehow come to the bizarre decision that acceptable should mean five stars, and anything less than five stars, is unacceptable. I took an Uber ride the other day. I rated the guy five stars, for no other reason than that I knew that if I did not, he would be punished. He had done nothing wrong. He did exactly what I expected of him. No more, no less. He deserved three stars. I wanted to be able to give him that rating without any concern for his continued employment well, his contract . This state of affairs completely grinds my gears. It destroys the very purpose of having rating systems at all. It converts the rating system back to a binary, bad good , with no meaningful distinction between those ratings. Worse, it makes no actual provision for recognition of genuinely good service. If you rate any seller who sent the thing out in acceptable condition within acceptable time as five star how do you fairly rate the one who sent it out quicker than you expected, better packed, and the item in better condition than you were told? How do you rate the Uber driver who showed up early, got you to your destination quickly, and had a great conversation with you? Am I wrong? Have I missed something here?<|ASPECTS|>meaningful distinction, done nothing wrong, genuinely, unreasonable buyers, rating system, cultural malaise, grinds my gears, satisfy 100, enemy of the good, sellers, better service better, better packed, random, social problem, disappointed, missed, unreasonable, state of affairs, intentionally, good mark, failed, buyers, good service, half life, acceptable condition, rating systems, deserve, better condition, cancelling the accounts, service, irreducible, incompetent, punished, noticably great, unacceptable, unreasonable standards of perfection, unreasonable buyer, acceptable service, bad good, star service, bad luck, continued employment, angered, destroys, noticably, uber ride, quicker, conversation<|CONCLUSION|>","I made this comment on r flipping but I want to discuss it further, because it's something that I genuinely think is a social problem, however I'd like to be reassured otherwise. eBay are cancelling the accounts of sellers who get more than around 8 of less than five star ratings. By doing this, eBay are trying to force sellers to satisfy 100 of buyers. Because there is some irreducible percentage of buyers who are unreasonable, this is never going to actually work. Getting an unreasonable buyer is random, and accordingly there will be sellers who get pushed out due to nothing more than the bad luck of getting several unreasonable buyers in a row. No matter how good you are, your eBay account now has a half life. This is a consequence of an American cultural malaise, five star ism , the drive towards unreasonable standards of perfection, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. A pass is a good mark. Three star service is actually good service. Three stars means that it wasn't noticably great or noticably terrible you just got exactly what you wanted. Every transaction that you did today, that you didn't even notice, what you got there was three star service. You deserve three star service. What makes better service better, is that you didn't actually deserve it. In a sane world, if you get better than acceptable service, that's four stars. If you get the best service you've ever seen, that's five. If you were disappointed in some way which is clearly attributable to the service provider, but you still got more or less what you wanted, that's two stars. If they were completely incompetent and absolutely failed you, that's one star. Or zero, if they intentionally angered you. However, those who decide these things in eBay, Uber, Walmart, Blizzard, various American call centres, etc etc have all somehow come to the bizarre decision that acceptable should mean five stars, and anything less than five stars, is unacceptable. I took an Uber ride the other day. I rated the guy five stars, for no other reason than that I knew that if I did not, he would be punished. He had done nothing wrong. He did exactly what I expected of him. No more, no less. He deserved three stars. I wanted to be able to give him that rating without any concern for his continued employment well, his contract . This state of affairs completely grinds my gears. It destroys the very purpose of having rating systems at all. It converts the rating system back to a binary, bad good , with no meaningful distinction between those ratings. Worse, it makes no actual provision for recognition of genuinely good service. If you rate any seller who sent the thing out in acceptable condition within acceptable time as five star how do you fairly rate the one who sent it out quicker than you expected, better packed, and the item in better condition than you were told? How do you rate the Uber driver who showed up early, got you to your destination quickly, and had a great conversation with you? Am I wrong? Have I missed something here?",Five-star-ism is converting all ratings to binaries and is making the world worse.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>1 There is NO justifiable reason that the rabbit can't shouldn't have Trix cereal. It's not like the rabbit is unable to digest the cereal and the kids have no medical knowledge to support any claims if they were to do so. I'm not saying he should eat it breakfast, lunch and dinner, it just seems like he wants a snack every once and a while. 2 The rabbit is the mascot for Trix cereal. He's on the FREAKIN box. That would be like a car designer working on the next luxury car but denied the right to drive one even though he could afford to and is physically capable of it. Surely he has earned the right. 3 The kids should at least tell the rabbit where he can aquire his own Trix cereal as to not consume their supply. 4 It's just plain discrimination. How many of you dog cat owners give your pet something it shouldn't eat every now and then? You know you've given the dog scraps at the dinner table. Edit I get it, it's been done. I didn't know, I was just writing a friendly post y'all.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>1 There is NO justifiable reason that the rabbit can't shouldn't have Trix cereal. It's not like the rabbit is unable to digest the cereal and the kids have no medical knowledge to support any claims if they were to do so. I'm not saying he should eat it breakfast, lunch and dinner, it just seems like he wants a snack every once and a while. 2 The rabbit is the mascot for Trix cereal. He's on the FREAKIN box. That would be like a car designer working on the next luxury car but denied the right to drive one even though he could afford to and is physically capable of it. Surely he has earned the right. 3 The kids should at least tell the rabbit where he can aquire his own Trix cereal as to not consume their supply. 4 It's just plain discrimination. How many of you dog cat owners give your pet something it shouldn't eat every now and then? You know you've given the dog scraps at the dinner table. Edit I get it, it's been done. I didn't know, I was just writing a friendly post y'all.<|TARGETS|>writing a friendly post y'all ., not saying he should eat it breakfast lunch and dinner, the rabbit where he can aquire his own Trix cereal, How many of you dog cat owners give your pet something it should n't eat every now and then, the FREAKIN box, the dog scraps at the dinner table<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>1 There is NO justifiable reason that the rabbit can't shouldn't have Trix cereal. It's not like the rabbit is unable to digest the cereal and the kids have no medical knowledge to support any claims if they were to do so. I'm not saying he should eat it breakfast, lunch and dinner, it just seems like he wants a snack every once and a while. 2 The rabbit is the mascot for Trix cereal. He's on the FREAKIN box. That would be like a car designer working on the next luxury car but denied the right to drive one even though he could afford to and is physically capable of it. Surely he has earned the right. 3 The kids should at least tell the rabbit where he can aquire his own Trix cereal as to not consume their supply. 4 It's just plain discrimination. How many of you dog cat owners give your pet something it shouldn't eat every now and then? You know you've given the dog scraps at the dinner table. Edit I get it, it's been done. I didn't know, I was just writing a friendly post y'all.<|ASPECTS|>discrimination, rabbit, unable to digest, friendly post, dog cat, snack, plain, right to drive, freakin, eat, consume their supply, earned, denied, medical knowledge, done, dog scraps, mascot, right, physically capable<|CONCLUSION|>","1 There is NO justifiable reason that the rabbit can't shouldn't have Trix cereal. It's not like the rabbit is unable to digest the cereal and the kids have no medical knowledge to support any claims if they were to do so. I'm not saying he should eat it breakfast, lunch and dinner, it just seems like he wants a snack every once and a while. 2 The rabbit is the mascot for Trix cereal. He's on the FREAKIN box. That would be like a car designer working on the next luxury car but denied the right to drive one even though he could afford to and is physically capable of it. Surely he has earned the right. 3 The kids should at least tell the rabbit where he can aquire his own Trix cereal as to not consume their supply. 4 It's just plain discrimination. How many of you dog cat owners give your pet something it shouldn't eat every now and then? You know you've given the dog scraps at the dinner table. Edit I get it, it's been done. I didn't know, I was just writing a friendly post y'all.",Trix cereal is not only for kids and the rabbit - named Tricks - should not be denied the right to eat it.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As part of a years long contract dispute, the NJ transit public union is considering a strike that would shut down NJ transit train service. NJ transit trains are a vital piece of local infrastructure, and shutting them down would create a huge debacle edit not a boondoggle not only for the 100,000 people who is it so commute daily, but also those who would be hurt by the incredible traffic jams that will result from 10,000 additional cars on the road. It is estimated to cost the area millions and millions of dollars every hour . see here for a lot of this info . In short, these union workers are holding the local economy hostage as part of their negotiations. They should not be permitted to do so. This is very different than a private union negotiating with a business. Here it is not some company's money that is at stake, but the welfare of the general public. How would this ban be implemented? There should be a bill banning public unions from using threats to shut down vital services as part of contract negotiations. It would not become a criminal or civil offense to strike, but the NJ transit authority would have the freedom to fire any individual employee on the spot with cause, without appeal and without benefits to the employee. Yes, this would reduce the union's bargaining power. But it should , IMO. They are using power they should not have in their negotiations the power to hurt the common good. This would not render public unions toothless. They could still negotiate contracts as a collective. They could call for outside arbitration. They could still have a say in new hirings and firings. They could still work via public advocacy and get out the vote campaigns. They could do partial work stoppages that do not lead to shutting down the services for example, many ticket collectors and sellers could strike, costing the agency ticket money but still running the trains . Edit Such a change would not happen in isolation, and steps would be taken to insure that municipal unions retain their ability to function. Consider New York state's Taylor Law which bans most municipal unions from striking. However, provisions are in place that are beneficial to unions, such as mandatory outside arbitration and the fact that in the absence of a new contract, the previous contract is automatically extended including pay raises. Municipal unions covered by this law have in general done quite well in New York. They also have substantial influence in state and NYC politics to advocate for themselves.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As part of a years long contract dispute, the NJ transit public union is considering a strike that would shut down NJ transit train service. NJ transit trains are a vital piece of local infrastructure, and shutting them down would create a huge debacle edit not a boondoggle not only for the 100,000 people who is it so commute daily, but also those who would be hurt by the incredible traffic jams that will result from 10,000 additional cars on the road. It is estimated to cost the area millions and millions of dollars every hour . see here for a lot of this info . In short, these union workers are holding the local economy hostage as part of their negotiations. They should not be permitted to do so. This is very different than a private union negotiating with a business. Here it is not some company's money that is at stake, but the welfare of the general public. How would this ban be implemented? There should be a bill banning public unions from using threats to shut down vital services as part of contract negotiations. It would not become a criminal or civil offense to strike, but the NJ transit authority would have the freedom to fire any individual employee on the spot with cause, without appeal and without benefits to the employee. Yes, this would reduce the union's bargaining power. But it should , IMO. They are using power they should not have in their negotiations the power to hurt the common good. This would not render public unions toothless. They could still negotiate contracts as a collective. They could call for outside arbitration. They could still have a say in new hirings and firings. They could still work via public advocacy and get out the vote campaigns. They could do partial work stoppages that do not lead to shutting down the services for example, many ticket collectors and sellers could strike, costing the agency ticket money but still running the trains . Edit Such a change would not happen in isolation, and steps would be taken to insure that municipal unions retain their ability to function. Consider New York state's Taylor Law which bans most municipal unions from striking. However, provisions are in place that are beneficial to unions, such as mandatory outside arbitration and the fact that in the absence of a new contract, the previous contract is automatically extended including pay raises. Municipal unions covered by this law have in general done quite well in New York. They also have substantial influence in state and NYC politics to advocate for themselves.<|TARGETS|>How would this ban be implemented, NJ transit trains, the NJ transit authority, the NJ transit public union, partial work stoppages, Municipal unions covered by this law<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As part of a years long contract dispute, the NJ transit public union is considering a strike that would shut down NJ transit train service. NJ transit trains are a vital piece of local infrastructure, and shutting them down would create a huge debacle edit not a boondoggle not only for the 100,000 people who is it so commute daily, but also those who would be hurt by the incredible traffic jams that will result from 10,000 additional cars on the road. It is estimated to cost the area millions and millions of dollars every hour . see here for a lot of this info . In short, these union workers are holding the local economy hostage as part of their negotiations. They should not be permitted to do so. This is very different than a private union negotiating with a business. Here it is not some company's money that is at stake, but the welfare of the general public. How would this ban be implemented? There should be a bill banning public unions from using threats to shut down vital services as part of contract negotiations. It would not become a criminal or civil offense to strike, but the NJ transit authority would have the freedom to fire any individual employee on the spot with cause, without appeal and without benefits to the employee. Yes, this would reduce the union's bargaining power. But it should , IMO. They are using power they should not have in their negotiations the power to hurt the common good. This would not render public unions toothless. They could still negotiate contracts as a collective. They could call for outside arbitration. They could still have a say in new hirings and firings. They could still work via public advocacy and get out the vote campaigns. They could do partial work stoppages that do not lead to shutting down the services for example, many ticket collectors and sellers could strike, costing the agency ticket money but still running the trains . Edit Such a change would not happen in isolation, and steps would be taken to insure that municipal unions retain their ability to function. Consider New York state's Taylor Law which bans most municipal unions from striking. However, provisions are in place that are beneficial to unions, such as mandatory outside arbitration and the fact that in the absence of a new contract, the previous contract is automatically extended including pay raises. Municipal unions covered by this law have in general done quite well in New York. They also have substantial influence in state and NYC politics to advocate for themselves.<|ASPECTS|>well, ability to function, partial work stoppages, striking, beneficial, strike, public advocacy, municipal unions, bargaining power, mandatory outside arbitration, benefits, isolation, outside arbitration, company 's money, local infrastructure, threats, collective, taylor law, offense, shutting, done, criminal, private union, freedom to fire, shut down vital services, pay raises, state, traffic jams, negotiate contracts, union, ban, public unions, local economy hostage, hurt the common good, debacle, new hirings, influence, firings, ticket money, contract dispute, cost the area, permitted, welfare of the general public, costing, politics, contract negotiations, reduce, shut, toothless, get out the vote campaigns<|CONCLUSION|>","As part of a years long contract dispute, the NJ transit public union is considering a strike that would shut down NJ transit train service. NJ transit trains are a vital piece of local infrastructure, and shutting them down would create a huge debacle edit not a boondoggle not only for the 100,000 people who is it so commute daily, but also those who would be hurt by the incredible traffic jams that will result from 10,000 additional cars on the road. It is estimated to cost the area millions and millions of dollars every hour . see here for a lot of this info . In short, these union workers are holding the local economy hostage as part of their negotiations. They should not be permitted to do so. This is very different than a private union negotiating with a business. Here it is not some company's money that is at stake, but the welfare of the general public. How would this ban be implemented? There should be a bill banning public unions from using threats to shut down vital services as part of contract negotiations. It would not become a criminal or civil offense to strike, but the NJ transit authority would have the freedom to fire any individual employee on the spot with cause, without appeal and without benefits to the employee. Yes, this would reduce the union's bargaining power. But it should , IMO. They are using power they should not have in their negotiations the power to hurt the common good. This would not render public unions toothless. They could still negotiate contracts as a collective. They could call for outside arbitration. They could still have a say in new hirings and firings. They could still work via public advocacy and get out the vote campaigns. They could do partial work stoppages that do not lead to shutting down the services for example, many ticket collectors and sellers could strike, costing the agency ticket money but still running the trains . Edit Such a change would not happen in isolation, and steps would be taken to insure that municipal unions retain their ability to function. Consider New York state's Taylor Law which bans most municipal unions from striking. However, provisions are in place that are beneficial to unions, such as mandatory outside arbitration and the fact that in the absence of a new contract, the previous contract is automatically extended including pay raises. Municipal unions covered by this law have in general done quite well in New York. They also have substantial influence in state and NYC politics to advocate for themselves.",New Jersey transit union workers should not be allowed to shut down commuter train service as part of collective bargaining
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the United States, we are facing a terrible opiod and benzo crisis. We lock up the victims while the cartels are still going strong and reeking havoc in Central and South America. The reason MOST people are dying from these drugs is due to the cutting of drugs, improper dosage, or completely fake drugs. Obviously there are people dying from long term use or committing suicide, but with the user knowing exactly what and how much of a given substance they are putting in there body, the OD rate across the board would decrease significantly. Law Enforcement can also use drug usage as a scape goat to invade the privacy of impoverished or minority families. A very large majority of the cases of police brutality is connected to suspicion of drug usage or possession. The increase in violence in Central and South America is connected to the production of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and others. We have families fleeing their home countries due to the violence of cartels and terrorist groups. Now seeking asylum in the United States. The violence in the countries would greatly be diminished if there biggest market for profit was gone. The medicinal properties of marijuana, psychedelics, and mdma are listed as Schedule I by the FDA. With legalization of these substances, we would have far better treatment for people suffering from PTSD, Despression, Anxiety, and other mental health problems. Another problem with prohibition is the gateway drug theory. A very large percentage of drug addicts start with weed. Lets say Jim wants to buy some weed and finds a guy at his local high school. Jim is now connected to the illegal drug trade and can also get coke, heroin, xanax, meth, etc. Jim gets caught smoking weed and and is getting drug tested, so he moves to a harder drug that can't be tested by a general drug test. Now Jim is addicted to K2 or something along those lines. He doesn't stop there and starts doing other drugs that his K2 dealer has. At 25, Jim is addicted to heroin and dies of an overdose of Fent. x200B My last point is people will always get what they want. If someone wants to get heroin, they will get heroin. Why cause all these problems so we can try to stop people from doing what they want to do? How many people would start doing heroin just because it was legal? If we had proper education and reformed our drug policy, our society would have more trust in the government. My question is how would you go about solving these problems? I'm very eager for this discussion and want to know other peoples solutions to solving these problems. x200B x200B<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the United States, we are facing a terrible opiod and benzo crisis. We lock up the victims while the cartels are still going strong and reeking havoc in Central and South America. The reason MOST people are dying from these drugs is due to the cutting of drugs, improper dosage, or completely fake drugs. Obviously there are people dying from long term use or committing suicide, but with the user knowing exactly what and how much of a given substance they are putting in there body, the OD rate across the board would decrease significantly. Law Enforcement can also use drug usage as a scape goat to invade the privacy of impoverished or minority families. A very large majority of the cases of police brutality is connected to suspicion of drug usage or possession. The increase in violence in Central and South America is connected to the production of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and others. We have families fleeing their home countries due to the violence of cartels and terrorist groups. Now seeking asylum in the United States. The violence in the countries would greatly be diminished if there biggest market for profit was gone. The medicinal properties of marijuana, psychedelics, and mdma are listed as Schedule I by the FDA. With legalization of these substances, we would have far better treatment for people suffering from PTSD, Despression, Anxiety, and other mental health problems. Another problem with prohibition is the gateway drug theory. A very large percentage of drug addicts start with weed. Lets say Jim wants to buy some weed and finds a guy at his local high school. Jim is now connected to the illegal drug trade and can also get coke, heroin, xanax, meth, etc. Jim gets caught smoking weed and and is getting drug tested, so he moves to a harder drug that can't be tested by a general drug test. Now Jim is addicted to K2 or something along those lines. He doesn't stop there and starts doing other drugs that his K2 dealer has. At 25, Jim is addicted to heroin and dies of an overdose of Fent. x200B My last point is people will always get what they want. If someone wants to get heroin, they will get heroin. Why cause all these problems so we can try to stop people from doing what they want to do? How many people would start doing heroin just because it was legal? If we had proper education and reformed our drug policy, our society would have more trust in the government. My question is how would you go about solving these problems? I'm very eager for this discussion and want to know other peoples solutions to solving these problems. x200B x200B<|TARGETS|>people dying from long term use or committing suicide but with the user knowing exactly what and how much of a given substance they are putting in there body the OD rate across the board, Law Enforcement, legalization of these substances, the illegal drug trade, The violence in the countries, a terrible opiod and benzo crisis<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the United States, we are facing a terrible opiod and benzo crisis. We lock up the victims while the cartels are still going strong and reeking havoc in Central and South America. The reason MOST people are dying from these drugs is due to the cutting of drugs, improper dosage, or completely fake drugs. Obviously there are people dying from long term use or committing suicide, but with the user knowing exactly what and how much of a given substance they are putting in there body, the OD rate across the board would decrease significantly. Law Enforcement can also use drug usage as a scape goat to invade the privacy of impoverished or minority families. A very large majority of the cases of police brutality is connected to suspicion of drug usage or possession. The increase in violence in Central and South America is connected to the production of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and others. We have families fleeing their home countries due to the violence of cartels and terrorist groups. Now seeking asylum in the United States. The violence in the countries would greatly be diminished if there biggest market for profit was gone. The medicinal properties of marijuana, psychedelics, and mdma are listed as Schedule I by the FDA. With legalization of these substances, we would have far better treatment for people suffering from PTSD, Despression, Anxiety, and other mental health problems. Another problem with prohibition is the gateway drug theory. A very large percentage of drug addicts start with weed. Lets say Jim wants to buy some weed and finds a guy at his local high school. Jim is now connected to the illegal drug trade and can also get coke, heroin, xanax, meth, etc. Jim gets caught smoking weed and and is getting drug tested, so he moves to a harder drug that can't be tested by a general drug test. Now Jim is addicted to K2 or something along those lines. He doesn't stop there and starts doing other drugs that his K2 dealer has. At 25, Jim is addicted to heroin and dies of an overdose of Fent. x200B My last point is people will always get what they want. If someone wants to get heroin, they will get heroin. Why cause all these problems so we can try to stop people from doing what they want to do? How many people would start doing heroin just because it was legal? If we had proper education and reformed our drug policy, our society would have more trust in the government. My question is how would you go about solving these problems? I'm very eager for this discussion and want to know other peoples solutions to solving these problems. x200B x200B<|ASPECTS|>better treatment, , long term, weed, cartels, victims, drug tested, problems, drugs, ptsd, dying, solutions, get, reeking, impoverished, addicted to heroin, dies, overdose, peoples, suicide, privacy, drug usage or possession, opiod, havoc, people, completely, violence, legal, trust in the government, fent, seeking asylum, lock, fake drugs, improper dosage, medicinal properties, terrible, drug addicts, coke, scape goat, minority families, mental health problems, stop people, proper education, families, cutting of drugs, despression, violence of cartels, market for profit, od rate, heroin, fleeing, get what they want, suspicion, harder drug, illegal drug trade, invade, benzo crisis, gateway drug theory, solving these problems, addicted to k2, terrorist groups<|CONCLUSION|>","In the United States, we are facing a terrible opiod and benzo crisis. We lock up the victims while the cartels are still going strong and reeking havoc in Central and South America. The reason MOST people are dying from these drugs is due to the cutting of drugs, improper dosage, or completely fake drugs. Obviously there are people dying from long term use or committing suicide, but with the user knowing exactly what and how much of a given substance they are putting in there body, the OD rate across the board would decrease significantly. Law Enforcement can also use drug usage as a scape goat to invade the privacy of impoverished or minority families. A very large majority of the cases of police brutality is connected to suspicion of drug usage or possession. The increase in violence in Central and South America is connected to the production of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and others. We have families fleeing their home countries due to the violence of cartels and terrorist groups. Now seeking asylum in the United States. The violence in the countries would greatly be diminished if there biggest market for profit was gone. The medicinal properties of marijuana, psychedelics, and mdma are listed as Schedule I by the FDA. With legalization of these substances, we would have far better treatment for people suffering from PTSD, Despression, Anxiety, and other mental health problems. Another problem with prohibition is the gateway drug theory. A very large percentage of drug addicts start with weed. Lets say Jim wants to buy some weed and finds a guy at his local high school. Jim is now connected to the illegal drug trade and can also get coke, heroin, xanax, meth, etc. Jim gets caught smoking weed and and is getting drug tested, so he moves to a harder drug that can't be tested by a general drug test. Now Jim is addicted to K2 or something along those lines. He doesn't stop there and starts doing other drugs that his K2 dealer has. At 25, Jim is addicted to heroin and dies of an overdose of Fent. x200B My last point is people will always get what they want. If someone wants to get heroin, they will get heroin. Why cause all these problems so we can try to stop people from doing what they want to do? How many people would start doing heroin just because it was legal? If we had proper education and reformed our drug policy, our society would have more trust in the government. My question is how would you go about solving these problems? I'm very eager for this discussion and want to know other peoples solutions to solving these problems. x200B x200B",All Drugs Should Be Legal in the US
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Apologies for spoilers I guess? When Jesse phones Walter from the store, Jesse asks why the material used matters so much. Walter responds harshly criticizing his performance in class and refuses to explain why. Throughout the short history of the duo up to this point, Walter has consistently corrected Jesse's bad chemistry knowledge. The relationship between the two characters is also abrasive, with both personalities and egos colliding. The smart dumb divide works into this as well with the remark that the plastic tubs are flimsy, ignoring the scientific specifics of material and Walter's knowledge. Once again, he had a chance to prevent accidents and failed to adequately communicate. Walter's own arrogance and bad temper led to the situation which transpired with the roof falling in. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Apologies for spoilers I guess? When Jesse phones Walter from the store, Jesse asks why the material used matters so much. Walter responds harshly criticizing his performance in class and refuses to explain why. Throughout the short history of the duo up to this point, Walter has consistently corrected Jesse's bad chemistry knowledge. The relationship between the two characters is also abrasive, with both personalities and egos colliding. The smart dumb divide works into this as well with the remark that the plastic tubs are flimsy, ignoring the scientific specifics of material and Walter's knowledge. Once again, he had a chance to prevent accidents and failed to adequately communicate. Walter's own arrogance and bad temper led to the situation which transpired with the roof falling in. CMV.<|TARGETS|>the plastic tubs, When Jesse phones Walter from the store, The relationship between the two characters, Walter 's own arrogance and bad temper, Walter<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Apologies for spoilers I guess? When Jesse phones Walter from the store, Jesse asks why the material used matters so much. Walter responds harshly criticizing his performance in class and refuses to explain why. Throughout the short history of the duo up to this point, Walter has consistently corrected Jesse's bad chemistry knowledge. The relationship between the two characters is also abrasive, with both personalities and egos colliding. The smart dumb divide works into this as well with the remark that the plastic tubs are flimsy, ignoring the scientific specifics of material and Walter's knowledge. Once again, he had a chance to prevent accidents and failed to adequately communicate. Walter's own arrogance and bad temper led to the situation which transpired with the roof falling in. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>abrasive, bad chemistry knowledge, roof, prevent, egos, divide, adequately communicate, performance in class, scientific specifics, personalities, accidents, spoilers, material used matters, arrogance, flimsy, bad temper, corrected<|CONCLUSION|>","Apologies for spoilers I guess? When Jesse phones Walter from the store, Jesse asks why the material used matters so much. Walter responds harshly criticizing his performance in class and refuses to explain why. Throughout the short history of the duo up to this point, Walter has consistently corrected Jesse's bad chemistry knowledge. The relationship between the two characters is also abrasive, with both personalities and egos colliding. The smart dumb divide works into this as well with the remark that the plastic tubs are flimsy, ignoring the scientific specifics of material and Walter's knowledge. Once again, he had a chance to prevent accidents and failed to adequately communicate. Walter's own arrogance and bad temper led to the situation which transpired with the roof falling in. .","Walter is to blame for the bathtub incident, not Jesse"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21 primarily for one simple reason. It would give all the kids who now join out of high school more time to weigh the consequences of their decision. Recruiters prey on these kids, their lack of experience and maturity, and many who join the service at this age live or not to regret their decision. A second, less important reason is that it would erase the hypocrisy of the current laws regarding drinking, wherein one can fight and die in war at 18, but cannot sip a bit of whiskey til the age of 21. Edit No one has quite changed my mind, but you have also provided me with differing perspectives that expand my own. Most of your arguments seem to boil down to well, what the hell else would I have done at 18? Sat around til 21? I disagree with this mentality. Raising the age to 21 would effectively give a person who is considering enlisting about 3 years real world experience before deciding whether they really want to join. A kid fresh out of high school has little to no real world experience, and, therefore, no perspective. The years between 18 and 21 could be used as an introductory period to a legal adulthood of 21. At 18, most people, in my experience, are not ready and do not feel capable of being adults.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21 primarily for one simple reason. It would give all the kids who now join out of high school more time to weigh the consequences of their decision. Recruiters prey on these kids, their lack of experience and maturity, and many who join the service at this age live or not to regret their decision. A second, less important reason is that it would erase the hypocrisy of the current laws regarding drinking, wherein one can fight and die in war at 18, but cannot sip a bit of whiskey til the age of 21. Edit No one has quite changed my mind, but you have also provided me with differing perspectives that expand my own. Most of your arguments seem to boil down to well, what the hell else would I have done at 18? Sat around til 21? I disagree with this mentality. Raising the age to 21 would effectively give a person who is considering enlisting about 3 years real world experience before deciding whether they really want to join. A kid fresh out of high school has little to no real world experience, and, therefore, no perspective. The years between 18 and 21 could be used as an introductory period to a legal adulthood of 21. At 18, most people, in my experience, are not ready and do not feel capable of being adults.<|TARGETS|>The age at which a person is allowed to join the military, Raising the age to 21, A kid fresh out of high school, considering enlisting about 3 years real world experience before deciding whether they really want to join ., the current laws regarding drinking wherein one can fight and die in war at 18<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21 primarily for one simple reason. It would give all the kids who now join out of high school more time to weigh the consequences of their decision. Recruiters prey on these kids, their lack of experience and maturity, and many who join the service at this age live or not to regret their decision. A second, less important reason is that it would erase the hypocrisy of the current laws regarding drinking, wherein one can fight and die in war at 18, but cannot sip a bit of whiskey til the age of 21. Edit No one has quite changed my mind, but you have also provided me with differing perspectives that expand my own. Most of your arguments seem to boil down to well, what the hell else would I have done at 18? Sat around til 21? I disagree with this mentality. Raising the age to 21 would effectively give a person who is considering enlisting about 3 years real world experience before deciding whether they really want to join. A kid fresh out of high school has little to no real world experience, and, therefore, no perspective. The years between 18 and 21 could be used as an introductory period to a legal adulthood of 21. At 18, most people, in my experience, are not ready and do not feel capable of being adults.<|ASPECTS|>introductory period, capable of being adults, hypocrisy, differing perspectives, legal adulthood, mentality, decision, consequences, fight and die, ready, real world experience, lack, war, maturity, mind, prey, age, experience, perspective, regret<|CONCLUSION|>","The age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21 primarily for one simple reason. It would give all the kids who now join out of high school more time to weigh the consequences of their decision. Recruiters prey on these kids, their lack of experience and maturity, and many who join the service at this age live or not to regret their decision. A second, less important reason is that it would erase the hypocrisy of the current laws regarding drinking, wherein one can fight and die in war at 18, but cannot sip a bit of whiskey til the age of 21. Edit No one has quite changed my mind, but you have also provided me with differing perspectives that expand my own. Most of your arguments seem to boil down to well, what the hell else would I have done at 18? Sat around til 21? I disagree with this mentality. Raising the age to 21 would effectively give a person who is considering enlisting about 3 years real world experience before deciding whether they really want to join. A kid fresh out of high school has little to no real world experience, and, therefore, no perspective. The years between 18 and 21 could be used as an introductory period to a legal adulthood of 21. At 18, most people, in my experience, are not ready and do not feel capable of being adults.",The age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’m not looking for legislation. I’m looking for a general social norm, where you’re having a child means that you are signing up for getting them to adulthood and being able to be gainfully employed or more importantly financially self sufficient. This could include but does not require a college degree. If a parent chooses to allow their child to make choices that their only path is through college, then it does though. The over arching argument is it is absolutely unconscionable to not give you child at least a path to success. I’ve regularly seen on arguments for UBI, living wage, tipping, automation impact etc. and I generally find myself rolling back to if a parent took the responsibility in the first place to raise the child none of this would be an issue. Obviously there are outlying cases. Life happens. There should a safety net in these cases. My struggle is you see a theme on certain subs, such as fake being poor to get pell grants or kids aren’t owed anything and their just silver spoon snowflakes. It just seems like rather than work an angle or argue it’s not my problem, responsible parenting should be the root of all discussions. Edit Title should be gainfully employed not employees and or financially independent<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’m not looking for legislation. I’m looking for a general social norm, where you’re having a child means that you are signing up for getting them to adulthood and being able to be gainfully employed or more importantly financially self sufficient. This could include but does not require a college degree. If a parent chooses to allow their child to make choices that their only path is through college, then it does though. The over arching argument is it is absolutely unconscionable to not give you child at least a path to success. I’ve regularly seen on arguments for UBI, living wage, tipping, automation impact etc. and I generally find myself rolling back to if a parent took the responsibility in the first place to raise the child none of this would be an issue. Obviously there are outlying cases. Life happens. There should a safety net in these cases. My struggle is you see a theme on certain subs, such as fake being poor to get pell grants or kids aren’t owed anything and their just silver spoon snowflakes. It just seems like rather than work an angle or argue it’s not my problem, responsible parenting should be the root of all discussions. Edit Title should be gainfully employed not employees and or financially independent<|TARGETS|>a theme on certain subs such as fake being poor to get pell grants or kids are n’t owed anything and their just silver spoon snowflakes, UBI, If a parent chooses to allow their child to make choices that their only path is through college, looking for a general social norm where you ’re having a child, rolling back to if a parent took the responsibility in the first place to raise the child none of this, than work an angle or argue it ’s not my problem responsible parenting<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’m not looking for legislation. I’m looking for a general social norm, where you’re having a child means that you are signing up for getting them to adulthood and being able to be gainfully employed or more importantly financially self sufficient. This could include but does not require a college degree. If a parent chooses to allow their child to make choices that their only path is through college, then it does though. The over arching argument is it is absolutely unconscionable to not give you child at least a path to success. I’ve regularly seen on arguments for UBI, living wage, tipping, automation impact etc. and I generally find myself rolling back to if a parent took the responsibility in the first place to raise the child none of this would be an issue. Obviously there are outlying cases. Life happens. There should a safety net in these cases. My struggle is you see a theme on certain subs, such as fake being poor to get pell grants or kids aren’t owed anything and their just silver spoon snowflakes. It just seems like rather than work an angle or argue it’s not my problem, responsible parenting should be the root of all discussions. Edit Title should be gainfully employed not employees and or financially independent<|ASPECTS|>automation impact, success, unconscionable, responsible parenting, path, social norm, tipping, financially, outlying cases, legislation, life happens, fake being poor, owed anything, make choices, gainfully employed, safety net, living wage, college degree, college, responsibility, financially self sufficient, kids<|CONCLUSION|>","I’m not looking for legislation. I’m looking for a general social norm, where you’re having a child means that you are signing up for getting them to adulthood and being able to be gainfully employed or more importantly financially self sufficient. This could include but does not require a college degree. If a parent chooses to allow their child to make choices that their only path is through college, then it does though. The over arching argument is it is absolutely unconscionable to not give you child at least a path to success. I’ve regularly seen on arguments for UBI, living wage, tipping, automation impact etc. and I generally find myself rolling back to if a parent took the responsibility in the first place to raise the child none of this would be an issue. Obviously there are outlying cases. Life happens. There should a safety net in these cases. My struggle is you see a theme on certain subs, such as fake being poor to get pell grants or kids aren’t owed anything and their just silver spoon snowflakes. It just seems like rather than work an angle or argue it’s not my problem, responsible parenting should be the root of all discussions. Edit Title should be gainfully employed not employees and or financially independent",Any parent should be responsible for giving their child the skills/education to get them gainfully employees.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I very well might be opening a can of worms with this one if the mods approve the post. Please hear me out, and pray excuse the longwinding opening. And just to be clear on this, I'm not talking about subs where pictures of children were posted, just about the subs with text. I'd also like to add that I know why someone wouldn't want to give child molesters a platform . Pedophiles are the one universally hated group of people on the planet. Children are cute, small, weak, incapable. They cannot help themselves, they cannot fight back. They're dumb and have no innate knowledge on how to survive or what constitutes good and bad and must fully rely on adults, therefore anyone hurting a child or taking advantage of the innocence of children is seen as much worse as somebody who kills someone in a fit of rage. We've all been there, thinking I have to go now before I punch his stupid face into a pulp until he stops moving most can relate to killing as we've all been angry before. However, I think most of the pedo hate stems from misuse of the term. I'll define different groups. First there's the rapists that use children because they can't fight back, because they're easier to manipulate and intimidate into keeping quiet. Most cases you hear about in the news is about this kind, including the cases where underage daughters have to replace the ex wife or girlfriend. Those people would rape grown women as well if they could get away with it, they just take advantage of the opportunity. Then there's what I like to call the novelty seekers. We've seen their kind in third world countries, where NATO personnel went to child sex workers just because they were available and something one couldn't have at home. Finally there's the genuine pedophiles, people that are sexually attracted to children, some exclusively so, others non so. They often call themselves girllovers or boylovers , and those of them who do have sexual relationships with children will often confess to everything as soon as they are discovered to spare the child the courtroom. I believe that we need to see people who are sexually attracted to children as unfortunate individuals who deserve our support and our compassion. If we hear somebody we know is a pedophile our natural reaction should be I'm sorry to hear that . Nobody chooses to be a pedophile, just as nobody chooses to be black, gay or full of cancer. By spreading the hate and shunning them from society we force them into hiding, into the distant corners of the dark web where they can be accepted by their own kind, but where it is okay to promote sex with children, where pictures and videos of abuse are traded like candy and where they are subject to all the unfiltered rationalizations of their peers. There they can adopt a dangerous mindset very easily without anyone noticing, going from I'm a monster to a bit of fondling doesn't actually hurt a child to children like it when it feels good just like everybody else . Someone coming to the realization today that he or she is attracted to children should be able to find help and support easily, and that means on the open internet and yes, especially places like reddit, with a userbase that doesn't share their affliction or their views. At the moment almost no psychiatrist would be willing or knowledgeable enough to help someone with pedophilia, if such a person even could dare seek help in the first place. They live with the constant fear of being outed, the constant stress of not acting suspiciously around children, and unwanted arousal and sexual thoughts they just cannot get rid of. They're thought to be monsters, and might hate themselves for it. The poor fellas who are exclusively into children know they will never be able to have a happy relationship like other people, and the ones who are attracted to children too that can, what do you imagine their life to be when they get married and their wife pregnant? Pedophilia is a devastating diagnosis, with nobody knows how many people taking their lives because of it without anyone ever knowing why. So my argument is this nobody wants to be a monster, but to keep children safer from sexual predators we must help people cope and give them the support and the right tools to keep their spirit up and their urges down so they know how to fight temptation and where to get support if they feel like they're failing. Banning pedophile subreddits drives them into darkne t ss and denies them easily accessible support they would need to cope with their urges, and thus endangers children. CMV. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I very well might be opening a can of worms with this one if the mods approve the post. Please hear me out, and pray excuse the longwinding opening. And just to be clear on this, I'm not talking about subs where pictures of children were posted, just about the subs with text. I'd also like to add that I know why someone wouldn't want to give child molesters a platform . Pedophiles are the one universally hated group of people on the planet. Children are cute, small, weak, incapable. They cannot help themselves, they cannot fight back. They're dumb and have no innate knowledge on how to survive or what constitutes good and bad and must fully rely on adults, therefore anyone hurting a child or taking advantage of the innocence of children is seen as much worse as somebody who kills someone in a fit of rage. We've all been there, thinking I have to go now before I punch his stupid face into a pulp until he stops moving most can relate to killing as we've all been angry before. However, I think most of the pedo hate stems from misuse of the term. I'll define different groups. First there's the rapists that use children because they can't fight back, because they're easier to manipulate and intimidate into keeping quiet. Most cases you hear about in the news is about this kind, including the cases where underage daughters have to replace the ex wife or girlfriend. Those people would rape grown women as well if they could get away with it, they just take advantage of the opportunity. Then there's what I like to call the novelty seekers. We've seen their kind in third world countries, where NATO personnel went to child sex workers just because they were available and something one couldn't have at home. Finally there's the genuine pedophiles, people that are sexually attracted to children, some exclusively so, others non so. They often call themselves girllovers or boylovers , and those of them who do have sexual relationships with children will often confess to everything as soon as they are discovered to spare the child the courtroom. I believe that we need to see people who are sexually attracted to children as unfortunate individuals who deserve our support and our compassion. If we hear somebody we know is a pedophile our natural reaction should be I'm sorry to hear that . Nobody chooses to be a pedophile, just as nobody chooses to be black, gay or full of cancer. By spreading the hate and shunning them from society we force them into hiding, into the distant corners of the dark web where they can be accepted by their own kind, but where it is okay to promote sex with children, where pictures and videos of abuse are traded like candy and where they are subject to all the unfiltered rationalizations of their peers. There they can adopt a dangerous mindset very easily without anyone noticing, going from I'm a monster to a bit of fondling doesn't actually hurt a child to children like it when it feels good just like everybody else . Someone coming to the realization today that he or she is attracted to children should be able to find help and support easily, and that means on the open internet and yes, especially places like reddit, with a userbase that doesn't share their affliction or their views. At the moment almost no psychiatrist would be willing or knowledgeable enough to help someone with pedophilia, if such a person even could dare seek help in the first place. They live with the constant fear of being outed, the constant stress of not acting suspiciously around children, and unwanted arousal and sexual thoughts they just cannot get rid of. They're thought to be monsters, and might hate themselves for it. The poor fellas who are exclusively into children know they will never be able to have a happy relationship like other people, and the ones who are attracted to children too that can, what do you imagine their life to be when they get married and their wife pregnant? Pedophilia is a devastating diagnosis, with nobody knows how many people taking their lives because of it without anyone ever knowing why. So my argument is this nobody wants to be a monster, but to keep children safer from sexual predators we must help people cope and give them the support and the right tools to keep their spirit up and their urges down so they know how to fight temptation and where to get support if they feel like they're failing. Banning pedophile subreddits drives them into darkne t ss and denies them easily accessible support they would need to cope with their urges, and thus endangers children. CMV. <|TARGETS|>a monster to a bit of fondling, to hear that ., to keep children safer from sexual predators we must help people cope and give them the support and the right tools to keep their spirit up and their urges down so they know how to fight temptation and where to get support if they feel like they 're failing ., If we hear somebody we know is a pedophile our natural reaction, Banning pedophile subreddits, no innate knowledge on how to survive or what constitutes good and bad and must fully rely on adults therefore anyone hurting a child or taking advantage of the innocence of children<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I very well might be opening a can of worms with this one if the mods approve the post. Please hear me out, and pray excuse the longwinding opening. And just to be clear on this, I'm not talking about subs where pictures of children were posted, just about the subs with text. I'd also like to add that I know why someone wouldn't want to give child molesters a platform . Pedophiles are the one universally hated group of people on the planet. Children are cute, small, weak, incapable. They cannot help themselves, they cannot fight back. They're dumb and have no innate knowledge on how to survive or what constitutes good and bad and must fully rely on adults, therefore anyone hurting a child or taking advantage of the innocence of children is seen as much worse as somebody who kills someone in a fit of rage. We've all been there, thinking I have to go now before I punch his stupid face into a pulp until he stops moving most can relate to killing as we've all been angry before. However, I think most of the pedo hate stems from misuse of the term. I'll define different groups. First there's the rapists that use children because they can't fight back, because they're easier to manipulate and intimidate into keeping quiet. Most cases you hear about in the news is about this kind, including the cases where underage daughters have to replace the ex wife or girlfriend. Those people would rape grown women as well if they could get away with it, they just take advantage of the opportunity. Then there's what I like to call the novelty seekers. We've seen their kind in third world countries, where NATO personnel went to child sex workers just because they were available and something one couldn't have at home. Finally there's the genuine pedophiles, people that are sexually attracted to children, some exclusively so, others non so. They often call themselves girllovers or boylovers , and those of them who do have sexual relationships with children will often confess to everything as soon as they are discovered to spare the child the courtroom. I believe that we need to see people who are sexually attracted to children as unfortunate individuals who deserve our support and our compassion. If we hear somebody we know is a pedophile our natural reaction should be I'm sorry to hear that . Nobody chooses to be a pedophile, just as nobody chooses to be black, gay or full of cancer. By spreading the hate and shunning them from society we force them into hiding, into the distant corners of the dark web where they can be accepted by their own kind, but where it is okay to promote sex with children, where pictures and videos of abuse are traded like candy and where they are subject to all the unfiltered rationalizations of their peers. There they can adopt a dangerous mindset very easily without anyone noticing, going from I'm a monster to a bit of fondling doesn't actually hurt a child to children like it when it feels good just like everybody else . Someone coming to the realization today that he or she is attracted to children should be able to find help and support easily, and that means on the open internet and yes, especially places like reddit, with a userbase that doesn't share their affliction or their views. At the moment almost no psychiatrist would be willing or knowledgeable enough to help someone with pedophilia, if such a person even could dare seek help in the first place. They live with the constant fear of being outed, the constant stress of not acting suspiciously around children, and unwanted arousal and sexual thoughts they just cannot get rid of. They're thought to be monsters, and might hate themselves for it. The poor fellas who are exclusively into children know they will never be able to have a happy relationship like other people, and the ones who are attracted to children too that can, what do you imagine their life to be when they get married and their wife pregnant? Pedophilia is a devastating diagnosis, with nobody knows how many people taking their lives because of it without anyone ever knowing why. So my argument is this nobody wants to be a monster, but to keep children safer from sexual predators we must help people cope and give them the support and the right tools to keep their spirit up and their urges down so they know how to fight temptation and where to get support if they feel like they're failing. Banning pedophile subreddits drives them into darkne t ss and denies them easily accessible support they would need to cope with their urges, and thus endangers children. CMV. <|ASPECTS|>, opportunity, unwanted arousal, survive, hurting a child, misuse, cancer, novelty seekers, easier to manipulate, unfiltered rationalizations, spare, killing, fight back, fight temptation, define, boylovers, innate knowledge, knowledgeable, platform, failing, cute, shunning, sexual predators, longwinding opening, hate, incapable, attracted to children, replace, pedophilia, weak, unfortunate individuals, hurt a child, monsters, life, support, easily accessible support, sexual relationships, pedophiles, devastating diagnosis, fear of being outed, pedophile, deserve, innocence of children, happy relationship, child molesters, girllovers, compassion, cope, genuine, rape grown women, suspiciously, different groups, stress, intimidate, pictures of children, universally hated group, rapists, child sex workers, of worms, help and support easily, small, dumb, darkne, help, underage daughters, children, confess to everything, monster, rely on adults, sexually attracted to children, sexual thoughts, natural reaction, poor, dangerous mindset, endangers children, accepted, dark web, subreddits, urges, safer<|CONCLUSION|>","I very well might be opening a can of worms with this one if the mods approve the post. Please hear me out, and pray excuse the longwinding opening. And just to be clear on this, I'm not talking about subs where pictures of children were posted, just about the subs with text. I'd also like to add that I know why someone wouldn't want to give child molesters a platform . Pedophiles are the one universally hated group of people on the planet. Children are cute, small, weak, incapable. They cannot help themselves, they cannot fight back. They're dumb and have no innate knowledge on how to survive or what constitutes good and bad and must fully rely on adults, therefore anyone hurting a child or taking advantage of the innocence of children is seen as much worse as somebody who kills someone in a fit of rage. We've all been there, thinking I have to go now before I punch his stupid face into a pulp until he stops moving most can relate to killing as we've all been angry before. However, I think most of the pedo hate stems from misuse of the term. I'll define different groups. First there's the rapists that use children because they can't fight back, because they're easier to manipulate and intimidate into keeping quiet. Most cases you hear about in the news is about this kind, including the cases where underage daughters have to replace the ex wife or girlfriend. Those people would rape grown women as well if they could get away with it, they just take advantage of the opportunity. Then there's what I like to call the novelty seekers. We've seen their kind in third world countries, where NATO personnel went to child sex workers just because they were available and something one couldn't have at home. Finally there's the genuine pedophiles, people that are sexually attracted to children, some exclusively so, others non so. They often call themselves girllovers or boylovers , and those of them who do have sexual relationships with children will often confess to everything as soon as they are discovered to spare the child the courtroom. I believe that we need to see people who are sexually attracted to children as unfortunate individuals who deserve our support and our compassion. If we hear somebody we know is a pedophile our natural reaction should be I'm sorry to hear that . Nobody chooses to be a pedophile, just as nobody chooses to be black, gay or full of cancer. By spreading the hate and shunning them from society we force them into hiding, into the distant corners of the dark web where they can be accepted by their own kind, but where it is okay to promote sex with children, where pictures and videos of abuse are traded like candy and where they are subject to all the unfiltered rationalizations of their peers. There they can adopt a dangerous mindset very easily without anyone noticing, going from I'm a monster to a bit of fondling doesn't actually hurt a child to children like it when it feels good just like everybody else . Someone coming to the realization today that he or she is attracted to children should be able to find help and support easily, and that means on the open internet and yes, especially places like reddit, with a userbase that doesn't share their affliction or their views. At the moment almost no psychiatrist would be willing or knowledgeable enough to help someone with pedophilia, if such a person even could dare seek help in the first place. They live with the constant fear of being outed, the constant stress of not acting suspiciously around children, and unwanted arousal and sexual thoughts they just cannot get rid of. They're thought to be monsters, and might hate themselves for it. The poor fellas who are exclusively into children know they will never be able to have a happy relationship like other people, and the ones who are attracted to children too that can, what do you imagine their life to be when they get married and their wife pregnant? Pedophilia is a devastating diagnosis, with nobody knows how many people taking their lives because of it without anyone ever knowing why. So my argument is this nobody wants to be a monster, but to keep children safer from sexual predators we must help people cope and give them the support and the right tools to keep their spirit up and their urges down so they know how to fight temptation and where to get support if they feel like they're failing. Banning pedophile subreddits drives them into darkne t ss and denies them easily accessible support they would need to cope with their urges, and thus endangers children. .",Banning pedophile subreddits endangers children
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I was going through the college application process, I was told that my learning difference LD could not legally be counted against me because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but that some colleges would just discard the information. I have a processing speed deficit and ADD, both diagnosed well into my high school years. I am very lucky because I got into my top choice college, so this post is not because I am bitter about not getting into my favorite school, rather to shed light on why having a learning difference should be accounted for by the college admission teams. I think it should not only not be a detriment, but rather thought of as a hardship that would explain potentially sub par grades and test scores. Students from low income areas that have poor public schools are viewed in the context of their lives, and students with learning differences should be viewed in a similar way. For example, I have time and half on tests, but that also means that everything that I do, academically, takes time and half, like homework and studying. That is a lot more time spent on the same tasks as my peers, and I think it should be recognized. It may appear as affirmative action for learning differences but it can also be looked at as creating another kind of diversity on campus. LD’s create diversity in the way people think, so a student may be very creative and innovative, but not test very well. Furthermore, if a college has an algorithm that calculates a number out of a students GPA and test scores, if a student with an LD is below the college's acceptance “number”, I think they should be considered based on their circumstances. Not automatic admission, just further consideration. I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I was going through the college application process, I was told that my learning difference LD could not legally be counted against me because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but that some colleges would just discard the information. I have a processing speed deficit and ADD, both diagnosed well into my high school years. I am very lucky because I got into my top choice college, so this post is not because I am bitter about not getting into my favorite school, rather to shed light on why having a learning difference should be accounted for by the college admission teams. I think it should not only not be a detriment, but rather thought of as a hardship that would explain potentially sub par grades and test scores. Students from low income areas that have poor public schools are viewed in the context of their lives, and students with learning differences should be viewed in a similar way. For example, I have time and half on tests, but that also means that everything that I do, academically, takes time and half, like homework and studying. That is a lot more time spent on the same tasks as my peers, and I think it should be recognized. It may appear as affirmative action for learning differences but it can also be looked at as creating another kind of diversity on campus. LD’s create diversity in the way people think, so a student may be very creative and innovative, but not test very well. Furthermore, if a college has an algorithm that calculates a number out of a students GPA and test scores, if a student with an LD is below the college's acceptance “number”, I think they should be considered based on their circumstances. Not automatic admission, just further consideration. I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts.<|TARGETS|>LD, I got into my top choice college so this post, the college application process, to hear other people ’s thoughts ., Students from low income areas that have poor public schools, not getting into my favorite school rather to shed light on why having a learning difference<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I was going through the college application process, I was told that my learning difference LD could not legally be counted against me because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but that some colleges would just discard the information. I have a processing speed deficit and ADD, both diagnosed well into my high school years. I am very lucky because I got into my top choice college, so this post is not because I am bitter about not getting into my favorite school, rather to shed light on why having a learning difference should be accounted for by the college admission teams. I think it should not only not be a detriment, but rather thought of as a hardship that would explain potentially sub par grades and test scores. Students from low income areas that have poor public schools are viewed in the context of their lives, and students with learning differences should be viewed in a similar way. For example, I have time and half on tests, but that also means that everything that I do, academically, takes time and half, like homework and studying. That is a lot more time spent on the same tasks as my peers, and I think it should be recognized. It may appear as affirmative action for learning differences but it can also be looked at as creating another kind of diversity on campus. LD’s create diversity in the way people think, so a student may be very creative and innovative, but not test very well. Furthermore, if a college has an algorithm that calculates a number out of a students GPA and test scores, if a student with an LD is below the college's acceptance “number”, I think they should be considered based on their circumstances. Not automatic admission, just further consideration. I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts.<|ASPECTS|>acceptance “, tasks, hardship, learning difference, poor public schools, processing speed deficit, learning differences, sub, tests, learning difference ld, time spent, test, studying, test scores, par grades, recognized, circumstances, gpa, academically, creative and innovative, time, action, scores, automatic admission, add, ’ s thoughts, homework, detriment, diversity, hear<|CONCLUSION|>","When I was going through the college application process, I was told that my learning difference LD could not legally be counted against me because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but that some colleges would just discard the information. I have a processing speed deficit and ADD, both diagnosed well into my high school years. I am very lucky because I got into my top choice college, so this post is not because I am bitter about not getting into my favorite school, rather to shed light on why having a learning difference should be accounted for by the college admission teams. I think it should not only not be a detriment, but rather thought of as a hardship that would explain potentially sub par grades and test scores. Students from low income areas that have poor public schools are viewed in the context of their lives, and students with learning differences should be viewed in a similar way. For example, I have time and half on tests, but that also means that everything that I do, academically, takes time and half, like homework and studying. That is a lot more time spent on the same tasks as my peers, and I think it should be recognized. It may appear as affirmative action for learning differences but it can also be looked at as creating another kind of diversity on campus. LD’s create diversity in the way people think, so a student may be very creative and innovative, but not test very well. Furthermore, if a college has an algorithm that calculates a number out of a students GPA and test scores, if a student with an LD is below the college's acceptance “number”, I think they should be considered based on their circumstances. Not automatic admission, just further consideration. I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts.",Learning differences should be accounted for in the college decision process
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My dad was talking to me recently about how education is the most important factor in the development of a country. However, I can't see how this can be as there are so many other factors that affect development more such as surroundings to refine produce raw materials , manufacturing of goods, services which all play there part in the development of a country. How is education needed in order to make a country more developed? A country can still function without the citizens being educated and it can still be developed through leaders which is something that isn't taught through education systems. Help me see my father's view so I don't just come off as ignorant in our next conversation thank you.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My dad was talking to me recently about how education is the most important factor in the development of a country. However, I can't see how this can be as there are so many other factors that affect development more such as surroundings to refine produce raw materials , manufacturing of goods, services which all play there part in the development of a country. How is education needed in order to make a country more developed? A country can still function without the citizens being educated and it can still be developed through leaders which is something that isn't taught through education systems. Help me see my father's view so I don't just come off as ignorant in our next conversation thank you.<|TARGETS|>talking to me recently about how education, Help me see my father 's view so I do n't just come off as ignorant in our next conversation thank you .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My dad was talking to me recently about how education is the most important factor in the development of a country. However, I can't see how this can be as there are so many other factors that affect development more such as surroundings to refine produce raw materials , manufacturing of goods, services which all play there part in the development of a country. How is education needed in order to make a country more developed? A country can still function without the citizens being educated and it can still be developed through leaders which is something that isn't taught through education systems. Help me see my father's view so I don't just come off as ignorant in our next conversation thank you.<|ASPECTS|>citizens, education needed, developed, country, father 's view, surroundings, education, function, educated, development, ignorant, developed through leaders<|CONCLUSION|>","My dad was talking to me recently about how education is the most important factor in the development of a country. However, I can't see how this can be as there are so many other factors that affect development more such as surroundings to refine produce raw materials , manufacturing of goods, services which all play there part in the development of a country. How is education needed in order to make a country more developed? A country can still function without the citizens being educated and it can still be developed through leaders which is something that isn't taught through education systems. Help me see my father's view so I don't just come off as ignorant in our next conversation thank you.",Education is not the single most important factor in the development of a country
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently a healthy 25 year old male who drinks moderately, exercises roughly 4 days a week, and in general pretty lifestyle wise for someone my age. I see a lot of stuff on subs like r futurology that talk about how the first immortal person might already be born, etc. I'm pretty convinced that I and everyone else my age would be lucky to make it to 100. I am not well versed in the science behind life extension and current strides made in the field, but I'd love to live for a long long time, so please CMV Edit I consider being frozen to be dead unless you can convince me there is or will be a way to wake frozen people.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently a healthy 25 year old male who drinks moderately, exercises roughly 4 days a week, and in general pretty lifestyle wise for someone my age. I see a lot of stuff on subs like r futurology that talk about how the first immortal person might already be born, etc. I'm pretty convinced that I and everyone else my age would be lucky to make it to 100. I am not well versed in the science behind life extension and current strides made in the field, but I'd love to live for a long long time, so please CMV Edit I consider being frozen to be dead unless you can convince me there is or will be a way to wake frozen people.<|TARGETS|>a healthy 25 year old male who drinks moderately, the science behind life extension and current strides made in the field, being frozen to be dead unless you can convince me there, to wake frozen people ., a lot of stuff on subs like r futurology that talk about how the first immortal person might already be born etc ., that I and everyone else my age<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am currently a healthy 25 year old male who drinks moderately, exercises roughly 4 days a week, and in general pretty lifestyle wise for someone my age. I see a lot of stuff on subs like r futurology that talk about how the first immortal person might already be born, etc. I'm pretty convinced that I and everyone else my age would be lucky to make it to 100. I am not well versed in the science behind life extension and current strides made in the field, but I'd love to live for a long long time, so please CMV Edit I consider being frozen to be dead unless you can convince me there is or will be a way to wake frozen people.<|ASPECTS|>wake frozen people, healthy, exercises, lifestyle wise, dead, 100, futurology, life extension, immortal person, current strides, first, drinks moderately, lucky<|CONCLUSION|>","I am currently a healthy 25 year old male who drinks moderately, exercises roughly 4 days a week, and in general pretty lifestyle wise for someone my age. I see a lot of stuff on subs like r futurology that talk about how the first immortal person might already be born, etc. I'm pretty convinced that I and everyone else my age would be lucky to make it to 100. I am not well versed in the science behind life extension and current strides made in the field, but I'd love to live for a long long time, so please  Edit I consider being frozen to be dead unless you can convince me there is or will be a way to wake frozen people.",I will be dead within 1000 years 25M
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This will be quite a lengthy post as this is an issue that has many sides to it, morally and legally, and I want to make sure I'm representing my view as accurately as possible. A bit about me before I begin as I think personal details are somewhat important when discussing these types of topics. I'm a guy from the UK in my last year of Computer Science at University. I have a strong knowledge of cyber security having a couple of years experience working in the industry in security roles along side my studies. I would view myself as strongly knowledge about the tech behind a lot of these issues, having studied and worked with it a fair bit. My view can be summarised into 2 main points There is nothing wrong with a company recording data Dealing with Cyber crime is becoming harder and harder but data collection helps Lets break those down. There is nothing wrong with a company recording data I am often a mixed of disgusted and confused when I hear users talk about how morally wrong it is for companies like Google and Microsoft to record their data when using their services. Users want better services, more tailored services, their services to react instantaneously, how do they think that will happen? The data boom that has caused these services to rapidly improve is driven by exactly that, data. Take auto complete from Google search for example, this works at the simplest level by looking at what you've typed then suggesting what the majority of the billions of other users continued typing after that point. A great feature that literally billions of people use daily and it only works because Google records that data. Without the users search data this function wouldn't be possible and the overall search service would be worse. That was a specific example but it can be found with every service that requires mass data to function. Microsoft's Autocomplete was on the front page today because it defaulted to recording the users data and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of services that require the same trade in order for the service to run, the users have to give their data. However, for whatever reason, when asked the majority of users don't want their data recorded and the response to those people is usually saying well then don't use that service. That's a perfectly valid solution but that is not what users want or suggest. No they want to use the service but they don't want their data tracked. It's a massively entitled mentality, they want the service but don't want to give their data that makes it possible. So to summarise this point, these services need the data to run, or at the very least would be far worse without it, so if users want the service then they can't complain about making the trade. I have not mentioned here how I think that there should be no reason for a company to act morally either. If it is in the companies best interest to get data from their users and they're not breaking laws doing it, then I think they should be perfectly able to and it doesn't matter if it effects the service. If users don't like it, don't use the service. However in those cases I do get the users have the right to complain if they disagree. Dealing with Cyber crime is becoming harder and harder but data collection helps A big complaint with companies recording your data is that the Governments have access to it. I have to admit I find it somewhat curious that users naturally trust the Government with all their health records, social information, bank details etc. but panic at the thought of someone accessing their Facebook account, but I digress, users aren't happy with the thought that the Government are tapping their phones and getting their data. We live in a world where the vast majority of serious, organised crime have at least parts on the internet. Whether it's communication between two accomplices before a murder or an entire terrorist organisation like ISIS, they're using the internet to communicate and organise. 30 years ago this was happening over the phone or in person, the Government Police could get a warrant for a wire tap and there was nothing the criminals could do. I'm not talking about measures such as dumping switching phones or the like, I'm talking technically. If they were using a phone that the Government had a legal warrant for, then odds were they were screwed. Now however things are different. Whatsapp is a great example that I bring up a lot in these discussions. Whatsapp provides end to end encryption without any user interaction at all for free or 69p yearly if you want to pick the details and criminals around the world use it daily. How is the Government meant to stop them? They can get a warrant for a phone but that's no longer enough, every packet they see coming out of the phone will be encrypted. How are they meant to get the intelligence to stop the crime? By looking at the metadata collected by Whatsapp perhaps? Frankly this is an issue that I don't think has a solution but the reason I've included it in my CMV is that it's a big part of why users don't like companies taking their data, they fear the NSA or GCHQ reading it. I say in response, what's the alternative? Honestly I find this whole topic a bit weird, if you don't trust the Government not to have your data and only look at it when appropriate, why do you trust them with anything? Lack of choice? Security always comes down to trust in the end and in the same way I trust the Government not to bust down my door without a legal warrant, I trust them not to look at my facebook messages without one either, even if they have the data. Conclusion My thoughts went on a bit of a tangent while writing this, but I hope some of the above at least gives you an idea of what my view is. I'm curious to see why you think the way you do if you disagree, so please let me know below. Likewise if you want me to expand on something then of course please ask.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This will be quite a lengthy post as this is an issue that has many sides to it, morally and legally, and I want to make sure I'm representing my view as accurately as possible. A bit about me before I begin as I think personal details are somewhat important when discussing these types of topics. I'm a guy from the UK in my last year of Computer Science at University. I have a strong knowledge of cyber security having a couple of years experience working in the industry in security roles along side my studies. I would view myself as strongly knowledge about the tech behind a lot of these issues, having studied and worked with it a fair bit. My view can be summarised into 2 main points There is nothing wrong with a company recording data Dealing with Cyber crime is becoming harder and harder but data collection helps Lets break those down. There is nothing wrong with a company recording data I am often a mixed of disgusted and confused when I hear users talk about how morally wrong it is for companies like Google and Microsoft to record their data when using their services. Users want better services, more tailored services, their services to react instantaneously, how do they think that will happen? The data boom that has caused these services to rapidly improve is driven by exactly that, data. Take auto complete from Google search for example, this works at the simplest level by looking at what you've typed then suggesting what the majority of the billions of other users continued typing after that point. A great feature that literally billions of people use daily and it only works because Google records that data. Without the users search data this function wouldn't be possible and the overall search service would be worse. That was a specific example but it can be found with every service that requires mass data to function. Microsoft's Autocomplete was on the front page today because it defaulted to recording the users data and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of services that require the same trade in order for the service to run, the users have to give their data. However, for whatever reason, when asked the majority of users don't want their data recorded and the response to those people is usually saying well then don't use that service. That's a perfectly valid solution but that is not what users want or suggest. No they want to use the service but they don't want their data tracked. It's a massively entitled mentality, they want the service but don't want to give their data that makes it possible. So to summarise this point, these services need the data to run, or at the very least would be far worse without it, so if users want the service then they can't complain about making the trade. I have not mentioned here how I think that there should be no reason for a company to act morally either. If it is in the companies best interest to get data from their users and they're not breaking laws doing it, then I think they should be perfectly able to and it doesn't matter if it effects the service. If users don't like it, don't use the service. However in those cases I do get the users have the right to complain if they disagree. Dealing with Cyber crime is becoming harder and harder but data collection helps A big complaint with companies recording your data is that the Governments have access to it. I have to admit I find it somewhat curious that users naturally trust the Government with all their health records, social information, bank details etc. but panic at the thought of someone accessing their Facebook account, but I digress, users aren't happy with the thought that the Government are tapping their phones and getting their data. We live in a world where the vast majority of serious, organised crime have at least parts on the internet. Whether it's communication between two accomplices before a murder or an entire terrorist organisation like ISIS, they're using the internet to communicate and organise. 30 years ago this was happening over the phone or in person, the Government Police could get a warrant for a wire tap and there was nothing the criminals could do. I'm not talking about measures such as dumping switching phones or the like, I'm talking technically. If they were using a phone that the Government had a legal warrant for, then odds were they were screwed. Now however things are different. Whatsapp is a great example that I bring up a lot in these discussions. Whatsapp provides end to end encryption without any user interaction at all for free or 69p yearly if you want to pick the details and criminals around the world use it daily. How is the Government meant to stop them? They can get a warrant for a phone but that's no longer enough, every packet they see coming out of the phone will be encrypted. How are they meant to get the intelligence to stop the crime? By looking at the metadata collected by Whatsapp perhaps? Frankly this is an issue that I don't think has a solution but the reason I've included it in my CMV is that it's a big part of why users don't like companies taking their data, they fear the NSA or GCHQ reading it. I say in response, what's the alternative? Honestly I find this whole topic a bit weird, if you don't trust the Government not to have your data and only look at it when appropriate, why do you trust them with anything? Lack of choice? Security always comes down to trust in the end and in the same way I trust the Government not to bust down my door without a legal warrant, I trust them not to look at my facebook messages without one either, even if they have the data. Conclusion My thoughts went on a bit of a tangent while writing this, but I hope some of the above at least gives you an idea of what my view is. I'm curious to see why you think the way you do if you disagree, so please let me know below. Likewise if you want me to expand on something then of course please ask.<|TARGETS|>Conclusion My thoughts went on a bit of a tangent while writing this but I hope some of the above at least gives you an idea of what my view is ., when discussing these types of topics ., to make sure I 'm representing my view as accurately as possible ., not talking about measures such as dumping switching phones, every packet they see coming out of the phone, The data boom<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This will be quite a lengthy post as this is an issue that has many sides to it, morally and legally, and I want to make sure I'm representing my view as accurately as possible. A bit about me before I begin as I think personal details are somewhat important when discussing these types of topics. I'm a guy from the UK in my last year of Computer Science at University. I have a strong knowledge of cyber security having a couple of years experience working in the industry in security roles along side my studies. I would view myself as strongly knowledge about the tech behind a lot of these issues, having studied and worked with it a fair bit. My view can be summarised into 2 main points There is nothing wrong with a company recording data Dealing with Cyber crime is becoming harder and harder but data collection helps Lets break those down. There is nothing wrong with a company recording data I am often a mixed of disgusted and confused when I hear users talk about how morally wrong it is for companies like Google and Microsoft to record their data when using their services. Users want better services, more tailored services, their services to react instantaneously, how do they think that will happen? The data boom that has caused these services to rapidly improve is driven by exactly that, data. Take auto complete from Google search for example, this works at the simplest level by looking at what you've typed then suggesting what the majority of the billions of other users continued typing after that point. A great feature that literally billions of people use daily and it only works because Google records that data. Without the users search data this function wouldn't be possible and the overall search service would be worse. That was a specific example but it can be found with every service that requires mass data to function. Microsoft's Autocomplete was on the front page today because it defaulted to recording the users data and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of services that require the same trade in order for the service to run, the users have to give their data. However, for whatever reason, when asked the majority of users don't want their data recorded and the response to those people is usually saying well then don't use that service. That's a perfectly valid solution but that is not what users want or suggest. No they want to use the service but they don't want their data tracked. It's a massively entitled mentality, they want the service but don't want to give their data that makes it possible. So to summarise this point, these services need the data to run, or at the very least would be far worse without it, so if users want the service then they can't complain about making the trade. I have not mentioned here how I think that there should be no reason for a company to act morally either. If it is in the companies best interest to get data from their users and they're not breaking laws doing it, then I think they should be perfectly able to and it doesn't matter if it effects the service. If users don't like it, don't use the service. However in those cases I do get the users have the right to complain if they disagree. Dealing with Cyber crime is becoming harder and harder but data collection helps A big complaint with companies recording your data is that the Governments have access to it. I have to admit I find it somewhat curious that users naturally trust the Government with all their health records, social information, bank details etc. but panic at the thought of someone accessing their Facebook account, but I digress, users aren't happy with the thought that the Government are tapping their phones and getting their data. We live in a world where the vast majority of serious, organised crime have at least parts on the internet. Whether it's communication between two accomplices before a murder or an entire terrorist organisation like ISIS, they're using the internet to communicate and organise. 30 years ago this was happening over the phone or in person, the Government Police could get a warrant for a wire tap and there was nothing the criminals could do. I'm not talking about measures such as dumping switching phones or the like, I'm talking technically. If they were using a phone that the Government had a legal warrant for, then odds were they were screwed. Now however things are different. Whatsapp is a great example that I bring up a lot in these discussions. Whatsapp provides end to end encryption without any user interaction at all for free or 69p yearly if you want to pick the details and criminals around the world use it daily. How is the Government meant to stop them? They can get a warrant for a phone but that's no longer enough, every packet they see coming out of the phone will be encrypted. How are they meant to get the intelligence to stop the crime? By looking at the metadata collected by Whatsapp perhaps? Frankly this is an issue that I don't think has a solution but the reason I've included it in my CMV is that it's a big part of why users don't like companies taking their data, they fear the NSA or GCHQ reading it. I say in response, what's the alternative? Honestly I find this whole topic a bit weird, if you don't trust the Government not to have your data and only look at it when appropriate, why do you trust them with anything? Lack of choice? Security always comes down to trust in the end and in the same way I trust the Government not to bust down my door without a legal warrant, I trust them not to look at my facebook messages without one either, even if they have the data. Conclusion My thoughts went on a bit of a tangent while writing this, but I hope some of the above at least gives you an idea of what my view is. I'm curious to see why you think the way you do if you disagree, so please let me know below. Likewise if you want me to expand on something then of course please ask.<|ASPECTS|>, stop, data tracked, crime, trust the government, legal warrant, breaking laws, metadata, cyber security, view, social information, function, government, panic, effects the service, react instantaneously, cyber crime, act, tapping their phones, internet, trust, serious, intelligence, fear, stop the crime, security roles, mass data, packet, knowledge about, conclusion, improve, lack, choice, think, entitled mentality, tech, morally, legally, data recorded, bank details, access, search service, screwed, trade, better services, warrant, search, data boom, data collection, governments, communication, nsa, morally wrong, user interaction, criminals, organised crime, end encryption, right to complain, tailored services, organise, disgusted, complain, terrorist organisation, personal details, data, different, health records, recording the users data, perfectly, massively, encrypted, continued, communicate, dumping switching phones, valid solution, security, alternative<|CONCLUSION|>","This will be quite a lengthy post as this is an issue that has many sides to it, morally and legally, and I want to make sure I'm representing my view as accurately as possible. A bit about me before I begin as I think personal details are somewhat important when discussing these types of topics. I'm a guy from the UK in my last year of Computer Science at University. I have a strong knowledge of cyber security having a couple of years experience working in the industry in security roles along side my studies. I would view myself as strongly knowledge about the tech behind a lot of these issues, having studied and worked with it a fair bit. My view can be summarised into 2 main points There is nothing wrong with a company recording data Dealing with Cyber crime is becoming harder and harder but data collection helps Lets break those down. There is nothing wrong with a company recording data I am often a mixed of disgusted and confused when I hear users talk about how morally wrong it is for companies like Google and Microsoft to record their data when using their services. Users want better services, more tailored services, their services to react instantaneously, how do they think that will happen? The data boom that has caused these services to rapidly improve is driven by exactly that, data. Take auto complete from Google search for example, this works at the simplest level by looking at what you've typed then suggesting what the majority of the billions of other users continued typing after that point. A great feature that literally billions of people use daily and it only works because Google records that data. Without the users search data this function wouldn't be possible and the overall search service would be worse. That was a specific example but it can be found with every service that requires mass data to function. Microsoft's Autocomplete was on the front page today because it defaulted to recording the users data and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of services that require the same trade in order for the service to run, the users have to give their data. However, for whatever reason, when asked the majority of users don't want their data recorded and the response to those people is usually saying well then don't use that service. That's a perfectly valid solution but that is not what users want or suggest. No they want to use the service but they don't want their data tracked. It's a massively entitled mentality, they want the service but don't want to give their data that makes it possible. So to summarise this point, these services need the data to run, or at the very least would be far worse without it, so if users want the service then they can't complain about making the trade. I have not mentioned here how I think that there should be no reason for a company to act morally either. If it is in the companies best interest to get data from their users and they're not breaking laws doing it, then I think they should be perfectly able to and it doesn't matter if it effects the service. If users don't like it, don't use the service. However in those cases I do get the users have the right to complain if they disagree. Dealing with Cyber crime is becoming harder and harder but data collection helps A big complaint with companies recording your data is that the Governments have access to it. I have to admit I find it somewhat curious that users naturally trust the Government with all their health records, social information, bank details etc. but panic at the thought of someone accessing their Facebook account, but I digress, users aren't happy with the thought that the Government are tapping their phones and getting their data. We live in a world where the vast majority of serious, organised crime have at least parts on the internet. Whether it's communication between two accomplices before a murder or an entire terrorist organisation like ISIS, they're using the internet to communicate and organise. 30 years ago this was happening over the phone or in person, the Government Police could get a warrant for a wire tap and there was nothing the criminals could do. I'm not talking about measures such as dumping switching phones or the like, I'm talking technically. If they were using a phone that the Government had a legal warrant for, then odds were they were screwed. Now however things are different. Whatsapp is a great example that I bring up a lot in these discussions. Whatsapp provides end to end encryption without any user interaction at all for free or 69p yearly if you want to pick the details and criminals around the world use it daily. How is the Government meant to stop them? They can get a warrant for a phone but that's no longer enough, every packet they see coming out of the phone will be encrypted. How are they meant to get the intelligence to stop the crime? By looking at the metadata collected by Whatsapp perhaps? Frankly this is an issue that I don't think has a solution but the reason I've included it in my  is that it's a big part of why users don't like companies taking their data, they fear the NSA or GCHQ reading it. I say in response, what's the alternative? Honestly I find this whole topic a bit weird, if you don't trust the Government not to have your data and only look at it when appropriate, why do you trust them with anything? Lack of choice? Security always comes down to trust in the end and in the same way I trust the Government not to bust down my door without a legal warrant, I trust them not to look at my facebook messages without one either, even if they have the data. Conclusion My thoughts went on a bit of a tangent while writing this, but I hope some of the above at least gives you an idea of what my view is. I'm curious to see why you think the way you do if you disagree, so please let me know below. Likewise if you want me to expand on something then of course please ask.",I think it's a good thing companies take and track their users data
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Didn't Shakespeare use slang ish words for rhymes that ultimately became part of what is considered sophisticated language today? Of course the grammar Nazi's of Reddit are famous, but I honestly don't find any problem with people using slang, particularly in these situations Any informal setting with friends, internet comments, etc. They aren't using offensive terms obviously these have their own set of issues They are legible comprehensible I saw a comment recently that said that a so and so's incorrect grammar was a vile use of the English language, but I find very few faults except the situations above with people having their own sort of vernacular or something to that effect. I believe that when people choose to use slang but have knowledge of correct grammar they are simply enjoying the versatility of a quite complex form of communication. Is there really a difference between an artist poet director breaking the rules and a well educated person saying ain't or me and my friend went to the movies. CMV?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Didn't Shakespeare use slang ish words for rhymes that ultimately became part of what is considered sophisticated language today? Of course the grammar Nazi's of Reddit are famous, but I honestly don't find any problem with people using slang, particularly in these situations Any informal setting with friends, internet comments, etc. They aren't using offensive terms obviously these have their own set of issues They are legible comprehensible I saw a comment recently that said that a so and so's incorrect grammar was a vile use of the English language, but I find very few faults except the situations above with people having their own sort of vernacular or something to that effect. I believe that when people choose to use slang but have knowledge of correct grammar they are simply enjoying the versatility of a quite complex form of communication. Is there really a difference between an artist poet director breaking the rules and a well educated person saying ain't or me and my friend went to the movies. CMV?<|TARGETS|>Shakespeare use slang ish words for rhymes, an artist poet director breaking the rules and a well educated person saying ai n't or me and my friend went to the movies ., the situations above with people having their own sort of vernacular or something to that effect ., when people choose to use slang but have knowledge of correct grammar, any problem with people using slang particularly in these situations Any informal setting with friends internet comments, a comment recently that said that a so and so 's incorrect grammar was a vile use of the English language<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Didn't Shakespeare use slang ish words for rhymes that ultimately became part of what is considered sophisticated language today? Of course the grammar Nazi's of Reddit are famous, but I honestly don't find any problem with people using slang, particularly in these situations Any informal setting with friends, internet comments, etc. They aren't using offensive terms obviously these have their own set of issues They are legible comprehensible I saw a comment recently that said that a so and so's incorrect grammar was a vile use of the English language, but I find very few faults except the situations above with people having their own sort of vernacular or something to that effect. I believe that when people choose to use slang but have knowledge of correct grammar they are simply enjoying the versatility of a quite complex form of communication. Is there really a difference between an artist poet director breaking the rules and a well educated person saying ain't or me and my friend went to the movies. CMV?<|ASPECTS|>versatility, sophisticated language, informal setting, correct grammar, breaking the rules, offensive, slang, legible comprehensible, complex form, poet, communication, vile, well educated person<|CONCLUSION|>","Didn't Shakespeare use slang ish words for rhymes that ultimately became part of what is considered sophisticated language today? Of course the grammar Nazi's of Reddit are famous, but I honestly don't find any problem with people using slang, particularly in these situations Any informal setting with friends, internet comments, etc. They aren't using offensive terms obviously these have their own set of issues They are legible comprehensible I saw a comment recently that said that a so and so's incorrect grammar was a vile use of the English language, but I find very few faults except the situations above with people having their own sort of vernacular or something to that effect. I believe that when people choose to use slang but have knowledge of correct grammar they are simply enjoying the versatility of a quite complex form of communication. Is there really a difference between an artist poet director breaking the rules and a well educated person saying ain't or me and my friend went to the movies. ?",I don't think there is anything wrong with slang.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've observed how most of my friends are interested in the cultures and languages of developed countries. Very few of them are interested in the cultures languages of developing countries. I didn't ask them why but I think this is due to how it is more worthy to learn about the cultures languages of developed countries than developing ones Developed countries tend to have a dominance in politics and pop culture There must be a reason why developed reasons are developed this may have something to do with its culture eg. a culture which encourages hard work and innovation and this implies that there is something good about that culture. The low living standards of developing countries implies that there are flaws with their cultures. Learning the language of a developed country may lead to business opportunities with people from that country and they are the ones with money Learning a language may lead to opportunities where you get to work abroad and nobody from a developed country wants to immigrate to a developing country Learning the language makes traveling to the countries where the language is spoken easier and traveling to developed countries is better due to better hygiene, less pickpocketing and better infrastructure Often learning a language requires you to fall in love with the culture of that country it is very hard to fall in love with the culture of a developing country when you know about the living conditions there. It is much easier to fall in love with the culture of a country where you can picture yourself living there<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've observed how most of my friends are interested in the cultures and languages of developed countries. Very few of them are interested in the cultures languages of developing countries. I didn't ask them why but I think this is due to how it is more worthy to learn about the cultures languages of developed countries than developing ones Developed countries tend to have a dominance in politics and pop culture There must be a reason why developed reasons are developed this may have something to do with its culture eg. a culture which encourages hard work and innovation and this implies that there is something good about that culture. The low living standards of developing countries implies that there are flaws with their cultures. Learning the language of a developed country may lead to business opportunities with people from that country and they are the ones with money Learning a language may lead to opportunities where you get to work abroad and nobody from a developed country wants to immigrate to a developing country Learning the language makes traveling to the countries where the language is spoken easier and traveling to developed countries is better due to better hygiene, less pickpocketing and better infrastructure Often learning a language requires you to fall in love with the culture of that country it is very hard to fall in love with the culture of a developing country when you know about the living conditions there. It is much easier to fall in love with the culture of a country where you can picture yourself living there<|TARGETS|>to fall in love with the culture of a country where you can picture yourself living there, ask them why but I think this is due to how it is more worthy to learn about the cultures languages of developed countries than developing ones Developed countries tend to have a dominance in politics and pop culture, to fall in love with the culture of a developing country when you know about the living conditions there ., a culture, Learning the language of a developed country, how most of my friends are interested in the cultures and languages of developed countries<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've observed how most of my friends are interested in the cultures and languages of developed countries. Very few of them are interested in the cultures languages of developing countries. I didn't ask them why but I think this is due to how it is more worthy to learn about the cultures languages of developed countries than developing ones Developed countries tend to have a dominance in politics and pop culture There must be a reason why developed reasons are developed this may have something to do with its culture eg. a culture which encourages hard work and innovation and this implies that there is something good about that culture. The low living standards of developing countries implies that there are flaws with their cultures. Learning the language of a developed country may lead to business opportunities with people from that country and they are the ones with money Learning a language may lead to opportunities where you get to work abroad and nobody from a developed country wants to immigrate to a developing country Learning the language makes traveling to the countries where the language is spoken easier and traveling to developed countries is better due to better hygiene, less pickpocketing and better infrastructure Often learning a language requires you to fall in love with the culture of that country it is very hard to fall in love with the culture of a developing country when you know about the living conditions there. It is much easier to fall in love with the culture of a country where you can picture yourself living there<|ASPECTS|>living standards, low, innovation, politics, business opportunities, cultures and languages, developed, opportunities, culture, less, better infrastructure, better hygiene, developed reasons, pickpocketing, flaws, hard work, cultures languages, living conditions, love with, dominance, cultures<|CONCLUSION|>","I've observed how most of my friends are interested in the cultures and languages of developed countries. Very few of them are interested in the cultures languages of developing countries. I didn't ask them why but I think this is due to how it is more worthy to learn about the cultures languages of developed countries than developing ones Developed countries tend to have a dominance in politics and pop culture There must be a reason why developed reasons are developed this may have something to do with its culture eg. a culture which encourages hard work and innovation and this implies that there is something good about that culture. The low living standards of developing countries implies that there are flaws with their cultures. Learning the language of a developed country may lead to business opportunities with people from that country and they are the ones with money Learning a language may lead to opportunities where you get to work abroad and nobody from a developed country wants to immigrate to a developing country Learning the language makes traveling to the countries where the language is spoken easier and traveling to developed countries is better due to better hygiene, less pickpocketing and better infrastructure Often learning a language requires you to fall in love with the culture of that country it is very hard to fall in love with the culture of a developing country when you know about the living conditions there. It is much easier to fall in love with the culture of a country where you can picture yourself living there",The cultures and languages of developing countries are less worth to learn about than those of developed countries
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I'm all for Net Neutrality, but I cannot simply call others who disagree ignorant or greedy. I want to try to hear them out. Why Net Neutrality may not be good? A friend of mine who is not associated with the media industry argues that the problem is the lack of competitions. If cable companies are truly in an open competition with each other, then customers would have choices and would choose the company that looks after their interests. So, the solution should be to fix this aspect and restore market competition instead. This, to him, is the root cause. Applying government regulation is contrary to the open market and capitalism. At best it is short term. At worst, government itself could corrupt themselves and use it to violate greater human rights. What are other arguments?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I'm all for Net Neutrality, but I cannot simply call others who disagree ignorant or greedy. I want to try to hear them out. Why Net Neutrality may not be good? A friend of mine who is not associated with the media industry argues that the problem is the lack of competitions. If cable companies are truly in an open competition with each other, then customers would have choices and would choose the company that looks after their interests. So, the solution should be to fix this aspect and restore market competition instead. This, to him, is the root cause. Applying government regulation is contrary to the open market and capitalism. At best it is short term. At worst, government itself could corrupt themselves and use it to violate greater human rights. What are other arguments?<|TARGETS|>Disclaimer, If cable companies, Applying government regulation, the open market and capitalism, Why Net Neutrality, to try to hear them out .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I'm all for Net Neutrality, but I cannot simply call others who disagree ignorant or greedy. I want to try to hear them out. Why Net Neutrality may not be good? A friend of mine who is not associated with the media industry argues that the problem is the lack of competitions. If cable companies are truly in an open competition with each other, then customers would have choices and would choose the company that looks after their interests. So, the solution should be to fix this aspect and restore market competition instead. This, to him, is the root cause. Applying government regulation is contrary to the open market and capitalism. At best it is short term. At worst, government itself could corrupt themselves and use it to violate greater human rights. What are other arguments?<|ASPECTS|>, market competition, greedy, capitalism, open market, open competition, corrupt, ignorant, lack, net neutrality, competitions, hear, choices, violate, restore, government regulation, root cause, human rights, short term<|CONCLUSION|>","Disclaimer I'm all for Net Neutrality, but I cannot simply call others who disagree ignorant or greedy. I want to try to hear them out. Why Net Neutrality may not be good? A friend of mine who is not associated with the media industry argues that the problem is the lack of competitions. If cable companies are truly in an open competition with each other, then customers would have choices and would choose the company that looks after their interests. So, the solution should be to fix this aspect and restore market competition instead. This, to him, is the root cause. Applying government regulation is contrary to the open market and capitalism. At best it is short term. At worst, government itself could corrupt themselves and use it to violate greater human rights. What are other arguments?",Net Neutrality is Good
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Im not looking for an argue about semantics, many posts about piracy turn into an argument on whether it is stealing or not, and then just constantly go back and forth without nothing being really said. The common arguments that are said are things like It isn't available in my country yet response Wait then. I can't afford it. response save up then. You wouldn't take someone else's car for a joyride every time they went to sleep, would you? I don't support the company. response don't pirate it, or buy it. I find that a lot of times when I look at piracy posts, they are people who believe they are entitled to whatever anybody makes. One of the most common justifications is that they don't lose anything. For that, I say that if you copied say, a car design, made the exact same car,and then sold it for your own good, is that right? You didn't steal a car, and they didn't lose anything, right? I simply think that piracy is just a symptom of entitlement.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Im not looking for an argue about semantics, many posts about piracy turn into an argument on whether it is stealing or not, and then just constantly go back and forth without nothing being really said. The common arguments that are said are things like It isn't available in my country yet response Wait then. I can't afford it. response save up then. You wouldn't take someone else's car for a joyride every time they went to sleep, would you? I don't support the company. response don't pirate it, or buy it. I find that a lot of times when I look at piracy posts, they are people who believe they are entitled to whatever anybody makes. One of the most common justifications is that they don't lose anything. For that, I say that if you copied say, a car design, made the exact same car,and then sold it for your own good, is that right? You didn't steal a car, and they didn't lose anything, right? I simply think that piracy is just a symptom of entitlement.<|TARGETS|>take someone else 's car for a joyride every time they went to sleep, when I look at piracy posts, that piracy, if you copied say a car design, Im not looking for an argue about semantics many posts about piracy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Im not looking for an argue about semantics, many posts about piracy turn into an argument on whether it is stealing or not, and then just constantly go back and forth without nothing being really said. The common arguments that are said are things like It isn't available in my country yet response Wait then. I can't afford it. response save up then. You wouldn't take someone else's car for a joyride every time they went to sleep, would you? I don't support the company. response don't pirate it, or buy it. I find that a lot of times when I look at piracy posts, they are people who believe they are entitled to whatever anybody makes. One of the most common justifications is that they don't lose anything. For that, I say that if you copied say, a car design, made the exact same car,and then sold it for your own good, is that right? You didn't steal a car, and they didn't lose anything, right? I simply think that piracy is just a symptom of entitlement.<|ASPECTS|>steal a car, stealing, afford, piracy, save, joyride, support the company, entitlement, available, lose anything, pirate, buy, entitled to whatever<|CONCLUSION|>","Im not looking for an argue about semantics, many posts about piracy turn into an argument on whether it is stealing or not, and then just constantly go back and forth without nothing being really said. The common arguments that are said are things like It isn't available in my country yet response Wait then. I can't afford it. response save up then. You wouldn't take someone else's car for a joyride every time they went to sleep, would you? I don't support the company. response don't pirate it, or buy it. I find that a lot of times when I look at piracy posts, they are people who believe they are entitled to whatever anybody makes. One of the most common justifications is that they don't lose anything. For that, I say that if you copied say, a car design, made the exact same car,and then sold it for your own good, is that right? You didn't steal a car, and they didn't lose anything, right? I simply think that piracy is just a symptom of entitlement.",Piracy Is Wrong
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've lived on a cattle ranch for three generations in Marion County and we don't leave trash or any type of food around our property, anywhere. It was mostly due to raccoons, but we take our trash to the bins at the driveway the morning of trash day to minimize stray domestic animals and other wildlife from toppling them over. Our family has been here for 70 years, we have ten thousand acres filled with cattle, and not once has any calf or person been disturbed by a black bear. I think that the trophy hunt is completely irrational, and fines need to be assessed to those who leave decaying trash out around their houses, and not attack the bears that are attracted by it<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've lived on a cattle ranch for three generations in Marion County and we don't leave trash or any type of food around our property, anywhere. It was mostly due to raccoons, but we take our trash to the bins at the driveway the morning of trash day to minimize stray domestic animals and other wildlife from toppling them over. Our family has been here for 70 years, we have ten thousand acres filled with cattle, and not once has any calf or person been disturbed by a black bear. I think that the trophy hunt is completely irrational, and fines need to be assessed to those who leave decaying trash out around their houses, and not attack the bears that are attracted by it<|TARGETS|>n't leave trash or any type of food around our property, the trophy hunt, any calf or person been disturbed by a black bear ., to be assessed to those who leave decaying trash out around their houses<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've lived on a cattle ranch for three generations in Marion County and we don't leave trash or any type of food around our property, anywhere. It was mostly due to raccoons, but we take our trash to the bins at the driveway the morning of trash day to minimize stray domestic animals and other wildlife from toppling them over. Our family has been here for 70 years, we have ten thousand acres filled with cattle, and not once has any calf or person been disturbed by a black bear. I think that the trophy hunt is completely irrational, and fines need to be assessed to those who leave decaying trash out around their houses, and not attack the bears that are attracted by it<|ASPECTS|>, cattle, stray domestic animals, irrational, decaying trash, disturbed, leave, wildlife, trophy hunt, trash, fines, minimize, black bear, food, raccoons<|CONCLUSION|>","I've lived on a cattle ranch for three generations in Marion County and we don't leave trash or any type of food around our property, anywhere. It was mostly due to raccoons, but we take our trash to the bins at the driveway the morning of trash day to minimize stray domestic animals and other wildlife from toppling them over. Our family has been here for 70 years, we have ten thousand acres filled with cattle, and not once has any calf or person been disturbed by a black bear. I think that the trophy hunt is completely irrational, and fines need to be assessed to those who leave decaying trash out around their houses, and not attack the bears that are attracted by it","As a Floridian living on a ranch near Ocala, pick up after myself and have never had a bear incident, I don't think they should be trophy hunted due to a population increase"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I do not feel that having sex with another individual while in a committed relationship not marriage, note the difference here is morally wrong, as long as either the person does not find out while the other party is knowledgable , or they are informed ahead of time and consent to this both parties . I say this because I feel as if people should be able to detach themselves from relationships to the point where they note when they are physically attracted to someone, and emotionally attached, or both. If someone is both emotionally attached, then nothing can change that, and if it is both a physical and emotional attachment, then that's even better. But if someone forms a physical attraction to someone else, and chooses to act on it given the aforementioned guidelines , then I do not feel this is cheating. They will always come back to their partner, and this encounter with another person is no more significant than say a hug, so long as both parties acknowledge that it is strictly for pleasure seeking purposes. I invite all commentary and rebuttals, please change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I do not feel that having sex with another individual while in a committed relationship not marriage, note the difference here is morally wrong, as long as either the person does not find out while the other party is knowledgable , or they are informed ahead of time and consent to this both parties . I say this because I feel as if people should be able to detach themselves from relationships to the point where they note when they are physically attracted to someone, and emotionally attached, or both. If someone is both emotionally attached, then nothing can change that, and if it is both a physical and emotional attachment, then that's even better. But if someone forms a physical attraction to someone else, and chooses to act on it given the aforementioned guidelines , then I do not feel this is cheating. They will always come back to their partner, and this encounter with another person is no more significant than say a hug, so long as both parties acknowledge that it is strictly for pleasure seeking purposes. I invite all commentary and rebuttals, please change my view.<|TARGETS|>I invite all commentary and rebuttals please change my view ., If someone is both emotionally attached then nothing can change that and if it is both a physical and emotional attachment, this encounter with another person, having sex with another individual while in a committed relationship not marriage note the difference here is morally wrong as long as either the person does not find out while the other party is knowledgable or they are informed ahead of time and consent to this both parties ., if people should be able to detach themselves from relationships to the point where they note when they are physically attracted to someone and emotionally attached or both ., if someone forms a physical attraction to someone else and chooses to act on it given the aforementioned guidelines<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I do not feel that having sex with another individual while in a committed relationship not marriage, note the difference here is morally wrong, as long as either the person does not find out while the other party is knowledgable , or they are informed ahead of time and consent to this both parties . I say this because I feel as if people should be able to detach themselves from relationships to the point where they note when they are physically attracted to someone, and emotionally attached, or both. If someone is both emotionally attached, then nothing can change that, and if it is both a physical and emotional attachment, then that's even better. But if someone forms a physical attraction to someone else, and chooses to act on it given the aforementioned guidelines , then I do not feel this is cheating. They will always come back to their partner, and this encounter with another person is no more significant than say a hug, so long as both parties acknowledge that it is strictly for pleasure seeking purposes. I invite all commentary and rebuttals, please change my view.<|ASPECTS|>physical, emotional attachment, physically attracted, cheating, commentary, physical attraction, pleasure seeking purposes, rebuttals, detach, morally wrong, relationships, emotionally attached<|CONCLUSION|>","I do not feel that having sex with another individual while in a committed relationship not marriage, note the difference here is morally wrong, as long as either the person does not find out while the other party is knowledgable , or they are informed ahead of time and consent to this both parties . I say this because I feel as if people should be able to detach themselves from relationships to the point where they note when they are physically attracted to someone, and emotionally attached, or both. If someone is both emotionally attached, then nothing can change that, and if it is both a physical and emotional attachment, then that's even better. But if someone forms a physical attraction to someone else, and chooses to act on it given the aforementioned guidelines , then I do not feel this is cheating. They will always come back to their partner, and this encounter with another person is no more significant than say a hug, so long as both parties acknowledge that it is strictly for pleasure seeking purposes. I invite all commentary and rebuttals, please change my view.",I believe that a physical encounter sex/hookup should not be considered cheating and should not be a deal breaker in a relationship.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There is an increasing rate of obesity in the country and in the world met by the amount of unhealthy food. In America, at least, there are high obesity rates but a high amount of fast food chains, eating healthy requires extra time, dedication and money. The current problem with weight in America has left a negative effect on mental health and self esteem. A good weight is not the key to happiness but a bad way can easily lead the opposite way. Exercise is a huge contributor to good health and weight loss and should be encouraged. Of course diet is the other factor in losing weight, calorie intake vs. calories lost. But given the nutrition facts of 95 of food, it is harder to eat healthy when smaller portions of food have much more calories. Eating as little as possible is the cheapest and simplest way to lose weight. Edit Thank you everyone I have been sustaining one meal a day about 500 calories and HAVE noticed increased irritability and lower energy. I would not recommend it at all but noticing weight loss every few days seems like something that would only happen in my dreams.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There is an increasing rate of obesity in the country and in the world met by the amount of unhealthy food. In America, at least, there are high obesity rates but a high amount of fast food chains, eating healthy requires extra time, dedication and money. The current problem with weight in America has left a negative effect on mental health and self esteem. A good weight is not the key to happiness but a bad way can easily lead the opposite way. Exercise is a huge contributor to good health and weight loss and should be encouraged. Of course diet is the other factor in losing weight, calorie intake vs. calories lost. But given the nutrition facts of 95 of food, it is harder to eat healthy when smaller portions of food have much more calories. Eating as little as possible is the cheapest and simplest way to lose weight. Edit Thank you everyone I have been sustaining one meal a day about 500 calories and HAVE noticed increased irritability and lower energy. I would not recommend it at all but noticing weight loss every few days seems like something that would only happen in my dreams.<|TARGETS|>recommend it at all but noticing weight loss every few days, sustaining one meal a day about 500 calories, Eating as little as possible, A good weight, to eat healthy when smaller portions of food, the nutrition facts of 95 of food<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There is an increasing rate of obesity in the country and in the world met by the amount of unhealthy food. In America, at least, there are high obesity rates but a high amount of fast food chains, eating healthy requires extra time, dedication and money. The current problem with weight in America has left a negative effect on mental health and self esteem. A good weight is not the key to happiness but a bad way can easily lead the opposite way. Exercise is a huge contributor to good health and weight loss and should be encouraged. Of course diet is the other factor in losing weight, calorie intake vs. calories lost. But given the nutrition facts of 95 of food, it is harder to eat healthy when smaller portions of food have much more calories. Eating as little as possible is the cheapest and simplest way to lose weight. Edit Thank you everyone I have been sustaining one meal a day about 500 calories and HAVE noticed increased irritability and lower energy. I would not recommend it at all but noticing weight loss every few days seems like something that would only happen in my dreams.<|ASPECTS|>lost, obesity rates, increased, unhealthy food, money, extra, bad way, calorie intake, losing weight, cheapest, irritability, lose weight, health, calories, weight, happiness, weight loss, good weight, good, diet, time, nutrition facts, dedication, lower energy, simplest, harder to eat healthy, obesity, negative effect, mental health, self esteem<|CONCLUSION|>","There is an increasing rate of obesity in the country and in the world met by the amount of unhealthy food. In America, at least, there are high obesity rates but a high amount of fast food chains, eating healthy requires extra time, dedication and money. The current problem with weight in America has left a negative effect on mental health and self esteem. A good weight is not the key to happiness but a bad way can easily lead the opposite way. Exercise is a huge contributor to good health and weight loss and should be encouraged. Of course diet is the other factor in losing weight, calorie intake vs. calories lost. But given the nutrition facts of 95 of food, it is harder to eat healthy when smaller portions of food have much more calories. Eating as little as possible is the cheapest and simplest way to lose weight. Edit Thank you everyone I have been sustaining one meal a day about 500 calories and HAVE noticed increased irritability and lower energy. I would not recommend it at all but noticing weight loss every few days seems like something that would only happen in my dreams.",Starving yourself is a good way to lose weight.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit I spent all day reading every single reply and rewarded two deltas congratulations so far. There have been some good points made, particularly the one about Bethlehem and how it appears a nativity story needed to be invented to fit Jesus being from Nazareth, but I'm still not really convinced that the Gospels are fact and not fiction mostly due to the fact that the knowledge we have about the use of the death penalty and the Jewish people's hate of the Romans make the idea they would have Jesus turned over to be killed and tortured highly implausible. Specifically, the Jewish people of the 1st century pretty much abolished the death penalty either around the time Jesus was supposedly killed, or in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed, and were generally turning against it by the 1st century. If there was no crucifixion, there is no historical Jesus. Can anyone bring up points that might suggest that the Pharisees, Sadducees and Romans would all conspire to kill Jesus even though they were all at odds with each other and Jesus was supposedly a nobody during his lifetime? I just find it really hard to believe and I'm surprised historians don't factor this in more. I should note I'm not writing this to bash religion. I'm an agnostic atheist, but I'm not an anti theist. I think religion has personal value to many people, as well as evolutionary value, and I can't say for sure that religious people are wrong because that would be arrogant and I just don't know. I just find the idea that Jesus may have not existed incredibly interesting, partly because it makes me wonder how much of our factual knowledge about history is not really true. Secondly, I am disturbed by the bullying of knowledgeable people like Carrier by historical academia for not sticking to the consensus and it makes me wonder if there is some kind of payola going on in the field of Biblical studies, perhaps even from religious organizations. OP As an ex Catholic, I'm very interested in the idea that Jesus didn't exist at all. I'm pretty agnostic on the concept of Jesus historicity, I think it's possible he did live and also possible he didn't. However, from everything I've read there seems to be little evidence that Jesus was a real person. Sure, Josephus briefly mentions him, but this doesn't mean he had proof that Jesus existed. All it means is that Christians told him Jesus existed. It's also widely acknowledged even by faithful scholars that part of the Josephus quote is faked, which makes the whole thing seem fishy. The Tacitus quote is even worse and shows visible signs of being tampered with. Considering the Gospels present an image of a person who was able to attract massive crowds and had a very dramatic execution you would think that there would be some conclusive evidence of his works and his apostles in Judea from that time period, but we've found nothing that is provably contemporary. Unless you are a Christian and believe the miracles in the Gospels actually took place, there's no reason to accept any of it as historical. The nativity narrative is implausible, the magical parts obviously didn't happen, and there's no way any of the quotes would have been remembered accurately, even if there was a real Jesus. The only part that has any possible historical value is the crucifixion under Pilate, since we know he existed, but even that reads as drama rather than a telling of a historical event. I don't count the baptism because we have no historical references to John the Baptist that are from sources other than those that reference Jesus. It seems like the arguments that Bart Ehrman and other ardent defenders of Jesus's historicity put out mostly rely on arguments from authority and appeals to Occam's Razor. The Principle of Embarassment in my opinion is not proof because we really don't know exactly how people during that time and place thought, and the idea that the fact Christianity spread so fast and people died for it means nothing, because people also died for Heaven's Gate and John Frum never existed yet people believe in him. Scholars will dismiss Christ myth theorists by pointing out they don't have the same credentials they do, but unless they have access to some hidden knowledge about Christ, all of the few pieces of evidence for Jesus are easily discoverable on the Internet if you are curious, and none of them seem very convincing. Not only that, but Richard Carrier does have a PhD in ancient history, so he is not just some quack who wrote a few books for lulz. This is somebody who is admittedly biased being a militant atheist, but also very much a person who knows his shit saying that Jesus probably didn't exist. I especially laugh at claims that we know more about Jesus than about George Washington or Julius Caesar. We don't have Jesus's teeth, we don't even know where he was buried. There aren't coins minted with Jesus's face on them, nor are there records of him taking over large chunks of Europe and still existing structures built by his dynasty. All we have are Christian sources and a couple probably fake quotes, none of which were produced in his lifetime. I think Jesus was either totally different from how the Gospels describe him and people essentially made up the stories in them, or he didn't exist at all and was merely the result of rumors that trickled from Israel into Turkey where Paul lived about a miracle worker ie the brother of Jesus Paul claimed to have met , and they more or less made up the Jesus character as they saw fit. What is the best evidence that Jesus did in fact exist and the Gospels are at least somewhat historically accurate? Is there any crucial detail I'm missing? I'm not necessarily saying I buy the Christ Myth theory, but I don't entirely buy the idea that we are 100 percent sure he existed either.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit I spent all day reading every single reply and rewarded two deltas congratulations so far. There have been some good points made, particularly the one about Bethlehem and how it appears a nativity story needed to be invented to fit Jesus being from Nazareth, but I'm still not really convinced that the Gospels are fact and not fiction mostly due to the fact that the knowledge we have about the use of the death penalty and the Jewish people's hate of the Romans make the idea they would have Jesus turned over to be killed and tortured highly implausible. Specifically, the Jewish people of the 1st century pretty much abolished the death penalty either around the time Jesus was supposedly killed, or in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed, and were generally turning against it by the 1st century. If there was no crucifixion, there is no historical Jesus. Can anyone bring up points that might suggest that the Pharisees, Sadducees and Romans would all conspire to kill Jesus even though they were all at odds with each other and Jesus was supposedly a nobody during his lifetime? I just find it really hard to believe and I'm surprised historians don't factor this in more. I should note I'm not writing this to bash religion. I'm an agnostic atheist, but I'm not an anti theist. I think religion has personal value to many people, as well as evolutionary value, and I can't say for sure that religious people are wrong because that would be arrogant and I just don't know. I just find the idea that Jesus may have not existed incredibly interesting, partly because it makes me wonder how much of our factual knowledge about history is not really true. Secondly, I am disturbed by the bullying of knowledgeable people like Carrier by historical academia for not sticking to the consensus and it makes me wonder if there is some kind of payola going on in the field of Biblical studies, perhaps even from religious organizations. OP As an ex Catholic, I'm very interested in the idea that Jesus didn't exist at all. I'm pretty agnostic on the concept of Jesus historicity, I think it's possible he did live and also possible he didn't. However, from everything I've read there seems to be little evidence that Jesus was a real person. Sure, Josephus briefly mentions him, but this doesn't mean he had proof that Jesus existed. All it means is that Christians told him Jesus existed. It's also widely acknowledged even by faithful scholars that part of the Josephus quote is faked, which makes the whole thing seem fishy. The Tacitus quote is even worse and shows visible signs of being tampered with. Considering the Gospels present an image of a person who was able to attract massive crowds and had a very dramatic execution you would think that there would be some conclusive evidence of his works and his apostles in Judea from that time period, but we've found nothing that is provably contemporary. Unless you are a Christian and believe the miracles in the Gospels actually took place, there's no reason to accept any of it as historical. The nativity narrative is implausible, the magical parts obviously didn't happen, and there's no way any of the quotes would have been remembered accurately, even if there was a real Jesus. The only part that has any possible historical value is the crucifixion under Pilate, since we know he existed, but even that reads as drama rather than a telling of a historical event. I don't count the baptism because we have no historical references to John the Baptist that are from sources other than those that reference Jesus. It seems like the arguments that Bart Ehrman and other ardent defenders of Jesus's historicity put out mostly rely on arguments from authority and appeals to Occam's Razor. The Principle of Embarassment in my opinion is not proof because we really don't know exactly how people during that time and place thought, and the idea that the fact Christianity spread so fast and people died for it means nothing, because people also died for Heaven's Gate and John Frum never existed yet people believe in him. Scholars will dismiss Christ myth theorists by pointing out they don't have the same credentials they do, but unless they have access to some hidden knowledge about Christ, all of the few pieces of evidence for Jesus are easily discoverable on the Internet if you are curious, and none of them seem very convincing. Not only that, but Richard Carrier does have a PhD in ancient history, so he is not just some quack who wrote a few books for lulz. This is somebody who is admittedly biased being a militant atheist, but also very much a person who knows his shit saying that Jesus probably didn't exist. I especially laugh at claims that we know more about Jesus than about George Washington or Julius Caesar. We don't have Jesus's teeth, we don't even know where he was buried. There aren't coins minted with Jesus's face on them, nor are there records of him taking over large chunks of Europe and still existing structures built by his dynasty. All we have are Christian sources and a couple probably fake quotes, none of which were produced in his lifetime. I think Jesus was either totally different from how the Gospels describe him and people essentially made up the stories in them, or he didn't exist at all and was merely the result of rumors that trickled from Israel into Turkey where Paul lived about a miracle worker ie the brother of Jesus Paul claimed to have met , and they more or less made up the Jesus character as they saw fit. What is the best evidence that Jesus did in fact exist and the Gospels are at least somewhat historically accurate? Is there any crucial detail I'm missing? I'm not necessarily saying I buy the Christ Myth theory, but I don't entirely buy the idea that we are 100 percent sure he existed either.<|TARGETS|>OP As an ex Catholic, that the Gospels are fact and not fiction mostly due to the fact that the knowledge we have about the use of the death penalty and the Jewish people 's hate of the Romans make the idea they would have Jesus turned over to be killed and tortured highly implausible ., the concept of Jesus historicity, Unless you are a Christian and believe the miracles in the Gospels actually took place, Can anyone bring up points that might suggest that the Pharisees Sadducees and Romans, some kind of payola going on in the field of Biblical studies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Edit I spent all day reading every single reply and rewarded two deltas congratulations so far. There have been some good points made, particularly the one about Bethlehem and how it appears a nativity story needed to be invented to fit Jesus being from Nazareth, but I'm still not really convinced that the Gospels are fact and not fiction mostly due to the fact that the knowledge we have about the use of the death penalty and the Jewish people's hate of the Romans make the idea they would have Jesus turned over to be killed and tortured highly implausible. Specifically, the Jewish people of the 1st century pretty much abolished the death penalty either around the time Jesus was supposedly killed, or in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed, and were generally turning against it by the 1st century. If there was no crucifixion, there is no historical Jesus. Can anyone bring up points that might suggest that the Pharisees, Sadducees and Romans would all conspire to kill Jesus even though they were all at odds with each other and Jesus was supposedly a nobody during his lifetime? I just find it really hard to believe and I'm surprised historians don't factor this in more. I should note I'm not writing this to bash religion. I'm an agnostic atheist, but I'm not an anti theist. I think religion has personal value to many people, as well as evolutionary value, and I can't say for sure that religious people are wrong because that would be arrogant and I just don't know. I just find the idea that Jesus may have not existed incredibly interesting, partly because it makes me wonder how much of our factual knowledge about history is not really true. Secondly, I am disturbed by the bullying of knowledgeable people like Carrier by historical academia for not sticking to the consensus and it makes me wonder if there is some kind of payola going on in the field of Biblical studies, perhaps even from religious organizations. OP As an ex Catholic, I'm very interested in the idea that Jesus didn't exist at all. I'm pretty agnostic on the concept of Jesus historicity, I think it's possible he did live and also possible he didn't. However, from everything I've read there seems to be little evidence that Jesus was a real person. Sure, Josephus briefly mentions him, but this doesn't mean he had proof that Jesus existed. All it means is that Christians told him Jesus existed. It's also widely acknowledged even by faithful scholars that part of the Josephus quote is faked, which makes the whole thing seem fishy. The Tacitus quote is even worse and shows visible signs of being tampered with. Considering the Gospels present an image of a person who was able to attract massive crowds and had a very dramatic execution you would think that there would be some conclusive evidence of his works and his apostles in Judea from that time period, but we've found nothing that is provably contemporary. Unless you are a Christian and believe the miracles in the Gospels actually took place, there's no reason to accept any of it as historical. The nativity narrative is implausible, the magical parts obviously didn't happen, and there's no way any of the quotes would have been remembered accurately, even if there was a real Jesus. The only part that has any possible historical value is the crucifixion under Pilate, since we know he existed, but even that reads as drama rather than a telling of a historical event. I don't count the baptism because we have no historical references to John the Baptist that are from sources other than those that reference Jesus. It seems like the arguments that Bart Ehrman and other ardent defenders of Jesus's historicity put out mostly rely on arguments from authority and appeals to Occam's Razor. The Principle of Embarassment in my opinion is not proof because we really don't know exactly how people during that time and place thought, and the idea that the fact Christianity spread so fast and people died for it means nothing, because people also died for Heaven's Gate and John Frum never existed yet people believe in him. Scholars will dismiss Christ myth theorists by pointing out they don't have the same credentials they do, but unless they have access to some hidden knowledge about Christ, all of the few pieces of evidence for Jesus are easily discoverable on the Internet if you are curious, and none of them seem very convincing. Not only that, but Richard Carrier does have a PhD in ancient history, so he is not just some quack who wrote a few books for lulz. This is somebody who is admittedly biased being a militant atheist, but also very much a person who knows his shit saying that Jesus probably didn't exist. I especially laugh at claims that we know more about Jesus than about George Washington or Julius Caesar. We don't have Jesus's teeth, we don't even know where he was buried. There aren't coins minted with Jesus's face on them, nor are there records of him taking over large chunks of Europe and still existing structures built by his dynasty. All we have are Christian sources and a couple probably fake quotes, none of which were produced in his lifetime. I think Jesus was either totally different from how the Gospels describe him and people essentially made up the stories in them, or he didn't exist at all and was merely the result of rumors that trickled from Israel into Turkey where Paul lived about a miracle worker ie the brother of Jesus Paul claimed to have met , and they more or less made up the Jesus character as they saw fit. What is the best evidence that Jesus did in fact exist and the Gospels are at least somewhat historically accurate? Is there any crucial detail I'm missing? I'm not necessarily saying I buy the Christ Myth theory, but I don't entirely buy the idea that we are 100 percent sure he existed either.<|ASPECTS|>, miracles, fast, christ, embarassment, dramatic execution, magical parts, knowledgeable people, history, hidden knowledge, christian sources, hate, visible signs, massive crowds, abolished, atheist, historical value, real person, historicity, people, jesus 's face, historical, historical jesus, structures, historical references, exist, bullying, personal value, payola, contemporary, drama, know more about jesus, historically accurate, fishy, 's, kill jesus, historical event, biased, proof, anti theist, miracle, tortured, evolutionary value, jesus existed, consensus, bash religion, arrogant, live, crucifixion, arguments from authority, christ myth, tampered, hard to believe, conspire, factual knowledge, nativity narrative, jesus, discoverable, remembered accurately, ancient history, crucial detail, attract, jesus 's teeth, agnostic atheist, nativity story, death penalty, quack, congratulations, fake quotes<|CONCLUSION|>","Edit I spent all day reading every single reply and rewarded two deltas congratulations so far. There have been some good points made, particularly the one about Bethlehem and how it appears a nativity story needed to be invented to fit Jesus being from Nazareth, but I'm still not really convinced that the Gospels are fact and not fiction mostly due to the fact that the knowledge we have about the use of the death penalty and the Jewish people's hate of the Romans make the idea they would have Jesus turned over to be killed and tortured highly implausible. Specifically, the Jewish people of the 1st century pretty much abolished the death penalty either around the time Jesus was supposedly killed, or in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed, and were generally turning against it by the 1st century. If there was no crucifixion, there is no historical Jesus. Can anyone bring up points that might suggest that the Pharisees, Sadducees and Romans would all conspire to kill Jesus even though they were all at odds with each other and Jesus was supposedly a nobody during his lifetime? I just find it really hard to believe and I'm surprised historians don't factor this in more. I should note I'm not writing this to bash religion. I'm an agnostic atheist, but I'm not an anti theist. I think religion has personal value to many people, as well as evolutionary value, and I can't say for sure that religious people are wrong because that would be arrogant and I just don't know. I just find the idea that Jesus may have not existed incredibly interesting, partly because it makes me wonder how much of our factual knowledge about history is not really true. Secondly, I am disturbed by the bullying of knowledgeable people like Carrier by historical academia for not sticking to the consensus and it makes me wonder if there is some kind of payola going on in the field of Biblical studies, perhaps even from religious organizations. OP As an ex Catholic, I'm very interested in the idea that Jesus didn't exist at all. I'm pretty agnostic on the concept of Jesus historicity, I think it's possible he did live and also possible he didn't. However, from everything I've read there seems to be little evidence that Jesus was a real person. Sure, Josephus briefly mentions him, but this doesn't mean he had proof that Jesus existed. All it means is that Christians told him Jesus existed. It's also widely acknowledged even by faithful scholars that part of the Josephus quote is faked, which makes the whole thing seem fishy. The Tacitus quote is even worse and shows visible signs of being tampered with. Considering the Gospels present an image of a person who was able to attract massive crowds and had a very dramatic execution you would think that there would be some conclusive evidence of his works and his apostles in Judea from that time period, but we've found nothing that is provably contemporary. Unless you are a Christian and believe the miracles in the Gospels actually took place, there's no reason to accept any of it as historical. The nativity narrative is implausible, the magical parts obviously didn't happen, and there's no way any of the quotes would have been remembered accurately, even if there was a real Jesus. The only part that has any possible historical value is the crucifixion under Pilate, since we know he existed, but even that reads as drama rather than a telling of a historical event. I don't count the baptism because we have no historical references to John the Baptist that are from sources other than those that reference Jesus. It seems like the arguments that Bart Ehrman and other ardent defenders of Jesus's historicity put out mostly rely on arguments from authority and appeals to Occam's Razor. The Principle of Embarassment in my opinion is not proof because we really don't know exactly how people during that time and place thought, and the idea that the fact Christianity spread so fast and people died for it means nothing, because people also died for Heaven's Gate and John Frum never existed yet people believe in him. Scholars will dismiss Christ myth theorists by pointing out they don't have the same credentials they do, but unless they have access to some hidden knowledge about Christ, all of the few pieces of evidence for Jesus are easily discoverable on the Internet if you are curious, and none of them seem very convincing. Not only that, but Richard Carrier does have a PhD in ancient history, so he is not just some quack who wrote a few books for lulz. This is somebody who is admittedly biased being a militant atheist, but also very much a person who knows his shit saying that Jesus probably didn't exist. I especially laugh at claims that we know more about Jesus than about George Washington or Julius Caesar. We don't have Jesus's teeth, we don't even know where he was buried. There aren't coins minted with Jesus's face on them, nor are there records of him taking over large chunks of Europe and still existing structures built by his dynasty. All we have are Christian sources and a couple probably fake quotes, none of which were produced in his lifetime. I think Jesus was either totally different from how the Gospels describe him and people essentially made up the stories in them, or he didn't exist at all and was merely the result of rumors that trickled from Israel into Turkey where Paul lived about a miracle worker ie the brother of Jesus Paul claimed to have met , and they more or less made up the Jesus character as they saw fit. What is the best evidence that Jesus did in fact exist and the Gospels are at least somewhat historically accurate? Is there any crucial detail I'm missing? I'm not necessarily saying I buy the Christ Myth theory, but I don't entirely buy the idea that we are 100 percent sure he existed either.",Biblical scholars should not smugly dismiss the Christ Myth Theory because the evidence for a historical Christ is very weak
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 40 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral gut feeling. . I do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and I generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions strategies. However, I cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person's income should be able to be taken away and redistributed. Further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one's death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property. I am interested in well thought out reasons why I should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a damn the rich, they're what's wrong with this country line of reasoning.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 40 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral gut feeling. . I do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and I generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions strategies. However, I cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person's income should be able to be taken away and redistributed. Further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one's death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property. I am interested in well thought out reasons why I should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a damn the rich, they're what's wrong with this country line of reasoning.<|TARGETS|>the opinions that tax rates, a higher tax acceptable not just a damn the rich they 're what 's wrong with this country line of reasoning ., capital gains and wage income, taxing a private estate upon one 's death, to stomach the idea that half or more of a person 's income should be able to be taken away and redistributed ., the tax code<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 40 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral gut feeling. . I do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and I generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions strategies. However, I cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person's income should be able to be taken away and redistributed. Further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one's death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property. I am interested in well thought out reasons why I should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a damn the rich, they're what's wrong with this country line of reasoning.<|ASPECTS|>burdensome, capital gains, respect private property, wage income, income, tax code, private estate, moral gut feeling, taxing, equally, failure, tax rates, unfair deductions strategies, redistributed, taken, higher tax acceptable<|CONCLUSION|>","I have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 40 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral gut feeling. . I do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and I generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions strategies. However, I cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person's income should be able to be taken away and redistributed. Further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one's death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property. I am interested in well thought out reasons why I should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a damn the rich, they're what's wrong with this country line of reasoning.",I don't believe any income tax rate should exceed 40% or that there should be an estate tax.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The idea of having a two party system in the United States is absolutely insane. Many Americans feel the same way as well. So including the 3 other main parties that people don't really know about in debates for the general election would really spark an interest for other candidates. Especially those that are far left and far right. Of course this will not ever ensure that the Green party for example will win, nor for the Constitution party or Libertarian party. It will provide a way for voters to see that yes, there are other parties that they can vote for besides just democrat and republican. Yes, I do understand that some voters do know that's a thing. Like how in 2012, over than one million people voted Libertarian. I believe that the news outlets such as NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC should be required to invite these candidates to the debates for the general election. If more people saw that there were more candidates that they can choose from then maybe the two party system will eventually be broken up. Maybe not 2016, 2020, or even 2024, but maybe 2036, or 2040.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The idea of having a two party system in the United States is absolutely insane. Many Americans feel the same way as well. So including the 3 other main parties that people don't really know about in debates for the general election would really spark an interest for other candidates. Especially those that are far left and far right. Of course this will not ever ensure that the Green party for example will win, nor for the Constitution party or Libertarian party. It will provide a way for voters to see that yes, there are other parties that they can vote for besides just democrat and republican. Yes, I do understand that some voters do know that's a thing. Like how in 2012, over than one million people voted Libertarian. I believe that the news outlets such as NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC should be required to invite these candidates to the debates for the general election. If more people saw that there were more candidates that they can choose from then maybe the two party system will eventually be broken up. Maybe not 2016, 2020, or even 2024, but maybe 2036, or 2040.<|TARGETS|>The idea of having a two party system in the United States, the 3 other main parties that people do n't really know about in debates for the general election, If more people saw that there were more candidates that they can choose from then maybe the two party system<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The idea of having a two party system in the United States is absolutely insane. Many Americans feel the same way as well. So including the 3 other main parties that people don't really know about in debates for the general election would really spark an interest for other candidates. Especially those that are far left and far right. Of course this will not ever ensure that the Green party for example will win, nor for the Constitution party or Libertarian party. It will provide a way for voters to see that yes, there are other parties that they can vote for besides just democrat and republican. Yes, I do understand that some voters do know that's a thing. Like how in 2012, over than one million people voted Libertarian. I believe that the news outlets such as NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC should be required to invite these candidates to the debates for the general election. If more people saw that there were more candidates that they can choose from then maybe the two party system will eventually be broken up. Maybe not 2016, 2020, or even 2024, but maybe 2036, or 2040.<|ASPECTS|>parties, green party, constitution, far right, americans, libertarian, feel, interest for, democrat, insane, way, candidates, voted, far left, debates, two party system, voters, republican<|CONCLUSION|>","The idea of having a two party system in the United States is absolutely insane. Many Americans feel the same way as well. So including the 3 other main parties that people don't really know about in debates for the general election would really spark an interest for other candidates. Especially those that are far left and far right. Of course this will not ever ensure that the Green party for example will win, nor for the Constitution party or Libertarian party. It will provide a way for voters to see that yes, there are other parties that they can vote for besides just democrat and republican. Yes, I do understand that some voters do know that's a thing. Like how in 2012, over than one million people voted Libertarian. I believe that the news outlets such as NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC should be required to invite these candidates to the debates for the general election. If more people saw that there were more candidates that they can choose from then maybe the two party system will eventually be broken up. Maybe not 2016, 2020, or even 2024, but maybe 2036, or 2040.","News Outlets Should be Required to show/invite Candidates from the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties in General Elections debates."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think preserving natural spaces and biodiversity is the most important task we have if we want our planet to stay healthy. A lot of people spend a lot of time and money on trying to industrialize the whole world and make people live longer. To me, it seems that this will only lead to more people overpopulation and more waste. Should we stop trying to develop in order to preserve the health of our planet?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think preserving natural spaces and biodiversity is the most important task we have if we want our planet to stay healthy. A lot of people spend a lot of time and money on trying to industrialize the whole world and make people live longer. To me, it seems that this will only lead to more people overpopulation and more waste. Should we stop trying to develop in order to preserve the health of our planet?<|TARGETS|>Should we stop trying to develop in order to preserve the health of our planet, preserving natural spaces and biodiversity, A lot of people spend a lot of time and money on trying to industrialize the whole world and make people live longer .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think preserving natural spaces and biodiversity is the most important task we have if we want our planet to stay healthy. A lot of people spend a lot of time and money on trying to industrialize the whole world and make people live longer. To me, it seems that this will only lead to more people overpopulation and more waste. Should we stop trying to develop in order to preserve the health of our planet?<|ASPECTS|>, healthy, natural spaces, biodiversity, industrialize, overpopulation, preserve, whole, money, live longer, health, people, preserving, waste, time<|CONCLUSION|>","I think preserving natural spaces and biodiversity is the most important task we have if we want our planet to stay healthy. A lot of people spend a lot of time and money on trying to industrialize the whole world and make people live longer. To me, it seems that this will only lead to more people overpopulation and more waste. Should we stop trying to develop in order to preserve the health of our planet?",I believe we cannot both preserve the environment and keep developing.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's a common narrative that 'Wikileaks is 100 accurate, Wikileaks just dumps documents'. But Wikileaks actually uses its Twitter and Facebook accounts to post lots of political commentary, and last year it was primarily anti Hillary Clinton content. You could argue that Julian Assange has his personal grievances with the US Government, but given that we know that the Russia also used social media to create anti Hillary pro Trump content, it seems more likely that Wikileaks are acting in concert with Russia. Wikileaks even criticised another data dump the Panama Papers Source is RT yes but the original tweets are there for being an attack on Putin. Assange also appears on interviews of RT It kinda seems like they have a pretty cosy relationship. You could argue that Assange is just playing the world for his own agenda but if that involves receiving assistance from Russia, and playing along with everything they want to do, at that point you are actively complicit in the conspiracy. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's a common narrative that 'Wikileaks is 100 accurate, Wikileaks just dumps documents'. But Wikileaks actually uses its Twitter and Facebook accounts to post lots of political commentary, and last year it was primarily anti Hillary Clinton content. You could argue that Julian Assange has his personal grievances with the US Government, but given that we know that the Russia also used social media to create anti Hillary pro Trump content, it seems more likely that Wikileaks are acting in concert with Russia. Wikileaks even criticised another data dump the Panama Papers Source is RT yes but the original tweets are there for being an attack on Putin. Assange also appears on interviews of RT It kinda seems like they have a pretty cosy relationship. You could argue that Assange is just playing the world for his own agenda but if that involves receiving assistance from Russia, and playing along with everything they want to do, at that point you are actively complicit in the conspiracy. <|TARGETS|>the Russia also used social media to create anti Hillary pro Trump content, Assange, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, playing the world for his own agenda but if that involves receiving assistance from Russia and playing along with everything they want to do<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's a common narrative that 'Wikileaks is 100 accurate, Wikileaks just dumps documents'. But Wikileaks actually uses its Twitter and Facebook accounts to post lots of political commentary, and last year it was primarily anti Hillary Clinton content. You could argue that Julian Assange has his personal grievances with the US Government, but given that we know that the Russia also used social media to create anti Hillary pro Trump content, it seems more likely that Wikileaks are acting in concert with Russia. Wikileaks even criticised another data dump the Panama Papers Source is RT yes but the original tweets are there for being an attack on Putin. Assange also appears on interviews of RT It kinda seems like they have a pretty cosy relationship. You could argue that Assange is just playing the world for his own agenda but if that involves receiving assistance from Russia, and playing along with everything they want to do, at that point you are actively complicit in the conspiracy. <|ASPECTS|>anti hillary clinton content, putin, personal grievances, playing the world, dumps documents, assistance, political commentary, attack, cosy relationship, conspiracy, hillary pro trump, accurate<|CONCLUSION|>","There's a common narrative that 'Wikileaks is 100 accurate, Wikileaks just dumps documents'. But Wikileaks actually uses its Twitter and Facebook accounts to post lots of political commentary, and last year it was primarily anti Hillary Clinton content. You could argue that Julian Assange has his personal grievances with the US Government, but given that we know that the Russia also used social media to create anti Hillary pro Trump content, it seems more likely that Wikileaks are acting in concert with Russia. Wikileaks even criticised another data dump the Panama Papers Source is RT yes but the original tweets are there for being an attack on Putin. Assange also appears on interviews of RT It kinda seems like they have a pretty cosy relationship. You could argue that Assange is just playing the world for his own agenda but if that involves receiving assistance from Russia, and playing along with everything they want to do, at that point you are actively complicit in the conspiracy.",Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda outlet.
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I will start by saying that I thoroughly oppose his political views and believe his actions hurt our country from every angle. With his recent decision to remove the United States from the Paris accord he has left the country economically crippled in many ways. Countries will likely impose sanctions on travel and goods on the United states in support of this accord. He has doubled back on most of his campaign promises including building a wall along the Mexican border once he found out that we don't have the resources to do it. He has also failed in passing his immigration ban and his healthcare system. He has succeeded in starting to tear down Title 2 and net neutrality is in jeopardy. He claims responsibility in the economy boom when the bulk of the work was done by the administration prior not by him in any sense. He uses Twitter as his main source of communicating with the public instead of speeches because of his poor public speaking ability and when he does it is clearly written by his staff not him. Huge corporations and even whole states are defying Trump. He has the lowest approval rating of any president ever before. There is no way anyone can effectively represent a country where the majority of people don't approve of him or his actions therefore the smartest action is that he and his cabinet are removed and an emergency election is held to replace it.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I will start by saying that I thoroughly oppose his political views and believe his actions hurt our country from every angle. With his recent decision to remove the United States from the Paris accord he has left the country economically crippled in many ways. Countries will likely impose sanctions on travel and goods on the United states in support of this accord. He has doubled back on most of his campaign promises including building a wall along the Mexican border once he found out that we don't have the resources to do it. He has also failed in passing his immigration ban and his healthcare system. He has succeeded in starting to tear down Title 2 and net neutrality is in jeopardy. He claims responsibility in the economy boom when the bulk of the work was done by the administration prior not by him in any sense. He uses Twitter as his main source of communicating with the public instead of speeches because of his poor public speaking ability and when he does it is clearly written by his staff not him. Huge corporations and even whole states are defying Trump. He has the lowest approval rating of any president ever before. There is no way anyone can effectively represent a country where the majority of people don't approve of him or his actions therefore the smartest action is that he and his cabinet are removed and an emergency election is held to replace it.<|TARGETS|>Huge corporations and even whole states, to tear down Title 2 and net neutrality, saying that I thoroughly oppose his political views and believe his actions hurt our country from every angle ., passing his immigration ban and his healthcare system, effectively represent a country where the majority of people do n't approve of him or his actions therefore the smartest action is that he and his cabinet are removed and an emergency election, to remove the United States from the Paris accord<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I will start by saying that I thoroughly oppose his political views and believe his actions hurt our country from every angle. With his recent decision to remove the United States from the Paris accord he has left the country economically crippled in many ways. Countries will likely impose sanctions on travel and goods on the United states in support of this accord. He has doubled back on most of his campaign promises including building a wall along the Mexican border once he found out that we don't have the resources to do it. He has also failed in passing his immigration ban and his healthcare system. He has succeeded in starting to tear down Title 2 and net neutrality is in jeopardy. He claims responsibility in the economy boom when the bulk of the work was done by the administration prior not by him in any sense. He uses Twitter as his main source of communicating with the public instead of speeches because of his poor public speaking ability and when he does it is clearly written by his staff not him. Huge corporations and even whole states are defying Trump. He has the lowest approval rating of any president ever before. There is no way anyone can effectively represent a country where the majority of people don't approve of him or his actions therefore the smartest action is that he and his cabinet are removed and an emergency election is held to replace it.<|ASPECTS|>approve, lowest, healthcare system, communicating with the public, approval rating, oppose, travel and goods, economically crippled, resources, failed, hurt our country, public speaking ability, emergency election, defying trump, net neutrality, political views, sanctions, effectively represent, economy boom, country, poor, responsibility, jeopardy, huge corporations, immigration ban<|CONCLUSION|>",I will start by saying that I thoroughly oppose his political views and believe his actions hurt our country from every angle. With his recent decision to remove the United States from the Paris accord he has left the country economically crippled in many ways. Countries will likely impose sanctions on travel and goods on the United states in support of this accord. He has doubled back on most of his campaign promises including building a wall along the Mexican border once he found out that we don't have the resources to do it. He has also failed in passing his immigration ban and his healthcare system. He has succeeded in starting to tear down Title 2 and net neutrality is in jeopardy. He claims responsibility in the economy boom when the bulk of the work was done by the administration prior not by him in any sense. He uses Twitter as his main source of communicating with the public instead of speeches because of his poor public speaking ability and when he does it is clearly written by his staff not him. Huge corporations and even whole states are defying Trump. He has the lowest approval rating of any president ever before. There is no way anyone can effectively represent a country where the majority of people don't approve of him or his actions therefore the smartest action is that he and his cabinet are removed and an emergency election is held to replace it.,Donald Trump and the current Republican legislative branch has not done a single positive thing for the United States and should be removed from office
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in Seattle, which is known for being one the top cities for bicycles. I also see stories of bicyclists getting killed or injured on a regular basis when the either hit or are hit by motorists. My point is not to debate the fault of any particular accident, as I'm fairly sure we could find plenty of instances of fault for both motorists and cyclists. My concern is the way that cyclists are allowed to behave on roads. I'll break into each of the specific points I mentioned in the title Minimum Speed If I was in a car or on a motorcycle, I am required to travel at a certain rate of speed, because if I don't, I'm a danger and an obstacle to the traffic on the road. Cyclists who ride on a public road at half the proper speed limit present the same danger. Lane Splitting In every state except California to the best of my knowledge , lane splitting is illegal, and understandably so. Taking a motorcycle in between cars stopped in traffic is not safe, especially done at any kind of real speed. Doing so on a bicycle is just as dangerous and more so under some circumstances. Signalling Signalling is an essential part of sharing the road with other drivers without getting into an accident. It allows other drivers to know your intentions and take or avoid action as necessary. Being on a bicycle doesn't change that, except to make the consequences to you even more painful. Traffic signs Stop signs, traffic lights, and the like exist on public roads so that drivers who meet at intersections or turns can move through the same space without turning the roads into a giant game of chicken. If a light is red, you wait until it turns green, so that opposing traffic can pass before you, instead of directly INTO you. As with the above, bicyclists seems to believe that they are exempt from this, when they are more liable than most to get killed breaking it. Not a day goes by in Seattle that I don't see a bicycle skip a red light, jump a curb, split traffic, or casually pedal down the street with six cars behind him. I understand sharing the road, but the fact is that roads are meant for motorized vehicles. If I behaved the way bicyclists do while riding a motorcycle, I'd be up to my eyeballs in tickets. I'll share the road, but EVERYONE should have to follow the rules.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in Seattle, which is known for being one the top cities for bicycles. I also see stories of bicyclists getting killed or injured on a regular basis when the either hit or are hit by motorists. My point is not to debate the fault of any particular accident, as I'm fairly sure we could find plenty of instances of fault for both motorists and cyclists. My concern is the way that cyclists are allowed to behave on roads. I'll break into each of the specific points I mentioned in the title Minimum Speed If I was in a car or on a motorcycle, I am required to travel at a certain rate of speed, because if I don't, I'm a danger and an obstacle to the traffic on the road. Cyclists who ride on a public road at half the proper speed limit present the same danger. Lane Splitting In every state except California to the best of my knowledge , lane splitting is illegal, and understandably so. Taking a motorcycle in between cars stopped in traffic is not safe, especially done at any kind of real speed. Doing so on a bicycle is just as dangerous and more so under some circumstances. Signalling Signalling is an essential part of sharing the road with other drivers without getting into an accident. It allows other drivers to know your intentions and take or avoid action as necessary. Being on a bicycle doesn't change that, except to make the consequences to you even more painful. Traffic signs Stop signs, traffic lights, and the like exist on public roads so that drivers who meet at intersections or turns can move through the same space without turning the roads into a giant game of chicken. If a light is red, you wait until it turns green, so that opposing traffic can pass before you, instead of directly INTO you. As with the above, bicyclists seems to believe that they are exempt from this, when they are more liable than most to get killed breaking it. Not a day goes by in Seattle that I don't see a bicycle skip a red light, jump a curb, split traffic, or casually pedal down the street with six cars behind him. I understand sharing the road, but the fact is that roads are meant for motorized vehicles. If I behaved the way bicyclists do while riding a motorcycle, I'd be up to my eyeballs in tickets. I'll share the road, but EVERYONE should have to follow the rules.<|TARGETS|>Doing so on a bicycle, to follow the rules ., Signalling Signalling, a bicycle skip a red light, If I behaved the way bicyclists do while riding a motorcycle, Lane Splitting In every state except California to the best of my knowledge lane splitting<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in Seattle, which is known for being one the top cities for bicycles. I also see stories of bicyclists getting killed or injured on a regular basis when the either hit or are hit by motorists. My point is not to debate the fault of any particular accident, as I'm fairly sure we could find plenty of instances of fault for both motorists and cyclists. My concern is the way that cyclists are allowed to behave on roads. I'll break into each of the specific points I mentioned in the title Minimum Speed If I was in a car or on a motorcycle, I am required to travel at a certain rate of speed, because if I don't, I'm a danger and an obstacle to the traffic on the road. Cyclists who ride on a public road at half the proper speed limit present the same danger. Lane Splitting In every state except California to the best of my knowledge , lane splitting is illegal, and understandably so. Taking a motorcycle in between cars stopped in traffic is not safe, especially done at any kind of real speed. Doing so on a bicycle is just as dangerous and more so under some circumstances. Signalling Signalling is an essential part of sharing the road with other drivers without getting into an accident. It allows other drivers to know your intentions and take or avoid action as necessary. Being on a bicycle doesn't change that, except to make the consequences to you even more painful. Traffic signs Stop signs, traffic lights, and the like exist on public roads so that drivers who meet at intersections or turns can move through the same space without turning the roads into a giant game of chicken. If a light is red, you wait until it turns green, so that opposing traffic can pass before you, instead of directly INTO you. As with the above, bicyclists seems to believe that they are exempt from this, when they are more liable than most to get killed breaking it. Not a day goes by in Seattle that I don't see a bicycle skip a red light, jump a curb, split traffic, or casually pedal down the street with six cars behind him. I understand sharing the road, but the fact is that roads are meant for motorized vehicles. If I behaved the way bicyclists do while riding a motorcycle, I'd be up to my eyeballs in tickets. I'll share the road, but EVERYONE should have to follow the rules.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, , liable, consequences, behaved, traffic, cyclists, bicycles, accident, illegal, safe, obstacle, eyeballs, lane splitting, split traffic, sharing the road, game of chicken, share, danger, follow, real speed, space, fault, motorized vehicles, top, know your intentions, rate of speed, behave, opposing traffic, killed, bicyclists, killed or injured, painful, avoid action, exempt, rules<|CONCLUSION|>","I live in Seattle, which is known for being one the top cities for bicycles. I also see stories of bicyclists getting killed or injured on a regular basis when the either hit or are hit by motorists. My point is not to debate the fault of any particular accident, as I'm fairly sure we could find plenty of instances of fault for both motorists and cyclists. My concern is the way that cyclists are allowed to behave on roads. I'll break into each of the specific points I mentioned in the title Minimum Speed If I was in a car or on a motorcycle, I am required to travel at a certain rate of speed, because if I don't, I'm a danger and an obstacle to the traffic on the road. Cyclists who ride on a public road at half the proper speed limit present the same danger. Lane Splitting In every state except California to the best of my knowledge , lane splitting is illegal, and understandably so. Taking a motorcycle in between cars stopped in traffic is not safe, especially done at any kind of real speed. Doing so on a bicycle is just as dangerous and more so under some circumstances. Signalling Signalling is an essential part of sharing the road with other drivers without getting into an accident. It allows other drivers to know your intentions and take or avoid action as necessary. Being on a bicycle doesn't change that, except to make the consequences to you even more painful. Traffic signs Stop signs, traffic lights, and the like exist on public roads so that drivers who meet at intersections or turns can move through the same space without turning the roads into a giant game of chicken. If a light is red, you wait until it turns green, so that opposing traffic can pass before you, instead of directly INTO you. As with the above, bicyclists seems to believe that they are exempt from this, when they are more liable than most to get killed breaking it. Not a day goes by in Seattle that I don't see a bicycle skip a red light, jump a curb, split traffic, or casually pedal down the street with six cars behind him. I understand sharing the road, but the fact is that roads are meant for motorized vehicles. If I behaved the way bicyclists do while riding a motorcycle, I'd be up to my eyeballs in tickets. I'll share the road, but EVERYONE should have to follow the rules.","I believe that bicyclists need to follow the same set of rules that cars or motorcycles do while on the road, up to and including minimum speed, lane splitting, signaling, and traffic signs. Failing that, they need to stay off of the road."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ok, first I want to state that I am in no way against gay marriage or homosexuality in anyway. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business what two or however many people want to do with each other. If two people or however many decide to get married, then let them. I want to make it clear, I'm not saying it should be illegal, I think it should be legal. I do not, however, think it is a human rights issue. It's not like gay people are being round up and shot or are forced into ghettos. I mean, it's only marriage. As far as I'm aware, there is no universal declaration of the right to marry. To put it another way, polygamy is also illegal in America. I've yet to hear someone say that this is a violation of human rights and yet what's so fundamentally different between this and gay marriage? morally, not technically I personally don't care if polygamy were legal, but I certainly don't consider it a rights issue. TL DR Basically my view is this gay marriage is just as much of a humans rights issue as polygamy is and think the current rhetoric surrounding the issue is way too hyperbolic. Also, I don't see the difference between the two from a moral perspective. I'm not saying either is immoral. Edit a word<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ok, first I want to state that I am in no way against gay marriage or homosexuality in anyway. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business what two or however many people want to do with each other. If two people or however many decide to get married, then let them. I want to make it clear, I'm not saying it should be illegal, I think it should be legal. I do not, however, think it is a human rights issue. It's not like gay people are being round up and shot or are forced into ghettos. I mean, it's only marriage. As far as I'm aware, there is no universal declaration of the right to marry. To put it another way, polygamy is also illegal in America. I've yet to hear someone say that this is a violation of human rights and yet what's so fundamentally different between this and gay marriage? morally, not technically I personally don't care if polygamy were legal, but I certainly don't consider it a rights issue. TL DR Basically my view is this gay marriage is just as much of a humans rights issue as polygamy is and think the current rhetoric surrounding the issue is way too hyperbolic. Also, I don't see the difference between the two from a moral perspective. I'm not saying either is immoral. Edit a word<|TARGETS|>to hear someone say that this is a violation of human rights and yet what 's so fundamentally different between this and gay marriage, a rights issue ., TL DR, this gay marriage, to state that I am in no way against gay marriage or homosexuality in anyway ., the right to marry .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ok, first I want to state that I am in no way against gay marriage or homosexuality in anyway. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business what two or however many people want to do with each other. If two people or however many decide to get married, then let them. I want to make it clear, I'm not saying it should be illegal, I think it should be legal. I do not, however, think it is a human rights issue. It's not like gay people are being round up and shot or are forced into ghettos. I mean, it's only marriage. As far as I'm aware, there is no universal declaration of the right to marry. To put it another way, polygamy is also illegal in America. I've yet to hear someone say that this is a violation of human rights and yet what's so fundamentally different between this and gay marriage? morally, not technically I personally don't care if polygamy were legal, but I certainly don't consider it a rights issue. TL DR Basically my view is this gay marriage is just as much of a humans rights issue as polygamy is and think the current rhetoric surrounding the issue is way too hyperbolic. Also, I don't see the difference between the two from a moral perspective. I'm not saying either is immoral. Edit a word<|ASPECTS|>shot, ghettos, violation, rights issue, human rights issue, illegal, human rights, business, moral perspective, gay marriage, round, humans rights issue, married, immoral, universal declaration, gay people, legal, marriage, hyperbolic, decide, homosexuality, right to marry, polygamy<|CONCLUSION|>","Ok, first I want to state that I am in no way against gay marriage or homosexuality in anyway. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business what two or however many people want to do with each other. If two people or however many decide to get married, then let them. I want to make it clear, I'm not saying it should be illegal, I think it should be legal. I do not, however, think it is a human rights issue. It's not like gay people are being round up and shot or are forced into ghettos. I mean, it's only marriage. As far as I'm aware, there is no universal declaration of the right to marry. To put it another way, polygamy is also illegal in America. I've yet to hear someone say that this is a violation of human rights and yet what's so fundamentally different between this and gay marriage? morally, not technically I personally don't care if polygamy were legal, but I certainly don't consider it a rights issue. TL DR Basically my view is this gay marriage is just as much of a humans rights issue as polygamy is and think the current rhetoric surrounding the issue is way too hyperbolic. Also, I don't see the difference between the two from a moral perspective. I'm not saying either is immoral. Edit a word",I think that presenting gay marriage as a human rights issue is disingenuous.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The irreversible mistake they made has not received enough attention. I don't mean attention towards the losses, but attention towards the importance of hard backed ironclad testing that could've prevented this. I know Boeing does extensive tests through multiple variables to ensure their aircrafts are safe, but a software issue like this cannot be emphasized enough because lives are at risk. Boeing made a mistake, a costly one, however the takeaway from this is there should be more rigid and strenuous testing. Research and development must encompass every possible potential risk and diagnose any faults before the vessel is made available to the airline companies to purchase. Multiple different agencies must analyze the technology to identify potential faults FAA, Boeing's R D team, private contractors that manufacture avionics, etc. before releasing the aircraft. I understand the problem was software related and partly because of the engines obstructing proper aerodynamic statistics which threw the sensors off and triggered a nosedive response from the aeroplane which renders pilot input useless, but surely some testing aerodynamic wind tunnel testing could've given insight into a potential problem before public release. If I've overlooked any details, please let me know. This is my opinion on the matter but I'm really interested to understand others perspectives because this is a major dent in avionic history. Considering most Boeing employees are highly skilled engineers that essentially control the outcome of the flight, Boeing must take the utmost level of precaution to ensure there aren't any problems. Also, my heartfelt condolences to the lives that are no more may their souls rest in peace<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The irreversible mistake they made has not received enough attention. I don't mean attention towards the losses, but attention towards the importance of hard backed ironclad testing that could've prevented this. I know Boeing does extensive tests through multiple variables to ensure their aircrafts are safe, but a software issue like this cannot be emphasized enough because lives are at risk. Boeing made a mistake, a costly one, however the takeaway from this is there should be more rigid and strenuous testing. Research and development must encompass every possible potential risk and diagnose any faults before the vessel is made available to the airline companies to purchase. Multiple different agencies must analyze the technology to identify potential faults FAA, Boeing's R D team, private contractors that manufacture avionics, etc. before releasing the aircraft. I understand the problem was software related and partly because of the engines obstructing proper aerodynamic statistics which threw the sensors off and triggered a nosedive response from the aeroplane which renders pilot input useless, but surely some testing aerodynamic wind tunnel testing could've given insight into a potential problem before public release. If I've overlooked any details, please let me know. This is my opinion on the matter but I'm really interested to understand others perspectives because this is a major dent in avionic history. Considering most Boeing employees are highly skilled engineers that essentially control the outcome of the flight, Boeing must take the utmost level of precaution to ensure there aren't any problems. Also, my heartfelt condolences to the lives that are no more may their souls rest in peace<|TARGETS|>to understand others perspectives because this, Research and development, The irreversible mistake they made, Boeing, backed ironclad testing, releasing the aircraft<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The irreversible mistake they made has not received enough attention. I don't mean attention towards the losses, but attention towards the importance of hard backed ironclad testing that could've prevented this. I know Boeing does extensive tests through multiple variables to ensure their aircrafts are safe, but a software issue like this cannot be emphasized enough because lives are at risk. Boeing made a mistake, a costly one, however the takeaway from this is there should be more rigid and strenuous testing. Research and development must encompass every possible potential risk and diagnose any faults before the vessel is made available to the airline companies to purchase. Multiple different agencies must analyze the technology to identify potential faults FAA, Boeing's R D team, private contractors that manufacture avionics, etc. before releasing the aircraft. I understand the problem was software related and partly because of the engines obstructing proper aerodynamic statistics which threw the sensors off and triggered a nosedive response from the aeroplane which renders pilot input useless, but surely some testing aerodynamic wind tunnel testing could've given insight into a potential problem before public release. If I've overlooked any details, please let me know. This is my opinion on the matter but I'm really interested to understand others perspectives because this is a major dent in avionic history. Considering most Boeing employees are highly skilled engineers that essentially control the outcome of the flight, Boeing must take the utmost level of precaution to ensure there aren't any problems. Also, my heartfelt condolences to the lives that are no more may their souls rest in peace<|ASPECTS|>condolences, losses, outcome, problems, safe, pilot input useless, faults, software issue, heartfelt, potential, risk, irreversible mistake, details, understand others perspectives, precaution, control, potential problem, hard backed ironclad testing, software related, costly, statistics, overlooked, strenuous testing, lives are, skilled, rigid, avionic history, souls, response<|CONCLUSION|>","The irreversible mistake they made has not received enough attention. I don't mean attention towards the losses, but attention towards the importance of hard backed ironclad testing that could've prevented this. I know Boeing does extensive tests through multiple variables to ensure their aircrafts are safe, but a software issue like this cannot be emphasized enough because lives are at risk. Boeing made a mistake, a costly one, however the takeaway from this is there should be more rigid and strenuous testing. Research and development must encompass every possible potential risk and diagnose any faults before the vessel is made available to the airline companies to purchase. Multiple different agencies must analyze the technology to identify potential faults FAA, Boeing's R D team, private contractors that manufacture avionics, etc. before releasing the aircraft. I understand the problem was software related and partly because of the engines obstructing proper aerodynamic statistics which threw the sensors off and triggered a nosedive response from the aeroplane which renders pilot input useless, but surely some testing aerodynamic wind tunnel testing could've given insight into a potential problem before public release. If I've overlooked any details, please let me know. This is my opinion on the matter but I'm really interested to understand others perspectives because this is a major dent in avionic history. Considering most Boeing employees are highly skilled engineers that essentially control the outcome of the flight, Boeing must take the utmost level of precaution to ensure there aren't any problems. Also, my heartfelt condolences to the lives that are no more may their souls rest in peace","346 lives were lost due to the Boeing 737 Max. Boeing, a multi-billion dollar corporation has not received nearly enough backlash and repercussions due to their costly mistake."
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that as a heterosexual male making female friends is overrated as a way to increase your romantic opportunities. My main evidence is that I went through high school with lots of female friends and I graduated a virgin and never even one went on a date. I think social circle in general is overrated as a way of getting romantic opportunities and it is better to have a male social circle over a female one because you will be perceived as more masculine and thus more attractive and having female friends will make you be perceived as being effeminate and this unattractive. Your social circle also needs to be made of drinkers because non drinkers are perceived as effeminate. It may be worth noting that I am a sexual abuse victim do it may be anomalous due to that. <|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that as a heterosexual male making female friends is overrated as a way to increase your romantic opportunities. My main evidence is that I went through high school with lots of female friends and I graduated a virgin and never even one went on a date. I think social circle in general is overrated as a way of getting romantic opportunities and it is better to have a male social circle over a female one because you will be perceived as more masculine and thus more attractive and having female friends will make you be perceived as being effeminate and this unattractive. Your social circle also needs to be made of drinkers because non drinkers are perceived as effeminate. It may be worth noting that I am a sexual abuse victim do it may be anomalous due to that. <|TARGETS|>Your social circle, to have a male social circle over a female one because you will be perceived as more masculine and thus more attractive and having female friends will make you be perceived as being effeminate and this unattractive ., a sexual abuse victim, a heterosexual male making female friends<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that as a heterosexual male making female friends is overrated as a way to increase your romantic opportunities. My main evidence is that I went through high school with lots of female friends and I graduated a virgin and never even one went on a date. I think social circle in general is overrated as a way of getting romantic opportunities and it is better to have a male social circle over a female one because you will be perceived as more masculine and thus more attractive and having female friends will make you be perceived as being effeminate and this unattractive. Your social circle also needs to be made of drinkers because non drinkers are perceived as effeminate. It may be worth noting that I am a sexual abuse victim do it may be anomalous due to that. <|ASPECTS|>female friends, social circle, attractive, masculine, high school, drinkers, anomalous, romantic opportunities, graduated a virgin, sexual abuse victim, effeminate, unattractive<|CONCLUSION|>",I think that as a heterosexual male making female friends is overrated as a way to increase your romantic opportunities. My main evidence is that I went through high school with lots of female friends and I graduated a virgin and never even one went on a date. I think social circle in general is overrated as a way of getting romantic opportunities and it is better to have a male social circle over a female one because you will be perceived as more masculine and thus more attractive and having female friends will make you be perceived as being effeminate and this unattractive. Your social circle also needs to be made of drinkers because non drinkers are perceived as effeminate. It may be worth noting that I am a sexual abuse victim do it may be anomalous due to that.,As a heterosexual male making female friends is overrated for helping you find romantic relationships
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT My view was initially changed to pretty much reevaluate my thought process. However, additional commenters have made it apparent that none of them are willing to sacrifice any 'comfort' to help those currently destitute. Suffering isn't going to change one way or another, nor is death. As of now, I have changed my view back to my initial stance. Thanks to all of those who took a more philosophical approach and even changed my view. Unfortunately, others have made it pretty apparent that people are going to suffer and die regardless. EDIT2 None of you have any clue how to make a reasonable analogy. Comparing two completely opposite extremes doesn't prove anything other than you've got no concept of the topic at hand. Comparing a piece of bread to an organ is the dumbest thing I have ever read. My fiance is very insistent on this. She is doing it, and keeps telling me I should do it. I don't want to. Why? Because I don't want to, plain and simple. There is no specific, religious or personal reason. I just want my organs to stay inside my body when I am cremated. If I could specify very very specific circumstances for my organs, then I would donate. But I refuse to otherwise since that isn't a possibility. When I die and am cremated, I want to be burned as my entire self. Not missing anything from myself.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT My view was initially changed to pretty much reevaluate my thought process. However, additional commenters have made it apparent that none of them are willing to sacrifice any 'comfort' to help those currently destitute. Suffering isn't going to change one way or another, nor is death. As of now, I have changed my view back to my initial stance. Thanks to all of those who took a more philosophical approach and even changed my view. Unfortunately, others have made it pretty apparent that people are going to suffer and die regardless. EDIT2 None of you have any clue how to make a reasonable analogy. Comparing two completely opposite extremes doesn't prove anything other than you've got no concept of the topic at hand. Comparing a piece of bread to an organ is the dumbest thing I have ever read. My fiance is very insistent on this. She is doing it, and keeps telling me I should do it. I don't want to. Why? Because I don't want to, plain and simple. There is no specific, religious or personal reason. I just want my organs to stay inside my body when I am cremated. If I could specify very very specific circumstances for my organs, then I would donate. But I refuse to otherwise since that isn't a possibility. When I die and am cremated, I want to be burned as my entire self. Not missing anything from myself.<|TARGETS|>Comparing two completely opposite extremes, Comparing a piece of bread to an organ, want my organs to stay inside my body when I am cremated ., to sacrifice any ' comfort ' to help those currently destitute ., When I die and am cremated, to be burned as my entire self .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT My view was initially changed to pretty much reevaluate my thought process. However, additional commenters have made it apparent that none of them are willing to sacrifice any 'comfort' to help those currently destitute. Suffering isn't going to change one way or another, nor is death. As of now, I have changed my view back to my initial stance. Thanks to all of those who took a more philosophical approach and even changed my view. Unfortunately, others have made it pretty apparent that people are going to suffer and die regardless. EDIT2 None of you have any clue how to make a reasonable analogy. Comparing two completely opposite extremes doesn't prove anything other than you've got no concept of the topic at hand. Comparing a piece of bread to an organ is the dumbest thing I have ever read. My fiance is very insistent on this. She is doing it, and keeps telling me I should do it. I don't want to. Why? Because I don't want to, plain and simple. There is no specific, religious or personal reason. I just want my organs to stay inside my body when I am cremated. If I could specify very very specific circumstances for my organs, then I would donate. But I refuse to otherwise since that isn't a possibility. When I die and am cremated, I want to be burned as my entire self. Not missing anything from myself.<|ASPECTS|>death, self, thought process, specific circumstances, view, specific, philosophical approach, sacrifice, want, opposite extremes, suffer and die, burned, cremated, reasonable analogy, body, insistent, organs, dumbest, donate, reevaluate, personal reason, suffering, change, destitute, religious, missing, changed<|CONCLUSION|>","EDIT My view was initially changed to pretty much reevaluate my thought process. However, additional commenters have made it apparent that none of them are willing to sacrifice any 'comfort' to help those currently destitute. Suffering isn't going to change one way or another, nor is death. As of now, I have changed my view back to my initial stance. Thanks to all of those who took a more philosophical approach and even changed my view. Unfortunately, others have made it pretty apparent that people are going to suffer and die regardless. EDIT2 None of you have any clue how to make a reasonable analogy. Comparing two completely opposite extremes doesn't prove anything other than you've got no concept of the topic at hand. Comparing a piece of bread to an organ is the dumbest thing I have ever read. My fiance is very insistent on this. She is doing it, and keeps telling me I should do it. I don't want to. Why? Because I don't want to, plain and simple. There is no specific, religious or personal reason. I just want my organs to stay inside my body when I am cremated. If I could specify very very specific circumstances for my organs, then I would donate. But I refuse to otherwise since that isn't a possibility. When I die and am cremated, I want to be burned as my entire self. Not missing anything from myself.",I don't want to donate my organs after I die.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, I really shouldnt need to explain abortion, but it's basically the premature termination of a pregnancy. Many conservatives refer to it as murder. Describing it as inhumane and ultimately counterproductive. They do have a point, and their is a serious moral dilemma which arises from this idea. Meanwhile, liberals like to champion the rights of the expecting mothers. They promote the right to bodily autonomy. And of course, like to make the point that a fetus isn't a full human. Each side of the arguement has some strong claims. The issue of abortion is one in which we must balance the health of women with the lives of fetuses. And yet, each side seems so dismissive of the other. Prolifers aren't misogynistic pigs. Pro choicers aren't genocidal demons. This is an issue that deserves attention, not just idiots yelling on talkshows. It's time for serious discussion.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, I really shouldnt need to explain abortion, but it's basically the premature termination of a pregnancy. Many conservatives refer to it as murder. Describing it as inhumane and ultimately counterproductive. They do have a point, and their is a serious moral dilemma which arises from this idea. Meanwhile, liberals like to champion the rights of the expecting mothers. They promote the right to bodily autonomy. And of course, like to make the point that a fetus isn't a full human. Each side of the arguement has some strong claims. The issue of abortion is one in which we must balance the health of women with the lives of fetuses. And yet, each side seems so dismissive of the other. Prolifers aren't misogynistic pigs. Pro choicers aren't genocidal demons. This is an issue that deserves attention, not just idiots yelling on talkshows. It's time for serious discussion.<|TARGETS|>Each side of the arguement, to make the point that a fetus, Prolifers, The issue of abortion, Pro choicers, to explain abortion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, I really shouldnt need to explain abortion, but it's basically the premature termination of a pregnancy. Many conservatives refer to it as murder. Describing it as inhumane and ultimately counterproductive. They do have a point, and their is a serious moral dilemma which arises from this idea. Meanwhile, liberals like to champion the rights of the expecting mothers. They promote the right to bodily autonomy. And of course, like to make the point that a fetus isn't a full human. Each side of the arguement has some strong claims. The issue of abortion is one in which we must balance the health of women with the lives of fetuses. And yet, each side seems so dismissive of the other. Prolifers aren't misogynistic pigs. Pro choicers aren't genocidal demons. This is an issue that deserves attention, not just idiots yelling on talkshows. It's time for serious discussion.<|ASPECTS|>strong claims, counterproductive, deserves attention, lives of fetuses, idiots, dismissive, serious discussion, balance, health of women, genocidal demons, bodily autonomy, fetus, murder, full human, ultimately, right, premature termination of, misogynistic pigs, inhumane, rights of the expecting mothers, moral dilemma<|CONCLUSION|>","So, I really shouldnt need to explain abortion, but it's basically the premature termination of a pregnancy. Many conservatives refer to it as murder. Describing it as inhumane and ultimately counterproductive. They do have a point, and their is a serious moral dilemma which arises from this idea. Meanwhile, liberals like to champion the rights of the expecting mothers. They promote the right to bodily autonomy. And of course, like to make the point that a fetus isn't a full human. Each side of the arguement has some strong claims. The issue of abortion is one in which we must balance the health of women with the lives of fetuses. And yet, each side seems so dismissive of the other. Prolifers aren't misogynistic pigs. Pro choicers aren't genocidal demons. This is an issue that deserves attention, not just idiots yelling on talkshows. It's time for serious discussion.",- There is no moral high ground in the abortion debate.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When Mass Effect 3 came out, a lot of people hated the ending and complained to Bioware. After this response, they issued DLC changing the ending. Basically, this isn't how art works. In my eyes, the main tenet of art is free expression, the ability to say something how you want to say it and make the statement you want with a lack of obligation to change it to fit the views of the public. When fans started the outcry against the ending, it showed that despite what they say, they still treat video games predominately as consumer product and expect them bent to their will and enjoyment. You can't send back a Dali painting or a Death Grips album and say hey, I didn't like this, start over and expect it to be changed, and that leads into the developer's fault in this. The fact that they caved shows that they don't care about making an artistic statement and only care about making money. It's like when bands go back to their old sound because fans don't like new experiments they do. Now, you can probably say that the ending was a disappointment, but that's not the point the point is that that's how Bioware INTENDED for it to end, and the fact that consumers didn't accept that and the company bent to accommodate shows that neither side looks at video games as an art form. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When Mass Effect 3 came out, a lot of people hated the ending and complained to Bioware. After this response, they issued DLC changing the ending. Basically, this isn't how art works. In my eyes, the main tenet of art is free expression, the ability to say something how you want to say it and make the statement you want with a lack of obligation to change it to fit the views of the public. When fans started the outcry against the ending, it showed that despite what they say, they still treat video games predominately as consumer product and expect them bent to their will and enjoyment. You can't send back a Dali painting or a Death Grips album and say hey, I didn't like this, start over and expect it to be changed, and that leads into the developer's fault in this. The fact that they caved shows that they don't care about making an artistic statement and only care about making money. It's like when bands go back to their old sound because fans don't like new experiments they do. Now, you can probably say that the ending was a disappointment, but that's not the point the point is that that's how Bioware INTENDED for it to end, and the fact that consumers didn't accept that and the company bent to accommodate shows that neither side looks at video games as an art form. CMV.<|TARGETS|>The fact that they caved, When fans started the outcry against the ending, Bioware INTENDED for it to end and the fact that consumers did n't accept that and the company bent to accommodate, send back a Dali painting or a Death Grips album and say hey I did n't like this start over and expect it to be changed and that leads into the developer 's fault in this ., to say it and make the statement you want with a lack of obligation to change it to fit the views of the public ., making an artistic statement and only care about making money .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When Mass Effect 3 came out, a lot of people hated the ending and complained to Bioware. After this response, they issued DLC changing the ending. Basically, this isn't how art works. In my eyes, the main tenet of art is free expression, the ability to say something how you want to say it and make the statement you want with a lack of obligation to change it to fit the views of the public. When fans started the outcry against the ending, it showed that despite what they say, they still treat video games predominately as consumer product and expect them bent to their will and enjoyment. You can't send back a Dali painting or a Death Grips album and say hey, I didn't like this, start over and expect it to be changed, and that leads into the developer's fault in this. The fact that they caved shows that they don't care about making an artistic statement and only care about making money. It's like when bands go back to their old sound because fans don't like new experiments they do. Now, you can probably say that the ending was a disappointment, but that's not the point the point is that that's how Bioware INTENDED for it to end, and the fact that consumers didn't accept that and the company bent to accommodate shows that neither side looks at video games as an art form. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>ending, complained, care, artistic statement, hated, sound, consumer product, making money, developer 's fault, obligation, art form, and enjoyment, art works, bioware, new experiments, free expression<|CONCLUSION|>","When Mass Effect 3 came out, a lot of people hated the ending and complained to Bioware. After this response, they issued DLC changing the ending. Basically, this isn't how art works. In my eyes, the main tenet of art is free expression, the ability to say something how you want to say it and make the statement you want with a lack of obligation to change it to fit the views of the public. When fans started the outcry against the ending, it showed that despite what they say, they still treat video games predominately as consumer product and expect them bent to their will and enjoyment. You can't send back a Dali painting or a Death Grips album and say hey, I didn't like this, start over and expect it to be changed, and that leads into the developer's fault in this. The fact that they caved shows that they don't care about making an artistic statement and only care about making money. It's like when bands go back to their old sound because fans don't like new experiments they do. Now, you can probably say that the ending was a disappointment, but that's not the point the point is that that's how Bioware INTENDED for it to end, and the fact that consumers didn't accept that and the company bent to accommodate shows that neither side looks at video games as an art form. .","The fan reaction to Mass Effect 3's ending, and the subsequent developer response, shows that neither side treats video games as art."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For those not familiar with the soup alignment chart, I would highly encourage you to look at it and find your alignment before arguing. I will fully admit I am an ingredient anarchist structural purist, and I believe that any alcoholic drink, containing solid ice and alcohol, is technically a soup. Soups don't need to be hot, as evidenced by gazpacho, and they carry a flavor that is not just water. I also believe that cereal is a soup, for example, and I welcome any arguments against these assertions. edit I made a mistake and forgot to change ice water to alcohol. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For those not familiar with the soup alignment chart, I would highly encourage you to look at it and find your alignment before arguing. I will fully admit I am an ingredient anarchist structural purist, and I believe that any alcoholic drink, containing solid ice and alcohol, is technically a soup. Soups don't need to be hot, as evidenced by gazpacho, and they carry a flavor that is not just water. I also believe that cereal is a soup, for example, and I welcome any arguments against these assertions. edit I made a mistake and forgot to change ice water to alcohol. <|TARGETS|>that cereal, the soup alignment chart, to change ice water to alcohol ., Soups, an ingredient anarchist structural purist, any alcoholic drink containing solid ice and alcohol<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For those not familiar with the soup alignment chart, I would highly encourage you to look at it and find your alignment before arguing. I will fully admit I am an ingredient anarchist structural purist, and I believe that any alcoholic drink, containing solid ice and alcohol, is technically a soup. Soups don't need to be hot, as evidenced by gazpacho, and they carry a flavor that is not just water. I also believe that cereal is a soup, for example, and I welcome any arguments against these assertions. edit I made a mistake and forgot to change ice water to alcohol. <|ASPECTS|>, flavor, forgot, mistake, change, structural purist, soup, alcohol, alignment, hot, water<|CONCLUSION|>","For those not familiar with the soup alignment chart, I would highly encourage you to look at it and find your alignment before arguing. I will fully admit I am an ingredient anarchist structural purist, and I believe that any alcoholic drink, containing solid ice and alcohol, is technically a soup. Soups don't need to be hot, as evidenced by gazpacho, and they carry a flavor that is not just water. I also believe that cereal is a soup, for example, and I welcome any arguments against these assertions. edit I made a mistake and forgot to change ice water to alcohol.",Any alcoholic drink with ice in it is a soup.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People arguing for against capitalism and socialism tend to do so from a pure economic perspective. Browse just about any debates on CMV or other websites and you'll see how one sided each debate is. The debate between socialism and capitalism whether it is a casual debate on the Internet or especially a serious debate in politics should rather discuss the efficacy and inefficacy of multiple elements from both economic systems. History alone proves that too much of anything is bad . A successful economy derives from a mixture of both socialism and capitalism. How so? That's because happiness is an indicator of how successful an economic system is. Look at Norway or Denmark though often misinterpreted as countries of socialist paradise, they are countries that have successfully integrated capitalist and socialist policies. In turn, people who live under a more mixed diverse economy tend to be much more happier than those whose country leans further towards one side of the economic spectrum. Based on that premise, people and I mean a significant portion of a country's population who have experienced misery have done so because of a nearly pure economic system, whether through the means of wealth inequality poverty e.g., 19^th century America or dictatorial rule e.g., under Stalin's rule Unless people are willing to submit to these types of pure economic systems, then there is no point in debating which economic system is superior.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People arguing for against capitalism and socialism tend to do so from a pure economic perspective. Browse just about any debates on CMV or other websites and you'll see how one sided each debate is. The debate between socialism and capitalism whether it is a casual debate on the Internet or especially a serious debate in politics should rather discuss the efficacy and inefficacy of multiple elements from both economic systems. History alone proves that too much of anything is bad . A successful economy derives from a mixture of both socialism and capitalism. How so? That's because happiness is an indicator of how successful an economic system is. Look at Norway or Denmark though often misinterpreted as countries of socialist paradise, they are countries that have successfully integrated capitalist and socialist policies. In turn, people who live under a more mixed diverse economy tend to be much more happier than those whose country leans further towards one side of the economic spectrum. Based on that premise, people and I mean a significant portion of a country's population who have experienced misery have done so because of a nearly pure economic system, whether through the means of wealth inequality poverty e.g., 19^th century America or dictatorial rule e.g., under Stalin's rule Unless people are willing to submit to these types of pure economic systems, then there is no point in debating which economic system is superior.<|TARGETS|>People arguing for against capitalism and socialism, debating which economic system, A successful economy, a more mixed diverse economy, The debate between socialism and capitalism whether it is a casual debate on the Internet or especially a serious debate in politics, Norway or Denmark though often misinterpreted as countries of socialist paradise<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People arguing for against capitalism and socialism tend to do so from a pure economic perspective. Browse just about any debates on CMV or other websites and you'll see how one sided each debate is. The debate between socialism and capitalism whether it is a casual debate on the Internet or especially a serious debate in politics should rather discuss the efficacy and inefficacy of multiple elements from both economic systems. History alone proves that too much of anything is bad . A successful economy derives from a mixture of both socialism and capitalism. How so? That's because happiness is an indicator of how successful an economic system is. Look at Norway or Denmark though often misinterpreted as countries of socialist paradise, they are countries that have successfully integrated capitalist and socialist policies. In turn, people who live under a more mixed diverse economy tend to be much more happier than those whose country leans further towards one side of the economic spectrum. Based on that premise, people and I mean a significant portion of a country's population who have experienced misery have done so because of a nearly pure economic system, whether through the means of wealth inequality poverty e.g., 19^th century America or dictatorial rule e.g., under Stalin's rule Unless people are willing to submit to these types of pure economic systems, then there is no point in debating which economic system is superior.<|ASPECTS|>diverse economy, bad, socialist paradise, sided, pure economic system, misery, successful, integrated capitalist and socialist policies, economic, capitalism, one, debates, efficacy, happier, pure economic systems, inefficacy, socialism, pure economic perspective, happiness, wealth inequality poverty, economic system, system, multiple, successful economy<|CONCLUSION|>","People arguing for against capitalism and socialism tend to do so from a pure economic perspective. Browse just about any debates on  or other websites and you'll see how one sided each debate is. The debate between socialism and capitalism whether it is a casual debate on the Internet or especially a serious debate in politics should rather discuss the efficacy and inefficacy of multiple elements from both economic systems. History alone proves that too much of anything is bad . A successful economy derives from a mixture of both socialism and capitalism. How so? That's because happiness is an indicator of how successful an economic system is. Look at Norway or Denmark though often misinterpreted as countries of socialist paradise, they are countries that have successfully integrated capitalist and socialist policies. In turn, people who live under a more mixed diverse economy tend to be much more happier than those whose country leans further towards one side of the economic spectrum. Based on that premise, people and I mean a significant portion of a country's population who have experienced misery have done so because of a nearly pure economic system, whether through the means of wealth inequality poverty e.g., 19^th century America or dictatorial rule e.g., under Stalin's rule Unless people are willing to submit to these types of pure economic systems, then there is no point in debating which economic system is superior.","The debates between socialism vs capitalism are often useless, as they often hinge on the premises of pure economic systems."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is CMV, so I sort of expect not to be insulted. I am really interested in a CMV While there are subjective points to intelligence and most people are good at one part of it and bad at another, there are objectively wrong and stupid things to believe in. I could spend hours finding links to data showing evidence Well, I admit, 95 is a bit of an arbitrary and seemingly high number . gt When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar. Source I totally acknowledge that this is often caused by a lack of access to information, but that doesn't make people less stupid. Let me just throw in this here Policy Exchange 61 of British Muslims want homosexuality punished Pew Research 2013 76 of South Asian Muslims and 56 of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion. I don't want to focus on Muslims, this just showed up on google To cite Winston Churchill gt The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I don't advocate a dictatorship here and democracy is all fine until we find a better alternative, but those We are the 99 signs shown during the Occupy Wall Street movement really show what I mean. Yes, dear 99 , most of you are best kept where you are Powerless. Reddit Please CMV Apologies for grammar and spelling. Edit I don't think any country fits this and the ruling percentage is not not exclusively made up by the brightest people. I mean what I wrote as a bit of an utopian Idea where the intelligent ones rule. But my main point is that most people are stupid<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is CMV, so I sort of expect not to be insulted. I am really interested in a CMV While there are subjective points to intelligence and most people are good at one part of it and bad at another, there are objectively wrong and stupid things to believe in. I could spend hours finding links to data showing evidence Well, I admit, 95 is a bit of an arbitrary and seemingly high number . gt When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar. Source I totally acknowledge that this is often caused by a lack of access to information, but that doesn't make people less stupid. Let me just throw in this here Policy Exchange 61 of British Muslims want homosexuality punished Pew Research 2013 76 of South Asian Muslims and 56 of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion. I don't want to focus on Muslims, this just showed up on google To cite Winston Churchill gt The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I don't advocate a dictatorship here and democracy is all fine until we find a better alternative, but those We are the 99 signs shown during the Occupy Wall Street movement really show what I mean. Yes, dear 99 , most of you are best kept where you are Powerless. Reddit Please CMV Apologies for grammar and spelling. Edit I don't think any country fits this and the ruling percentage is not not exclusively made up by the brightest people. I mean what I wrote as a bit of an utopian Idea where the intelligent ones rule. But my main point is that most people are stupid<|TARGETS|>spend hours finding links to data showing evidence Well I admit 95, a lack of access to information, the 99 signs shown during the Occupy Wall Street movement, a dictatorship here and democracy, to believe in ., what I wrote as a bit of an utopian Idea where the intelligent ones rule .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is CMV, so I sort of expect not to be insulted. I am really interested in a CMV While there are subjective points to intelligence and most people are good at one part of it and bad at another, there are objectively wrong and stupid things to believe in. I could spend hours finding links to data showing evidence Well, I admit, 95 is a bit of an arbitrary and seemingly high number . gt When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar. Source I totally acknowledge that this is often caused by a lack of access to information, but that doesn't make people less stupid. Let me just throw in this here Policy Exchange 61 of British Muslims want homosexuality punished Pew Research 2013 76 of South Asian Muslims and 56 of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion. I don't want to focus on Muslims, this just showed up on google To cite Winston Churchill gt The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I don't advocate a dictatorship here and democracy is all fine until we find a better alternative, but those We are the 99 signs shown during the Occupy Wall Street movement really show what I mean. Yes, dear 99 , most of you are best kept where you are Powerless. Reddit Please CMV Apologies for grammar and spelling. Edit I don't think any country fits this and the ruling percentage is not not exclusively made up by the brightest people. I mean what I wrote as a bit of an utopian Idea where the intelligent ones rule. But my main point is that most people are stupid<|ASPECTS|>cold war, wrong, bill of rights, insulted, stupid things, access to information, killing, islamic religion, intelligence, kept, muslims, ruling percentage, lack, circle, brightest people, focus, citizenship test, utopian idea, showing, powerless, democracy, subjective points, intelligent ones, stupid, dictatorship, official, rule, high number, grammar and spelling, homosexuality, independence day, unable, arbitrary, alternative<|CONCLUSION|>","This is , so I sort of expect not to be insulted. I am really interested in a  While there are subjective points to intelligence and most people are good at one part of it and bad at another, there are objectively wrong and stupid things to believe in. I could spend hours finding links to data showing evidence Well, I admit, 95 is a bit of an arbitrary and seemingly high number . gt When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar. Source I totally acknowledge that this is often caused by a lack of access to information, but that doesn't make people less stupid. Let me just throw in this here Policy Exchange 61 of British Muslims want homosexuality punished Pew Research 2013 76 of South Asian Muslims and 56 of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion. I don't want to focus on Muslims, this just showed up on google To cite Winston Churchill gt The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I don't advocate a dictatorship here and democracy is all fine until we find a better alternative, but those We are the 99 signs shown during the Occupy Wall Street movement really show what I mean. Yes, dear 99 , most of you are best kept where you are Powerless. Reddit Please  Apologies for grammar and spelling. Edit I don't think any country fits this and the ruling percentage is not not exclusively made up by the brightest people. I mean what I wrote as a bit of an utopian Idea where the intelligent ones rule. But my main point is that most people are stupid",I think 95% of the global population are plain and simple stupid and should for their own sake be governed by the other 5%
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll preface this by saying that I view Wall Street and investment banking with a contempt few professions inspire, for a wide variety of reasons. After the 2008 crisis, my view was that I'd gladly see half of Wall Street in jail and the other half subject to enough regulation to make Dodd Frank look like a blurb. Having watched political and economic developments over the last few years, that's still a part of my personal utopia, but I don't think it's an effective solution in practice. It seems to me that Wall Street finds new ways to make profits at the expense of its customers and, when things go really wrong, taxpayers who bail them out at a remarkably quick pace. Congress, by contrast, moves far more slowly. The last major reform was Dodd Frank, passed in 2010, thanks to a Democratic supermajority in the Senate which happens once in a blue moon , and the financial industry has been lobbying to water many elements of the law down ever since it was passed. A Republican congress will kill any attempts to pass new regulations, or amend existing ones for better enforcement. Even if we get new laws passed, it'll take a long fight, which financial lobbyists and their congressional allies will drag out as much as they can. Note that I'm not trying to make this a political issue. In 2008, Obama raised plenty of funds from Wall Street, though the numbers dipped in 2012 because his campaign was more populist. Reagan and Clinton both played a part in deregulation. I'm reasonably convinced that a dollar in lobbying money is worth 1 on either side of the aisle. Anyway, faced with this trend banks can make changes overnight, the federal government can take years or decades to pass new laws regulating Wall Street , the logical conclusion seems to be that trying to regulate Wall Street is like a game of whack a mole, with a very slow hammer and a very fast mole that periodically changes shape so the hammer is useless. I suspect there's a lot of information out there that I haven't considered, and I'd be glad to have reliable evidence that my view isn't necessarily correct. So, change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll preface this by saying that I view Wall Street and investment banking with a contempt few professions inspire, for a wide variety of reasons. After the 2008 crisis, my view was that I'd gladly see half of Wall Street in jail and the other half subject to enough regulation to make Dodd Frank look like a blurb. Having watched political and economic developments over the last few years, that's still a part of my personal utopia, but I don't think it's an effective solution in practice. It seems to me that Wall Street finds new ways to make profits at the expense of its customers and, when things go really wrong, taxpayers who bail them out at a remarkably quick pace. Congress, by contrast, moves far more slowly. The last major reform was Dodd Frank, passed in 2010, thanks to a Democratic supermajority in the Senate which happens once in a blue moon , and the financial industry has been lobbying to water many elements of the law down ever since it was passed. A Republican congress will kill any attempts to pass new regulations, or amend existing ones for better enforcement. Even if we get new laws passed, it'll take a long fight, which financial lobbyists and their congressional allies will drag out as much as they can. Note that I'm not trying to make this a political issue. In 2008, Obama raised plenty of funds from Wall Street, though the numbers dipped in 2012 because his campaign was more populist. Reagan and Clinton both played a part in deregulation. I'm reasonably convinced that a dollar in lobbying money is worth 1 on either side of the aisle. Anyway, faced with this trend banks can make changes overnight, the federal government can take years or decades to pass new laws regulating Wall Street , the logical conclusion seems to be that trying to regulate Wall Street is like a game of whack a mole, with a very slow hammer and a very fast mole that periodically changes shape so the hammer is useless. I suspect there's a lot of information out there that I haven't considered, and I'd be glad to have reliable evidence that my view isn't necessarily correct. So, change my view.<|TARGETS|>taxpayers who bail them out at a remarkably quick pace ., Wall Street and investment banking with a contempt few professions, not trying to make this a political issue ., which financial lobbyists and their congressional allies, Having watched political and economic developments over the last few years, gladly see half of Wall Street in jail and the other half subject to enough regulation to make Dodd Frank<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll preface this by saying that I view Wall Street and investment banking with a contempt few professions inspire, for a wide variety of reasons. After the 2008 crisis, my view was that I'd gladly see half of Wall Street in jail and the other half subject to enough regulation to make Dodd Frank look like a blurb. Having watched political and economic developments over the last few years, that's still a part of my personal utopia, but I don't think it's an effective solution in practice. It seems to me that Wall Street finds new ways to make profits at the expense of its customers and, when things go really wrong, taxpayers who bail them out at a remarkably quick pace. Congress, by contrast, moves far more slowly. The last major reform was Dodd Frank, passed in 2010, thanks to a Democratic supermajority in the Senate which happens once in a blue moon , and the financial industry has been lobbying to water many elements of the law down ever since it was passed. A Republican congress will kill any attempts to pass new regulations, or amend existing ones for better enforcement. Even if we get new laws passed, it'll take a long fight, which financial lobbyists and their congressional allies will drag out as much as they can. Note that I'm not trying to make this a political issue. In 2008, Obama raised plenty of funds from Wall Street, though the numbers dipped in 2012 because his campaign was more populist. Reagan and Clinton both played a part in deregulation. I'm reasonably convinced that a dollar in lobbying money is worth 1 on either side of the aisle. Anyway, faced with this trend banks can make changes overnight, the federal government can take years or decades to pass new laws regulating Wall Street , the logical conclusion seems to be that trying to regulate Wall Street is like a game of whack a mole, with a very slow hammer and a very fast mole that periodically changes shape so the hammer is useless. I suspect there's a lot of information out there that I haven't considered, and I'd be glad to have reliable evidence that my view isn't necessarily correct. So, change my view.<|ASPECTS|>slowly, financial lobbyists, view, deregulation, moves, political issue, personal, populist, reliable evidence, amend, utopia, kill, useless, democratic supermajority, expense, effective solution, regulation, jail, political and economic developments, information, take, funds, street, better enforcement, changes, profits, lobbying money, long fight, regulations, taxpayers<|CONCLUSION|>","I'll preface this by saying that I view Wall Street and investment banking with a contempt few professions inspire, for a wide variety of reasons. After the 2008 crisis, my view was that I'd gladly see half of Wall Street in jail and the other half subject to enough regulation to make Dodd Frank look like a blurb. Having watched political and economic developments over the last few years, that's still a part of my personal utopia, but I don't think it's an effective solution in practice. It seems to me that Wall Street finds new ways to make profits at the expense of its customers and, when things go really wrong, taxpayers who bail them out at a remarkably quick pace. Congress, by contrast, moves far more slowly. The last major reform was Dodd Frank, passed in 2010, thanks to a Democratic supermajority in the Senate which happens once in a blue moon , and the financial industry has been lobbying to water many elements of the law down ever since it was passed. A Republican congress will kill any attempts to pass new regulations, or amend existing ones for better enforcement. Even if we get new laws passed, it'll take a long fight, which financial lobbyists and their congressional allies will drag out as much as they can. Note that I'm not trying to make this a political issue. In 2008, Obama raised plenty of funds from Wall Street, though the numbers dipped in 2012 because his campaign was more populist. Reagan and Clinton both played a part in deregulation. I'm reasonably convinced that a dollar in lobbying money is worth 1 on either side of the aisle. Anyway, faced with this trend banks can make changes overnight, the federal government can take years or decades to pass new laws regulating Wall Street , the logical conclusion seems to be that trying to regulate Wall Street is like a game of whack a mole, with a very slow hammer and a very fast mole that periodically changes shape so the hammer is useless. I suspect there's a lot of information out there that I haven't considered, and I'd be glad to have reliable evidence that my view isn't necessarily correct. So, change my view.",I believe regulating Wall Street is ineffective as banks will always be one step ahead of regulators.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a huge supporter of The Austrian Economic movement, especially the works of F.A. Hayek. I believe that de regulating markets and letting competition control the flow of consumerism is the way to go economically. In short I believe that government interference messes up whatever market it enters, including social programs. My knowledge is that some people are just fine with barely getting by. Once they have their sustainable amount of money from the government they feel that they don't have to work anymore. This would be fine with me if it wasn't the taxpayers money. In the U.S. I don't hear of many success stories of those who with a constant stream of money from the government rose to the top of their respective fields. Some Malcom Gladwell book brought up the fact that a bunch of the richest men in the late 1800's grew up in poverty. They got along just fine without massive social programs. Mostly, I'd like to hear the other side of the story. I grew up in upper middle class suburban America. I don't want to come across as the rich white guy who doesn't like government run social programs just because I have to pay more taxes. I don't know from first hand experience how programs like Welfare work. I disagree with these programs in theory but I'd be more friendly towards them if I could hear stories and see statistics that show their value.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a huge supporter of The Austrian Economic movement, especially the works of F.A. Hayek. I believe that de regulating markets and letting competition control the flow of consumerism is the way to go economically. In short I believe that government interference messes up whatever market it enters, including social programs. My knowledge is that some people are just fine with barely getting by. Once they have their sustainable amount of money from the government they feel that they don't have to work anymore. This would be fine with me if it wasn't the taxpayers money. In the U.S. I don't hear of many success stories of those who with a constant stream of money from the government rose to the top of their respective fields. Some Malcom Gladwell book brought up the fact that a bunch of the richest men in the late 1800's grew up in poverty. They got along just fine without massive social programs. Mostly, I'd like to hear the other side of the story. I grew up in upper middle class suburban America. I don't want to come across as the rich white guy who doesn't like government run social programs just because I have to pay more taxes. I don't know from first hand experience how programs like Welfare work. I disagree with these programs in theory but I'd be more friendly towards them if I could hear stories and see statistics that show their value.<|TARGETS|>government interference, these programs in theory, The Austrian Economic movement, Hayek, to come across as the rich white guy who does n't like government run social programs, that de regulating markets and letting competition control the flow of consumerism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a huge supporter of The Austrian Economic movement, especially the works of F.A. Hayek. I believe that de regulating markets and letting competition control the flow of consumerism is the way to go economically. In short I believe that government interference messes up whatever market it enters, including social programs. My knowledge is that some people are just fine with barely getting by. Once they have their sustainable amount of money from the government they feel that they don't have to work anymore. This would be fine with me if it wasn't the taxpayers money. In the U.S. I don't hear of many success stories of those who with a constant stream of money from the government rose to the top of their respective fields. Some Malcom Gladwell book brought up the fact that a bunch of the richest men in the late 1800's grew up in poverty. They got along just fine without massive social programs. Mostly, I'd like to hear the other side of the story. I grew up in upper middle class suburban America. I don't want to come across as the rich white guy who doesn't like government run social programs just because I have to pay more taxes. I don't know from first hand experience how programs like Welfare work. I disagree with these programs in theory but I'd be more friendly towards them if I could hear stories and see statistics that show their value.<|ASPECTS|>upper middle class suburban america, sustainable amount, social programs, money, economically, work, taxes, government interference, welfare, barely getting, friendly, austrian economic movement, success stories, rich white, competition, taxpayers money, value, pay, consumerism, government run social programs, regulating markets, poverty, massive, men, flow<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm a huge supporter of The Austrian Economic movement, especially the works of F.A. Hayek. I believe that de regulating markets and letting competition control the flow of consumerism is the way to go economically. In short I believe that government interference messes up whatever market it enters, including social programs. My knowledge is that some people are just fine with barely getting by. Once they have their sustainable amount of money from the government they feel that they don't have to work anymore. This would be fine with me if it wasn't the taxpayers money. In the U.S. I don't hear of many success stories of those who with a constant stream of money from the government rose to the top of their respective fields. Some Malcom Gladwell book brought up the fact that a bunch of the richest men in the late 1800's grew up in poverty. They got along just fine without massive social programs. Mostly, I'd like to hear the other side of the story. I grew up in upper middle class suburban America. I don't want to come across as the rich white guy who doesn't like government run social programs just because I have to pay more taxes. I don't know from first hand experience how programs like Welfare work. I disagree with these programs in theory but I'd be more friendly towards them if I could hear stories and see statistics that show their value.",I Think Social Programs like Welfare are detrimental to our society because they don't give people incentive to work harder.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Like a lot of people of my generation I am in my early 40s , I have flirted on and off with sme kind of socialism over the years. On the whole, I tend to come down on the side of free enterprise. That is to say, while I support various policies and programmes to create a more egalitarian society, I do not believe that nationalization of the economy as a whole is an effective or just policy. This would put me squarely in the social democratic camp non authoritarian left mixed economy , were it not for one thing The enormous discrepancies in personal and national wealth and consequently power that we have inherited from past ages discrepancies that were, on the whole, founded on force from mediaeval land grabs, via enforced religion, to colonialism, robber barons , and . I believe, therefore, that while a broadly free market capitalist system is to be supported, justice requires one or more major realignments in wealth and power. Precisely what form these should take is open to debate. Reparations, land reform, capital gains wealth tax, debt relief, including some direct appropriations of fortunes, land and capital, could all be considered. I believe that the rebirth of left wing liberal political parties worldwide or at least in those areas where direct nationalisation has lost support so most of Europea nd North America for a start could be found in this kind of policy. The alternative is what we see today liberal parties failing to address this elephant in the room, becoming merely fiddlers at the edges of unfettered capitalism, having abandonded the pursuit of historical justice.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Like a lot of people of my generation I am in my early 40s , I have flirted on and off with sme kind of socialism over the years. On the whole, I tend to come down on the side of free enterprise. That is to say, while I support various policies and programmes to create a more egalitarian society, I do not believe that nationalization of the economy as a whole is an effective or just policy. This would put me squarely in the social democratic camp non authoritarian left mixed economy , were it not for one thing The enormous discrepancies in personal and national wealth and consequently power that we have inherited from past ages discrepancies that were, on the whole, founded on force from mediaeval land grabs, via enforced religion, to colonialism, robber barons , and . I believe, therefore, that while a broadly free market capitalist system is to be supported, justice requires one or more major realignments in wealth and power. Precisely what form these should take is open to debate. Reparations, land reform, capital gains wealth tax, debt relief, including some direct appropriations of fortunes, land and capital, could all be considered. I believe that the rebirth of left wing liberal political parties worldwide or at least in those areas where direct nationalisation has lost support so most of Europea nd North America for a start could be found in this kind of policy. The alternative is what we see today liberal parties failing to address this elephant in the room, becoming merely fiddlers at the edges of unfettered capitalism, having abandonded the pursuit of historical justice.<|TARGETS|>to come down on the side of free enterprise ., that nationalization of the economy as a whole, The enormous discrepancies in personal and national wealth and consequently power that we have inherited from past ages discrepancies that were on the whole founded on force from mediaeval land grabs via enforced religion to colonialism robber barons, the rebirth of left wing liberal political parties worldwide, sme kind of socialism over the years ., a broadly free market capitalist system<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Like a lot of people of my generation I am in my early 40s , I have flirted on and off with sme kind of socialism over the years. On the whole, I tend to come down on the side of free enterprise. That is to say, while I support various policies and programmes to create a more egalitarian society, I do not believe that nationalization of the economy as a whole is an effective or just policy. This would put me squarely in the social democratic camp non authoritarian left mixed economy , were it not for one thing The enormous discrepancies in personal and national wealth and consequently power that we have inherited from past ages discrepancies that were, on the whole, founded on force from mediaeval land grabs, via enforced religion, to colonialism, robber barons , and . I believe, therefore, that while a broadly free market capitalist system is to be supported, justice requires one or more major realignments in wealth and power. Precisely what form these should take is open to debate. Reparations, land reform, capital gains wealth tax, debt relief, including some direct appropriations of fortunes, land and capital, could all be considered. I believe that the rebirth of left wing liberal political parties worldwide or at least in those areas where direct nationalisation has lost support so most of Europea nd North America for a start could be found in this kind of policy. The alternative is what we see today liberal parties failing to address this elephant in the room, becoming merely fiddlers at the edges of unfettered capitalism, having abandonded the pursuit of historical justice.<|ASPECTS|>, egalitarian society, discrepancies, historical justice, free enterprise, wealth and power, realignments, lost support, enforced religion, robber barons, left wing liberal political parties, land reform, capital gains wealth tax, effective, socialism, power, reparations, unfettered capitalism, debt relief, debate, free market capitalist, personal and national wealth<|CONCLUSION|>","Like a lot of people of my generation I am in my early 40s , I have flirted on and off with sme kind of socialism over the years. On the whole, I tend to come down on the side of free enterprise. That is to say, while I support various policies and programmes to create a more egalitarian society, I do not believe that nationalization of the economy as a whole is an effective or just policy. This would put me squarely in the social democratic camp non authoritarian left mixed economy , were it not for one thing The enormous discrepancies in personal and national wealth and consequently power that we have inherited from past ages discrepancies that were, on the whole, founded on force from mediaeval land grabs, via enforced religion, to colonialism, robber barons , and . I believe, therefore, that while a broadly free market capitalist system is to be supported, justice requires one or more major realignments in wealth and power. Precisely what form these should take is open to debate. Reparations, land reform, capital gains wealth tax, debt relief, including some direct appropriations of fortunes, land and capital, could all be considered. I believe that the rebirth of left wing liberal political parties worldwide or at least in those areas where direct nationalisation has lost support so most of Europea nd North America for a start could be found in this kind of policy. The alternative is what we see today liberal parties failing to address this elephant in the room, becoming merely fiddlers at the edges of unfettered capitalism, having abandonded the pursuit of historical justice.","While I support the free market, I believe that a major redistribution of wealth would be desirable because just."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As the title states, I am of partially Jewish ancestry and get most of my genetic makeup from that side. I have curly dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, almond eyes, and the high cheekbones giving me the so called Semitic smile . Unfortunately, right now, I live in the U.S. and there appears to be a serious 10 25 chance that Donald Trump will be our next president. Now, keep in mind, while he has not ventured beyond mild anti Semitism of his own, he has still advocated for eerie measures against Muslims that echo the Nuremburg Laws that the Nazis implemented and as we all know, the Jews were not the only targets of Hitler . In addition, his wife said that a journalist who was met with anti Semitic death threats and statements that she should be put in an oven brought those comments on herself . Clearly, Jews are on the chopping block under a Trump presidency, and if ultra Orthodox types were to commit a large scale terrorist attacks, we might be registered and God knows what else. I am aware that his daughter is a convert to Judaism, but all genocidal and racialist regimes make exceptions even Nazi Germany and I think Trump would be willing to kill all 7 million Jews in America except the ones he knows personally if it were politically expedient. He already has a Lion's Guard militia which appears to exist to serve him, and is clearly not above inciting political violence, even agreeing to pay the legal fees of those who commit it in his name. His supporters have manifested themselves to be equally bloodthirsty, cheering wildly whenever a protester is attacked and booing any arresting police officers. As such, as someone of visible Jewish descent, it would be in my best interest to hide my heritage both in words and in appearance, and to arm myself with the best rifle I can afford and sleep with it by my bedside I have experience shooting them and will be 21 by Inauguration Day . Please explain to me how my view is wrong, if it is.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As the title states, I am of partially Jewish ancestry and get most of my genetic makeup from that side. I have curly dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, almond eyes, and the high cheekbones giving me the so called Semitic smile . Unfortunately, right now, I live in the U.S. and there appears to be a serious 10 25 chance that Donald Trump will be our next president. Now, keep in mind, while he has not ventured beyond mild anti Semitism of his own, he has still advocated for eerie measures against Muslims that echo the Nuremburg Laws that the Nazis implemented and as we all know, the Jews were not the only targets of Hitler . In addition, his wife said that a journalist who was met with anti Semitic death threats and statements that she should be put in an oven brought those comments on herself . Clearly, Jews are on the chopping block under a Trump presidency, and if ultra Orthodox types were to commit a large scale terrorist attacks, we might be registered and God knows what else. I am aware that his daughter is a convert to Judaism, but all genocidal and racialist regimes make exceptions even Nazi Germany and I think Trump would be willing to kill all 7 million Jews in America except the ones he knows personally if it were politically expedient. He already has a Lion's Guard militia which appears to exist to serve him, and is clearly not above inciting political violence, even agreeing to pay the legal fees of those who commit it in his name. His supporters have manifested themselves to be equally bloodthirsty, cheering wildly whenever a protester is attacked and booing any arresting police officers. As such, as someone of visible Jewish descent, it would be in my best interest to hide my heritage both in words and in appearance, and to arm myself with the best rifle I can afford and sleep with it by my bedside I have experience shooting them and will be 21 by Inauguration Day . Please explain to me how my view is wrong, if it is.<|TARGETS|>to kill all 7 million Jews in America except the ones he knows personally if it were politically expedient ., curly dark hair dark eyes olive skin almond eyes, to hide my heritage both in words and in appearance and to arm myself with the best rifle I can afford and sleep with it by my bedside I have experience shooting them, a Lion 's Guard militia, Please explain to me how my view, partially Jewish ancestry and get most of my genetic makeup from that side .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As the title states, I am of partially Jewish ancestry and get most of my genetic makeup from that side. I have curly dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, almond eyes, and the high cheekbones giving me the so called Semitic smile . Unfortunately, right now, I live in the U.S. and there appears to be a serious 10 25 chance that Donald Trump will be our next president. Now, keep in mind, while he has not ventured beyond mild anti Semitism of his own, he has still advocated for eerie measures against Muslims that echo the Nuremburg Laws that the Nazis implemented and as we all know, the Jews were not the only targets of Hitler . In addition, his wife said that a journalist who was met with anti Semitic death threats and statements that she should be put in an oven brought those comments on herself . Clearly, Jews are on the chopping block under a Trump presidency, and if ultra Orthodox types were to commit a large scale terrorist attacks, we might be registered and God knows what else. I am aware that his daughter is a convert to Judaism, but all genocidal and racialist regimes make exceptions even Nazi Germany and I think Trump would be willing to kill all 7 million Jews in America except the ones he knows personally if it were politically expedient. He already has a Lion's Guard militia which appears to exist to serve him, and is clearly not above inciting political violence, even agreeing to pay the legal fees of those who commit it in his name. His supporters have manifested themselves to be equally bloodthirsty, cheering wildly whenever a protester is attacked and booing any arresting police officers. As such, as someone of visible Jewish descent, it would be in my best interest to hide my heritage both in words and in appearance, and to arm myself with the best rifle I can afford and sleep with it by my bedside I have experience shooting them and will be 21 by Inauguration Day . Please explain to me how my view is wrong, if it is.<|ASPECTS|>mild anti semitism, block, registered, terrorist attacks, eerie measures, kill, jews, political violence, olive, anti semitic death threats, bloodthirsty, view is wrong, hitler, descent, partially jewish ancestry, targets, semitic smile, politically expedient, hide my heritage, legal fees, convert, genocidal, genetic makeup, cheering, racialist, donald, booing<|CONCLUSION|>","As the title states, I am of partially Jewish ancestry and get most of my genetic makeup from that side. I have curly dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, almond eyes, and the high cheekbones giving me the so called Semitic smile . Unfortunately, right now, I live in the U.S. and there appears to be a serious 10 25 chance that Donald Trump will be our next president. Now, keep in mind, while he has not ventured beyond mild anti Semitism of his own, he has still advocated for eerie measures against Muslims that echo the Nuremburg Laws that the Nazis implemented and as we all know, the Jews were not the only targets of Hitler . In addition, his wife said that a journalist who was met with anti Semitic death threats and statements that she should be put in an oven brought those comments on herself . Clearly, Jews are on the chopping block under a Trump presidency, and if ultra Orthodox types were to commit a large scale terrorist attacks, we might be registered and God knows what else. I am aware that his daughter is a convert to Judaism, but all genocidal and racialist regimes make exceptions even Nazi Germany and I think Trump would be willing to kill all 7 million Jews in America except the ones he knows personally if it were politically expedient. He already has a Lion's Guard militia which appears to exist to serve him, and is clearly not above inciting political violence, even agreeing to pay the legal fees of those who commit it in his name. His supporters have manifested themselves to be equally bloodthirsty, cheering wildly whenever a protester is attacked and booing any arresting police officers. As such, as someone of visible Jewish descent, it would be in my best interest to hide my heritage both in words and in appearance, and to arm myself with the best rifle I can afford and sleep with it by my bedside I have experience shooting them and will be 21 by Inauguration Day . Please explain to me how my view is wrong, if it is.","as someone who is visibly part-Jewish by ethnicity, I should maintain a buzz cut, deny my ethnic roots, and arm myself well should Donald Trump get elected."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that categorizing any group of people based on their ethnic background can lead to many forms of generalization that could lead to stigmatization the more stigma, the more division, the less likely it is that people will stop paying attention to ethnicity People will often say that colonization was a result of white supremacy but isn't it the opposite? Colonialists were motivated by greed and power, and used the stigmatisation of foreign populations to justify their inhumane actions. Think of it the same way Hitler raised the masses against the jewish and the gipsies before the holocaust dehumanize and vilify a cotagory of humans for your own interest and never have anyone oppose your decision to treat them like cattle. This is very anecdotal, but maybe I should mention that I'm an arabic living in North America, so I've experienced racism in many different forms<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that categorizing any group of people based on their ethnic background can lead to many forms of generalization that could lead to stigmatization the more stigma, the more division, the less likely it is that people will stop paying attention to ethnicity People will often say that colonization was a result of white supremacy but isn't it the opposite? Colonialists were motivated by greed and power, and used the stigmatisation of foreign populations to justify their inhumane actions. Think of it the same way Hitler raised the masses against the jewish and the gipsies before the holocaust dehumanize and vilify a cotagory of humans for your own interest and never have anyone oppose your decision to treat them like cattle. This is very anecdotal, but maybe I should mention that I'm an arabic living in North America, so I've experienced racism in many different forms<|TARGETS|>that categorizing any group of people based on their ethnic background, an arabic living in North America, Hitler raised the masses against the jewish and the gipsies before the holocaust dehumanize and vilify a cotagory of humans for your own interest and never have anyone oppose your decision to treat them like cattle .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that categorizing any group of people based on their ethnic background can lead to many forms of generalization that could lead to stigmatization the more stigma, the more division, the less likely it is that people will stop paying attention to ethnicity People will often say that colonization was a result of white supremacy but isn't it the opposite? Colonialists were motivated by greed and power, and used the stigmatisation of foreign populations to justify their inhumane actions. Think of it the same way Hitler raised the masses against the jewish and the gipsies before the holocaust dehumanize and vilify a cotagory of humans for your own interest and never have anyone oppose your decision to treat them like cattle. This is very anecdotal, but maybe I should mention that I'm an arabic living in North America, so I've experienced racism in many different forms<|ASPECTS|>stigma, generalization, inhumane actions, greed and power, stigmatization, stigmatisation, racism, cotagory of humans, ethnicity, foreign populations, dehumanize, white supremacy<|CONCLUSION|>","I think that categorizing any group of people based on their ethnic background can lead to many forms of generalization that could lead to stigmatization the more stigma, the more division, the less likely it is that people will stop paying attention to ethnicity People will often say that colonization was a result of white supremacy but isn't it the opposite? Colonialists were motivated by greed and power, and used the stigmatisation of foreign populations to justify their inhumane actions. Think of it the same way Hitler raised the masses against the jewish and the gipsies before the holocaust dehumanize and vilify a cotagory of humans for your own interest and never have anyone oppose your decision to treat them like cattle. This is very anecdotal, but maybe I should mention that I'm an arabic living in North America, so I've experienced racism in many different forms",: Blaming 'white people' for a racist climate is both counter productive and historically simplistic
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I just read a survey asking about how privileged people are, there were 100 questions, 23 of them alone related to sexual orientation and gender, one of them was simply Are you male Seriously? simply being male makes one privileged now? I grew up in a lower middle class family below the poverty line, my parents separated when I was about 8 constant fighting alcoholism and substance abuse until I was about 12, I worked my ass off, put my self through school with no financial help from anyone, now I have a solid well paying job. So sure I was born a white, straight csigender male I don't see anything in my like that leans toward me being privileged in any way and I find it infuriating and pathetic when someone points out those facets of my life in any capacity and attempts to make me feel guilty or condemn me for them. CMV gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I just read a survey asking about how privileged people are, there were 100 questions, 23 of them alone related to sexual orientation and gender, one of them was simply Are you male Seriously? simply being male makes one privileged now? I grew up in a lower middle class family below the poverty line, my parents separated when I was about 8 constant fighting alcoholism and substance abuse until I was about 12, I worked my ass off, put my self through school with no financial help from anyone, now I have a solid well paying job. So sure I was born a white, straight csigender male I don't see anything in my like that leans toward me being privileged in any way and I find it infuriating and pathetic when someone points out those facets of my life in any capacity and attempts to make me feel guilty or condemn me for them. CMV gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>a solid well paying job ., simply being male, to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, a survey asking about how privileged people are there were 100 questions 23 of them alone related to sexual orientation and gender, to remind you of a couple of things ., I was born a white straight csigender male I do n't see anything in my like that leans toward me being privileged in any way and I find it infuriating and pathetic when someone points out those facets of my life in any capacity and attempts to make me feel guilty or condemn me for them .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I just read a survey asking about how privileged people are, there were 100 questions, 23 of them alone related to sexual orientation and gender, one of them was simply Are you male Seriously? simply being male makes one privileged now? I grew up in a lower middle class family below the poverty line, my parents separated when I was about 8 constant fighting alcoholism and substance abuse until I was about 12, I worked my ass off, put my self through school with no financial help from anyone, now I have a solid well paying job. So sure I was born a white, straight csigender male I don't see anything in my like that leans toward me being privileged in any way and I find it infuriating and pathetic when someone points out those facets of my life in any capacity and attempts to make me feel guilty or condemn me for them. CMV gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>substance abuse, privileged people, remind, financial help, well paying, popular topics, guilty, lower middle class, infuriating, alcoholism, concerns, effective, downvotes, privileged, happy cmving, condemn, gender, message us, change, downvote, sexual orientation, poverty, questions, pathetic<|CONCLUSION|>","I just read a survey asking about how privileged people are, there were 100 questions, 23 of them alone related to sexual orientation and gender, one of them was simply Are you male Seriously? simply being male makes one privileged now? I grew up in a lower middle class family below the poverty line, my parents separated when I was about 8 constant fighting alcoholism and substance abuse until I was about 12, I worked my ass off, put my self through school with no financial help from anyone, now I have a solid well paying job. So sure I was born a white, straight csigender male I don't see anything in my like that leans toward me being privileged in any way and I find it infuriating and pathetic when someone points out those facets of my life in any capacity and attempts to make me feel guilty or condemn me for them.  gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing","I don't think I should feel guilty about being born male,straight, comfortable in my own skin and lucky enough to live in a stable country."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's say I go to a supermarket and only have 5 cash on me. If I end up wanting 10 worth of stuff, I don't see a problem in paying for what I can and stealing the rest. I understand that if everyone thought that this was okay, there would be huge economic problems and society would crumble. The fact is that most of society does not shoplift anything and what I personally do will have absolutely no bearing on that. Such a trivial amount will have an extremely insignificant effect on anyone's bottom line. I would not frequently do this to any 1 store. The item may never have sold anyway food stores end up throwing away 40 of their merchandise Stores factor their burden of stolen merchandise into the cost of everything to make up for it. If I have to pay slightly higher prices because some asshole is going to steal, I might as well be that asshole. It doesn't make me feel guilty I don't tell other people my thoughts about this other than this post, whoops because that would be advocating stealing which might actually have a negative effect if it snowballs. If I keep it to myself though, I don't see the issue. I get that it isn't fair and most would call it amoral, but I look at it from a logical, realistic point of view and I think it won't even be noticed let alone make a difference to anyone who might care<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's say I go to a supermarket and only have 5 cash on me. If I end up wanting 10 worth of stuff, I don't see a problem in paying for what I can and stealing the rest. I understand that if everyone thought that this was okay, there would be huge economic problems and society would crumble. The fact is that most of society does not shoplift anything and what I personally do will have absolutely no bearing on that. Such a trivial amount will have an extremely insignificant effect on anyone's bottom line. I would not frequently do this to any 1 store. The item may never have sold anyway food stores end up throwing away 40 of their merchandise Stores factor their burden of stolen merchandise into the cost of everything to make up for it. If I have to pay slightly higher prices because some asshole is going to steal, I might as well be that asshole. It doesn't make me feel guilty I don't tell other people my thoughts about this other than this post, whoops because that would be advocating stealing which might actually have a negative effect if it snowballs. If I keep it to myself though, I don't see the issue. I get that it isn't fair and most would call it amoral, but I look at it from a logical, realistic point of view and I think it won't even be noticed let alone make a difference to anyone who might care<|TARGETS|>The item, paying for what I can and stealing the rest ., Such a trivial amount, to pay slightly higher prices because some asshole, n't tell other people my thoughts about this other than this post whoops, advocating stealing which<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's say I go to a supermarket and only have 5 cash on me. If I end up wanting 10 worth of stuff, I don't see a problem in paying for what I can and stealing the rest. I understand that if everyone thought that this was okay, there would be huge economic problems and society would crumble. The fact is that most of society does not shoplift anything and what I personally do will have absolutely no bearing on that. Such a trivial amount will have an extremely insignificant effect on anyone's bottom line. I would not frequently do this to any 1 store. The item may never have sold anyway food stores end up throwing away 40 of their merchandise Stores factor their burden of stolen merchandise into the cost of everything to make up for it. If I have to pay slightly higher prices because some asshole is going to steal, I might as well be that asshole. It doesn't make me feel guilty I don't tell other people my thoughts about this other than this post, whoops because that would be advocating stealing which might actually have a negative effect if it snowballs. If I keep it to myself though, I don't see the issue. I get that it isn't fair and most would call it amoral, but I look at it from a logical, realistic point of view and I think it won't even be noticed let alone make a difference to anyone who might care<|ASPECTS|>amoral, difference, cost, guilty, insignificant effect, society would, cash, stolen merchandise, burden, trivial, higher prices, fair, asshole, steal, shoplift anything, negative effect, economic problems, paying, realistic, stealing<|CONCLUSION|>","Let's say I go to a supermarket and only have 5 cash on me. If I end up wanting 10 worth of stuff, I don't see a problem in paying for what I can and stealing the rest. I understand that if everyone thought that this was okay, there would be huge economic problems and society would crumble. The fact is that most of society does not shoplift anything and what I personally do will have absolutely no bearing on that. Such a trivial amount will have an extremely insignificant effect on anyone's bottom line. I would not frequently do this to any 1 store. The item may never have sold anyway food stores end up throwing away 40 of their merchandise Stores factor their burden of stolen merchandise into the cost of everything to make up for it. If I have to pay slightly higher prices because some asshole is going to steal, I might as well be that asshole. It doesn't make me feel guilty I don't tell other people my thoughts about this other than this post, whoops because that would be advocating stealing which might actually have a negative effect if it snowballs. If I keep it to myself though, I don't see the issue. I get that it isn't fair and most would call it amoral, but I look at it from a logical, realistic point of view and I think it won't even be noticed let alone make a difference to anyone who might care",I think it's okay for me to occasionally steal small things.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>PLEASE NOTE this post is not about hatred of homosexual people. It is about a feeling of disgust towards homosexual acts. I use the term homophobic in its literal sense, meaning fear of homosexuality. I am a straight man. When I scroll through porn, occasionally a thumbnail for a gay video will pop up. My instantaneous reaction is to go eww and close out the page. Is that reaction biological? Or is it ingrained in by society? There's no way to know for sure, but I believe that that it is as equally rooted in biology as homosexuality. When a homosexual person is grossed out by straight sex, we say oh that makes sense. But when a straight person is grossed out by homosexual sex, he or she may be deemed homophobic, which in turn can be equated to hateful. However, were straight people not grossed out by homosexual sex, they would all be bi curious. In other words, inherent revulsion at homosexuality is what makes people straight, and keeps them reproducing. It's inconsistent to say homosexuality is not a choice, but heterosexuality is. Some small children are turned off by homosexuality, just as there are children who, once sexual feelings emerge, are attracted to it. Both are rooted in a combination of biology and socialization from a very early age. It is unfair to condemn individuals in either case. EDIT Added a line for clarification<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>PLEASE NOTE this post is not about hatred of homosexual people. It is about a feeling of disgust towards homosexual acts. I use the term homophobic in its literal sense, meaning fear of homosexuality. I am a straight man. When I scroll through porn, occasionally a thumbnail for a gay video will pop up. My instantaneous reaction is to go eww and close out the page. Is that reaction biological? Or is it ingrained in by society? There's no way to know for sure, but I believe that that it is as equally rooted in biology as homosexuality. When a homosexual person is grossed out by straight sex, we say oh that makes sense. But when a straight person is grossed out by homosexual sex, he or she may be deemed homophobic, which in turn can be equated to hateful. However, were straight people not grossed out by homosexual sex, they would all be bi curious. In other words, inherent revulsion at homosexuality is what makes people straight, and keeps them reproducing. It's inconsistent to say homosexuality is not a choice, but heterosexuality is. Some small children are turned off by homosexuality, just as there are children who, once sexual feelings emerge, are attracted to it. Both are rooted in a combination of biology and socialization from a very early age. It is unfair to condemn individuals in either case. EDIT Added a line for clarification<|TARGETS|>when a straight person is grossed out by homosexual sex, When a homosexual person is grossed out by straight sex, to go eww and close out the page ., PLEASE NOTE this post, to say homosexuality, When I scroll through porn occasionally a thumbnail for a gay video<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>PLEASE NOTE this post is not about hatred of homosexual people. It is about a feeling of disgust towards homosexual acts. I use the term homophobic in its literal sense, meaning fear of homosexuality. I am a straight man. When I scroll through porn, occasionally a thumbnail for a gay video will pop up. My instantaneous reaction is to go eww and close out the page. Is that reaction biological? Or is it ingrained in by society? There's no way to know for sure, but I believe that that it is as equally rooted in biology as homosexuality. When a homosexual person is grossed out by straight sex, we say oh that makes sense. But when a straight person is grossed out by homosexual sex, he or she may be deemed homophobic, which in turn can be equated to hateful. However, were straight people not grossed out by homosexual sex, they would all be bi curious. In other words, inherent revulsion at homosexuality is what makes people straight, and keeps them reproducing. It's inconsistent to say homosexuality is not a choice, but heterosexuality is. Some small children are turned off by homosexuality, just as there are children who, once sexual feelings emerge, are attracted to it. Both are rooted in a combination of biology and socialization from a very early age. It is unfair to condemn individuals in either case. EDIT Added a line for clarification<|ASPECTS|>, straight man, straight sex, ingrained, reaction biological, close out the page, fear of homosexuality, homosexual acts, revulsion, straight, society, hatred of homosexual people, heterosexuality, homophobic, sexual feelings, reproducing, condemn individuals, biology, homosexual, unfair, homosexual sex, socialization, hateful, inherent, instantaneous reaction, homosexuality, small children, disgust, grossed, gay video, bi curious, choice<|CONCLUSION|>","PLEASE NOTE this post is not about hatred of homosexual people. It is about a feeling of disgust towards homosexual acts. I use the term homophobic in its literal sense, meaning fear of homosexuality. I am a straight man. When I scroll through porn, occasionally a thumbnail for a gay video will pop up. My instantaneous reaction is to go eww and close out the page. Is that reaction biological? Or is it ingrained in by society? There's no way to know for sure, but I believe that that it is as equally rooted in biology as homosexuality. When a homosexual person is grossed out by straight sex, we say oh that makes sense. But when a straight person is grossed out by homosexual sex, he or she may be deemed homophobic, which in turn can be equated to hateful. However, were straight people not grossed out by homosexual sex, they would all be bi curious. In other words, inherent revulsion at homosexuality is what makes people straight, and keeps them reproducing. It's inconsistent to say homosexuality is not a choice, but heterosexuality is. Some small children are turned off by homosexuality, just as there are children who, once sexual feelings emerge, are attracted to it. Both are rooted in a combination of biology and socialization from a very early age. It is unfair to condemn individuals in either case. EDIT Added a line for clarification",I believe that homophobia is just as biologically ingrained as homosexuality.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tipping culture is bad because it creates a mindset that you should always be rewarded if you're being nice. For Restaurants. They should just pay fairly and let their staff also have a bad day. Normally businesses assume risk and employees don't, why is it different for service staff which tends to already be financially disadvantaged. For everyone else. Do something nice and feel good about yourself, you don't need someone else to make you feel good about yourself. Willing to change opinion if someone can show me that the motivation of external rewards like tips creates more benefit to society rather than being nice from the get go, and sometimes simply accepting that some people aren't.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tipping culture is bad because it creates a mindset that you should always be rewarded if you're being nice. For Restaurants. They should just pay fairly and let their staff also have a bad day. Normally businesses assume risk and employees don't, why is it different for service staff which tends to already be financially disadvantaged. For everyone else. Do something nice and feel good about yourself, you don't need someone else to make you feel good about yourself. Willing to change opinion if someone can show me that the motivation of external rewards like tips creates more benefit to society rather than being nice from the get go, and sometimes simply accepting that some people aren't.<|TARGETS|>Tipping culture, Willing to change opinion if someone can show me that the motivation of external rewards like tips, Do something nice and feel good about yourself you do n't need someone else to make you feel good about yourself .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Tipping culture is bad because it creates a mindset that you should always be rewarded if you're being nice. For Restaurants. They should just pay fairly and let their staff also have a bad day. Normally businesses assume risk and employees don't, why is it different for service staff which tends to already be financially disadvantaged. For everyone else. Do something nice and feel good about yourself, you don't need someone else to make you feel good about yourself. Willing to change opinion if someone can show me that the motivation of external rewards like tips creates more benefit to society rather than being nice from the get go, and sometimes simply accepting that some people aren't.<|ASPECTS|>risk, culture, benefit to society, financially disadvantaged, pay fairly, feel good, opinion, bad day, rewards, rewarded<|CONCLUSION|>","Tipping culture is bad because it creates a mindset that you should always be rewarded if you're being nice. For Restaurants. They should just pay fairly and let their staff also have a bad day. Normally businesses assume risk and employees don't, why is it different for service staff which tends to already be financially disadvantaged. For everyone else. Do something nice and feel good about yourself, you don't need someone else to make you feel good about yourself. Willing to change opinion if someone can show me that the motivation of external rewards like tips creates more benefit to society rather than being nice from the get go, and sometimes simply accepting that some people aren't.",Tipping culture promotes the wrong mindset: that every good action must be rewarded in some way
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Olympic games brings people together in a positive way. It is truly a world wide celebration. Extremists that are targeting this event are cowardly and evil. I will never understand the idea of hurting innocent people as a way to further a cause. I am worried about all the athletes, support personnel, and reporters I don't think the Russia's government will be able to secure the event I think that a combination of pride and political tensions will prevent Russia from fully utilizing other countries' assorted security expertise If there is enough loss of life, we can reasonably see the start of World War III Please change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Olympic games brings people together in a positive way. It is truly a world wide celebration. Extremists that are targeting this event are cowardly and evil. I will never understand the idea of hurting innocent people as a way to further a cause. I am worried about all the athletes, support personnel, and reporters I don't think the Russia's government will be able to secure the event I think that a combination of pride and political tensions will prevent Russia from fully utilizing other countries' assorted security expertise If there is enough loss of life, we can reasonably see the start of World War III Please change my view.<|TARGETS|>The Olympic games, the Russia 's government will be able to secure the event I think that a combination of pride and political tensions<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Olympic games brings people together in a positive way. It is truly a world wide celebration. Extremists that are targeting this event are cowardly and evil. I will never understand the idea of hurting innocent people as a way to further a cause. I am worried about all the athletes, support personnel, and reporters I don't think the Russia's government will be able to secure the event I think that a combination of pride and political tensions will prevent Russia from fully utilizing other countries' assorted security expertise If there is enough loss of life, we can reasonably see the start of World War III Please change my view.<|ASPECTS|>extremists, evil, people together, positive, world wide, loss of life, pride, cowardly, hurting innocent people, security, celebration, political tensions<|CONCLUSION|>","The Olympic games brings people together in a positive way. It is truly a world wide celebration. Extremists that are targeting this event are cowardly and evil. I will never understand the idea of hurting innocent people as a way to further a cause. I am worried about all the athletes, support personnel, and reporters I don't think the Russia's government will be able to secure the event I think that a combination of pride and political tensions will prevent Russia from fully utilizing other countries' assorted security expertise If there is enough loss of life, we can reasonably see the start of World War III Please change my view.",I am frightened for the safety of all the people at the Sochi Olympics
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If roughly 60 of bankruptcies in the U.S. occur due to medical costs, as is widely cited, and doctors are on average the highest paid profession making roughly 10 20 times more than the poverty line, then it follows that they are as much to blame for health costs as pharmaceutical and insurance companies. It's easy to blame politicians, it's easy to blame corporations, it's easy to blame policies it's hard to point to a group of professionals that want to be treated like self less heroes for curing the sick while receiving in some cases more 50 of the yearly salary of their patients and ruining their entire financial lives. CMV. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If roughly 60 of bankruptcies in the U.S. occur due to medical costs, as is widely cited, and doctors are on average the highest paid profession making roughly 10 20 times more than the poverty line, then it follows that they are as much to blame for health costs as pharmaceutical and insurance companies. It's easy to blame politicians, it's easy to blame corporations, it's easy to blame policies it's hard to point to a group of professionals that want to be treated like self less heroes for curing the sick while receiving in some cases more 50 of the yearly salary of their patients and ruining their entire financial lives. CMV. <|TARGETS|>to blame corporations, If roughly 60 of bankruptcies in the U.S. occur due to medical costs, to blame policies it 's hard to point to a group of professionals that want to be treated like self less heroes for curing the sick while receiving in some cases more 50 of the yearly salary of their patients and ruining their entire financial lives .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If roughly 60 of bankruptcies in the U.S. occur due to medical costs, as is widely cited, and doctors are on average the highest paid profession making roughly 10 20 times more than the poverty line, then it follows that they are as much to blame for health costs as pharmaceutical and insurance companies. It's easy to blame politicians, it's easy to blame corporations, it's easy to blame policies it's hard to point to a group of professionals that want to be treated like self less heroes for curing the sick while receiving in some cases more 50 of the yearly salary of their patients and ruining their entire financial lives. CMV. <|ASPECTS|>blame, blame corporations, ruining, financial lives, blame politicians, self less heroes, health costs, medical costs<|CONCLUSION|>","If roughly 60 of bankruptcies in the U.S. occur due to medical costs, as is widely cited, and doctors are on average the highest paid profession making roughly 10 20 times more than the poverty line, then it follows that they are as much to blame for health costs as pharmaceutical and insurance companies. It's easy to blame politicians, it's easy to blame corporations, it's easy to blame policies it's hard to point to a group of professionals that want to be treated like self less heroes for curing the sick while receiving in some cases more 50 of the yearly salary of their patients and ruining their entire financial lives. .",Doctors wanting to be millionaires are as much to blame for the health cost problem in the U.S. as pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So pretty much exactly like the title says. I think Trump uses coal jobs as a dog whistle to sell a pipe dream to the out of work coal industry. If I was a city or major investor looking to create an energy plant and received two plant proposals renewable vs coal , both costing millions of dollars to start up, but one of which would be obsolete in 5 years there is no way to justify such a bad investment. I suppose the city council in Coal Town, WV can't justify investing in a renewable plant to their out of work constituents, but one plant still cant bring the coal industry back. CMV Make me an argument to invest my money in coal power the coal industry. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So pretty much exactly like the title says. I think Trump uses coal jobs as a dog whistle to sell a pipe dream to the out of work coal industry. If I was a city or major investor looking to create an energy plant and received two plant proposals renewable vs coal , both costing millions of dollars to start up, but one of which would be obsolete in 5 years there is no way to justify such a bad investment. I suppose the city council in Coal Town, WV can't justify investing in a renewable plant to their out of work constituents, but one plant still cant bring the coal industry back. CMV Make me an argument to invest my money in coal power the coal industry. <|TARGETS|>investing in a renewable plant to their out of work constituents but one plant, to invest my money in coal power the coal industry, Trump<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So pretty much exactly like the title says. I think Trump uses coal jobs as a dog whistle to sell a pipe dream to the out of work coal industry. If I was a city or major investor looking to create an energy plant and received two plant proposals renewable vs coal , both costing millions of dollars to start up, but one of which would be obsolete in 5 years there is no way to justify such a bad investment. I suppose the city council in Coal Town, WV can't justify investing in a renewable plant to their out of work constituents, but one plant still cant bring the coal industry back. CMV Make me an argument to invest my money in coal power the coal industry. <|ASPECTS|>costing, renewable vs, obsolete, whistle, bad investment, invest, coal, renewable plant, money, pipe dream, coal jobs, coal industry back<|CONCLUSION|>","So pretty much exactly like the title says. I think Trump uses coal jobs as a dog whistle to sell a pipe dream to the out of work coal industry. If I was a city or major investor looking to create an energy plant and received two plant proposals renewable vs coal , both costing millions of dollars to start up, but one of which would be obsolete in 5 years there is no way to justify such a bad investment. I suppose the city council in Coal Town, WV can't justify investing in a renewable plant to their out of work constituents, but one plant still cant bring the coal industry back.  Make me an argument to invest my money in coal power the coal industry.","Coal is a dying industry that cannot return to its ""glory days"" due to the expansion of the renewable energy market."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Came across this article talking about hundreds of kids being sacrificed in Peru in the 15th century. I don’t care about how far back in time this took place that’s absolutely horrific and any external power that could step in a stop this happening is a great thing. Even ISIS doesn't practice this sort of systematic and deliberate slaughter of children. I'm aware how horrible the Spanish were too, but as far as I known Europeans didn’t practice this sort of barbaric child sacrifice since the Neolithic era.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Came across this article talking about hundreds of kids being sacrificed in Peru in the 15th century. I don’t care about how far back in time this took place that’s absolutely horrific and any external power that could step in a stop this happening is a great thing. Even ISIS doesn't practice this sort of systematic and deliberate slaughter of children. I'm aware how horrible the Spanish were too, but as far as I known Europeans didn’t practice this sort of barbaric child sacrifice since the Neolithic era.<|TARGETS|>Even ISIS, how horrible the Spanish were too but as far as I known Europeans did n’t practice this sort of barbaric child sacrifice since the Neolithic era, I do n’t care about how far back in time this took place that ’s absolutely horrific and any external power that could step in a stop this happening<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Came across this article talking about hundreds of kids being sacrificed in Peru in the 15th century. I don’t care about how far back in time this took place that’s absolutely horrific and any external power that could step in a stop this happening is a great thing. Even ISIS doesn't practice this sort of systematic and deliberate slaughter of children. I'm aware how horrible the Spanish were too, but as far as I known Europeans didn’t practice this sort of barbaric child sacrifice since the Neolithic era.<|ASPECTS|>horrific, barbaric, systematic, sacrificed, deliberate, child sacrifice, slaughter of children, horrible, kids, external power<|CONCLUSION|>","Came across this article talking about hundreds of kids being sacrificed in Peru in the 15th century. I don’t care about how far back in time this took place that’s absolutely horrific and any external power that could step in a stop this happening is a great thing. Even ISIS doesn't practice this sort of systematic and deliberate slaughter of children. I'm aware how horrible the Spanish were too, but as far as I known Europeans didn’t practice this sort of barbaric child sacrifice since the Neolithic era.",Ancient cultures like the Aztec and Chimu that practiced human sacrifice are objectively horrific and we should be thankful they were stopped by Europeans
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I'm not an anti Semite but I do feel anti Israel. Theres evidence to suggest they have nukes and chemical weapons, have assassinated other people from the middle east, are forcing Palestinians off their land that was agreed in the treaty and with their backing from America throw their weight around knowing they do so with impunity. I feel that Israel is the aggressor in the middle east and that the whole situation would be more easily resolved if they werent effectively given unconditional backing by America. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I'm not an anti Semite but I do feel anti Israel. Theres evidence to suggest they have nukes and chemical weapons, have assassinated other people from the middle east, are forcing Palestinians off their land that was agreed in the treaty and with their backing from America throw their weight around knowing they do so with impunity. I feel that Israel is the aggressor in the middle east and that the whole situation would be more easily resolved if they werent effectively given unconditional backing by America. CMV<|TARGETS|>Theres evidence to suggest they have nukes and chemical weapons, if they werent effectively given unconditional backing by America .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I'm not an anti Semite but I do feel anti Israel. Theres evidence to suggest they have nukes and chemical weapons, have assassinated other people from the middle east, are forcing Palestinians off their land that was agreed in the treaty and with their backing from America throw their weight around knowing they do so with impunity. I feel that Israel is the aggressor in the middle east and that the whole situation would be more easily resolved if they werent effectively given unconditional backing by America. CMV<|ASPECTS|>anti israel, chemical weapons, assassinated, israel, unconditional backing, impunity, aggressor, easily resolved, nukes, anti semite, forcing palestinians<|CONCLUSION|>","So I'm not an anti Semite but I do feel anti Israel. Theres evidence to suggest they have nukes and chemical weapons, have assassinated other people from the middle east, are forcing Palestinians off their land that was agreed in the treaty and with their backing from America throw their weight around knowing they do so with impunity. I feel that Israel is the aggressor in the middle east and that the whole situation would be more easily resolved if they werent effectively given unconditional backing by America.",I believe the major cause for problems in the middle east is the unconditional backing America gives Israel.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Fashion causes more issues than benefits. Particularly the social discrimination real or perceived that comes from people who don't conform to accepted fashion styles, or can't afford to dress in a certain way. Fashion just provides an additional avenue to discriminate a person. The endless aim to be fashionable also leads to huge amounts of waste, as clothes go out of style and simply get thrown out. Clothes also become more and more resource intensive to produce, as designers try to make their work more impressive. I'm not arguing to force everyone to wear the same thing, but judging someone on what they wear is detrimental to society who cares if someone wants to wear sneakers with jeans or socks with sandals? , and outweighs the benefit and happiness that fashionable and successful individuals instagram influencers etc receive.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Fashion causes more issues than benefits. Particularly the social discrimination real or perceived that comes from people who don't conform to accepted fashion styles, or can't afford to dress in a certain way. Fashion just provides an additional avenue to discriminate a person. The endless aim to be fashionable also leads to huge amounts of waste, as clothes go out of style and simply get thrown out. Clothes also become more and more resource intensive to produce, as designers try to make their work more impressive. I'm not arguing to force everyone to wear the same thing, but judging someone on what they wear is detrimental to society who cares if someone wants to wear sneakers with jeans or socks with sandals? , and outweighs the benefit and happiness that fashionable and successful individuals instagram influencers etc receive.<|TARGETS|>the social discrimination real or perceived that comes from people who do n't conform to accepted fashion styles or ca n't afford to dress in a certain way ., if someone wants to wear sneakers with jeans or socks with sandals, arguing to force everyone to wear the same thing but judging someone on what they wear, Fashion, Clothes, the benefit and happiness that fashionable and successful individuals instagram influencers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Fashion causes more issues than benefits. Particularly the social discrimination real or perceived that comes from people who don't conform to accepted fashion styles, or can't afford to dress in a certain way. Fashion just provides an additional avenue to discriminate a person. The endless aim to be fashionable also leads to huge amounts of waste, as clothes go out of style and simply get thrown out. Clothes also become more and more resource intensive to produce, as designers try to make their work more impressive. I'm not arguing to force everyone to wear the same thing, but judging someone on what they wear is detrimental to society who cares if someone wants to wear sneakers with jeans or socks with sandals? , and outweighs the benefit and happiness that fashionable and successful individuals instagram influencers etc receive.<|ASPECTS|>social discrimination, afford, benefits, waste, instagram influencers, discriminate a person, benefit and happiness, issues, style, resource intensive, fashionable, detrimental to society<|CONCLUSION|>","Fashion causes more issues than benefits. Particularly the social discrimination real or perceived that comes from people who don't conform to accepted fashion styles, or can't afford to dress in a certain way. Fashion just provides an additional avenue to discriminate a person. The endless aim to be fashionable also leads to huge amounts of waste, as clothes go out of style and simply get thrown out. Clothes also become more and more resource intensive to produce, as designers try to make their work more impressive. I'm not arguing to force everyone to wear the same thing, but judging someone on what they wear is detrimental to society who cares if someone wants to wear sneakers with jeans or socks with sandals? , and outweighs the benefit and happiness that fashionable and successful individuals instagram influencers etc receive.",the concept of fashion is overall unhelpful for society
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Rubbernecking is usually described as the nuisance of drivers causing traffic delays to check out a wreck or other emergency scene. I have never personally slowed down to gawk at a motor vehicle accident. I also have never witnessed this as a passenger. Even if you slowed down to 30 miles per hour on an interstate, you could only directly view a 50 foot wreckage scene for just over 1 second. If you slowed to 10 miles per hour, it would give you about 3 and a half seconds. What would be the use? I have, however, slowed down if a lot of emergency personnel are walking around near the incident. I believe this, and merging due to loss of a lane, are the true causes of most of the slowed traffic and additional accidents. I want to understand why I hear complaints of rubbernecking so often. I feel like I'm missing something obvious and I'd love to hear your thoughts. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Rubbernecking is usually described as the nuisance of drivers causing traffic delays to check out a wreck or other emergency scene. I have never personally slowed down to gawk at a motor vehicle accident. I also have never witnessed this as a passenger. Even if you slowed down to 30 miles per hour on an interstate, you could only directly view a 50 foot wreckage scene for just over 1 second. If you slowed to 10 miles per hour, it would give you about 3 and a half seconds. What would be the use? I have, however, slowed down if a lot of emergency personnel are walking around near the incident. I believe this, and merging due to loss of a lane, are the true causes of most of the slowed traffic and additional accidents. I want to understand why I hear complaints of rubbernecking so often. I feel like I'm missing something obvious and I'd love to hear your thoughts. CMV.<|TARGETS|>to hear your thoughts ., if you slowed down to 30 miles per hour on an interstate, to understand why I hear complaints of rubbernecking so often ., this and merging due to loss of a lane, Rubbernecking, If you slowed to 10 miles per hour<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Rubbernecking is usually described as the nuisance of drivers causing traffic delays to check out a wreck or other emergency scene. I have never personally slowed down to gawk at a motor vehicle accident. I also have never witnessed this as a passenger. Even if you slowed down to 30 miles per hour on an interstate, you could only directly view a 50 foot wreckage scene for just over 1 second. If you slowed to 10 miles per hour, it would give you about 3 and a half seconds. What would be the use? I have, however, slowed down if a lot of emergency personnel are walking around near the incident. I believe this, and merging due to loss of a lane, are the true causes of most of the slowed traffic and additional accidents. I want to understand why I hear complaints of rubbernecking so often. I feel like I'm missing something obvious and I'd love to hear your thoughts. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>motor vehicle accident, slowed traffic, thoughts, wreckage scene, missing, passenger, seconds, accidents, traffic delays, complaints, nuisance of drivers, rubbernecking, emergency, obvious, gawk, emergency personnel, slowed<|CONCLUSION|>","Rubbernecking is usually described as the nuisance of drivers causing traffic delays to check out a wreck or other emergency scene. I have never personally slowed down to gawk at a motor vehicle accident. I also have never witnessed this as a passenger. Even if you slowed down to 30 miles per hour on an interstate, you could only directly view a 50 foot wreckage scene for just over 1 second. If you slowed to 10 miles per hour, it would give you about 3 and a half seconds. What would be the use? I have, however, slowed down if a lot of emergency personnel are walking around near the incident. I believe this, and merging due to loss of a lane, are the true causes of most of the slowed traffic and additional accidents. I want to understand why I hear complaints of rubbernecking so often. I feel like I'm missing something obvious and I'd love to hear your thoughts. .",Rubbernecking doesn't exist proportionately to the amount it is complained about. Most drivers are just slowing down to avoid hitting anyone at the scene.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obviously, a German victory in WW2 would not be preferable to much of Europe, that isn't the issue here. The observation here is that today's Germany is in such a sorry state, that even winning WW2 would be preferable. Around the world Germany is the go to villain of Hollywood movies, the world's bad guy. You'd think this trend would have a time limit, and yet it's actually increasing, witnessed by films from 'Captain America' to 'Overlord' to any number of recently released historical fiction. Anthropoid, Operation Finale, etc . Within Germany The German government has nearly collapsed over the question of immigration. About 170,000 migrants enjoy “tolerated” status in Germany. That means that even though the individual’s asylum application has been denied, the government is allowing the person to remain in Germany. A further 350,000 reside in the country with no official immigration status at all. The presence of so many migrants without a bona fide legal right to remain in the country proves that Germany’s asylum system is a sham. Today's Germany Thanks to cultural conditioning of the past half century that continues unabated, there is no pride in being German born, there is only shame. This shame has lead to the country bending over backwards to tolerate a massive wave of often militant refugees. Alternative Universe Germany German citizens would have the same sense of pride that they've had throughout history prior to WW2. This German nationalism focused on German identity based on Bismarck's ideals that included Teutonic values of willpower, loyalty, honesty, and perseverance. What Germany did to the world using their military during WW2 was not good. Ever since then, what the world has done to Germany, using culture, is not good for Germany. And what the German government has done to Germany, has also been disastrous.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obviously, a German victory in WW2 would not be preferable to much of Europe, that isn't the issue here. The observation here is that today's Germany is in such a sorry state, that even winning WW2 would be preferable. Around the world Germany is the go to villain of Hollywood movies, the world's bad guy. You'd think this trend would have a time limit, and yet it's actually increasing, witnessed by films from 'Captain America' to 'Overlord' to any number of recently released historical fiction. Anthropoid, Operation Finale, etc . Within Germany The German government has nearly collapsed over the question of immigration. About 170,000 migrants enjoy “tolerated” status in Germany. That means that even though the individual’s asylum application has been denied, the government is allowing the person to remain in Germany. A further 350,000 reside in the country with no official immigration status at all. The presence of so many migrants without a bona fide legal right to remain in the country proves that Germany’s asylum system is a sham. Today's Germany Thanks to cultural conditioning of the past half century that continues unabated, there is no pride in being German born, there is only shame. This shame has lead to the country bending over backwards to tolerate a massive wave of often militant refugees. Alternative Universe Germany German citizens would have the same sense of pride that they've had throughout history prior to WW2. This German nationalism focused on German identity based on Bismarck's ideals that included Teutonic values of willpower, loyalty, honesty, and perseverance. What Germany did to the world using their military during WW2 was not good. Ever since then, what the world has done to Germany, using culture, is not good for Germany. And what the German government has done to Germany, has also been disastrous.<|TARGETS|>Alternative Universe Germany German citizens, This German nationalism focused on German identity based on Bismarck 's ideals that included Teutonic values of willpower loyalty honesty and perseverance ., A further 350000 reside in the country with no official immigration status, a German victory in WW2, to cultural conditioning of the past half century that continues unabated, The presence of so many migrants without a bona fide legal right to remain in the country<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obviously, a German victory in WW2 would not be preferable to much of Europe, that isn't the issue here. The observation here is that today's Germany is in such a sorry state, that even winning WW2 would be preferable. Around the world Germany is the go to villain of Hollywood movies, the world's bad guy. You'd think this trend would have a time limit, and yet it's actually increasing, witnessed by films from 'Captain America' to 'Overlord' to any number of recently released historical fiction. Anthropoid, Operation Finale, etc . Within Germany The German government has nearly collapsed over the question of immigration. About 170,000 migrants enjoy “tolerated” status in Germany. That means that even though the individual’s asylum application has been denied, the government is allowing the person to remain in Germany. A further 350,000 reside in the country with no official immigration status at all. The presence of so many migrants without a bona fide legal right to remain in the country proves that Germany’s asylum system is a sham. Today's Germany Thanks to cultural conditioning of the past half century that continues unabated, there is no pride in being German born, there is only shame. This shame has lead to the country bending over backwards to tolerate a massive wave of often militant refugees. Alternative Universe Germany German citizens would have the same sense of pride that they've had throughout history prior to WW2. This German nationalism focused on German identity based on Bismarck's ideals that included Teutonic values of willpower, loyalty, honesty, and perseverance. What Germany did to the world using their military during WW2 was not good. Ever since then, what the world has done to Germany, using culture, is not good for Germany. And what the German government has done to Germany, has also been disastrous.<|ASPECTS|>asylum application, willpower, german, time limit, go, collapsed, bad guy, german victory, villain, shame, backwards, militant refugees, asylum system, sorry state, immigration status, perseverance, cultural conditioning, germany, anthropoid, legal right, using, good, sham, official, disastrous, german identity, tolerated ” status, values, sense, culture, preferable, pride, loyalty, immigration, honesty<|CONCLUSION|>","Obviously, a German victory in WW2 would not be preferable to much of Europe, that isn't the issue here. The observation here is that today's Germany is in such a sorry state, that even winning WW2 would be preferable. Around the world Germany is the go to villain of Hollywood movies, the world's bad guy. You'd think this trend would have a time limit, and yet it's actually increasing, witnessed by films from 'Captain America' to 'Overlord' to any number of recently released historical fiction. Anthropoid, Operation Finale, etc . Within Germany The German government has nearly collapsed over the question of immigration. About 170,000 migrants enjoy “tolerated” status in Germany. That means that even though the individual’s asylum application has been denied, the government is allowing the person to remain in Germany. A further 350,000 reside in the country with no official immigration status at all. The presence of so many migrants without a bona fide legal right to remain in the country proves that Germany’s asylum system is a sham. Today's Germany Thanks to cultural conditioning of the past half century that continues unabated, there is no pride in being German born, there is only shame. This shame has lead to the country bending over backwards to tolerate a massive wave of often militant refugees. Alternative Universe Germany German citizens would have the same sense of pride that they've had throughout history prior to WW2. This German nationalism focused on German identity based on Bismarck's ideals that included Teutonic values of willpower, loyalty, honesty, and perseverance. What Germany did to the world using their military during WW2 was not good. Ever since then, what the world has done to Germany, using culture, is not good for Germany. And what the German government has done to Germany, has also been disastrous.",Germany would be better off today if they won WW2
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that statistically, in the long run, investment in index stock market funds e.g. s p 500 provides the best return. etc, However, I have a fear potentially unjustified one that the whole stock market system will collapse one day, and I won't see a penny of the invested money. Consequently, I kind of want to keep 5 10 in valuable commodities that I can just keep around, and be sure that it won't be wiped out by some sort of investment panic, or a big bank pushing a button. Gold is discrete and easy to store, but I would consider other things other metals, guns and ammo?, some other commodity . This will ensure that if the financial system goes to shit, I would not be left penniless. Please, CMV, because statistically this move would be reducing my retirement nest egg quite significantly as I would be foregoing 30 years of investment growth. edit u jmoshbdn work has convinced me that I should use my future paychecks to buy gold, instead of messing with my retirement account.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that statistically, in the long run, investment in index stock market funds e.g. s p 500 provides the best return. etc, However, I have a fear potentially unjustified one that the whole stock market system will collapse one day, and I won't see a penny of the invested money. Consequently, I kind of want to keep 5 10 in valuable commodities that I can just keep around, and be sure that it won't be wiped out by some sort of investment panic, or a big bank pushing a button. Gold is discrete and easy to store, but I would consider other things other metals, guns and ammo?, some other commodity . This will ensure that if the financial system goes to shit, I would not be left penniless. Please, CMV, because statistically this move would be reducing my retirement nest egg quite significantly as I would be foregoing 30 years of investment growth. edit u jmoshbdn work has convinced me that I should use my future paychecks to buy gold, instead of messing with my retirement account.<|TARGETS|>investment in index stock market funds, reducing my retirement nest egg, Gold, to keep 5 10 in valuable commodities that I can just keep around and be sure that it wo n't be wiped out by some sort of investment panic, the whole stock market system, a penny of the invested money .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that statistically, in the long run, investment in index stock market funds e.g. s p 500 provides the best return. etc, However, I have a fear potentially unjustified one that the whole stock market system will collapse one day, and I won't see a penny of the invested money. Consequently, I kind of want to keep 5 10 in valuable commodities that I can just keep around, and be sure that it won't be wiped out by some sort of investment panic, or a big bank pushing a button. Gold is discrete and easy to store, but I would consider other things other metals, guns and ammo?, some other commodity . This will ensure that if the financial system goes to shit, I would not be left penniless. Please, CMV, because statistically this move would be reducing my retirement nest egg quite significantly as I would be foregoing 30 years of investment growth. edit u jmoshbdn work has convinced me that I should use my future paychecks to buy gold, instead of messing with my retirement account.<|ASPECTS|>best return, financial system, unjustified, money, discrete, market funds, future paychecks, stock market system, valuable commodities, collapse, easy to store, penniless, potentially, shit, investment, retirement nest egg, investment growth, commodity, retirement account, buy gold, investment panic, reducing<|CONCLUSION|>","I know that statistically, in the long run, investment in index stock market funds e.g. s p 500 provides the best return. etc, However, I have a fear potentially unjustified one that the whole stock market system will collapse one day, and I won't see a penny of the invested money. Consequently, I kind of want to keep 5 10 in valuable commodities that I can just keep around, and be sure that it won't be wiped out by some sort of investment panic, or a big bank pushing a button. Gold is discrete and easy to store, but I would consider other things other metals, guns and ammo?, some other commodity . This will ensure that if the financial system goes to shit, I would not be left penniless. Please, , because statistically this move would be reducing my retirement nest egg quite significantly as I would be foregoing 30 years of investment growth. edit u jmoshbdn work has convinced me that I should use my future paychecks to buy gold, instead of messing with my retirement account.",I want to sell 5-10% of stocks in my retirement investment account and buy physical gold or some other expensive physical commodity that I can keep in my home.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey, Reddit I have recently been giving a lot of the thought to the notion of free will. A concept of free will and moral responsibility is central to religion, criminal justice systems, and many aspects of society. However, I can not find any way to rationalize the idea, and see no justification whatsoever for believing in it. My main argument is this Any action that we take, thought that we think, etc. is directly caused by a specific physical state of the brain. Those physical states of the brain MUST be due to some mix of the following 3 things. 1.Genetics 2.The environment in which you were raised, formative processes during youth, etc. 3.This one doesn't necessarily merit inclusion, but I believe it reasonable to include it as a catch all. If the fundamental nature of reality is random on some level, and this randomness has some sort of an effect on the physical world, then this could possibly be another factor that contributes to the physical states of the brain. I don't see how anything we do can be explained in any way other than with some combination of the above 3. If we don't choose our genetics, we don't choose the circumstances in which we were raised, and we obviously don't choose 3, then how do we have free will?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey, Reddit I have recently been giving a lot of the thought to the notion of free will. A concept of free will and moral responsibility is central to religion, criminal justice systems, and many aspects of society. However, I can not find any way to rationalize the idea, and see no justification whatsoever for believing in it. My main argument is this Any action that we take, thought that we think, etc. is directly caused by a specific physical state of the brain. Those physical states of the brain MUST be due to some mix of the following 3 things. 1.Genetics 2.The environment in which you were raised, formative processes during youth, etc. 3.This one doesn't necessarily merit inclusion, but I believe it reasonable to include it as a catch all. If the fundamental nature of reality is random on some level, and this randomness has some sort of an effect on the physical world, then this could possibly be another factor that contributes to the physical states of the brain. I don't see how anything we do can be explained in any way other than with some combination of the above 3. If we don't choose our genetics, we don't choose the circumstances in which we were raised, and we obviously don't choose 3, then how do we have free will?<|TARGETS|>to rationalize the idea and see no justification whatsoever for believing in it ., A concept of free will and moral responsibility, giving a lot of the thought to the notion of free will ., how anything we do can be explained in any way other than with some combination of the above 3 ., If the fundamental nature of reality, n't choose the circumstances in which we were raised and we obviously do n't choose 3 then how do we have free will<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey, Reddit I have recently been giving a lot of the thought to the notion of free will. A concept of free will and moral responsibility is central to religion, criminal justice systems, and many aspects of society. However, I can not find any way to rationalize the idea, and see no justification whatsoever for believing in it. My main argument is this Any action that we take, thought that we think, etc. is directly caused by a specific physical state of the brain. Those physical states of the brain MUST be due to some mix of the following 3 things. 1.Genetics 2.The environment in which you were raised, formative processes during youth, etc. 3.This one doesn't necessarily merit inclusion, but I believe it reasonable to include it as a catch all. If the fundamental nature of reality is random on some level, and this randomness has some sort of an effect on the physical world, then this could possibly be another factor that contributes to the physical states of the brain. I don't see how anything we do can be explained in any way other than with some combination of the above 3. If we don't choose our genetics, we don't choose the circumstances in which we were raised, and we obviously don't choose 3, then how do we have free will?<|ASPECTS|>inclusion, formative processes, free, merit, action, randomness, reality, circumstances, rationalize, physical state, thought, moral responsibility, specific, physical states, random, explained, environment, brain, justification<|CONCLUSION|>","Hey, Reddit I have recently been giving a lot of the thought to the notion of free will. A concept of free will and moral responsibility is central to religion, criminal justice systems, and many aspects of society. However, I can not find any way to rationalize the idea, and see no justification whatsoever for believing in it. My main argument is this Any action that we take, thought that we think, etc. is directly caused by a specific physical state of the brain. Those physical states of the brain MUST be due to some mix of the following 3 things. 1.Genetics 2.The environment in which you were raised, formative processes during youth, etc. 3.This one doesn't necessarily merit inclusion, but I believe it reasonable to include it as a catch all. If the fundamental nature of reality is random on some level, and this randomness has some sort of an effect on the physical world, then this could possibly be another factor that contributes to the physical states of the brain. I don't see how anything we do can be explained in any way other than with some combination of the above 3. If we don't choose our genetics, we don't choose the circumstances in which we were raised, and we obviously don't choose 3, then how do we have free will?",Humans do not have free will
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Almost every time when watch videos or look up things like “the funniest tv shows ever”, people are either mentioning community in the comment section or it’s like in the top tier of the funniest tv shows ever. But I really don’t think community is that funny. I love 30 Rock, Arrested Development, The Office US , and to a lesser extent Parks and Recreation. But I just can’t get into community. I really want to, but I can’t. There’s only a few moments or scenes that will make me chuckle and even less moments or scenes that will make me laugh out loud. I also love Rick and Morty which was created by the same guy who made community, but I just can’t get into it. I’ve tried watching the first season at least three times. I tried watching the second season and third season. I looked up “best community episodes” and I watched those, but it’s not really that funny to me. I might put it on if I have nothing else to watch. I think the paintball episodes are really fun. But I just can’t find it as funny as everyone else seems to. I wish someone could change my mind because I really want to find community hilarious, but I just can’t.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Almost every time when watch videos or look up things like “the funniest tv shows ever”, people are either mentioning community in the comment section or it’s like in the top tier of the funniest tv shows ever. But I really don’t think community is that funny. I love 30 Rock, Arrested Development, The Office US , and to a lesser extent Parks and Recreation. But I just can’t get into community. I really want to, but I can’t. There’s only a few moments or scenes that will make me chuckle and even less moments or scenes that will make me laugh out loud. I also love Rick and Morty which was created by the same guy who made community, but I just can’t get into it. I’ve tried watching the first season at least three times. I tried watching the second season and third season. I looked up “best community episodes” and I watched those, but it’s not really that funny to me. I might put it on if I have nothing else to watch. I think the paintball episodes are really fun. But I just can’t find it as funny as everyone else seems to. I wish someone could change my mind because I really want to find community hilarious, but I just can’t.<|TARGETS|>tried watching the first season at least three times ., to find community hilarious, the paintball episodes, watch videos or look up things like “ the funniest tv shows ever ”, Rick and Morty which was created by the same guy who made community, either mentioning community in the comment section or it ’s like in the top tier of the funniest tv shows<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Almost every time when watch videos or look up things like “the funniest tv shows ever”, people are either mentioning community in the comment section or it’s like in the top tier of the funniest tv shows ever. But I really don’t think community is that funny. I love 30 Rock, Arrested Development, The Office US , and to a lesser extent Parks and Recreation. But I just can’t get into community. I really want to, but I can’t. There’s only a few moments or scenes that will make me chuckle and even less moments or scenes that will make me laugh out loud. I also love Rick and Morty which was created by the same guy who made community, but I just can’t get into it. I’ve tried watching the first season at least three times. I tried watching the second season and third season. I looked up “best community episodes” and I watched those, but it’s not really that funny to me. I might put it on if I have nothing else to watch. I think the paintball episodes are really fun. But I just can’t find it as funny as everyone else seems to. I wish someone could change my mind because I really want to find community hilarious, but I just can’t.<|ASPECTS|>chuckle, community, fun, parks, community hilarious, laugh out loud, funniest, mentioning community, community episodes, paintball, funny<|CONCLUSION|>","Almost every time when watch videos or look up things like “the funniest tv shows ever”, people are either mentioning community in the comment section or it’s like in the top tier of the funniest tv shows ever. But I really don’t think community is that funny. I love 30 Rock, Arrested Development, The Office US , and to a lesser extent Parks and Recreation. But I just can’t get into community. I really want to, but I can’t. There’s only a few moments or scenes that will make me chuckle and even less moments or scenes that will make me laugh out loud. I also love Rick and Morty which was created by the same guy who made community, but I just can’t get into it. I’ve tried watching the first season at least three times. I tried watching the second season and third season. I looked up “best community episodes” and I watched those, but it’s not really that funny to me. I might put it on if I have nothing else to watch. I think the paintball episodes are really fun. But I just can’t find it as funny as everyone else seems to. I wish someone could change my mind because I really want to find community hilarious, but I just can’t.",Community isn’t that funny
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Kant believed that human life had value because humans have the unique ability to give value to other things by making value judgements about them. But by this definition, any living life that prefers food to starvation is giving value to food, and thus has intrinsic value. But do we act this way? Do we treasure a snail's life to the same degree that we treasure a human's? But is the act of preferring food to starvation, exciting things to dull things, beautiful things to plain things really the result of a sophisticated, unique life that thus has intrinsic value, or are those value judgements only the result of simply biological preferences created via millions of years of unintelligent evolution? Modern biology and psychology would argue the latter. Additionally, you could argue that life does not have intrinsic value but potential value. For example, maybe the value in life is that a person may use their life to discover a cure to a disease and save a million lives. But the problem is, if these millions of lives have no intrinsic value in themselves, then there is no glory in saving them. Thus life can have no potential value if it does not have intrinsic value.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Kant believed that human life had value because humans have the unique ability to give value to other things by making value judgements about them. But by this definition, any living life that prefers food to starvation is giving value to food, and thus has intrinsic value. But do we act this way? Do we treasure a snail's life to the same degree that we treasure a human's? But is the act of preferring food to starvation, exciting things to dull things, beautiful things to plain things really the result of a sophisticated, unique life that thus has intrinsic value, or are those value judgements only the result of simply biological preferences created via millions of years of unintelligent evolution? Modern biology and psychology would argue the latter. Additionally, you could argue that life does not have intrinsic value but potential value. For example, maybe the value in life is that a person may use their life to discover a cure to a disease and save a million lives. But the problem is, if these millions of lives have no intrinsic value in themselves, then there is no glory in saving them. Thus life can have no potential value if it does not have intrinsic value.<|TARGETS|>Modern biology and psychology, if these millions of lives have no intrinsic value in themselves, any living life that prefers food to starvation, a snail 's life to the same degree that we treasure a human 's, Kant, the act of preferring food to starvation exciting things to dull things beautiful things to plain things really the result of a sophisticated unique life that thus has intrinsic value or are those value judgements only the result of simply biological preferences created via millions of years of unintelligent evolution<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Kant believed that human life had value because humans have the unique ability to give value to other things by making value judgements about them. But by this definition, any living life that prefers food to starvation is giving value to food, and thus has intrinsic value. But do we act this way? Do we treasure a snail's life to the same degree that we treasure a human's? But is the act of preferring food to starvation, exciting things to dull things, beautiful things to plain things really the result of a sophisticated, unique life that thus has intrinsic value, or are those value judgements only the result of simply biological preferences created via millions of years of unintelligent evolution? Modern biology and psychology would argue the latter. Additionally, you could argue that life does not have intrinsic value but potential value. For example, maybe the value in life is that a person may use their life to discover a cure to a disease and save a million lives. But the problem is, if these millions of lives have no intrinsic value in themselves, then there is no glory in saving them. Thus life can have no potential value if it does not have intrinsic value.<|ASPECTS|>, snail 's life, biological preferences, value to food, act, unintelligent, treasure, potential value, beautiful, save, unique life, intrinsic value, dull, 's, million lives, glory in saving, cure to a disease, starvation, value, value judgements, value in life, exciting<|CONCLUSION|>","Kant believed that human life had value because humans have the unique ability to give value to other things by making value judgements about them. But by this definition, any living life that prefers food to starvation is giving value to food, and thus has intrinsic value. But do we act this way? Do we treasure a snail's life to the same degree that we treasure a human's? But is the act of preferring food to starvation, exciting things to dull things, beautiful things to plain things really the result of a sophisticated, unique life that thus has intrinsic value, or are those value judgements only the result of simply biological preferences created via millions of years of unintelligent evolution? Modern biology and psychology would argue the latter. Additionally, you could argue that life does not have intrinsic value but potential value. For example, maybe the value in life is that a person may use their life to discover a cure to a disease and save a million lives. But the problem is, if these millions of lives have no intrinsic value in themselves, then there is no glory in saving them. Thus life can have no potential value if it does not have intrinsic value.",Human life has no value.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Government shutdowns are harmful to the economy, and cause workers to lose money. It hurts the American people. It's a petty tactic for a party who can't have its way. The republicans were playing political games with peoples lives. I've also heard that it cost the government more to shut down and restart than it saved. It's just totally irresponsible. With an amendment to the constitution forcing the house to always have a budget, then they couldn't shut down the government anymore. I think debt ceiling is also something they like to threaten with a lot. I don't think that has as many directly visible consequences though.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Government shutdowns are harmful to the economy, and cause workers to lose money. It hurts the American people. It's a petty tactic for a party who can't have its way. The republicans were playing political games with peoples lives. I've also heard that it cost the government more to shut down and restart than it saved. It's just totally irresponsible. With an amendment to the constitution forcing the house to always have a budget, then they couldn't shut down the government anymore. I think debt ceiling is also something they like to threaten with a lot. I don't think that has as many directly visible consequences though.<|TARGETS|>Government shutdowns, an amendment to the constitution forcing the house to always have a budget, the government more to shut down and restart, debt ceiling<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Government shutdowns are harmful to the economy, and cause workers to lose money. It hurts the American people. It's a petty tactic for a party who can't have its way. The republicans were playing political games with peoples lives. I've also heard that it cost the government more to shut down and restart than it saved. It's just totally irresponsible. With an amendment to the constitution forcing the house to always have a budget, then they couldn't shut down the government anymore. I think debt ceiling is also something they like to threaten with a lot. I don't think that has as many directly visible consequences though.<|ASPECTS|>budget, saved, harmful to the economy, irresponsible, petty tactic, cost the government, peoples lives, shut down the government, visible consequences, shut, government shutdowns, lose money, debt ceiling, political games, hurts the american people<|CONCLUSION|>","Government shutdowns are harmful to the economy, and cause workers to lose money. It hurts the American people. It's a petty tactic for a party who can't have its way. The republicans were playing political games with peoples lives. I've also heard that it cost the government more to shut down and restart than it saved. It's just totally irresponsible. With an amendment to the constitution forcing the house to always have a budget, then they couldn't shut down the government anymore. I think debt ceiling is also something they like to threaten with a lot. I don't think that has as many directly visible consequences though.",There should be an amendment to prevent government shutdowns by mandating that a budget always be passed.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>USA shouldnt stop following its laws to convict people. There is a procedure, a due process to convict someone. The unabomber's cabin was entered into with a search warrant based on linguistic forensics \ this is unprecedented\ . So, all evidence gathered from the cabin should have been ruled out as it fell under fruits of a poisonous tree. Secondly, the judge, his lawyers, the prosecutor and the psychiatrists colluded to 'checkmate' him into a guilty plea. The judge said he wouldnt give him time to prepare for the trial but even then the Unabomber said that he is ready to go to trial and then the judge said that he is mentally unstable to represent himself.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>USA shouldnt stop following its laws to convict people. There is a procedure, a due process to convict someone. The unabomber's cabin was entered into with a search warrant based on linguistic forensics \ this is unprecedented\ . So, all evidence gathered from the cabin should have been ruled out as it fell under fruits of a poisonous tree. Secondly, the judge, his lawyers, the prosecutor and the psychiatrists colluded to 'checkmate' him into a guilty plea. The judge said he wouldnt give him time to prepare for the trial but even then the Unabomber said that he is ready to go to trial and then the judge said that he is mentally unstable to represent himself.<|TARGETS|>to prepare for the trial but even then the Unabomber, all evidence gathered from the cabin, The unabomber 's cabin was entered into with a search warrant based on linguistic forensics, USA<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>USA shouldnt stop following its laws to convict people. There is a procedure, a due process to convict someone. The unabomber's cabin was entered into with a search warrant based on linguistic forensics \ this is unprecedented\ . So, all evidence gathered from the cabin should have been ruled out as it fell under fruits of a poisonous tree. Secondly, the judge, his lawyers, the prosecutor and the psychiatrists colluded to 'checkmate' him into a guilty plea. The judge said he wouldnt give him time to prepare for the trial but even then the Unabomber said that he is ready to go to trial and then the judge said that he is mentally unstable to represent himself.<|ASPECTS|>fruits, mentally unstable, evidence, laws, linguistic forensics, convict people, search warrant, guilty plea, unabomber, due process, time, procedure, poisonous tree, convict<|CONCLUSION|>","USA shouldnt stop following its laws to convict people. There is a procedure, a due process to convict someone. The unabomber's cabin was entered into with a search warrant based on linguistic forensics this is unprecedented . So, all evidence gathered from the cabin should have been ruled out as it fell under fruits of a poisonous tree. Secondly, the judge, his lawyers, the prosecutor and the psychiatrists colluded to 'checkmate' him into a guilty plea. The judge said he wouldnt give him time to prepare for the trial but even then the Unabomber said that he is ready to go to trial and then the judge said that he is mentally unstable to represent himself.",The Unabomber Case was handled illegaly
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I guess the easiest way to do this is to itemize it. I had to unsubscribe from r worldnews this week just to get my mind back to a positive place. I don't like feeling this way. Please note, I will quickly get fatigued if everyone tries replying to every item here, and I certainly won't have time to respond to it all if you do, so please feel free to pick whatever issue you feel most comfortable kicking my ass on I'm giving deltas for eliminating any item here. Anyway, here are my main concerns 1 Donald Trump has communicated to our allies that every 4 8 years, they will be playing a game of random chance with whether or not the leader of their largest ally will actually want to be their friend. I think he has communicated this more clearly and provocatively than any president before him in modern times. I think that while our allies are rehearsed and brilliantly composed in terms of understanding how American politics operates, they were not prepared for how drastically the attitude of the nation can change in such a short period of time. As such, in the future, even if the Patron Saint of Progress is our 46, our allies will be very slow, if at all responsive, to friendly diplomacy. I think their efforts to develop stronger economic ties amongst themselves is not only a reasonable response to our adminstration's efforts to instigate a trade war, but a sign of how they hope to operate in the coming decades. 2 I don't think our allies ever \ wanted\ us to be this powerful and they don't mind us being knocked down a few pegs. Even if it means uninstalling our military bases on their soil. I know they would rather us be strong than Russia, but I think their agenda in combating a growing eastern power is going to be to cement their own alliances and leave us out of the equation. Or at least try. I think the majority of the outside world looks at us and thinks this administration represents us. Comments from other countries' citizens like well they fuckin voted for him or good job America just makes me feel like they've condemned us, with no understanding of how virtually impossible it is to get this old world dickcheese out of our congress and out of our White House. 3 Following the Citizens United decision, we've basically just been prescribed a political asspounding until it's overturned. And there's basically no way it's getting overturned. And there's no way we're removing corporate agendas and puppeteering from politics in this decade. 4 Given the divisiveness of American politics, how we struggle to get our own people on board with man made climate change, expanding healthcare coverage, revamping our education system, etc., I don't see how it's possible to get our shit together until basically the incumbent shitsalads and their brainwashed voters all die off or change their minds. No matter what you say or try to do, you will never beat the plurality of a retired 65 year old baby boomer with nothing else to do. 5 We have so many looming crises that require different calibres and types of expertise that we're basically just fucked. We were probably fucked whether or not this administration existed, but we're fucked for sure now. To list a few a growing healthcare costs cripple both citizens' and the armed forces' budgets, and with Big Pharma's tendrils deeply rooted in our economy, that's not changing anytime soon b growing education costs cripple the youngest generations, and unless we institute debt forgiveness on a grand scale, entire generations are doomed to live a lesser life c Russia and China are far more active in installing nuclear reactors we are far behind in terms of getting the country to understand that nuclear Chernobyl, and there is going to be an incoming time of panic when those other two superpowers start installing SMR's all over the world, effectively reconquering it. 6 Our constitution is shit in the modern age. We didn't prepare for a 2 party system where the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branch are all in cahoots. And we didn't prepare for a 2 party system because a 2 party system arrived and they decided not to prepare.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I guess the easiest way to do this is to itemize it. I had to unsubscribe from r worldnews this week just to get my mind back to a positive place. I don't like feeling this way. Please note, I will quickly get fatigued if everyone tries replying to every item here, and I certainly won't have time to respond to it all if you do, so please feel free to pick whatever issue you feel most comfortable kicking my ass on I'm giving deltas for eliminating any item here. Anyway, here are my main concerns 1 Donald Trump has communicated to our allies that every 4 8 years, they will be playing a game of random chance with whether or not the leader of their largest ally will actually want to be their friend. I think he has communicated this more clearly and provocatively than any president before him in modern times. I think that while our allies are rehearsed and brilliantly composed in terms of understanding how American politics operates, they were not prepared for how drastically the attitude of the nation can change in such a short period of time. As such, in the future, even if the Patron Saint of Progress is our 46, our allies will be very slow, if at all responsive, to friendly diplomacy. I think their efforts to develop stronger economic ties amongst themselves is not only a reasonable response to our adminstration's efforts to instigate a trade war, but a sign of how they hope to operate in the coming decades. 2 I don't think our allies ever \ wanted\ us to be this powerful and they don't mind us being knocked down a few pegs. Even if it means uninstalling our military bases on their soil. I know they would rather us be strong than Russia, but I think their agenda in combating a growing eastern power is going to be to cement their own alliances and leave us out of the equation. Or at least try. I think the majority of the outside world looks at us and thinks this administration represents us. Comments from other countries' citizens like well they fuckin voted for him or good job America just makes me feel like they've condemned us, with no understanding of how virtually impossible it is to get this old world dickcheese out of our congress and out of our White House. 3 Following the Citizens United decision, we've basically just been prescribed a political asspounding until it's overturned. And there's basically no way it's getting overturned. And there's no way we're removing corporate agendas and puppeteering from politics in this decade. 4 Given the divisiveness of American politics, how we struggle to get our own people on board with man made climate change, expanding healthcare coverage, revamping our education system, etc., I don't see how it's possible to get our shit together until basically the incumbent shitsalads and their brainwashed voters all die off or change their minds. No matter what you say or try to do, you will never beat the plurality of a retired 65 year old baby boomer with nothing else to do. 5 We have so many looming crises that require different calibres and types of expertise that we're basically just fucked. We were probably fucked whether or not this administration existed, but we're fucked for sure now. To list a few a growing healthcare costs cripple both citizens' and the armed forces' budgets, and with Big Pharma's tendrils deeply rooted in our economy, that's not changing anytime soon b growing education costs cripple the youngest generations, and unless we institute debt forgiveness on a grand scale, entire generations are doomed to live a lesser life c Russia and China are far more active in installing nuclear reactors we are far behind in terms of getting the country to understand that nuclear Chernobyl, and there is going to be an incoming time of panic when those other two superpowers start installing SMR's all over the world, effectively reconquering it. 6 Our constitution is shit in the modern age. We didn't prepare for a 2 party system where the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branch are all in cahoots. And we didn't prepare for a 2 party system because a 2 party system arrived and they decided not to prepare.<|TARGETS|>to get our shit together until basically the incumbent shitsalads and their brainwashed voters all die off or change their minds ., whether or not this administration existed, Comments from other countries' citizens like well they fuckin voted for him or good job America, giving deltas for eliminating any item here ., to cement their own alliances and leave us out of the equation ., their agenda in combating a growing eastern power<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I guess the easiest way to do this is to itemize it. I had to unsubscribe from r worldnews this week just to get my mind back to a positive place. I don't like feeling this way. Please note, I will quickly get fatigued if everyone tries replying to every item here, and I certainly won't have time to respond to it all if you do, so please feel free to pick whatever issue you feel most comfortable kicking my ass on I'm giving deltas for eliminating any item here. Anyway, here are my main concerns 1 Donald Trump has communicated to our allies that every 4 8 years, they will be playing a game of random chance with whether or not the leader of their largest ally will actually want to be their friend. I think he has communicated this more clearly and provocatively than any president before him in modern times. I think that while our allies are rehearsed and brilliantly composed in terms of understanding how American politics operates, they were not prepared for how drastically the attitude of the nation can change in such a short period of time. As such, in the future, even if the Patron Saint of Progress is our 46, our allies will be very slow, if at all responsive, to friendly diplomacy. I think their efforts to develop stronger economic ties amongst themselves is not only a reasonable response to our adminstration's efforts to instigate a trade war, but a sign of how they hope to operate in the coming decades. 2 I don't think our allies ever \ wanted\ us to be this powerful and they don't mind us being knocked down a few pegs. Even if it means uninstalling our military bases on their soil. I know they would rather us be strong than Russia, but I think their agenda in combating a growing eastern power is going to be to cement their own alliances and leave us out of the equation. Or at least try. I think the majority of the outside world looks at us and thinks this administration represents us. Comments from other countries' citizens like well they fuckin voted for him or good job America just makes me feel like they've condemned us, with no understanding of how virtually impossible it is to get this old world dickcheese out of our congress and out of our White House. 3 Following the Citizens United decision, we've basically just been prescribed a political asspounding until it's overturned. And there's basically no way it's getting overturned. And there's no way we're removing corporate agendas and puppeteering from politics in this decade. 4 Given the divisiveness of American politics, how we struggle to get our own people on board with man made climate change, expanding healthcare coverage, revamping our education system, etc., I don't see how it's possible to get our shit together until basically the incumbent shitsalads and their brainwashed voters all die off or change their minds. No matter what you say or try to do, you will never beat the plurality of a retired 65 year old baby boomer with nothing else to do. 5 We have so many looming crises that require different calibres and types of expertise that we're basically just fucked. We were probably fucked whether or not this administration existed, but we're fucked for sure now. To list a few a growing healthcare costs cripple both citizens' and the armed forces' budgets, and with Big Pharma's tendrils deeply rooted in our economy, that's not changing anytime soon b growing education costs cripple the youngest generations, and unless we institute debt forgiveness on a grand scale, entire generations are doomed to live a lesser life c Russia and China are far more active in installing nuclear reactors we are far behind in terms of getting the country to understand that nuclear Chernobyl, and there is going to be an incoming time of panic when those other two superpowers start installing SMR's all over the world, effectively reconquering it. 6 Our constitution is shit in the modern age. We didn't prepare for a 2 party system where the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branch are all in cahoots. And we didn't prepare for a 2 party system because a 2 party system arrived and they decided not to prepare.<|ASPECTS|>constitution, plurality, eastern power, military bases, attitude of the nation, expertise, powerful, debt forgiveness, cement, corporate agendas, looming crises, overturned, provocatively, positive place, random chance, brainwashed, friendly diplomacy, slow, coverage, cahoots, lesser life, uninstalling, fucked, economic ties, condemned, healthcare costs, calibres, strong, represents us, itemize, trade war, shit, eliminating, education costs, climate change, unsubscribe, fatigued, time, dickcheese, feeling this way, 2 party system, alliances, politics, getting, divisiveness, puppeteering, panic, political asspounding<|CONCLUSION|>","I guess the easiest way to do this is to itemize it. I had to unsubscribe from r worldnews this week just to get my mind back to a positive place. I don't like feeling this way. Please note, I will quickly get fatigued if everyone tries replying to every item here, and I certainly won't have time to respond to it all if you do, so please feel free to pick whatever issue you feel most comfortable kicking my ass on I'm giving deltas for eliminating any item here. Anyway, here are my main concerns 1 Donald Trump has communicated to our allies that every 4 8 years, they will be playing a game of random chance with whether or not the leader of their largest ally will actually want to be their friend. I think he has communicated this more clearly and provocatively than any president before him in modern times. I think that while our allies are rehearsed and brilliantly composed in terms of understanding how American politics operates, they were not prepared for how drastically the attitude of the nation can change in such a short period of time. As such, in the future, even if the Patron Saint of Progress is our 46, our allies will be very slow, if at all responsive, to friendly diplomacy. I think their efforts to develop stronger economic ties amongst themselves is not only a reasonable response to our adminstration's efforts to instigate a trade war, but a sign of how they hope to operate in the coming decades. 2 I don't think our allies ever wanted us to be this powerful and they don't mind us being knocked down a few pegs. Even if it means uninstalling our military bases on their soil. I know they would rather us be strong than Russia, but I think their agenda in combating a growing eastern power is going to be to cement their own alliances and leave us out of the equation. Or at least try. I think the majority of the outside world looks at us and thinks this administration represents us. Comments from other countries' citizens like well they fuckin voted for him or good job America just makes me feel like they've condemned us, with no understanding of how virtually impossible it is to get this old world dickcheese out of our congress and out of our White House. 3 Following the Citizens United decision, we've basically just been prescribed a political asspounding until it's overturned. And there's basically no way it's getting overturned. And there's no way we're removing corporate agendas and puppeteering from politics in this decade. 4 Given the divisiveness of American politics, how we struggle to get our own people on board with man made climate change, expanding healthcare coverage, revamping our education system, etc., I don't see how it's possible to get our shit together until basically the incumbent shitsalads and their brainwashed voters all die off or change their minds. No matter what you say or try to do, you will never beat the plurality of a retired 65 year old baby boomer with nothing else to do. 5 We have so many looming crises that require different calibres and types of expertise that we're basically just fucked. We were probably fucked whether or not this administration existed, but we're fucked for sure now. To list a few a growing healthcare costs cripple both citizens' and the armed forces' budgets, and with Big Pharma's tendrils deeply rooted in our economy, that's not changing anytime soon b growing education costs cripple the youngest generations, and unless we institute debt forgiveness on a grand scale, entire generations are doomed to live a lesser life c Russia and China are far more active in installing nuclear reactors we are far behind in terms of getting the country to understand that nuclear Chernobyl, and there is going to be an incoming time of panic when those other two superpowers start installing SMR's all over the world, effectively reconquering it. 6 Our constitution is shit in the modern age. We didn't prepare for a 2 party system where the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branch are all in cahoots. And we didn't prepare for a 2 party system because a 2 party system arrived and they decided not to prepare.","All of my fears about the American political climate and waning influence are justified, and American citizens are almost powerless to stop it."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’ll preface this by saying that I am a huge craft beer fan myself. The craft beer market is a multi billion dollar industry that continues to grow year by year. However, it seems that this sort of growth is unsustainable. Especially when you consider how expensive these craft beers can get. I've seen as high as 15 for an 8 oz glass. I don't think that the industry is going to crash, but at some point one would imagine the market for some of the crazier, more expensive beers will dry up. I also think that there are way too many IPAs on the market. Especially because when they get to a certain point of bitterness, they all tend to taste the same. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’ll preface this by saying that I am a huge craft beer fan myself. The craft beer market is a multi billion dollar industry that continues to grow year by year. However, it seems that this sort of growth is unsustainable. Especially when you consider how expensive these craft beers can get. I've seen as high as 15 for an 8 oz glass. I don't think that the industry is going to crash, but at some point one would imagine the market for some of the crazier, more expensive beers will dry up. I also think that there are way too many IPAs on the market. Especially because when they get to a certain point of bitterness, they all tend to taste the same. <|TARGETS|>The craft beer market, that this sort of growth, the market for some of the crazier more expensive beers, when they get to a certain point of bitterness, how expensive these craft beers, a huge craft beer fan myself .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’ll preface this by saying that I am a huge craft beer fan myself. The craft beer market is a multi billion dollar industry that continues to grow year by year. However, it seems that this sort of growth is unsustainable. Especially when you consider how expensive these craft beers can get. I've seen as high as 15 for an 8 oz glass. I don't think that the industry is going to crash, but at some point one would imagine the market for some of the crazier, more expensive beers will dry up. I also think that there are way too many IPAs on the market. Especially because when they get to a certain point of bitterness, they all tend to taste the same. <|ASPECTS|>craft beer fan, unsustainable, dry, market, ipas, grow, billion dollar industry, expensive, crash, growth, bitterness, multi, taste<|CONCLUSION|>","I’ll preface this by saying that I am a huge craft beer fan myself. The craft beer market is a multi billion dollar industry that continues to grow year by year. However, it seems that this sort of growth is unsustainable. Especially when you consider how expensive these craft beers can get. I've seen as high as 15 for an 8 oz glass. I don't think that the industry is going to crash, but at some point one would imagine the market for some of the crazier, more expensive beers will dry up. I also think that there are way too many IPAs on the market. Especially because when they get to a certain point of bitterness, they all tend to taste the same.",The craft beer market is due for a decline.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's always safest to be the ethnic majority in whatever society you live in. There are countless examples in history of minorities being persecuted. As immigrant groups grow they gain more control over the countries political and cultural direction. This direction may be contrary to the the local populations values, like what we see with Muslim Immigrants who oppose aspects of freedom of speech or want Sharia law. Kinship i.e. higher preference to higher genetic relatedness , is a human instinct which causes people to be more helpful to people who are more genetically similar, and race is basically the best indicator of genetic relatedness when assessing someone you don't know. I think higher kinship creates higher trust, peace, and helpfulness amongst citizens. I've seen studies that show more homogeneous populations have more social cohesion. this makes sense, the more related you are to someone the more helpful you'll be to them. A country is two things, it's land and people. land doesn't change without war. Who nations allow in is one of the most important determiners of the countries countries future that's easily controllable. Currently it seems Western countries make no assessment whatsoever as to what cultures are compatible with their own in making immigration policy decisions, which seems like a huge oversight.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's always safest to be the ethnic majority in whatever society you live in. There are countless examples in history of minorities being persecuted. As immigrant groups grow they gain more control over the countries political and cultural direction. This direction may be contrary to the the local populations values, like what we see with Muslim Immigrants who oppose aspects of freedom of speech or want Sharia law. Kinship i.e. higher preference to higher genetic relatedness , is a human instinct which causes people to be more helpful to people who are more genetically similar, and race is basically the best indicator of genetic relatedness when assessing someone you don't know. I think higher kinship creates higher trust, peace, and helpfulness amongst citizens. I've seen studies that show more homogeneous populations have more social cohesion. this makes sense, the more related you are to someone the more helpful you'll be to them. A country is two things, it's land and people. land doesn't change without war. Who nations allow in is one of the most important determiners of the countries countries future that's easily controllable. Currently it seems Western countries make no assessment whatsoever as to what cultures are compatible with their own in making immigration policy decisions, which seems like a huge oversight.<|TARGETS|>higher preference to higher genetic relatedness, Western countries make no assessment whatsoever as to what cultures are compatible with their own in making immigration policy decisions, the local populations values like what we see with Muslim Immigrants who oppose aspects of freedom of speech or want Sharia law, Who nations allow in, to be the ethnic majority in whatever society you live in ., As immigrant groups<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's always safest to be the ethnic majority in whatever society you live in. There are countless examples in history of minorities being persecuted. As immigrant groups grow they gain more control over the countries political and cultural direction. This direction may be contrary to the the local populations values, like what we see with Muslim Immigrants who oppose aspects of freedom of speech or want Sharia law. Kinship i.e. higher preference to higher genetic relatedness , is a human instinct which causes people to be more helpful to people who are more genetically similar, and race is basically the best indicator of genetic relatedness when assessing someone you don't know. I think higher kinship creates higher trust, peace, and helpfulness amongst citizens. I've seen studies that show more homogeneous populations have more social cohesion. this makes sense, the more related you are to someone the more helpful you'll be to them. A country is two things, it's land and people. land doesn't change without war. Who nations allow in is one of the most important determiners of the countries countries future that's easily controllable. Currently it seems Western countries make no assessment whatsoever as to what cultures are compatible with their own in making immigration policy decisions, which seems like a huge oversight.<|ASPECTS|>freedom of speech, helpfulness, human instinct, persecuted, trust, political and cultural direction, sharia law, helpful, populations values, peace, control, immigration policy, genetic relatedness, higher, cultures, related, change, land and people, safest, easily controllable, war, oversight, compatible, social cohesion, minorities, ethnic majority, kinship<|CONCLUSION|>","It's always safest to be the ethnic majority in whatever society you live in. There are countless examples in history of minorities being persecuted. As immigrant groups grow they gain more control over the countries political and cultural direction. This direction may be contrary to the the local populations values, like what we see with Muslim Immigrants who oppose aspects of freedom of speech or want Sharia law. Kinship i.e. higher preference to higher genetic relatedness , is a human instinct which causes people to be more helpful to people who are more genetically similar, and race is basically the best indicator of genetic relatedness when assessing someone you don't know. I think higher kinship creates higher trust, peace, and helpfulness amongst citizens. I've seen studies that show more homogeneous populations have more social cohesion. this makes sense, the more related you are to someone the more helpful you'll be to them. A country is two things, it's land and people. land doesn't change without war. Who nations allow in is one of the most important determiners of the countries countries future that's easily controllable. Currently it seems Western countries make no assessment whatsoever as to what cultures are compatible with their own in making immigration policy decisions, which seems like a huge oversight.",Nations should be careful to maintain their ethnic majority.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me start off that I am not a communist, hate communism, and that communism has failed miserably every time it has been tried on a large scale. I am a free market capitalist, and believe that the greatest threat to world prosperity today is Socialism Communism, but will be mankind’s salvation in a not too distant future 100 200 years . Communism has failed every time it has been tried. But why? Largely because people are inherently selfish, and because communists eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. To oversimplify, the main idea behind communism is that everyone contributes to the collective, and the collective takes care of everyone in turn. In practice, the collective takes care of the people at the top, and the people at the bottom have no incentive to do anything beyond the bare minimum. The old saying in the Soviet Union was, “the people pretend to work and the state pretends to pay the people”. When you collectivize a farm, output goes down as the individuals receive the same amount of food no matter how hard they work. However, we are rapidly heading towards a time where the individual no longer needs to work to receive benefits. Our rapidly increasing social safety net, where even the poor have air conditioning, healthcare, phones, and even cars is continuing to expand. Many countries are starting to instill a “universal basic income”, where the unproductive are taken care of by the productive whether they like it or not . Wealth is increasingly in the hands of the elite, and the drudgery of hard work is being supplanted in parts by robotics. What will happen if these trends continue? I believe that robotics will continue to expand in the developed world, and eventually spill into the third world. I see robots taking over the farms, the factories, and supplanting so many jobs that universal basic income is required just to keep the people fed. I see a world with underground nuclear powered farms and unimaginable prosperity where our labor is taken care of by robotics. Will wealth be concentrated by those who own the robots and the so called means of production? I do not see this happening. What I do see is a rising tide of prosperity the lifts all boats, with all people taken care of by automation. A universal basic income and set of “benefits” is likely for all, with additional wealth available for those who wish to work tinker invent, and a reasonable standard of living available to all. In this world, a communist utopia of sorts will exist for those who wish it, and a higher standard of living will be available for those who wish to work to improve the lives of all. tl dr Communism has failed in the past due to the innate selfishness of man. However, a robot or computer is not lazy. It gets no share of the wealth no matter how hard it works. It does not get tired, it does not get discontent, it simply produces in line with its creators wishes. As trends in labor and robotics continue and automation increases, the amount of people required to support the lifestyles of others will drop dramatically. As the social safety net of today increases, those supplanted by automation will enjoy a reasonable standard of living. We are heading toward a world wide communist utopia, and the world of our great great grand children will be better than the world of today. Edit Formatting<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me start off that I am not a communist, hate communism, and that communism has failed miserably every time it has been tried on a large scale. I am a free market capitalist, and believe that the greatest threat to world prosperity today is Socialism Communism, but will be mankind’s salvation in a not too distant future 100 200 years . Communism has failed every time it has been tried. But why? Largely because people are inherently selfish, and because communists eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. To oversimplify, the main idea behind communism is that everyone contributes to the collective, and the collective takes care of everyone in turn. In practice, the collective takes care of the people at the top, and the people at the bottom have no incentive to do anything beyond the bare minimum. The old saying in the Soviet Union was, “the people pretend to work and the state pretends to pay the people”. When you collectivize a farm, output goes down as the individuals receive the same amount of food no matter how hard they work. However, we are rapidly heading towards a time where the individual no longer needs to work to receive benefits. Our rapidly increasing social safety net, where even the poor have air conditioning, healthcare, phones, and even cars is continuing to expand. Many countries are starting to instill a “universal basic income”, where the unproductive are taken care of by the productive whether they like it or not . Wealth is increasingly in the hands of the elite, and the drudgery of hard work is being supplanted in parts by robotics. What will happen if these trends continue? I believe that robotics will continue to expand in the developed world, and eventually spill into the third world. I see robots taking over the farms, the factories, and supplanting so many jobs that universal basic income is required just to keep the people fed. I see a world with underground nuclear powered farms and unimaginable prosperity where our labor is taken care of by robotics. Will wealth be concentrated by those who own the robots and the so called means of production? I do not see this happening. What I do see is a rising tide of prosperity the lifts all boats, with all people taken care of by automation. A universal basic income and set of “benefits” is likely for all, with additional wealth available for those who wish to work tinker invent, and a reasonable standard of living available to all. In this world, a communist utopia of sorts will exist for those who wish it, and a higher standard of living will be available for those who wish to work to improve the lives of all. tl dr Communism has failed in the past due to the innate selfishness of man. However, a robot or computer is not lazy. It gets no share of the wealth no matter how hard it works. It does not get tired, it does not get discontent, it simply produces in line with its creators wishes. As trends in labor and robotics continue and automation increases, the amount of people required to support the lifestyles of others will drop dramatically. As the social safety net of today increases, those supplanted by automation will enjoy a reasonable standard of living. We are heading toward a world wide communist utopia, and the world of our great great grand children will be better than the world of today. Edit Formatting<|TARGETS|>To oversimplify the main idea behind communism, a free market capitalist, a robot or computer, to pay the people ” ., Let me start off that I am not a communist hate communism and that communism, tl dr Communism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me start off that I am not a communist, hate communism, and that communism has failed miserably every time it has been tried on a large scale. I am a free market capitalist, and believe that the greatest threat to world prosperity today is Socialism Communism, but will be mankind’s salvation in a not too distant future 100 200 years . Communism has failed every time it has been tried. But why? Largely because people are inherently selfish, and because communists eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. To oversimplify, the main idea behind communism is that everyone contributes to the collective, and the collective takes care of everyone in turn. In practice, the collective takes care of the people at the top, and the people at the bottom have no incentive to do anything beyond the bare minimum. The old saying in the Soviet Union was, “the people pretend to work and the state pretends to pay the people”. When you collectivize a farm, output goes down as the individuals receive the same amount of food no matter how hard they work. However, we are rapidly heading towards a time where the individual no longer needs to work to receive benefits. Our rapidly increasing social safety net, where even the poor have air conditioning, healthcare, phones, and even cars is continuing to expand. Many countries are starting to instill a “universal basic income”, where the unproductive are taken care of by the productive whether they like it or not . Wealth is increasingly in the hands of the elite, and the drudgery of hard work is being supplanted in parts by robotics. What will happen if these trends continue? I believe that robotics will continue to expand in the developed world, and eventually spill into the third world. I see robots taking over the farms, the factories, and supplanting so many jobs that universal basic income is required just to keep the people fed. I see a world with underground nuclear powered farms and unimaginable prosperity where our labor is taken care of by robotics. Will wealth be concentrated by those who own the robots and the so called means of production? I do not see this happening. What I do see is a rising tide of prosperity the lifts all boats, with all people taken care of by automation. A universal basic income and set of “benefits” is likely for all, with additional wealth available for those who wish to work tinker invent, and a reasonable standard of living available to all. In this world, a communist utopia of sorts will exist for those who wish it, and a higher standard of living will be available for those who wish to work to improve the lives of all. tl dr Communism has failed in the past due to the innate selfishness of man. However, a robot or computer is not lazy. It gets no share of the wealth no matter how hard it works. It does not get tired, it does not get discontent, it simply produces in line with its creators wishes. As trends in labor and robotics continue and automation increases, the amount of people required to support the lifestyles of others will drop dramatically. As the social safety net of today increases, those supplanted by automation will enjoy a reasonable standard of living. We are heading toward a world wide communist utopia, and the world of our great great grand children will be better than the world of today. Edit Formatting<|ASPECTS|>third world, selfishness of man, lazy, money, drudgery, benefits, “, creators, reasonable standard of living, elite, world prosperity, trends, tired, receive, failed miserably, discontent, automation, farms, collective, hate communism, mankind ’, improve, failed, share, pretend to work, world, unimaginable, wealth, basic income, labor, contributes, support, incentive, free market, edit formatting, wealth available, robotics, prosperity, additional, socialism communism, communist utopia, basic income ”, expand, social safety net, universal, collective takes care, hard work, higher standard of living, unproductive, output goes, communism, better, pay the people, selfish, lives, food, salvation, lifestyles<|CONCLUSION|>","Let me start off that I am not a communist, hate communism, and that communism has failed miserably every time it has been tried on a large scale. I am a free market capitalist, and believe that the greatest threat to world prosperity today is Socialism Communism, but will be mankind’s salvation in a not too distant future 100 200 years . Communism has failed every time it has been tried. But why? Largely because people are inherently selfish, and because communists eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. To oversimplify, the main idea behind communism is that everyone contributes to the collective, and the collective takes care of everyone in turn. In practice, the collective takes care of the people at the top, and the people at the bottom have no incentive to do anything beyond the bare minimum. The old saying in the Soviet Union was, “the people pretend to work and the state pretends to pay the people”. When you collectivize a farm, output goes down as the individuals receive the same amount of food no matter how hard they work. However, we are rapidly heading towards a time where the individual no longer needs to work to receive benefits. Our rapidly increasing social safety net, where even the poor have air conditioning, healthcare, phones, and even cars is continuing to expand. Many countries are starting to instill a “universal basic income”, where the unproductive are taken care of by the productive whether they like it or not . Wealth is increasingly in the hands of the elite, and the drudgery of hard work is being supplanted in parts by robotics. What will happen if these trends continue? I believe that robotics will continue to expand in the developed world, and eventually spill into the third world. I see robots taking over the farms, the factories, and supplanting so many jobs that universal basic income is required just to keep the people fed. I see a world with underground nuclear powered farms and unimaginable prosperity where our labor is taken care of by robotics. Will wealth be concentrated by those who own the robots and the so called means of production? I do not see this happening. What I do see is a rising tide of prosperity the lifts all boats, with all people taken care of by automation. A universal basic income and set of “benefits” is likely for all, with additional wealth available for those who wish to work tinker invent, and a reasonable standard of living available to all. In this world, a communist utopia of sorts will exist for those who wish it, and a higher standard of living will be available for those who wish to work to improve the lives of all. tl dr Communism has failed in the past due to the innate selfishness of man. However, a robot or computer is not lazy. It gets no share of the wealth no matter how hard it works. It does not get tired, it does not get discontent, it simply produces in line with its creators wishes. As trends in labor and robotics continue and automation increases, the amount of people required to support the lifestyles of others will drop dramatically. As the social safety net of today increases, those supplanted by automation will enjoy a reasonable standard of living. We are heading toward a world wide communist utopia, and the world of our great great grand children will be better than the world of today. Edit Formatting",We are all heading toward a united one world Communist Utopia.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nuclear weapons are a deterrent from a past era, and are no longer relevant to Britain's current situation. Globalisation has changed forever how war affects countries, so now each country depends on each other for essential trade, supplying food, oil and or produce. this means that war has changed forever, as we are beginning to recognise as countries that we are part of a global community, and harming one part affects the whole. Also, not having nukes does not mean you will immediately be invaded. Take a look at Japan, or Finland. Each is a country with a relatively small army and no nukes, that is neighbouring on a large, agressive nuclear state. Neither has seen any conflict on that border since ww2. Nuclear weapons are expensive and provide no definite protection, in my opinion.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nuclear weapons are a deterrent from a past era, and are no longer relevant to Britain's current situation. Globalisation has changed forever how war affects countries, so now each country depends on each other for essential trade, supplying food, oil and or produce. this means that war has changed forever, as we are beginning to recognise as countries that we are part of a global community, and harming one part affects the whole. Also, not having nukes does not mean you will immediately be invaded. Take a look at Japan, or Finland. Each is a country with a relatively small army and no nukes, that is neighbouring on a large, agressive nuclear state. Neither has seen any conflict on that border since ww2. Nuclear weapons are expensive and provide no definite protection, in my opinion.<|TARGETS|>to recognise as countries that we are part of a global community and harming one part, not having nukes, Nuclear weapons, Globalisation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nuclear weapons are a deterrent from a past era, and are no longer relevant to Britain's current situation. Globalisation has changed forever how war affects countries, so now each country depends on each other for essential trade, supplying food, oil and or produce. this means that war has changed forever, as we are beginning to recognise as countries that we are part of a global community, and harming one part affects the whole. Also, not having nukes does not mean you will immediately be invaded. Take a look at Japan, or Finland. Each is a country with a relatively small army and no nukes, that is neighbouring on a large, agressive nuclear state. Neither has seen any conflict on that border since ww2. Nuclear weapons are expensive and provide no definite protection, in my opinion.<|ASPECTS|>essential trade, invaded, global community, weapons, conflict, small army, deterrent, war affects, war has changed forever, nukes, protection, depends, expensive, agressive nuclear state, current situation, harming<|CONCLUSION|>","Nuclear weapons are a deterrent from a past era, and are no longer relevant to Britain's current situation. Globalisation has changed forever how war affects countries, so now each country depends on each other for essential trade, supplying food, oil and or produce. this means that war has changed forever, as we are beginning to recognise as countries that we are part of a global community, and harming one part affects the whole. Also, not having nukes does not mean you will immediately be invaded. Take a look at Japan, or Finland. Each is a country with a relatively small army and no nukes, that is neighbouring on a large, agressive nuclear state. Neither has seen any conflict on that border since ww2. Nuclear weapons are expensive and provide no definite protection, in my opinion.",The UK should dismantle all of its nuclear weapons.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, by 'major sporting event', I'm referring to sporting events that receive significant media attention outside of specialist publications. So this would include something like the World Cup or Super Bowl, but would exclude a lot of ultra endurance events that don't get much, if any, media attention. There are a lot of hard sporting events, but what makes the Tour the hardest, I believe, is that it is effectively 21 incredibly difficult physical efforts over the course of 23 days only 2 days of rest throughout the entire race. This year's route is 3,519km 2,186mi , for an average stage length of 168km 104mi . The longest single stage is 238km 148mi . To go along with this incredible distance, there's a huge amount of climbing over 20km of elevation gain. Riders will be doing this while maintaining an average speed on flat ground in the high 20s mph low 40s kph . And they'll be doing that day in day out for 3 weeks. Other events may be hard for a day, or even hard for an extended period a 7 game finals like a Stanley Cup or NBA Finals, for example , but the ratio of active days to rest days for all those other events is much lower. I just don't think any other sporting event can compare in terms of sheer physical difficulty.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, by 'major sporting event', I'm referring to sporting events that receive significant media attention outside of specialist publications. So this would include something like the World Cup or Super Bowl, but would exclude a lot of ultra endurance events that don't get much, if any, media attention. There are a lot of hard sporting events, but what makes the Tour the hardest, I believe, is that it is effectively 21 incredibly difficult physical efforts over the course of 23 days only 2 days of rest throughout the entire race. This year's route is 3,519km 2,186mi , for an average stage length of 168km 104mi . The longest single stage is 238km 148mi . To go along with this incredible distance, there's a huge amount of climbing over 20km of elevation gain. Riders will be doing this while maintaining an average speed on flat ground in the high 20s mph low 40s kph . And they'll be doing that day in day out for 3 weeks. Other events may be hard for a day, or even hard for an extended period a 7 game finals like a Stanley Cup or NBA Finals, for example , but the ratio of active days to rest days for all those other events is much lower. I just don't think any other sporting event can compare in terms of sheer physical difficulty.<|TARGETS|>the ratio of active days to rest days for all those other events, referring to sporting events that receive significant media attention outside of specialist publications, To go along with this incredible distance, the World Cup or Super Bowl, any other sporting event, Riders<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, by 'major sporting event', I'm referring to sporting events that receive significant media attention outside of specialist publications. So this would include something like the World Cup or Super Bowl, but would exclude a lot of ultra endurance events that don't get much, if any, media attention. There are a lot of hard sporting events, but what makes the Tour the hardest, I believe, is that it is effectively 21 incredibly difficult physical efforts over the course of 23 days only 2 days of rest throughout the entire race. This year's route is 3,519km 2,186mi , for an average stage length of 168km 104mi . The longest single stage is 238km 148mi . To go along with this incredible distance, there's a huge amount of climbing over 20km of elevation gain. Riders will be doing this while maintaining an average speed on flat ground in the high 20s mph low 40s kph . And they'll be doing that day in day out for 3 weeks. Other events may be hard for a day, or even hard for an extended period a 7 game finals like a Stanley Cup or NBA Finals, for example , but the ratio of active days to rest days for all those other events is much lower. I just don't think any other sporting event can compare in terms of sheer physical difficulty.<|ASPECTS|>difficult physical efforts, active days, elevation gain, physical difficulty, media attention, sheer, day, rest days, ultra endurance events, length, average speed, hard, flat ground, hard sporting events, sporting<|CONCLUSION|>","First off, by 'major sporting event', I'm referring to sporting events that receive significant media attention outside of specialist publications. So this would include something like the World Cup or Super Bowl, but would exclude a lot of ultra endurance events that don't get much, if any, media attention. There are a lot of hard sporting events, but what makes the Tour the hardest, I believe, is that it is effectively 21 incredibly difficult physical efforts over the course of 23 days only 2 days of rest throughout the entire race. This year's route is 3,519km 2,186mi , for an average stage length of 168km 104mi . The longest single stage is 238km 148mi . To go along with this incredible distance, there's a huge amount of climbing over 20km of elevation gain. Riders will be doing this while maintaining an average speed on flat ground in the high 20s mph low 40s kph . And they'll be doing that day in day out for 3 weeks. Other events may be hard for a day, or even hard for an extended period a 7 game finals like a Stanley Cup or NBA Finals, for example , but the ratio of active days to rest days for all those other events is much lower. I just don't think any other sporting event can compare in terms of sheer physical difficulty.",The Tour de France is the hardest major sporting event
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been a big proponent of Net Neutrality and the Title II regulations after seeing the information here and researching net neutrality and the effects of it's repeal tirelessly. However, after reading through the actual report found here it does not seem as damning as I thought that it would be. I know that this is an unpopular opinion on Reddit and on most of the internet, but I have come out of this with a much different understanding than when I went in. Basically, I will start with what I believed before and how I came to that conclusion, and what changed my mind in the report and then let you guys tell me where I went wrong. Prior to reading the report and the research, I believed that with the repeal of the Title II regulations, it meant that Internet Service Providers ISPs would be able to throttle internet speeds, block, or charge for specific content online. Along with this, those ISPs could potentially promote their service above another service. For example, Comcast boosting the internet speed for Hulu and throttling Netflix's internet speed because they own part of Hulu. AND they would be able to do this without us knowing because there was is no requirement for disclosure. This would hurt opposing voices and take away freedoms and individual liberties, specifically from small businesses and small, self run websites or blogs that could get throttled and not pay for a premium speed. However, after doing more research after the ruling and trying to find some comparisons for it, I began to see the repeal in a different light. The first thing that changed for me was the fact that consumers would have no information about what ISPs are doing until it was too late. However, even with the repeal of the Title II regulations, the FCC is leaving in place part of the transparency rule and adding to it slightly. The majority of the rule is taken from the Open Internet Order in 2010 and reads as follows gt Any person providing broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient to enable consumers to make informed choices regarding the purchase and use of such services and entrepreneurs and other small businesses to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. Such disclosure shall be made via a publicly available, easily accessible website or through transmittal to the Commission Paragraph 211 This seems to be enough of a transparency rule to cover the needs for an individual consumer or a business, from my perspective. The second thing that changed for me was the fact that the main court case that I had heard about used as an argument for the need of Title II regulations was the AT T case regarding the advertising of Unlimited Data, but throttling after a certain amount of usage. In this case, the charges were brought by the FTC, not the FCC, and the FCC levied a fine against AT T using the Transparency rule, which is still in place today. So, with the current rules in place, the ruling and fine should have turned out the same. The third piece that changed was the general rule that the repeal of the Title II regulations will NOT support more competition between ISPs. With, presumably, lower costs for ISPs in general, and less overall regulation, I believe there is now more incentive for ISPs to move into areas they were no longer in. The example for this is how the cellular market has developed over the last 20ish years. Many years ago, the cell phone market was very similar to the ISP market now. There was really only one option in many areas and it was run like a monopoly. Unlimited Data was not a thing and many contracts and packages were charged by the minute or by the text. This changed from more competitors moving into the market and consumers freely switching carriers until the service was stepped up. Now, the cell service is light years ahead of broadband I believe that is the correct word . According to this map from the FCC, the majority of the U.S has at least 3 mobile carriers available for their use. This was done, to my knowledge, without any type of government regulation, but through consumer action. My final point of contention has to do with the idea that now companies will be able to censor certain speech or block certain content because the Title II regulations are gone. However, this was already happening beforehand. Youtube Google has been demonetizing channels that it deems to be too offensive based on their subjective definitions. There was no regulation for this with Title II and, as far as I know, there was nothing legally done about it. Facebook was also found to be pushing certain content in their trending feeds even though it was not getting more mentions that other content. Overall, The transparency rules that are in place now will allow for more ISPs to grow in the market, similar to the mobile market in the early 2000s, while informing consumers of blocking, throttling, affiliated prioritization, paid prioritization, congestion management, application specific behavior, device attachment rules, and security. Paragraph 216 of the report With these transparency rules in place, consumers will be able to make informed decisions based on the services provided by ISPs. Again, I understand that this is a really hot topic right now that is really polarizing on Reddit, but I'm hoping that we can have a good, fact based discussion on here. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been a big proponent of Net Neutrality and the Title II regulations after seeing the information here and researching net neutrality and the effects of it's repeal tirelessly. However, after reading through the actual report found here it does not seem as damning as I thought that it would be. I know that this is an unpopular opinion on Reddit and on most of the internet, but I have come out of this with a much different understanding than when I went in. Basically, I will start with what I believed before and how I came to that conclusion, and what changed my mind in the report and then let you guys tell me where I went wrong. Prior to reading the report and the research, I believed that with the repeal of the Title II regulations, it meant that Internet Service Providers ISPs would be able to throttle internet speeds, block, or charge for specific content online. Along with this, those ISPs could potentially promote their service above another service. For example, Comcast boosting the internet speed for Hulu and throttling Netflix's internet speed because they own part of Hulu. AND they would be able to do this without us knowing because there was is no requirement for disclosure. This would hurt opposing voices and take away freedoms and individual liberties, specifically from small businesses and small, self run websites or blogs that could get throttled and not pay for a premium speed. However, after doing more research after the ruling and trying to find some comparisons for it, I began to see the repeal in a different light. The first thing that changed for me was the fact that consumers would have no information about what ISPs are doing until it was too late. However, even with the repeal of the Title II regulations, the FCC is leaving in place part of the transparency rule and adding to it slightly. The majority of the rule is taken from the Open Internet Order in 2010 and reads as follows gt Any person providing broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient to enable consumers to make informed choices regarding the purchase and use of such services and entrepreneurs and other small businesses to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. Such disclosure shall be made via a publicly available, easily accessible website or through transmittal to the Commission Paragraph 211 This seems to be enough of a transparency rule to cover the needs for an individual consumer or a business, from my perspective. The second thing that changed for me was the fact that the main court case that I had heard about used as an argument for the need of Title II regulations was the AT T case regarding the advertising of Unlimited Data, but throttling after a certain amount of usage. In this case, the charges were brought by the FTC, not the FCC, and the FCC levied a fine against AT T using the Transparency rule, which is still in place today. So, with the current rules in place, the ruling and fine should have turned out the same. The third piece that changed was the general rule that the repeal of the Title II regulations will NOT support more competition between ISPs. With, presumably, lower costs for ISPs in general, and less overall regulation, I believe there is now more incentive for ISPs to move into areas they were no longer in. The example for this is how the cellular market has developed over the last 20ish years. Many years ago, the cell phone market was very similar to the ISP market now. There was really only one option in many areas and it was run like a monopoly. Unlimited Data was not a thing and many contracts and packages were charged by the minute or by the text. This changed from more competitors moving into the market and consumers freely switching carriers until the service was stepped up. Now, the cell service is light years ahead of broadband I believe that is the correct word . According to this map from the FCC, the majority of the U.S has at least 3 mobile carriers available for their use. This was done, to my knowledge, without any type of government regulation, but through consumer action. My final point of contention has to do with the idea that now companies will be able to censor certain speech or block certain content because the Title II regulations are gone. However, this was already happening beforehand. Youtube Google has been demonetizing channels that it deems to be too offensive based on their subjective definitions. There was no regulation for this with Title II and, as far as I know, there was nothing legally done about it. Facebook was also found to be pushing certain content in their trending feeds even though it was not getting more mentions that other content. Overall, The transparency rules that are in place now will allow for more ISPs to grow in the market, similar to the mobile market in the early 2000s, while informing consumers of blocking, throttling, affiliated prioritization, paid prioritization, congestion management, application specific behavior, device attachment rules, and security. Paragraph 216 of the report With these transparency rules in place, consumers will be able to make informed decisions based on the services provided by ISPs. Again, I understand that this is a really hot topic right now that is really polarizing on Reddit, but I'm hoping that we can have a good, fact based discussion on here. <|TARGETS|>Facebook, what I believed before and how I came to that conclusion and what changed my mind in the report and then let you guys tell me where I went wrong ., the cellular market, the cell phone market, the FCC, the current rules in place<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been a big proponent of Net Neutrality and the Title II regulations after seeing the information here and researching net neutrality and the effects of it's repeal tirelessly. However, after reading through the actual report found here it does not seem as damning as I thought that it would be. I know that this is an unpopular opinion on Reddit and on most of the internet, but I have come out of this with a much different understanding than when I went in. Basically, I will start with what I believed before and how I came to that conclusion, and what changed my mind in the report and then let you guys tell me where I went wrong. Prior to reading the report and the research, I believed that with the repeal of the Title II regulations, it meant that Internet Service Providers ISPs would be able to throttle internet speeds, block, or charge for specific content online. Along with this, those ISPs could potentially promote their service above another service. For example, Comcast boosting the internet speed for Hulu and throttling Netflix's internet speed because they own part of Hulu. AND they would be able to do this without us knowing because there was is no requirement for disclosure. This would hurt opposing voices and take away freedoms and individual liberties, specifically from small businesses and small, self run websites or blogs that could get throttled and not pay for a premium speed. However, after doing more research after the ruling and trying to find some comparisons for it, I began to see the repeal in a different light. The first thing that changed for me was the fact that consumers would have no information about what ISPs are doing until it was too late. However, even with the repeal of the Title II regulations, the FCC is leaving in place part of the transparency rule and adding to it slightly. The majority of the rule is taken from the Open Internet Order in 2010 and reads as follows gt Any person providing broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient to enable consumers to make informed choices regarding the purchase and use of such services and entrepreneurs and other small businesses to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. Such disclosure shall be made via a publicly available, easily accessible website or through transmittal to the Commission Paragraph 211 This seems to be enough of a transparency rule to cover the needs for an individual consumer or a business, from my perspective. The second thing that changed for me was the fact that the main court case that I had heard about used as an argument for the need of Title II regulations was the AT T case regarding the advertising of Unlimited Data, but throttling after a certain amount of usage. In this case, the charges were brought by the FTC, not the FCC, and the FCC levied a fine against AT T using the Transparency rule, which is still in place today. So, with the current rules in place, the ruling and fine should have turned out the same. The third piece that changed was the general rule that the repeal of the Title II regulations will NOT support more competition between ISPs. With, presumably, lower costs for ISPs in general, and less overall regulation, I believe there is now more incentive for ISPs to move into areas they were no longer in. The example for this is how the cellular market has developed over the last 20ish years. Many years ago, the cell phone market was very similar to the ISP market now. There was really only one option in many areas and it was run like a monopoly. Unlimited Data was not a thing and many contracts and packages were charged by the minute or by the text. This changed from more competitors moving into the market and consumers freely switching carriers until the service was stepped up. Now, the cell service is light years ahead of broadband I believe that is the correct word . According to this map from the FCC, the majority of the U.S has at least 3 mobile carriers available for their use. This was done, to my knowledge, without any type of government regulation, but through consumer action. My final point of contention has to do with the idea that now companies will be able to censor certain speech or block certain content because the Title II regulations are gone. However, this was already happening beforehand. Youtube Google has been demonetizing channels that it deems to be too offensive based on their subjective definitions. There was no regulation for this with Title II and, as far as I know, there was nothing legally done about it. Facebook was also found to be pushing certain content in their trending feeds even though it was not getting more mentions that other content. Overall, The transparency rules that are in place now will allow for more ISPs to grow in the market, similar to the mobile market in the early 2000s, while informing consumers of blocking, throttling, affiliated prioritization, paid prioritization, congestion management, application specific behavior, device attachment rules, and security. Paragraph 216 of the report With these transparency rules in place, consumers will be able to make informed decisions based on the services provided by ISPs. Again, I understand that this is a really hot topic right now that is really polarizing on Reddit, but I'm hoping that we can have a good, fact based discussion on here. <|ASPECTS|>incentive, fine, fact based discussion, legally done, specific content, censor certain speech, went wrong, disclosure, transparency rule, cell service, competitors, block, advertising, freedoms, informed choices, internet, overall, mentions, monopoly, subjective definitions, ruling, consumer action, costs, cell phone market, damning, hurt opposing voices, market, performance, unpopular opinion, run, topic, premium, congestion management, government regulation, network management practices, mobile carriers, freely switching carriers, competition between isps, packages, throttle internet speeds, throttling, accurate information, regulation, understanding, transparency rules, charged, unlimited data, information, net neutrality, offensive, cellular market, block certain content, mind, similar, comparisons, charge, pushing certain content, demonetizing channels, polarizing, contracts, charges, option, specific behavior, transparency, individual liberties, blocking, consumers, years ahead of broadband, lower, internet speed, informed decisions, promote their service, changed, developed, security, rules<|CONCLUSION|>","I have been a big proponent of Net Neutrality and the Title II regulations after seeing the information here and researching net neutrality and the effects of it's repeal tirelessly. However, after reading through the actual report found here it does not seem as damning as I thought that it would be. I know that this is an unpopular opinion on Reddit and on most of the internet, but I have come out of this with a much different understanding than when I went in. Basically, I will start with what I believed before and how I came to that conclusion, and what changed my mind in the report and then let you guys tell me where I went wrong. Prior to reading the report and the research, I believed that with the repeal of the Title II regulations, it meant that Internet Service Providers ISPs would be able to throttle internet speeds, block, or charge for specific content online. Along with this, those ISPs could potentially promote their service above another service. For example, Comcast boosting the internet speed for Hulu and throttling Netflix's internet speed because they own part of Hulu. AND they would be able to do this without us knowing because there was is no requirement for disclosure. This would hurt opposing voices and take away freedoms and individual liberties, specifically from small businesses and small, self run websites or blogs that could get throttled and not pay for a premium speed. However, after doing more research after the ruling and trying to find some comparisons for it, I began to see the repeal in a different light. The first thing that changed for me was the fact that consumers would have no information about what ISPs are doing until it was too late. However, even with the repeal of the Title II regulations, the FCC is leaving in place part of the transparency rule and adding to it slightly. The majority of the rule is taken from the Open Internet Order in 2010 and reads as follows gt Any person providing broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient to enable consumers to make informed choices regarding the purchase and use of such services and entrepreneurs and other small businesses to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. Such disclosure shall be made via a publicly available, easily accessible website or through transmittal to the Commission Paragraph 211 This seems to be enough of a transparency rule to cover the needs for an individual consumer or a business, from my perspective. The second thing that changed for me was the fact that the main court case that I had heard about used as an argument for the need of Title II regulations was the AT T case regarding the advertising of Unlimited Data, but throttling after a certain amount of usage. In this case, the charges were brought by the FTC, not the FCC, and the FCC levied a fine against AT T using the Transparency rule, which is still in place today. So, with the current rules in place, the ruling and fine should have turned out the same. The third piece that changed was the general rule that the repeal of the Title II regulations will NOT support more competition between ISPs. With, presumably, lower costs for ISPs in general, and less overall regulation, I believe there is now more incentive for ISPs to move into areas they were no longer in. The example for this is how the cellular market has developed over the last 20ish years. Many years ago, the cell phone market was very similar to the ISP market now. There was really only one option in many areas and it was run like a monopoly. Unlimited Data was not a thing and many contracts and packages were charged by the minute or by the text. This changed from more competitors moving into the market and consumers freely switching carriers until the service was stepped up. Now, the cell service is light years ahead of broadband I believe that is the correct word . According to this map from the FCC, the majority of the U.S has at least 3 mobile carriers available for their use. This was done, to my knowledge, without any type of government regulation, but through consumer action. My final point of contention has to do with the idea that now companies will be able to censor certain speech or block certain content because the Title II regulations are gone. However, this was already happening beforehand. Youtube Google has been demonetizing channels that it deems to be too offensive based on their subjective definitions. There was no regulation for this with Title II and, as far as I know, there was nothing legally done about it. Facebook was also found to be pushing certain content in their trending feeds even though it was not getting more mentions that other content. Overall, The transparency rules that are in place now will allow for more ISPs to grow in the market, similar to the mobile market in the early 2000s, while informing consumers of blocking, throttling, affiliated prioritization, paid prioritization, congestion management, application specific behavior, device attachment rules, and security. Paragraph 216 of the report With these transparency rules in place, consumers will be able to make informed decisions based on the services provided by ISPs. Again, I understand that this is a really hot topic right now that is really polarizing on Reddit, but I'm hoping that we can have a good, fact based discussion on here.",The Repeal of Net Neutrality is not as bad as people make it out to be and is actually a net positive for consumers.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am very heathy and have an attractive body and I hate when people tell me I'm lucky . I look the way I do because I worked for it. Every morning when my alarm goes off, no matter how cozy my bed is or how much I'd like to skip it just this once, I get up and go for my run. I am a vegetarian and eat salads instead of burgers, fruit instead of desert. I drink water instead of mindlessly snacking. I am always excited when bikini season comes around because I love to show off the profits of what I work for year round, every day. Health and fitness are about habits, self control, and sticking to a regimen. It takes discipline, but anyone can do it, so I don't feel bad for obese people who complain that they should be more accepted. Obviously those with valid medical reasons get a free pass, but the vast majority of overweight people are entirely responsible for their condition. I honestly don't understand how people let it get so bad, and then do absolutely nothing about it. Of course it's hard to do, but anything you can really be proud of is. It confuses me that people put so little stock in their health, which to me is the foundation of everything. So tell me, is this accurate or am I being ignorant? Change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am very heathy and have an attractive body and I hate when people tell me I'm lucky . I look the way I do because I worked for it. Every morning when my alarm goes off, no matter how cozy my bed is or how much I'd like to skip it just this once, I get up and go for my run. I am a vegetarian and eat salads instead of burgers, fruit instead of desert. I drink water instead of mindlessly snacking. I am always excited when bikini season comes around because I love to show off the profits of what I work for year round, every day. Health and fitness are about habits, self control, and sticking to a regimen. It takes discipline, but anyone can do it, so I don't feel bad for obese people who complain that they should be more accepted. Obviously those with valid medical reasons get a free pass, but the vast majority of overweight people are entirely responsible for their condition. I honestly don't understand how people let it get so bad, and then do absolutely nothing about it. Of course it's hard to do, but anything you can really be proud of is. It confuses me that people put so little stock in their health, which to me is the foundation of everything. So tell me, is this accurate or am I being ignorant? Change my view.<|TARGETS|>n't understand how people let it get so bad and then do absolutely nothing about it ., Health and fitness, when bikini season, a vegetarian and eat salads instead of burgers, to skip it just this once I get up and go for my run ., to show off the profits of what I work for year round every day .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am very heathy and have an attractive body and I hate when people tell me I'm lucky . I look the way I do because I worked for it. Every morning when my alarm goes off, no matter how cozy my bed is or how much I'd like to skip it just this once, I get up and go for my run. I am a vegetarian and eat salads instead of burgers, fruit instead of desert. I drink water instead of mindlessly snacking. I am always excited when bikini season comes around because I love to show off the profits of what I work for year round, every day. Health and fitness are about habits, self control, and sticking to a regimen. It takes discipline, but anyone can do it, so I don't feel bad for obese people who complain that they should be more accepted. Obviously those with valid medical reasons get a free pass, but the vast majority of overweight people are entirely responsible for their condition. I honestly don't understand how people let it get so bad, and then do absolutely nothing about it. Of course it's hard to do, but anything you can really be proud of is. It confuses me that people put so little stock in their health, which to me is the foundation of everything. So tell me, is this accurate or am I being ignorant? Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, self control, free pass, heathy, view, condition, hard, lucky, get, attractive body, proud, overweight people, discipline, medical reasons, health, cozy, responsible, look, habits, profits, fruit, takes, vegetarian, foundation, stock, mindlessly snacking, accepted, health and fitness, ignorant<|CONCLUSION|>","I am very heathy and have an attractive body and I hate when people tell me I'm lucky . I look the way I do because I worked for it. Every morning when my alarm goes off, no matter how cozy my bed is or how much I'd like to skip it just this once, I get up and go for my run. I am a vegetarian and eat salads instead of burgers, fruit instead of desert. I drink water instead of mindlessly snacking. I am always excited when bikini season comes around because I love to show off the profits of what I work for year round, every day. Health and fitness are about habits, self control, and sticking to a regimen. It takes discipline, but anyone can do it, so I don't feel bad for obese people who complain that they should be more accepted. Obviously those with valid medical reasons get a free pass, but the vast majority of overweight people are entirely responsible for their condition. I honestly don't understand how people let it get so bad, and then do absolutely nothing about it. Of course it's hard to do, but anything you can really be proud of is. It confuses me that people put so little stock in their health, which to me is the foundation of everything. So tell me, is this accurate or am I being ignorant? Change my view.","I think fat people are pathetic and weak,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disregarding race, class is definitely more oppressive than gender. Class opens the door of opportunity for many people, even minority women, who are widely considered the most oppressed in society, have the opportunity to achieve success if they are in the middle or upper class. Class gives you multiple resources that people in the lower class simply do not have, like connections. Race and gender will always be oppressive, but there are still elites in each of these categories that are largely sanctioned off for the poor. In my opinion, living in a capitalist society, money is most important, not for personal happiness, but it is essential for someone's standard of living. Money can not get rid of all of the oppression, but it certainly could help, because as the old saying says, money makes the money go round . Do you agree?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disregarding race, class is definitely more oppressive than gender. Class opens the door of opportunity for many people, even minority women, who are widely considered the most oppressed in society, have the opportunity to achieve success if they are in the middle or upper class. Class gives you multiple resources that people in the lower class simply do not have, like connections. Race and gender will always be oppressive, but there are still elites in each of these categories that are largely sanctioned off for the poor. In my opinion, living in a capitalist society, money is most important, not for personal happiness, but it is essential for someone's standard of living. Money can not get rid of all of the oppression, but it certainly could help, because as the old saying says, money makes the money go round . Do you agree?<|TARGETS|>Money, Race and gender, Disregarding race class<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disregarding race, class is definitely more oppressive than gender. Class opens the door of opportunity for many people, even minority women, who are widely considered the most oppressed in society, have the opportunity to achieve success if they are in the middle or upper class. Class gives you multiple resources that people in the lower class simply do not have, like connections. Race and gender will always be oppressive, but there are still elites in each of these categories that are largely sanctioned off for the poor. In my opinion, living in a capitalist society, money is most important, not for personal happiness, but it is essential for someone's standard of living. Money can not get rid of all of the oppression, but it certainly could help, because as the old saying says, money makes the money go round . Do you agree?<|ASPECTS|>opportunity, success, elites, achieve, standard of living, oppressive, oppressed, resources, money, oppression, race, poor, connections, class, multiple, gender, personal happiness, money go<|CONCLUSION|>","Disregarding race, class is definitely more oppressive than gender. Class opens the door of opportunity for many people, even minority women, who are widely considered the most oppressed in society, have the opportunity to achieve success if they are in the middle or upper class. Class gives you multiple resources that people in the lower class simply do not have, like connections. Race and gender will always be oppressive, but there are still elites in each of these categories that are largely sanctioned off for the poor. In my opinion, living in a capitalist society, money is most important, not for personal happiness, but it is essential for someone's standard of living. Money can not get rid of all of the oppression, but it certainly could help, because as the old saying says, money makes the money go round . Do you agree?","Outside of race, class is more oppressive than gender."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>All throughout reddit, any discussion of climate change is accompanied by studies and citations claiming that all hope is lost. There is absolutely nothing that I can do though I don't have a car and have vowed to never have children, which are probably the biggest two things you can do for the planet and I cannot live in the best case scenario society All my entertainment is derived from technology, most people don't like my deep topics of conversation and I cannot reach their level I don't care about sports, I don't care about the weather, I don't care about irrelevant events in the lives of others . I don't even like group activities. I will not be able to stand having to spend most of the day farming and hanging out with people I find utterly uninteresting. Since I am such a loner I am utterly incapable of surviving a disaster scenario. Therefore, my best course of action is to live a solitary existence. I don't plan for the future since there is no future. Why get into debt to buy a house, since it will be worth nothing? Why plan for a long term career, since it will all collapse? Why raise a family, since it will be people I will have to defend and likely see slaughtered and raped in front of me, all cursing my name for not being able to defend them? If there is no hope, why should I expect a tomorrow? I don't want to go out fighting, I see no point on it. I might as well just stay in my room and play videogames until the apocalypse and finally hang myself when the time comes. Why not follow this plan?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>All throughout reddit, any discussion of climate change is accompanied by studies and citations claiming that all hope is lost. There is absolutely nothing that I can do though I don't have a car and have vowed to never have children, which are probably the biggest two things you can do for the planet and I cannot live in the best case scenario society All my entertainment is derived from technology, most people don't like my deep topics of conversation and I cannot reach their level I don't care about sports, I don't care about the weather, I don't care about irrelevant events in the lives of others . I don't even like group activities. I will not be able to stand having to spend most of the day farming and hanging out with people I find utterly uninteresting. Since I am such a loner I am utterly incapable of surviving a disaster scenario. Therefore, my best course of action is to live a solitary existence. I don't plan for the future since there is no future. Why get into debt to buy a house, since it will be worth nothing? Why plan for a long term career, since it will all collapse? Why raise a family, since it will be people I will have to defend and likely see slaughtered and raped in front of me, all cursing my name for not being able to defend them? If there is no hope, why should I expect a tomorrow? I don't want to go out fighting, I see no point on it. I might as well just stay in my room and play videogames until the apocalypse and finally hang myself when the time comes. Why not follow this plan?<|TARGETS|>nothing that I can do though I do n't have a car and have vowed to never have children which are probably the biggest two things you can do for the planet and I cannot live in the best case scenario society All my entertainment is derived from technology most people do n't like my deep topics of conversation and I cannot reach their level I do n't care about sports I do n't care about the weather I do n't care about irrelevant events in the lives of others ., to defend and likely see slaughtered and raped in front of me all cursing my name for not being able to defend them, any discussion of climate change, Why plan for a long term career, Why get into debt to buy a house, to live a solitary existence .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>All throughout reddit, any discussion of climate change is accompanied by studies and citations claiming that all hope is lost. There is absolutely nothing that I can do though I don't have a car and have vowed to never have children, which are probably the biggest two things you can do for the planet and I cannot live in the best case scenario society All my entertainment is derived from technology, most people don't like my deep topics of conversation and I cannot reach their level I don't care about sports, I don't care about the weather, I don't care about irrelevant events in the lives of others . I don't even like group activities. I will not be able to stand having to spend most of the day farming and hanging out with people I find utterly uninteresting. Since I am such a loner I am utterly incapable of surviving a disaster scenario. Therefore, my best course of action is to live a solitary existence. I don't plan for the future since there is no future. Why get into debt to buy a house, since it will be worth nothing? Why plan for a long term career, since it will all collapse? Why raise a family, since it will be people I will have to defend and likely see slaughtered and raped in front of me, all cursing my name for not being able to defend them? If there is no hope, why should I expect a tomorrow? I don't want to go out fighting, I see no point on it. I might as well just stay in my room and play videogames until the apocalypse and finally hang myself when the time comes. Why not follow this plan?<|ASPECTS|>, deep topics, entertainment, plan, disaster scenario, irrelevant events, incapable, worth nothing, collapse, future, debt, uninteresting, hope, tomorrow, long term career, climate change, hang, farming, videogames, defend, fighting, hope is lost, group activities, solitary existence, slaughtered and raped<|CONCLUSION|>","All throughout reddit, any discussion of climate change is accompanied by studies and citations claiming that all hope is lost. There is absolutely nothing that I can do though I don't have a car and have vowed to never have children, which are probably the biggest two things you can do for the planet and I cannot live in the best case scenario society All my entertainment is derived from technology, most people don't like my deep topics of conversation and I cannot reach their level I don't care about sports, I don't care about the weather, I don't care about irrelevant events in the lives of others . I don't even like group activities. I will not be able to stand having to spend most of the day farming and hanging out with people I find utterly uninteresting. Since I am such a loner I am utterly incapable of surviving a disaster scenario. Therefore, my best course of action is to live a solitary existence. I don't plan for the future since there is no future. Why get into debt to buy a house, since it will be worth nothing? Why plan for a long term career, since it will all collapse? Why raise a family, since it will be people I will have to defend and likely see slaughtered and raped in front of me, all cursing my name for not being able to defend them? If there is no hope, why should I expect a tomorrow? I don't want to go out fighting, I see no point on it. I might as well just stay in my room and play videogames until the apocalypse and finally hang myself when the time comes. Why not follow this plan?",Climate Change will destroy society therefore my best course of action is to avoid any and all attachments so I can commit suicide in peace when things get bad.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start off, I've never had an LTR. I've had a few female friends, but not so many anymore. I've also tried OKC and Tinder, and no luck. I'm really lonely, and started reading into the internet to ask for dating advice, and no luck. I'm starting to think women are evil creatures, and I have science to back it up First article, women are much more shallow than men Women only find 20 of guys attractive. Meaning, that women only want super hot alpha men that are Chad Thundercock Also, I tried asking different advices, and kept getting downvoted. Here's a recent one in an r askwomen thread They downvoted me just because I admitted I wasn't a Chad Thundercock Alpha douche bag. If I were to come in there as a Chad Thundercock, I would have upvotes galore. I'm starting to think r TheRedPill has some REALLY good advice, and TheRedPill says I'm just going through my anger phase. However, TRP contradicts my used to be liberal beliefes, so I came here for a neutral POV. So please, CMV that women aren't evil shallow creatures. If they weren't, why am I not with a woman?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start off, I've never had an LTR. I've had a few female friends, but not so many anymore. I've also tried OKC and Tinder, and no luck. I'm really lonely, and started reading into the internet to ask for dating advice, and no luck. I'm starting to think women are evil creatures, and I have science to back it up First article, women are much more shallow than men Women only find 20 of guys attractive. Meaning, that women only want super hot alpha men that are Chad Thundercock Also, I tried asking different advices, and kept getting downvoted. Here's a recent one in an r askwomen thread They downvoted me just because I admitted I wasn't a Chad Thundercock Alpha douche bag. If I were to come in there as a Chad Thundercock, I would have upvotes galore. I'm starting to think r TheRedPill has some REALLY good advice, and TheRedPill says I'm just going through my anger phase. However, TRP contradicts my used to be liberal beliefes, so I came here for a neutral POV. So please, CMV that women aren't evil shallow creatures. If they weren't, why am I not with a woman?<|TARGETS|>TheRedPill, TRP, If I were to come in there as a Chad Thundercock, reading into the internet to ask for dating advice, to think women are evil creatures and I have science to back it up First article, a Chad Thundercock Alpha douche bag<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start off, I've never had an LTR. I've had a few female friends, but not so many anymore. I've also tried OKC and Tinder, and no luck. I'm really lonely, and started reading into the internet to ask for dating advice, and no luck. I'm starting to think women are evil creatures, and I have science to back it up First article, women are much more shallow than men Women only find 20 of guys attractive. Meaning, that women only want super hot alpha men that are Chad Thundercock Also, I tried asking different advices, and kept getting downvoted. Here's a recent one in an r askwomen thread They downvoted me just because I admitted I wasn't a Chad Thundercock Alpha douche bag. If I were to come in there as a Chad Thundercock, I would have upvotes galore. I'm starting to think r TheRedPill has some REALLY good advice, and TheRedPill says I'm just going through my anger phase. However, TRP contradicts my used to be liberal beliefes, so I came here for a neutral POV. So please, CMV that women aren't evil shallow creatures. If they weren't, why am I not with a woman?<|ASPECTS|>female friends, really, upvotes, downvoted, ltr, shallow, dating advice, liberal beliefes, lonely, evil shallow creatures, evil creatures, good advice, anger phase, okc, douche bag, neutral pov, hot alpha men<|CONCLUSION|>","To start off, I've never had an LTR. I've had a few female friends, but not so many anymore. I've also tried OKC and Tinder, and no luck. I'm really lonely, and started reading into the internet to ask for dating advice, and no luck. I'm starting to think women are evil creatures, and I have science to back it up First article, women are much more shallow than men Women only find 20 of guys attractive. Meaning, that women only want super hot alpha men that are Chad Thundercock Also, I tried asking different advices, and kept getting downvoted. Here's a recent one in an r askwomen thread They downvoted me just because I admitted I wasn't a Chad Thundercock Alpha douche bag. If I were to come in there as a Chad Thundercock, I would have upvotes galore. I'm starting to think r TheRedPill has some REALLY good advice, and TheRedPill says I'm just going through my anger phase. However, TRP contradicts my used to be liberal beliefes, so I came here for a neutral POV. So please,  that women aren't evil shallow creatures. If they weren't, why am I not with a woman?",I'm a misogynist.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Taylor Swift recently pulled her music from Spotify, and she's come under heavy criticism for it. Spotify isn't pirating I enjoy streaming services as much as the rest , but it seems like a lot of people feel like this is somehow wrong or greedy of her to do. A friend of mine commented on Facebook I love Taylor, but I hate the entitled attitude that artists have in regards to their music. These musicians are fucking loaded with money, they don't need anymore. So no, I don't feel bad by obtaining free music. I'm not wasting my money on things I can get for free elsewhere. Ridiculous. This, and dozens of other similar comments strike a chord with me. If an artist isn't entitled to their own music that they created, then who is? Which brings me to the issue of piracy. To me, it seems wrong to obtain music in any way other than how the creator of that music intended. Many people point to Taylor Swift's fortune and say she already has SO much money She doesn't need any more , etc. In my opinion, the wealth of an artist should have absolutely zero bearing on their right to profit from work they create. I can't think of any reason why it should. If an artist chooses to give away music freely, then awesome. Respect to them. But if an artist chooses to distribute their work exclusively through selling, then that should be their choice, and nobody else's, and that choice should be respected.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Taylor Swift recently pulled her music from Spotify, and she's come under heavy criticism for it. Spotify isn't pirating I enjoy streaming services as much as the rest , but it seems like a lot of people feel like this is somehow wrong or greedy of her to do. A friend of mine commented on Facebook I love Taylor, but I hate the entitled attitude that artists have in regards to their music. These musicians are fucking loaded with money, they don't need anymore. So no, I don't feel bad by obtaining free music. I'm not wasting my money on things I can get for free elsewhere. Ridiculous. This, and dozens of other similar comments strike a chord with me. If an artist isn't entitled to their own music that they created, then who is? Which brings me to the issue of piracy. To me, it seems wrong to obtain music in any way other than how the creator of that music intended. Many people point to Taylor Swift's fortune and say she already has SO much money She doesn't need any more , etc. In my opinion, the wealth of an artist should have absolutely zero bearing on their right to profit from work they create. I can't think of any reason why it should. If an artist chooses to give away music freely, then awesome. Respect to them. But if an artist chooses to distribute their work exclusively through selling, then that should be their choice, and nobody else's, and that choice should be respected.<|TARGETS|>streaming services, Taylor Swift 's fortune, their right to profit from work they create ., the entitled attitude that artists have in regards to their music ., If an artist is n't entitled to their own music that they created, an artist chooses to distribute their work exclusively through selling<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Taylor Swift recently pulled her music from Spotify, and she's come under heavy criticism for it. Spotify isn't pirating I enjoy streaming services as much as the rest , but it seems like a lot of people feel like this is somehow wrong or greedy of her to do. A friend of mine commented on Facebook I love Taylor, but I hate the entitled attitude that artists have in regards to their music. These musicians are fucking loaded with money, they don't need anymore. So no, I don't feel bad by obtaining free music. I'm not wasting my money on things I can get for free elsewhere. Ridiculous. This, and dozens of other similar comments strike a chord with me. If an artist isn't entitled to their own music that they created, then who is? Which brings me to the issue of piracy. To me, it seems wrong to obtain music in any way other than how the creator of that music intended. Many people point to Taylor Swift's fortune and say she already has SO much money She doesn't need any more , etc. In my opinion, the wealth of an artist should have absolutely zero bearing on their right to profit from work they create. I can't think of any reason why it should. If an artist chooses to give away music freely, then awesome. Respect to them. But if an artist chooses to distribute their work exclusively through selling, then that should be their choice, and nobody else's, and that choice should be respected.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, right to profit, entitled, piracy, money, entitled attitude, away music freely, ridiculous, feel bad, greedy, wasting my money, music, free music, wrong to obtain music, criticism, wealth, respect, free, loaded, services, fortune, choice<|CONCLUSION|>","Taylor Swift recently pulled her music from Spotify, and she's come under heavy criticism for it. Spotify isn't pirating I enjoy streaming services as much as the rest , but it seems like a lot of people feel like this is somehow wrong or greedy of her to do. A friend of mine commented on Facebook I love Taylor, but I hate the entitled attitude that artists have in regards to their music. These musicians are fucking loaded with money, they don't need anymore. So no, I don't feel bad by obtaining free music. I'm not wasting my money on things I can get for free elsewhere. Ridiculous. This, and dozens of other similar comments strike a chord with me. If an artist isn't entitled to their own music that they created, then who is? Which brings me to the issue of piracy. To me, it seems wrong to obtain music in any way other than how the creator of that music intended. Many people point to Taylor Swift's fortune and say she already has SO much money She doesn't need any more , etc. In my opinion, the wealth of an artist should have absolutely zero bearing on their right to profit from work they create. I can't think of any reason why it should. If an artist chooses to give away music freely, then awesome. Respect to them. But if an artist chooses to distribute their work exclusively through selling, then that should be their choice, and nobody else's, and that choice should be respected.",It's wrong to justify pirating music based on an artist's monetary income
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the “Good Luck America” program on Snapchat, host Peter Hamby goes to all different parts of the USA and talks to people of vastly different upbringings and political beliefs. This week, the show gave a very interesting representation of both candidates in the Texas Senate race, as well as their respective parties. Peter the show definitely has his its biases, but he brings up some very valid points, such as voter participation rate among different ethnic groups in both Texas and the country as a whole. If you want to watch the episode, click here I want you to change my view on three things related to this episode. Voter participation rates exist and are noticeably different, at a large scale, among different ethnic groups. It beneficial for America that more people pay attention to this kind of big news political content, regardless of your definition for what “beneficial to America” means. The fact that Trump has said that he will send illegal immigrants back to where they came from is directly at odds with his actions. Basically, he says one thing and does another. Cheers lads<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the “Good Luck America” program on Snapchat, host Peter Hamby goes to all different parts of the USA and talks to people of vastly different upbringings and political beliefs. This week, the show gave a very interesting representation of both candidates in the Texas Senate race, as well as their respective parties. Peter the show definitely has his its biases, but he brings up some very valid points, such as voter participation rate among different ethnic groups in both Texas and the country as a whole. If you want to watch the episode, click here I want you to change my view on three things related to this episode. Voter participation rates exist and are noticeably different, at a large scale, among different ethnic groups. It beneficial for America that more people pay attention to this kind of big news political content, regardless of your definition for what “beneficial to America” means. The fact that Trump has said that he will send illegal immigrants back to where they came from is directly at odds with his actions. Basically, he says one thing and does another. Cheers lads<|TARGETS|>Peter the show, send illegal immigrants back to where they came from, If you want to watch the episode, to change my view on three things related to this episode ., Voter participation rates, It beneficial for America that more people pay attention to this kind of big news political content<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the “Good Luck America” program on Snapchat, host Peter Hamby goes to all different parts of the USA and talks to people of vastly different upbringings and political beliefs. This week, the show gave a very interesting representation of both candidates in the Texas Senate race, as well as their respective parties. Peter the show definitely has his its biases, but he brings up some very valid points, such as voter participation rate among different ethnic groups in both Texas and the country as a whole. If you want to watch the episode, click here I want you to change my view on three things related to this episode. Voter participation rates exist and are noticeably different, at a large scale, among different ethnic groups. It beneficial for America that more people pay attention to this kind of big news political content, regardless of your definition for what “beneficial to America” means. The fact that Trump has said that he will send illegal immigrants back to where they came from is directly at odds with his actions. Basically, he says one thing and does another. Cheers lads<|ASPECTS|>political beliefs, change, representation, interesting, voter participation rate, beneficial, cheers lads, view, america, upbringings, political content, voter participation rates, biases, illegal immigrants<|CONCLUSION|>","In the “Good Luck America” program on Snapchat, host Peter Hamby goes to all different parts of the USA and talks to people of vastly different upbringings and political beliefs. This week, the show gave a very interesting representation of both candidates in the Texas Senate race, as well as their respective parties. Peter the show definitely has his its biases, but he brings up some very valid points, such as voter participation rate among different ethnic groups in both Texas and the country as a whole. If you want to watch the episode, click here I want you to change my view on three things related to this episode. Voter participation rates exist and are noticeably different, at a large scale, among different ethnic groups. It beneficial for America that more people pay attention to this kind of big news political content, regardless of your definition for what “beneficial to America” means. The fact that Trump has said that he will send illegal immigrants back to where they came from is directly at odds with his actions. Basically, he says one thing and does another. Cheers lads",I have 3 claims about the Snapchat coverage of the Texas Senate race covered.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have never seen a time in American history where it was more acceptable to absolutely hate the President. I was a liberal in the early 2000s and we hated Bush, but absolutely nothing to this extent. People weren't declining visits to the white house en masse, demanding that major websites ban communities that support the President it's staggering to me online communities that support the President of the United States are considered super fringe and controversial and far right? Supporting the president of the united states is like the most status quo thing ever , or anything like this environment. I've tried to understand why people hate this guy so much and it doesn't make any sense to me. I didn't even vote for him in '16. I probably will in '20 though because it absolutely sickens me what the left is doing during his presidency and I want to take a stand against it. I've talked to leftists to see what they hate about the guy. They call him racist, sexist, every ism under the sun, and I say okay, tell me specifically what policies Trump has supported or enacted that have violated the human rights or civil rights of Americans. They bring up the immigrant child cages and all this illegal immigration stuff. None of that is happening to American citizens. I ask them again, what polices is Trump enacting that violate the rights of American citizens, I don't want to hear about your extra national loyalties. They bring up the Muslim ban. Again, completely irrelevant as it doesn't apply to American citizens. This just demonstrates to me that the left is not pro America these days. Something weird has happened very recently, maybe in the past 5 years, where the American left seems to care about all these rights of people who are country doesn't have the slightest obligation to foreign migrants, foreign muslims instead of our own people. It's realllly turned me away from the left, hard. I ask again. What policy has Trump enacted that violates the rights of American citizens. No stories about foreigners being dealt with, no stories of women who's feelings Trump hurt in the 90s, I want policies, bills, laws, executive orders. I want something tangible. They won't give it to me. What else, they hate him because he doesn't want to give you free stuff? All these Democrats are running on the promise of hating successful people and stealing their money to give to you for no apparent reason. If you support that, fine, but no one is entitled to a single cent in this world. If you want more money, that's awesome, go improve your skills and find someone willing to pay you more money, don't blame Trump that you're a life failure you know? If you want a politician who screws up the economy to give you free stuff, okay, fine, but that's hardly new and hardly a reason to hate the guy so much. I've disagreed with the economic philosophies of most Presidents, but didn't loathe them so deeply for it. What else is there? You're mad that he dared to think independently after Charlotsville and said there were problems with both sides, instead of taking the easy way out and Nazi bashing with everyone else? There were problems with both sides when 50 right wingers show up to march and lawfully protest, it's probably not a great idea to go try to outnumber them 10 to 1 like you're so tough, provoke them and shout at them in every way possible and turn your town into a warzone. Do you know how easy it would have been for Trump to be a spineless politician like everyone else and say something milquetoast and noncontroversial like Nazis super bad, Nazis evil, sad day for America, I praise all the counterprotestors who can do no wrong. You don't have to agree with his assessment to admire him for not being a puppet. He talks in weird speech patterns? Eh, he's more literate than Bush was and y'all didn't hate him like this. He even signed a bill to reform the Justice system, which is a cause I supported as a liberal and still support today wasn't this something major you guys wanted? Sure, it doesn't go far enough, but it's more than Obama did. Then there's all this Russia crap that won't die, despite nothing being turned up. Again, I don't want media stories about Trump said this, trump did that. Tell me what policies Trump enacted that are affecting you so badly. People can't do it All in all, I can't understand all the Trump hate. Trump has done precisely 1 thing in office that I have found unforgiveable He signed FOSTA. Most of these anti Trumpers probably don't even know what FOSTA is, even though it was worse than all these perceived evils trump has committed combined. But Bernie and almost every other left winger in Congress voted for FOSTA too, so All in all, this Trump hate seems to be borne out of extranational loyalties, and misinformation and misprioritization. As an American citizen, I think you would be hard pressed to name specific ways in which Trump has made your life worse. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have never seen a time in American history where it was more acceptable to absolutely hate the President. I was a liberal in the early 2000s and we hated Bush, but absolutely nothing to this extent. People weren't declining visits to the white house en masse, demanding that major websites ban communities that support the President it's staggering to me online communities that support the President of the United States are considered super fringe and controversial and far right? Supporting the president of the united states is like the most status quo thing ever , or anything like this environment. I've tried to understand why people hate this guy so much and it doesn't make any sense to me. I didn't even vote for him in '16. I probably will in '20 though because it absolutely sickens me what the left is doing during his presidency and I want to take a stand against it. I've talked to leftists to see what they hate about the guy. They call him racist, sexist, every ism under the sun, and I say okay, tell me specifically what policies Trump has supported or enacted that have violated the human rights or civil rights of Americans. They bring up the immigrant child cages and all this illegal immigration stuff. None of that is happening to American citizens. I ask them again, what polices is Trump enacting that violate the rights of American citizens, I don't want to hear about your extra national loyalties. They bring up the Muslim ban. Again, completely irrelevant as it doesn't apply to American citizens. This just demonstrates to me that the left is not pro America these days. Something weird has happened very recently, maybe in the past 5 years, where the American left seems to care about all these rights of people who are country doesn't have the slightest obligation to foreign migrants, foreign muslims instead of our own people. It's realllly turned me away from the left, hard. I ask again. What policy has Trump enacted that violates the rights of American citizens. No stories about foreigners being dealt with, no stories of women who's feelings Trump hurt in the 90s, I want policies, bills, laws, executive orders. I want something tangible. They won't give it to me. What else, they hate him because he doesn't want to give you free stuff? All these Democrats are running on the promise of hating successful people and stealing their money to give to you for no apparent reason. If you support that, fine, but no one is entitled to a single cent in this world. If you want more money, that's awesome, go improve your skills and find someone willing to pay you more money, don't blame Trump that you're a life failure you know? If you want a politician who screws up the economy to give you free stuff, okay, fine, but that's hardly new and hardly a reason to hate the guy so much. I've disagreed with the economic philosophies of most Presidents, but didn't loathe them so deeply for it. What else is there? You're mad that he dared to think independently after Charlotsville and said there were problems with both sides, instead of taking the easy way out and Nazi bashing with everyone else? There were problems with both sides when 50 right wingers show up to march and lawfully protest, it's probably not a great idea to go try to outnumber them 10 to 1 like you're so tough, provoke them and shout at them in every way possible and turn your town into a warzone. Do you know how easy it would have been for Trump to be a spineless politician like everyone else and say something milquetoast and noncontroversial like Nazis super bad, Nazis evil, sad day for America, I praise all the counterprotestors who can do no wrong. You don't have to agree with his assessment to admire him for not being a puppet. He talks in weird speech patterns? Eh, he's more literate than Bush was and y'all didn't hate him like this. He even signed a bill to reform the Justice system, which is a cause I supported as a liberal and still support today wasn't this something major you guys wanted? Sure, it doesn't go far enough, but it's more than Obama did. Then there's all this Russia crap that won't die, despite nothing being turned up. Again, I don't want media stories about Trump said this, trump did that. Tell me what policies Trump enacted that are affecting you so badly. People can't do it All in all, I can't understand all the Trump hate. Trump has done precisely 1 thing in office that I have found unforgiveable He signed FOSTA. Most of these anti Trumpers probably don't even know what FOSTA is, even though it was worse than all these perceived evils trump has committed combined. But Bernie and almost every other left winger in Congress voted for FOSTA too, so All in all, this Trump hate seems to be borne out of extranational loyalties, and misinformation and misprioritization. As an American citizen, I think you would be hard pressed to name specific ways in which Trump has made your life worse. CMV.<|TARGETS|>Tell me what policies Trump enacted, FOSTA, to understand why people hate this guy so much and it, What policy has Trump enacted, If you want a politician who screws up the economy to give you free stuff, They bring up the Muslim ban<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have never seen a time in American history where it was more acceptable to absolutely hate the President. I was a liberal in the early 2000s and we hated Bush, but absolutely nothing to this extent. People weren't declining visits to the white house en masse, demanding that major websites ban communities that support the President it's staggering to me online communities that support the President of the United States are considered super fringe and controversial and far right? Supporting the president of the united states is like the most status quo thing ever , or anything like this environment. I've tried to understand why people hate this guy so much and it doesn't make any sense to me. I didn't even vote for him in '16. I probably will in '20 though because it absolutely sickens me what the left is doing during his presidency and I want to take a stand against it. I've talked to leftists to see what they hate about the guy. They call him racist, sexist, every ism under the sun, and I say okay, tell me specifically what policies Trump has supported or enacted that have violated the human rights or civil rights of Americans. They bring up the immigrant child cages and all this illegal immigration stuff. None of that is happening to American citizens. I ask them again, what polices is Trump enacting that violate the rights of American citizens, I don't want to hear about your extra national loyalties. They bring up the Muslim ban. Again, completely irrelevant as it doesn't apply to American citizens. This just demonstrates to me that the left is not pro America these days. Something weird has happened very recently, maybe in the past 5 years, where the American left seems to care about all these rights of people who are country doesn't have the slightest obligation to foreign migrants, foreign muslims instead of our own people. It's realllly turned me away from the left, hard. I ask again. What policy has Trump enacted that violates the rights of American citizens. No stories about foreigners being dealt with, no stories of women who's feelings Trump hurt in the 90s, I want policies, bills, laws, executive orders. I want something tangible. They won't give it to me. What else, they hate him because he doesn't want to give you free stuff? All these Democrats are running on the promise of hating successful people and stealing their money to give to you for no apparent reason. If you support that, fine, but no one is entitled to a single cent in this world. If you want more money, that's awesome, go improve your skills and find someone willing to pay you more money, don't blame Trump that you're a life failure you know? If you want a politician who screws up the economy to give you free stuff, okay, fine, but that's hardly new and hardly a reason to hate the guy so much. I've disagreed with the economic philosophies of most Presidents, but didn't loathe them so deeply for it. What else is there? You're mad that he dared to think independently after Charlotsville and said there were problems with both sides, instead of taking the easy way out and Nazi bashing with everyone else? There were problems with both sides when 50 right wingers show up to march and lawfully protest, it's probably not a great idea to go try to outnumber them 10 to 1 like you're so tough, provoke them and shout at them in every way possible and turn your town into a warzone. Do you know how easy it would have been for Trump to be a spineless politician like everyone else and say something milquetoast and noncontroversial like Nazis super bad, Nazis evil, sad day for America, I praise all the counterprotestors who can do no wrong. You don't have to agree with his assessment to admire him for not being a puppet. He talks in weird speech patterns? Eh, he's more literate than Bush was and y'all didn't hate him like this. He even signed a bill to reform the Justice system, which is a cause I supported as a liberal and still support today wasn't this something major you guys wanted? Sure, it doesn't go far enough, but it's more than Obama did. Then there's all this Russia crap that won't die, despite nothing being turned up. Again, I don't want media stories about Trump said this, trump did that. Tell me what policies Trump enacted that are affecting you so badly. People can't do it All in all, I can't understand all the Trump hate. Trump has done precisely 1 thing in office that I have found unforgiveable He signed FOSTA. Most of these anti Trumpers probably don't even know what FOSTA is, even though it was worse than all these perceived evils trump has committed combined. But Bernie and almost every other left winger in Congress voted for FOSTA too, so All in all, this Trump hate seems to be borne out of extranational loyalties, and misinformation and misprioritization. As an American citizen, I think you would be hard pressed to name specific ways in which Trump has made your life worse. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>foreigners, obama, rights, executive orders, media stories, counterprotestors, entitled, money, liberal, extranational loyalties, justice system, puppet, reform, life failure, feelings trump hurt, literate, turned me away, national loyalties, united, status quo thing, outnumber, human rights, trump hate, sickens, super fringe, rights of american citizens, unforgiveable, hate, hate the president, nazis, improve your skills, go far, weird, left, noncontroversial, way, economy, loathe, obligation, foreign migrants, perceived evils, die, immigrant child cages, affecting, anti trumpers, life worse, acceptable, warzone, hated bush, economic philosophies, leftists, tangible, pro america, russia crap, speech patterns, think independently, civil rights of americans, lawfully, spineless, misprioritization, ban communities, illegal immigration, sexist, admire, nazi bashing, citizens, misinformation, racist, policies, american citizens, stealing their money, free stuff, hating successful people, single cent, problems with, vote, muslim ban, controversial, irrelevant<|CONCLUSION|>","I have never seen a time in American history where it was more acceptable to absolutely hate the President. I was a liberal in the early 2000s and we hated Bush, but absolutely nothing to this extent. People weren't declining visits to the white house en masse, demanding that major websites ban communities that support the President it's staggering to me online communities that support the President of the United States are considered super fringe and controversial and far right? Supporting the president of the united states is like the most status quo thing ever , or anything like this environment. I've tried to understand why people hate this guy so much and it doesn't make any sense to me. I didn't even vote for him in '16. I probably will in '20 though because it absolutely sickens me what the left is doing during his presidency and I want to take a stand against it. I've talked to leftists to see what they hate about the guy. They call him racist, sexist, every ism under the sun, and I say okay, tell me specifically what policies Trump has supported or enacted that have violated the human rights or civil rights of Americans. They bring up the immigrant child cages and all this illegal immigration stuff. None of that is happening to American citizens. I ask them again, what polices is Trump enacting that violate the rights of American citizens, I don't want to hear about your extra national loyalties. They bring up the Muslim ban. Again, completely irrelevant as it doesn't apply to American citizens. This just demonstrates to me that the left is not pro America these days. Something weird has happened very recently, maybe in the past 5 years, where the American left seems to care about all these rights of people who are country doesn't have the slightest obligation to foreign migrants, foreign muslims instead of our own people. It's realllly turned me away from the left, hard. I ask again. What policy has Trump enacted that violates the rights of American citizens. No stories about foreigners being dealt with, no stories of women who's feelings Trump hurt in the 90s, I want policies, bills, laws, executive orders. I want something tangible. They won't give it to me. What else, they hate him because he doesn't want to give you free stuff? All these Democrats are running on the promise of hating successful people and stealing their money to give to you for no apparent reason. If you support that, fine, but no one is entitled to a single cent in this world. If you want more money, that's awesome, go improve your skills and find someone willing to pay you more money, don't blame Trump that you're a life failure you know? If you want a politician who screws up the economy to give you free stuff, okay, fine, but that's hardly new and hardly a reason to hate the guy so much. I've disagreed with the economic philosophies of most Presidents, but didn't loathe them so deeply for it. What else is there? You're mad that he dared to think independently after Charlotsville and said there were problems with both sides, instead of taking the easy way out and Nazi bashing with everyone else? There were problems with both sides when 50 right wingers show up to march and lawfully protest, it's probably not a great idea to go try to outnumber them 10 to 1 like you're so tough, provoke them and shout at them in every way possible and turn your town into a warzone. Do you know how easy it would have been for Trump to be a spineless politician like everyone else and say something milquetoast and noncontroversial like Nazis super bad, Nazis evil, sad day for America, I praise all the counterprotestors who can do no wrong. You don't have to agree with his assessment to admire him for not being a puppet. He talks in weird speech patterns? Eh, he's more literate than Bush was and y'all didn't hate him like this. He even signed a bill to reform the Justice system, which is a cause I supported as a liberal and still support today wasn't this something major you guys wanted? Sure, it doesn't go far enough, but it's more than Obama did. Then there's all this Russia crap that won't die, despite nothing being turned up. Again, I don't want media stories about Trump said this, trump did that. Tell me what policies Trump enacted that are affecting you so badly. People can't do it All in all, I can't understand all the Trump hate. Trump has done precisely 1 thing in office that I have found unforgiveable He signed FOSTA. Most of these anti Trumpers probably don't even know what FOSTA is, even though it was worse than all these perceived evils trump has committed combined. But Bernie and almost every other left winger in Congress voted for FOSTA too, so All in all, this Trump hate seems to be borne out of extranational loyalties, and misinformation and misprioritization. As an American citizen, I think you would be hard pressed to name specific ways in which Trump has made your life worse. .","From the perspective of an American, there's really not much reason to hate President Trump. 99% of the hate for him is completely unfounded and fueled my misinformation, extranational loyalties, and media lies"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I really think the media overly portrays videogames as some sort of evil thing that causes kids and adults to become murderous psychopaths. I've seen hundreds of news articles saying that X School shooting, is gaming to blame? or things alongside those lines. But this is completely inaccurate. Multiple scientific studies on people who do mass shootings as an example say that they have multiple personality disorders were abused as kids hundreds of other reasons, and only a handful actually play video games. Videogames are in no way tools that people use to convince themselves to rob a bank, or commit mass murder. Then the media loves to go ham on games saying about how the youth are being stunted by them, how everyone is addicted to them, blah blah blah, wrong wrong wrong except maybe the addiction part, as some people do go a bit overboard Videogames have multiple benefits for people, such as bringing together communities regardless of race, age, gender, religious beliefs, they can bring together friends so they can hang out and chat, and engage with each other without being in danger. Think a group of friends walking together on the sidewalk, and a drunk driver ploughs into them. Videogames improve hand eye coordination, focus, confidence, and a whole lot more. So, what does everyone else think? Am I right, or delusional?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I really think the media overly portrays videogames as some sort of evil thing that causes kids and adults to become murderous psychopaths. I've seen hundreds of news articles saying that X School shooting, is gaming to blame? or things alongside those lines. But this is completely inaccurate. Multiple scientific studies on people who do mass shootings as an example say that they have multiple personality disorders were abused as kids hundreds of other reasons, and only a handful actually play video games. Videogames are in no way tools that people use to convince themselves to rob a bank, or commit mass murder. Then the media loves to go ham on games saying about how the youth are being stunted by them, how everyone is addicted to them, blah blah blah, wrong wrong wrong except maybe the addiction part, as some people do go a bit overboard Videogames have multiple benefits for people, such as bringing together communities regardless of race, age, gender, religious beliefs, they can bring together friends so they can hang out and chat, and engage with each other without being in danger. Think a group of friends walking together on the sidewalk, and a drunk driver ploughs into them. Videogames improve hand eye coordination, focus, confidence, and a whole lot more. So, what does everyone else think? Am I right, or delusional?<|TARGETS|>hundreds of news articles saying that X School shooting, to go ham on games saying about how the youth are being stunted by them how everyone is addicted to them blah blah blah wrong wrong wrong except maybe the addiction part as some people do go a bit overboard Videogames have multiple benefits for people such as bringing together communities regardless of race age gender religious beliefs they can bring together friends so they can hang out and chat and engage with each other without being in danger ., Multiple scientific studies on people who do mass shootings as an example, Think a group of friends walking together on the sidewalk, Videogames<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I really think the media overly portrays videogames as some sort of evil thing that causes kids and adults to become murderous psychopaths. I've seen hundreds of news articles saying that X School shooting, is gaming to blame? or things alongside those lines. But this is completely inaccurate. Multiple scientific studies on people who do mass shootings as an example say that they have multiple personality disorders were abused as kids hundreds of other reasons, and only a handful actually play video games. Videogames are in no way tools that people use to convince themselves to rob a bank, or commit mass murder. Then the media loves to go ham on games saying about how the youth are being stunted by them, how everyone is addicted to them, blah blah blah, wrong wrong wrong except maybe the addiction part, as some people do go a bit overboard Videogames have multiple benefits for people, such as bringing together communities regardless of race, age, gender, religious beliefs, they can bring together friends so they can hang out and chat, and engage with each other without being in danger. Think a group of friends walking together on the sidewalk, and a drunk driver ploughs into them. Videogames improve hand eye coordination, focus, confidence, and a whole lot more. So, what does everyone else think? Am I right, or delusional?<|ASPECTS|>video games, inaccurate, benefits, engage, confidence, murderous psychopaths, x, focus, shooting, danger, delusional, abused, personality disorders, drunk driver, hand eye coordination, right, evil, wrong wrong, commit mass murder, addiction, youth, rob a bank, addicted, gaming to blame, multiple, tools<|CONCLUSION|>","I really think the media overly portrays videogames as some sort of evil thing that causes kids and adults to become murderous psychopaths. I've seen hundreds of news articles saying that X School shooting, is gaming to blame? or things alongside those lines. But this is completely inaccurate. Multiple scientific studies on people who do mass shootings as an example say that they have multiple personality disorders were abused as kids hundreds of other reasons, and only a handful actually play video games. Videogames are in no way tools that people use to convince themselves to rob a bank, or commit mass murder. Then the media loves to go ham on games saying about how the youth are being stunted by them, how everyone is addicted to them, blah blah blah, wrong wrong wrong except maybe the addiction part, as some people do go a bit overboard Videogames have multiple benefits for people, such as bringing together communities regardless of race, age, gender, religious beliefs, they can bring together friends so they can hang out and chat, and engage with each other without being in danger. Think a group of friends walking together on the sidewalk, and a drunk driver ploughs into them. Videogames improve hand eye coordination, focus, confidence, and a whole lot more. So, what does everyone else think? Am I right, or delusional?","Gaming is NOT such a bad thing as the media loves to claim, nor does it incite violence, or shootings"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll start out by saying that I respect the hell out of tattoo artists, I have one tattoo that I still tipped for despite the fact that I don't really agree with it, and I truly want someone to present a good argument in favor of always tipping. I'm an American who grew up in American tipping culture and worked as a waitress for a while so I totally understand why some professions you are expected to tip for and I respect that. I tip the obvious workers such as food service people and lyft drivers, as well as less obvious ones such as movers, coat checkers, hair dressers and nail salon artists because I know their prices are set, and particularly the last two they are sometimes required to rent the space and use their own equipment. I know a lot of people are against mandatory tipping but I'm not. Of course I would prefer that employers be required to pay their employees enough that tipping wouldn't be necessary any more but until that happens I think you should tip. I feel that I am fulfilling my part of the general social contract to fill in when the employer doesn't charge enough, so I almost always tip 20 and if I get only what I consider to be truly terrible service I'll still tip 10 . I also know that getting an education, equipment, and space are all costs to the worker that aren't necessarily filled in with the pricing of the good or service so I respect that need as well. However, all of these people usually have to charge prices set by the establishment, so they are locked in to not really getting enough to cover all that I mentioned above. From my understanding, tattoo artists are different that the others because they typically set their own hourly prices. That is really the only reason why I would question whether or not tipping should be mandatory. If you're not earning enough money hourly to cover upfront and back costs, you have the power to charge your customers more. The other professions do not have that kind of power over their own prices from what I understand, however I'm sure their are examples that break this rule. I have no problem with non mandatory tipping, I could understand why someone might want to give some extra money to the artist for particularly good work. And to their credit the tattoo shops I've been in tend to have signs that say Tips are appreciated so they themselves are not saying it's mandatory. But whenever I search online whether or not I should tip the artists all of the results are unanimous that yes, you should always tip unless the work is terrible. I just don't think that makes sense in a profession where they set their own prices. Please CMV. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll start out by saying that I respect the hell out of tattoo artists, I have one tattoo that I still tipped for despite the fact that I don't really agree with it, and I truly want someone to present a good argument in favor of always tipping. I'm an American who grew up in American tipping culture and worked as a waitress for a while so I totally understand why some professions you are expected to tip for and I respect that. I tip the obvious workers such as food service people and lyft drivers, as well as less obvious ones such as movers, coat checkers, hair dressers and nail salon artists because I know their prices are set, and particularly the last two they are sometimes required to rent the space and use their own equipment. I know a lot of people are against mandatory tipping but I'm not. Of course I would prefer that employers be required to pay their employees enough that tipping wouldn't be necessary any more but until that happens I think you should tip. I feel that I am fulfilling my part of the general social contract to fill in when the employer doesn't charge enough, so I almost always tip 20 and if I get only what I consider to be truly terrible service I'll still tip 10 . I also know that getting an education, equipment, and space are all costs to the worker that aren't necessarily filled in with the pricing of the good or service so I respect that need as well. However, all of these people usually have to charge prices set by the establishment, so they are locked in to not really getting enough to cover all that I mentioned above. From my understanding, tattoo artists are different that the others because they typically set their own hourly prices. That is really the only reason why I would question whether or not tipping should be mandatory. If you're not earning enough money hourly to cover upfront and back costs, you have the power to charge your customers more. The other professions do not have that kind of power over their own prices from what I understand, however I'm sure their are examples that break this rule. I have no problem with non mandatory tipping, I could understand why someone might want to give some extra money to the artist for particularly good work. And to their credit the tattoo shops I've been in tend to have signs that say Tips are appreciated so they themselves are not saying it's mandatory. But whenever I search online whether or not I should tip the artists all of the results are unanimous that yes, you should always tip unless the work is terrible. I just don't think that makes sense in a profession where they set their own prices. Please CMV. <|TARGETS|>that employers be required to pay their employees enough that tipping, to give some extra money to the artist for particularly good work ., not earning enough money hourly to cover upfront and back costs, mandatory tipping, saying that I respect the hell out of tattoo artists I have one tattoo that I still tipped for despite the fact that I do n't really agree with it and I truly want someone to present a good argument in favor of always tipping ., why some professions you are expected to tip for and I respect that .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll start out by saying that I respect the hell out of tattoo artists, I have one tattoo that I still tipped for despite the fact that I don't really agree with it, and I truly want someone to present a good argument in favor of always tipping. I'm an American who grew up in American tipping culture and worked as a waitress for a while so I totally understand why some professions you are expected to tip for and I respect that. I tip the obvious workers such as food service people and lyft drivers, as well as less obvious ones such as movers, coat checkers, hair dressers and nail salon artists because I know their prices are set, and particularly the last two they are sometimes required to rent the space and use their own equipment. I know a lot of people are against mandatory tipping but I'm not. Of course I would prefer that employers be required to pay their employees enough that tipping wouldn't be necessary any more but until that happens I think you should tip. I feel that I am fulfilling my part of the general social contract to fill in when the employer doesn't charge enough, so I almost always tip 20 and if I get only what I consider to be truly terrible service I'll still tip 10 . I also know that getting an education, equipment, and space are all costs to the worker that aren't necessarily filled in with the pricing of the good or service so I respect that need as well. However, all of these people usually have to charge prices set by the establishment, so they are locked in to not really getting enough to cover all that I mentioned above. From my understanding, tattoo artists are different that the others because they typically set their own hourly prices. That is really the only reason why I would question whether or not tipping should be mandatory. If you're not earning enough money hourly to cover upfront and back costs, you have the power to charge your customers more. The other professions do not have that kind of power over their own prices from what I understand, however I'm sure their are examples that break this rule. I have no problem with non mandatory tipping, I could understand why someone might want to give some extra money to the artist for particularly good work. And to their credit the tattoo shops I've been in tend to have signs that say Tips are appreciated so they themselves are not saying it's mandatory. But whenever I search online whether or not I should tip the artists all of the results are unanimous that yes, you should always tip unless the work is terrible. I just don't think that makes sense in a profession where they set their own prices. Please CMV. <|ASPECTS|>money, appreciated, charge prices, tipping, prices, tipping culture, costs, mandatory, back costs, mandatory tipping, charge your customers, respect, tips, social contract, terrible, power, argument, hourly prices, pay, good work, prices are set, different, tip<|CONCLUSION|>","I'll start out by saying that I respect the hell out of tattoo artists, I have one tattoo that I still tipped for despite the fact that I don't really agree with it, and I truly want someone to present a good argument in favor of always tipping. I'm an American who grew up in American tipping culture and worked as a waitress for a while so I totally understand why some professions you are expected to tip for and I respect that. I tip the obvious workers such as food service people and lyft drivers, as well as less obvious ones such as movers, coat checkers, hair dressers and nail salon artists because I know their prices are set, and particularly the last two they are sometimes required to rent the space and use their own equipment. I know a lot of people are against mandatory tipping but I'm not. Of course I would prefer that employers be required to pay their employees enough that tipping wouldn't be necessary any more but until that happens I think you should tip. I feel that I am fulfilling my part of the general social contract to fill in when the employer doesn't charge enough, so I almost always tip 20 and if I get only what I consider to be truly terrible service I'll still tip 10 . I also know that getting an education, equipment, and space are all costs to the worker that aren't necessarily filled in with the pricing of the good or service so I respect that need as well. However, all of these people usually have to charge prices set by the establishment, so they are locked in to not really getting enough to cover all that I mentioned above. From my understanding, tattoo artists are different that the others because they typically set their own hourly prices. That is really the only reason why I would question whether or not tipping should be mandatory. If you're not earning enough money hourly to cover upfront and back costs, you have the power to charge your customers more. The other professions do not have that kind of power over their own prices from what I understand, however I'm sure their are examples that break this rule. I have no problem with non mandatory tipping, I could understand why someone might want to give some extra money to the artist for particularly good work. And to their credit the tattoo shops I've been in tend to have signs that say Tips are appreciated so they themselves are not saying it's mandatory. But whenever I search online whether or not I should tip the artists all of the results are unanimous that yes, you should always tip unless the work is terrible. I just don't think that makes sense in a profession where they set their own prices. Please .",You shouldn't have to tip tattoo artists because they usually set their own prices.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now, to be clear, I'd rather a progressive, grass roots takeover of the Democratic party. Third party voting should only be a last minute resort when the Democrats nominate a corporate beholden, Republican lite moderate. That being said, I reject the notion that it's impossible to have multiple parties in our current system. There were MANY elections in the 19th century that had three or even four viable parties vying for the presidency. More recently, Theodore Roosevelt waged a campaign in '12 where it was feasible that he could've won he came in 2nd place Ross Perot was leading every poll in '92 until he dropped out of the race, rejoined the race, and his erratic behavior came under scrutiny. So I reject the notion that it's impossible unlikely, but not impossible. I will say that the argument that third parties aren't viable is mathematically sound, but for some of us, voting for a candidate that contradicted a critical mass of our values, beliefs, and policy ideals is not something we feel comfortable doing, regardless of mathematical or electoral realities. Faced with two untenable options, voting “third party” sends a message to the Democrats that our vote cannot be taken for granted, and cannot be extorted, the latter of which in my view Clinton supporters rigorously tried to do during the 2016 election. If Democrats want progressive votes, they need to work to keep them, and not rely on a message of “Have you seen the other guys?” an actual message featured on Democratic bumper stickers released last year . This is particularly true when considering Clinton, whose lifetime political record includes Championing supporting policies no one would describe as progressive Iraq War, Patriot Act, ’94 crime bill, support for shady Syrian rebel groups in ‘11 ’12 overthrow of Gaddafi no fly zones in Syria fracking Duplicitously flip flopping on practically everything supported the Iraq War, then disowned it, sorta supported border fencing, then didn’t opposed gay marriage, then supported it supported TPP, then opposed it, then had her VP start indicating to donors that she really supported it said she was “open” to Social Security cuts, then said she wasn’t Insufficient commitment—and sometimes hostility—to progressive causes, unless they benefit her a great example is financial regulation “I told Wall Street to cut it out” still makes me laugh I’ve also never heard her talk about scaling back the Patriot Act Freedom Act, whose sneak and peak provisions disproportionately affect minorities, or ending reeling in our drug war, which also disproportionately affects marginalized communities calling tuition free public college a “free pony” etc. . Obvious and insincere pandering “Hillary es mi abuela” campaign the infamous millennial emoji Tweet using 9 11 to justify coziness with Wall Street cynically exploiting her gender to diffuse criticism at every turn, often to imply she wasn’t part of the “establishment,” which she represents in spades having her VP speak in Spanish during every media appearance etc. I was dating a Puerto Rican journalist intern master’s student at the time, and she called Hillary Kaine’s behavior toward Latinos “Hispandering,” which I still fucking love to this day The vicious, underhanded, and at times, borderline racist campaign she ran against Obama back in ’08 I would also argue that much of what makes third party voting untenable is that the populace has been educated to believe that it is “wasting” a vote so despite the fact that many, many people are dissatisfied with both major parties, they think “well, as much as I’d like to, I can’t vote for a third party, because no one else will.” It borderlines on being a prisoner’s dilemma. If progressives continue to vote for Democrats no matter what, they have no reason to move to meet us philosophically. If I hate a restaurant’s food, but continue to eat there no matter what, why should they change their menu for me? The only impetus for change they have is if they know I will either 1. take my business elsewhere, or 2. start telling people their business sucks. That’s what I’m doing with the Democrats, and that’s what I think progressives more broadly should do.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now, to be clear, I'd rather a progressive, grass roots takeover of the Democratic party. Third party voting should only be a last minute resort when the Democrats nominate a corporate beholden, Republican lite moderate. That being said, I reject the notion that it's impossible to have multiple parties in our current system. There were MANY elections in the 19th century that had three or even four viable parties vying for the presidency. More recently, Theodore Roosevelt waged a campaign in '12 where it was feasible that he could've won he came in 2nd place Ross Perot was leading every poll in '92 until he dropped out of the race, rejoined the race, and his erratic behavior came under scrutiny. So I reject the notion that it's impossible unlikely, but not impossible. I will say that the argument that third parties aren't viable is mathematically sound, but for some of us, voting for a candidate that contradicted a critical mass of our values, beliefs, and policy ideals is not something we feel comfortable doing, regardless of mathematical or electoral realities. Faced with two untenable options, voting “third party” sends a message to the Democrats that our vote cannot be taken for granted, and cannot be extorted, the latter of which in my view Clinton supporters rigorously tried to do during the 2016 election. If Democrats want progressive votes, they need to work to keep them, and not rely on a message of “Have you seen the other guys?” an actual message featured on Democratic bumper stickers released last year . This is particularly true when considering Clinton, whose lifetime political record includes Championing supporting policies no one would describe as progressive Iraq War, Patriot Act, ’94 crime bill, support for shady Syrian rebel groups in ‘11 ’12 overthrow of Gaddafi no fly zones in Syria fracking Duplicitously flip flopping on practically everything supported the Iraq War, then disowned it, sorta supported border fencing, then didn’t opposed gay marriage, then supported it supported TPP, then opposed it, then had her VP start indicating to donors that she really supported it said she was “open” to Social Security cuts, then said she wasn’t Insufficient commitment—and sometimes hostility—to progressive causes, unless they benefit her a great example is financial regulation “I told Wall Street to cut it out” still makes me laugh I’ve also never heard her talk about scaling back the Patriot Act Freedom Act, whose sneak and peak provisions disproportionately affect minorities, or ending reeling in our drug war, which also disproportionately affects marginalized communities calling tuition free public college a “free pony” etc. . Obvious and insincere pandering “Hillary es mi abuela” campaign the infamous millennial emoji Tweet using 9 11 to justify coziness with Wall Street cynically exploiting her gender to diffuse criticism at every turn, often to imply she wasn’t part of the “establishment,” which she represents in spades having her VP speak in Spanish during every media appearance etc. I was dating a Puerto Rican journalist intern master’s student at the time, and she called Hillary Kaine’s behavior toward Latinos “Hispandering,” which I still fucking love to this day The vicious, underhanded, and at times, borderline racist campaign she ran against Obama back in ’08 I would also argue that much of what makes third party voting untenable is that the populace has been educated to believe that it is “wasting” a vote so despite the fact that many, many people are dissatisfied with both major parties, they think “well, as much as I’d like to, I can’t vote for a third party, because no one else will.” It borderlines on being a prisoner’s dilemma. If progressives continue to vote for Democrats no matter what, they have no reason to move to meet us philosophically. If I hate a restaurant’s food, but continue to eat there no matter what, why should they change their menu for me? The only impetus for change they have is if they know I will either 1. take my business elsewhere, or 2. start telling people their business sucks. That’s what I’m doing with the Democrats, and that’s what I think progressives more broadly should do.<|TARGETS|>wasting ” a vote so despite the fact that many many people are dissatisfied with both major parties, ca n’t vote for a third party because no one else will . ” It borderlines on being a prisoner ’s dilemma ., Hillary Kaine ’s behavior toward Latinos “ Hispandering ” which I still fucking love to this day The vicious underhanded and at times borderline racist campaign she ran against Obama back in ’08, Championing supporting policies no one would describe as progressive Iraq War Patriot Act ’94 crime bill support for shady Syrian rebel groups in ‘ 11 ’12 overthrow of Gaddafi no fly zones in Syria fracking Duplicitously flip flopping on practically everything supported the Iraq War then disowned it sorta supported border fencing, open ” to Social Security cuts, If progressives continue to vote for Democrats<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now, to be clear, I'd rather a progressive, grass roots takeover of the Democratic party. Third party voting should only be a last minute resort when the Democrats nominate a corporate beholden, Republican lite moderate. That being said, I reject the notion that it's impossible to have multiple parties in our current system. There were MANY elections in the 19th century that had three or even four viable parties vying for the presidency. More recently, Theodore Roosevelt waged a campaign in '12 where it was feasible that he could've won he came in 2nd place Ross Perot was leading every poll in '92 until he dropped out of the race, rejoined the race, and his erratic behavior came under scrutiny. So I reject the notion that it's impossible unlikely, but not impossible. I will say that the argument that third parties aren't viable is mathematically sound, but for some of us, voting for a candidate that contradicted a critical mass of our values, beliefs, and policy ideals is not something we feel comfortable doing, regardless of mathematical or electoral realities. Faced with two untenable options, voting “third party” sends a message to the Democrats that our vote cannot be taken for granted, and cannot be extorted, the latter of which in my view Clinton supporters rigorously tried to do during the 2016 election. If Democrats want progressive votes, they need to work to keep them, and not rely on a message of “Have you seen the other guys?” an actual message featured on Democratic bumper stickers released last year . This is particularly true when considering Clinton, whose lifetime political record includes Championing supporting policies no one would describe as progressive Iraq War, Patriot Act, ’94 crime bill, support for shady Syrian rebel groups in ‘11 ’12 overthrow of Gaddafi no fly zones in Syria fracking Duplicitously flip flopping on practically everything supported the Iraq War, then disowned it, sorta supported border fencing, then didn’t opposed gay marriage, then supported it supported TPP, then opposed it, then had her VP start indicating to donors that she really supported it said she was “open” to Social Security cuts, then said she wasn’t Insufficient commitment—and sometimes hostility—to progressive causes, unless they benefit her a great example is financial regulation “I told Wall Street to cut it out” still makes me laugh I’ve also never heard her talk about scaling back the Patriot Act Freedom Act, whose sneak and peak provisions disproportionately affect minorities, or ending reeling in our drug war, which also disproportionately affects marginalized communities calling tuition free public college a “free pony” etc. . Obvious and insincere pandering “Hillary es mi abuela” campaign the infamous millennial emoji Tweet using 9 11 to justify coziness with Wall Street cynically exploiting her gender to diffuse criticism at every turn, often to imply she wasn’t part of the “establishment,” which she represents in spades having her VP speak in Spanish during every media appearance etc. I was dating a Puerto Rican journalist intern master’s student at the time, and she called Hillary Kaine’s behavior toward Latinos “Hispandering,” which I still fucking love to this day The vicious, underhanded, and at times, borderline racist campaign she ran against Obama back in ’08 I would also argue that much of what makes third party voting untenable is that the populace has been educated to believe that it is “wasting” a vote so despite the fact that many, many people are dissatisfied with both major parties, they think “well, as much as I’d like to, I can’t vote for a third party, because no one else will.” It borderlines on being a prisoner’s dilemma. If progressives continue to vote for Democrats no matter what, they have no reason to move to meet us philosophically. If I hate a restaurant’s food, but continue to eat there no matter what, why should they change their menu for me? The only impetus for change they have is if they know I will either 1. take my business elsewhere, or 2. start telling people their business sucks. That’s what I’m doing with the Democrats, and that’s what I think progressives more broadly should do.<|ASPECTS|>last minute, pandering, viable parties, establishment, vote for democrats, untenable, voting, progressive votes, hispandering, prisoner ’ s dilemma, hate, viable, progressive, progressives, criticism, party, untenable options, erratic behavior, impossible unlikely, vying, business sucks, many elections, insincere, behavior, philosophically, wasting ”, grass roots takeover, policy ideals, third, racist, change, corporate beholden, critical mass, continue, extorted, multiple parties, vote, impossible<|CONCLUSION|>","Now, to be clear, I'd rather a progressive, grass roots takeover of the Democratic party. Third party voting should only be a last minute resort when the Democrats nominate a corporate beholden, Republican lite moderate. That being said, I reject the notion that it's impossible to have multiple parties in our current system. There were MANY elections in the 19th century that had three or even four viable parties vying for the presidency. More recently, Theodore Roosevelt waged a campaign in '12 where it was feasible that he could've won he came in 2nd place Ross Perot was leading every poll in '92 until he dropped out of the race, rejoined the race, and his erratic behavior came under scrutiny. So I reject the notion that it's impossible unlikely, but not impossible. I will say that the argument that third parties aren't viable is mathematically sound, but for some of us, voting for a candidate that contradicted a critical mass of our values, beliefs, and policy ideals is not something we feel comfortable doing, regardless of mathematical or electoral realities. Faced with two untenable options, voting “third party” sends a message to the Democrats that our vote cannot be taken for granted, and cannot be extorted, the latter of which in my view Clinton supporters rigorously tried to do during the 2016 election. If Democrats want progressive votes, they need to work to keep them, and not rely on a message of “Have you seen the other guys?” an actual message featured on Democratic bumper stickers released last year . This is particularly true when considering Clinton, whose lifetime political record includes Championing supporting policies no one would describe as progressive Iraq War, Patriot Act, ’94 crime bill, support for shady Syrian rebel groups in ‘11 ’12 overthrow of Gaddafi no fly zones in Syria fracking Duplicitously flip flopping on practically everything supported the Iraq War, then disowned it, sorta supported border fencing, then didn’t opposed gay marriage, then supported it supported TPP, then opposed it, then had her VP start indicating to donors that she really supported it said she was “open” to Social Security cuts, then said she wasn’t Insufficient commitment—and sometimes hostility—to progressive causes, unless they benefit her a great example is financial regulation “I told Wall Street to cut it out” still makes me laugh I’ve also never heard her talk about scaling back the Patriot Act Freedom Act, whose sneak and peak provisions disproportionately affect minorities, or ending reeling in our drug war, which also disproportionately affects marginalized communities calling tuition free public college a “free pony” etc. . Obvious and insincere pandering “Hillary es mi abuela” campaign the infamous millennial emoji Tweet using 9 11 to justify coziness with Wall Street cynically exploiting her gender to diffuse criticism at every turn, often to imply she wasn’t part of the “establishment,” which she represents in spades having her VP speak in Spanish during every media appearance etc. I was dating a Puerto Rican journalist intern master’s student at the time, and she called Hillary Kaine’s behavior toward Latinos “Hispandering,” which I still fucking love to this day The vicious, underhanded, and at times, borderline racist campaign she ran against Obama back in ’08 I would also argue that much of what makes third party voting untenable is that the populace has been educated to believe that it is “wasting” a vote so despite the fact that many, many people are dissatisfied with both major parties, they think “well, as much as I’d like to, I can’t vote for a third party, because no one else will.” It borderlines on being a prisoner’s dilemma. If progressives continue to vote for Democrats no matter what, they have no reason to move to meet us philosophically. If I hate a restaurant’s food, but continue to eat there no matter what, why should they change their menu for me? The only impetus for change they have is if they know I will either 1. take my business elsewhere, or 2. start telling people their business sucks. That’s what I’m doing with the Democrats, and that’s what I think progressives more broadly should do.",Progressives should vote third party when a Democratic candidate is unsuitable.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The biggest example I can give here would be concerning all the talk going around global warming and the environmental crisis we are currently in today. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but having said comission would help regulate the amount of fake information that could be used to debunk scientific claims made with regards to this issue whether in favour of or against current projections . Said commission would then wield incredible amounts of power as people would often place their trust in it. I do think however the advantages greatly outweight the drawbacks as this would effectively force governments into taking action on several issues rather than hiding behind a wall of misinformation.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The biggest example I can give here would be concerning all the talk going around global warming and the environmental crisis we are currently in today. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but having said comission would help regulate the amount of fake information that could be used to debunk scientific claims made with regards to this issue whether in favour of or against current projections . Said commission would then wield incredible amounts of power as people would often place their trust in it. I do think however the advantages greatly outweight the drawbacks as this would effectively force governments into taking action on several issues rather than hiding behind a wall of misinformation.<|TARGETS|>having said comission, regulate the amount of fake information that could be used to debunk scientific claims made with regards to this issue whether in favour of or against current projections ., taking action on several issues rather than hiding behind a wall of misinformation .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The biggest example I can give here would be concerning all the talk going around global warming and the environmental crisis we are currently in today. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but having said comission would help regulate the amount of fake information that could be used to debunk scientific claims made with regards to this issue whether in favour of or against current projections . Said commission would then wield incredible amounts of power as people would often place their trust in it. I do think however the advantages greatly outweight the drawbacks as this would effectively force governments into taking action on several issues rather than hiding behind a wall of misinformation.<|ASPECTS|>trust, misinformation, global warming, scientific claims, power, environmental crisis, fake information, advantages<|CONCLUSION|>","The biggest example I can give here would be concerning all the talk going around global warming and the environmental crisis we are currently in today. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but having said comission would help regulate the amount of fake information that could be used to debunk scientific claims made with regards to this issue whether in favour of or against current projections . Said commission would then wield incredible amounts of power as people would often place their trust in it. I do think however the advantages greatly outweight the drawbacks as this would effectively force governments into taking action on several issues rather than hiding behind a wall of misinformation.","Given the increasing importance of science in our society, an international scientifc commission should be created to serve as a reference point in assessing the validity of important scientific claims."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been reading the book Aurora by KS Robinson. It's a book about interstellar travel. A couple thousand people volunteers from all over the world set out to travel to Tau Ceti twelve light years away. At the speed they're travelling it's a multi generational voyage, I think the voyage lasts seven generations. This got me thinking of the ethics of birthing children in an environment which presents extremely limited opportunities to express oneself. It is also system that necessarily restricts the rights of those born there. For example, only a few people are allowed to have children at any time. Obviously, there isn't a market for violin makers, so each traveller's career options are limited as well. There's all sorts little restrictions that the people on the ship resent, though the one that irks people the most strangely enough, IMO is that birthing is restricted and requires approval from the ship's council. Most depictions of interstellar travel get around this by putting people into cryogenic sleep. This book's travellers are the first group of travellers to set off to establish a new colony, which means that there's a lot of work to be done during the trip. The ship's also transporting entire mini ecosystems that have to be maintained, there's a lot of engineering and math and farming, etc. Basically, cryogenic sleep is not an option here. So that means that people will live and die and they need to be replaced. Since there is no way that the children can ever consent to be born and to die on a spaceship I believe that they're being unfairly treated they did not volunteer to give their lives for this and to have their rights curtailed. I also don't see another way around this whole mess and I was wondering whether someone could change my view. Feel free to ask clarifying questions. I tried to make myself clear, but I don't think I've done a very good job of it. I'd also like to point out a couple of things that will not change my view 1 The free will is an illusion argument 2 Wormholes let's try to keep this conversation as realistic as possible. Edit 1 Most of the arguments are coming from a natalist perspective, which is not what my view is based on. Telling me that children don't have a say in their birth anywhere is not an argument that's going to change my view since I'm already aware of that. Instead, it would be better to focus on how whether the lives of the people on the spaceship could be meaningful valuable. Also, downvoting OP's comments is churlish and against the rules of the sub. Deltas awarded to u rollingForInitiative, u Impacatus, u IIIBlackhartIII and u Feroc for helping me see some of the things that would make the lives of children born on the ship meaningful. Consider my view changed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been reading the book Aurora by KS Robinson. It's a book about interstellar travel. A couple thousand people volunteers from all over the world set out to travel to Tau Ceti twelve light years away. At the speed they're travelling it's a multi generational voyage, I think the voyage lasts seven generations. This got me thinking of the ethics of birthing children in an environment which presents extremely limited opportunities to express oneself. It is also system that necessarily restricts the rights of those born there. For example, only a few people are allowed to have children at any time. Obviously, there isn't a market for violin makers, so each traveller's career options are limited as well. There's all sorts little restrictions that the people on the ship resent, though the one that irks people the most strangely enough, IMO is that birthing is restricted and requires approval from the ship's council. Most depictions of interstellar travel get around this by putting people into cryogenic sleep. This book's travellers are the first group of travellers to set off to establish a new colony, which means that there's a lot of work to be done during the trip. The ship's also transporting entire mini ecosystems that have to be maintained, there's a lot of engineering and math and farming, etc. Basically, cryogenic sleep is not an option here. So that means that people will live and die and they need to be replaced. Since there is no way that the children can ever consent to be born and to die on a spaceship I believe that they're being unfairly treated they did not volunteer to give their lives for this and to have their rights curtailed. I also don't see another way around this whole mess and I was wondering whether someone could change my view. Feel free to ask clarifying questions. I tried to make myself clear, but I don't think I've done a very good job of it. I'd also like to point out a couple of things that will not change my view 1 The free will is an illusion argument 2 Wormholes let's try to keep this conversation as realistic as possible. Edit 1 Most of the arguments are coming from a natalist perspective, which is not what my view is based on. Telling me that children don't have a say in their birth anywhere is not an argument that's going to change my view since I'm already aware of that. Instead, it would be better to focus on how whether the lives of the people on the spaceship could be meaningful valuable. Also, downvoting OP's comments is churlish and against the rules of the sub. Deltas awarded to u rollingForInitiative, u Impacatus, u IIIBlackhartIII and u Feroc for helping me see some of the things that would make the lives of children born on the ship meaningful. Consider my view changed.<|TARGETS|>the children can ever consent to be born and to die on a spaceship, whether someone could change my view ., Deltas, to focus on how whether the lives of the people on the spaceship, Most depictions of interstellar travel, reading the book Aurora by KS Robinson<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been reading the book Aurora by KS Robinson. It's a book about interstellar travel. A couple thousand people volunteers from all over the world set out to travel to Tau Ceti twelve light years away. At the speed they're travelling it's a multi generational voyage, I think the voyage lasts seven generations. This got me thinking of the ethics of birthing children in an environment which presents extremely limited opportunities to express oneself. It is also system that necessarily restricts the rights of those born there. For example, only a few people are allowed to have children at any time. Obviously, there isn't a market for violin makers, so each traveller's career options are limited as well. There's all sorts little restrictions that the people on the ship resent, though the one that irks people the most strangely enough, IMO is that birthing is restricted and requires approval from the ship's council. Most depictions of interstellar travel get around this by putting people into cryogenic sleep. This book's travellers are the first group of travellers to set off to establish a new colony, which means that there's a lot of work to be done during the trip. The ship's also transporting entire mini ecosystems that have to be maintained, there's a lot of engineering and math and farming, etc. Basically, cryogenic sleep is not an option here. So that means that people will live and die and they need to be replaced. Since there is no way that the children can ever consent to be born and to die on a spaceship I believe that they're being unfairly treated they did not volunteer to give their lives for this and to have their rights curtailed. I also don't see another way around this whole mess and I was wondering whether someone could change my view. Feel free to ask clarifying questions. I tried to make myself clear, but I don't think I've done a very good job of it. I'd also like to point out a couple of things that will not change my view 1 The free will is an illusion argument 2 Wormholes let's try to keep this conversation as realistic as possible. Edit 1 Most of the arguments are coming from a natalist perspective, which is not what my view is based on. Telling me that children don't have a say in their birth anywhere is not an argument that's going to change my view since I'm already aware of that. Instead, it would be better to focus on how whether the lives of the people on the spaceship could be meaningful valuable. Also, downvoting OP's comments is churlish and against the rules of the sub. Deltas awarded to u rollingForInitiative, u Impacatus, u IIIBlackhartIII and u Feroc for helping me see some of the things that would make the lives of children born on the ship meaningful. Consider my view changed.<|ASPECTS|>, view changed, rights, opportunities to express, consent, clarifying questions, say, career options, new colony, live and die, engineering, allowed to have children, restricted, meaningful valuable, volunteers, mini ecosystems, market, replaced, restricts, churlish, people, math, travel, work, birth anywhere, cryogenic sleep, limited, free, downvoting, change my view, ethics, makers, generations, natalist perspective, interstellar travel, meaningful, unfairly treated, realistic, restrictions, aurora, lives, multi generational voyage, approval, rules<|CONCLUSION|>","I've been reading the book Aurora by KS Robinson. It's a book about interstellar travel. A couple thousand people volunteers from all over the world set out to travel to Tau Ceti twelve light years away. At the speed they're travelling it's a multi generational voyage, I think the voyage lasts seven generations. This got me thinking of the ethics of birthing children in an environment which presents extremely limited opportunities to express oneself. It is also system that necessarily restricts the rights of those born there. For example, only a few people are allowed to have children at any time. Obviously, there isn't a market for violin makers, so each traveller's career options are limited as well. There's all sorts little restrictions that the people on the ship resent, though the one that irks people the most strangely enough, IMO is that birthing is restricted and requires approval from the ship's council. Most depictions of interstellar travel get around this by putting people into cryogenic sleep. This book's travellers are the first group of travellers to set off to establish a new colony, which means that there's a lot of work to be done during the trip. The ship's also transporting entire mini ecosystems that have to be maintained, there's a lot of engineering and math and farming, etc. Basically, cryogenic sleep is not an option here. So that means that people will live and die and they need to be replaced. Since there is no way that the children can ever consent to be born and to die on a spaceship I believe that they're being unfairly treated they did not volunteer to give their lives for this and to have their rights curtailed. I also don't see another way around this whole mess and I was wondering whether someone could change my view. Feel free to ask clarifying questions. I tried to make myself clear, but I don't think I've done a very good job of it. I'd also like to point out a couple of things that will not change my view 1 The free will is an illusion argument 2 Wormholes let's try to keep this conversation as realistic as possible. Edit 1 Most of the arguments are coming from a natalist perspective, which is not what my view is based on. Telling me that children don't have a say in their birth anywhere is not an argument that's going to change my view since I'm already aware of that. Instead, it would be better to focus on how whether the lives of the people on the spaceship could be meaningful valuable. Also, downvoting OP's comments is churlish and against the rules of the sub. Deltas awarded to u rollingForInitiative, u Impacatus, u IIIBlackhartIII and u Feroc for helping me see some of the things that would make the lives of children born on the ship meaningful. Consider my view changed.",Interstellar travel is unfair to the children born during the voyage
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To clarify, this is usually used to in cases where someone is trying to make a moral or behavioral argument. As an overly simplistic example, People who commit murder are worth less than people who don't. Well, who are you to define what a human life is worth? I'm the guy who didn't murder anybody. That sort of statement does little except to try to belittle the person making the assertion by implying that they are nobody, or are unqualified. It does nothing to refute their core point and attempts to shut down the discussion. If we're going to play that game, then hardly anyone is qualified to comment on anything. Well who are you to say how the government should be run? Well who are you to say I shouldn't hit my kids? Well who are you to say I should drink water instead of soda?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To clarify, this is usually used to in cases where someone is trying to make a moral or behavioral argument. As an overly simplistic example, People who commit murder are worth less than people who don't. Well, who are you to define what a human life is worth? I'm the guy who didn't murder anybody. That sort of statement does little except to try to belittle the person making the assertion by implying that they are nobody, or are unqualified. It does nothing to refute their core point and attempts to shut down the discussion. If we're going to play that game, then hardly anyone is qualified to comment on anything. Well who are you to say how the government should be run? Well who are you to say I shouldn't hit my kids? Well who are you to say I should drink water instead of soda?<|TARGETS|>to play that game, That sort of statement, to say I should drink water instead of soda, to try to belittle the person making the assertion by implying that they, To clarify this is usually used to in cases where someone is trying to make a moral or behavioral argument ., to comment on anything .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To clarify, this is usually used to in cases where someone is trying to make a moral or behavioral argument. As an overly simplistic example, People who commit murder are worth less than people who don't. Well, who are you to define what a human life is worth? I'm the guy who didn't murder anybody. That sort of statement does little except to try to belittle the person making the assertion by implying that they are nobody, or are unqualified. It does nothing to refute their core point and attempts to shut down the discussion. If we're going to play that game, then hardly anyone is qualified to comment on anything. Well who are you to say how the government should be run? Well who are you to say I shouldn't hit my kids? Well who are you to say I should drink water instead of soda?<|ASPECTS|>core point, worth less, unqualified, run, discussion, hit my kids, qualified, shut, comment on anything, moral or behavioral argument, soda, belittle, government, nobody, murder anybody, worth, water, human life<|CONCLUSION|>","To clarify, this is usually used to in cases where someone is trying to make a moral or behavioral argument. As an overly simplistic example, People who commit murder are worth less than people who don't. Well, who are you to define what a human life is worth? I'm the guy who didn't murder anybody. That sort of statement does little except to try to belittle the person making the assertion by implying that they are nobody, or are unqualified. It does nothing to refute their core point and attempts to shut down the discussion. If we're going to play that game, then hardly anyone is qualified to comment on anything. Well who are you to say how the government should be run? Well who are you to say I shouldn't hit my kids? Well who are you to say I should drink water instead of soda?","I believe that the ""well, who are you to define xyz"" argument is a cop-out and a lazy debate tactic."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've always feared prison, its given me constant discouragement from doing illegal things and it freaks me out when I realize I have done something at all illegal . Misdemeanors, in my opinion, should NEVER have prison time. Our prisons are crowded anyway, and if there is anything that is valuable to a person, its the time in their life. I really hate the justice system we live under, criminals which have actual problems need therapy and help, criminals which did something minor need financial or work based community service discipline depending on their ability to afford the bill, so that we don't cripple the poor which already have understandably higher crime . But jail time? That should be reserved for the people which you and I can not feel safe living among, and I feel like most of the criminals who are there are nothing like that So yah, discuss. A summary Jail should be about the containment of the worst criminals, separating them from society for fear of societies well being. It should also contain reform measures. It should NOT be about discipline, rather protection. Discipline should be financial or work based, for all criminals, depending on the crime and that persons income level.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've always feared prison, its given me constant discouragement from doing illegal things and it freaks me out when I realize I have done something at all illegal . Misdemeanors, in my opinion, should NEVER have prison time. Our prisons are crowded anyway, and if there is anything that is valuable to a person, its the time in their life. I really hate the justice system we live under, criminals which have actual problems need therapy and help, criminals which did something minor need financial or work based community service discipline depending on their ability to afford the bill, so that we don't cripple the poor which already have understandably higher crime . But jail time? That should be reserved for the people which you and I can not feel safe living among, and I feel like most of the criminals who are there are nothing like that So yah, discuss. A summary Jail should be about the containment of the worst criminals, separating them from society for fear of societies well being. It should also contain reform measures. It should NOT be about discipline, rather protection. Discipline should be financial or work based, for all criminals, depending on the crime and that persons income level.<|TARGETS|>A summary Jail, the people which you and I can not feel safe living among and I feel like most of the criminals who are there are nothing like that So yah discuss ., feared prison its given me constant discouragement from doing illegal things and it freaks me out when I realize I have done something at all illegal ., the justice system we live under criminals which have actual problems need therapy and help criminals which did something minor need financial or work based community service discipline depending on their ability to afford the bill<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've always feared prison, its given me constant discouragement from doing illegal things and it freaks me out when I realize I have done something at all illegal . Misdemeanors, in my opinion, should NEVER have prison time. Our prisons are crowded anyway, and if there is anything that is valuable to a person, its the time in their life. I really hate the justice system we live under, criminals which have actual problems need therapy and help, criminals which did something minor need financial or work based community service discipline depending on their ability to afford the bill, so that we don't cripple the poor which already have understandably higher crime . But jail time? That should be reserved for the people which you and I can not feel safe living among, and I feel like most of the criminals who are there are nothing like that So yah, discuss. A summary Jail should be about the containment of the worst criminals, separating them from society for fear of societies well being. It should also contain reform measures. It should NOT be about discipline, rather protection. Discipline should be financial or work based, for all criminals, depending on the crime and that persons income level.<|ASPECTS|>feared, illegal, safe, prison, income level, society, fear, societies well, discipline, financial, cripple the poor, persons, therapy, prisons, valuable, containment, protection, community service discipline, crowded, contain, criminals, help, system, misdemeanors, discouragement, reform measures, higher crime, work based, worst criminals, jail time, prison time<|CONCLUSION|>","I've always feared prison, its given me constant discouragement from doing illegal things and it freaks me out when I realize I have done something at all illegal . Misdemeanors, in my opinion, should NEVER have prison time. Our prisons are crowded anyway, and if there is anything that is valuable to a person, its the time in their life. I really hate the justice system we live under, criminals which have actual problems need therapy and help, criminals which did something minor need financial or work based community service discipline depending on their ability to afford the bill, so that we don't cripple the poor which already have understandably higher crime . But jail time? That should be reserved for the people which you and I can not feel safe living among, and I feel like most of the criminals who are there are nothing like that So yah, discuss. A summary Jail should be about the containment of the worst criminals, separating them from society for fear of societies well being. It should also contain reform measures. It should NOT be about discipline, rather protection. Discipline should be financial or work based, for all criminals, depending on the crime and that persons income level.","I believe that prison, even for one year, or 6 months, is a overly cruel punishment for all but the worst criminals."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here's all my points 1st. Taking a bath doesn't clean you. You're rinsing yourself in your own filth. I know people who only take baths and they smell. Where as with showers there's a constant flow of water so you'll definitely be more clean. 2nd. Baths take a very long time, if you live with multiple people and have to share a bathroom then you should take showers, they're much faster to get in and out. You don't have to fill up and drain the tub. 3rd. Showers are far more customizable and by that I mean you can switch the temperature whenever you want. You can also control how much water you use. To fill a bathtub you use more water then some use in a shower. 4th. Safety. As far as I know, no one has ever drowned taking a shower. Or at least it would be very difficult to do so. It's very easy to slip in a bathtub because the walls are curved. You can get electrocuted if you bring electronics into the bath.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here's all my points 1st. Taking a bath doesn't clean you. You're rinsing yourself in your own filth. I know people who only take baths and they smell. Where as with showers there's a constant flow of water so you'll definitely be more clean. 2nd. Baths take a very long time, if you live with multiple people and have to share a bathroom then you should take showers, they're much faster to get in and out. You don't have to fill up and drain the tub. 3rd. Showers are far more customizable and by that I mean you can switch the temperature whenever you want. You can also control how much water you use. To fill a bathtub you use more water then some use in a shower. 4th. Safety. As far as I know, no one has ever drowned taking a shower. Or at least it would be very difficult to do so. It's very easy to slip in a bathtub because the walls are curved. You can get electrocuted if you bring electronics into the bath.<|TARGETS|>to fill up and drain the tub, to share a bathroom then you should take showers, To fill a bathtub, Taking a bath, Baths, rinsing yourself in your own filth .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here's all my points 1st. Taking a bath doesn't clean you. You're rinsing yourself in your own filth. I know people who only take baths and they smell. Where as with showers there's a constant flow of water so you'll definitely be more clean. 2nd. Baths take a very long time, if you live with multiple people and have to share a bathroom then you should take showers, they're much faster to get in and out. You don't have to fill up and drain the tub. 3rd. Showers are far more customizable and by that I mean you can switch the temperature whenever you want. You can also control how much water you use. To fill a bathtub you use more water then some use in a shower. 4th. Safety. As far as I know, no one has ever drowned taking a shower. Or at least it would be very difficult to do so. It's very easy to slip in a bathtub because the walls are curved. You can get electrocuted if you bring electronics into the bath.<|ASPECTS|>, temperature, fill, constant, smell, curved, switch, flow of water, electrocuted, drowned, drain the tub, slip, control, filth, clean, water, difficult, safety, rinsing, easy, faster, customizable<|CONCLUSION|>","Here's all my points 1st. Taking a bath doesn't clean you. You're rinsing yourself in your own filth. I know people who only take baths and they smell. Where as with showers there's a constant flow of water so you'll definitely be more clean. 2nd. Baths take a very long time, if you live with multiple people and have to share a bathroom then you should take showers, they're much faster to get in and out. You don't have to fill up and drain the tub. 3rd. Showers are far more customizable and by that I mean you can switch the temperature whenever you want. You can also control how much water you use. To fill a bathtub you use more water then some use in a shower. 4th. Safety. As far as I know, no one has ever drowned taking a shower. Or at least it would be very difficult to do so. It's very easy to slip in a bathtub because the walls are curved. You can get electrocuted if you bring electronics into the bath.",people shouldn't take baths. Showers are far more superior.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not only this but anything 'intrinsic' to that person is more to do with an environment which is outside of their control than something they choose or even genetics. Give me a child until theyre 7 and i will give you the man The world is one big chaotic system. Literally EVERY SINGLE choice you make, even subcobscious ones come together to create your destiny so the choices you do make as an adult are a product of how the world treats you as a child and the seemingly meaningless mundane choices we make decide through butterfly effect more than the ones that seem meaningful anyway.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not only this but anything 'intrinsic' to that person is more to do with an environment which is outside of their control than something they choose or even genetics. Give me a child until theyre 7 and i will give you the man The world is one big chaotic system. Literally EVERY SINGLE choice you make, even subcobscious ones come together to create your destiny so the choices you do make as an adult are a product of how the world treats you as a child and the seemingly meaningless mundane choices we make decide through butterfly effect more than the ones that seem meaningful anyway.<|TARGETS|>Give me a child until theyre 7 and i will give you the man The world, Literally EVERY SINGLE choice you make even subcobscious ones come together to create your destiny so the choices you do make as an adult are a product of how the world treats you as a child and the seemingly meaningless mundane choices we make decide through butterfly effect more than the ones that<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not only this but anything 'intrinsic' to that person is more to do with an environment which is outside of their control than something they choose or even genetics. Give me a child until theyre 7 and i will give you the man The world is one big chaotic system. Literally EVERY SINGLE choice you make, even subcobscious ones come together to create your destiny so the choices you do make as an adult are a product of how the world treats you as a child and the seemingly meaningless mundane choices we make decide through butterfly effect more than the ones that seem meaningful anyway.<|ASPECTS|>meaningless, outside, butterfly, control, destiny, choices, chaotic system, environment<|CONCLUSION|>","Not only this but anything 'intrinsic' to that person is more to do with an environment which is outside of their control than something they choose or even genetics. Give me a child until theyre 7 and i will give you the man The world is one big chaotic system. Literally EVERY SINGLE choice you make, even subcobscious ones come together to create your destiny so the choices you do make as an adult are a product of how the world treats you as a child and the seemingly meaningless mundane choices we make decide through butterfly effect more than the ones that seem meaningful anyway.",A person becomes homeless because they live in a society that creates homelessness and not because of anything intrinsic to that person
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My thinking is that there are just too many of us to actively monitor. Yes, Shia Lebouf told us about how 1 in 5 phonecalls we make were recorded, but that's so much audio to sift through. There are 6 billion phone calls made every day in the US, so about 1.2 billion phone calls are being recorded. Every day, something like 80 years of video is uploaded on YouTube, Reddit gets 10 million new comments, and there are 400 million new tweets. Don't get me started on the 300 billion emails sent every day They just don't have the manpower to dig into 99.999 of citizens' lives, and for any of this to be worth the effort, money, and bad press, they're only going to look at either people they already have flagged, or have certain words flagged, and even then they aren't getting to 99 of those. Just because a library of congress has Stephanie Meyer's autobiography doesn't mean that book will ever, ever be opened. Hell. With Instigram, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and whatever other social networks I'm not cool enough to know about there's not much left to hide anyway.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My thinking is that there are just too many of us to actively monitor. Yes, Shia Lebouf told us about how 1 in 5 phonecalls we make were recorded, but that's so much audio to sift through. There are 6 billion phone calls made every day in the US, so about 1.2 billion phone calls are being recorded. Every day, something like 80 years of video is uploaded on YouTube, Reddit gets 10 million new comments, and there are 400 million new tweets. Don't get me started on the 300 billion emails sent every day They just don't have the manpower to dig into 99.999 of citizens' lives, and for any of this to be worth the effort, money, and bad press, they're only going to look at either people they already have flagged, or have certain words flagged, and even then they aren't getting to 99 of those. Just because a library of congress has Stephanie Meyer's autobiography doesn't mean that book will ever, ever be opened. Hell. With Instigram, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and whatever other social networks I'm not cool enough to know about there's not much left to hide anyway.<|TARGETS|>to look at either people they already have flagged or have certain words flagged, a library of congress has Stephanie Meyer 's autobiography, the manpower to dig into 99.999 of citizens' lives and for any of this to be worth the effort money and bad press, the 300 billion emails sent every day, to actively monitor .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My thinking is that there are just too many of us to actively monitor. Yes, Shia Lebouf told us about how 1 in 5 phonecalls we make were recorded, but that's so much audio to sift through. There are 6 billion phone calls made every day in the US, so about 1.2 billion phone calls are being recorded. Every day, something like 80 years of video is uploaded on YouTube, Reddit gets 10 million new comments, and there are 400 million new tweets. Don't get me started on the 300 billion emails sent every day They just don't have the manpower to dig into 99.999 of citizens' lives, and for any of this to be worth the effort, money, and bad press, they're only going to look at either people they already have flagged, or have certain words flagged, and even then they aren't getting to 99 of those. Just because a library of congress has Stephanie Meyer's autobiography doesn't mean that book will ever, ever be opened. Hell. With Instigram, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and whatever other social networks I'm not cool enough to know about there's not much left to hide anyway.<|ASPECTS|>new tweets, bad, opened, effort, actively, left to hide, sift, money, monitor, audio, manpower, phone calls, new comments<|CONCLUSION|>","My thinking is that there are just too many of us to actively monitor. Yes, Shia Lebouf told us about how 1 in 5 phonecalls we make were recorded, but that's so much audio to sift through. There are 6 billion phone calls made every day in the US, so about 1.2 billion phone calls are being recorded. Every day, something like 80 years of video is uploaded on YouTube, Reddit gets 10 million new comments, and there are 400 million new tweets. Don't get me started on the 300 billion emails sent every day They just don't have the manpower to dig into 99.999 of citizens' lives, and for any of this to be worth the effort, money, and bad press, they're only going to look at either people they already have flagged, or have certain words flagged, and even then they aren't getting to 99 of those. Just because a library of congress has Stephanie Meyer's autobiography doesn't mean that book will ever, ever be opened. Hell. With Instigram, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and whatever other social networks I'm not cool enough to know about there's not much left to hide anyway.",I have no problem with the NSA gathering information on everyone and I think Reddit is overreacting.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have recently been studying epistemology a lot, and I've come to the conclusion, that there are no good reasons to believe that there is any kind of spiritual supernatural world beings besides the natural one. I myself, have been a christian for nearly half of my life, and I've been primarily using my personal experiences as a reason to validate my belief in the existence of a God. Although the more I thought about them, the more I understood that I had no reasons to ascribe them to any God, elf or ghost. I've very often talked with my friends and even priests about their belief in a God, and usually it boils down to it's just a matter of faith , which I argue is not a good reason, because you might as well use it for any claim about the world we live in. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have recently been studying epistemology a lot, and I've come to the conclusion, that there are no good reasons to believe that there is any kind of spiritual supernatural world beings besides the natural one. I myself, have been a christian for nearly half of my life, and I've been primarily using my personal experiences as a reason to validate my belief in the existence of a God. Although the more I thought about them, the more I understood that I had no reasons to ascribe them to any God, elf or ghost. I've very often talked with my friends and even priests about their belief in a God, and usually it boils down to it's just a matter of faith , which I argue is not a good reason, because you might as well use it for any claim about the world we live in. <|TARGETS|>using my personal experiences as a reason to validate my belief in the existence of a God ., very often talked with my friends and even priests about their belief in a God and usually it boils down to it 's just a matter of faith which I argue, to ascribe them to any God elf or ghost ., to believe that there is any kind of spiritual supernatural world beings besides the natural one ., use it for any claim about the world we live in .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have recently been studying epistemology a lot, and I've come to the conclusion, that there are no good reasons to believe that there is any kind of spiritual supernatural world beings besides the natural one. I myself, have been a christian for nearly half of my life, and I've been primarily using my personal experiences as a reason to validate my belief in the existence of a God. Although the more I thought about them, the more I understood that I had no reasons to ascribe them to any God, elf or ghost. I've very often talked with my friends and even priests about their belief in a God, and usually it boils down to it's just a matter of faith , which I argue is not a good reason, because you might as well use it for any claim about the world we live in. <|ASPECTS|>, existence, spiritual supernatural world beings, faith, epistemology, god, world, christian, personal experiences<|CONCLUSION|>","I have recently been studying epistemology a lot, and I've come to the conclusion, that there are no good reasons to believe that there is any kind of spiritual supernatural world beings besides the natural one. I myself, have been a christian for nearly half of my life, and I've been primarily using my personal experiences as a reason to validate my belief in the existence of a God. Although the more I thought about them, the more I understood that I had no reasons to ascribe them to any God, elf or ghost. I've very often talked with my friends and even priests about their belief in a God, and usually it boils down to it's just a matter of faith , which I argue is not a good reason, because you might as well use it for any claim about the world we live in.","There are no good reasons to believe that anything supernatural God, ghosts, elves actually exist"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Currently it is against federal regulation to sell fetal tissue, But the regulation does not entirely stop sales but just prohibits compensation to the women. From gt Note that the word “donating” is used. The woman is “donating” the tissue. Planned Parenthood implies that no money will be involved in the “donating” of fetal organs and parts. Yet Planned Parenthood makes money due to the method listed above. This is possible because the NIH Revitalization Act exempts “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue” allowing a loophole so that everyone can make money except the woman involved. Fetal tissue is important in advancing scientific research into how the body works, but there is a shortage, Medical abortions damage the quality of fetal tissue, so allowing sale of fetal tissue would compensate for the higher cost of surgical abortions. Making the sale of fetal tissue legal would allow compensation to go to the women, increase the supply of fetal tissue and it's quality.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Currently it is against federal regulation to sell fetal tissue, But the regulation does not entirely stop sales but just prohibits compensation to the women. From gt Note that the word “donating” is used. The woman is “donating” the tissue. Planned Parenthood implies that no money will be involved in the “donating” of fetal organs and parts. Yet Planned Parenthood makes money due to the method listed above. This is possible because the NIH Revitalization Act exempts “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue” allowing a loophole so that everyone can make money except the woman involved. Fetal tissue is important in advancing scientific research into how the body works, but there is a shortage, Medical abortions damage the quality of fetal tissue, so allowing sale of fetal tissue would compensate for the higher cost of surgical abortions. Making the sale of fetal tissue legal would allow compensation to go to the women, increase the supply of fetal tissue and it's quality.<|TARGETS|>Fetal tissue, allowing sale of fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood, federal regulation to sell fetal tissue, donating ” the tissue, Making the sale of fetal tissue legal<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Currently it is against federal regulation to sell fetal tissue, But the regulation does not entirely stop sales but just prohibits compensation to the women. From gt Note that the word “donating” is used. The woman is “donating” the tissue. Planned Parenthood implies that no money will be involved in the “donating” of fetal organs and parts. Yet Planned Parenthood makes money due to the method listed above. This is possible because the NIH Revitalization Act exempts “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue” allowing a loophole so that everyone can make money except the woman involved. Fetal tissue is important in advancing scientific research into how the body works, but there is a shortage, Medical abortions damage the quality of fetal tissue, so allowing sale of fetal tissue would compensate for the higher cost of surgical abortions. Making the sale of fetal tissue legal would allow compensation to go to the women, increase the supply of fetal tissue and it's quality.<|ASPECTS|>donating, quality, federal, cost, stop sales, supply, money, scientific research, make money, fetal organs, quality of fetal, prohibits, compensation, surgical abortions, donating ”, tissue, makes money, reasonable payments, shortage<|CONCLUSION|>","Currently it is against federal regulation to sell fetal tissue, But the regulation does not entirely stop sales but just prohibits compensation to the women. From gt Note that the word “donating” is used. The woman is “donating” the tissue. Planned Parenthood implies that no money will be involved in the “donating” of fetal organs and parts. Yet Planned Parenthood makes money due to the method listed above. This is possible because the NIH Revitalization Act exempts “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue” allowing a loophole so that everyone can make money except the woman involved. Fetal tissue is important in advancing scientific research into how the body works, but there is a shortage, Medical abortions damage the quality of fetal tissue, so allowing sale of fetal tissue would compensate for the higher cost of surgical abortions. Making the sale of fetal tissue legal would allow compensation to go to the women, increase the supply of fetal tissue and it's quality.",Selling fetal tissue should be legal
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>President Obama needed to make a deal with Iran to keep them from having nucleur weapons, and the negotiators worked out the best deal possible. It was clearly not a permanent solution. He did the best we could've done at the time with what leverage we had. President Trump is also making the correct move it is time to revisit Iran. We won't suffer economically by adding sanctions, DPRK won't denuclearize while Iran gets a sweetheart deal, and Iran needs to be dealt with and punished for their excessive meddling in the region. Our allies SA and Isreal both support our actions for obvious reasons. The EU, also an ally, does not, since they are more dependent economically on Iran and don't want to go through the reimposition of sanctions. They are simply arguing out of self interest and political reasons, but they cannot rationally conclude that the current JCPOA is going to be a solution for much longer so they let the US take the lead on renegotiations. Also, everyone remembers what happened to Gaddafi. It's not a self serving move to completely and totally relinquish nuclear weapons once they are developed, so we should not expect any leader to do so without a very strong carrot and stick presentation. Change my view Edit I'm coming from a position of American and western interest.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>President Obama needed to make a deal with Iran to keep them from having nucleur weapons, and the negotiators worked out the best deal possible. It was clearly not a permanent solution. He did the best we could've done at the time with what leverage we had. President Trump is also making the correct move it is time to revisit Iran. We won't suffer economically by adding sanctions, DPRK won't denuclearize while Iran gets a sweetheart deal, and Iran needs to be dealt with and punished for their excessive meddling in the region. Our allies SA and Isreal both support our actions for obvious reasons. The EU, also an ally, does not, since they are more dependent economically on Iran and don't want to go through the reimposition of sanctions. They are simply arguing out of self interest and political reasons, but they cannot rationally conclude that the current JCPOA is going to be a solution for much longer so they let the US take the lead on renegotiations. Also, everyone remembers what happened to Gaddafi. It's not a self serving move to completely and totally relinquish nuclear weapons once they are developed, so we should not expect any leader to do so without a very strong carrot and stick presentation. Change my view Edit I'm coming from a position of American and western interest.<|TARGETS|>having nucleur weapons, President Trump, the reimposition of sanctions, adding sanctions, any leader to do so without a very strong carrot and stick presentation ., The EU<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>President Obama needed to make a deal with Iran to keep them from having nucleur weapons, and the negotiators worked out the best deal possible. It was clearly not a permanent solution. He did the best we could've done at the time with what leverage we had. President Trump is also making the correct move it is time to revisit Iran. We won't suffer economically by adding sanctions, DPRK won't denuclearize while Iran gets a sweetheart deal, and Iran needs to be dealt with and punished for their excessive meddling in the region. Our allies SA and Isreal both support our actions for obvious reasons. The EU, also an ally, does not, since they are more dependent economically on Iran and don't want to go through the reimposition of sanctions. They are simply arguing out of self interest and political reasons, but they cannot rationally conclude that the current JCPOA is going to be a solution for much longer so they let the US take the lead on renegotiations. Also, everyone remembers what happened to Gaddafi. It's not a self serving move to completely and totally relinquish nuclear weapons once they are developed, so we should not expect any leader to do so without a very strong carrot and stick presentation. Change my view Edit I'm coming from a position of American and western interest.<|ASPECTS|>, american, renegotiations, permanent solution, presentation, revisit iran, suffer economically, dependent economically on iran, political reasons, relinquish nuclear weapons, gaddafi, sanctions, nucleur weapons, self interest, support, leverage, meddling, remembers, excessive, western interest<|CONCLUSION|>","President Obama needed to make a deal with Iran to keep them from having nucleur weapons, and the negotiators worked out the best deal possible. It was clearly not a permanent solution. He did the best we could've done at the time with what leverage we had. President Trump is also making the correct move it is time to revisit Iran. We won't suffer economically by adding sanctions, DPRK won't denuclearize while Iran gets a sweetheart deal, and Iran needs to be dealt with and punished for their excessive meddling in the region. Our allies SA and Isreal both support our actions for obvious reasons. The EU, also an ally, does not, since they are more dependent economically on Iran and don't want to go through the reimposition of sanctions. They are simply arguing out of self interest and political reasons, but they cannot rationally conclude that the current JCPOA is going to be a solution for much longer so they let the US take the lead on renegotiations. Also, everyone remembers what happened to Gaddafi. It's not a self serving move to completely and totally relinquish nuclear weapons once they are developed, so we should not expect any leader to do so without a very strong carrot and stick presentation. Change my view Edit I'm coming from a position of American and western interest.",Presidents Obama and Trump were both right on Iran.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I mean the equation of drinkable water with bottled water, which has become all too common in recent years in the US and many other countries. In many places, tap water is drinkable but is avoided out of irrational fear. Hypochondria and first world problem ism are partly responsible for this. If you go through life drinking tap water where it tastes okay, you'll be fine. In many cases there's literally no quality difference. Where tap water isn't pristine, often faucet filters can be used. A lot more economical, and convenient. If the tap water is undrinkable even with a filter, and if that's due to the condition of the public water supply itself and not an on site plumbing problem, then it should be a priority for that community to fix their damn water . Relying on bottled water should be, at most, a temporary measure, for anyone in any EDIT urban suburban community in any developed nation. Clean water should be absolutely basic. It's just massively wasteful, as a society, to be piping water into homes and bottling, selling and buying huge quantities of it. All the trains and trucks shipping it around, all the plastic, all the labor of moving this heavy substance around in small containers. The salary of every marketing rep trying sell designer water , the shelf space in supermarkets, and so on. All those resources could and should be going to other things.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I mean the equation of drinkable water with bottled water, which has become all too common in recent years in the US and many other countries. In many places, tap water is drinkable but is avoided out of irrational fear. Hypochondria and first world problem ism are partly responsible for this. If you go through life drinking tap water where it tastes okay, you'll be fine. In many cases there's literally no quality difference. Where tap water isn't pristine, often faucet filters can be used. A lot more economical, and convenient. If the tap water is undrinkable even with a filter, and if that's due to the condition of the public water supply itself and not an on site plumbing problem, then it should be a priority for that community to fix their damn water . Relying on bottled water should be, at most, a temporary measure, for anyone in any EDIT urban suburban community in any developed nation. Clean water should be absolutely basic. It's just massively wasteful, as a society, to be piping water into homes and bottling, selling and buying huge quantities of it. All the trains and trucks shipping it around, all the plastic, all the labor of moving this heavy substance around in small containers. The salary of every marketing rep trying sell designer water , the shelf space in supermarkets, and so on. All those resources could and should be going to other things.<|TARGETS|>Relying on bottled water, tap water, the equation of drinkable water with bottled water, Where tap water is n't pristine often faucet filters, If the tap water, Hypochondria and first world problem ism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I mean the equation of drinkable water with bottled water, which has become all too common in recent years in the US and many other countries. In many places, tap water is drinkable but is avoided out of irrational fear. Hypochondria and first world problem ism are partly responsible for this. If you go through life drinking tap water where it tastes okay, you'll be fine. In many cases there's literally no quality difference. Where tap water isn't pristine, often faucet filters can be used. A lot more economical, and convenient. If the tap water is undrinkable even with a filter, and if that's due to the condition of the public water supply itself and not an on site plumbing problem, then it should be a priority for that community to fix their damn water . Relying on bottled water should be, at most, a temporary measure, for anyone in any EDIT urban suburban community in any developed nation. Clean water should be absolutely basic. It's just massively wasteful, as a society, to be piping water into homes and bottling, selling and buying huge quantities of it. All the trains and trucks shipping it around, all the plastic, all the labor of moving this heavy substance around in small containers. The salary of every marketing rep trying sell designer water , the shelf space in supermarkets, and so on. All those resources could and should be going to other things.<|ASPECTS|>fine, irrational fear, condition, quality difference, undrinkable, equation of drinkable water, clean water, faucet filters, temporary measure, resources, economical, things, life, labor, water supply, tap water, first world problem ism, tastes okay, convenient, heavy substance, salary, water, problem, shelf space, wasteful, hypochondria, basic, pristine, massively<|CONCLUSION|>","I mean the equation of drinkable water with bottled water, which has become all too common in recent years in the US and many other countries. In many places, tap water is drinkable but is avoided out of irrational fear. Hypochondria and first world problem ism are partly responsible for this. If you go through life drinking tap water where it tastes okay, you'll be fine. In many cases there's literally no quality difference. Where tap water isn't pristine, often faucet filters can be used. A lot more economical, and convenient. If the tap water is undrinkable even with a filter, and if that's due to the condition of the public water supply itself and not an on site plumbing problem, then it should be a priority for that community to fix their damn water . Relying on bottled water should be, at most, a temporary measure, for anyone in any EDIT urban suburban community in any developed nation. Clean water should be absolutely basic. It's just massively wasteful, as a society, to be piping water into homes and bottling, selling and buying huge quantities of it. All the trains and trucks shipping it around, all the plastic, all the labor of moving this heavy substance around in small containers. The salary of every marketing rep trying sell designer water , the shelf space in supermarkets, and so on. All those resources could and should be going to other things.",The bottled water revolution is a tragedy
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I do try to recycle things and so but since my father is working as officer in energetics industry he has educated himself in this field aswell. He told me that about half of the recycled material is put into dump anyway because it is the sort of material that has no use in recycling process like already recycled paper. The big part of what is useful plastics is also chipped and used as fuel in industry althrough the amount of waste that goes of is absolutely minimal because those companies have high quality filters and stuff .<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I do try to recycle things and so but since my father is working as officer in energetics industry he has educated himself in this field aswell. He told me that about half of the recycled material is put into dump anyway because it is the sort of material that has no use in recycling process like already recycled paper. The big part of what is useful plastics is also chipped and used as fuel in industry althrough the amount of waste that goes of is absolutely minimal because those companies have high quality filters and stuff .<|TARGETS|>to recycle things and so but since my father is working as officer in energetics industry<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I do try to recycle things and so but since my father is working as officer in energetics industry he has educated himself in this field aswell. He told me that about half of the recycled material is put into dump anyway because it is the sort of material that has no use in recycling process like already recycled paper. The big part of what is useful plastics is also chipped and used as fuel in industry althrough the amount of waste that goes of is absolutely minimal because those companies have high quality filters and stuff .<|ASPECTS|>recycled material, recycled paper, recycle things, dump, recycling process, waste, educated, filters<|CONCLUSION|>",I do try to recycle things and so but since my father is working as officer in energetics industry he has educated himself in this field aswell. He told me that about half of the recycled material is put into dump anyway because it is the sort of material that has no use in recycling process like already recycled paper. The big part of what is useful plastics is also chipped and used as fuel in industry althrough the amount of waste that goes of is absolutely minimal because those companies have high quality filters and stuff .,When trying to recycle plastic material and paper you do not really need to caregorize the smaller parts
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>especially if you know the twist. That may seem like cheating, but other movies with twists are still enjoyable to watch even if you know the twist is coming Fight Club, for example . The characters are boring and I don't care about them I mean what can you say about any of them except that one guy has a silly voice? The plot is pointlessly complicated. Not complex, complicated. I mean it's convoluted, and it relies on Soze being some implausible all seeing chess master to the point where it's hard to suspend disbelief. The twist itself is unsatisfying because it's not foreshadowed well enough to feel earned. I mean you could have made any of the characters Soze without disturbing the plot. It's not some cinematographic work of art, as far as I can tell. It's gimmicky and it trades entirely on a twist that really isn't even that great. Am I missing something? <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>especially if you know the twist. That may seem like cheating, but other movies with twists are still enjoyable to watch even if you know the twist is coming Fight Club, for example . The characters are boring and I don't care about them I mean what can you say about any of them except that one guy has a silly voice? The plot is pointlessly complicated. Not complex, complicated. I mean it's convoluted, and it relies on Soze being some implausible all seeing chess master to the point where it's hard to suspend disbelief. The twist itself is unsatisfying because it's not foreshadowed well enough to feel earned. I mean you could have made any of the characters Soze without disturbing the plot. It's not some cinematographic work of art, as far as I can tell. It's gimmicky and it trades entirely on a twist that really isn't even that great. Am I missing something? <|TARGETS|>to suspend disbelief ., Soze being some implausible all seeing chess master to the point, The plot, The twist itself, n't care about them I mean what can you say about any of them except that one guy has a silly voice<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>especially if you know the twist. That may seem like cheating, but other movies with twists are still enjoyable to watch even if you know the twist is coming Fight Club, for example . The characters are boring and I don't care about them I mean what can you say about any of them except that one guy has a silly voice? The plot is pointlessly complicated. Not complex, complicated. I mean it's convoluted, and it relies on Soze being some implausible all seeing chess master to the point where it's hard to suspend disbelief. The twist itself is unsatisfying because it's not foreshadowed well enough to feel earned. I mean you could have made any of the characters Soze without disturbing the plot. It's not some cinematographic work of art, as far as I can tell. It's gimmicky and it trades entirely on a twist that really isn't even that great. Am I missing something? <|ASPECTS|>twist, feel earned, unsatisfying, characters, cinematographic work of art, soze, cheating, convoluted, complicated, trades, implausible, pointlessly complicated, boring, foreshadowed, silly voice, suspend disbelief, enjoyable, missing, disturbing the plot, gimmicky, plot, complex<|CONCLUSION|>","especially if you know the twist. That may seem like cheating, but other movies with twists are still enjoyable to watch even if you know the twist is coming Fight Club, for example . The characters are boring and I don't care about them I mean what can you say about any of them except that one guy has a silly voice? The plot is pointlessly complicated. Not complex, complicated. I mean it's convoluted, and it relies on Soze being some implausible all seeing chess master to the point where it's hard to suspend disbelief. The twist itself is unsatisfying because it's not foreshadowed well enough to feel earned. I mean you could have made any of the characters Soze without disturbing the plot. It's not some cinematographic work of art, as far as I can tell. It's gimmicky and it trades entirely on a twist that really isn't even that great. Am I missing something?",The Usual Suspects is a boring and lackluster movie
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>edit thanks everyone for their responses. i definitely have learned a little about copyright law and the use it or lose it rules. while i'm still of the opinion that it's cool when companies let certain things slide i now understand that letting certain things slide could screw them down the line. THANKS EVERYONE. Apparently Nintendo has gotten over 500 homage games in the past month, and Pokemon Uranium is one of them. I never played the game, but I don't understand why Nintendo or other publishers waste their time killing these fan made games. I don't think Uranium is taking sales away from Nintendo maybe the opposite. If I had picked up Uranium and liked it, maybe that would have stoked my fire to play Sun Moon or go back to older games in the series. I would argue that 99 of these games are just homebrewed versions of mods and only help bolster the community as opposed to trying to rival the source material. They're like an additional dish made by people who LOVE the IP. When so many mobile clones legally come out and are garbage, but quality games that took 9 years to complete get shut down, you gotta wonder where the priorities are. I understand that IP has value and legally these publishers have the right to go after violators, but in their eyes, what makes it worth it?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>edit thanks everyone for their responses. i definitely have learned a little about copyright law and the use it or lose it rules. while i'm still of the opinion that it's cool when companies let certain things slide i now understand that letting certain things slide could screw them down the line. THANKS EVERYONE. Apparently Nintendo has gotten over 500 homage games in the past month, and Pokemon Uranium is one of them. I never played the game, but I don't understand why Nintendo or other publishers waste their time killing these fan made games. I don't think Uranium is taking sales away from Nintendo maybe the opposite. If I had picked up Uranium and liked it, maybe that would have stoked my fire to play Sun Moon or go back to older games in the series. I would argue that 99 of these games are just homebrewed versions of mods and only help bolster the community as opposed to trying to rival the source material. They're like an additional dish made by people who LOVE the IP. When so many mobile clones legally come out and are garbage, but quality games that took 9 years to complete get shut down, you gotta wonder where the priorities are. I understand that IP has value and legally these publishers have the right to go after violators, but in their eyes, what makes it worth it?<|TARGETS|>copyright law and the use it or lose it rules ., Uranium, Nintendo, when companies let certain things slide i now understand that letting certain things slide, If I had picked up Uranium and liked it, why Nintendo or other publishers waste their time killing these fan made games<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>edit thanks everyone for their responses. i definitely have learned a little about copyright law and the use it or lose it rules. while i'm still of the opinion that it's cool when companies let certain things slide i now understand that letting certain things slide could screw them down the line. THANKS EVERYONE. Apparently Nintendo has gotten over 500 homage games in the past month, and Pokemon Uranium is one of them. I never played the game, but I don't understand why Nintendo or other publishers waste their time killing these fan made games. I don't think Uranium is taking sales away from Nintendo maybe the opposite. If I had picked up Uranium and liked it, maybe that would have stoked my fire to play Sun Moon or go back to older games in the series. I would argue that 99 of these games are just homebrewed versions of mods and only help bolster the community as opposed to trying to rival the source material. They're like an additional dish made by people who LOVE the IP. When so many mobile clones legally come out and are garbage, but quality games that took 9 years to complete get shut down, you gotta wonder where the priorities are. I understand that IP has value and legally these publishers have the right to go after violators, but in their eyes, what makes it worth it?<|ASPECTS|>, homebrewed versions, fire, taking sales away, killing, garbage, everyone, waste, older, copyright law, responses, cool, things, right to go after violators, additional dish, fan made, homage games, priorities, quality games, time, uranium, value, use, bolster the community, love the ip, ip, screw<|CONCLUSION|>","edit thanks everyone for their responses. i definitely have learned a little about copyright law and the use it or lose it rules. while i'm still of the opinion that it's cool when companies let certain things slide i now understand that letting certain things slide could screw them down the line. THANKS EVERYONE. Apparently Nintendo has gotten over 500 homage games in the past month, and Pokemon Uranium is one of them. I never played the game, but I don't understand why Nintendo or other publishers waste their time killing these fan made games. I don't think Uranium is taking sales away from Nintendo maybe the opposite. If I had picked up Uranium and liked it, maybe that would have stoked my fire to play Sun Moon or go back to older games in the series. I would argue that 99 of these games are just homebrewed versions of mods and only help bolster the community as opposed to trying to rival the source material. They're like an additional dish made by people who LOVE the IP. When so many mobile clones legally come out and are garbage, but quality games that took 9 years to complete get shut down, you gotta wonder where the priorities are. I understand that IP has value and legally these publishers have the right to go after violators, but in their eyes, what makes it worth it?",Fan made games like Pokemon Uranium are only good for the gaming industry
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am an Australian, we have fairly anti gun gun legislation. I believe that's a good thing. This whole mess had the possibility of bringing up gun control, self defence, duties of neighbourhood watch, responsibility in conflict, whether to prioritise punishment or reformation of deep seated issues. Instead the media, and then subsequently the people, decided it would be about Zimmerman. By far the least important in my opinion aspect of the case. And now all these protests about him. What could have been a catalyst for positive change is instead a verbal lynch mob against an ostensibly Not Guilty man.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am an Australian, we have fairly anti gun gun legislation. I believe that's a good thing. This whole mess had the possibility of bringing up gun control, self defence, duties of neighbourhood watch, responsibility in conflict, whether to prioritise punishment or reformation of deep seated issues. Instead the media, and then subsequently the people, decided it would be about Zimmerman. By far the least important in my opinion aspect of the case. And now all these protests about him. What could have been a catalyst for positive change is instead a verbal lynch mob against an ostensibly Not Guilty man.<|TARGETS|>anti gun gun legislation, to prioritise punishment or reformation of deep seated issues .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am an Australian, we have fairly anti gun gun legislation. I believe that's a good thing. This whole mess had the possibility of bringing up gun control, self defence, duties of neighbourhood watch, responsibility in conflict, whether to prioritise punishment or reformation of deep seated issues. Instead the media, and then subsequently the people, decided it would be about Zimmerman. By far the least important in my opinion aspect of the case. And now all these protests about him. What could have been a catalyst for positive change is instead a verbal lynch mob against an ostensibly Not Guilty man.<|ASPECTS|>responsibility in conflict, prioritise punishment, duties, self defence, zimmerman, protests, fairly, issues, neighbourhood watch, positive change, anti gun gun legislation, good, verbal lynch mob, gun control<|CONCLUSION|>","I am an Australian, we have fairly anti gun gun legislation. I believe that's a good thing. This whole mess had the possibility of bringing up gun control, self defence, duties of neighbourhood watch, responsibility in conflict, whether to prioritise punishment or reformation of deep seated issues. Instead the media, and then subsequently the people, decided it would be about Zimmerman. By far the least important in my opinion aspect of the case. And now all these protests about him. What could have been a catalyst for positive change is instead a verbal lynch mob against an ostensibly Not Guilty man.",bandwagon time I believe that the Zimmerman/Trayvon case could have been incredibly important but was ruined due to focus on Zimmerman.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In most people's opinion, the current republican party has become pretty extreme. Outlets like the National Review and the Heritage Foundation seem less influential than Fox news, Breitbart and Infowars in setting both the tone and topic of republican policies. Reagan has been succeeded by Trump and republicans have embraced white resentment rather than any kind of race neutral conservatism. Liberals are outraged every week by Trump and the Republican party, almost every one of their policies are mostly criticised by experts and both do terribly badly in polls compared to their counterparts e.g. Trump vs previous presidents, Republicans vs Democrats , but despite all that, I can't see why republicans will suffer serious political consequences. Trump continues to have the support of at least a third of Americans according to most polls , Moore generally leads the polls in Alabama and republicans are still likely to retain a majority in the senate. They seem to be able to enforce a far right agenda without any real economic justification, even if it hurts their own supporters and is championed by awful people, while still being supported by at least 30 40 of people. Given that, why would republicans ever become more moderate? Republicans have gerrymandered districts, broken political norms, changed election laws, allowed foreign interference and encouraged a far right media base that will excuse their every action. Liberals are more divided and less tribal. Independents naively dismiss both as being equally bad. I believe this will protect republicans from any permanent setback. They may lose the occasional election but they will continue to drift further right and will bring enough people with them to return to power. So can someone please CMV that republicans will remain far right and politically successful? Will they ever have to confront the truth on climate change or care about inequality and return to being a centre right party? If not, will they ever be punished by the electorate for their extremism? <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In most people's opinion, the current republican party has become pretty extreme. Outlets like the National Review and the Heritage Foundation seem less influential than Fox news, Breitbart and Infowars in setting both the tone and topic of republican policies. Reagan has been succeeded by Trump and republicans have embraced white resentment rather than any kind of race neutral conservatism. Liberals are outraged every week by Trump and the Republican party, almost every one of their policies are mostly criticised by experts and both do terribly badly in polls compared to their counterparts e.g. Trump vs previous presidents, Republicans vs Democrats , but despite all that, I can't see why republicans will suffer serious political consequences. Trump continues to have the support of at least a third of Americans according to most polls , Moore generally leads the polls in Alabama and republicans are still likely to retain a majority in the senate. They seem to be able to enforce a far right agenda without any real economic justification, even if it hurts their own supporters and is championed by awful people, while still being supported by at least 30 40 of people. Given that, why would republicans ever become more moderate? Republicans have gerrymandered districts, broken political norms, changed election laws, allowed foreign interference and encouraged a far right media base that will excuse their every action. Liberals are more divided and less tribal. Independents naively dismiss both as being equally bad. I believe this will protect republicans from any permanent setback. They may lose the occasional election but they will continue to drift further right and will bring enough people with them to return to power. So can someone please CMV that republicans will remain far right and politically successful? Will they ever have to confront the truth on climate change or care about inequality and return to being a centre right party? If not, will they ever be punished by the electorate for their extremism? <|TARGETS|>the current republican party, Outlets like the National Review and the Heritage Foundation, to enforce a far right agenda without any real economic justification, Liberals, Liberals are outraged every week by Trump and the Republican party, to confront the truth on climate change or care about inequality and return to being a centre right party<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In most people's opinion, the current republican party has become pretty extreme. Outlets like the National Review and the Heritage Foundation seem less influential than Fox news, Breitbart and Infowars in setting both the tone and topic of republican policies. Reagan has been succeeded by Trump and republicans have embraced white resentment rather than any kind of race neutral conservatism. Liberals are outraged every week by Trump and the Republican party, almost every one of their policies are mostly criticised by experts and both do terribly badly in polls compared to their counterparts e.g. Trump vs previous presidents, Republicans vs Democrats , but despite all that, I can't see why republicans will suffer serious political consequences. Trump continues to have the support of at least a third of Americans according to most polls , Moore generally leads the polls in Alabama and republicans are still likely to retain a majority in the senate. They seem to be able to enforce a far right agenda without any real economic justification, even if it hurts their own supporters and is championed by awful people, while still being supported by at least 30 40 of people. Given that, why would republicans ever become more moderate? Republicans have gerrymandered districts, broken political norms, changed election laws, allowed foreign interference and encouraged a far right media base that will excuse their every action. Liberals are more divided and less tribal. Independents naively dismiss both as being equally bad. I believe this will protect republicans from any permanent setback. They may lose the occasional election but they will continue to drift further right and will bring enough people with them to return to power. So can someone please CMV that republicans will remain far right and politically successful? Will they ever have to confront the truth on climate change or care about inequality and return to being a centre right party? If not, will they ever be punished by the electorate for their extremism? <|ASPECTS|>broken, return to power, changed election laws, hurts, gerrymandered districts, foreign interference, tribal, majority, setback, election, moderate, protect republicans, awful, extreme, far right agenda, political norms, supporters, excuse, support, republicans, divided, republican party, drift further right, republican policies, far right, criticised, climate change, punished, race neutral conservatism, less, politically successful, far right media base, outraged, inequality, centre right, equally bad, political consequences, white resentment, permanent, economic justification, lose, extremism, less influential<|CONCLUSION|>","In most people's opinion, the current republican party has become pretty extreme. Outlets like the National Review and the Heritage Foundation seem less influential than Fox news, Breitbart and Infowars in setting both the tone and topic of republican policies. Reagan has been succeeded by Trump and republicans have embraced white resentment rather than any kind of race neutral conservatism. Liberals are outraged every week by Trump and the Republican party, almost every one of their policies are mostly criticised by experts and both do terribly badly in polls compared to their counterparts e.g. Trump vs previous presidents, Republicans vs Democrats , but despite all that, I can't see why republicans will suffer serious political consequences. Trump continues to have the support of at least a third of Americans according to most polls , Moore generally leads the polls in Alabama and republicans are still likely to retain a majority in the senate. They seem to be able to enforce a far right agenda without any real economic justification, even if it hurts their own supporters and is championed by awful people, while still being supported by at least 30 40 of people. Given that, why would republicans ever become more moderate? Republicans have gerrymandered districts, broken political norms, changed election laws, allowed foreign interference and encouraged a far right media base that will excuse their every action. Liberals are more divided and less tribal. Independents naively dismiss both as being equally bad. I believe this will protect republicans from any permanent setback. They may lose the occasional election but they will continue to drift further right and will bring enough people with them to return to power. So can someone please  that republicans will remain far right and politically successful? Will they ever have to confront the truth on climate change or care about inequality and return to being a centre right party? If not, will they ever be punished by the electorate for their extremism?",The Republican party will not become more moderate but will continue to dominate American politics
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reminded by this post I believe the United States surface based naval fleet is an aged commodity past its time. Simply put, while I dont foresee an armed conflict with a modernized nation in the near future advanced cruise missiles like the SS N 22 Sunburn or SS NX 26 Oniks will certainly remain a threat making our surface fleet indefensible. We obviously need a launching platform for foreign missions however our current expenditure 184B or 27 of defense spending seems too high for such vulnerable targets.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reminded by this post I believe the United States surface based naval fleet is an aged commodity past its time. Simply put, while I dont foresee an armed conflict with a modernized nation in the near future advanced cruise missiles like the SS N 22 Sunburn or SS NX 26 Oniks will certainly remain a threat making our surface fleet indefensible. We obviously need a launching platform for foreign missions however our current expenditure 184B or 27 of defense spending seems too high for such vulnerable targets.<|TARGETS|>a launching platform for foreign missions however our current expenditure 184B or 27 of defense spending, the United States surface based naval fleet, an armed conflict with a modernized nation in the near future advanced cruise missiles<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reminded by this post I believe the United States surface based naval fleet is an aged commodity past its time. Simply put, while I dont foresee an armed conflict with a modernized nation in the near future advanced cruise missiles like the SS N 22 Sunburn or SS NX 26 Oniks will certainly remain a threat making our surface fleet indefensible. We obviously need a launching platform for foreign missions however our current expenditure 184B or 27 of defense spending seems too high for such vulnerable targets.<|ASPECTS|>vulnerable targets, fleet, indefensible, threat, launching platform, armed conflict, missiles, aged commodity, expenditure, defense spending<|CONCLUSION|>","Reminded by this post I believe the United States surface based naval fleet is an aged commodity past its time. Simply put, while I dont foresee an armed conflict with a modernized nation in the near future advanced cruise missiles like the SS N 22 Sunburn or SS NX 26 Oniks will certainly remain a threat making our surface fleet indefensible. We obviously need a launching platform for foreign missions however our current expenditure 184B or 27 of defense spending seems too high for such vulnerable targets.",The United States should divert a significant portion of U.S. Navy expenditures to other branches.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, a lot of hype has come up with Ethereum and some other cryptocurrencies offering smart contracts , where you can pay people on the network to do calculations for you. I believe that the potential market for this service is very small and specialized. Ordinary home computers, or even mobile devices, are more than capable of handling the average person's computational needs. When they aren't, outsourcing them is impractical. You can't outsource graphical rendering for a video game, because it's too time sensitive. If you outsource rendering for a cgi movie, you're giving it away before it's ready to be published. I've heard of homomorphic encryption, but I don't think it's sophisticated enough to handle a complete rendering job. Correct me if I'm wrong. The only thing that it would really be useful for is certain scientific fields, and distributed computing systems already exist for those eg SETI home . The introduction of currency is an improvement, but a minor one. I should be clear that I don't mean distributed file storage, such as that promised by the SAFE network. That I can readily see the use for. But I don't think distributed computing is anything to get excited about. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, a lot of hype has come up with Ethereum and some other cryptocurrencies offering smart contracts , where you can pay people on the network to do calculations for you. I believe that the potential market for this service is very small and specialized. Ordinary home computers, or even mobile devices, are more than capable of handling the average person's computational needs. When they aren't, outsourcing them is impractical. You can't outsource graphical rendering for a video game, because it's too time sensitive. If you outsource rendering for a cgi movie, you're giving it away before it's ready to be published. I've heard of homomorphic encryption, but I don't think it's sophisticated enough to handle a complete rendering job. Correct me if I'm wrong. The only thing that it would really be useful for is certain scientific fields, and distributed computing systems already exist for those eg SETI home . The introduction of currency is an improvement, but a minor one. I should be clear that I don't mean distributed file storage, such as that promised by the SAFE network. That I can readily see the use for. But I don't think distributed computing is anything to get excited about. <|TARGETS|>homomorphic encryption, distributed file storage such as that promised by the SAFE network, outsource graphical rendering for a video game, The introduction of currency, the potential market for this service, certain scientific fields and distributed computing systems<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, a lot of hype has come up with Ethereum and some other cryptocurrencies offering smart contracts , where you can pay people on the network to do calculations for you. I believe that the potential market for this service is very small and specialized. Ordinary home computers, or even mobile devices, are more than capable of handling the average person's computational needs. When they aren't, outsourcing them is impractical. You can't outsource graphical rendering for a video game, because it's too time sensitive. If you outsource rendering for a cgi movie, you're giving it away before it's ready to be published. I've heard of homomorphic encryption, but I don't think it's sophisticated enough to handle a complete rendering job. Correct me if I'm wrong. The only thing that it would really be useful for is certain scientific fields, and distributed computing systems already exist for those eg SETI home . The introduction of currency is an improvement, but a minor one. I should be clear that I don't mean distributed file storage, such as that promised by the SAFE network. That I can readily see the use for. But I don't think distributed computing is anything to get excited about. <|ASPECTS|>sophisticated, giving, small and specialized, outsource rendering, minor, distributed computing systems, scientific fields, distributed computing, useful, hype, market, calculations, improvement, computational needs, smart contracts, distributed file storage, time sensitive, homomorphic encryption, impractical, currency, outsourcing, outsource, use, complete rendering job, graphical rendering<|CONCLUSION|>","So, a lot of hype has come up with Ethereum and some other cryptocurrencies offering smart contracts , where you can pay people on the network to do calculations for you. I believe that the potential market for this service is very small and specialized. Ordinary home computers, or even mobile devices, are more than capable of handling the average person's computational needs. When they aren't, outsourcing them is impractical. You can't outsource graphical rendering for a video game, because it's too time sensitive. If you outsource rendering for a cgi movie, you're giving it away before it's ready to be published. I've heard of homomorphic encryption, but I don't think it's sophisticated enough to handle a complete rendering job. Correct me if I'm wrong. The only thing that it would really be useful for is certain scientific fields, and distributed computing systems already exist for those eg SETI home . The introduction of currency is an improvement, but a minor one. I should be clear that I don't mean distributed file storage, such as that promised by the SAFE network. That I can readily see the use for. But I don't think distributed computing is anything to get excited about.","The average person has no use for distributed computing, and will not in the foreseeable future."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Referendums are held on the terms of, and within the discourse of, establishment politics… but it’s time to reclaim the debate and the EU. The EU has some serious problems notably concerns with democracy and entrenched neoliberalism. This has had devastating effects, no more so than the fate of Greece, where the people voted against austerity multiple times, yet the Troika backed by a willing EU forced it upon them with ruinous consequences. The EU’s complicity in this assault on the Greek people is emblematic of its current state of contempt for alternatives to the neoliberal agenda. Despite these glaring issues with the EU, along with its capitalist roots and motivations, these problems do not constitute reason to abandon the project. With the rise of politicians and movements across the EU that are willing to challenge the status quo, now is the time to remain, and fight for an EU wide movement of progressives. If nothing else, a Remain vote is voting for a check on the Tories’ slashing of rights and regulations. Climate change, a doomed financial system, wealth inequality, etc. don’t respect national borders therefore isolationism is no solution. To tackle transnational problems, we need cooperative solutions a concrete example is the EU Financial Transactions Tax that the EU proposed, aiming at taxing the financial sector to mitigate some areas of worsening inequalities. It’s worth noting that the Tories opted out of this scheme. The EU may be a project of the elite, but that does not mean we shouldn't fight to reclaim it and repurpose it as a progressive, redistributive machine. While I respect the many on the Left who are campaigning for the UK to Leave, I am far from convinced that the current situation is propitious to a Brexit and pursuit of a Left agenda I think it's far more likely that a Brexit would only empower the marketisation of the UK. I am left in an uneasy situation tentatively supporting the UK to Remain in the EU, while trying to maintain distance from the business centric economistic appeals of the mainstream Remain troupe. Ultimately, the challenge remains clear whether we Remain or Leave, the neoliberal agenda is the ultimate target we must fervently fight against it either way.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Referendums are held on the terms of, and within the discourse of, establishment politics… but it’s time to reclaim the debate and the EU. The EU has some serious problems notably concerns with democracy and entrenched neoliberalism. This has had devastating effects, no more so than the fate of Greece, where the people voted against austerity multiple times, yet the Troika backed by a willing EU forced it upon them with ruinous consequences. The EU’s complicity in this assault on the Greek people is emblematic of its current state of contempt for alternatives to the neoliberal agenda. Despite these glaring issues with the EU, along with its capitalist roots and motivations, these problems do not constitute reason to abandon the project. With the rise of politicians and movements across the EU that are willing to challenge the status quo, now is the time to remain, and fight for an EU wide movement of progressives. If nothing else, a Remain vote is voting for a check on the Tories’ slashing of rights and regulations. Climate change, a doomed financial system, wealth inequality, etc. don’t respect national borders therefore isolationism is no solution. To tackle transnational problems, we need cooperative solutions a concrete example is the EU Financial Transactions Tax that the EU proposed, aiming at taxing the financial sector to mitigate some areas of worsening inequalities. It’s worth noting that the Tories opted out of this scheme. The EU may be a project of the elite, but that does not mean we shouldn't fight to reclaim it and repurpose it as a progressive, redistributive machine. While I respect the many on the Left who are campaigning for the UK to Leave, I am far from convinced that the current situation is propitious to a Brexit and pursuit of a Left agenda I think it's far more likely that a Brexit would only empower the marketisation of the UK. I am left in an uneasy situation tentatively supporting the UK to Remain in the EU, while trying to maintain distance from the business centric economistic appeals of the mainstream Remain troupe. Ultimately, the challenge remains clear whether we Remain or Leave, the neoliberal agenda is the ultimate target we must fervently fight against it either way.<|TARGETS|>To tackle transnational problems, the EU Financial Transactions Tax that the EU proposed, supporting the UK to Remain in the EU while trying to maintain distance from the business centric economistic appeals of the mainstream Remain troupe, the Tories’ slashing of rights and regulations, the neoliberal agenda, to abandon the project .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Referendums are held on the terms of, and within the discourse of, establishment politics… but it’s time to reclaim the debate and the EU. The EU has some serious problems notably concerns with democracy and entrenched neoliberalism. This has had devastating effects, no more so than the fate of Greece, where the people voted against austerity multiple times, yet the Troika backed by a willing EU forced it upon them with ruinous consequences. The EU’s complicity in this assault on the Greek people is emblematic of its current state of contempt for alternatives to the neoliberal agenda. Despite these glaring issues with the EU, along with its capitalist roots and motivations, these problems do not constitute reason to abandon the project. With the rise of politicians and movements across the EU that are willing to challenge the status quo, now is the time to remain, and fight for an EU wide movement of progressives. If nothing else, a Remain vote is voting for a check on the Tories’ slashing of rights and regulations. Climate change, a doomed financial system, wealth inequality, etc. don’t respect national borders therefore isolationism is no solution. To tackle transnational problems, we need cooperative solutions a concrete example is the EU Financial Transactions Tax that the EU proposed, aiming at taxing the financial sector to mitigate some areas of worsening inequalities. It’s worth noting that the Tories opted out of this scheme. The EU may be a project of the elite, but that does not mean we shouldn't fight to reclaim it and repurpose it as a progressive, redistributive machine. While I respect the many on the Left who are campaigning for the UK to Leave, I am far from convinced that the current situation is propitious to a Brexit and pursuit of a Left agenda I think it's far more likely that a Brexit would only empower the marketisation of the UK. I am left in an uneasy situation tentatively supporting the UK to Remain in the EU, while trying to maintain distance from the business centric economistic appeals of the mainstream Remain troupe. Ultimately, the challenge remains clear whether we Remain or Leave, the neoliberal agenda is the ultimate target we must fervently fight against it either way.<|ASPECTS|>, empower, transnational problems, neoliberal agenda, neoliberalism, distance, elite, problems, capitalist roots, devastating effects, rights and regulations, tories, business centric economistic, isolationism, left, progressive, progressives, doomed financial system, ultimate, project, slashing, democracy, national borders, eu, wealth inequality, contempt for alternatives, worsening, state, ruinous consequences, status quo, redistributive machine, inequalities, referendums, climate change, opted, austerity, debate, movement, entrenched, establishment politics, marketisation, cooperative solutions, motivations<|CONCLUSION|>","Referendums are held on the terms of, and within the discourse of, establishment politics… but it’s time to reclaim the debate and the EU. The EU has some serious problems notably concerns with democracy and entrenched neoliberalism. This has had devastating effects, no more so than the fate of Greece, where the people voted against austerity multiple times, yet the Troika backed by a willing EU forced it upon them with ruinous consequences. The EU’s complicity in this assault on the Greek people is emblematic of its current state of contempt for alternatives to the neoliberal agenda. Despite these glaring issues with the EU, along with its capitalist roots and motivations, these problems do not constitute reason to abandon the project. With the rise of politicians and movements across the EU that are willing to challenge the status quo, now is the time to remain, and fight for an EU wide movement of progressives. If nothing else, a Remain vote is voting for a check on the Tories’ slashing of rights and regulations. Climate change, a doomed financial system, wealth inequality, etc. don’t respect national borders therefore isolationism is no solution. To tackle transnational problems, we need cooperative solutions a concrete example is the EU Financial Transactions Tax that the EU proposed, aiming at taxing the financial sector to mitigate some areas of worsening inequalities. It’s worth noting that the Tories opted out of this scheme. The EU may be a project of the elite, but that does not mean we shouldn't fight to reclaim it and repurpose it as a progressive, redistributive machine. While I respect the many on the Left who are campaigning for the UK to Leave, I am far from convinced that the current situation is propitious to a Brexit and pursuit of a Left agenda I think it's far more likely that a Brexit would only empower the marketisation of the UK. I am left in an uneasy situation tentatively supporting the UK to Remain in the EU, while trying to maintain distance from the business centric economistic appeals of the mainstream Remain troupe. Ultimately, the challenge remains clear whether we Remain or Leave, the neoliberal agenda is the ultimate target we must fervently fight against it either way.",Left-wing Brits should vote to Remain in the EU
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's be frank, the old r atheism was almost exclusively image macros snarking on religion and or tooting the atheist's 'rational superiority' horn. But, to me, most of those people creating, propagating and upvoting these things feeling good about themselves, are just as trashy and stupid as the religious who do the same thing about their own beliefs. So, when the moderators brought 'order' to the mess, I was shocked and a little dazed, for my dreams had come true But as reality settled into my eyes i couldn't help but feel bad for the restriction of freedom. if these people who create, copy, submit and upvote these things really enjoy this, why should their freedoms be restricted? wasn't r trueatheism enough for people? why not let people's ugliness imo just thrive like it wants to? well, maybe the moderation is ultimately a good thing, and i just am just being too soft, and we'll all ultimately benefit from a more tame version of r atheism. but dammit, we're restricting freedom of expression can you CMV to really believe that the moderated r atheism is a good thing? sorry if you think this is a joke maybe it kind of is, but i'm also a little curious if i can just believe in this assholery, as it were.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's be frank, the old r atheism was almost exclusively image macros snarking on religion and or tooting the atheist's 'rational superiority' horn. But, to me, most of those people creating, propagating and upvoting these things feeling good about themselves, are just as trashy and stupid as the religious who do the same thing about their own beliefs. So, when the moderators brought 'order' to the mess, I was shocked and a little dazed, for my dreams had come true But as reality settled into my eyes i couldn't help but feel bad for the restriction of freedom. if these people who create, copy, submit and upvote these things really enjoy this, why should their freedoms be restricted? wasn't r trueatheism enough for people? why not let people's ugliness imo just thrive like it wants to? well, maybe the moderation is ultimately a good thing, and i just am just being too soft, and we'll all ultimately benefit from a more tame version of r atheism. but dammit, we're restricting freedom of expression can you CMV to really believe that the moderated r atheism is a good thing? sorry if you think this is a joke maybe it kind of is, but i'm also a little curious if i can just believe in this assholery, as it were.<|TARGETS|>if i can just believe in this assholery, restricting freedom of expression, the restriction of freedom ., a little dazed for my dreams had come true But as reality settled into my eyes, dammit, the moderators brought ' order ' to the mess<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's be frank, the old r atheism was almost exclusively image macros snarking on religion and or tooting the atheist's 'rational superiority' horn. But, to me, most of those people creating, propagating and upvoting these things feeling good about themselves, are just as trashy and stupid as the religious who do the same thing about their own beliefs. So, when the moderators brought 'order' to the mess, I was shocked and a little dazed, for my dreams had come true But as reality settled into my eyes i couldn't help but feel bad for the restriction of freedom. if these people who create, copy, submit and upvote these things really enjoy this, why should their freedoms be restricted? wasn't r trueatheism enough for people? why not let people's ugliness imo just thrive like it wants to? well, maybe the moderation is ultimately a good thing, and i just am just being too soft, and we'll all ultimately benefit from a more tame version of r atheism. but dammit, we're restricting freedom of expression can you CMV to really believe that the moderated r atheism is a good thing? sorry if you think this is a joke maybe it kind of is, but i'm also a little curious if i can just believe in this assholery, as it were.<|ASPECTS|>restriction of freedom, ugliness, trueatheism, restricting, atheism, r atheism, freedom of expression, superiority, people, moderation, stupid, macros, freedoms, soft, assholery, feeling good, trashy<|CONCLUSION|>","Let's be frank, the old r atheism was almost exclusively image macros snarking on religion and or tooting the atheist's 'rational superiority' horn. But, to me, most of those people creating, propagating and upvoting these things feeling good about themselves, are just as trashy and stupid as the religious who do the same thing about their own beliefs. So, when the moderators brought 'order' to the mess, I was shocked and a little dazed, for my dreams had come true But as reality settled into my eyes i couldn't help but feel bad for the restriction of freedom. if these people who create, copy, submit and upvote these things really enjoy this, why should their freedoms be restricted? wasn't r trueatheism enough for people? why not let people's ugliness imo just thrive like it wants to? well, maybe the moderation is ultimately a good thing, and i just am just being too soft, and we'll all ultimately benefit from a more tame version of r atheism. but dammit, we're restricting freedom of expression can you  to really believe that the moderated r atheism is a good thing? sorry if you think this is a joke maybe it kind of is, but i'm also a little curious if i can just believe in this assholery, as it were.",I disliked the old /r/atheism and thought it should be moderated. Now I feel bad for the restriction of people's freedoms.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Cynics of Greece rather than the modern understanding Modern cynicism is the disbelief in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, while ancient Cynics believed in rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. One could believe, perhaps incorrectly , that Cynics perceived proselytizing conventional higher values as stupidity rather than maliciousness. Ancient Greek Cynics preferred to live a simple life in poverty in the streets free from all possessions. For example, Crates of Thebes gave up riches to live in poverty and even had sex on the streets in broad daylight. The Cynics lived their philosophy of rejecting convention. Cynicism is among the ancient and modern languages, literature, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theatre, taught in the humanities subject. Much of it based around people who lived and breathed and often suffered for their subject. In the past, the rich believed in the intrinsic metaphysical value of all this knowledge so much that they patronized colleges and universities so it could be taught and learned. In the US, this belief has lead to the conventional wisdom that it's not even just the humanities and all other pure knowledge disciplines that have an intrinsic metaphysical value, it's education itself. So much so that it was decided to also support the pure knowledge disciplines with public colleges and universities. By putting a price on them. And by decided to teach what was lived and even named for it's very humanity, with dry textbooks and standardized testing. And, often, by requiring them rather than leaving the question over whether they are worth learning to the students. And by giving loans so more students could more easily take part. And by continuing their support all the way into this day and age when the internet could provide the exactly same pure knowledge for less or for free . Even now, criticizing pure knowledge disciplines being routed through public college university education is met with arguments of the intrinsic metaphysical value of education. All this without realizing that forcefully conflating the metaphysical value of the pure knowledge disciplines, with the real cost and dehumanizing standardization of the public college university education system, effectively strips away much or all of the metaphysical value of the disciplines and renders them nearly or completely worthless. And, now, they're reaping these hypocritical, sophistic, superfluous, stupid seeds they've sown and become dissatisfied with how the intrinsic metaphysical value they tried to add to their offspring, students and fellow citizens didn't bear enough real world fruit. The situation brings a visions of Cynics laughing and dancing in the streets at the prospect of everyone getting their just deserts for their massive, arrogant bastardization of education and confirmation that, yes, those who proselytize conventional higher values aren't worth listening to. EDITING<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Cynics of Greece rather than the modern understanding Modern cynicism is the disbelief in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, while ancient Cynics believed in rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. One could believe, perhaps incorrectly , that Cynics perceived proselytizing conventional higher values as stupidity rather than maliciousness. Ancient Greek Cynics preferred to live a simple life in poverty in the streets free from all possessions. For example, Crates of Thebes gave up riches to live in poverty and even had sex on the streets in broad daylight. The Cynics lived their philosophy of rejecting convention. Cynicism is among the ancient and modern languages, literature, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theatre, taught in the humanities subject. Much of it based around people who lived and breathed and often suffered for their subject. In the past, the rich believed in the intrinsic metaphysical value of all this knowledge so much that they patronized colleges and universities so it could be taught and learned. In the US, this belief has lead to the conventional wisdom that it's not even just the humanities and all other pure knowledge disciplines that have an intrinsic metaphysical value, it's education itself. So much so that it was decided to also support the pure knowledge disciplines with public colleges and universities. By putting a price on them. And by decided to teach what was lived and even named for it's very humanity, with dry textbooks and standardized testing. And, often, by requiring them rather than leaving the question over whether they are worth learning to the students. And by giving loans so more students could more easily take part. And by continuing their support all the way into this day and age when the internet could provide the exactly same pure knowledge for less or for free . Even now, criticizing pure knowledge disciplines being routed through public college university education is met with arguments of the intrinsic metaphysical value of education. All this without realizing that forcefully conflating the metaphysical value of the pure knowledge disciplines, with the real cost and dehumanizing standardization of the public college university education system, effectively strips away much or all of the metaphysical value of the disciplines and renders them nearly or completely worthless. And, now, they're reaping these hypocritical, sophistic, superfluous, stupid seeds they've sown and become dissatisfied with how the intrinsic metaphysical value they tried to add to their offspring, students and fellow citizens didn't bear enough real world fruit. The situation brings a visions of Cynics laughing and dancing in the streets at the prospect of everyone getting their just deserts for their massive, arrogant bastardization of education and confirmation that, yes, those who proselytize conventional higher values aren't worth listening to. EDITING<|TARGETS|>to teach what was lived and even named for it 's very humanity with dry textbooks and standardized testing, Cynics perceived proselytizing conventional higher values, requiring them rather than leaving the question over whether they are worth learning to the students ., the humanities and all other pure knowledge disciplines that have an intrinsic metaphysical value, that forcefully conflating the metaphysical value of the pure knowledge disciplines, Cynicism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Cynics of Greece rather than the modern understanding Modern cynicism is the disbelief in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, while ancient Cynics believed in rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. One could believe, perhaps incorrectly , that Cynics perceived proselytizing conventional higher values as stupidity rather than maliciousness. Ancient Greek Cynics preferred to live a simple life in poverty in the streets free from all possessions. For example, Crates of Thebes gave up riches to live in poverty and even had sex on the streets in broad daylight. The Cynics lived their philosophy of rejecting convention. Cynicism is among the ancient and modern languages, literature, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theatre, taught in the humanities subject. Much of it based around people who lived and breathed and often suffered for their subject. In the past, the rich believed in the intrinsic metaphysical value of all this knowledge so much that they patronized colleges and universities so it could be taught and learned. In the US, this belief has lead to the conventional wisdom that it's not even just the humanities and all other pure knowledge disciplines that have an intrinsic metaphysical value, it's education itself. So much so that it was decided to also support the pure knowledge disciplines with public colleges and universities. By putting a price on them. And by decided to teach what was lived and even named for it's very humanity, with dry textbooks and standardized testing. And, often, by requiring them rather than leaving the question over whether they are worth learning to the students. And by giving loans so more students could more easily take part. And by continuing their support all the way into this day and age when the internet could provide the exactly same pure knowledge for less or for free . Even now, criticizing pure knowledge disciplines being routed through public college university education is met with arguments of the intrinsic metaphysical value of education. All this without realizing that forcefully conflating the metaphysical value of the pure knowledge disciplines, with the real cost and dehumanizing standardization of the public college university education system, effectively strips away much or all of the metaphysical value of the disciplines and renders them nearly or completely worthless. And, now, they're reaping these hypocritical, sophistic, superfluous, stupid seeds they've sown and become dissatisfied with how the intrinsic metaphysical value they tried to add to their offspring, students and fellow citizens didn't bear enough real world fruit. The situation brings a visions of Cynics laughing and dancing in the streets at the prospect of everyone getting their just deserts for their massive, arrogant bastardization of education and confirmation that, yes, those who proselytize conventional higher values aren't worth listening to. EDITING<|ASPECTS|>easily take, metaphysical value, intrinsic, rejecting convention, taught and learned, sex on, riches, price, human motives, maliciousness, standardized testing, sincerity, possessions, wealth, stupidity, proselytizing conventional higher values, subject, dehumanizing standardization, lived and breathed, pure knowledge disciplines, cynicism, free, conventional higher values, power, simple life, arrogant, world fruit, humanity, cost, students, desires, suffered, goodness, bastardization of education, fame, worth learning, education, poverty, loans, worthless, pure knowledge, dry textbooks<|CONCLUSION|>","The Cynics of Greece rather than the modern understanding Modern cynicism is the disbelief in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, while ancient Cynics believed in rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. One could believe, perhaps incorrectly , that Cynics perceived proselytizing conventional higher values as stupidity rather than maliciousness. Ancient Greek Cynics preferred to live a simple life in poverty in the streets free from all possessions. For example, Crates of Thebes gave up riches to live in poverty and even had sex on the streets in broad daylight. The Cynics lived their philosophy of rejecting convention. Cynicism is among the ancient and modern languages, literature, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theatre, taught in the humanities subject. Much of it based around people who lived and breathed and often suffered for their subject. In the past, the rich believed in the intrinsic metaphysical value of all this knowledge so much that they patronized colleges and universities so it could be taught and learned. In the US, this belief has lead to the conventional wisdom that it's not even just the humanities and all other pure knowledge disciplines that have an intrinsic metaphysical value, it's education itself. So much so that it was decided to also support the pure knowledge disciplines with public colleges and universities. By putting a price on them. And by decided to teach what was lived and even named for it's very humanity, with dry textbooks and standardized testing. And, often, by requiring them rather than leaving the question over whether they are worth learning to the students. And by giving loans so more students could more easily take part. And by continuing their support all the way into this day and age when the internet could provide the exactly same pure knowledge for less or for free . Even now, criticizing pure knowledge disciplines being routed through public college university education is met with arguments of the intrinsic metaphysical value of education. All this without realizing that forcefully conflating the metaphysical value of the pure knowledge disciplines, with the real cost and dehumanizing standardization of the public college university education system, effectively strips away much or all of the metaphysical value of the disciplines and renders them nearly or completely worthless. And, now, they're reaping these hypocritical, sophistic, superfluous, stupid seeds they've sown and become dissatisfied with how the intrinsic metaphysical value they tried to add to their offspring, students and fellow citizens didn't bear enough real world fruit. The situation brings a visions of Cynics laughing and dancing in the streets at the prospect of everyone getting their just deserts for their massive, arrogant bastardization of education and confirmation that, yes, those who proselytize conventional higher values aren't worth listening to. EDITING",The Cynics were right.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was born and raised in America. I went to public schools and was taught about the great history of our country. I've learned of our exploit, our shining moments, and our past. I was a strong patriot for virtually my entire life. I am not a patriot anymore. Over the past several years, I've realized that, to my disappointment, this country disgusts me. Its history, as I've learned, is racist, sexist, anti democratic, and corrupt. The system now is, save for the racism and sexism which have improved greatly, but are still somewhat present, very much the same. We run propaganda campaigns comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, we parade around the world with our military like we own the place, and our politics back home are corrupt, anti Constitutional, counterproductive, or so egotistical that they're completely useless due to the gridlock. We beat our chests that we're the best country in the world, when, statistically, we are not. The drooling masses go driving around in their big pickup trucks because they're living in denial of scientific fact, the dimwits in our legislature either don't know what they're voting on, don't care what they're voting on, or simply line their pockets and vote based on that. Did I mention we live in a closed, two party system that shows no hope of changing and represents virtually nobody's views? Our economy is flawed, dangerous, and corrupt. Its unregulated influence has allowed national corporations to dictate what local governments can do, there is no inspiration for companies to do anything but make money, and they've funded a political party so heavily that tax may as well be one of the words that gets bleeped out. It's like we're a nation in denial of our own history. People here believe that America can do no wrong and that we should go galloping around with our apparently Christian Airforce and bomb every turrurist on Earth. We've decimated democratic governments out of paranoia, set up dictatorships that we later went to war with, and put ourselves in debt pointing missiles at an enemy that wanted nothing to do with us. The next problem is that people are resistant to change. This and that are communist though they almost never know what that word even means, this and that are the exact same as Hitler , and we're so mindblowingly simple minded that we deny numbers just to keep our identity, our money, and the idiotic ways that we are used to. Reddit, I am not a patriot, but I envy those who are. I want to join them again and be happy for the country that I live in, but I'm not going to lie to myself. Though I would never do anything to harm, impede, or destroy it, I fucking hate it. Sorry for the disorganized rant. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was born and raised in America. I went to public schools and was taught about the great history of our country. I've learned of our exploit, our shining moments, and our past. I was a strong patriot for virtually my entire life. I am not a patriot anymore. Over the past several years, I've realized that, to my disappointment, this country disgusts me. Its history, as I've learned, is racist, sexist, anti democratic, and corrupt. The system now is, save for the racism and sexism which have improved greatly, but are still somewhat present, very much the same. We run propaganda campaigns comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, we parade around the world with our military like we own the place, and our politics back home are corrupt, anti Constitutional, counterproductive, or so egotistical that they're completely useless due to the gridlock. We beat our chests that we're the best country in the world, when, statistically, we are not. The drooling masses go driving around in their big pickup trucks because they're living in denial of scientific fact, the dimwits in our legislature either don't know what they're voting on, don't care what they're voting on, or simply line their pockets and vote based on that. Did I mention we live in a closed, two party system that shows no hope of changing and represents virtually nobody's views? Our economy is flawed, dangerous, and corrupt. Its unregulated influence has allowed national corporations to dictate what local governments can do, there is no inspiration for companies to do anything but make money, and they've funded a political party so heavily that tax may as well be one of the words that gets bleeped out. It's like we're a nation in denial of our own history. People here believe that America can do no wrong and that we should go galloping around with our apparently Christian Airforce and bomb every turrurist on Earth. We've decimated democratic governments out of paranoia, set up dictatorships that we later went to war with, and put ourselves in debt pointing missiles at an enemy that wanted nothing to do with us. The next problem is that people are resistant to change. This and that are communist though they almost never know what that word even means, this and that are the exact same as Hitler , and we're so mindblowingly simple minded that we deny numbers just to keep our identity, our money, and the idiotic ways that we are used to. Reddit, I am not a patriot, but I envy those who are. I want to join them again and be happy for the country that I live in, but I'm not going to lie to myself. Though I would never do anything to harm, impede, or destroy it, I fucking hate it. Sorry for the disorganized rant. CMV.<|TARGETS|>funded a political party so heavily that tax, Our economy, go galloping around with our apparently Christian Airforce and bomb every turrurist on Earth ., Its unregulated influence, to join them again and be happy for the country that I live in, the dimwits in our legislature either do n't know what they 're voting on do n't care what they 're voting on or simply line their pockets and vote based on that .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was born and raised in America. I went to public schools and was taught about the great history of our country. I've learned of our exploit, our shining moments, and our past. I was a strong patriot for virtually my entire life. I am not a patriot anymore. Over the past several years, I've realized that, to my disappointment, this country disgusts me. Its history, as I've learned, is racist, sexist, anti democratic, and corrupt. The system now is, save for the racism and sexism which have improved greatly, but are still somewhat present, very much the same. We run propaganda campaigns comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, we parade around the world with our military like we own the place, and our politics back home are corrupt, anti Constitutional, counterproductive, or so egotistical that they're completely useless due to the gridlock. We beat our chests that we're the best country in the world, when, statistically, we are not. The drooling masses go driving around in their big pickup trucks because they're living in denial of scientific fact, the dimwits in our legislature either don't know what they're voting on, don't care what they're voting on, or simply line their pockets and vote based on that. Did I mention we live in a closed, two party system that shows no hope of changing and represents virtually nobody's views? Our economy is flawed, dangerous, and corrupt. Its unregulated influence has allowed national corporations to dictate what local governments can do, there is no inspiration for companies to do anything but make money, and they've funded a political party so heavily that tax may as well be one of the words that gets bleeped out. It's like we're a nation in denial of our own history. People here believe that America can do no wrong and that we should go galloping around with our apparently Christian Airforce and bomb every turrurist on Earth. We've decimated democratic governments out of paranoia, set up dictatorships that we later went to war with, and put ourselves in debt pointing missiles at an enemy that wanted nothing to do with us. The next problem is that people are resistant to change. This and that are communist though they almost never know what that word even means, this and that are the exact same as Hitler , and we're so mindblowingly simple minded that we deny numbers just to keep our identity, our money, and the idiotic ways that we are used to. Reddit, I am not a patriot, but I envy those who are. I want to join them again and be happy for the country that I live in, but I'm not going to lie to myself. Though I would never do anything to harm, impede, or destroy it, I fucking hate it. Sorry for the disorganized rant. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>, dangerous, flawed, turrurist, shining moments, money, make money, idiotic, history, harm, disgusts, gridlock, impede, counterproductive, unregulated influence, democratic governments, decimated, denial, useless, dictatorships, economy, simple, strong, inspiration, denial of scientific fact, paranoia, egotistical, corporations, deny numbers, beat our chests, best country, propaganda, disorganized rant, anti democratic, great history of, debt pointing missiles, america, hope, drooling, past, exploit, identity, resistant to change, nation, sexist, bomb every, destroy, racist, sexism, party system, country, corrupt, changing, happy for the country, anti constitutional, no wrong, patriot, racism, nobody 's views, dictate, envy<|CONCLUSION|>","I was born and raised in America. I went to public schools and was taught about the great history of our country. I've learned of our exploit, our shining moments, and our past. I was a strong patriot for virtually my entire life. I am not a patriot anymore. Over the past several years, I've realized that, to my disappointment, this country disgusts me. Its history, as I've learned, is racist, sexist, anti democratic, and corrupt. The system now is, save for the racism and sexism which have improved greatly, but are still somewhat present, very much the same. We run propaganda campaigns comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, we parade around the world with our military like we own the place, and our politics back home are corrupt, anti Constitutional, counterproductive, or so egotistical that they're completely useless due to the gridlock. We beat our chests that we're the best country in the world, when, statistically, we are not. The drooling masses go driving around in their big pickup trucks because they're living in denial of scientific fact, the dimwits in our legislature either don't know what they're voting on, don't care what they're voting on, or simply line their pockets and vote based on that. Did I mention we live in a closed, two party system that shows no hope of changing and represents virtually nobody's views? Our economy is flawed, dangerous, and corrupt. Its unregulated influence has allowed national corporations to dictate what local governments can do, there is no inspiration for companies to do anything but make money, and they've funded a political party so heavily that tax may as well be one of the words that gets bleeped out. It's like we're a nation in denial of our own history. People here believe that America can do no wrong and that we should go galloping around with our apparently Christian Airforce and bomb every turrurist on Earth. We've decimated democratic governments out of paranoia, set up dictatorships that we later went to war with, and put ourselves in debt pointing missiles at an enemy that wanted nothing to do with us. The next problem is that people are resistant to change. This and that are communist though they almost never know what that word even means, this and that are the exact same as Hitler , and we're so mindblowingly simple minded that we deny numbers just to keep our identity, our money, and the idiotic ways that we are used to. Reddit, I am not a patriot, but I envy those who are. I want to join them again and be happy for the country that I live in, but I'm not going to lie to myself. Though I would never do anything to harm, impede, or destroy it, I fucking hate it. Sorry for the disorganized rant. .",I am not a Patriot
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'd like to first state that I think meat is delicious and eat it whenever it is available. My argument is as follows Animals are capable of suffering, and to cause suffering is immoral. While I think that it is absolutely possible to raise animals for feed so that they live happy fulfilling lives, animals in condensed feeding operations are confined in small crowded cages, left wallow in their waste, sometimes never even see the light of day, and are often mistreated and abused by their handlers. This obviously causes a large degree of suffering. On the other hand, it's possible to have sex with an animal without it suffering. For example, if I were on my hands and knees lying naked on the floor and a dog came up behind me and mounted me under it's own free will, it's not being coerced or harmed in anyway. While there are definitely abusive forms of bestiality, and ethical forms of animal farming, I believe that the form of beastiality I just described was more ethical than the form of farming I just described.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'd like to first state that I think meat is delicious and eat it whenever it is available. My argument is as follows Animals are capable of suffering, and to cause suffering is immoral. While I think that it is absolutely possible to raise animals for feed so that they live happy fulfilling lives, animals in condensed feeding operations are confined in small crowded cages, left wallow in their waste, sometimes never even see the light of day, and are often mistreated and abused by their handlers. This obviously causes a large degree of suffering. On the other hand, it's possible to have sex with an animal without it suffering. For example, if I were on my hands and knees lying naked on the floor and a dog came up behind me and mounted me under it's own free will, it's not being coerced or harmed in anyway. While there are definitely abusive forms of bestiality, and ethical forms of animal farming, I believe that the form of beastiality I just described was more ethical than the form of farming I just described.<|TARGETS|>to have sex with an animal without it suffering ., to first state that I think meat, if I were on my hands and knees lying naked on the floor and a dog came up behind me and mounted me under it 's own free will, to raise animals for feed so that they live happy fulfilling lives animals in condensed feeding operations are confined in small crowded cages left wallow in their waste<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'd like to first state that I think meat is delicious and eat it whenever it is available. My argument is as follows Animals are capable of suffering, and to cause suffering is immoral. While I think that it is absolutely possible to raise animals for feed so that they live happy fulfilling lives, animals in condensed feeding operations are confined in small crowded cages, left wallow in their waste, sometimes never even see the light of day, and are often mistreated and abused by their handlers. This obviously causes a large degree of suffering. On the other hand, it's possible to have sex with an animal without it suffering. For example, if I were on my hands and knees lying naked on the floor and a dog came up behind me and mounted me under it's own free will, it's not being coerced or harmed in anyway. While there are definitely abusive forms of bestiality, and ethical forms of animal farming, I believe that the form of beastiality I just described was more ethical than the form of farming I just described.<|ASPECTS|>happy fulfilling lives, abused, ethical, abusive, eat, meat, animal, bestiality, immoral, waste, mistreated, coerced, delicious, harmed, suffering, beastiality<|CONCLUSION|>","I'd like to first state that I think meat is delicious and eat it whenever it is available. My argument is as follows Animals are capable of suffering, and to cause suffering is immoral. While I think that it is absolutely possible to raise animals for feed so that they live happy fulfilling lives, animals in condensed feeding operations are confined in small crowded cages, left wallow in their waste, sometimes never even see the light of day, and are often mistreated and abused by their handlers. This obviously causes a large degree of suffering. On the other hand, it's possible to have sex with an animal without it suffering. For example, if I were on my hands and knees lying naked on the floor and a dog came up behind me and mounted me under it's own free will, it's not being coerced or harmed in anyway. While there are definitely abusive forms of bestiality, and ethical forms of animal farming, I believe that the form of beastiality I just described was more ethical than the form of farming I just described.",Beastiality can be more ethical than eating CAFO meat or dairy.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I agree that the original purpose of copyright was a good idea. Stop people from ripping off other's work so that artists have an incentive to create art. Nothing wrong with that. But since then it's become horribly corrupt, and is often used for big businesses to earn money for doing nothing of value whatsoever. Let me start my saying that I despise the Tolkien Estate. Not only do they have very little right to complain, most of the time, it would actually hurt J. R. R. Tolkien's legacy significantly if they were always allowed to have their way. Just because Christopher Tolkien worked on some of J. R. R's books, doesn't mean he has a right to control everything that happens to them. Complaining about the movies just because they're different to the books. Peter Jackson's movies offered a new and interesting interpretation that brought a lot of new attention to Tolkien's work, but Christopher still disowned his son over it. That's just childish and stupid. But I'm getting off topic here. Aggressively pursuing anything you can vaguely claim to have any ownership of is just selfish. Suing someone for making a character that looks vaguely similar to one of yours isn't protecting your art, it's just bullying artists to get more money. Same with Games Workshop suing someone for using the words Space Marine . You don't own those words, Games Workshop. The use of those words is not damaging anything you've created. You're just greedy. Same goes for Disney pushing aggressive copyright laws, when a lot of their original success came from adapting copyright free stories. No story has ever been harmed by lack of copyright long after it was created. Look at Sherlock Holmes. Not only has it gained a lot more attention since it became public domain, some really great stuff has been made. There are some cases where copyright works. If you've just worked hard to make a neat new mobile game, and someone else rips it off completely, only changing some of the art, but makes a lot more money from it, you have a right to sue. Stopping that sort of situation is what copyright was designed to do, but somehow it basically fails to do that, and is instead abused by greedy businessmen who contribute absolutely nothing to society.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I agree that the original purpose of copyright was a good idea. Stop people from ripping off other's work so that artists have an incentive to create art. Nothing wrong with that. But since then it's become horribly corrupt, and is often used for big businesses to earn money for doing nothing of value whatsoever. Let me start my saying that I despise the Tolkien Estate. Not only do they have very little right to complain, most of the time, it would actually hurt J. R. R. Tolkien's legacy significantly if they were always allowed to have their way. Just because Christopher Tolkien worked on some of J. R. R's books, doesn't mean he has a right to control everything that happens to them. Complaining about the movies just because they're different to the books. Peter Jackson's movies offered a new and interesting interpretation that brought a lot of new attention to Tolkien's work, but Christopher still disowned his son over it. That's just childish and stupid. But I'm getting off topic here. Aggressively pursuing anything you can vaguely claim to have any ownership of is just selfish. Suing someone for making a character that looks vaguely similar to one of yours isn't protecting your art, it's just bullying artists to get more money. Same with Games Workshop suing someone for using the words Space Marine . You don't own those words, Games Workshop. The use of those words is not damaging anything you've created. You're just greedy. Same goes for Disney pushing aggressive copyright laws, when a lot of their original success came from adapting copyright free stories. No story has ever been harmed by lack of copyright long after it was created. Look at Sherlock Holmes. Not only has it gained a lot more attention since it became public domain, some really great stuff has been made. There are some cases where copyright works. If you've just worked hard to make a neat new mobile game, and someone else rips it off completely, only changing some of the art, but makes a lot more money from it, you have a right to sue. Stopping that sort of situation is what copyright was designed to do, but somehow it basically fails to do that, and is instead abused by greedy businessmen who contribute absolutely nothing to society.<|TARGETS|>Christopher Tolkien worked on some of J . R. R 's books, that the original purpose of copyright, Peter Jackson 's movies, Sherlock Holmes, Stop people from ripping off other 's work so that artists have an incentive to create art ., Stopping that sort of situation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I agree that the original purpose of copyright was a good idea. Stop people from ripping off other's work so that artists have an incentive to create art. Nothing wrong with that. But since then it's become horribly corrupt, and is often used for big businesses to earn money for doing nothing of value whatsoever. Let me start my saying that I despise the Tolkien Estate. Not only do they have very little right to complain, most of the time, it would actually hurt J. R. R. Tolkien's legacy significantly if they were always allowed to have their way. Just because Christopher Tolkien worked on some of J. R. R's books, doesn't mean he has a right to control everything that happens to them. Complaining about the movies just because they're different to the books. Peter Jackson's movies offered a new and interesting interpretation that brought a lot of new attention to Tolkien's work, but Christopher still disowned his son over it. That's just childish and stupid. But I'm getting off topic here. Aggressively pursuing anything you can vaguely claim to have any ownership of is just selfish. Suing someone for making a character that looks vaguely similar to one of yours isn't protecting your art, it's just bullying artists to get more money. Same with Games Workshop suing someone for using the words Space Marine . You don't own those words, Games Workshop. The use of those words is not damaging anything you've created. You're just greedy. Same goes for Disney pushing aggressive copyright laws, when a lot of their original success came from adapting copyright free stories. No story has ever been harmed by lack of copyright long after it was created. Look at Sherlock Holmes. Not only has it gained a lot more attention since it became public domain, some really great stuff has been made. There are some cases where copyright works. If you've just worked hard to make a neat new mobile game, and someone else rips it off completely, only changing some of the art, but makes a lot more money from it, you have a right to sue. Stopping that sort of situation is what copyright was designed to do, but somehow it basically fails to do that, and is instead abused by greedy businessmen who contribute absolutely nothing to society.<|ASPECTS|>, attention, greedy businessmen, disowned, money, right to sue, tolkien estate, domain, right to control, legacy, great stuff, words, damaging anything, greedy, interesting interpretation, society, original purpose, bullying artists, lack, copyright laws, sherlock holmes, topic, ripping off other 's work, abused, protecting your art, copyright free stories, hurt, 's, copyright, new, ownership, copyright works, stupid, horribly, despise, childish, value, right to complain, corrupt, marine, different, earn money, selfish, incentive to create art<|CONCLUSION|>","I agree that the original purpose of copyright was a good idea. Stop people from ripping off other's work so that artists have an incentive to create art. Nothing wrong with that. But since then it's become horribly corrupt, and is often used for big businesses to earn money for doing nothing of value whatsoever. Let me start my saying that I despise the Tolkien Estate. Not only do they have very little right to complain, most of the time, it would actually hurt J. R. R. Tolkien's legacy significantly if they were always allowed to have their way. Just because Christopher Tolkien worked on some of J. R. R's books, doesn't mean he has a right to control everything that happens to them. Complaining about the movies just because they're different to the books. Peter Jackson's movies offered a new and interesting interpretation that brought a lot of new attention to Tolkien's work, but Christopher still disowned his son over it. That's just childish and stupid. But I'm getting off topic here. Aggressively pursuing anything you can vaguely claim to have any ownership of is just selfish. Suing someone for making a character that looks vaguely similar to one of yours isn't protecting your art, it's just bullying artists to get more money. Same with Games Workshop suing someone for using the words Space Marine . You don't own those words, Games Workshop. The use of those words is not damaging anything you've created. You're just greedy. Same goes for Disney pushing aggressive copyright laws, when a lot of their original success came from adapting copyright free stories. No story has ever been harmed by lack of copyright long after it was created. Look at Sherlock Holmes. Not only has it gained a lot more attention since it became public domain, some really great stuff has been made. There are some cases where copyright works. If you've just worked hard to make a neat new mobile game, and someone else rips it off completely, only changing some of the art, but makes a lot more money from it, you have a right to sue. Stopping that sort of situation is what copyright was designed to do, but somehow it basically fails to do that, and is instead abused by greedy businessmen who contribute absolutely nothing to society.","Copyright law is abused by evil, greedy businessmen who are earning money despite doing nothing of value"
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Bare with me here. My politics knowledge isn't the best and I'm simply trying to understand this PC movement in large companies. The most recent example is the Gillette ad which pretty much accuses is own customers. I don't think P G are living under a rock and the ad had been well thought through because a large company doesn't just publish an ad that stays a large portion of their demographic. I'm sure the PC trend is highly profitable for the industry. Also media companies like Twitter YouTube Tumblr have been banning users for sharing anti PC thoughts whilst other just as controverse posts or users rarely face any issues.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Bare with me here. My politics knowledge isn't the best and I'm simply trying to understand this PC movement in large companies. The most recent example is the Gillette ad which pretty much accuses is own customers. I don't think P G are living under a rock and the ad had been well thought through because a large company doesn't just publish an ad that stays a large portion of their demographic. I'm sure the PC trend is highly profitable for the industry. Also media companies like Twitter YouTube Tumblr have been banning users for sharing anti PC thoughts whilst other just as controverse posts or users rarely face any issues.<|TARGETS|>trying to understand this PC movement in large companies, the Gillette ad, the PC trend, n't think P G are living under a rock and the ad had been well thought through because a large company<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Bare with me here. My politics knowledge isn't the best and I'm simply trying to understand this PC movement in large companies. The most recent example is the Gillette ad which pretty much accuses is own customers. I don't think P G are living under a rock and the ad had been well thought through because a large company doesn't just publish an ad that stays a large portion of their demographic. I'm sure the PC trend is highly profitable for the industry. Also media companies like Twitter YouTube Tumblr have been banning users for sharing anti PC thoughts whilst other just as controverse posts or users rarely face any issues.<|ASPECTS|>, politics knowledge, profitable, highly, pc movement, controverse, pc, customers, anti pc thoughts, demographic<|CONCLUSION|>",Bare with me here. My politics knowledge isn't the best and I'm simply trying to understand this PC movement in large companies. The most recent example is the Gillette ad which pretty much accuses is own customers. I don't think P G are living under a rock and the ad had been well thought through because a large company doesn't just publish an ad that stays a large portion of their demographic. I'm sure the PC trend is highly profitable for the industry. Also media companies like Twitter YouTube Tumblr have been banning users for sharing anti PC thoughts whilst other just as controverse posts or users rarely face any issues.,Liberalism/Leftist politics are profitable for companies
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People's main complaints about America's 2 party system is that there are not enough choices and not enough ideas. But IMO our 2 party system with primary elections covers the spectrum of ideas. For example, on the right we had a libertarian candidate, traditional republican candidates, traditional conservative candidates, and I guess fairly moderate but right wing leaning candidates. And on the left we have a Democratoc socialist, a moderate Democrat, and a pretty liberal candidate who dropped out. Now with all of these candidates across the spectrum, we narrow it down to the top two candidates. So the whole spectrum of political ideas are represented, and we don't have to worry too much about the spoiler effect of vote splitting in the general election. Also in the end, the two party system is majority rules. In a multi party system, for example with 4 parties, party 1 may receive 20 , party 2 receives 25 , party 3 receives 27 and party 4 receives 28 . The winning party wins with 28 of the population satisfied with 72 dissatisfied. Basically in the end a larger of the population will be unhappy in a multi party system.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People's main complaints about America's 2 party system is that there are not enough choices and not enough ideas. But IMO our 2 party system with primary elections covers the spectrum of ideas. For example, on the right we had a libertarian candidate, traditional republican candidates, traditional conservative candidates, and I guess fairly moderate but right wing leaning candidates. And on the left we have a Democratoc socialist, a moderate Democrat, and a pretty liberal candidate who dropped out. Now with all of these candidates across the spectrum, we narrow it down to the top two candidates. So the whole spectrum of political ideas are represented, and we don't have to worry too much about the spoiler effect of vote splitting in the general election. Also in the end, the two party system is majority rules. In a multi party system, for example with 4 parties, party 1 may receive 20 , party 2 receives 25 , party 3 receives 27 and party 4 receives 28 . The winning party wins with 28 of the population satisfied with 72 dissatisfied. Basically in the end a larger of the population will be unhappy in a multi party system.<|TARGETS|>the whole spectrum of political ideas, The winning party, People 's main complaints about America 's 2 party system, IMO our 2 party system with primary elections, to worry too much about the spoiler effect of vote splitting in the general election, a multi party system<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People's main complaints about America's 2 party system is that there are not enough choices and not enough ideas. But IMO our 2 party system with primary elections covers the spectrum of ideas. For example, on the right we had a libertarian candidate, traditional republican candidates, traditional conservative candidates, and I guess fairly moderate but right wing leaning candidates. And on the left we have a Democratoc socialist, a moderate Democrat, and a pretty liberal candidate who dropped out. Now with all of these candidates across the spectrum, we narrow it down to the top two candidates. So the whole spectrum of political ideas are represented, and we don't have to worry too much about the spoiler effect of vote splitting in the general election. Also in the end, the two party system is majority rules. In a multi party system, for example with 4 parties, party 1 may receive 20 , party 2 receives 25 , party 3 receives 27 and party 4 receives 28 . The winning party wins with 28 of the population satisfied with 72 dissatisfied. Basically in the end a larger of the population will be unhappy in a multi party system.<|ASPECTS|>population, political ideas, party system, unhappy, narrow, spectrum of ideas, ideas, elections, multi party system, satisfied, democratoc socialist, traditional, liberal candidate, spoiler effect, moderate, majority rules, top two, libertarian candidate, vote splitting, choices, dissatisfied<|CONCLUSION|>","People's main complaints about America's 2 party system is that there are not enough choices and not enough ideas. But IMO our 2 party system with primary elections covers the spectrum of ideas. For example, on the right we had a libertarian candidate, traditional republican candidates, traditional conservative candidates, and I guess fairly moderate but right wing leaning candidates. And on the left we have a Democratoc socialist, a moderate Democrat, and a pretty liberal candidate who dropped out. Now with all of these candidates across the spectrum, we narrow it down to the top two candidates. So the whole spectrum of political ideas are represented, and we don't have to worry too much about the spoiler effect of vote splitting in the general election. Also in the end, the two party system is majority rules. In a multi party system, for example with 4 parties, party 1 may receive 20 , party 2 receives 25 , party 3 receives 27 and party 4 receives 28 . The winning party wins with 28 of the population satisfied with 72 dissatisfied. Basically in the end a larger of the population will be unhappy in a multi party system.",the 2 party political system in America is fine the way it is.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I used to believe in the KJV Jesus as presented by the Baptists. I grew out of this when I started seeing all the typical logical atheist arguments you see online. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a victim of my time Like if I were born 80 years ago I would be a devout Christian, and I'm only an atheist because it's popular I mean that the arguments are repeated enough that I succumbed to them, not that I go with the most popular thing . So, some problems I have with believing in God How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are How does the physical world reconcile with scripture genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution ? If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction? How can someone who created the universe care about me individually? I've started to feel like that is just brought in to encourage the peasants to listen to the church. I'll post more if I think of it later I'm looking forward to having my opinion changed like Fox Mulder, I want to believe .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I used to believe in the KJV Jesus as presented by the Baptists. I grew out of this when I started seeing all the typical logical atheist arguments you see online. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a victim of my time Like if I were born 80 years ago I would be a devout Christian, and I'm only an atheist because it's popular I mean that the arguments are repeated enough that I succumbed to them, not that I go with the most popular thing . So, some problems I have with believing in God How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are How does the physical world reconcile with scripture genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution ? If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction? How can someone who created the universe care about me individually? I've started to feel like that is just brought in to encourage the peasants to listen to the church. I'll post more if I think of it later I'm looking forward to having my opinion changed like Fox Mulder, I want to believe .<|TARGETS|>a victim of my time Like if I were born 80 years ago I would be a devout Christian, How does the physical world reconcile with scripture genesis when read literal, to encourage the peasants to listen to the church ., only an atheist because it 's popular I mean that the arguments are repeated enough that I succumbed to them not that I go with the most popular thing ., How can someone who created the universe care about me individually, the KJV Jesus as presented by the Baptists .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I used to believe in the KJV Jesus as presented by the Baptists. I grew out of this when I started seeing all the typical logical atheist arguments you see online. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a victim of my time Like if I were born 80 years ago I would be a devout Christian, and I'm only an atheist because it's popular I mean that the arguments are repeated enough that I succumbed to them, not that I go with the most popular thing . So, some problems I have with believing in God How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are How does the physical world reconcile with scripture genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution ? If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction? How can someone who created the universe care about me individually? I've started to feel like that is just brought in to encourage the peasants to listen to the church. I'll post more if I think of it later I'm looking forward to having my opinion changed like Fox Mulder, I want to believe .<|ASPECTS|>peasants, powerful alien, listen to the church, individually, devout christian, religion, american jesus, vishnu, jesus, god, right god, different, logical atheist arguments, encourage, believing in god, care about, opinion changed, deny evolution, victim of<|CONCLUSION|>","I used to believe in the KJV Jesus as presented by the Baptists. I grew out of this when I started seeing all the typical logical atheist arguments you see online. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a victim of my time Like if I were born 80 years ago I would be a devout Christian, and I'm only an atheist because it's popular I mean that the arguments are repeated enough that I succumbed to them, not that I go with the most popular thing . So, some problems I have with believing in God How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are How does the physical world reconcile with scripture genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution ? If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction? How can someone who created the universe care about me individually? I've started to feel like that is just brought in to encourage the peasants to listen to the church. I'll post more if I think of it later I'm looking forward to having my opinion changed like Fox Mulder, I want to believe .","I don't believe in God anymore, but I would like to...."
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I personally think that someone should not be mad at me for slavery. I was never there I never enslaved anyone. I also think that people should be rather happy or at least content im not sure what word to use that their great grandparents or whatever were enslaved in the USA because most people are a lot better off in the USA than in Africa. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I personally think that someone should not be mad at me for slavery. I was never there I never enslaved anyone. I also think that people should be rather happy or at least content im not sure what word to use that their great grandparents or whatever were enslaved in the USA because most people are a lot better off in the USA than in Africa. CMV<|TARGETS|>be rather happy or at least content im not sure what word to use that their great grandparents or whatever were enslaved in the USA<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I personally think that someone should not be mad at me for slavery. I was never there I never enslaved anyone. I also think that people should be rather happy or at least content im not sure what word to use that their great grandparents or whatever were enslaved in the USA because most people are a lot better off in the USA than in Africa. CMV<|ASPECTS|>, enslaved anyone, slavery, content, happy, mad, enslaved<|CONCLUSION|>",I personally think that someone should not be mad at me for slavery. I was never there I never enslaved anyone. I also think that people should be rather happy or at least content im not sure what word to use that their great grandparents or whatever were enslaved in the USA because most people are a lot better off in the USA than in Africa.,I do not think black people should be mad at white people for slavery anymore
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The marketplace of ideas, as I understand it just to be clear, is basically the idea that we should have as few restrictions as possible so that the best ideas are free to beat the bad ones in fair and open debate. From this comes the idea that all speech should be free because even if it's bad people will come to realize that it's false and unworthy of consideration so long as good ideas are allowed as well. Whether or not some forms of speech should be restricted is a separate issue, but I do have problems with the mechanism through which free speech and in particular free speech absolutism is often justified. The MOI supposes that ideas, if they are good and well articulated, will win out over bad ones, but to me it seems as though the very existence of long running political debates at all disproves this. If good ideas truly won out over bad ones, then the only reason why someone could possibly disagree with someone else would be if they don't know their opponent's positions and reasonings, seeing as they'd convert upon exposure to the better idea. Obviously, people still disagree even if they know all the opposing opinions, and of course there are plenty of reasons why people believe or do something that have nothing to do with rhetoric such as personal self interest, identity, party loyalty, tradition, nationalism, etc. . This has led me to believe that free speech is generally ineffective under the MOI model, at least with specific regards to large political issues like gun control or abortion. The increased sorting of online communities into echo chambers and media bubbles further convinces me the MOI does not function as intended the premise that good ideas win out only works if people aren't already satisfied with the bad ones and never seek out anything better, whatever that may be. For all the talk of discourse , most op eds or opinion videos seem to talk completely past each other. Talk show panels do not negotiate positions with other talk show panels they speak to their audience about how they're already right. Even articles and videos made in specific response to someone else seem to be intended more to their own audience than that of someone else, a way of bashing the other side than trying to communicate to it. Even in literal debates, the purpose seems to be more about winning than convincing someone they're wrong. The Presidential debates aren't so that the candidates can all discuss what the right policies are and come to genuine compromise. It's so that they can humiliate and destroy their opponents on national television for the pleasure of their followers at home, as well as show party elites who to watch out for or throw their weight behind. Rather, I'd argue that the purpose of free speech is not convincing others that they're wrong, but spurring people who already lean in your direction to act. For example Fox News doesn't write op eds because they want to convince liberal readers to become conservative. They write op eds to fire up their conservative readers, because that's mostly who reads what they make. If they can convince their base that they're right, it makes them more passionate to act on the things they already wanted. Vice versa for liberal publications they don't call this or that conservative politician bigoted because they want Republicans to not vote for them out of disgust, but because they want their Democratic base to vote for the liberal candidate. Oftentimes, speech will be brushed off as virtue signaling or fake outrage , but I think that this is actually closer to the actual function of speech than the MOI it helps show others what your beliefs are and inspires people who already agree with you to become angry enough to actually do something. Very few articles seem to be honest attempts to convert people and just seem to be attempts to rally people who already agree with each other. Even articles like Why lt insert policy here gt is best really seem to come off as more like reasons why you're right the way I see it.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The marketplace of ideas, as I understand it just to be clear, is basically the idea that we should have as few restrictions as possible so that the best ideas are free to beat the bad ones in fair and open debate. From this comes the idea that all speech should be free because even if it's bad people will come to realize that it's false and unworthy of consideration so long as good ideas are allowed as well. Whether or not some forms of speech should be restricted is a separate issue, but I do have problems with the mechanism through which free speech and in particular free speech absolutism is often justified. The MOI supposes that ideas, if they are good and well articulated, will win out over bad ones, but to me it seems as though the very existence of long running political debates at all disproves this. If good ideas truly won out over bad ones, then the only reason why someone could possibly disagree with someone else would be if they don't know their opponent's positions and reasonings, seeing as they'd convert upon exposure to the better idea. Obviously, people still disagree even if they know all the opposing opinions, and of course there are plenty of reasons why people believe or do something that have nothing to do with rhetoric such as personal self interest, identity, party loyalty, tradition, nationalism, etc. . This has led me to believe that free speech is generally ineffective under the MOI model, at least with specific regards to large political issues like gun control or abortion. The increased sorting of online communities into echo chambers and media bubbles further convinces me the MOI does not function as intended the premise that good ideas win out only works if people aren't already satisfied with the bad ones and never seek out anything better, whatever that may be. For all the talk of discourse , most op eds or opinion videos seem to talk completely past each other. Talk show panels do not negotiate positions with other talk show panels they speak to their audience about how they're already right. Even articles and videos made in specific response to someone else seem to be intended more to their own audience than that of someone else, a way of bashing the other side than trying to communicate to it. Even in literal debates, the purpose seems to be more about winning than convincing someone they're wrong. The Presidential debates aren't so that the candidates can all discuss what the right policies are and come to genuine compromise. It's so that they can humiliate and destroy their opponents on national television for the pleasure of their followers at home, as well as show party elites who to watch out for or throw their weight behind. Rather, I'd argue that the purpose of free speech is not convincing others that they're wrong, but spurring people who already lean in your direction to act. For example Fox News doesn't write op eds because they want to convince liberal readers to become conservative. They write op eds to fire up their conservative readers, because that's mostly who reads what they make. If they can convince their base that they're right, it makes them more passionate to act on the things they already wanted. Vice versa for liberal publications they don't call this or that conservative politician bigoted because they want Republicans to not vote for them out of disgust, but because they want their Democratic base to vote for the liberal candidate. Oftentimes, speech will be brushed off as virtue signaling or fake outrage , but I think that this is actually closer to the actual function of speech than the MOI it helps show others what your beliefs are and inspires people who already agree with you to become angry enough to actually do something. Very few articles seem to be honest attempts to convert people and just seem to be attempts to rally people who already agree with each other. Even articles like Why lt insert policy here gt is best really seem to come off as more like reasons why you're right the way I see it.<|TARGETS|>Even articles like Why lt insert policy here gt, why someone could possibly disagree with someone else would be if they do n't know their opponent 's positions and reasonings, the actual function of speech than the MOI it helps show others what your beliefs are and inspires people who already agree with you to become angry enough to actually do something ., Whether or not some forms of speech should be restricted, to not vote for them out of disgust but because they want their Democratic base to vote for the liberal candidate, They write op eds to fire up their conservative readers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The marketplace of ideas, as I understand it just to be clear, is basically the idea that we should have as few restrictions as possible so that the best ideas are free to beat the bad ones in fair and open debate. From this comes the idea that all speech should be free because even if it's bad people will come to realize that it's false and unworthy of consideration so long as good ideas are allowed as well. Whether or not some forms of speech should be restricted is a separate issue, but I do have problems with the mechanism through which free speech and in particular free speech absolutism is often justified. The MOI supposes that ideas, if they are good and well articulated, will win out over bad ones, but to me it seems as though the very existence of long running political debates at all disproves this. If good ideas truly won out over bad ones, then the only reason why someone could possibly disagree with someone else would be if they don't know their opponent's positions and reasonings, seeing as they'd convert upon exposure to the better idea. Obviously, people still disagree even if they know all the opposing opinions, and of course there are plenty of reasons why people believe or do something that have nothing to do with rhetoric such as personal self interest, identity, party loyalty, tradition, nationalism, etc. . This has led me to believe that free speech is generally ineffective under the MOI model, at least with specific regards to large political issues like gun control or abortion. The increased sorting of online communities into echo chambers and media bubbles further convinces me the MOI does not function as intended the premise that good ideas win out only works if people aren't already satisfied with the bad ones and never seek out anything better, whatever that may be. For all the talk of discourse , most op eds or opinion videos seem to talk completely past each other. Talk show panels do not negotiate positions with other talk show panels they speak to their audience about how they're already right. Even articles and videos made in specific response to someone else seem to be intended more to their own audience than that of someone else, a way of bashing the other side than trying to communicate to it. Even in literal debates, the purpose seems to be more about winning than convincing someone they're wrong. The Presidential debates aren't so that the candidates can all discuss what the right policies are and come to genuine compromise. It's so that they can humiliate and destroy their opponents on national television for the pleasure of their followers at home, as well as show party elites who to watch out for or throw their weight behind. Rather, I'd argue that the purpose of free speech is not convincing others that they're wrong, but spurring people who already lean in your direction to act. For example Fox News doesn't write op eds because they want to convince liberal readers to become conservative. They write op eds to fire up their conservative readers, because that's mostly who reads what they make. If they can convince their base that they're right, it makes them more passionate to act on the things they already wanted. Vice versa for liberal publications they don't call this or that conservative politician bigoted because they want Republicans to not vote for them out of disgust, but because they want their Democratic base to vote for the liberal candidate. Oftentimes, speech will be brushed off as virtue signaling or fake outrage , but I think that this is actually closer to the actual function of speech than the MOI it helps show others what your beliefs are and inspires people who already agree with you to become angry enough to actually do something. Very few articles seem to be honest attempts to convert people and just seem to be attempts to rally people who already agree with each other. Even articles like Why lt insert policy here gt is best really seem to come off as more like reasons why you're right the way I see it.<|ASPECTS|>tradition, humiliate, fire, elites, echo, party loyalty, agree, open debate, liberal, speech, passionate, political debates, democratic base, conservative, fake outrage, function, negotiate positions, personal self interest, discourse, convert people, good ideas, online communities, restricted, audience, right policies, political issues, idea, pleasure, politician bigoted, winning, satisfied, honest attempts, free speech, 's positions, fair, justified, rally, marketplace of ideas, genuine compromise, unworthy of consideration, reasonings, free, virtue signaling, bad ones, nationalism, past, convincing others, right, identity, conservative readers, liberal readers, restrictions, bashing, convincing, gun, disgust, false, communicate, disagree, free speech absolutism, destroy their opponents, ineffective<|CONCLUSION|>","The marketplace of ideas, as I understand it just to be clear, is basically the idea that we should have as few restrictions as possible so that the best ideas are free to beat the bad ones in fair and open debate. From this comes the idea that all speech should be free because even if it's bad people will come to realize that it's false and unworthy of consideration so long as good ideas are allowed as well. Whether or not some forms of speech should be restricted is a separate issue, but I do have problems with the mechanism through which free speech and in particular free speech absolutism is often justified. The MOI supposes that ideas, if they are good and well articulated, will win out over bad ones, but to me it seems as though the very existence of long running political debates at all disproves this. If good ideas truly won out over bad ones, then the only reason why someone could possibly disagree with someone else would be if they don't know their opponent's positions and reasonings, seeing as they'd convert upon exposure to the better idea. Obviously, people still disagree even if they know all the opposing opinions, and of course there are plenty of reasons why people believe or do something that have nothing to do with rhetoric such as personal self interest, identity, party loyalty, tradition, nationalism, etc. . This has led me to believe that free speech is generally ineffective under the MOI model, at least with specific regards to large political issues like gun control or abortion. The increased sorting of online communities into echo chambers and media bubbles further convinces me the MOI does not function as intended the premise that good ideas win out only works if people aren't already satisfied with the bad ones and never seek out anything better, whatever that may be. For all the talk of discourse , most op eds or opinion videos seem to talk completely past each other. Talk show panels do not negotiate positions with other talk show panels they speak to their audience about how they're already right. Even articles and videos made in specific response to someone else seem to be intended more to their own audience than that of someone else, a way of bashing the other side than trying to communicate to it. Even in literal debates, the purpose seems to be more about winning than convincing someone they're wrong. The Presidential debates aren't so that the candidates can all discuss what the right policies are and come to genuine compromise. It's so that they can humiliate and destroy their opponents on national television for the pleasure of their followers at home, as well as show party elites who to watch out for or throw their weight behind. Rather, I'd argue that the purpose of free speech is not convincing others that they're wrong, but spurring people who already lean in your direction to act. For example Fox News doesn't write op eds because they want to convince liberal readers to become conservative. They write op eds to fire up their conservative readers, because that's mostly who reads what they make. If they can convince their base that they're right, it makes them more passionate to act on the things they already wanted. Vice versa for liberal publications they don't call this or that conservative politician bigoted because they want Republicans to not vote for them out of disgust, but because they want their Democratic base to vote for the liberal candidate. Oftentimes, speech will be brushed off as virtue signaling or fake outrage , but I think that this is actually closer to the actual function of speech than the MOI it helps show others what your beliefs are and inspires people who already agree with you to become angry enough to actually do something. Very few articles seem to be honest attempts to convert people and just seem to be attempts to rally people who already agree with each other. Even articles like Why lt insert policy here gt is best really seem to come off as more like reasons why you're right the way I see it.",The Marketplace of Ideas is a horrible metaphor for how free speech actually works
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A cure for cancer is understandably at the top of many people’s wish lists, and whether one will ever be found is something we’re often asked. Everyone is susceptible to cancer. Anyone can have it if we will never be adamant with what we do or how we take care of our body. Cancer is like Aids now a days. No definite cure has been invented yet to totally defeat the cancer itself but there are already some treatment that proves to kill cancer cells but the remission is still at a high percentage. Researchers aren’t on the hunt for a silver bullet against all cancers. Quite the opposite. The more scientists get to know each type of cancer inside and out, the greater the chance of finding new ways to tackle these diseases so that more people can survive. That’s why our life saving research goes on.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A cure for cancer is understandably at the top of many people’s wish lists, and whether one will ever be found is something we’re often asked. Everyone is susceptible to cancer. Anyone can have it if we will never be adamant with what we do or how we take care of our body. Cancer is like Aids now a days. No definite cure has been invented yet to totally defeat the cancer itself but there are already some treatment that proves to kill cancer cells but the remission is still at a high percentage. Researchers aren’t on the hunt for a silver bullet against all cancers. Quite the opposite. The more scientists get to know each type of cancer inside and out, the greater the chance of finding new ways to tackle these diseases so that more people can survive. That’s why our life saving research goes on.<|TARGETS|>The more scientists get to know each type of cancer inside and out, if we will never be adamant with what we do or how we take care of our body ., Researchers, A cure for cancer, Cancer<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A cure for cancer is understandably at the top of many people’s wish lists, and whether one will ever be found is something we’re often asked. Everyone is susceptible to cancer. Anyone can have it if we will never be adamant with what we do or how we take care of our body. Cancer is like Aids now a days. No definite cure has been invented yet to totally defeat the cancer itself but there are already some treatment that proves to kill cancer cells but the remission is still at a high percentage. Researchers aren’t on the hunt for a silver bullet against all cancers. Quite the opposite. The more scientists get to know each type of cancer inside and out, the greater the chance of finding new ways to tackle these diseases so that more people can survive. That’s why our life saving research goes on.<|ASPECTS|>remission, cure for cancer, take care of our body, survive, susceptible, cancer, silver bullet, like, kill cancer cells, lists, aids, cure, diseases, life saving research, cancers, defeat<|CONCLUSION|>","A cure for cancer is understandably at the top of many people’s wish lists, and whether one will ever be found is something we’re often asked. Everyone is susceptible to cancer. Anyone can have it if we will never be adamant with what we do or how we take care of our body. Cancer is like Aids now a days. No definite cure has been invented yet to totally defeat the cancer itself but there are already some treatment that proves to kill cancer cells but the remission is still at a high percentage. Researchers aren’t on the hunt for a silver bullet against all cancers. Quite the opposite. The more scientists get to know each type of cancer inside and out, the greater the chance of finding new ways to tackle these diseases so that more people can survive. That’s why our life saving research goes on.",The cure for cancer will never be found
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a hardcore liberal but there are a few conservative ideas that I agree with to some extent. Just like I said in the title I'm not saying every convict should be put under but that it shouldn't be outright banned either. It should be a choice for an inmate to consider. Now of course they can't just go to a guard and say I wanna go. There should be tests and physcological evaluations before they decide understand if they really want to go through with it. If someone doesn't want to spend 40 years in prison they should have the choice to go under if they desire.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a hardcore liberal but there are a few conservative ideas that I agree with to some extent. Just like I said in the title I'm not saying every convict should be put under but that it shouldn't be outright banned either. It should be a choice for an inmate to consider. Now of course they can't just go to a guard and say I wanna go. There should be tests and physcological evaluations before they decide understand if they really want to go through with it. If someone doesn't want to spend 40 years in prison they should have the choice to go under if they desire.<|TARGETS|>not saying every convict should be put under but that it should n't be outright banned either ., If someone does n't want to spend 40 years in prison they should have the choice to go under if they desire ., a few conservative ideas that I agree with to some extent .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a hardcore liberal but there are a few conservative ideas that I agree with to some extent. Just like I said in the title I'm not saying every convict should be put under but that it shouldn't be outright banned either. It should be a choice for an inmate to consider. Now of course they can't just go to a guard and say I wanna go. There should be tests and physcological evaluations before they decide understand if they really want to go through with it. If someone doesn't want to spend 40 years in prison they should have the choice to go under if they desire.<|ASPECTS|>tests, conservative ideas, physcological evaluations, outright banned, prison, choice, convict<|CONCLUSION|>",I'm a hardcore liberal but there are a few conservative ideas that I agree with to some extent. Just like I said in the title I'm not saying every convict should be put under but that it shouldn't be outright banned either. It should be a choice for an inmate to consider. Now of course they can't just go to a guard and say I wanna go. There should be tests and physcological evaluations before they decide understand if they really want to go through with it. If someone doesn't want to spend 40 years in prison they should have the choice to go under if they desire.,: The death penalty should not be banned but should be scarcely used
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Basically as the title says. I think that parents who choose to have about five children or more are narcissistic and selfish. I would add it may be different if a person has twins or triplets etc. I think it is unfair to the children as they are receiving less resources from the parent s such as financial or emotipnal support. I also think it is narcissistic for a person to think it is important to have more of their children roaming the earth than a regular family. There are other issues with a large family but these are the main problems I have in relation to the parents of the family. Please try to CMV And no disrespect to a member of a large family EDIT I feel that either haven't explained myself properly or people are reading me wrong. I completely understand the drive to have children, and the benefits that is does bring. However I do feel that the more children that a person has, the more chance of negative implications on society or the other children in the family. That, I feel, is selfish, as humans are perfectly able to hold back on their need to procreate. The narcissistic aspect to my argument is that some people who do have a large number of children ignore the potential negative impacts of this choice, sometimes for narcissistic reasons.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Basically as the title says. I think that parents who choose to have about five children or more are narcissistic and selfish. I would add it may be different if a person has twins or triplets etc. I think it is unfair to the children as they are receiving less resources from the parent s such as financial or emotipnal support. I also think it is narcissistic for a person to think it is important to have more of their children roaming the earth than a regular family. There are other issues with a large family but these are the main problems I have in relation to the parents of the family. Please try to CMV And no disrespect to a member of a large family EDIT I feel that either haven't explained myself properly or people are reading me wrong. I completely understand the drive to have children, and the benefits that is does bring. However I do feel that the more children that a person has, the more chance of negative implications on society or the other children in the family. That, I feel, is selfish, as humans are perfectly able to hold back on their need to procreate. The narcissistic aspect to my argument is that some people who do have a large number of children ignore the potential negative impacts of this choice, sometimes for narcissistic reasons.<|TARGETS|>receiving less resources from the parent s such as financial or emotipnal support ., to have more of their children roaming the earth than a regular family ., that parents who choose to have about five children or more are narcissistic and selfish ., the drive to have children and the benefits that, the more children that a person has the more chance of negative implications on society or the other children in the family ., The narcissistic aspect to my argument<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Basically as the title says. I think that parents who choose to have about five children or more are narcissistic and selfish. I would add it may be different if a person has twins or triplets etc. I think it is unfair to the children as they are receiving less resources from the parent s such as financial or emotipnal support. I also think it is narcissistic for a person to think it is important to have more of their children roaming the earth than a regular family. There are other issues with a large family but these are the main problems I have in relation to the parents of the family. Please try to CMV And no disrespect to a member of a large family EDIT I feel that either haven't explained myself properly or people are reading me wrong. I completely understand the drive to have children, and the benefits that is does bring. However I do feel that the more children that a person has, the more chance of negative implications on society or the other children in the family. That, I feel, is selfish, as humans are perfectly able to hold back on their need to procreate. The narcissistic aspect to my argument is that some people who do have a large number of children ignore the potential negative impacts of this choice, sometimes for narcissistic reasons.<|ASPECTS|>drive to have children, parents, narcissistic, procreate, benefits, roaming, problems, large family, twins, society, reading me wrong, negative impacts, emotipnal support, financial, explained, disrespect, less resources, unfair, children, need, negative implications, different, selfish<|CONCLUSION|>","Basically as the title says. I think that parents who choose to have about five children or more are narcissistic and selfish. I would add it may be different if a person has twins or triplets etc. I think it is unfair to the children as they are receiving less resources from the parent s such as financial or emotipnal support. I also think it is narcissistic for a person to think it is important to have more of their children roaming the earth than a regular family. There are other issues with a large family but these are the main problems I have in relation to the parents of the family. Please try to  And no disrespect to a member of a large family EDIT I feel that either haven't explained myself properly or people are reading me wrong. I completely understand the drive to have children, and the benefits that is does bring. However I do feel that the more children that a person has, the more chance of negative implications on society or the other children in the family. That, I feel, is selfish, as humans are perfectly able to hold back on their need to procreate. The narcissistic aspect to my argument is that some people who do have a large number of children ignore the potential negative impacts of this choice, sometimes for narcissistic reasons.",I think it is narcissistic and selfish for a person to have a large number of children.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know I'm speaking incredibly broadly here, but it seems to me that the ideal of individualism and self reliance is not ideal for mental well being. This is especially true in the Western world where personal independence seems like a widely celebrated virtue. When people are expected to fend for themselves, feelings of isolation and loneliness seem inevitable. In contrast, I grew up in Vietnam, and the culture here values collectivism and community. There is always strong social support for anybody to fall back on. We rarely get personal time here, and yet my observation has been that people are overall content and happy being around friends and family all the time. Of course there are pros and cons of both sides, but strictly speaking from a psychological perspective, I believe since humans are intrinsically social creatures, a community oriented lifestyle is more beneficial to our mental health compared to a more individualistic one.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know I'm speaking incredibly broadly here, but it seems to me that the ideal of individualism and self reliance is not ideal for mental well being. This is especially true in the Western world where personal independence seems like a widely celebrated virtue. When people are expected to fend for themselves, feelings of isolation and loneliness seem inevitable. In contrast, I grew up in Vietnam, and the culture here values collectivism and community. There is always strong social support for anybody to fall back on. We rarely get personal time here, and yet my observation has been that people are overall content and happy being around friends and family all the time. Of course there are pros and cons of both sides, but strictly speaking from a psychological perspective, I believe since humans are intrinsically social creatures, a community oriented lifestyle is more beneficial to our mental health compared to a more individualistic one.<|TARGETS|>strictly speaking from a psychological perspective I believe since humans are intrinsically social creatures a community oriented lifestyle, the Western world where personal independence, When people are expected to fend for themselves feelings of isolation and loneliness, that the ideal of individualism and self reliance<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know I'm speaking incredibly broadly here, but it seems to me that the ideal of individualism and self reliance is not ideal for mental well being. This is especially true in the Western world where personal independence seems like a widely celebrated virtue. When people are expected to fend for themselves, feelings of isolation and loneliness seem inevitable. In contrast, I grew up in Vietnam, and the culture here values collectivism and community. There is always strong social support for anybody to fall back on. We rarely get personal time here, and yet my observation has been that people are overall content and happy being around friends and family all the time. Of course there are pros and cons of both sides, but strictly speaking from a psychological perspective, I believe since humans are intrinsically social creatures, a community oriented lifestyle is more beneficial to our mental health compared to a more individualistic one.<|ASPECTS|>social support, mental health, community, beneficial, feelings, self reliance, personal time, individualistic, individualism, social creatures, personal independence, mental well, virtue, isolation, collectivism, community oriented, content and happy, loneliness, fend<|CONCLUSION|>","I know I'm speaking incredibly broadly here, but it seems to me that the ideal of individualism and self reliance is not ideal for mental well being. This is especially true in the Western world where personal independence seems like a widely celebrated virtue. When people are expected to fend for themselves, feelings of isolation and loneliness seem inevitable. In contrast, I grew up in Vietnam, and the culture here values collectivism and community. There is always strong social support for anybody to fall back on. We rarely get personal time here, and yet my observation has been that people are overall content and happy being around friends and family all the time. Of course there are pros and cons of both sides, but strictly speaking from a psychological perspective, I believe since humans are intrinsically social creatures, a community oriented lifestyle is more beneficial to our mental health compared to a more individualistic one.",Individualism is harmful to mental well-being.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay So I will preface my opinion by saying that I am based in the UK and my opinion is based on the UK economy and that I am also a recipient of welfare payments. Since the introduction of the welfare system, the percentage of the UK's budget being spent on payments has steadily increased and shows little sign significantly reducing. In the UK I don't know about the US, perhaps someone can explain for me , you are discouraged from leaving the welfare system as you often end up earning no more from working once taxes and reduced welfare payments are taken into account. I believe a solution to discourage increased expenditure on welfare, as well as reliance upon the system would be the following Rather than receiving welfare payments in Pound Sterling Or US Dollar recipients would receive payments in an alternate Digital currency pegged at a 1 1 ratio with the countries domestic currency. This money can be spent in shops and on websites approved and verified by the government The money would only be able to be spent on essential goods and services. E.g. You would not be able to pay for a Netflix subscription or be able to purchase alcohol. But you can pay bills and buy food etc. People who receive disability benefit or any benefit related to their physical or mental inability to work would be exempt from this policy and would receive standard currency instead. Companies which receive this currency from customers would be able to exchange in a 1 1 ratio with the central bank for the domestic currency. The advantages Consumers are less likely to waste government welfare payments on addictions and other demerit goods. A strong incentive to try to rejoin the workforce would be in place as people receiving the alternate currency would be incentivised to find a job so that they can be paid in the standard currency which they can use to purchase luxuries and amenities. All recipients of welfare would have enough to live comfortably, without the stress of becoming homeless or going hungry. The gradual reduction in spending on welfare as a result of this policy would result in more money available for the government to invest in education, healthcare, councils, and subsidies for industries, this would ultimately lead to more jobs being available for those looking to leave the welfare system. I hope I've made what I am trying to say clear, let's see if anyone can change my view<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay So I will preface my opinion by saying that I am based in the UK and my opinion is based on the UK economy and that I am also a recipient of welfare payments. Since the introduction of the welfare system, the percentage of the UK's budget being spent on payments has steadily increased and shows little sign significantly reducing. In the UK I don't know about the US, perhaps someone can explain for me , you are discouraged from leaving the welfare system as you often end up earning no more from working once taxes and reduced welfare payments are taken into account. I believe a solution to discourage increased expenditure on welfare, as well as reliance upon the system would be the following Rather than receiving welfare payments in Pound Sterling Or US Dollar recipients would receive payments in an alternate Digital currency pegged at a 1 1 ratio with the countries domestic currency. This money can be spent in shops and on websites approved and verified by the government The money would only be able to be spent on essential goods and services. E.g. You would not be able to pay for a Netflix subscription or be able to purchase alcohol. But you can pay bills and buy food etc. People who receive disability benefit or any benefit related to their physical or mental inability to work would be exempt from this policy and would receive standard currency instead. Companies which receive this currency from customers would be able to exchange in a 1 1 ratio with the central bank for the domestic currency. The advantages Consumers are less likely to waste government welfare payments on addictions and other demerit goods. A strong incentive to try to rejoin the workforce would be in place as people receiving the alternate currency would be incentivised to find a job so that they can be paid in the standard currency which they can use to purchase luxuries and amenities. All recipients of welfare would have enough to live comfortably, without the stress of becoming homeless or going hungry. The gradual reduction in spending on welfare as a result of this policy would result in more money available for the government to invest in education, healthcare, councils, and subsidies for industries, this would ultimately lead to more jobs being available for those looking to leave the welfare system. I hope I've made what I am trying to say clear, let's see if anyone can change my view<|TARGETS|>the alternate currency, pay bills and buy food etc, People who receive disability benefit or any benefit related to their physical or mental inability to work, the introduction of the welfare system the percentage of the UK 's budget being spent on payments, E.g, a solution to discourage increased expenditure on welfare as well as reliance upon the system<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay So I will preface my opinion by saying that I am based in the UK and my opinion is based on the UK economy and that I am also a recipient of welfare payments. Since the introduction of the welfare system, the percentage of the UK's budget being spent on payments has steadily increased and shows little sign significantly reducing. In the UK I don't know about the US, perhaps someone can explain for me , you are discouraged from leaving the welfare system as you often end up earning no more from working once taxes and reduced welfare payments are taken into account. I believe a solution to discourage increased expenditure on welfare, as well as reliance upon the system would be the following Rather than receiving welfare payments in Pound Sterling Or US Dollar recipients would receive payments in an alternate Digital currency pegged at a 1 1 ratio with the countries domestic currency. This money can be spent in shops and on websites approved and verified by the government The money would only be able to be spent on essential goods and services. E.g. You would not be able to pay for a Netflix subscription or be able to purchase alcohol. But you can pay bills and buy food etc. People who receive disability benefit or any benefit related to their physical or mental inability to work would be exempt from this policy and would receive standard currency instead. Companies which receive this currency from customers would be able to exchange in a 1 1 ratio with the central bank for the domestic currency. The advantages Consumers are less likely to waste government welfare payments on addictions and other demerit goods. A strong incentive to try to rejoin the workforce would be in place as people receiving the alternate currency would be incentivised to find a job so that they can be paid in the standard currency which they can use to purchase luxuries and amenities. All recipients of welfare would have enough to live comfortably, without the stress of becoming homeless or going hungry. The gradual reduction in spending on welfare as a result of this policy would result in more money available for the government to invest in education, healthcare, councils, and subsidies for industries, this would ultimately lead to more jobs being available for those looking to leave the welfare system. I hope I've made what I am trying to say clear, let's see if anyone can change my view<|ASPECTS|>uk, increased, jobs, money, waste, money available, exchange, reduced welfare payments, payments, rejoin, budget, homeless, physical or mental inability, welfare payments, standard currency, demerit goods, live comfortably, netflix, economy, spent, advantages, expenditure on welfare, incentive, amenities, discouraged, taxes, welfare, spending, essential goods, stress, luxuries, services, buy food, earning, recipient, disability benefit, addictions, pay, change, benefit, going hungry, pay bills, purchase alcohol<|CONCLUSION|>","Okay So I will preface my opinion by saying that I am based in the UK and my opinion is based on the UK economy and that I am also a recipient of welfare payments. Since the introduction of the welfare system, the percentage of the UK's budget being spent on payments has steadily increased and shows little sign significantly reducing. In the UK I don't know about the US, perhaps someone can explain for me , you are discouraged from leaving the welfare system as you often end up earning no more from working once taxes and reduced welfare payments are taken into account. I believe a solution to discourage increased expenditure on welfare, as well as reliance upon the system would be the following Rather than receiving welfare payments in Pound Sterling Or US Dollar recipients would receive payments in an alternate Digital currency pegged at a 1 1 ratio with the countries domestic currency. This money can be spent in shops and on websites approved and verified by the government The money would only be able to be spent on essential goods and services. E.g. You would not be able to pay for a Netflix subscription or be able to purchase alcohol. But you can pay bills and buy food etc. People who receive disability benefit or any benefit related to their physical or mental inability to work would be exempt from this policy and would receive standard currency instead. Companies which receive this currency from customers would be able to exchange in a 1 1 ratio with the central bank for the domestic currency. The advantages Consumers are less likely to waste government welfare payments on addictions and other demerit goods. A strong incentive to try to rejoin the workforce would be in place as people receiving the alternate currency would be incentivised to find a job so that they can be paid in the standard currency which they can use to purchase luxuries and amenities. All recipients of welfare would have enough to live comfortably, without the stress of becoming homeless or going hungry. The gradual reduction in spending on welfare as a result of this policy would result in more money available for the government to invest in education, healthcare, councils, and subsidies for industries, this would ultimately lead to more jobs being available for those looking to leave the welfare system. I hope I've made what I am trying to say clear, let's see if anyone can change my view",The Welfare System Needs A Drastic Change
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, a couple of clarifications on this post. This is mostly written from a US based perspective, nearly every country has their own system of education so this may not apply to all of them This is mostly written from a public state funded point of view, private institutions that get their money from private donations or through tuition schools tend to include or at least make available classes in rhetoric and philosophy This is not merely a discussion on minor changes stuff like standardized tests, homework, teaching handwriting vs computer skills, etc. but rather a discussion on the core philosophy of education The modern education system focuses heavily on memorizing facts and performing assigned tasks which, while they might have made sense in a pre internet era, simply don't make sense in the internet era. There are basic facts that everyone should know, the basics on how gravity works, basic astronomy, different states of matter, basics of anatomy, etc. but, outside of specialized fields, advanced knowledge of those subjects are unnecessary. Why? Because they can be looked up online. Rather than focusing on memorizing facts, schools should go back to a more classical method of teaching and focus on the long forgotten arts of rhetoric and philosophy. And let me clarify, by teaching rhetoric, I do not mean to merely drill into student's heads facts about Cicero nor exams asking when Aristotle was born, but actually teaching students how to both use and defend against rhetoric. Similarly, a philosophy class should be discussion on the nature of philosophy, not endless quizzes on philosophers. Teaching students only facts ends up with them being poorly informed, falling victim to those who have knowledge of rhetoric and who use it against them. Every student needs to know rhetoric and philosophy, on the other hand, not every student needs to know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. I would propose, that much like college, students need to start taking classes for what they want to specialize in and be on that track starting around the middle school Jr. High time. The time in the student's schedule that was mostly filled with classes not pertaining to their chosen track or their personal interests would then be substituted with the philosophy rhetoric classes. Elementary school education would remain roughly unchanged as there are some facts that everyone needs to know and to appreciate western civilization . The current public education system is great for turning out factory workers and janitors, but it fails at developing leadership.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, a couple of clarifications on this post. This is mostly written from a US based perspective, nearly every country has their own system of education so this may not apply to all of them This is mostly written from a public state funded point of view, private institutions that get their money from private donations or through tuition schools tend to include or at least make available classes in rhetoric and philosophy This is not merely a discussion on minor changes stuff like standardized tests, homework, teaching handwriting vs computer skills, etc. but rather a discussion on the core philosophy of education The modern education system focuses heavily on memorizing facts and performing assigned tasks which, while they might have made sense in a pre internet era, simply don't make sense in the internet era. There are basic facts that everyone should know, the basics on how gravity works, basic astronomy, different states of matter, basics of anatomy, etc. but, outside of specialized fields, advanced knowledge of those subjects are unnecessary. Why? Because they can be looked up online. Rather than focusing on memorizing facts, schools should go back to a more classical method of teaching and focus on the long forgotten arts of rhetoric and philosophy. And let me clarify, by teaching rhetoric, I do not mean to merely drill into student's heads facts about Cicero nor exams asking when Aristotle was born, but actually teaching students how to both use and defend against rhetoric. Similarly, a philosophy class should be discussion on the nature of philosophy, not endless quizzes on philosophers. Teaching students only facts ends up with them being poorly informed, falling victim to those who have knowledge of rhetoric and who use it against them. Every student needs to know rhetoric and philosophy, on the other hand, not every student needs to know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. I would propose, that much like college, students need to start taking classes for what they want to specialize in and be on that track starting around the middle school Jr. High time. The time in the student's schedule that was mostly filled with classes not pertaining to their chosen track or their personal interests would then be substituted with the philosophy rhetoric classes. Elementary school education would remain roughly unchanged as there are some facts that everyone needs to know and to appreciate western civilization . The current public education system is great for turning out factory workers and janitors, but it fails at developing leadership.<|TARGETS|>discussion on the nature of philosophy not endless quizzes on philosophers ., a US based perspective nearly every country has their own system of education so this may not apply to all of them This is mostly written from a public state funded point of view private institutions that get their money from private donations or through tuition schools, to merely drill into student 's heads facts about Cicero nor exams asking when Aristotle was born but actually teaching students how to both use and defend against rhetoric ., me clarify by teaching rhetoric, a more classical method of teaching and focus on the long forgotten arts of rhetoric and philosophy ., The time in the student 's schedule that was mostly filled with classes not pertaining to their chosen track or their personal interests<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, a couple of clarifications on this post. This is mostly written from a US based perspective, nearly every country has their own system of education so this may not apply to all of them This is mostly written from a public state funded point of view, private institutions that get their money from private donations or through tuition schools tend to include or at least make available classes in rhetoric and philosophy This is not merely a discussion on minor changes stuff like standardized tests, homework, teaching handwriting vs computer skills, etc. but rather a discussion on the core philosophy of education The modern education system focuses heavily on memorizing facts and performing assigned tasks which, while they might have made sense in a pre internet era, simply don't make sense in the internet era. There are basic facts that everyone should know, the basics on how gravity works, basic astronomy, different states of matter, basics of anatomy, etc. but, outside of specialized fields, advanced knowledge of those subjects are unnecessary. Why? Because they can be looked up online. Rather than focusing on memorizing facts, schools should go back to a more classical method of teaching and focus on the long forgotten arts of rhetoric and philosophy. And let me clarify, by teaching rhetoric, I do not mean to merely drill into student's heads facts about Cicero nor exams asking when Aristotle was born, but actually teaching students how to both use and defend against rhetoric. Similarly, a philosophy class should be discussion on the nature of philosophy, not endless quizzes on philosophers. Teaching students only facts ends up with them being poorly informed, falling victim to those who have knowledge of rhetoric and who use it against them. Every student needs to know rhetoric and philosophy, on the other hand, not every student needs to know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. I would propose, that much like college, students need to start taking classes for what they want to specialize in and be on that track starting around the middle school Jr. High time. The time in the student's schedule that was mostly filled with classes not pertaining to their chosen track or their personal interests would then be substituted with the philosophy rhetoric classes. Elementary school education would remain roughly unchanged as there are some facts that everyone needs to know and to appreciate western civilization . The current public education system is great for turning out factory workers and janitors, but it fails at developing leadership.<|ASPECTS|>arts, powerhouse of the cell, looked up online, personal interests, poorly informed, taking classes, assigned tasks, 's schedule, unchanged, student 's heads, school education, public education, basic facts, teaching, memorizing facts, philosophy rhetoric, leadership, western civilization, rhetoric, classical method, different states of matter, appreciate, minor changes, philosophy, basic astronomy, advanced knowledge, defend against rhetoric, system, developing, facts, education, nature of philosophy, unnecessary<|CONCLUSION|>","First, a couple of clarifications on this post. This is mostly written from a US based perspective, nearly every country has their own system of education so this may not apply to all of them This is mostly written from a public state funded point of view, private institutions that get their money from private donations or through tuition schools tend to include or at least make available classes in rhetoric and philosophy This is not merely a discussion on minor changes stuff like standardized tests, homework, teaching handwriting vs computer skills, etc. but rather a discussion on the core philosophy of education The modern education system focuses heavily on memorizing facts and performing assigned tasks which, while they might have made sense in a pre internet era, simply don't make sense in the internet era. There are basic facts that everyone should know, the basics on how gravity works, basic astronomy, different states of matter, basics of anatomy, etc. but, outside of specialized fields, advanced knowledge of those subjects are unnecessary. Why? Because they can be looked up online. Rather than focusing on memorizing facts, schools should go back to a more classical method of teaching and focus on the long forgotten arts of rhetoric and philosophy. And let me clarify, by teaching rhetoric, I do not mean to merely drill into student's heads facts about Cicero nor exams asking when Aristotle was born, but actually teaching students how to both use and defend against rhetoric. Similarly, a philosophy class should be discussion on the nature of philosophy, not endless quizzes on philosophers. Teaching students only facts ends up with them being poorly informed, falling victim to those who have knowledge of rhetoric and who use it against them. Every student needs to know rhetoric and philosophy, on the other hand, not every student needs to know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. I would propose, that much like college, students need to start taking classes for what they want to specialize in and be on that track starting around the middle school Jr. High time. The time in the student's schedule that was mostly filled with classes not pertaining to their chosen track or their personal interests would then be substituted with the philosophy rhetoric classes. Elementary school education would remain roughly unchanged as there are some facts that everyone needs to know and to appreciate western civilization . The current public education system is great for turning out factory workers and janitors, but it fails at developing leadership.",The modern system of education is entirely unsuited for the modern world
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Curse of Knowledge I admit that this is a messy and generalized opinion based on subjective experiences I have attempted to reconcile, albeit poorly. This correlation could very well be more relevant to other issues, such as the psychological profile of people attracted to the field, the nature of mathematics, math education in the US, hierarchy stereotypes of related jobs, bad teachers, etc., or I could be wrong all together. I am easily swayed on this one. Throughout junior high and high school I was placed in the advanced math courses and did well, however I noticed the trend that my friends who did really well in math as in constantly bored by how easy and effortless it was were generally useless in explaining it, defaulting to the frustrated mantra of many of the math teachers You do it this way because that is how it is done These friends were consistently very close to the math teachers, and from the outside it seemed less a matter of shared interest, and more an issue of similar personalities. While I did well in math, I could not have survived or felt reasonably confident had I not done a lot of research and study outside of lectures and the information in many of the textbooks. Many teachers and textbook authors would jump huge logical gaps, foregoing reasonable explanation in favor of a vague order of sometimes unclear instructions, with the expectation that principles that had been lightly covered 4 years ago if at all were as fresh as the morning dew, and required no review. Math can be very much like a foreign language, where those who are fluent are surprised when beginners do not understand what they believe is a simple sentence, not recognizing their own failure to acquaint themselves with the students' limited scope of knowledge. Part of the problem is likely inconsistency in content and quality of teaching, but I'm hoping someone will have more information and correct my own logical gaps.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Curse of Knowledge I admit that this is a messy and generalized opinion based on subjective experiences I have attempted to reconcile, albeit poorly. This correlation could very well be more relevant to other issues, such as the psychological profile of people attracted to the field, the nature of mathematics, math education in the US, hierarchy stereotypes of related jobs, bad teachers, etc., or I could be wrong all together. I am easily swayed on this one. Throughout junior high and high school I was placed in the advanced math courses and did well, however I noticed the trend that my friends who did really well in math as in constantly bored by how easy and effortless it was were generally useless in explaining it, defaulting to the frustrated mantra of many of the math teachers You do it this way because that is how it is done These friends were consistently very close to the math teachers, and from the outside it seemed less a matter of shared interest, and more an issue of similar personalities. While I did well in math, I could not have survived or felt reasonably confident had I not done a lot of research and study outside of lectures and the information in many of the textbooks. Many teachers and textbook authors would jump huge logical gaps, foregoing reasonable explanation in favor of a vague order of sometimes unclear instructions, with the expectation that principles that had been lightly covered 4 years ago if at all were as fresh as the morning dew, and required no review. Math can be very much like a foreign language, where those who are fluent are surprised when beginners do not understand what they believe is a simple sentence, not recognizing their own failure to acquaint themselves with the students' limited scope of knowledge. Part of the problem is likely inconsistency in content and quality of teaching, but I'm hoping someone will have more information and correct my own logical gaps.<|TARGETS|>the expectation that principles that had been lightly covered 4 years ago if at all were as fresh as the morning dew, when beginners do not understand what they believe is a simple sentence not recognizing their own failure to acquaint themselves with the students' limited scope of knowledge ., a lot of research and study outside of lectures and the information in many of the textbooks, a messy and generalized opinion based on subjective experiences I have attempted to reconcile albeit poorly ., Math, Many teachers and textbook authors<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Curse of Knowledge I admit that this is a messy and generalized opinion based on subjective experiences I have attempted to reconcile, albeit poorly. This correlation could very well be more relevant to other issues, such as the psychological profile of people attracted to the field, the nature of mathematics, math education in the US, hierarchy stereotypes of related jobs, bad teachers, etc., or I could be wrong all together. I am easily swayed on this one. Throughout junior high and high school I was placed in the advanced math courses and did well, however I noticed the trend that my friends who did really well in math as in constantly bored by how easy and effortless it was were generally useless in explaining it, defaulting to the frustrated mantra of many of the math teachers You do it this way because that is how it is done These friends were consistently very close to the math teachers, and from the outside it seemed less a matter of shared interest, and more an issue of similar personalities. While I did well in math, I could not have survived or felt reasonably confident had I not done a lot of research and study outside of lectures and the information in many of the textbooks. Many teachers and textbook authors would jump huge logical gaps, foregoing reasonable explanation in favor of a vague order of sometimes unclear instructions, with the expectation that principles that had been lightly covered 4 years ago if at all were as fresh as the morning dew, and required no review. Math can be very much like a foreign language, where those who are fluent are surprised when beginners do not understand what they believe is a simple sentence, not recognizing their own failure to acquaint themselves with the students' limited scope of knowledge. Part of the problem is likely inconsistency in content and quality of teaching, but I'm hoping someone will have more information and correct my own logical gaps.<|ASPECTS|>frustrated, quality of teaching, similar personalities, hierarchy stereotypes, unclear instructions, subjective experiences, bad, scope of knowledge, limited, psychological profile, survived, shared interest, useless, reasonable explanation, inconsistency in content, research and study, logical gaps, messy and generalized opinion, easily swayed, reasonably confident<|CONCLUSION|>","Curse of Knowledge I admit that this is a messy and generalized opinion based on subjective experiences I have attempted to reconcile, albeit poorly. This correlation could very well be more relevant to other issues, such as the psychological profile of people attracted to the field, the nature of mathematics, math education in the US, hierarchy stereotypes of related jobs, bad teachers, etc., or I could be wrong all together. I am easily swayed on this one. Throughout junior high and high school I was placed in the advanced math courses and did well, however I noticed the trend that my friends who did really well in math as in constantly bored by how easy and effortless it was were generally useless in explaining it, defaulting to the frustrated mantra of many of the math teachers You do it this way because that is how it is done These friends were consistently very close to the math teachers, and from the outside it seemed less a matter of shared interest, and more an issue of similar personalities. While I did well in math, I could not have survived or felt reasonably confident had I not done a lot of research and study outside of lectures and the information in many of the textbooks. Many teachers and textbook authors would jump huge logical gaps, foregoing reasonable explanation in favor of a vague order of sometimes unclear instructions, with the expectation that principles that had been lightly covered 4 years ago if at all were as fresh as the morning dew, and required no review. Math can be very much like a foreign language, where those who are fluent are surprised when beginners do not understand what they believe is a simple sentence, not recognizing their own failure to acquaint themselves with the students' limited scope of knowledge. Part of the problem is likely inconsistency in content and quality of teaching, but I'm hoping someone will have more information and correct my own logical gaps.","I believe that a disproportionate number of individuals who excel in and teach mathematics and some related fields suffer from the ""Curse of Knowledge"" bias."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a Swede and I noticed as early as at the age of seven or eight that immigrants, or non Swedes, were overrepresented in as good as all forms of crime and lowly behaviour. At the age of 12 I got in two fights, both with blacks. I won one and the other one was a draw since a teacher stepped in between. I didn't think much about it then, but a few months later I brought it up when a friend also a Swede and I were talking in school. He said of course they want to fight, they're negroes . That's when I truly started suspecting that different peoples were inherently superior or inferior. At the age of 14 a majority of my class mates started listening to white power music in school and the racist comments were a natural part of the jargon. Around this time a nationalist non racist but not anti racist movement was growing in Sweden, which eventually reached the parliament and is growing as we speak. I joined them at the age of 16 and started believing that nationalism must not be a matter of ethnicity and race, but of identity and language. At the same time I started studying in secondary school. And the thing is that all the friends I made there are immigrants. The other Swedes in class treated me arrogantly. At the age of 17 I left the movement, confused and uncertain of what I should think. I started looking elsewhere and ended up being inspired and radicalised by far left ideas. I started looking at the workers' movement in Sweden and was deeply impressed by its struggle through the ages and started feeling a deeper connection with my class and all the world's people. But as I joined in I was disappointed by the decay of the movement. I had read about a proud movement set on crushing oppression and opening up the world but what I met was a sorry clique of naive middle class hobby socialists who cared more about their veganism and apple products than about class struggle. The only working class people involved in the left were immigrants who cared about nothing else than getting more welfare money, more mosques and waving Palestinian flags anywhere thay go. I joined the left believing that we would fight chauvinism and religious oppression but the situation was the opposite. I still belive that socialism would be the optimal ideology but that it will never work in reality. I started looking back at nationalism but saw that the nationalist movement had changed. I remembered that the most stupid and violent member we had was a negroe. Another member was a radically catholic South American why would I prefer that over Islam? . Moreover thair party is funded by Jews and is uncompromisingly pro Israel why would I prefer THAT over Islam? . There seems to be no side that fights for the entire world either I fight with the nationalists for the Jews or with the socialists for the Muslims and negroes. I believe that non Swedes are worse for society in every aspect They steal more, they cheat more, they are dumber, they are more corrupt, they endanger every good aspect of our society if we give them responsibility. There is undisputable evidence that different peoples have different IQ and I believe that society must generalise and not bring in people from countries with lower IQ. The average in Sweden with immigrants included is 102 or 103 but with the immigrants excluded it would be higher. And if you look at the connection between average IQ and the well being of countries it's obvious that high IQ is desirable. There is a gene that correlates with anti social behaviour that is far more common among blacks and yellows than among white people. I belive that society needs a hierarchy and leaders with its mind on well being, but not on equality since the scarcity of the world doesn't provide possibility of equality without chaos following. I believe that gender roles, natural or not, should be inforced to secure stability, identity and reproduction. I believe that humans are born to generalise and that an individual's well being is highly effected by what esteem his group is held in. And that if a group does not struggle for a higher position it will be stepped on by other groups. I believe that the relative equality and high orderliness that gave Sweden its name was possible due to inherent qualities in the people and not thanks to socialism. Everywhere I turn in Sweden, Swedes work and contribute while immigrants run around in their own neighbourhoods burning cars. Nazis have proven to me to be the strongest individuals while the leftist are generally dim witted, skinny junkies who are trying to revolt against their middle class parents. I believe that the world contains a constant struggle between the percieved groups with which we identify and that we must fight fire with fire. A nazi regime would suit this nation and the other Scandinavian nations, which I consider equally superior perfectly and if full scale civil war is required I'm willing to kill and to die. Change my view Link to IQ Link to anti social gene<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a Swede and I noticed as early as at the age of seven or eight that immigrants, or non Swedes, were overrepresented in as good as all forms of crime and lowly behaviour. At the age of 12 I got in two fights, both with blacks. I won one and the other one was a draw since a teacher stepped in between. I didn't think much about it then, but a few months later I brought it up when a friend also a Swede and I were talking in school. He said of course they want to fight, they're negroes . That's when I truly started suspecting that different peoples were inherently superior or inferior. At the age of 14 a majority of my class mates started listening to white power music in school and the racist comments were a natural part of the jargon. Around this time a nationalist non racist but not anti racist movement was growing in Sweden, which eventually reached the parliament and is growing as we speak. I joined them at the age of 16 and started believing that nationalism must not be a matter of ethnicity and race, but of identity and language. At the same time I started studying in secondary school. And the thing is that all the friends I made there are immigrants. The other Swedes in class treated me arrogantly. At the age of 17 I left the movement, confused and uncertain of what I should think. I started looking elsewhere and ended up being inspired and radicalised by far left ideas. I started looking at the workers' movement in Sweden and was deeply impressed by its struggle through the ages and started feeling a deeper connection with my class and all the world's people. But as I joined in I was disappointed by the decay of the movement. I had read about a proud movement set on crushing oppression and opening up the world but what I met was a sorry clique of naive middle class hobby socialists who cared more about their veganism and apple products than about class struggle. The only working class people involved in the left were immigrants who cared about nothing else than getting more welfare money, more mosques and waving Palestinian flags anywhere thay go. I joined the left believing that we would fight chauvinism and religious oppression but the situation was the opposite. I still belive that socialism would be the optimal ideology but that it will never work in reality. I started looking back at nationalism but saw that the nationalist movement had changed. I remembered that the most stupid and violent member we had was a negroe. Another member was a radically catholic South American why would I prefer that over Islam? . Moreover thair party is funded by Jews and is uncompromisingly pro Israel why would I prefer THAT over Islam? . There seems to be no side that fights for the entire world either I fight with the nationalists for the Jews or with the socialists for the Muslims and negroes. I believe that non Swedes are worse for society in every aspect They steal more, they cheat more, they are dumber, they are more corrupt, they endanger every good aspect of our society if we give them responsibility. There is undisputable evidence that different peoples have different IQ and I believe that society must generalise and not bring in people from countries with lower IQ. The average in Sweden with immigrants included is 102 or 103 but with the immigrants excluded it would be higher. And if you look at the connection between average IQ and the well being of countries it's obvious that high IQ is desirable. There is a gene that correlates with anti social behaviour that is far more common among blacks and yellows than among white people. I belive that society needs a hierarchy and leaders with its mind on well being, but not on equality since the scarcity of the world doesn't provide possibility of equality without chaos following. I believe that gender roles, natural or not, should be inforced to secure stability, identity and reproduction. I believe that humans are born to generalise and that an individual's well being is highly effected by what esteem his group is held in. And that if a group does not struggle for a higher position it will be stepped on by other groups. I believe that the relative equality and high orderliness that gave Sweden its name was possible due to inherent qualities in the people and not thanks to socialism. Everywhere I turn in Sweden, Swedes work and contribute while immigrants run around in their own neighbourhoods burning cars. Nazis have proven to me to be the strongest individuals while the leftist are generally dim witted, skinny junkies who are trying to revolt against their middle class parents. I believe that the world contains a constant struggle between the percieved groups with which we identify and that we must fight fire with fire. A nazi regime would suit this nation and the other Scandinavian nations, which I consider equally superior perfectly and if full scale civil war is required I'm willing to kill and to die. Change my view Link to IQ Link to anti social gene<|TARGETS|>listening to white power music in school and the racist comments, the nationalist movement, being inspired and radicalised by far left ideas ., suspecting that different peoples, The only working class people involved in the left were immigrants who cared about nothing else than getting more welfare money more mosques and waving Palestinian flags, the decay of the movement<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a Swede and I noticed as early as at the age of seven or eight that immigrants, or non Swedes, were overrepresented in as good as all forms of crime and lowly behaviour. At the age of 12 I got in two fights, both with blacks. I won one and the other one was a draw since a teacher stepped in between. I didn't think much about it then, but a few months later I brought it up when a friend also a Swede and I were talking in school. He said of course they want to fight, they're negroes . That's when I truly started suspecting that different peoples were inherently superior or inferior. At the age of 14 a majority of my class mates started listening to white power music in school and the racist comments were a natural part of the jargon. Around this time a nationalist non racist but not anti racist movement was growing in Sweden, which eventually reached the parliament and is growing as we speak. I joined them at the age of 16 and started believing that nationalism must not be a matter of ethnicity and race, but of identity and language. At the same time I started studying in secondary school. And the thing is that all the friends I made there are immigrants. The other Swedes in class treated me arrogantly. At the age of 17 I left the movement, confused and uncertain of what I should think. I started looking elsewhere and ended up being inspired and radicalised by far left ideas. I started looking at the workers' movement in Sweden and was deeply impressed by its struggle through the ages and started feeling a deeper connection with my class and all the world's people. But as I joined in I was disappointed by the decay of the movement. I had read about a proud movement set on crushing oppression and opening up the world but what I met was a sorry clique of naive middle class hobby socialists who cared more about their veganism and apple products than about class struggle. The only working class people involved in the left were immigrants who cared about nothing else than getting more welfare money, more mosques and waving Palestinian flags anywhere thay go. I joined the left believing that we would fight chauvinism and religious oppression but the situation was the opposite. I still belive that socialism would be the optimal ideology but that it will never work in reality. I started looking back at nationalism but saw that the nationalist movement had changed. I remembered that the most stupid and violent member we had was a negroe. Another member was a radically catholic South American why would I prefer that over Islam? . Moreover thair party is funded by Jews and is uncompromisingly pro Israel why would I prefer THAT over Islam? . There seems to be no side that fights for the entire world either I fight with the nationalists for the Jews or with the socialists for the Muslims and negroes. I believe that non Swedes are worse for society in every aspect They steal more, they cheat more, they are dumber, they are more corrupt, they endanger every good aspect of our society if we give them responsibility. There is undisputable evidence that different peoples have different IQ and I believe that society must generalise and not bring in people from countries with lower IQ. The average in Sweden with immigrants included is 102 or 103 but with the immigrants excluded it would be higher. And if you look at the connection between average IQ and the well being of countries it's obvious that high IQ is desirable. There is a gene that correlates with anti social behaviour that is far more common among blacks and yellows than among white people. I belive that society needs a hierarchy and leaders with its mind on well being, but not on equality since the scarcity of the world doesn't provide possibility of equality without chaos following. I believe that gender roles, natural or not, should be inforced to secure stability, identity and reproduction. I believe that humans are born to generalise and that an individual's well being is highly effected by what esteem his group is held in. And that if a group does not struggle for a higher position it will be stepped on by other groups. I believe that the relative equality and high orderliness that gave Sweden its name was possible due to inherent qualities in the people and not thanks to socialism. Everywhere I turn in Sweden, Swedes work and contribute while immigrants run around in their own neighbourhoods burning cars. Nazis have proven to me to be the strongest individuals while the leftist are generally dim witted, skinny junkies who are trying to revolt against their middle class parents. I believe that the world contains a constant struggle between the percieved groups with which we identify and that we must fight fire with fire. A nazi regime would suit this nation and the other Scandinavian nations, which I consider equally superior perfectly and if full scale civil war is required I'm willing to kill and to die. Change my view Link to IQ Link to anti social gene<|ASPECTS|>immigrants, radicalised, side, secondary school, working class, treated, cared, left, studying, class, work, burning cars, inherent qualities, endanger, nationalist non racist, pro israel, uncertain, class struggle, average iq, nationalist movement, lower iq, skinny junkies, responsibility, palestinian flags, well, negroes, dumber, crime, constant, stupid and violent, fight fire, inherently, kill, overrepresented, scarcity, cheat, racist comments, socialism, arrogantly, nationalism, welfare money, gender roles, inspired, revolt, blacks, uncompromisingly, nazi regime, anti social behaviour, dim, lowly behaviour, generalise, negroe, decay, want to fight, secure, race, higher position, strongest individuals, optimal ideology, draw, religious oppression, identity and language, corrupt, superior, worse for society, ethnicity, anti social, iq, middle class parents, catholic, crushing oppression, disappointed, reproduction, muslims, desirable, esteem, white power music, high orderliness, far left ideas, islam, naive middle class, confused, chaos, workers ' movement, racist movement, hierarchy and leaders, well being, stability, steal, funded by jews, different iq, identity, inferior, contribute, struggle, connection, aspect, high iq, civil war, chauvinism, equality<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm a Swede and I noticed as early as at the age of seven or eight that immigrants, or non Swedes, were overrepresented in as good as all forms of crime and lowly behaviour. At the age of 12 I got in two fights, both with blacks. I won one and the other one was a draw since a teacher stepped in between. I didn't think much about it then, but a few months later I brought it up when a friend also a Swede and I were talking in school. He said of course they want to fight, they're negroes . That's when I truly started suspecting that different peoples were inherently superior or inferior. At the age of 14 a majority of my class mates started listening to white power music in school and the racist comments were a natural part of the jargon. Around this time a nationalist non racist but not anti racist movement was growing in Sweden, which eventually reached the parliament and is growing as we speak. I joined them at the age of 16 and started believing that nationalism must not be a matter of ethnicity and race, but of identity and language. At the same time I started studying in secondary school. And the thing is that all the friends I made there are immigrants. The other Swedes in class treated me arrogantly. At the age of 17 I left the movement, confused and uncertain of what I should think. I started looking elsewhere and ended up being inspired and radicalised by far left ideas. I started looking at the workers' movement in Sweden and was deeply impressed by its struggle through the ages and started feeling a deeper connection with my class and all the world's people. But as I joined in I was disappointed by the decay of the movement. I had read about a proud movement set on crushing oppression and opening up the world but what I met was a sorry clique of naive middle class hobby socialists who cared more about their veganism and apple products than about class struggle. The only working class people involved in the left were immigrants who cared about nothing else than getting more welfare money, more mosques and waving Palestinian flags anywhere thay go. I joined the left believing that we would fight chauvinism and religious oppression but the situation was the opposite. I still belive that socialism would be the optimal ideology but that it will never work in reality. I started looking back at nationalism but saw that the nationalist movement had changed. I remembered that the most stupid and violent member we had was a negroe. Another member was a radically catholic South American why would I prefer that over Islam? . Moreover thair party is funded by Jews and is uncompromisingly pro Israel why would I prefer THAT over Islam? . There seems to be no side that fights for the entire world either I fight with the nationalists for the Jews or with the socialists for the Muslims and negroes. I believe that non Swedes are worse for society in every aspect They steal more, they cheat more, they are dumber, they are more corrupt, they endanger every good aspect of our society if we give them responsibility. There is undisputable evidence that different peoples have different IQ and I believe that society must generalise and not bring in people from countries with lower IQ. The average in Sweden with immigrants included is 102 or 103 but with the immigrants excluded it would be higher. And if you look at the connection between average IQ and the well being of countries it's obvious that high IQ is desirable. There is a gene that correlates with anti social behaviour that is far more common among blacks and yellows than among white people. I belive that society needs a hierarchy and leaders with its mind on well being, but not on equality since the scarcity of the world doesn't provide possibility of equality without chaos following. I believe that gender roles, natural or not, should be inforced to secure stability, identity and reproduction. I believe that humans are born to generalise and that an individual's well being is highly effected by what esteem his group is held in. And that if a group does not struggle for a higher position it will be stepped on by other groups. I believe that the relative equality and high orderliness that gave Sweden its name was possible due to inherent qualities in the people and not thanks to socialism. Everywhere I turn in Sweden, Swedes work and contribute while immigrants run around in their own neighbourhoods burning cars. Nazis have proven to me to be the strongest individuals while the leftist are generally dim witted, skinny junkies who are trying to revolt against their middle class parents. I believe that the world contains a constant struggle between the percieved groups with which we identify and that we must fight fire with fire. A nazi regime would suit this nation and the other Scandinavian nations, which I consider equally superior perfectly and if full scale civil war is required I'm willing to kill and to die. Change my view Link to IQ Link to anti social gene",I'm a self-aware hardcore nazi. !
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's not a precise enough term s . A more precise term would be colonizer supremacy or colonizer privilege. Those who find themselves within the power fueled privileged system are typically of colonizer descent. The current racial construct is outdated broken. Yes race is a social construct, the latest data shows we are to genetically similar to be considered separate races. The effects and experiences caused by the social construct are very real but there will be inherent negative effects if it was on a weak baseless foundation to begin with. Using the racial concept only upholds the the racial construct. Yes those who colonized their descendants enacted a system to maintain power based on human phenotype variation. Suffering stemming from the system still reverberate through society. Several routes have been taken to maintain power but we can not get stuck in these roads as they all lead back to the system. Power is not static. Many of those considered white people will be a minority in the not to distance future, will they still have the power? If there is unequal opposing forces power can work in the fashion of a pendulum. Power will not vanish it will transfer. Supremacy and privilege is not exclusive to color phenotype image so why focus on that? An example would be the conflict in the Middle East.Through the centuries it's been 'Muslim privilege supremacy or Jewish privilege supremacy or whoever happens to take over and occupy the 'system'. This happens in a pendulum fashion. Using the term 'white' is just divisive, misses the point and takes focus off dismantling systems that can create supremacy privilege. Mark my words, if we don't meet these issues in the not to distant future you will be hearing calls of 'black POC latino Supremacy privilege'. This is about human equality and systems that impede it.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's not a precise enough term s . A more precise term would be colonizer supremacy or colonizer privilege. Those who find themselves within the power fueled privileged system are typically of colonizer descent. The current racial construct is outdated broken. Yes race is a social construct, the latest data shows we are to genetically similar to be considered separate races. The effects and experiences caused by the social construct are very real but there will be inherent negative effects if it was on a weak baseless foundation to begin with. Using the racial concept only upholds the the racial construct. Yes those who colonized their descendants enacted a system to maintain power based on human phenotype variation. Suffering stemming from the system still reverberate through society. Several routes have been taken to maintain power but we can not get stuck in these roads as they all lead back to the system. Power is not static. Many of those considered white people will be a minority in the not to distance future, will they still have the power? If there is unequal opposing forces power can work in the fashion of a pendulum. Power will not vanish it will transfer. Supremacy and privilege is not exclusive to color phenotype image so why focus on that? An example would be the conflict in the Middle East.Through the centuries it's been 'Muslim privilege supremacy or Jewish privilege supremacy or whoever happens to take over and occupy the 'system'. This happens in a pendulum fashion. Using the term 'white' is just divisive, misses the point and takes focus off dismantling systems that can create supremacy privilege. Mark my words, if we don't meet these issues in the not to distant future you will be hearing calls of 'black POC latino Supremacy privilege'. This is about human equality and systems that impede it.<|TARGETS|>A more precise term, Using the racial concept, The current racial construct, The effects and experiences caused by the social construct, Those who find themselves within the power fueled privileged system, Using the term ' white '<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It's not a precise enough term s . A more precise term would be colonizer supremacy or colonizer privilege. Those who find themselves within the power fueled privileged system are typically of colonizer descent. The current racial construct is outdated broken. Yes race is a social construct, the latest data shows we are to genetically similar to be considered separate races. The effects and experiences caused by the social construct are very real but there will be inherent negative effects if it was on a weak baseless foundation to begin with. Using the racial concept only upholds the the racial construct. Yes those who colonized their descendants enacted a system to maintain power based on human phenotype variation. Suffering stemming from the system still reverberate through society. Several routes have been taken to maintain power but we can not get stuck in these roads as they all lead back to the system. Power is not static. Many of those considered white people will be a minority in the not to distance future, will they still have the power? If there is unequal opposing forces power can work in the fashion of a pendulum. Power will not vanish it will transfer. Supremacy and privilege is not exclusive to color phenotype image so why focus on that? An example would be the conflict in the Middle East.Through the centuries it's been 'Muslim privilege supremacy or Jewish privilege supremacy or whoever happens to take over and occupy the 'system'. This happens in a pendulum fashion. Using the term 'white' is just divisive, misses the point and takes focus off dismantling systems that can create supremacy privilege. Mark my words, if we don't meet these issues in the not to distant future you will be hearing calls of 'black POC latino Supremacy privilege'. This is about human equality and systems that impede it.<|ASPECTS|>dismantling systems, supremacy and privilege, conflict, reverberate through society, pendulum fashion, racial construct, colonizer supremacy, latino supremacy privilege, privilege supremacy, divisive, outdated broken, colonizer privilege, race, white people, negative effects, human equality, precise enough term, jewish privilege supremacy, systems, colonizer descent, opposing forces, separate races, vanish, unequal, power, genetically similar, experiences, power fueled privileged system, transfer, minority, system, effects, supremacy privilege, phenotype, static, maintain power, human phenotype variation, social construct<|CONCLUSION|>","It's not a precise enough term s . A more precise term would be colonizer supremacy or colonizer privilege. Those who find themselves within the power fueled privileged system are typically of colonizer descent. The current racial construct is outdated broken. Yes race is a social construct, the latest data shows we are to genetically similar to be considered separate races. The effects and experiences caused by the social construct are very real but there will be inherent negative effects if it was on a weak baseless foundation to begin with. Using the racial concept only upholds the the racial construct. Yes those who colonized their descendants enacted a system to maintain power based on human phenotype variation. Suffering stemming from the system still reverberate through society. Several routes have been taken to maintain power but we can not get stuck in these roads as they all lead back to the system. Power is not static. Many of those considered white people will be a minority in the not to distance future, will they still have the power? If there is unequal opposing forces power can work in the fashion of a pendulum. Power will not vanish it will transfer. Supremacy and privilege is not exclusive to color phenotype image so why focus on that? An example would be the conflict in the Middle East.Through the centuries it's been 'Muslim privilege supremacy or Jewish privilege supremacy or whoever happens to take over and occupy the 'system'. This happens in a pendulum fashion. Using the term 'white' is just divisive, misses the point and takes focus off dismantling systems that can create supremacy privilege. Mark my words, if we don't meet these issues in the not to distant future you will be hearing calls of 'black POC latino Supremacy privilege'. This is about human equality and systems that impede it.",White Supermacy/Privilege should be called Colonizer Supermacy/Preivlege.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading a lot about Utilitarianism I can't help but feel that in eating meat we are directly producing large amounts of pain, and therefore it is immoral. Peter Singer, another Utilitarian philosopher, argued that the best way to maximise utility happiness was by acting according to individuals' preferences. He said we have to extend this to animals because they are similarly conscious beings like us, and if they were as intelligent as us some are close then their preferences would to be not killed for eating. A common counterargument against vegetarianism is that it is natural to eat meat and animals eat each other regardless. I don't find this convincing just because something is natural commonly practiced or has been traditionally performed does not mean it is moral . There is no logical connection between these things and ethical ends like utility happiness. I don't think animals have the extent of free will that humans appear to have if humans even do have free will and they also often don't have easily available alternatives like us, so we cannot blame them. I'm basically looking for philosophical, logical or ethical justifications for eating meat. Note I'm not a vegetarian and I'm unsure of whether I'd like to be. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading a lot about Utilitarianism I can't help but feel that in eating meat we are directly producing large amounts of pain, and therefore it is immoral. Peter Singer, another Utilitarian philosopher, argued that the best way to maximise utility happiness was by acting according to individuals' preferences. He said we have to extend this to animals because they are similarly conscious beings like us, and if they were as intelligent as us some are close then their preferences would to be not killed for eating. A common counterargument against vegetarianism is that it is natural to eat meat and animals eat each other regardless. I don't find this convincing just because something is natural commonly practiced or has been traditionally performed does not mean it is moral . There is no logical connection between these things and ethical ends like utility happiness. I don't think animals have the extent of free will that humans appear to have if humans even do have free will and they also often don't have easily available alternatives like us, so we cannot blame them. I'm basically looking for philosophical, logical or ethical justifications for eating meat. Note I'm not a vegetarian and I'm unsure of whether I'd like to be. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, to extend this to animals because they are similarly conscious beings like us and if they were as intelligent as us some are close then their preferences, I do n't find this convincing just because something is natural commonly practiced or has been traditionally performed, to remind you of a couple of things ., A common counterargument against vegetarianism, animals have the extent of free will that humans appear to have if humans even do have free will and they also often do n't have easily available alternatives like us<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading a lot about Utilitarianism I can't help but feel that in eating meat we are directly producing large amounts of pain, and therefore it is immoral. Peter Singer, another Utilitarian philosopher, argued that the best way to maximise utility happiness was by acting according to individuals' preferences. He said we have to extend this to animals because they are similarly conscious beings like us, and if they were as intelligent as us some are close then their preferences would to be not killed for eating. A common counterargument against vegetarianism is that it is natural to eat meat and animals eat each other regardless. I don't find this convincing just because something is natural commonly practiced or has been traditionally performed does not mean it is moral . There is no logical connection between these things and ethical ends like utility happiness. I don't think animals have the extent of free will that humans appear to have if humans even do have free will and they also often don't have easily available alternatives like us, so we cannot blame them. I'm basically looking for philosophical, logical or ethical justifications for eating meat. Note I'm not a vegetarian and I'm unsure of whether I'd like to be. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>pain, moral, ethical justifications, animals eat, natural to eat meat, remind, vegetarianism, conscious beings, popular topics, natural, immoral, logical, easily available alternatives, ethical ends, philosophical, concerns, effective, downvotes, free, happy cmving, killed, utility happiness, vegetarian, message us, change, downvote, questions, preferences<|CONCLUSION|>","After reading a lot about Utilitarianism I can't help but feel that in eating meat we are directly producing large amounts of pain, and therefore it is immoral. Peter Singer, another Utilitarian philosopher, argued that the best way to maximise utility happiness was by acting according to individuals' preferences. He said we have to extend this to animals because they are similarly conscious beings like us, and if they were as intelligent as us some are close then their preferences would to be not killed for eating. A common counterargument against vegetarianism is that it is natural to eat meat and animals eat each other regardless. I don't find this convincing just because something is natural commonly practiced or has been traditionally performed does not mean it is moral . There is no logical connection between these things and ethical ends like utility happiness. I don't think animals have the extent of free will that humans appear to have if humans even do have free will and they also often don't have easily available alternatives like us, so we cannot blame them. I'm basically looking for philosophical, logical or ethical justifications for eating meat. Note I'm not a vegetarian and I'm unsure of whether I'd like to be. gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing",I feel guilty for eating meat and I don't think humans should.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've had my view since I learned about evolution. Now I'm question its validity. It started with this I think started a thread on r childfree but no one came up with a reason good enough to change my view, then again, I don't think they were trying so it's up to you guys. I just find it very hard to believe that someone doesn't want to pass on their genes, I mean, it's what all our ancestors have lived for, it's what all animals live for, heck, some spiders let the female eat them just so they have better chances of passing on their genes. It's the sole purpose of our existence in addition to any other purposes we have for ourselves . It bothers me to no end that many generations ago passing on our genes was important but now that we're more intelligent we're CHOOSING to not pass on our genes.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've had my view since I learned about evolution. Now I'm question its validity. It started with this I think started a thread on r childfree but no one came up with a reason good enough to change my view, then again, I don't think they were trying so it's up to you guys. I just find it very hard to believe that someone doesn't want to pass on their genes, I mean, it's what all our ancestors have lived for, it's what all animals live for, heck, some spiders let the female eat them just so they have better chances of passing on their genes. It's the sole purpose of our existence in addition to any other purposes we have for ourselves . It bothers me to no end that many generations ago passing on our genes was important but now that we're more intelligent we're CHOOSING to not pass on our genes.<|TARGETS|>what all our ancestors have lived for it 's what all animals live for heck some spiders let the female eat them just so they have better chances of passing on their genes ., to believe that someone does n't want to pass on their genes, a thread on r childfree but no one came up with a reason good enough to change my view, me to no end that many generations ago passing on our genes, CHOOSING to not pass on our genes .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've had my view since I learned about evolution. Now I'm question its validity. It started with this I think started a thread on r childfree but no one came up with a reason good enough to change my view, then again, I don't think they were trying so it's up to you guys. I just find it very hard to believe that someone doesn't want to pass on their genes, I mean, it's what all our ancestors have lived for, it's what all animals live for, heck, some spiders let the female eat them just so they have better chances of passing on their genes. It's the sole purpose of our existence in addition to any other purposes we have for ourselves . It bothers me to no end that many generations ago passing on our genes was important but now that we're more intelligent we're CHOOSING to not pass on our genes.<|ASPECTS|>genes, passing, childfree, view, validity, purpose, intelligent, purposes, pass, choosing, sole, evolution<|CONCLUSION|>","I've had my view since I learned about evolution. Now I'm question its validity. It started with this I think started a thread on r childfree but no one came up with a reason good enough to change my view, then again, I don't think they were trying so it's up to you guys. I just find it very hard to believe that someone doesn't want to pass on their genes, I mean, it's what all our ancestors have lived for, it's what all animals live for, heck, some spiders let the female eat them just so they have better chances of passing on their genes. It's the sole purpose of our existence in addition to any other purposes we have for ourselves . It bothers me to no end that many generations ago passing on our genes was important but now that we're more intelligent we're CHOOSING to not pass on our genes.",I believe that passing your genes to the next generation is important.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Backstory I have lived in 3 different locations in Canada, and have used internet provided by 2 different big ISPs and 5 small ISPs. I also understand that big ISPs are reeeaaally hated in the U.S. and I completely understand why. Things are a bit different in Canada, where smaller ISPs are actually becoming kinda popular compared to 10 years ago. Now I'm not going to say that I have had great service with big ISPs, but for me they have easily been the least worst option. Small ISPs are showing some growth in Canada, and I am seeing a lot more advertisements for them. They offer cheaper prices for faster speeds. Great, right? It's great until you actually start using the service of a small ISP The internet cuts out CONSTANTLY. This was a consistent problem with 4 of the 5 small ISPs I used. For one of them, the internet would hard reset every 20 minutes. Online gaming was next to impossible. Every time i called customer service, Were working on it . Big ISPs have much less downtime and consistent speeds from my experience. They don't come even close to the speeds they promise. I know every ISP is like this, but the big ISPs I was with came fairly close. The small ISPs maxed at 50 of what they promised, aka 10Mb s internet never went above 5Mb s download speed. It was usually less than 1Mb s. I'll keep it short, because to me it's pretty simple. I want to support small ISPs that have potential to take over the market, but it's just not going to happen in Canada IMO. Anecdotally, a lot of people I know have switched to small ISPs, but then back to the big names after receiving terrible service. I have done this as well, I'm currently with Rogers and compared to everything else I'm happy with it. All I'm wondering is, why should I support small ISPs if they won't provide good service? This is obviously my situation, not everyone's situation, but I am definitely not the only one with this opinion.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Backstory I have lived in 3 different locations in Canada, and have used internet provided by 2 different big ISPs and 5 small ISPs. I also understand that big ISPs are reeeaaally hated in the U.S. and I completely understand why. Things are a bit different in Canada, where smaller ISPs are actually becoming kinda popular compared to 10 years ago. Now I'm not going to say that I have had great service with big ISPs, but for me they have easily been the least worst option. Small ISPs are showing some growth in Canada, and I am seeing a lot more advertisements for them. They offer cheaper prices for faster speeds. Great, right? It's great until you actually start using the service of a small ISP The internet cuts out CONSTANTLY. This was a consistent problem with 4 of the 5 small ISPs I used. For one of them, the internet would hard reset every 20 minutes. Online gaming was next to impossible. Every time i called customer service, Were working on it . Big ISPs have much less downtime and consistent speeds from my experience. They don't come even close to the speeds they promise. I know every ISP is like this, but the big ISPs I was with came fairly close. The small ISPs maxed at 50 of what they promised, aka 10Mb s internet never went above 5Mb s download speed. It was usually less than 1Mb s. I'll keep it short, because to me it's pretty simple. I want to support small ISPs that have potential to take over the market, but it's just not going to happen in Canada IMO. Anecdotally, a lot of people I know have switched to small ISPs, but then back to the big names after receiving terrible service. I have done this as well, I'm currently with Rogers and compared to everything else I'm happy with it. All I'm wondering is, why should I support small ISPs if they won't provide good service? This is obviously my situation, not everyone's situation, but I am definitely not the only one with this opinion.<|TARGETS|>Online gaming, Small ISPs, The small ISPs, using the service of a small ISP The internet, Big ISPs, small ISPs if they wo n't provide good service<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Backstory I have lived in 3 different locations in Canada, and have used internet provided by 2 different big ISPs and 5 small ISPs. I also understand that big ISPs are reeeaaally hated in the U.S. and I completely understand why. Things are a bit different in Canada, where smaller ISPs are actually becoming kinda popular compared to 10 years ago. Now I'm not going to say that I have had great service with big ISPs, but for me they have easily been the least worst option. Small ISPs are showing some growth in Canada, and I am seeing a lot more advertisements for them. They offer cheaper prices for faster speeds. Great, right? It's great until you actually start using the service of a small ISP The internet cuts out CONSTANTLY. This was a consistent problem with 4 of the 5 small ISPs I used. For one of them, the internet would hard reset every 20 minutes. Online gaming was next to impossible. Every time i called customer service, Were working on it . Big ISPs have much less downtime and consistent speeds from my experience. They don't come even close to the speeds they promise. I know every ISP is like this, but the big ISPs I was with came fairly close. The small ISPs maxed at 50 of what they promised, aka 10Mb s internet never went above 5Mb s download speed. It was usually less than 1Mb s. I'll keep it short, because to me it's pretty simple. I want to support small ISPs that have potential to take over the market, but it's just not going to happen in Canada IMO. Anecdotally, a lot of people I know have switched to small ISPs, but then back to the big names after receiving terrible service. I have done this as well, I'm currently with Rogers and compared to everything else I'm happy with it. All I'm wondering is, why should I support small ISPs if they won't provide good service? This is obviously my situation, not everyone's situation, but I am definitely not the only one with this opinion.<|ASPECTS|>maxed, advertisements, hard reset, faster speeds, growth, internet, consistent problem, constantly, happy, customer service, good service, simple, support, terrible service, cheaper prices, consistent speeds, take over the market, service, speeds, small isps, hated, less, small, least worst option, used internet, online gaming, downtime, cuts, smaller isps, download speed, popular, impossible<|CONCLUSION|>","Backstory I have lived in 3 different locations in Canada, and have used internet provided by 2 different big ISPs and 5 small ISPs. I also understand that big ISPs are reeeaaally hated in the U.S. and I completely understand why. Things are a bit different in Canada, where smaller ISPs are actually becoming kinda popular compared to 10 years ago. Now I'm not going to say that I have had great service with big ISPs, but for me they have easily been the least worst option. Small ISPs are showing some growth in Canada, and I am seeing a lot more advertisements for them. They offer cheaper prices for faster speeds. Great, right? It's great until you actually start using the service of a small ISP The internet cuts out CONSTANTLY. This was a consistent problem with 4 of the 5 small ISPs I used. For one of them, the internet would hard reset every 20 minutes. Online gaming was next to impossible. Every time i called customer service, Were working on it . Big ISPs have much less downtime and consistent speeds from my experience. They don't come even close to the speeds they promise. I know every ISP is like this, but the big ISPs I was with came fairly close. The small ISPs maxed at 50 of what they promised, aka 10Mb s internet never went above 5Mb s download speed. It was usually less than 1Mb s. I'll keep it short, because to me it's pretty simple. I want to support small ISPs that have potential to take over the market, but it's just not going to happen in Canada IMO. Anecdotally, a lot of people I know have switched to small ISPs, but then back to the big names after receiving terrible service. I have done this as well, I'm currently with Rogers and compared to everything else I'm happy with it. All I'm wondering is, why should I support small ISPs if they won't provide good service? This is obviously my situation, not everyone's situation, but I am definitely not the only one with this opinion.","in Canada, small ISPs cant compete with the big companies because many of them have terrible service."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When people say that they cut themselves because they feel like that is the only way to ease their pain. If you are in so much emotional pain that you feel you need to cut yourself, you need to seek help not slash your flesh.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When people say that they cut themselves because they feel like that is the only way to ease their pain. If you are in so much emotional pain that you feel you need to cut yourself, you need to seek help not slash your flesh.<|TARGETS|>If you are in so much emotional pain that you feel you need to cut yourself you need to seek help not slash your flesh .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When people say that they cut themselves because they feel like that is the only way to ease their pain. If you are in so much emotional pain that you feel you need to cut yourself, you need to seek help not slash your flesh.<|ASPECTS|>pain, ease, slash your flesh, emotional pain<|CONCLUSION|>","When people say that they cut themselves because they feel like that is the only way to ease their pain. If you are in so much emotional pain that you feel you need to cut yourself, you need to seek help not slash your flesh.",I think that cutting is an ignorant coping mechanism.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, I'd like to point out that I am not an MRA or a feminist. I really don't subscribe to any gender or political ideology whatsoever. I just don't think it's worth it in the long run. Scientists have found a way for women to go through artificial insemination, so I don't think either sex has any use for the other besides a friendship if you actually have something in common. Sex is cool also, but I think society will eventually allow prostitution, so emotional connection will be worthless. I just think women and men are too different and cause more issues between each other than what it's worth. The structural anatomy of each sexes brain is so different that the only reason they engage deeply with each other is to procreate, and that will be meaningless once artificial insemination happens. I think our tax dollars are going to waste towards subsidizing married couples because couples end up marrying each other because of young love whatever the fuck that means . When people marry each other out of young love, they often don't see how the other truly is. I think the world would be better off financially and emotionally without deep engagement with the opposite sex. Edit when I say talking , I mean flirting to get in a deep relationship with.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, I'd like to point out that I am not an MRA or a feminist. I really don't subscribe to any gender or political ideology whatsoever. I just don't think it's worth it in the long run. Scientists have found a way for women to go through artificial insemination, so I don't think either sex has any use for the other besides a friendship if you actually have something in common. Sex is cool also, but I think society will eventually allow prostitution, so emotional connection will be worthless. I just think women and men are too different and cause more issues between each other than what it's worth. The structural anatomy of each sexes brain is so different that the only reason they engage deeply with each other is to procreate, and that will be meaningless once artificial insemination happens. I think our tax dollars are going to waste towards subsidizing married couples because couples end up marrying each other because of young love whatever the fuck that means . When people marry each other out of young love, they often don't see how the other truly is. I think the world would be better off financially and emotionally without deep engagement with the opposite sex. Edit when I say talking , I mean flirting to get in a deep relationship with.<|TARGETS|>The structural anatomy of each sexes brain, artificial insemination, any gender or political ideology whatsoever ., subsidizing married couples because couples end up marrying each other because of young love whatever the fuck that means ., When people marry each other out of young love, not an MRA or a feminist .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, I'd like to point out that I am not an MRA or a feminist. I really don't subscribe to any gender or political ideology whatsoever. I just don't think it's worth it in the long run. Scientists have found a way for women to go through artificial insemination, so I don't think either sex has any use for the other besides a friendship if you actually have something in common. Sex is cool also, but I think society will eventually allow prostitution, so emotional connection will be worthless. I just think women and men are too different and cause more issues between each other than what it's worth. The structural anatomy of each sexes brain is so different that the only reason they engage deeply with each other is to procreate, and that will be meaningless once artificial insemination happens. I think our tax dollars are going to waste towards subsidizing married couples because couples end up marrying each other because of young love whatever the fuck that means . When people marry each other out of young love, they often don't see how the other truly is. I think the world would be better off financially and emotionally without deep engagement with the opposite sex. Edit when I say talking , I mean flirting to get in a deep relationship with.<|ASPECTS|>opposite sex, meaningless, flirting, deep relationship, feminist, subsidizing married couples, procreate, waste, structural anatomy, artificial insemination, emotional connection, cause, deep engagement, political ideology, mra, tax dollars, friendship, gender, financially and emotionally, different, worthless, issues, prostitution, young love, worth<|CONCLUSION|>","First, I'd like to point out that I am not an MRA or a feminist. I really don't subscribe to any gender or political ideology whatsoever. I just don't think it's worth it in the long run. Scientists have found a way for women to go through artificial insemination, so I don't think either sex has any use for the other besides a friendship if you actually have something in common. Sex is cool also, but I think society will eventually allow prostitution, so emotional connection will be worthless. I just think women and men are too different and cause more issues between each other than what it's worth. The structural anatomy of each sexes brain is so different that the only reason they engage deeply with each other is to procreate, and that will be meaningless once artificial insemination happens. I think our tax dollars are going to waste towards subsidizing married couples because couples end up marrying each other because of young love whatever the fuck that means . When people marry each other out of young love, they often don't see how the other truly is. I think the world would be better off financially and emotionally without deep engagement with the opposite sex. Edit when I say talking , I mean flirting to get in a deep relationship with.",There is no point in talking to the opposite sex unless you want them to be your friend.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In The Last Jedi, Admiral Holdo I won't even get into why it should have been Ackbar sends her ship into lightspeed, which causes untold damage to the star destroyers that were chasing the rebels. The fact that Rian Johnson decided to weaponize light speed has been pretty universally rejected by the fanbase as world breaking, in that any battle would simply be won by sending suicide pilots, or even droids, into lightspeed at capital ships and easily win any battle. Which is a fair point. However, In The Empire Strikes Back, during the Battle of Hoth, the rebels utilize Ion Cannons to disable the star destroyers and allow the transports to escape unharmed. I would argue that this is every bit as world breaking. Every medium sized ship could simply be outfitted with an ion cannon, which would disable all the capital ships, making them easy prey for bombers to take out. Explain to me what the difference is and how ion cannons are not world breaking?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In The Last Jedi, Admiral Holdo I won't even get into why it should have been Ackbar sends her ship into lightspeed, which causes untold damage to the star destroyers that were chasing the rebels. The fact that Rian Johnson decided to weaponize light speed has been pretty universally rejected by the fanbase as world breaking, in that any battle would simply be won by sending suicide pilots, or even droids, into lightspeed at capital ships and easily win any battle. Which is a fair point. However, In The Empire Strikes Back, during the Battle of Hoth, the rebels utilize Ion Cannons to disable the star destroyers and allow the transports to escape unharmed. I would argue that this is every bit as world breaking. Every medium sized ship could simply be outfitted with an ion cannon, which would disable all the capital ships, making them easy prey for bombers to take out. Explain to me what the difference is and how ion cannons are not world breaking?<|TARGETS|>Holdo, Every medium sized ship, Rian Johnson decided to weaponize light speed<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In The Last Jedi, Admiral Holdo I won't even get into why it should have been Ackbar sends her ship into lightspeed, which causes untold damage to the star destroyers that were chasing the rebels. The fact that Rian Johnson decided to weaponize light speed has been pretty universally rejected by the fanbase as world breaking, in that any battle would simply be won by sending suicide pilots, or even droids, into lightspeed at capital ships and easily win any battle. Which is a fair point. However, In The Empire Strikes Back, during the Battle of Hoth, the rebels utilize Ion Cannons to disable the star destroyers and allow the transports to escape unharmed. I would argue that this is every bit as world breaking. Every medium sized ship could simply be outfitted with an ion cannon, which would disable all the capital ships, making them easy prey for bombers to take out. Explain to me what the difference is and how ion cannons are not world breaking?<|ASPECTS|>world breaking, easy prey, lightspeed, speed, damage, suicide pilots, win any battle, destroyers, unharmed, ion cannon, ion, disable, ion cannons, fair point, escape<|CONCLUSION|>","In The Last Jedi, Admiral Holdo I won't even get into why it should have been Ackbar sends her ship into lightspeed, which causes untold damage to the star destroyers that were chasing the rebels. The fact that Rian Johnson decided to weaponize light speed has been pretty universally rejected by the fanbase as world breaking, in that any battle would simply be won by sending suicide pilots, or even droids, into lightspeed at capital ships and easily win any battle. Which is a fair point. However, In The Empire Strikes Back, during the Battle of Hoth, the rebels utilize Ion Cannons to disable the star destroyers and allow the transports to escape unharmed. I would argue that this is every bit as world breaking. Every medium sized ship could simply be outfitted with an ion cannon, which would disable all the capital ships, making them easy prey for bombers to take out. Explain to me what the difference is and how ion cannons are not world breaking?",Ion cannons are every bit as problematic as weaponizing light speed
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Affirmative Action was initially established to achieve equity in the workplace however, I think the principle has become too heavy handed and it has added to this PC anti PC culture that is having a major effect on the country USA , including the election of President Trump. I would prefer to keep specific politics out of this CMV. Anyway, AA is referenced by a large proportion of minorities and women. I think the use of AA as a principle of equity is no longer fair to those it does not protect. I believe the equity AA creates in certain situations gives the average generic white male a disadvantage, in some aspects. I think in situations where AA is referenced in terms of hiring a minority over a white male, the use of the AA principle does more harm than good. I mean this as in hiring for a job requiring a degree. I think having a degree automatically places people at an even level, even playing field and thus the hiring of a minority over that of a white male because they are a minority rather than qualifications is unjust and ruins the goal of the AA assuming they are relatively the same in terms of qualifications . In fact, obtaining a degree is important as I believe education is fundamentally the best tool for helping those the AA was intended to help women and minorities . I do not think someone's skin color or sex should determine whether or not they should get an education. I think the acceptance process would be better under a policy regarding socioeconomic class. When pay is brought up, I always try to look at it from an objective standpoint. As a millennial, I feel that what affects peers around me is based more upon socioeconomic status than racial reasons or sex of the person. A big problem I see today is the referencing of the percentage of types of people in leadership administrative roles, such as white males as CEOs. I think the use of this stat is biased. I would much rather feel comfortable if we broke it down by age. I would assume there are a larger number of minorities women taking on roles of CEOs at younger ages than the old white males that are holdovers from previous generations when minorities and women did need AA. My thought process might appear to be all over the place, I apologize. I am merely curious about this topic as it has kind of left me on the fence in terms of its purpose, as current arguments I find to be confusing and biased circular.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Affirmative Action was initially established to achieve equity in the workplace however, I think the principle has become too heavy handed and it has added to this PC anti PC culture that is having a major effect on the country USA , including the election of President Trump. I would prefer to keep specific politics out of this CMV. Anyway, AA is referenced by a large proportion of minorities and women. I think the use of AA as a principle of equity is no longer fair to those it does not protect. I believe the equity AA creates in certain situations gives the average generic white male a disadvantage, in some aspects. I think in situations where AA is referenced in terms of hiring a minority over a white male, the use of the AA principle does more harm than good. I mean this as in hiring for a job requiring a degree. I think having a degree automatically places people at an even level, even playing field and thus the hiring of a minority over that of a white male because they are a minority rather than qualifications is unjust and ruins the goal of the AA assuming they are relatively the same in terms of qualifications . In fact, obtaining a degree is important as I believe education is fundamentally the best tool for helping those the AA was intended to help women and minorities . I do not think someone's skin color or sex should determine whether or not they should get an education. I think the acceptance process would be better under a policy regarding socioeconomic class. When pay is brought up, I always try to look at it from an objective standpoint. As a millennial, I feel that what affects peers around me is based more upon socioeconomic status than racial reasons or sex of the person. A big problem I see today is the referencing of the percentage of types of people in leadership administrative roles, such as white males as CEOs. I think the use of this stat is biased. I would much rather feel comfortable if we broke it down by age. I would assume there are a larger number of minorities women taking on roles of CEOs at younger ages than the old white males that are holdovers from previous generations when minorities and women did need AA. My thought process might appear to be all over the place, I apologize. I am merely curious about this topic as it has kind of left me on the fence in terms of its purpose, as current arguments I find to be confusing and biased circular.<|TARGETS|>My thought process, When pay is brought up, AA, the referencing of the percentage of types of people in leadership administrative roles, a larger number of minorities women taking on roles of CEOs at younger ages than the old white males, this PC anti PC culture<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Affirmative Action was initially established to achieve equity in the workplace however, I think the principle has become too heavy handed and it has added to this PC anti PC culture that is having a major effect on the country USA , including the election of President Trump. I would prefer to keep specific politics out of this CMV. Anyway, AA is referenced by a large proportion of minorities and women. I think the use of AA as a principle of equity is no longer fair to those it does not protect. I believe the equity AA creates in certain situations gives the average generic white male a disadvantage, in some aspects. I think in situations where AA is referenced in terms of hiring a minority over a white male, the use of the AA principle does more harm than good. I mean this as in hiring for a job requiring a degree. I think having a degree automatically places people at an even level, even playing field and thus the hiring of a minority over that of a white male because they are a minority rather than qualifications is unjust and ruins the goal of the AA assuming they are relatively the same in terms of qualifications . In fact, obtaining a degree is important as I believe education is fundamentally the best tool for helping those the AA was intended to help women and minorities . I do not think someone's skin color or sex should determine whether or not they should get an education. I think the acceptance process would be better under a policy regarding socioeconomic class. When pay is brought up, I always try to look at it from an objective standpoint. As a millennial, I feel that what affects peers around me is based more upon socioeconomic status than racial reasons or sex of the person. A big problem I see today is the referencing of the percentage of types of people in leadership administrative roles, such as white males as CEOs. I think the use of this stat is biased. I would much rather feel comfortable if we broke it down by age. I would assume there are a larger number of minorities women taking on roles of CEOs at younger ages than the old white males that are holdovers from previous generations when minorities and women did need AA. My thought process might appear to be all over the place, I apologize. I am merely curious about this topic as it has kind of left me on the fence in terms of its purpose, as current arguments I find to be confusing and biased circular.<|ASPECTS|>skin color, thought process, hiring, unjust, objective, confusing, age, specific politics, leadership administrative roles, women, harm than good, qualifications, acceptance process, fair, equity aa, equity, pc anti pc culture, socioeconomic status, heavy handed, socioeconomic class, biased circular, comfortable, playing field, biased, white male, minorities women, racial reasons, sex, help, pay, minorities and women, feel, aa, education, disadvantage, even, minorities<|CONCLUSION|>","Affirmative Action was initially established to achieve equity in the workplace however, I think the principle has become too heavy handed and it has added to this PC anti PC culture that is having a major effect on the country USA , including the election of President Trump. I would prefer to keep specific politics out of this . Anyway, AA is referenced by a large proportion of minorities and women. I think the use of AA as a principle of equity is no longer fair to those it does not protect. I believe the equity AA creates in certain situations gives the average generic white male a disadvantage, in some aspects. I think in situations where AA is referenced in terms of hiring a minority over a white male, the use of the AA principle does more harm than good. I mean this as in hiring for a job requiring a degree. I think having a degree automatically places people at an even level, even playing field and thus the hiring of a minority over that of a white male because they are a minority rather than qualifications is unjust and ruins the goal of the AA assuming they are relatively the same in terms of qualifications . In fact, obtaining a degree is important as I believe education is fundamentally the best tool for helping those the AA was intended to help women and minorities . I do not think someone's skin color or sex should determine whether or not they should get an education. I think the acceptance process would be better under a policy regarding socioeconomic class. When pay is brought up, I always try to look at it from an objective standpoint. As a millennial, I feel that what affects peers around me is based more upon socioeconomic status than racial reasons or sex of the person. A big problem I see today is the referencing of the percentage of types of people in leadership administrative roles, such as white males as CEOs. I think the use of this stat is biased. I would much rather feel comfortable if we broke it down by age. I would assume there are a larger number of minorities women taking on roles of CEOs at younger ages than the old white males that are holdovers from previous generations when minorities and women did need AA. My thought process might appear to be all over the place, I apologize. I am merely curious about this topic as it has kind of left me on the fence in terms of its purpose, as current arguments I find to be confusing and biased circular.",Affirmative Action as we know it today is outdated.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>With recent allegations regarding some of the most talented people in Entertainment industry and many more coming to light soon enough its too easy to hate the person for his acts. People like CK, Kevin have done some horrific acts and they need to punished for the same, but it doesn't mean that the good things they did were just a facade and a joke to distract people. I mean whether or not one agrees, Kevin playing Underwood in House of Cards is one of the best acting I have seen in my life. And some of the Louie bits have a profound message hidden in them delivered to us in subtle ways. IMO, to reach such a high platform people need to be a bit fucked up in a sense take Jobs and Musk for example.And we should not mix up their life's hard work with who they are in their personal life. Thanks for taking time to help me change my view and lets have a healthy discussion. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>With recent allegations regarding some of the most talented people in Entertainment industry and many more coming to light soon enough its too easy to hate the person for his acts. People like CK, Kevin have done some horrific acts and they need to punished for the same, but it doesn't mean that the good things they did were just a facade and a joke to distract people. I mean whether or not one agrees, Kevin playing Underwood in House of Cards is one of the best acting I have seen in my life. And some of the Louie bits have a profound message hidden in them delivered to us in subtle ways. IMO, to reach such a high platform people need to be a bit fucked up in a sense take Jobs and Musk for example.And we should not mix up their life's hard work with who they are in their personal life. Thanks for taking time to help me change my view and lets have a healthy discussion. <|TARGETS|>a sense take Jobs and Musk for example.And we should not mix up their life 's hard work with who they are in their personal life ., whether or not one agrees Kevin playing Underwood in House of Cards, to help me change my view and lets have a healthy discussion ., the good things they did were just a facade and a joke to distract people ., IMO<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>With recent allegations regarding some of the most talented people in Entertainment industry and many more coming to light soon enough its too easy to hate the person for his acts. People like CK, Kevin have done some horrific acts and they need to punished for the same, but it doesn't mean that the good things they did were just a facade and a joke to distract people. I mean whether or not one agrees, Kevin playing Underwood in House of Cards is one of the best acting I have seen in my life. And some of the Louie bits have a profound message hidden in them delivered to us in subtle ways. IMO, to reach such a high platform people need to be a bit fucked up in a sense take Jobs and Musk for example.And we should not mix up their life's hard work with who they are in their personal life. Thanks for taking time to help me change my view and lets have a healthy discussion. <|ASPECTS|>joke, change, view, talented, fucked, life 's hard work, profound message, acting, punished, easy to hate the person, distract people, healthy discussion, horrific acts, facade<|CONCLUSION|>","With recent allegations regarding some of the most talented people in Entertainment industry and many more coming to light soon enough its too easy to hate the person for his acts. People like CK, Kevin have done some horrific acts and they need to punished for the same, but it doesn't mean that the good things they did were just a facade and a joke to distract people. I mean whether or not one agrees, Kevin playing Underwood in House of Cards is one of the best acting I have seen in my life. And some of the Louie bits have a profound message hidden in them delivered to us in subtle ways. IMO, to reach such a high platform people need to be a bit fucked up in a sense take Jobs and Musk for example.And we should not mix up their life's hard work with who they are in their personal life. Thanks for taking time to help me change my view and lets have a healthy discussion.","A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the last day julianassange has been tweeting calls to kill Assange with the hashtag tolerantliberal and making other statements criticising liberals, such as gt Liberals ain't liberal. They've fallen into bed with the worst elements of state hardpower love censorship and death. He's also started using the term 'snowflakes' And has been criticising journalists gt Yemen is another war, like all wars, started and maintained by the lies peddled by journalists These lines of attack are similar to what you see in realDonaldTrump threads which the US intelligence community believes is the work of Russian trolls. I think it demonstrates that Assange as an agenda beyond 'exposing corruption'. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the last day julianassange has been tweeting calls to kill Assange with the hashtag tolerantliberal and making other statements criticising liberals, such as gt Liberals ain't liberal. They've fallen into bed with the worst elements of state hardpower love censorship and death. He's also started using the term 'snowflakes' And has been criticising journalists gt Yemen is another war, like all wars, started and maintained by the lies peddled by journalists These lines of attack are similar to what you see in realDonaldTrump threads which the US intelligence community believes is the work of Russian trolls. I think it demonstrates that Assange as an agenda beyond 'exposing corruption'. <|TARGETS|>Assange as an agenda beyond ' exposing corruption ' ., tweeting calls to kill Assange with the hashtag tolerantliberal, the lies peddled by journalists These lines of attack<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the last day julianassange has been tweeting calls to kill Assange with the hashtag tolerantliberal and making other statements criticising liberals, such as gt Liberals ain't liberal. They've fallen into bed with the worst elements of state hardpower love censorship and death. He's also started using the term 'snowflakes' And has been criticising journalists gt Yemen is another war, like all wars, started and maintained by the lies peddled by journalists These lines of attack are similar to what you see in realDonaldTrump threads which the US intelligence community believes is the work of Russian trolls. I think it demonstrates that Assange as an agenda beyond 'exposing corruption'. <|ASPECTS|>death, state, corruption, hardpower, war, criticising liberals, lies, censorship<|CONCLUSION|>","For the last day julianassange has been tweeting calls to kill Assange with the hashtag tolerantliberal and making other statements criticising liberals, such as gt Liberals ain't liberal. They've fallen into bed with the worst elements of state hardpower love censorship and death. He's also started using the term 'snowflakes' And has been criticising journalists gt Yemen is another war, like all wars, started and maintained by the lies peddled by journalists These lines of attack are similar to what you see in realDonaldTrump threads which the US intelligence community believes is the work of Russian trolls. I think it demonstrates that Assange as an agenda beyond 'exposing corruption'.",Julian Assange's recent tweets demonstrate he has an agenda beyond 'exposing corruption'
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>with a focus on the UK Using this as the basis of my view Groundwater Contamination AFAIK there has never been a case of GC in the UK over the 40 years it had been going on. The risk of fractures propagating and reaching the aquifer is negligible, due to the fact fracking occurs hundreds or thousands of meteres below the aquifer, AND that the pressure conditions required are very unlikely to be met due to the UK's shale gas hydrogeological environments Royal Society, 2012 . In addition, the failure of wells is considered the greatest risk of contamination. However, the UK already has a unique well examination scheme which provides independent specialist review of every offshore well, which could simply be provided for onshore wells too. Earthquakes The report concluded that seismic activity is no greater than that induced by coal mining. Global warming Banning fracking doesn't decrease the demand for fossil fuels. The same amount will be burned, with or without fracking. The only thing that changes is where it comes from. To be clear, I'm not arguing it's good . I just don't see how it is worse.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>with a focus on the UK Using this as the basis of my view Groundwater Contamination AFAIK there has never been a case of GC in the UK over the 40 years it had been going on. The risk of fractures propagating and reaching the aquifer is negligible, due to the fact fracking occurs hundreds or thousands of meteres below the aquifer, AND that the pressure conditions required are very unlikely to be met due to the UK's shale gas hydrogeological environments Royal Society, 2012 . In addition, the failure of wells is considered the greatest risk of contamination. However, the UK already has a unique well examination scheme which provides independent specialist review of every offshore well, which could simply be provided for onshore wells too. Earthquakes The report concluded that seismic activity is no greater than that induced by coal mining. Global warming Banning fracking doesn't decrease the demand for fossil fuels. The same amount will be burned, with or without fracking. The only thing that changes is where it comes from. To be clear, I'm not arguing it's good . I just don't see how it is worse.<|TARGETS|>the failure of wells, Global warming Banning fracking, Groundwater Contamination AFAIK, The risk of fractures propagating and reaching the aquifer<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>with a focus on the UK Using this as the basis of my view Groundwater Contamination AFAIK there has never been a case of GC in the UK over the 40 years it had been going on. The risk of fractures propagating and reaching the aquifer is negligible, due to the fact fracking occurs hundreds or thousands of meteres below the aquifer, AND that the pressure conditions required are very unlikely to be met due to the UK's shale gas hydrogeological environments Royal Society, 2012 . In addition, the failure of wells is considered the greatest risk of contamination. However, the UK already has a unique well examination scheme which provides independent specialist review of every offshore well, which could simply be provided for onshore wells too. Earthquakes The report concluded that seismic activity is no greater than that induced by coal mining. Global warming Banning fracking doesn't decrease the demand for fossil fuels. The same amount will be burned, with or without fracking. The only thing that changes is where it comes from. To be clear, I'm not arguing it's good . I just don't see how it is worse.<|ASPECTS|>contamination, burned, , specialist review, risk, worse, pressure conditions, gc, seismic activity, independent, global warming, demand, fossil fuels, fractures, groundwater contamination, fracking, good, changes, well examination<|CONCLUSION|>","with a focus on the UK Using this as the basis of my view Groundwater Contamination AFAIK there has never been a case of GC in the UK over the 40 years it had been going on. The risk of fractures propagating and reaching the aquifer is negligible, due to the fact fracking occurs hundreds or thousands of meteres below the aquifer, AND that the pressure conditions required are very unlikely to be met due to the UK's shale gas hydrogeological environments Royal Society, 2012 . In addition, the failure of wells is considered the greatest risk of contamination. However, the UK already has a unique well examination scheme which provides independent specialist review of every offshore well, which could simply be provided for onshore wells too. Earthquakes The report concluded that seismic activity is no greater than that induced by coal mining. Global warming Banning fracking doesn't decrease the demand for fossil fuels. The same amount will be burned, with or without fracking. The only thing that changes is where it comes from. To be clear, I'm not arguing it's good . I just don't see how it is worse.",Fracking is no worse than any other fossil fuel extraction
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Purchasing something new is always something to look forward to. Whether it's clothes, or a new phone, or anything that you've been looking forward to, finally clicking confirm purchase is immensely satisfying. This, of course, leads to your product being shipped from some warehouse to your door. You are often given a tracking number, so that you can follow your package across the world, step by step. But in truth, that ruins the experience. The anticipation of the package is a huge part of the enjoyment of the entire enterprise. When will it arrive? Today? Or the next day? There's a great Calvin and Hobbes comic about this exact concept the stress and emotion we give to the day's mail. But when we utilize the tracking number, the magic is lost. The unpredictability vanishes. We are reminded of the depressing fact that no, we don't actually make anything in this company any more, and even the necessary shipping facilities stateside aren't in our town part of the reason it and its economy suck so much. But when we ignore the tracking number, we say no to structure and the tyranny of knowing. We revive the magical qualities of our wait for the mail. Will my shirts be shipped in two packages or one? Will the arrive on different days? Where did they come from? Our lack of answers to these eternal questions catalyzes creativity and inspires imagination. Join me, as I wait for my most recent online orders, and say no to tracking numbers. Join the renaissance. This was as much a writing exercise as a CMV, so feel free to critique from both perspectives.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Purchasing something new is always something to look forward to. Whether it's clothes, or a new phone, or anything that you've been looking forward to, finally clicking confirm purchase is immensely satisfying. This, of course, leads to your product being shipped from some warehouse to your door. You are often given a tracking number, so that you can follow your package across the world, step by step. But in truth, that ruins the experience. The anticipation of the package is a huge part of the enjoyment of the entire enterprise. When will it arrive? Today? Or the next day? There's a great Calvin and Hobbes comic about this exact concept the stress and emotion we give to the day's mail. But when we utilize the tracking number, the magic is lost. The unpredictability vanishes. We are reminded of the depressing fact that no, we don't actually make anything in this company any more, and even the necessary shipping facilities stateside aren't in our town part of the reason it and its economy suck so much. But when we ignore the tracking number, we say no to structure and the tyranny of knowing. We revive the magical qualities of our wait for the mail. Will my shirts be shipped in two packages or one? Will the arrive on different days? Where did they come from? Our lack of answers to these eternal questions catalyzes creativity and inspires imagination. Join me, as I wait for my most recent online orders, and say no to tracking numbers. Join the renaissance. This was as much a writing exercise as a CMV, so feel free to critique from both perspectives.<|TARGETS|>finally clicking confirm purchase, n't actually make anything in this company any more and even the necessary shipping facilities stateside, the tracking number, Purchasing something new, Whether it 's clothes or a new phone, The anticipation of the package<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Purchasing something new is always something to look forward to. Whether it's clothes, or a new phone, or anything that you've been looking forward to, finally clicking confirm purchase is immensely satisfying. This, of course, leads to your product being shipped from some warehouse to your door. You are often given a tracking number, so that you can follow your package across the world, step by step. But in truth, that ruins the experience. The anticipation of the package is a huge part of the enjoyment of the entire enterprise. When will it arrive? Today? Or the next day? There's a great Calvin and Hobbes comic about this exact concept the stress and emotion we give to the day's mail. But when we utilize the tracking number, the magic is lost. The unpredictability vanishes. We are reminded of the depressing fact that no, we don't actually make anything in this company any more, and even the necessary shipping facilities stateside aren't in our town part of the reason it and its economy suck so much. But when we ignore the tracking number, we say no to structure and the tyranny of knowing. We revive the magical qualities of our wait for the mail. Will my shirts be shipped in two packages or one? Will the arrive on different days? Where did they come from? Our lack of answers to these eternal questions catalyzes creativity and inspires imagination. Join me, as I wait for my most recent online orders, and say no to tracking numbers. Join the renaissance. This was as much a writing exercise as a CMV, so feel free to critique from both perspectives.<|ASPECTS|>, satisfying, writing exercise, facilities, imagination, eternal questions, purchasing, renaissance, creativity, stress and emotion, ruins the experience, economy, different days, tyranny of knowing, follow, depressing, unpredictability, look forward, critique, tracking numbers, structure, number, enjoyment, inspires, package, tracking number, magic is lost, product, magical qualities, shipped, suck<|CONCLUSION|>","Purchasing something new is always something to look forward to. Whether it's clothes, or a new phone, or anything that you've been looking forward to, finally clicking confirm purchase is immensely satisfying. This, of course, leads to your product being shipped from some warehouse to your door. You are often given a tracking number, so that you can follow your package across the world, step by step. But in truth, that ruins the experience. The anticipation of the package is a huge part of the enjoyment of the entire enterprise. When will it arrive? Today? Or the next day? There's a great Calvin and Hobbes comic about this exact concept the stress and emotion we give to the day's mail. But when we utilize the tracking number, the magic is lost. The unpredictability vanishes. We are reminded of the depressing fact that no, we don't actually make anything in this company any more, and even the necessary shipping facilities stateside aren't in our town part of the reason it and its economy suck so much. But when we ignore the tracking number, we say no to structure and the tyranny of knowing. We revive the magical qualities of our wait for the mail. Will my shirts be shipped in two packages or one? Will the arrive on different days? Where did they come from? Our lack of answers to these eternal questions catalyzes creativity and inspires imagination. Join me, as I wait for my most recent online orders, and say no to tracking numbers. Join the renaissance. This was as much a writing exercise as a , so feel free to critique from both perspectives.",Tracking a package through the mail using a tracking ID number takes all the fun out of waiting for your package to arrive and spoils the experience.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is only for the US I know this isn't necessarily the case for other countries. OK so lets look at all the options at least that I can think of which you can do after high school besides of going to college. If there is anything else please feel free to share. Straight to work Ok where could you possibly work that is a steady reliable job which will make you a lot of money in the future? I'm sure these jobs do exist, but you must admit they are hard to find and are a rarity. Many more of those jobs do exist IF you have a college degree. Military Not everyone can do it like me personally I want to but medically can't bc asthma . This is a solid way to go, but not better than college not everyone can do it, and there is a risk factor when going into it. Trade school It seems that going to trade school narrows your career choice. If you are unsure on what you want to do when you get out of highschool, why would you decide to focus on only one job? Getting a college degree gives you a wide variety of jobs to choose from trade school narrows your scope for what seems like for the most part rather undesirable jobs. This doesn't mean trade school is bad it just means that for the vast majority of students who aren't 100 sure on what career they want to do when they turn 18, college seems like a much more flexible choice. Starting a business Most high school grads have no idea what they are doing in this area obviously there are very success stories in this, but if I were to go out and start a business next year when I graduate, I would have no idea what to do. It seems that you are better off getting a business or something in that area degree. Now look, obviously college isn't perfect. A LOT of college grads don't get jobs. But it seems that these are the people that get their majors in a bad area like journalism, English, history, etc. and also go to a bad college. It's not supposed to be a sure thing you have to work in high school that way you can go to a better college, and work in college that way you can have good grades All of these options I listed are doable but for me and most people , who still aren't completely independent and have no idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives, college seems like the sure choice. Then there is the cost aspect of it. I get that college isn't always affordable, but that's a separate issue it doesn't mean that going to college itself is bad. Also, and I am not saying that this isn't an issue my sister chose to go to UTD over UPenn for this very reason, it seems that most people buried in student loans chose to go to a super expensive school there's plenty of cheaper ones out there which, assuming you worked hard in high school, give out scholarships. College isn't a sure thing and that's why people are complaining about it. You can't expect it to be and then insult it when its not. YOU have to take advantage of it. And if you do it can be very beneficial EDIT Thanks for the posts everyone Ultimately I apologize for the wording of this question, as I feel I over generalized. What I decided is that, yes, for the vast majority of people college is best. But that doesn't make it the better option in that plenty more people especially those who cannot afford college are better off using one of the other options I previously listed above.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is only for the US I know this isn't necessarily the case for other countries. OK so lets look at all the options at least that I can think of which you can do after high school besides of going to college. If there is anything else please feel free to share. Straight to work Ok where could you possibly work that is a steady reliable job which will make you a lot of money in the future? I'm sure these jobs do exist, but you must admit they are hard to find and are a rarity. Many more of those jobs do exist IF you have a college degree. Military Not everyone can do it like me personally I want to but medically can't bc asthma . This is a solid way to go, but not better than college not everyone can do it, and there is a risk factor when going into it. Trade school It seems that going to trade school narrows your career choice. If you are unsure on what you want to do when you get out of highschool, why would you decide to focus on only one job? Getting a college degree gives you a wide variety of jobs to choose from trade school narrows your scope for what seems like for the most part rather undesirable jobs. This doesn't mean trade school is bad it just means that for the vast majority of students who aren't 100 sure on what career they want to do when they turn 18, college seems like a much more flexible choice. Starting a business Most high school grads have no idea what they are doing in this area obviously there are very success stories in this, but if I were to go out and start a business next year when I graduate, I would have no idea what to do. It seems that you are better off getting a business or something in that area degree. Now look, obviously college isn't perfect. A LOT of college grads don't get jobs. But it seems that these are the people that get their majors in a bad area like journalism, English, history, etc. and also go to a bad college. It's not supposed to be a sure thing you have to work in high school that way you can go to a better college, and work in college that way you can have good grades All of these options I listed are doable but for me and most people , who still aren't completely independent and have no idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives, college seems like the sure choice. Then there is the cost aspect of it. I get that college isn't always affordable, but that's a separate issue it doesn't mean that going to college itself is bad. Also, and I am not saying that this isn't an issue my sister chose to go to UTD over UPenn for this very reason, it seems that most people buried in student loans chose to go to a super expensive school there's plenty of cheaper ones out there which, assuming you worked hard in high school, give out scholarships. College isn't a sure thing and that's why people are complaining about it. You can't expect it to be and then insult it when its not. YOU have to take advantage of it. And if you do it can be very beneficial EDIT Thanks for the posts everyone Ultimately I apologize for the wording of this question, as I feel I over generalized. What I decided is that, yes, for the vast majority of people college is best. But that doesn't make it the better option in that plenty more people especially those who cannot afford college are better off using one of the other options I previously listed above.<|TARGETS|>to focus on only one job, If there is anything else please feel free to share ., Getting a college degree, to go out and start a business next year when I graduate, the vast majority of students who are n't 100 sure on what career they want to do when they turn 18 college, a wide variety of jobs to choose from trade school<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is only for the US I know this isn't necessarily the case for other countries. OK so lets look at all the options at least that I can think of which you can do after high school besides of going to college. If there is anything else please feel free to share. Straight to work Ok where could you possibly work that is a steady reliable job which will make you a lot of money in the future? I'm sure these jobs do exist, but you must admit they are hard to find and are a rarity. Many more of those jobs do exist IF you have a college degree. Military Not everyone can do it like me personally I want to but medically can't bc asthma . This is a solid way to go, but not better than college not everyone can do it, and there is a risk factor when going into it. Trade school It seems that going to trade school narrows your career choice. If you are unsure on what you want to do when you get out of highschool, why would you decide to focus on only one job? Getting a college degree gives you a wide variety of jobs to choose from trade school narrows your scope for what seems like for the most part rather undesirable jobs. This doesn't mean trade school is bad it just means that for the vast majority of students who aren't 100 sure on what career they want to do when they turn 18, college seems like a much more flexible choice. Starting a business Most high school grads have no idea what they are doing in this area obviously there are very success stories in this, but if I were to go out and start a business next year when I graduate, I would have no idea what to do. It seems that you are better off getting a business or something in that area degree. Now look, obviously college isn't perfect. A LOT of college grads don't get jobs. But it seems that these are the people that get their majors in a bad area like journalism, English, history, etc. and also go to a bad college. It's not supposed to be a sure thing you have to work in high school that way you can go to a better college, and work in college that way you can have good grades All of these options I listed are doable but for me and most people , who still aren't completely independent and have no idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives, college seems like the sure choice. Then there is the cost aspect of it. I get that college isn't always affordable, but that's a separate issue it doesn't mean that going to college itself is bad. Also, and I am not saying that this isn't an issue my sister chose to go to UTD over UPenn for this very reason, it seems that most people buried in student loans chose to go to a super expensive school there's plenty of cheaper ones out there which, assuming you worked hard in high school, give out scholarships. College isn't a sure thing and that's why people are complaining about it. You can't expect it to be and then insult it when its not. YOU have to take advantage of it. And if you do it can be very beneficial EDIT Thanks for the posts everyone Ultimately I apologize for the wording of this question, as I feel I over generalized. What I decided is that, yes, for the vast majority of people college is best. But that doesn't make it the better option in that plenty more people especially those who cannot afford college are better off using one of the other options I previously listed above.<|ASPECTS|>, insult, doable, bad, beneficial, jobs, complaining, money, independent, bad college, sure, rarity, take advantage, edit, medically, scholarships, business, student loans, generalized, reliable job, focus, unsure, share, career choice, hard to find, bad area, cost aspect, perfect, get jobs, good grades, college grads, undesirable jobs, asthma, steady, success stories, cheaper ones, options, one job, better option, college is best, college degree, risk factor, afford, narrows, flexible choice, lot, trade school, sure choice, college, affordable, expensive<|CONCLUSION|>","This is only for the US I know this isn't necessarily the case for other countries. OK so lets look at all the options at least that I can think of which you can do after high school besides of going to college. If there is anything else please feel free to share. Straight to work Ok where could you possibly work that is a steady reliable job which will make you a lot of money in the future? I'm sure these jobs do exist, but you must admit they are hard to find and are a rarity. Many more of those jobs do exist IF you have a college degree. Military Not everyone can do it like me personally I want to but medically can't bc asthma . This is a solid way to go, but not better than college not everyone can do it, and there is a risk factor when going into it. Trade school It seems that going to trade school narrows your career choice. If you are unsure on what you want to do when you get out of highschool, why would you decide to focus on only one job? Getting a college degree gives you a wide variety of jobs to choose from trade school narrows your scope for what seems like for the most part rather undesirable jobs. This doesn't mean trade school is bad it just means that for the vast majority of students who aren't 100 sure on what career they want to do when they turn 18, college seems like a much more flexible choice. Starting a business Most high school grads have no idea what they are doing in this area obviously there are very success stories in this, but if I were to go out and start a business next year when I graduate, I would have no idea what to do. It seems that you are better off getting a business or something in that area degree. Now look, obviously college isn't perfect. A LOT of college grads don't get jobs. But it seems that these are the people that get their majors in a bad area like journalism, English, history, etc. and also go to a bad college. It's not supposed to be a sure thing you have to work in high school that way you can go to a better college, and work in college that way you can have good grades All of these options I listed are doable but for me and most people , who still aren't completely independent and have no idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives, college seems like the sure choice. Then there is the cost aspect of it. I get that college isn't always affordable, but that's a separate issue it doesn't mean that going to college itself is bad. Also, and I am not saying that this isn't an issue my sister chose to go to UTD over UPenn for this very reason, it seems that most people buried in student loans chose to go to a super expensive school there's plenty of cheaper ones out there which, assuming you worked hard in high school, give out scholarships. College isn't a sure thing and that's why people are complaining about it. You can't expect it to be and then insult it when its not. YOU have to take advantage of it. And if you do it can be very beneficial EDIT Thanks for the posts everyone Ultimately I apologize for the wording of this question, as I feel I over generalized. What I decided is that, yes, for the vast majority of people college is best. But that doesn't make it the better option in that plenty more people especially those who cannot afford college are better off using one of the other options I previously listed above.",There simply isn't a better option than going to college/uni. after high school
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This post is mostly inspired by a recent reddit post I saw, where an article was posted that was talking about Muslim parents in Birmingham England that suspended a No Outsiders programme in a school, because it was talking about LGBT rights and promoting diversity and equality. Basically my view comes down to this We are all minority groups that know what it's like to be persecuted for no other reason than just being who you are, and the fact that someone who knows what it's like to be discriminated against can then go and do the same to another minority group is, in my opinion, the height of hypocrisy. Take the recent shooting in New Zealand, and the Pulse shooting in Florida for example. How can people not see the intolerance that inspired a Muslim to kill 50 gays in the Pulse shooting is the same kind of hate that inspired a white nationalist to shoot 50 Muslims in NZ? So to me if you are a Muslim who is also Homophobic, then you get what you give. You can honestly apply this logic to every minority group that discriminates, but this was just the most obvious example. x200B<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This post is mostly inspired by a recent reddit post I saw, where an article was posted that was talking about Muslim parents in Birmingham England that suspended a No Outsiders programme in a school, because it was talking about LGBT rights and promoting diversity and equality. Basically my view comes down to this We are all minority groups that know what it's like to be persecuted for no other reason than just being who you are, and the fact that someone who knows what it's like to be discriminated against can then go and do the same to another minority group is, in my opinion, the height of hypocrisy. Take the recent shooting in New Zealand, and the Pulse shooting in Florida for example. How can people not see the intolerance that inspired a Muslim to kill 50 gays in the Pulse shooting is the same kind of hate that inspired a white nationalist to shoot 50 Muslims in NZ? So to me if you are a Muslim who is also Homophobic, then you get what you give. You can honestly apply this logic to every minority group that discriminates, but this was just the most obvious example. x200B<|TARGETS|>all minority groups that know what it 's like to be persecuted for no other reason than just being who you are and the fact that someone who knows what it 's like to be discriminated against can then go and do the same to another minority group, a recent reddit post, How can people not see the intolerance that inspired a Muslim to kill 50 gays in the Pulse shooting, apply this logic to every minority group that discriminates<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This post is mostly inspired by a recent reddit post I saw, where an article was posted that was talking about Muslim parents in Birmingham England that suspended a No Outsiders programme in a school, because it was talking about LGBT rights and promoting diversity and equality. Basically my view comes down to this We are all minority groups that know what it's like to be persecuted for no other reason than just being who you are, and the fact that someone who knows what it's like to be discriminated against can then go and do the same to another minority group is, in my opinion, the height of hypocrisy. Take the recent shooting in New Zealand, and the Pulse shooting in Florida for example. How can people not see the intolerance that inspired a Muslim to kill 50 gays in the Pulse shooting is the same kind of hate that inspired a white nationalist to shoot 50 Muslims in NZ? So to me if you are a Muslim who is also Homophobic, then you get what you give. You can honestly apply this logic to every minority group that discriminates, but this was just the most obvious example. x200B<|ASPECTS|>hypocrisy, lgbt rights, hate, equality, minority group, discriminates, homophobic, persecuted, diversity, discriminated, intolerance, minority groups<|CONCLUSION|>","This post is mostly inspired by a recent reddit post I saw, where an article was posted that was talking about Muslim parents in Birmingham England that suspended a No Outsiders programme in a school, because it was talking about LGBT rights and promoting diversity and equality. Basically my view comes down to this We are all minority groups that know what it's like to be persecuted for no other reason than just being who you are, and the fact that someone who knows what it's like to be discriminated against can then go and do the same to another minority group is, in my opinion, the height of hypocrisy. Take the recent shooting in New Zealand, and the Pulse shooting in Florida for example. How can people not see the intolerance that inspired a Muslim to kill 50 gays in the Pulse shooting is the same kind of hate that inspired a white nationalist to shoot 50 Muslims in NZ? So to me if you are a Muslim who is also Homophobic, then you get what you give. You can honestly apply this logic to every minority group that discriminates, but this was just the most obvious example. x200B",Muslims cannot complain about Islamophobia while at the same time being Homophobic
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>why should you continue to live after you have taken someone else's life away? An eye for an eye. Also, this whole thing where people get off because their mentally ill, is bullshit. If you're crazy that shouldn't be an excuse. Off with their head Instead we spend money rehabilitating and feeding these heathens and line the pockets of the private prison system. It's stupid. I realize there are certain circumstances where lethal force is required in self defense but if a jury of your peers decides there was malice and and intent in your actions off with your head Like that chick who drowned her 2 kids in the tub and then got off with time served because she was stressed. Get fucked. So sick of this, people need to be held accountable. If the punishment fit the crime then there would be a lot less grieving families and the only people getting merc'd would surely deserve it. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>why should you continue to live after you have taken someone else's life away? An eye for an eye. Also, this whole thing where people get off because their mentally ill, is bullshit. If you're crazy that shouldn't be an excuse. Off with their head Instead we spend money rehabilitating and feeding these heathens and line the pockets of the private prison system. It's stupid. I realize there are certain circumstances where lethal force is required in self defense but if a jury of your peers decides there was malice and and intent in your actions off with your head Like that chick who drowned her 2 kids in the tub and then got off with time served because she was stressed. Get fucked. So sick of this, people need to be held accountable. If the punishment fit the crime then there would be a lot less grieving families and the only people getting merc'd would surely deserve it. CMV<|TARGETS|>money rehabilitating and feeding these heathens and line the pockets of the private prison system, you continue to live after you have taken someone else 's life away, lethal force is required in self defense but if a jury of your peers decides there was malice and and intent in your actions off with your head Like that chick who drowned her 2 kids in the tub<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>why should you continue to live after you have taken someone else's life away? An eye for an eye. Also, this whole thing where people get off because their mentally ill, is bullshit. If you're crazy that shouldn't be an excuse. Off with their head Instead we spend money rehabilitating and feeding these heathens and line the pockets of the private prison system. It's stupid. I realize there are certain circumstances where lethal force is required in self defense but if a jury of your peers decides there was malice and and intent in your actions off with your head Like that chick who drowned her 2 kids in the tub and then got off with time served because she was stressed. Get fucked. So sick of this, people need to be held accountable. If the punishment fit the crime then there would be a lot less grieving families and the only people getting merc'd would surely deserve it. CMV<|ASPECTS|>spend, money, self defense, accountable, heathens, lethal force, rehabilitating, malice, crazy, bullshit, stupid, time served, less, grieving families, live, punishment, continue, eye for an eye, feeding, intent, mentally ill, 's life<|CONCLUSION|>","why should you continue to live after you have taken someone else's life away? An eye for an eye. Also, this whole thing where people get off because their mentally ill, is bullshit. If you're crazy that shouldn't be an excuse. Off with their head Instead we spend money rehabilitating and feeding these heathens and line the pockets of the private prison system. It's stupid. I realize there are certain circumstances where lethal force is required in self defense but if a jury of your peers decides there was malice and and intent in your actions off with your head Like that chick who drowned her 2 kids in the tub and then got off with time served because she was stressed. Get fucked. So sick of this, people need to be held accountable. If the punishment fit the crime then there would be a lot less grieving families and the only people getting merc'd would surely deserve it.",I believe if you intentionally kill someone your life should be forfeit and you should be executed.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We never really know the whole story when we only see 15 20 seconds of video. As is often the case with video that goes viral, there is usually a lot more to the story than what is caught on film. This story played right into the hands of the SJW outrage set by pitting an innocent minority against being abused by corporate america . I think it is more likely this passenger manipulated the situation, knowing that by refusing to debark he would be forcibly removed, and that the use of force would allow him a window of opportunity to sue the airline and airport security and hit a lawsuit jackpot for millions at either a trial or most likely a settlement agreement.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We never really know the whole story when we only see 15 20 seconds of video. As is often the case with video that goes viral, there is usually a lot more to the story than what is caught on film. This story played right into the hands of the SJW outrage set by pitting an innocent minority against being abused by corporate america . I think it is more likely this passenger manipulated the situation, knowing that by refusing to debark he would be forcibly removed, and that the use of force would allow him a window of opportunity to sue the airline and airport security and hit a lawsuit jackpot for millions at either a trial or most likely a settlement agreement.<|TARGETS|>the SJW outrage set, refusing to debark he would be forcibly removed and that the use of force<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We never really know the whole story when we only see 15 20 seconds of video. As is often the case with video that goes viral, there is usually a lot more to the story than what is caught on film. This story played right into the hands of the SJW outrage set by pitting an innocent minority against being abused by corporate america . I think it is more likely this passenger manipulated the situation, knowing that by refusing to debark he would be forcibly removed, and that the use of force would allow him a window of opportunity to sue the airline and airport security and hit a lawsuit jackpot for millions at either a trial or most likely a settlement agreement.<|ASPECTS|>, opportunity, story, video, abused, innocent minority, manipulated the situation, window, forcibly removed, lawsuit jackpot<|CONCLUSION|>","We never really know the whole story when we only see 15 20 seconds of video. As is often the case with video that goes viral, there is usually a lot more to the story than what is caught on film. This story played right into the hands of the SJW outrage set by pitting an innocent minority against being abused by corporate america . I think it is more likely this passenger manipulated the situation, knowing that by refusing to debark he would be forcibly removed, and that the use of force would allow him a window of opportunity to sue the airline and airport security and hit a lawsuit jackpot for millions at either a trial or most likely a settlement agreement.",The passenger at the center of the United situation provoked the situation the the hopes that force would be used and he would have grounds for a lawsuit.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was in a relationship for 5 years. We got engaged. And then about a month after that, she told me that she had been seeing some other guy, and that she was leaving me to go be with him. I've heard it said many times that the best relationships work when you are friends for a good amount of time first. And that has certainly shown itself to be true in my life and the people I know. Every one of my friends who is in a relationship, has been in that relationship 15 years. And every one of my friends that isn't in a relationship is the exact opposite. They get in and out of relationships all the time and nothing substantial and meaningful meaningful in my own opinion. everyone has their own meaning of course is ever established. The guy my ex left me for, let's call him Al she knew him before she met me. Which is probably what hurt me the most. They had been friends a long time, and she ended up leaving me for him. The hard part to accept about that is that before she had met me, she had been in a very abusive relationship where the guy would not only cheat on her constantly, but beat the shit out of her on a regular basis. It was very difficult in the beginning because she had serious emotional and mental issues. But I stuck with her because I loved her. Where was Al when she was going through that depression? Where was Al when she was crying because it was too sunny outside? I don't know. But I was there, loving her and supporting her. Because of what happened in her past, I wrongly assumed that she, of all people in the world, would never cheat on me. I was wrong. My sister, who got married with a guy after only 2 years, is now divorced after only a year of marriage. I have no female friends. Never mind any that would want to be in a relationship with me. It's been over a year since she left me, and I have yet to even get a date with someone else. As far as I can tell, women my age either 1 already have something established or 2 aren't looking for long term relationship. I am going to die alone. Please, please, please change my view on this, as it has left me extremely depressed and suicidal.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was in a relationship for 5 years. We got engaged. And then about a month after that, she told me that she had been seeing some other guy, and that she was leaving me to go be with him. I've heard it said many times that the best relationships work when you are friends for a good amount of time first. And that has certainly shown itself to be true in my life and the people I know. Every one of my friends who is in a relationship, has been in that relationship 15 years. And every one of my friends that isn't in a relationship is the exact opposite. They get in and out of relationships all the time and nothing substantial and meaningful meaningful in my own opinion. everyone has their own meaning of course is ever established. The guy my ex left me for, let's call him Al she knew him before she met me. Which is probably what hurt me the most. They had been friends a long time, and she ended up leaving me for him. The hard part to accept about that is that before she had met me, she had been in a very abusive relationship where the guy would not only cheat on her constantly, but beat the shit out of her on a regular basis. It was very difficult in the beginning because she had serious emotional and mental issues. But I stuck with her because I loved her. Where was Al when she was going through that depression? Where was Al when she was crying because it was too sunny outside? I don't know. But I was there, loving her and supporting her. Because of what happened in her past, I wrongly assumed that she, of all people in the world, would never cheat on me. I was wrong. My sister, who got married with a guy after only 2 years, is now divorced after only a year of marriage. I have no female friends. Never mind any that would want to be in a relationship with me. It's been over a year since she left me, and I have yet to even get a date with someone else. As far as I can tell, women my age either 1 already have something established or 2 aren't looking for long term relationship. I am going to die alone. Please, please, please change my view on this, as it has left me extremely depressed and suicidal.<|TARGETS|>to be in a relationship with me ., to die alone ., wrongly assumed that she of all people in the world would never cheat on me ., They get in and out of relationships all the time and nothing substantial and meaningful meaningful in my own opinion ., Please please please change my view on this as it has left me extremely depressed and suicidal ., it said many times that the best relationships work when you are friends for a good amount of time first .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was in a relationship for 5 years. We got engaged. And then about a month after that, she told me that she had been seeing some other guy, and that she was leaving me to go be with him. I've heard it said many times that the best relationships work when you are friends for a good amount of time first. And that has certainly shown itself to be true in my life and the people I know. Every one of my friends who is in a relationship, has been in that relationship 15 years. And every one of my friends that isn't in a relationship is the exact opposite. They get in and out of relationships all the time and nothing substantial and meaningful meaningful in my own opinion. everyone has their own meaning of course is ever established. The guy my ex left me for, let's call him Al she knew him before she met me. Which is probably what hurt me the most. They had been friends a long time, and she ended up leaving me for him. The hard part to accept about that is that before she had met me, she had been in a very abusive relationship where the guy would not only cheat on her constantly, but beat the shit out of her on a regular basis. It was very difficult in the beginning because she had serious emotional and mental issues. But I stuck with her because I loved her. Where was Al when she was going through that depression? Where was Al when she was crying because it was too sunny outside? I don't know. But I was there, loving her and supporting her. Because of what happened in her past, I wrongly assumed that she, of all people in the world, would never cheat on me. I was wrong. My sister, who got married with a guy after only 2 years, is now divorced after only a year of marriage. I have no female friends. Never mind any that would want to be in a relationship with me. It's been over a year since she left me, and I have yet to even get a date with someone else. As far as I can tell, women my age either 1 already have something established or 2 aren't looking for long term relationship. I am going to die alone. Please, please, please change my view on this, as it has left me extremely depressed and suicidal.<|ASPECTS|>female friends, relationship, depression, depressed, true, stuck, cheat on, abusive relationship, date, friends, sunny outside, divorced, die alone, loved, cheat, established, beat the shit, hurt, loving, leaving, engaged, emotional and mental issues, long term relationship, relationships, difficult, meaning of course, substantial and meaningful meaningful, suicidal, supporting, best relationships<|CONCLUSION|>","I was in a relationship for 5 years. We got engaged. And then about a month after that, she told me that she had been seeing some other guy, and that she was leaving me to go be with him. I've heard it said many times that the best relationships work when you are friends for a good amount of time first. And that has certainly shown itself to be true in my life and the people I know. Every one of my friends who is in a relationship, has been in that relationship 15 years. And every one of my friends that isn't in a relationship is the exact opposite. They get in and out of relationships all the time and nothing substantial and meaningful meaningful in my own opinion. everyone has their own meaning of course is ever established. The guy my ex left me for, let's call him Al she knew him before she met me. Which is probably what hurt me the most. They had been friends a long time, and she ended up leaving me for him. The hard part to accept about that is that before she had met me, she had been in a very abusive relationship where the guy would not only cheat on her constantly, but beat the shit out of her on a regular basis. It was very difficult in the beginning because she had serious emotional and mental issues. But I stuck with her because I loved her. Where was Al when she was going through that depression? Where was Al when she was crying because it was too sunny outside? I don't know. But I was there, loving her and supporting her. Because of what happened in her past, I wrongly assumed that she, of all people in the world, would never cheat on me. I was wrong. My sister, who got married with a guy after only 2 years, is now divorced after only a year of marriage. I have no female friends. Never mind any that would want to be in a relationship with me. It's been over a year since she left me, and I have yet to even get a date with someone else. As far as I can tell, women my age either 1 already have something established or 2 aren't looking for long term relationship. I am going to die alone. Please, please, please change my view on this, as it has left me extremely depressed and suicidal.","Finding myself recently single in my 30's, the chances of me finding a lifelong, monogamous wife are basically 0."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I imagine a commercial area, I imagine that, per Wikipedia's definition, these areas include commercial buildings such as downtown, central business districts, financial commercial strips, shopping malls, and Main Streets. If I want to make the commercial area most accessible to residents and guests, then the commercial areas should be located at or near the geographical center because that offers roughly equal distance to all residents in the area for commerce in the area. Now I am interested in reading over some of the cons against having this commercial area in the geographical center.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I imagine a commercial area, I imagine that, per Wikipedia's definition, these areas include commercial buildings such as downtown, central business districts, financial commercial strips, shopping malls, and Main Streets. If I want to make the commercial area most accessible to residents and guests, then the commercial areas should be located at or near the geographical center because that offers roughly equal distance to all residents in the area for commerce in the area. Now I am interested in reading over some of the cons against having this commercial area in the geographical center.<|TARGETS|>a commercial area, to make the commercial area most accessible to residents and guests, reading over some of the cons against having this commercial area in the geographical center .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I imagine a commercial area, I imagine that, per Wikipedia's definition, these areas include commercial buildings such as downtown, central business districts, financial commercial strips, shopping malls, and Main Streets. If I want to make the commercial area most accessible to residents and guests, then the commercial areas should be located at or near the geographical center because that offers roughly equal distance to all residents in the area for commerce in the area. Now I am interested in reading over some of the cons against having this commercial area in the geographical center.<|ASPECTS|>commercial buildings, geographical, equal distance, commercial area, area, financial commercial, commerce, accessible<|CONCLUSION|>","When I imagine a commercial area, I imagine that, per Wikipedia's definition, these areas include commercial buildings such as downtown, central business districts, financial commercial strips, shopping malls, and Main Streets. If I want to make the commercial area most accessible to residents and guests, then the commercial areas should be located at or near the geographical center because that offers roughly equal distance to all residents in the area for commerce in the area. Now I am interested in reading over some of the cons against having this commercial area in the geographical center.","Commercial areas e.g., shopping malls, downtown should be at or near a city's geographical center"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Before anyone takes this the wrong way, I am not suicidal. I have so much to live for amazing friends, family, a better life than most on this planet are born into, I have a multitude of hobbies I enjoy, and I very much enjoy learning about anything and everything, ESPECIALLY physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Although I don't fear death, I appreciate deeply the gift of life and will make it last as long as possible while getting as much as a I possibly can out of it. It seems to me like the global consensus on death is that it is scary, to be feared. I know my family and friends are like this, the media seems shares this view I think 99 of the population would agree with the statement I don't want to die . Not me. Is it the unknown that people fear when they look upon death? To me, this great unknown fills me with nothing but excitement. Nobody knows what happens after death. Many skeptics believe that, essentially, nothing happens after death. The fact is that consciousness itself is one of the greatest mysteries of science, we don't really understand it at all. There's no way to measure it. Personally, I am confident that SOMETHING happens after death, that is, there is a future of conscious experience after the body and mind have died, but you do not retain any of your living memories so it isn't reincarnation you are an entirely new conscious entity. Remember that the concept of time is meaningless unless you are conscious. To state that nothing ever happens after you die is to assume that for eons and eons, universes upon universes, you never, ever have consciousness arise again, even in the simplest form. I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this so I'm going to stop here, but hopefully you understand the gist of what I'm saying. Death is tragic in that everything you ever knew, loved, and thought is permanently wiped from existence. But at the of the day of life, to me, dying is probably the most exciting and incredible experience a person can have. After all, to the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Before anyone takes this the wrong way, I am not suicidal. I have so much to live for amazing friends, family, a better life than most on this planet are born into, I have a multitude of hobbies I enjoy, and I very much enjoy learning about anything and everything, ESPECIALLY physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Although I don't fear death, I appreciate deeply the gift of life and will make it last as long as possible while getting as much as a I possibly can out of it. It seems to me like the global consensus on death is that it is scary, to be feared. I know my family and friends are like this, the media seems shares this view I think 99 of the population would agree with the statement I don't want to die . Not me. Is it the unknown that people fear when they look upon death? To me, this great unknown fills me with nothing but excitement. Nobody knows what happens after death. Many skeptics believe that, essentially, nothing happens after death. The fact is that consciousness itself is one of the greatest mysteries of science, we don't really understand it at all. There's no way to measure it. Personally, I am confident that SOMETHING happens after death, that is, there is a future of conscious experience after the body and mind have died, but you do not retain any of your living memories so it isn't reincarnation you are an entirely new conscious entity. Remember that the concept of time is meaningless unless you are conscious. To state that nothing ever happens after you die is to assume that for eons and eons, universes upon universes, you never, ever have consciousness arise again, even in the simplest form. I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this so I'm going to stop here, but hopefully you understand the gist of what I'm saying. Death is tragic in that everything you ever knew, loved, and thought is permanently wiped from existence. But at the of the day of life, to me, dying is probably the most exciting and incredible experience a person can have. After all, to the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.<|TARGETS|>the gift of life and will make it last as long as possible while getting as much as a I possibly can out of it ., that everything you ever knew loved and thought is permanently wiped from existence ., the global consensus on death, I know my family and friends are like this the media seems shares this view I think 99 of the population would agree with the statement I do n't want to die ., a future of conscious experience after the body and mind have died but you do not retain any of your living memories so it is n't reincarnation you are an entirely new conscious entity ., Before anyone takes this the wrong way<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Before anyone takes this the wrong way, I am not suicidal. I have so much to live for amazing friends, family, a better life than most on this planet are born into, I have a multitude of hobbies I enjoy, and I very much enjoy learning about anything and everything, ESPECIALLY physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Although I don't fear death, I appreciate deeply the gift of life and will make it last as long as possible while getting as much as a I possibly can out of it. It seems to me like the global consensus on death is that it is scary, to be feared. I know my family and friends are like this, the media seems shares this view I think 99 of the population would agree with the statement I don't want to die . Not me. Is it the unknown that people fear when they look upon death? To me, this great unknown fills me with nothing but excitement. Nobody knows what happens after death. Many skeptics believe that, essentially, nothing happens after death. The fact is that consciousness itself is one of the greatest mysteries of science, we don't really understand it at all. There's no way to measure it. Personally, I am confident that SOMETHING happens after death, that is, there is a future of conscious experience after the body and mind have died, but you do not retain any of your living memories so it isn't reincarnation you are an entirely new conscious entity. Remember that the concept of time is meaningless unless you are conscious. To state that nothing ever happens after you die is to assume that for eons and eons, universes upon universes, you never, ever have consciousness arise again, even in the simplest form. I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this so I'm going to stop here, but hopefully you understand the gist of what I'm saying. Death is tragic in that everything you ever knew, loved, and thought is permanently wiped from existence. But at the of the day of life, to me, dying is probably the most exciting and incredible experience a person can have. After all, to the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.<|ASPECTS|>death, mysteries of science, death is tragic, meaningless, fear death, happens after death, better life, measure, conscious experience, want to die, scary, dying, understand, nothing happens after death, fear, existence, unknown, excitement, future, permanently wiped, adventure, family, hobbies, exciting and incredible experience, conscious entity, learning, consciousness arise, consensus on death, nobody, consciousness, time, articulating my thoughts, suicidal, gift of life<|CONCLUSION|>","Before anyone takes this the wrong way, I am not suicidal. I have so much to live for amazing friends, family, a better life than most on this planet are born into, I have a multitude of hobbies I enjoy, and I very much enjoy learning about anything and everything, ESPECIALLY physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Although I don't fear death, I appreciate deeply the gift of life and will make it last as long as possible while getting as much as a I possibly can out of it. It seems to me like the global consensus on death is that it is scary, to be feared. I know my family and friends are like this, the media seems shares this view I think 99 of the population would agree with the statement I don't want to die . Not me. Is it the unknown that people fear when they look upon death? To me, this great unknown fills me with nothing but excitement. Nobody knows what happens after death. Many skeptics believe that, essentially, nothing happens after death. The fact is that consciousness itself is one of the greatest mysteries of science, we don't really understand it at all. There's no way to measure it. Personally, I am confident that SOMETHING happens after death, that is, there is a future of conscious experience after the body and mind have died, but you do not retain any of your living memories so it isn't reincarnation you are an entirely new conscious entity. Remember that the concept of time is meaningless unless you are conscious. To state that nothing ever happens after you die is to assume that for eons and eons, universes upon universes, you never, ever have consciousness arise again, even in the simplest form. I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this so I'm going to stop here, but hopefully you understand the gist of what I'm saying. Death is tragic in that everything you ever knew, loved, and thought is permanently wiped from existence. But at the of the day of life, to me, dying is probably the most exciting and incredible experience a person can have. After all, to the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.","I don't fear death, and I find the idea of immortality scary and deplorable"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their unpeeled weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg m^3 so 1 kg is 1000 .614 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative . Given that the volume of a sphere is V 4 3 π r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26 of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm which is again a conservative number potatoes vary much more in size , we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67 of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog eat dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their unpeeled weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg m^3 so 1 kg is 1000 .614 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative . Given that the volume of a sphere is V 4 3 π r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26 of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm which is again a conservative number potatoes vary much more in size , we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67 of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog eat dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view.<|TARGETS|>to peel off that little even with a good peeler, one medium sized potato in a kilogram, The density of unpeeled potatoes, A recipe, Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm, Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their unpeeled weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg m^3 so 1 kg is 1000 .614 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative . Given that the volume of a sphere is V 4 3 π r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26 of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm which is again a conservative number potatoes vary much more in size , we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67 of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog eat dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, nontrivial, potato volume, peeled weight, conservative, thick, peeling, medium sized potato, competitiveness, lost volume, unpeeled weight, weight of potatoes, spherical, density, unpeeled potatoes, peeled, volume, dog eat dog, mass, potatoes, loss in volume, peeled volume, size, small potatoes, radius, small, potato lovers, difference, perfectly, skin, deliciousness<|CONCLUSION|>","Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their unpeeled weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg m^3 so 1 kg is 1000 .614 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative . Given that the volume of a sphere is V 4 3 π r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26 of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm which is again a conservative number potatoes vary much more in size , we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67 of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog eat dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view.",Listing the weight of unpeeled potatoes in a recipe that calls for those potatoes to be peeled is ridiculous
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a sapphic bi woman – A.K.A., I'm attracted to multiple genders, including my own. The odds of me one day getting married to another woman are quite high. However, I don't understand why everyone else in the queer allied community seems so disturbed by the recent U.S. ruling in favor of a cake maker who refused to bake for a same sex couple. Maybe part of this is because of my evangelical Christian background though I am now nonreligious , and some of the arguments I heard back then are still rattling around in my mind, but my nonchalance about the ruling are for several reasons I acknowledge that there are still millions of people in this country who do not affirm or accept my identity, or the identities of people similar to me. I of course hope for a day when this will no longer be the case, but that's where we are right now. I respect people who have different beliefs and opinions even if I think they are shitty beliefs and opinions , and empathize with the cognitive dissonance evangelical Christians experience, if only because I've been there. Most of them mean no harm to people like me, even as they actively engage in harming us, perhaps unknowingly , and are only trying to do what they believe is right. There are the mean, cruel ones, but in my experience those are only the loudest, not the most numerous. Evangelicals are trying to navigate the world within the mental framework they have. I do hope that more and more will leave those restrictive frameworks, as I have, but meanwhile I honor the fact that this is a pluralistic society and I think it is right to allow others to express their beliefs, up to the point where they infringe on the rights and safety of others . Acceptance of LGBTQIAP queer people is on the rise. There are plenty of cake baking shops out there who would be happy to bake cakes for same sex couples, and will probably even advertise their services more blatantly now that this legal precedent has been set. If I'm getting married one day, and a cake shop turns down my business, I could just go somewhere else. I could even Google first, cake shops that welcome same sex couples near me , and avoid the whole situation. Legally forcing a Christian baker to cater to me seems unnecessary when there are always other bakers out there who will take my money. I don't feel oppressed or marginalized because one person doesn't like me. I wouldn't want to give them my money anyway. It actually seems unfair to me to legally force someone to do something that goes against their values. Doing something you believe is wrong is a terrible, yucky feeling. I don't think it would be an effective strategy for turning more hearts towards people like me. If anything, I expect that kind of legal coercion would backfire. I do acknowledge a few cracks in my way of thinking that are starting to point me in the direction for where I might be wrong. First of all, I have a relatively thick skin, and am not super bothered when people dislike me or disapprove of me. So, getting turned down by a baker doesn't sound like a super big deal, however I realize that not everyone has my disposition in that way. It could be a horribly humiliating, painful, and traumatizing experience for someone else. So maybe part of this is just self centered thinking. Secondly, I'm just engaging in a thought experiment I realize that I don't actually know what that experience would be like, despite my usually thick skin. Just the other day, I was a bridesmaid in a wedding, surrounded by Christians who annoyingly assumed everyone among them was Christian. It was very stressful for me Christian contexts always are , and when the wedding photographer made an offhand comment joke ? that implied she didn't photograph same sex couples, I couldn't get the comment out of my head for hours. What if she knew I was queer and had directed a similar comment at me? Would that thick skin I'm so proud of protect me as much as I think? Am I wrong after all to say this whole thing isn't a big deal? Still, I'm partial to the belief that changing our culture in this regard should come from the ground up – changing hearts and mind, one a time, through storytelling and conversations – rather than from the top down, in the form of arbitrary laws. With some exceptions, i.e. when people's safety are directly at risk. I see that having a more long term success towards making our world the place we want to live in. Tell me how I'm wrong. Do your thing, CMV Reddit. Edit I have been convinced. No need to keep convincing me. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a sapphic bi woman – A.K.A., I'm attracted to multiple genders, including my own. The odds of me one day getting married to another woman are quite high. However, I don't understand why everyone else in the queer allied community seems so disturbed by the recent U.S. ruling in favor of a cake maker who refused to bake for a same sex couple. Maybe part of this is because of my evangelical Christian background though I am now nonreligious , and some of the arguments I heard back then are still rattling around in my mind, but my nonchalance about the ruling are for several reasons I acknowledge that there are still millions of people in this country who do not affirm or accept my identity, or the identities of people similar to me. I of course hope for a day when this will no longer be the case, but that's where we are right now. I respect people who have different beliefs and opinions even if I think they are shitty beliefs and opinions , and empathize with the cognitive dissonance evangelical Christians experience, if only because I've been there. Most of them mean no harm to people like me, even as they actively engage in harming us, perhaps unknowingly , and are only trying to do what they believe is right. There are the mean, cruel ones, but in my experience those are only the loudest, not the most numerous. Evangelicals are trying to navigate the world within the mental framework they have. I do hope that more and more will leave those restrictive frameworks, as I have, but meanwhile I honor the fact that this is a pluralistic society and I think it is right to allow others to express their beliefs, up to the point where they infringe on the rights and safety of others . Acceptance of LGBTQIAP queer people is on the rise. There are plenty of cake baking shops out there who would be happy to bake cakes for same sex couples, and will probably even advertise their services more blatantly now that this legal precedent has been set. If I'm getting married one day, and a cake shop turns down my business, I could just go somewhere else. I could even Google first, cake shops that welcome same sex couples near me , and avoid the whole situation. Legally forcing a Christian baker to cater to me seems unnecessary when there are always other bakers out there who will take my money. I don't feel oppressed or marginalized because one person doesn't like me. I wouldn't want to give them my money anyway. It actually seems unfair to me to legally force someone to do something that goes against their values. Doing something you believe is wrong is a terrible, yucky feeling. I don't think it would be an effective strategy for turning more hearts towards people like me. If anything, I expect that kind of legal coercion would backfire. I do acknowledge a few cracks in my way of thinking that are starting to point me in the direction for where I might be wrong. First of all, I have a relatively thick skin, and am not super bothered when people dislike me or disapprove of me. So, getting turned down by a baker doesn't sound like a super big deal, however I realize that not everyone has my disposition in that way. It could be a horribly humiliating, painful, and traumatizing experience for someone else. So maybe part of this is just self centered thinking. Secondly, I'm just engaging in a thought experiment I realize that I don't actually know what that experience would be like, despite my usually thick skin. Just the other day, I was a bridesmaid in a wedding, surrounded by Christians who annoyingly assumed everyone among them was Christian. It was very stressful for me Christian contexts always are , and when the wedding photographer made an offhand comment joke ? that implied she didn't photograph same sex couples, I couldn't get the comment out of my head for hours. What if she knew I was queer and had directed a similar comment at me? Would that thick skin I'm so proud of protect me as much as I think? Am I wrong after all to say this whole thing isn't a big deal? Still, I'm partial to the belief that changing our culture in this regard should come from the ground up – changing hearts and mind, one a time, through storytelling and conversations – rather than from the top down, in the form of arbitrary laws. With some exceptions, i.e. when people's safety are directly at risk. I see that having a more long term success towards making our world the place we want to live in. Tell me how I'm wrong. Do your thing, CMV Reddit. Edit I have been convinced. No need to keep convincing me. <|TARGETS|>to legally force someone to do something that goes against their values ., a bridesmaid in a wedding surrounded by Christians who annoyingly assumed everyone among them was Christian ., just engaging in a thought experiment I realize that I do n't actually know what that experience would be like despite my usually thick skin ., when people dislike me or disapprove of me ., a few cracks in my way of thinking that are starting to point me in the direction for where I might be wrong ., to bake cakes for same sex couples<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a sapphic bi woman – A.K.A., I'm attracted to multiple genders, including my own. The odds of me one day getting married to another woman are quite high. However, I don't understand why everyone else in the queer allied community seems so disturbed by the recent U.S. ruling in favor of a cake maker who refused to bake for a same sex couple. Maybe part of this is because of my evangelical Christian background though I am now nonreligious , and some of the arguments I heard back then are still rattling around in my mind, but my nonchalance about the ruling are for several reasons I acknowledge that there are still millions of people in this country who do not affirm or accept my identity, or the identities of people similar to me. I of course hope for a day when this will no longer be the case, but that's where we are right now. I respect people who have different beliefs and opinions even if I think they are shitty beliefs and opinions , and empathize with the cognitive dissonance evangelical Christians experience, if only because I've been there. Most of them mean no harm to people like me, even as they actively engage in harming us, perhaps unknowingly , and are only trying to do what they believe is right. There are the mean, cruel ones, but in my experience those are only the loudest, not the most numerous. Evangelicals are trying to navigate the world within the mental framework they have. I do hope that more and more will leave those restrictive frameworks, as I have, but meanwhile I honor the fact that this is a pluralistic society and I think it is right to allow others to express their beliefs, up to the point where they infringe on the rights and safety of others . Acceptance of LGBTQIAP queer people is on the rise. There are plenty of cake baking shops out there who would be happy to bake cakes for same sex couples, and will probably even advertise their services more blatantly now that this legal precedent has been set. If I'm getting married one day, and a cake shop turns down my business, I could just go somewhere else. I could even Google first, cake shops that welcome same sex couples near me , and avoid the whole situation. Legally forcing a Christian baker to cater to me seems unnecessary when there are always other bakers out there who will take my money. I don't feel oppressed or marginalized because one person doesn't like me. I wouldn't want to give them my money anyway. It actually seems unfair to me to legally force someone to do something that goes against their values. Doing something you believe is wrong is a terrible, yucky feeling. I don't think it would be an effective strategy for turning more hearts towards people like me. If anything, I expect that kind of legal coercion would backfire. I do acknowledge a few cracks in my way of thinking that are starting to point me in the direction for where I might be wrong. First of all, I have a relatively thick skin, and am not super bothered when people dislike me or disapprove of me. So, getting turned down by a baker doesn't sound like a super big deal, however I realize that not everyone has my disposition in that way. It could be a horribly humiliating, painful, and traumatizing experience for someone else. So maybe part of this is just self centered thinking. Secondly, I'm just engaging in a thought experiment I realize that I don't actually know what that experience would be like, despite my usually thick skin. Just the other day, I was a bridesmaid in a wedding, surrounded by Christians who annoyingly assumed everyone among them was Christian. It was very stressful for me Christian contexts always are , and when the wedding photographer made an offhand comment joke ? that implied she didn't photograph same sex couples, I couldn't get the comment out of my head for hours. What if she knew I was queer and had directed a similar comment at me? Would that thick skin I'm so proud of protect me as much as I think? Am I wrong after all to say this whole thing isn't a big deal? Still, I'm partial to the belief that changing our culture in this regard should come from the ground up – changing hearts and mind, one a time, through storytelling and conversations – rather than from the top down, in the form of arbitrary laws. With some exceptions, i.e. when people's safety are directly at risk. I see that having a more long term success towards making our world the place we want to live in. Tell me how I'm wrong. Do your thing, CMV Reddit. Edit I have been convinced. No need to keep convincing me. <|ASPECTS|>, another, wrong, attracted, rights, protect, turning, photograph, pluralistic, money, cruel, couples, oppressed, sex couples, harm, lgbtqiap, thought experiment, safety of others, effective strategy, changing hearts and mind, thick, queer, identities, business, loudest, cognitive dissonance, situation, nonchalance, humiliating, harming us, backfire, christian baker, legal coercion, restrictive frameworks, legally, navigate the world, nonreligious, multiple genders, hearts, marginalized, queer allied, disposition, risk, cracks, feeling, disapprove, queer people, cater, traumatizing experience, legal precedent, thick skin, terrible, welcome same sex couples, bi, horribly, unfair, identity, evangelical christian background, cake shops, go somewhere else, arbitrary laws, safety, values, self centered thinking, long term success, stressful, skin, odds, painful, christians, sapphic, mean, dislike, avoid, christian, beliefs and opinions, christian contexts, mental framework, unnecessary<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm a sapphic bi woman – A.K.A., I'm attracted to multiple genders, including my own. The odds of me one day getting married to another woman are quite high. However, I don't understand why everyone else in the queer allied community seems so disturbed by the recent U.S. ruling in favor of a cake maker who refused to bake for a same sex couple. Maybe part of this is because of my evangelical Christian background though I am now nonreligious , and some of the arguments I heard back then are still rattling around in my mind, but my nonchalance about the ruling are for several reasons I acknowledge that there are still millions of people in this country who do not affirm or accept my identity, or the identities of people similar to me. I of course hope for a day when this will no longer be the case, but that's where we are right now. I respect people who have different beliefs and opinions even if I think they are shitty beliefs and opinions , and empathize with the cognitive dissonance evangelical Christians experience, if only because I've been there. Most of them mean no harm to people like me, even as they actively engage in harming us, perhaps unknowingly , and are only trying to do what they believe is right. There are the mean, cruel ones, but in my experience those are only the loudest, not the most numerous. Evangelicals are trying to navigate the world within the mental framework they have. I do hope that more and more will leave those restrictive frameworks, as I have, but meanwhile I honor the fact that this is a pluralistic society and I think it is right to allow others to express their beliefs, up to the point where they infringe on the rights and safety of others . Acceptance of LGBTQIAP queer people is on the rise. There are plenty of cake baking shops out there who would be happy to bake cakes for same sex couples, and will probably even advertise their services more blatantly now that this legal precedent has been set. If I'm getting married one day, and a cake shop turns down my business, I could just go somewhere else. I could even Google first, cake shops that welcome same sex couples near me , and avoid the whole situation. Legally forcing a Christian baker to cater to me seems unnecessary when there are always other bakers out there who will take my money. I don't feel oppressed or marginalized because one person doesn't like me. I wouldn't want to give them my money anyway. It actually seems unfair to me to legally force someone to do something that goes against their values. Doing something you believe is wrong is a terrible, yucky feeling. I don't think it would be an effective strategy for turning more hearts towards people like me. If anything, I expect that kind of legal coercion would backfire. I do acknowledge a few cracks in my way of thinking that are starting to point me in the direction for where I might be wrong. First of all, I have a relatively thick skin, and am not super bothered when people dislike me or disapprove of me. So, getting turned down by a baker doesn't sound like a super big deal, however I realize that not everyone has my disposition in that way. It could be a horribly humiliating, painful, and traumatizing experience for someone else. So maybe part of this is just self centered thinking. Secondly, I'm just engaging in a thought experiment I realize that I don't actually know what that experience would be like, despite my usually thick skin. Just the other day, I was a bridesmaid in a wedding, surrounded by Christians who annoyingly assumed everyone among them was Christian. It was very stressful for me Christian contexts always are , and when the wedding photographer made an offhand comment joke ? that implied she didn't photograph same sex couples, I couldn't get the comment out of my head for hours. What if she knew I was queer and had directed a similar comment at me? Would that thick skin I'm so proud of protect me as much as I think? Am I wrong after all to say this whole thing isn't a big deal? Still, I'm partial to the belief that changing our culture in this regard should come from the ground up – changing hearts and mind, one a time, through storytelling and conversations – rather than from the top down, in the form of arbitrary laws. With some exceptions, i.e. when people's safety are directly at risk. I see that having a more long term success towards making our world the place we want to live in. Tell me how I'm wrong. Do your thing,  Reddit. Edit I have been convinced. No need to keep convincing me.",I shouldn't be concerned about the cake ruling
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Expanding on my title Eventually, though not in the near future, I predict that the U.S. government as well as all sovereign nations will yield much of their power to a world government. It has nothing to do with left vs. right or who I think is more politically capable of running a country or the world it has to do with interests. I'll use the US government as an example. 225 years ago, when the US constitution was written, most things were very stationary. Lots of people never strayed far from their hometown, goods were often not moved across state lines, and the federal government had little to worry about problems were truly localized and so were the solutions. Since the turn of the 20th century, the federal government has grabbed up a lot more power, and for good reason. People started moving around. There were lots of corporations operating in multiple states. The invention of the train allowed goods and people to move across the country. Because of this, what were once truly local matters became interstate matters. With so much activity happening between the states, the federal government had an interest in regulation otherwise handled at the state level. Now, you would be hard pressed to find a product at any store that DIDN'T travel across state lines. You would also be hard pressed to find someone that hasn't lived at least briefly in multiple states. Millions of people work in one state and live in another. And recently it's become clear that interests once belonging to states and then to the federal government are actually of international concern. The most obvious examples are things like environmental regulation e.g. pollution in China hurts the world, not just China or intellectual property global copyright and patent laws and enforcement are the only way to protect them . But just like goods and people really started moving between states 100 years ago, they are starting to move between countries more frequently now. Multinational corporations are common, contracts between different corporations in different countries are common, and all of these things need to be regulated Is it any surprise that recent decades have seen increased international governance? Economic unions like the EU , trade agreements NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. , and even nearly global organizations The UN, The ICC, the WTO have become increasingly more powerful, and for good reason these issues are now of international concern. I'm not saying that the US government or any other will cease to exist, but only that their power will be significantly curtailed, the way that states' rights have become in the US.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Expanding on my title Eventually, though not in the near future, I predict that the U.S. government as well as all sovereign nations will yield much of their power to a world government. It has nothing to do with left vs. right or who I think is more politically capable of running a country or the world it has to do with interests. I'll use the US government as an example. 225 years ago, when the US constitution was written, most things were very stationary. Lots of people never strayed far from their hometown, goods were often not moved across state lines, and the federal government had little to worry about problems were truly localized and so were the solutions. Since the turn of the 20th century, the federal government has grabbed up a lot more power, and for good reason. People started moving around. There were lots of corporations operating in multiple states. The invention of the train allowed goods and people to move across the country. Because of this, what were once truly local matters became interstate matters. With so much activity happening between the states, the federal government had an interest in regulation otherwise handled at the state level. Now, you would be hard pressed to find a product at any store that DIDN'T travel across state lines. You would also be hard pressed to find someone that hasn't lived at least briefly in multiple states. Millions of people work in one state and live in another. And recently it's become clear that interests once belonging to states and then to the federal government are actually of international concern. The most obvious examples are things like environmental regulation e.g. pollution in China hurts the world, not just China or intellectual property global copyright and patent laws and enforcement are the only way to protect them . But just like goods and people really started moving between states 100 years ago, they are starting to move between countries more frequently now. Multinational corporations are common, contracts between different corporations in different countries are common, and all of these things need to be regulated Is it any surprise that recent decades have seen increased international governance? Economic unions like the EU , trade agreements NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. , and even nearly global organizations The UN, The ICC, the WTO have become increasingly more powerful, and for good reason these issues are now of international concern. I'm not saying that the US government or any other will cease to exist, but only that their power will be significantly curtailed, the way that states' rights have become in the US.<|TARGETS|>to find someone that has n't lived at least briefly in multiple states ., not saying that the US government or any other will cease to exist but only that their power, the US constitution was written, to find a product at any store that DIDN'T travel across state lines, that interests once belonging to states and then to the federal government, to do with left vs. right or who I think is more politically capable of running a country or the world it has to do with interests .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Expanding on my title Eventually, though not in the near future, I predict that the U.S. government as well as all sovereign nations will yield much of their power to a world government. It has nothing to do with left vs. right or who I think is more politically capable of running a country or the world it has to do with interests. I'll use the US government as an example. 225 years ago, when the US constitution was written, most things were very stationary. Lots of people never strayed far from their hometown, goods were often not moved across state lines, and the federal government had little to worry about problems were truly localized and so were the solutions. Since the turn of the 20th century, the federal government has grabbed up a lot more power, and for good reason. People started moving around. There were lots of corporations operating in multiple states. The invention of the train allowed goods and people to move across the country. Because of this, what were once truly local matters became interstate matters. With so much activity happening between the states, the federal government had an interest in regulation otherwise handled at the state level. Now, you would be hard pressed to find a product at any store that DIDN'T travel across state lines. You would also be hard pressed to find someone that hasn't lived at least briefly in multiple states. Millions of people work in one state and live in another. And recently it's become clear that interests once belonging to states and then to the federal government are actually of international concern. The most obvious examples are things like environmental regulation e.g. pollution in China hurts the world, not just China or intellectual property global copyright and patent laws and enforcement are the only way to protect them . But just like goods and people really started moving between states 100 years ago, they are starting to move between countries more frequently now. Multinational corporations are common, contracts between different corporations in different countries are common, and all of these things need to be regulated Is it any surprise that recent decades have seen increased international governance? Economic unions like the EU , trade agreements NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. , and even nearly global organizations The UN, The ICC, the WTO have become increasingly more powerful, and for good reason these issues are now of international concern. I'm not saying that the US government or any other will cease to exist, but only that their power will be significantly curtailed, the way that states' rights have become in the US.<|ASPECTS|>, grabbed, politically capable, rights, protect, lived, international concern, powerful, move between countries, local matters, hurts the world, problems, environmental regulation, goods and people to move, economic unions, interstate matters, allowed, us, left vs., world government, travel, work, yield, moving around, corporations, regulation otherwise, states ', localized, copyright and patent laws, goods, power, curtailed, state lines, federal, stationary, live, interests, international governance, multiple, pressed<|CONCLUSION|>","Expanding on my title Eventually, though not in the near future, I predict that the U.S. government as well as all sovereign nations will yield much of their power to a world government. It has nothing to do with left vs. right or who I think is more politically capable of running a country or the world it has to do with interests. I'll use the US government as an example. 225 years ago, when the US constitution was written, most things were very stationary. Lots of people never strayed far from their hometown, goods were often not moved across state lines, and the federal government had little to worry about problems were truly localized and so were the solutions. Since the turn of the 20th century, the federal government has grabbed up a lot more power, and for good reason. People started moving around. There were lots of corporations operating in multiple states. The invention of the train allowed goods and people to move across the country. Because of this, what were once truly local matters became interstate matters. With so much activity happening between the states, the federal government had an interest in regulation otherwise handled at the state level. Now, you would be hard pressed to find a product at any store that DIDN'T travel across state lines. You would also be hard pressed to find someone that hasn't lived at least briefly in multiple states. Millions of people work in one state and live in another. And recently it's become clear that interests once belonging to states and then to the federal government are actually of international concern. The most obvious examples are things like environmental regulation e.g. pollution in China hurts the world, not just China or intellectual property global copyright and patent laws and enforcement are the only way to protect them . But just like goods and people really started moving between states 100 years ago, they are starting to move between countries more frequently now. Multinational corporations are common, contracts between different corporations in different countries are common, and all of these things need to be regulated Is it any surprise that recent decades have seen increased international governance? Economic unions like the EU , trade agreements NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. , and even nearly global organizations The UN, The ICC, the WTO have become increasingly more powerful, and for good reason these issues are now of international concern. I'm not saying that the US government or any other will cease to exist, but only that their power will be significantly curtailed, the way that states' rights have become in the US.",I believe that the world will eventually have one world government.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Due to recent events, I have gotten on disability benefits and it's starting to look like I will continue to be on them for the rest of my life. I have no money, no education and no talents. I have no realistic way to pay back society for their handouts. I wake up every day and feel like a horrible person. Why should I deserve to live when I'm not doing anything to improve the world? Why care for me at all if I'm almost certainly just going to be a burden until I die? But even if I wasn't disabled let's say I'm still a teenager. I skip school. I do drugs. I don't work or volunteer and basically spend every day doing the same useless things. Aren't I a bad person for not having any motivation to be productive? Don't I deserve some sort of punishment for being a drain on the world? I didn't want to rant but it made me do at least 500 words<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Due to recent events, I have gotten on disability benefits and it's starting to look like I will continue to be on them for the rest of my life. I have no money, no education and no talents. I have no realistic way to pay back society for their handouts. I wake up every day and feel like a horrible person. Why should I deserve to live when I'm not doing anything to improve the world? Why care for me at all if I'm almost certainly just going to be a burden until I die? But even if I wasn't disabled let's say I'm still a teenager. I skip school. I do drugs. I don't work or volunteer and basically spend every day doing the same useless things. Aren't I a bad person for not having any motivation to be productive? Don't I deserve some sort of punishment for being a drain on the world? I didn't want to rant but it made me do at least 500 words<|TARGETS|>to be a burden until I die, to be on them for the rest of my life ., to pay back society for their handouts, some sort of punishment for being a drain on the world, n't work or volunteer and basically spend every day doing the same useless things ., to live when I 'm not doing anything to improve the world<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Due to recent events, I have gotten on disability benefits and it's starting to look like I will continue to be on them for the rest of my life. I have no money, no education and no talents. I have no realistic way to pay back society for their handouts. I wake up every day and feel like a horrible person. Why should I deserve to live when I'm not doing anything to improve the world? Why care for me at all if I'm almost certainly just going to be a burden until I die? But even if I wasn't disabled let's say I'm still a teenager. I skip school. I do drugs. I don't work or volunteer and basically spend every day doing the same useless things. Aren't I a bad person for not having any motivation to be productive? Don't I deserve some sort of punishment for being a drain on the world? I didn't want to rant but it made me do at least 500 words<|ASPECTS|>teenager, motivation to, money, handouts, drugs, horrible person, pay back society, skip school, burden, drain on the world, bad person, deserve, care, improve the world, disability benefits, productive, talents, punishment, education, deserve to live, realistic, useless things<|CONCLUSION|>","Due to recent events, I have gotten on disability benefits and it's starting to look like I will continue to be on them for the rest of my life. I have no money, no education and no talents. I have no realistic way to pay back society for their handouts. I wake up every day and feel like a horrible person. Why should I deserve to live when I'm not doing anything to improve the world? Why care for me at all if I'm almost certainly just going to be a burden until I die? But even if I wasn't disabled let's say I'm still a teenager. I skip school. I do drugs. I don't work or volunteer and basically spend every day doing the same useless things. Aren't I a bad person for not having any motivation to be productive? Don't I deserve some sort of punishment for being a drain on the world? I didn't want to rant but it made me do at least 500 words",I'm a bad person if I never contribute anything to society for the rest of my life
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm Korean American and I have family in Korea. I disagree with many of those I encounter who usually tend to also be of Korean descent when I don't get all too frantic about the idea of war on the peninsula. I feel as if this conflict, whether it is dormant or tense or whatever, must be dealt with in the future and we're just kicking the can down the road. Many people would die, regardless. People are dying under the famines and in the concentration camps. The longer we wait, the more people will suffer and die. Taking action as soon as possible would cause a high death toll but can potentially be made up for it by the fact that we'd be taking action soon and not whenever unexpected situations lead us to. Plus, it's arguable that simply leaving things be is 'inhumane'. Long term, a unified Korea would turn into an economic powerhouse. We have two countries with very strong work ethics, a country with a ton of technological advancements and billionaire tech companies, another country with a ton of cheap labor that can help jump start the economy after unification , lots of natural resources that would offset the costs, and infrastructure that must be built in the northern half of the peninsula. Some experts say a unified Korea can surpass Japan in economic power. I highly doubt China would be as uncomfortable having a unified, US influenced Korea on their doorstep like people say they'd be. It's not like people aren't able to fly from Beijing to Seoul or New York City they're aware of lifestyle in first world countries. China and South Korea are, contrary to popular belief, close allies. The number of refugees who would attempt to cross the Chinese border would probably be minimal if China expresses force in the region and South Koreans distribute food effectively and quickly. Furthermore, they know they'd have to go through sex trafficking and risk of death if they want to go through China and then go where? I have a very open mind when it comes to this issue. The reason why I am posting this is because I see others worrying a lot when seeing news of a potential resumption of war while I feel a sense of hope. But my thinking may be entirely backwards. I'd like to see opposing arguments to this topic. Thanks for reading<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm Korean American and I have family in Korea. I disagree with many of those I encounter who usually tend to also be of Korean descent when I don't get all too frantic about the idea of war on the peninsula. I feel as if this conflict, whether it is dormant or tense or whatever, must be dealt with in the future and we're just kicking the can down the road. Many people would die, regardless. People are dying under the famines and in the concentration camps. The longer we wait, the more people will suffer and die. Taking action as soon as possible would cause a high death toll but can potentially be made up for it by the fact that we'd be taking action soon and not whenever unexpected situations lead us to. Plus, it's arguable that simply leaving things be is 'inhumane'. Long term, a unified Korea would turn into an economic powerhouse. We have two countries with very strong work ethics, a country with a ton of technological advancements and billionaire tech companies, another country with a ton of cheap labor that can help jump start the economy after unification , lots of natural resources that would offset the costs, and infrastructure that must be built in the northern half of the peninsula. Some experts say a unified Korea can surpass Japan in economic power. I highly doubt China would be as uncomfortable having a unified, US influenced Korea on their doorstep like people say they'd be. It's not like people aren't able to fly from Beijing to Seoul or New York City they're aware of lifestyle in first world countries. China and South Korea are, contrary to popular belief, close allies. The number of refugees who would attempt to cross the Chinese border would probably be minimal if China expresses force in the region and South Koreans distribute food effectively and quickly. Furthermore, they know they'd have to go through sex trafficking and risk of death if they want to go through China and then go where? I have a very open mind when it comes to this issue. The reason why I am posting this is because I see others worrying a lot when seeing news of a potential resumption of war while I feel a sense of hope. But my thinking may be entirely backwards. I'd like to see opposing arguments to this topic. Thanks for reading<|TARGETS|>Taking action as soon as possible, The number of refugees who would attempt to cross the Chinese border, to see opposing arguments to this topic ., many of those I encounter who usually tend to also be of Korean descent when I do n't get all too frantic about the idea of war on the peninsula ., to go through sex trafficking and risk of death if they want to go through China, posting this<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm Korean American and I have family in Korea. I disagree with many of those I encounter who usually tend to also be of Korean descent when I don't get all too frantic about the idea of war on the peninsula. I feel as if this conflict, whether it is dormant or tense or whatever, must be dealt with in the future and we're just kicking the can down the road. Many people would die, regardless. People are dying under the famines and in the concentration camps. The longer we wait, the more people will suffer and die. Taking action as soon as possible would cause a high death toll but can potentially be made up for it by the fact that we'd be taking action soon and not whenever unexpected situations lead us to. Plus, it's arguable that simply leaving things be is 'inhumane'. Long term, a unified Korea would turn into an economic powerhouse. We have two countries with very strong work ethics, a country with a ton of technological advancements and billionaire tech companies, another country with a ton of cheap labor that can help jump start the economy after unification , lots of natural resources that would offset the costs, and infrastructure that must be built in the northern half of the peninsula. Some experts say a unified Korea can surpass Japan in economic power. I highly doubt China would be as uncomfortable having a unified, US influenced Korea on their doorstep like people say they'd be. It's not like people aren't able to fly from Beijing to Seoul or New York City they're aware of lifestyle in first world countries. China and South Korea are, contrary to popular belief, close allies. The number of refugees who would attempt to cross the Chinese border would probably be minimal if China expresses force in the region and South Koreans distribute food effectively and quickly. Furthermore, they know they'd have to go through sex trafficking and risk of death if they want to go through China and then go where? I have a very open mind when it comes to this issue. The reason why I am posting this is because I see others worrying a lot when seeing news of a potential resumption of war while I feel a sense of hope. But my thinking may be entirely backwards. I'd like to see opposing arguments to this topic. Thanks for reading<|ASPECTS|>, conflict, unified, dormant, famines, korean descent, worrying, work ethics, dying, uncomfortable, infrastructure, economic powerhouse, suffer and die, war on, costs, backwards, economic power, natural, high, refugees, economy, people, things, thinking, risk of death, die, open mind, family, concentration, unexpected situations, sex trafficking, korean american, hope, us influenced korea, death toll, tense, people would, force, aware of lifestyle, opposing arguments, distribute food effectively, offset, close allies, cheap labor, resumption of war<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm Korean American and I have family in Korea. I disagree with many of those I encounter who usually tend to also be of Korean descent when I don't get all too frantic about the idea of war on the peninsula. I feel as if this conflict, whether it is dormant or tense or whatever, must be dealt with in the future and we're just kicking the can down the road. Many people would die, regardless. People are dying under the famines and in the concentration camps. The longer we wait, the more people will suffer and die. Taking action as soon as possible would cause a high death toll but can potentially be made up for it by the fact that we'd be taking action soon and not whenever unexpected situations lead us to. Plus, it's arguable that simply leaving things be is 'inhumane'. Long term, a unified Korea would turn into an economic powerhouse. We have two countries with very strong work ethics, a country with a ton of technological advancements and billionaire tech companies, another country with a ton of cheap labor that can help jump start the economy after unification , lots of natural resources that would offset the costs, and infrastructure that must be built in the northern half of the peninsula. Some experts say a unified Korea can surpass Japan in economic power. I highly doubt China would be as uncomfortable having a unified, US influenced Korea on their doorstep like people say they'd be. It's not like people aren't able to fly from Beijing to Seoul or New York City they're aware of lifestyle in first world countries. China and South Korea are, contrary to popular belief, close allies. The number of refugees who would attempt to cross the Chinese border would probably be minimal if China expresses force in the region and South Koreans distribute food effectively and quickly. Furthermore, they know they'd have to go through sex trafficking and risk of death if they want to go through China and then go where? I have a very open mind when it comes to this issue. The reason why I am posting this is because I see others worrying a lot when seeing news of a potential resumption of war while I feel a sense of hope. But my thinking may be entirely backwards. I'd like to see opposing arguments to this topic. Thanks for reading",I feel as if North and South Korea should resume the war for the sake of reunification and prosperity in the big picture.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a graduating senior this year. I am probably in the top 4 5 of my school in the difficulty of classes I take. Yet, as I am graduating this year, I am kind of shocked by how much most students don't know when graduating. Most advanced classes really aren't that hard. Don't get me wrong, some are insane, but many just feel equivalent to having a day job. The main reason why some classes are considered advanced is because the students have gradually gotten further ahead to the point where other students can't catch up. When that is the case, I really pisses me off when adults just let kids take the slower classes. It does everyone a disservice. Note I get that some people have a harder time in some classes usually math . I am OK at math due to nothing I did. I understand if someone isn't taking calculus their senior year. Most classes are about memorization. It sucks, but it has to be this way. What some kids really need to pushed in are these classes. If someone lets you not learn History or English to the point where you couldn't sit in the same class as someone your own age, they have seriously wronged you. once, again. I get some people move countries or something and are at a lower level. As a side note, it also hurts our ability to use standardized tests when EVERYONE needs to be able to answer the questions. Most kids never see the material they are actually learning.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a graduating senior this year. I am probably in the top 4 5 of my school in the difficulty of classes I take. Yet, as I am graduating this year, I am kind of shocked by how much most students don't know when graduating. Most advanced classes really aren't that hard. Don't get me wrong, some are insane, but many just feel equivalent to having a day job. The main reason why some classes are considered advanced is because the students have gradually gotten further ahead to the point where other students can't catch up. When that is the case, I really pisses me off when adults just let kids take the slower classes. It does everyone a disservice. Note I get that some people have a harder time in some classes usually math . I am OK at math due to nothing I did. I understand if someone isn't taking calculus their senior year. Most classes are about memorization. It sucks, but it has to be this way. What some kids really need to pushed in are these classes. If someone lets you not learn History or English to the point where you couldn't sit in the same class as someone your own age, they have seriously wronged you. once, again. I get some people move countries or something and are at a lower level. As a side note, it also hurts our ability to use standardized tests when EVERYONE needs to be able to answer the questions. Most kids never see the material they are actually learning.<|TARGETS|>having a day job ., What some kids really need to pushed in, If someone lets you not learn History or English to the point where you could n't sit in the same class as someone your own age, if someone is n't taking calculus their senior year ., to be able to answer the questions ., when adults just let kids take the slower classes .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a graduating senior this year. I am probably in the top 4 5 of my school in the difficulty of classes I take. Yet, as I am graduating this year, I am kind of shocked by how much most students don't know when graduating. Most advanced classes really aren't that hard. Don't get me wrong, some are insane, but many just feel equivalent to having a day job. The main reason why some classes are considered advanced is because the students have gradually gotten further ahead to the point where other students can't catch up. When that is the case, I really pisses me off when adults just let kids take the slower classes. It does everyone a disservice. Note I get that some people have a harder time in some classes usually math . I am OK at math due to nothing I did. I understand if someone isn't taking calculus their senior year. Most classes are about memorization. It sucks, but it has to be this way. What some kids really need to pushed in are these classes. If someone lets you not learn History or English to the point where you couldn't sit in the same class as someone your own age, they have seriously wronged you. once, again. I get some people move countries or something and are at a lower level. As a side note, it also hurts our ability to use standardized tests when EVERYONE needs to be able to answer the questions. Most kids never see the material they are actually learning.<|ASPECTS|>harder time, ahead, hurts, ability, graduating senior, disservice, material, hard, difficulty of classes, day job, memorization, advanced classes, classes, math, move countries, slower classes, insane, standardized tests, ok, sucks, see, wronged, lower level, students, advanced, pushed, taking, pisses, seriously<|CONCLUSION|>","I am a graduating senior this year. I am probably in the top 4 5 of my school in the difficulty of classes I take. Yet, as I am graduating this year, I am kind of shocked by how much most students don't know when graduating. Most advanced classes really aren't that hard. Don't get me wrong, some are insane, but many just feel equivalent to having a day job. The main reason why some classes are considered advanced is because the students have gradually gotten further ahead to the point where other students can't catch up. When that is the case, I really pisses me off when adults just let kids take the slower classes. It does everyone a disservice. Note I get that some people have a harder time in some classes usually math . I am OK at math due to nothing I did. I understand if someone isn't taking calculus their senior year. Most classes are about memorization. It sucks, but it has to be this way. What some kids really need to pushed in are these classes. If someone lets you not learn History or English to the point where you couldn't sit in the same class as someone your own age, they have seriously wronged you. once, again. I get some people move countries or something and are at a lower level. As a side note, it also hurts our ability to use standardized tests when EVERYONE needs to be able to answer the questions. Most kids never see the material they are actually learning.",Students should be pushed much more to take harder classes.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I have actively avoided media on the new Star Wars movie as an act of protest. If I am missing out on something, let me know, as it may contribute to changing my view. My view Star Wars The Force Awakens Ep. 7 is, at its core, just an attempt to cash in on a valuable franchise, and doing so is disrespectful to fans of the Star Wars universe. Background George Lucas made 6 movies, however good or bad, and denied, up until recently, that there would ever be a 7th movie. These movies represented the highest level of canon in the Universe, no other source contributing to the story of the Universe could contradict the movies. Star Wars fans had given up on ever seeing a 7th movie, and thus turned to the next best thing The Expanded Universe. The meat of the Expanded Universe consists of novels and video games, many of which are considered to be exceptional works in their own right notably The Thrawn Trilogy, and KOTOR . These works created some fantastic stories and characters, many of whom were incorporated into later works which all came together as one coherent, linear timeline. However Lucas felt personally about the Expanded Universe, ultimately he was involved in the publication process and had final approval. The decision was made to make Ep 7, not just a 7th movie. The characters from the Original Trilogy were to be used, and it was eventually decided that the original actors, or at least Ford, Hamill, and Fisher would be involved. Arguments Argument 1 It ruins the structure of the timeline, and or it degrades the value of the Expanded Universe. From a structural standpoint, one of my favorite things about Star Wars is that it is very easy to enter into. There are six movies, and if you want to know what happens after RotJ there is a definitive starting point Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy. There is an order of novels, video games, comic books, and etc that chronologically follow, fit in between, and predate the movie's in the Star Wars Universe's own timeline. Conversely, while I love comic book movies, the multiple timelines, universes, and alternate realities in the source comic books is what prevents me from getting into them, as I don't know or am unable to find a starting point or follow the story lines. With the purchase by Disney and the production of the 7th movie, they have relegated almost all of the Expanded Universe to an alternate reality. While the new movies may draw inspiration from these works, ultimately, the source material is no longer considered valid. These are stories that many people have loved, and they're now considered lesser. That bit just really stings. Further, it fragments the Universe's works in a confusing fashion similar to what happened with the classic comic book super heros. All further arguments stem from this relegation, if not outright dismissal, of the existing Expanded Universe. Argument 2 If additional movies will be made, there are other options that could be used that had an original story and didn't override the existing Expanded Universe then an Ep. 7 that follows closely after RotJ. The Expanded Universe, and Lucas himself, has made it clear that it is okay to go beyond the scope of time consisting of the Original Trilogy. The Original Trilogy encompasses roughly a 4 year period. The Prequel Trilogy jumps back 32 years and then encompasses an ~14 year span, with a 10 year jump between TPM and AotC. Further, the Expanded Universe has made major jumps both forward and back, with KOTOR 1 2 taking place roughly 4,000 years before ANH, and the Legacy books starting 130 years after ANH, both of which have met with success. Argument 3 If an Ep 7 directly following RotJ is to be made, it should adapt a novel s from the EU that follows RotJ. This decision doesn't alienate the super fans like myself by not trampling all over things they love, but also retains the semi and casual fans having a concrete and exciting story with characters they already know and love. Argument 4 Everything about the decision to make an Ep 7 following RotJ was just wrong. The way I see it a 7th Star Wars movie could take one of four routes. The first being what I mentioned in Argument 2, make a movie well outside or not bound by the existing Expanded Universe, thus preserving it. It is now 37 years since ANH. The novels have also encompassed a similar time period. The second route is to use the same actors and jump to a point ~30 years after ANH. The third is to recast the roles and adapt the Thrawn Trilogy. The final decision is to do something completely new, not bound by existing works. Each decision has it ups. It is unbound by existing stories allowing for creative freedom, and it preserves the existing universe. Will strongly appeal to the hardcore fans that have allowed the franchise to grow. Will appeal to hardcore fans and casuals by using a story familiar to the hardcores and characters familiar to the casuals. Also unbound. Each decision has its downs. Takes the risk of having a bad story and or unfamiliar and unappealing character. Would really only do well with the hardcore fans. Could upset, annoy, or confuse people by having unfamiliar faces attached to familiar characters. Angers the hardcore fans. I feel the best decision would have been to option 3, to recast and adapt the Thrawn Trilogy, because it offers a compromise between the profitability by cashing in on things characters people already like and what the hardcore fans who have been there for the long haul hold dear. The route they actually went with, option 4, is in my opinion the worst possible decision they could have made. Why I want my view changed Simply put, I want to see it. I don't really trust Abrams, but given what Disney has done with Marvel, I can't help but think it's going to be good. But if I see it, I feel that I would be betraying what I'm going to call integrity of continuity. People got pissed off when Lucas edited and re released the Original Trilogy because it changed things they already liked. The edits didn't really add anything to the story, in fact the biggest change took away something, Han shot first damn it, and made Lucas tons of money. I feel just like that, except more so. Summary Star Wars fans had come to terms with there never being an Ep 7 and had turned to other media to take its place. Some of those stories are really great. There were other options for making a seventh movie then making it specifically Ep 7. The decision to make an Ep 7, a seventh movie that directly follows RotJ with the same characters and actors was not the best decision as it dismisses some really great material and alienates the most passionate fans. TL DR I'm a huge Star Wars geek who is unhappy that a new Star Wars movie is being made that wants to be happy that a new Star Wars movie is being made. Edit So I've heard many arguments and thought this over. Ultimately, this is the question I'm left with and I'll pose that will change my view. Given what has happened in the lead up to the movie and what we know about it, EU decertified as canon, Ep 7 taking place in a time period already covered in post RotJ EU, uses the same characters, leading three are portraying the same characters, old EU may be drawn from as inspiration what is the main point of making this movie? Is the purpose of making The Force Awakens to meaningfully contribute to the story, or is it to make money by selling something under a valuable franchise name. While it could do both, one of these is the primary purpose. Given what we already know about the movie, I'm having trouble believing that the primary intent of the movie is to contribute to the story.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I have actively avoided media on the new Star Wars movie as an act of protest. If I am missing out on something, let me know, as it may contribute to changing my view. My view Star Wars The Force Awakens Ep. 7 is, at its core, just an attempt to cash in on a valuable franchise, and doing so is disrespectful to fans of the Star Wars universe. Background George Lucas made 6 movies, however good or bad, and denied, up until recently, that there would ever be a 7th movie. These movies represented the highest level of canon in the Universe, no other source contributing to the story of the Universe could contradict the movies. Star Wars fans had given up on ever seeing a 7th movie, and thus turned to the next best thing The Expanded Universe. The meat of the Expanded Universe consists of novels and video games, many of which are considered to be exceptional works in their own right notably The Thrawn Trilogy, and KOTOR . These works created some fantastic stories and characters, many of whom were incorporated into later works which all came together as one coherent, linear timeline. However Lucas felt personally about the Expanded Universe, ultimately he was involved in the publication process and had final approval. The decision was made to make Ep 7, not just a 7th movie. The characters from the Original Trilogy were to be used, and it was eventually decided that the original actors, or at least Ford, Hamill, and Fisher would be involved. Arguments Argument 1 It ruins the structure of the timeline, and or it degrades the value of the Expanded Universe. From a structural standpoint, one of my favorite things about Star Wars is that it is very easy to enter into. There are six movies, and if you want to know what happens after RotJ there is a definitive starting point Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy. There is an order of novels, video games, comic books, and etc that chronologically follow, fit in between, and predate the movie's in the Star Wars Universe's own timeline. Conversely, while I love comic book movies, the multiple timelines, universes, and alternate realities in the source comic books is what prevents me from getting into them, as I don't know or am unable to find a starting point or follow the story lines. With the purchase by Disney and the production of the 7th movie, they have relegated almost all of the Expanded Universe to an alternate reality. While the new movies may draw inspiration from these works, ultimately, the source material is no longer considered valid. These are stories that many people have loved, and they're now considered lesser. That bit just really stings. Further, it fragments the Universe's works in a confusing fashion similar to what happened with the classic comic book super heros. All further arguments stem from this relegation, if not outright dismissal, of the existing Expanded Universe. Argument 2 If additional movies will be made, there are other options that could be used that had an original story and didn't override the existing Expanded Universe then an Ep. 7 that follows closely after RotJ. The Expanded Universe, and Lucas himself, has made it clear that it is okay to go beyond the scope of time consisting of the Original Trilogy. The Original Trilogy encompasses roughly a 4 year period. The Prequel Trilogy jumps back 32 years and then encompasses an ~14 year span, with a 10 year jump between TPM and AotC. Further, the Expanded Universe has made major jumps both forward and back, with KOTOR 1 2 taking place roughly 4,000 years before ANH, and the Legacy books starting 130 years after ANH, both of which have met with success. Argument 3 If an Ep 7 directly following RotJ is to be made, it should adapt a novel s from the EU that follows RotJ. This decision doesn't alienate the super fans like myself by not trampling all over things they love, but also retains the semi and casual fans having a concrete and exciting story with characters they already know and love. Argument 4 Everything about the decision to make an Ep 7 following RotJ was just wrong. The way I see it a 7th Star Wars movie could take one of four routes. The first being what I mentioned in Argument 2, make a movie well outside or not bound by the existing Expanded Universe, thus preserving it. It is now 37 years since ANH. The novels have also encompassed a similar time period. The second route is to use the same actors and jump to a point ~30 years after ANH. The third is to recast the roles and adapt the Thrawn Trilogy. The final decision is to do something completely new, not bound by existing works. Each decision has it ups. It is unbound by existing stories allowing for creative freedom, and it preserves the existing universe. Will strongly appeal to the hardcore fans that have allowed the franchise to grow. Will appeal to hardcore fans and casuals by using a story familiar to the hardcores and characters familiar to the casuals. Also unbound. Each decision has its downs. Takes the risk of having a bad story and or unfamiliar and unappealing character. Would really only do well with the hardcore fans. Could upset, annoy, or confuse people by having unfamiliar faces attached to familiar characters. Angers the hardcore fans. I feel the best decision would have been to option 3, to recast and adapt the Thrawn Trilogy, because it offers a compromise between the profitability by cashing in on things characters people already like and what the hardcore fans who have been there for the long haul hold dear. The route they actually went with, option 4, is in my opinion the worst possible decision they could have made. Why I want my view changed Simply put, I want to see it. I don't really trust Abrams, but given what Disney has done with Marvel, I can't help but think it's going to be good. But if I see it, I feel that I would be betraying what I'm going to call integrity of continuity. People got pissed off when Lucas edited and re released the Original Trilogy because it changed things they already liked. The edits didn't really add anything to the story, in fact the biggest change took away something, Han shot first damn it, and made Lucas tons of money. I feel just like that, except more so. Summary Star Wars fans had come to terms with there never being an Ep 7 and had turned to other media to take its place. Some of those stories are really great. There were other options for making a seventh movie then making it specifically Ep 7. The decision to make an Ep 7, a seventh movie that directly follows RotJ with the same characters and actors was not the best decision as it dismisses some really great material and alienates the most passionate fans. TL DR I'm a huge Star Wars geek who is unhappy that a new Star Wars movie is being made that wants to be happy that a new Star Wars movie is being made. Edit So I've heard many arguments and thought this over. Ultimately, this is the question I'm left with and I'll pose that will change my view. Given what has happened in the lead up to the movie and what we know about it, EU decertified as canon, Ep 7 taking place in a time period already covered in post RotJ EU, uses the same characters, leading three are portraying the same characters, old EU may be drawn from as inspiration what is the main point of making this movie? Is the purpose of making The Force Awakens to meaningfully contribute to the story, or is it to make money by selling something under a valuable franchise name. While it could do both, one of these is the primary purpose. Given what we already know about the movie, I'm having trouble believing that the primary intent of the movie is to contribute to the story.<|TARGETS|>The second route, The meat of the Expanded Universe, an Ep 7 directly following RotJ, These movies, the source material, Abrams but given what Disney has done with Marvel<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I have actively avoided media on the new Star Wars movie as an act of protest. If I am missing out on something, let me know, as it may contribute to changing my view. My view Star Wars The Force Awakens Ep. 7 is, at its core, just an attempt to cash in on a valuable franchise, and doing so is disrespectful to fans of the Star Wars universe. Background George Lucas made 6 movies, however good or bad, and denied, up until recently, that there would ever be a 7th movie. These movies represented the highest level of canon in the Universe, no other source contributing to the story of the Universe could contradict the movies. Star Wars fans had given up on ever seeing a 7th movie, and thus turned to the next best thing The Expanded Universe. The meat of the Expanded Universe consists of novels and video games, many of which are considered to be exceptional works in their own right notably The Thrawn Trilogy, and KOTOR . These works created some fantastic stories and characters, many of whom were incorporated into later works which all came together as one coherent, linear timeline. However Lucas felt personally about the Expanded Universe, ultimately he was involved in the publication process and had final approval. The decision was made to make Ep 7, not just a 7th movie. The characters from the Original Trilogy were to be used, and it was eventually decided that the original actors, or at least Ford, Hamill, and Fisher would be involved. Arguments Argument 1 It ruins the structure of the timeline, and or it degrades the value of the Expanded Universe. From a structural standpoint, one of my favorite things about Star Wars is that it is very easy to enter into. There are six movies, and if you want to know what happens after RotJ there is a definitive starting point Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy. There is an order of novels, video games, comic books, and etc that chronologically follow, fit in between, and predate the movie's in the Star Wars Universe's own timeline. Conversely, while I love comic book movies, the multiple timelines, universes, and alternate realities in the source comic books is what prevents me from getting into them, as I don't know or am unable to find a starting point or follow the story lines. With the purchase by Disney and the production of the 7th movie, they have relegated almost all of the Expanded Universe to an alternate reality. While the new movies may draw inspiration from these works, ultimately, the source material is no longer considered valid. These are stories that many people have loved, and they're now considered lesser. That bit just really stings. Further, it fragments the Universe's works in a confusing fashion similar to what happened with the classic comic book super heros. All further arguments stem from this relegation, if not outright dismissal, of the existing Expanded Universe. Argument 2 If additional movies will be made, there are other options that could be used that had an original story and didn't override the existing Expanded Universe then an Ep. 7 that follows closely after RotJ. The Expanded Universe, and Lucas himself, has made it clear that it is okay to go beyond the scope of time consisting of the Original Trilogy. The Original Trilogy encompasses roughly a 4 year period. The Prequel Trilogy jumps back 32 years and then encompasses an ~14 year span, with a 10 year jump between TPM and AotC. Further, the Expanded Universe has made major jumps both forward and back, with KOTOR 1 2 taking place roughly 4,000 years before ANH, and the Legacy books starting 130 years after ANH, both of which have met with success. Argument 3 If an Ep 7 directly following RotJ is to be made, it should adapt a novel s from the EU that follows RotJ. This decision doesn't alienate the super fans like myself by not trampling all over things they love, but also retains the semi and casual fans having a concrete and exciting story with characters they already know and love. Argument 4 Everything about the decision to make an Ep 7 following RotJ was just wrong. The way I see it a 7th Star Wars movie could take one of four routes. The first being what I mentioned in Argument 2, make a movie well outside or not bound by the existing Expanded Universe, thus preserving it. It is now 37 years since ANH. The novels have also encompassed a similar time period. The second route is to use the same actors and jump to a point ~30 years after ANH. The third is to recast the roles and adapt the Thrawn Trilogy. The final decision is to do something completely new, not bound by existing works. Each decision has it ups. It is unbound by existing stories allowing for creative freedom, and it preserves the existing universe. Will strongly appeal to the hardcore fans that have allowed the franchise to grow. Will appeal to hardcore fans and casuals by using a story familiar to the hardcores and characters familiar to the casuals. Also unbound. Each decision has its downs. Takes the risk of having a bad story and or unfamiliar and unappealing character. Would really only do well with the hardcore fans. Could upset, annoy, or confuse people by having unfamiliar faces attached to familiar characters. Angers the hardcore fans. I feel the best decision would have been to option 3, to recast and adapt the Thrawn Trilogy, because it offers a compromise between the profitability by cashing in on things characters people already like and what the hardcore fans who have been there for the long haul hold dear. The route they actually went with, option 4, is in my opinion the worst possible decision they could have made. Why I want my view changed Simply put, I want to see it. I don't really trust Abrams, but given what Disney has done with Marvel, I can't help but think it's going to be good. But if I see it, I feel that I would be betraying what I'm going to call integrity of continuity. People got pissed off when Lucas edited and re released the Original Trilogy because it changed things they already liked. The edits didn't really add anything to the story, in fact the biggest change took away something, Han shot first damn it, and made Lucas tons of money. I feel just like that, except more so. Summary Star Wars fans had come to terms with there never being an Ep 7 and had turned to other media to take its place. Some of those stories are really great. There were other options for making a seventh movie then making it specifically Ep 7. The decision to make an Ep 7, a seventh movie that directly follows RotJ with the same characters and actors was not the best decision as it dismisses some really great material and alienates the most passionate fans. TL DR I'm a huge Star Wars geek who is unhappy that a new Star Wars movie is being made that wants to be happy that a new Star Wars movie is being made. Edit So I've heard many arguments and thought this over. Ultimately, this is the question I'm left with and I'll pose that will change my view. Given what has happened in the lead up to the movie and what we know about it, EU decertified as canon, Ep 7 taking place in a time period already covered in post RotJ EU, uses the same characters, leading three are portraying the same characters, old EU may be drawn from as inspiration what is the main point of making this movie? Is the purpose of making The Force Awakens to meaningfully contribute to the story, or is it to make money by selling something under a valuable franchise name. While it could do both, one of these is the primary purpose. Given what we already know about the movie, I'm having trouble believing that the primary intent of the movie is to contribute to the story.<|ASPECTS|>relegation, scope of time, upset, success, view, make money, great, stories, 7th movie, canon, publication process, meaningfully, inspiration, eu, super, integrity of continuity, decision, coherent, bound, valuable, confuse people, existing works, valid, trilogy, source material, add, novels, arguments, multiple, well, exciting story, disrespectful, legacy, ruins the structure, unbound, changed things, trampling, movie, story, loved, preserving, concrete, protest, great material, avoided media, new, options, worst possible decision, good, force, downs, change, unhappy, unappealing character, original story, adapt, similar time period, lesser, actors, money, jumps, fantastic stories and characters, point, angers, changing my view, universe 's works, routes, change took away, happy, dismissal, alienate, preserves, decertified as canon, final approval, novel, linear timeline, stings, exceptional works, hardcore fans, recast the roles, definitive starting, original, value, alternate reality, annoy, unfamiliar faces, bad story, contradict, valuable franchise, fragments, confusing, alternate realities, primary purpose, passionate fans, alienates, unfamiliar, degrades, profitability, existing universe, creative freedom, contribute, easy<|CONCLUSION|>","Disclaimer I have actively avoided media on the new Star Wars movie as an act of protest. If I am missing out on something, let me know, as it may contribute to changing my view. My view Star Wars The Force Awakens Ep. 7 is, at its core, just an attempt to cash in on a valuable franchise, and doing so is disrespectful to fans of the Star Wars universe. Background George Lucas made 6 movies, however good or bad, and denied, up until recently, that there would ever be a 7th movie. These movies represented the highest level of canon in the Universe, no other source contributing to the story of the Universe could contradict the movies. Star Wars fans had given up on ever seeing a 7th movie, and thus turned to the next best thing The Expanded Universe. The meat of the Expanded Universe consists of novels and video games, many of which are considered to be exceptional works in their own right notably The Thrawn Trilogy, and KOTOR . These works created some fantastic stories and characters, many of whom were incorporated into later works which all came together as one coherent, linear timeline. However Lucas felt personally about the Expanded Universe, ultimately he was involved in the publication process and had final approval. The decision was made to make Ep 7, not just a 7th movie. The characters from the Original Trilogy were to be used, and it was eventually decided that the original actors, or at least Ford, Hamill, and Fisher would be involved. Arguments Argument 1 It ruins the structure of the timeline, and or it degrades the value of the Expanded Universe. From a structural standpoint, one of my favorite things about Star Wars is that it is very easy to enter into. There are six movies, and if you want to know what happens after RotJ there is a definitive starting point Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy. There is an order of novels, video games, comic books, and etc that chronologically follow, fit in between, and predate the movie's in the Star Wars Universe's own timeline. Conversely, while I love comic book movies, the multiple timelines, universes, and alternate realities in the source comic books is what prevents me from getting into them, as I don't know or am unable to find a starting point or follow the story lines. With the purchase by Disney and the production of the 7th movie, they have relegated almost all of the Expanded Universe to an alternate reality. While the new movies may draw inspiration from these works, ultimately, the source material is no longer considered valid. These are stories that many people have loved, and they're now considered lesser. That bit just really stings. Further, it fragments the Universe's works in a confusing fashion similar to what happened with the classic comic book super heros. All further arguments stem from this relegation, if not outright dismissal, of the existing Expanded Universe. Argument 2 If additional movies will be made, there are other options that could be used that had an original story and didn't override the existing Expanded Universe then an Ep. 7 that follows closely after RotJ. The Expanded Universe, and Lucas himself, has made it clear that it is okay to go beyond the scope of time consisting of the Original Trilogy. The Original Trilogy encompasses roughly a 4 year period. The Prequel Trilogy jumps back 32 years and then encompasses an ~14 year span, with a 10 year jump between TPM and AotC. Further, the Expanded Universe has made major jumps both forward and back, with KOTOR 1 2 taking place roughly 4,000 years before ANH, and the Legacy books starting 130 years after ANH, both of which have met with success. Argument 3 If an Ep 7 directly following RotJ is to be made, it should adapt a novel s from the EU that follows RotJ. This decision doesn't alienate the super fans like myself by not trampling all over things they love, but also retains the semi and casual fans having a concrete and exciting story with characters they already know and love. Argument 4 Everything about the decision to make an Ep 7 following RotJ was just wrong. The way I see it a 7th Star Wars movie could take one of four routes. The first being what I mentioned in Argument 2, make a movie well outside or not bound by the existing Expanded Universe, thus preserving it. It is now 37 years since ANH. The novels have also encompassed a similar time period. The second route is to use the same actors and jump to a point ~30 years after ANH. The third is to recast the roles and adapt the Thrawn Trilogy. The final decision is to do something completely new, not bound by existing works. Each decision has it ups. It is unbound by existing stories allowing for creative freedom, and it preserves the existing universe. Will strongly appeal to the hardcore fans that have allowed the franchise to grow. Will appeal to hardcore fans and casuals by using a story familiar to the hardcores and characters familiar to the casuals. Also unbound. Each decision has its downs. Takes the risk of having a bad story and or unfamiliar and unappealing character. Would really only do well with the hardcore fans. Could upset, annoy, or confuse people by having unfamiliar faces attached to familiar characters. Angers the hardcore fans. I feel the best decision would have been to option 3, to recast and adapt the Thrawn Trilogy, because it offers a compromise between the profitability by cashing in on things characters people already like and what the hardcore fans who have been there for the long haul hold dear. The route they actually went with, option 4, is in my opinion the worst possible decision they could have made. Why I want my view changed Simply put, I want to see it. I don't really trust Abrams, but given what Disney has done with Marvel, I can't help but think it's going to be good. But if I see it, I feel that I would be betraying what I'm going to call integrity of continuity. People got pissed off when Lucas edited and re released the Original Trilogy because it changed things they already liked. The edits didn't really add anything to the story, in fact the biggest change took away something, Han shot first damn it, and made Lucas tons of money. I feel just like that, except more so. Summary Star Wars fans had come to terms with there never being an Ep 7 and had turned to other media to take its place. Some of those stories are really great. There were other options for making a seventh movie then making it specifically Ep 7. The decision to make an Ep 7, a seventh movie that directly follows RotJ with the same characters and actors was not the best decision as it dismisses some really great material and alienates the most passionate fans. TL DR I'm a huge Star Wars geek who is unhappy that a new Star Wars movie is being made that wants to be happy that a new Star Wars movie is being made. Edit So I've heard many arguments and thought this over. Ultimately, this is the question I'm left with and I'll pose that will change my view. Given what has happened in the lead up to the movie and what we know about it, EU decertified as canon, Ep 7 taking place in a time period already covered in post RotJ EU, uses the same characters, leading three are portraying the same characters, old EU may be drawn from as inspiration what is the main point of making this movie? Is the purpose of making The Force Awakens to meaningfully contribute to the story, or is it to make money by selling something under a valuable franchise name. While it could do both, one of these is the primary purpose. Given what we already know about the movie, I'm having trouble believing that the primary intent of the movie is to contribute to the story.","Star Wars: The Force Awakens is just a money grab, among other things."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are small spoilers in this post about some shows on Hulu, particularly I Love you, America with Sarah Silverman on Hulu and the Meyerowitz Stories on Netflix . Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon all have original series and movies that range from terrible to award winning and everything in between. Sometimes, I'll see a truly terrible show with poor acting and bad writing and wonder how that idea ever took off. And then I came to a few conclusions 1 It doesn't matter if a particular show or movie is good or not. As long as the streaming service has enough good shows that it keeps its target base, it doesn't matter the quality. There are no box office sales and no advertisers who are going to vie for commercial time when the show airs. Most metrics that we use to determine if a movie or show is successful or not does not exist in a streaming atmosphere. I do acknowledge that there are people who review shows, which leads me to my next point. 2 If a show or movie is not popular, no harm no foul. It's not like someone is going to cancel their subscription because they didn't like a show. On the other hand, if a show is widely successful, more people might subscribe just to see the show. Who at least in the United State isn't inundated with Stranger Things Promos that are all over the internet right now? Had Stranger Things never taken off no big deal. But since it did, Netflix gets to reap the rewards. 3 Because there's no pressure if a movie or show bombs or not, artists get to be creative and do things they might not normally get to do. There might not be a particularly large market for hokey fantasy shows a la OA on Netflix , but if an artist wants to produce it, there isn't any harm in putting it in a place where viewers can watch it if they want to. 4 Traditional rating systems don't exist in the streaming world. In I Love you America with Sarah Silverman, naked people are featured in the audience for really no other reason than that kind of thing is allowed on Hulu. In the Meyerowitz Stories, an artsy slightly pornographic short film is shown that features Pagina Man, a person with both a penis and a vagina. This segment could have probably been edited for a PG 13 rating, but because it's on Netflix, who cares? Content makers can drop F bombs, have sex scenes and nudity and just generally do whatever they feel like evolves their story and art 5 Because of algorithms that can predict what a certain viewer might like, users of streaming services will tend to browse through media that they would already like. If artsy dramas aren't your thing, then Netflix generally won't show them and this feature will probably only get better as time passes . So it's not like extra content will bog you down or make the service less usable. I feel like all these things will lead to better content. Big names already have their own shows or are featured in shows and movies on streaming services Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman, Winona Ryder, Sean Astin, etc . It's only going to get better as artists realize that they have more agency over their art. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are small spoilers in this post about some shows on Hulu, particularly I Love you, America with Sarah Silverman on Hulu and the Meyerowitz Stories on Netflix . Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon all have original series and movies that range from terrible to award winning and everything in between. Sometimes, I'll see a truly terrible show with poor acting and bad writing and wonder how that idea ever took off. And then I came to a few conclusions 1 It doesn't matter if a particular show or movie is good or not. As long as the streaming service has enough good shows that it keeps its target base, it doesn't matter the quality. There are no box office sales and no advertisers who are going to vie for commercial time when the show airs. Most metrics that we use to determine if a movie or show is successful or not does not exist in a streaming atmosphere. I do acknowledge that there are people who review shows, which leads me to my next point. 2 If a show or movie is not popular, no harm no foul. It's not like someone is going to cancel their subscription because they didn't like a show. On the other hand, if a show is widely successful, more people might subscribe just to see the show. Who at least in the United State isn't inundated with Stranger Things Promos that are all over the internet right now? Had Stranger Things never taken off no big deal. But since it did, Netflix gets to reap the rewards. 3 Because there's no pressure if a movie or show bombs or not, artists get to be creative and do things they might not normally get to do. There might not be a particularly large market for hokey fantasy shows a la OA on Netflix , but if an artist wants to produce it, there isn't any harm in putting it in a place where viewers can watch it if they want to. 4 Traditional rating systems don't exist in the streaming world. In I Love you America with Sarah Silverman, naked people are featured in the audience for really no other reason than that kind of thing is allowed on Hulu. In the Meyerowitz Stories, an artsy slightly pornographic short film is shown that features Pagina Man, a person with both a penis and a vagina. This segment could have probably been edited for a PG 13 rating, but because it's on Netflix, who cares? Content makers can drop F bombs, have sex scenes and nudity and just generally do whatever they feel like evolves their story and art 5 Because of algorithms that can predict what a certain viewer might like, users of streaming services will tend to browse through media that they would already like. If artsy dramas aren't your thing, then Netflix generally won't show them and this feature will probably only get better as time passes . So it's not like extra content will bog you down or make the service less usable. I feel like all these things will lead to better content. Big names already have their own shows or are featured in shows and movies on streaming services Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman, Winona Ryder, Sean Astin, etc . It's only going to get better as artists realize that they have more agency over their art. <|TARGETS|>4 Traditional rating systems, a truly terrible show with poor acting and bad writing and wonder how that idea ever took off ., a show or movie, If artsy dramas, a particularly large market for hokey fantasy shows a la OA on Netflix, Netflix<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are small spoilers in this post about some shows on Hulu, particularly I Love you, America with Sarah Silverman on Hulu and the Meyerowitz Stories on Netflix . Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon all have original series and movies that range from terrible to award winning and everything in between. Sometimes, I'll see a truly terrible show with poor acting and bad writing and wonder how that idea ever took off. And then I came to a few conclusions 1 It doesn't matter if a particular show or movie is good or not. As long as the streaming service has enough good shows that it keeps its target base, it doesn't matter the quality. There are no box office sales and no advertisers who are going to vie for commercial time when the show airs. Most metrics that we use to determine if a movie or show is successful or not does not exist in a streaming atmosphere. I do acknowledge that there are people who review shows, which leads me to my next point. 2 If a show or movie is not popular, no harm no foul. It's not like someone is going to cancel their subscription because they didn't like a show. On the other hand, if a show is widely successful, more people might subscribe just to see the show. Who at least in the United State isn't inundated with Stranger Things Promos that are all over the internet right now? Had Stranger Things never taken off no big deal. But since it did, Netflix gets to reap the rewards. 3 Because there's no pressure if a movie or show bombs or not, artists get to be creative and do things they might not normally get to do. There might not be a particularly large market for hokey fantasy shows a la OA on Netflix , but if an artist wants to produce it, there isn't any harm in putting it in a place where viewers can watch it if they want to. 4 Traditional rating systems don't exist in the streaming world. In I Love you America with Sarah Silverman, naked people are featured in the audience for really no other reason than that kind of thing is allowed on Hulu. In the Meyerowitz Stories, an artsy slightly pornographic short film is shown that features Pagina Man, a person with both a penis and a vagina. This segment could have probably been edited for a PG 13 rating, but because it's on Netflix, who cares? Content makers can drop F bombs, have sex scenes and nudity and just generally do whatever they feel like evolves their story and art 5 Because of algorithms that can predict what a certain viewer might like, users of streaming services will tend to browse through media that they would already like. If artsy dramas aren't your thing, then Netflix generally won't show them and this feature will probably only get better as time passes . So it's not like extra content will bog you down or make the service less usable. I feel like all these things will lead to better content. Big names already have their own shows or are featured in shows and movies on streaming services Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman, Winona Ryder, Sean Astin, etc . It's only going to get better as artists realize that they have more agency over their art. <|ASPECTS|>inundated, poor acting, box office sales, artsy dramas, artsy slightly pornographic, pressure, sex scenes, successful, award winning, harm no foul, bad writing, hokey fantasy shows, names, good shows, market, media, subscribe, commercial time, stranger things promos, popular, streaming atmosphere, rating systems, reap, cancel their subscription, better content, extra content, terrible, bog, nudity, agency, naked people, small, original series, time, quality, base, creative, less usable, better, spoilers, widely successful, review shows, traditional, edited, rewards, f bombs, stranger things, advertisers<|CONCLUSION|>","There are small spoilers in this post about some shows on Hulu, particularly I Love you, America with Sarah Silverman on Hulu and the Meyerowitz Stories on Netflix . Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon all have original series and movies that range from terrible to award winning and everything in between. Sometimes, I'll see a truly terrible show with poor acting and bad writing and wonder how that idea ever took off. And then I came to a few conclusions 1 It doesn't matter if a particular show or movie is good or not. As long as the streaming service has enough good shows that it keeps its target base, it doesn't matter the quality. There are no box office sales and no advertisers who are going to vie for commercial time when the show airs. Most metrics that we use to determine if a movie or show is successful or not does not exist in a streaming atmosphere. I do acknowledge that there are people who review shows, which leads me to my next point. 2 If a show or movie is not popular, no harm no foul. It's not like someone is going to cancel their subscription because they didn't like a show. On the other hand, if a show is widely successful, more people might subscribe just to see the show. Who at least in the United State isn't inundated with Stranger Things Promos that are all over the internet right now? Had Stranger Things never taken off no big deal. But since it did, Netflix gets to reap the rewards. 3 Because there's no pressure if a movie or show bombs or not, artists get to be creative and do things they might not normally get to do. There might not be a particularly large market for hokey fantasy shows a la OA on Netflix , but if an artist wants to produce it, there isn't any harm in putting it in a place where viewers can watch it if they want to. 4 Traditional rating systems don't exist in the streaming world. In I Love you America with Sarah Silverman, naked people are featured in the audience for really no other reason than that kind of thing is allowed on Hulu. In the Meyerowitz Stories, an artsy slightly pornographic short film is shown that features Pagina Man, a person with both a penis and a vagina. This segment could have probably been edited for a PG 13 rating, but because it's on Netflix, who cares? Content makers can drop F bombs, have sex scenes and nudity and just generally do whatever they feel like evolves their story and art 5 Because of algorithms that can predict what a certain viewer might like, users of streaming services will tend to browse through media that they would already like. If artsy dramas aren't your thing, then Netflix generally won't show them and this feature will probably only get better as time passes . So it's not like extra content will bog you down or make the service less usable. I feel like all these things will lead to better content. Big names already have their own shows or are featured in shows and movies on streaming services Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman, Winona Ryder, Sean Astin, etc . It's only going to get better as artists realize that they have more agency over their art.",Streaming services like Hulu and Netflix allow content makers to be better artists and will one day replace all traditional ways people consume TV shows and movies.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Occupy Wallstreet is a prime example, Point 1, every mainstream media outlet vilified the protesters, or made them seem like clowns. Point 2, police in major cities Which are now militarized went undercover as protesters and tried And sometimes succeeded to turn a peaceful protest into a riot, so that all of those shiny new police resources could finally be used. Special Weapons and Tactics teams see more use directly against peaceful demonstrations than they do against violent criminals. Point 3, low level politicians are happy to pass resolutions and laws to say that they 'did something' and are 'listening' to the populace, but the highest levels of government, where actual, effective policy is written and enforced, is entirely beyond the influence of the public, and entirely beyond the influence of non violent forms of political expression. Please CMV. I want to think that it's still possible for us to be civilized.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Occupy Wallstreet is a prime example, Point 1, every mainstream media outlet vilified the protesters, or made them seem like clowns. Point 2, police in major cities Which are now militarized went undercover as protesters and tried And sometimes succeeded to turn a peaceful protest into a riot, so that all of those shiny new police resources could finally be used. Special Weapons and Tactics teams see more use directly against peaceful demonstrations than they do against violent criminals. Point 3, low level politicians are happy to pass resolutions and laws to say that they 'did something' and are 'listening' to the populace, but the highest levels of government, where actual, effective policy is written and enforced, is entirely beyond the influence of the public, and entirely beyond the influence of non violent forms of political expression. Please CMV. I want to think that it's still possible for us to be civilized.<|TARGETS|>Occupy Wallstreet, to pass resolutions and laws to say that they ' did something ' and are ' listening ' to the populace but the highest levels of government where actual effective policy is written and enforced, the influence of the public and entirely beyond the influence of non violent forms of political expression, Special Weapons and Tactics teams<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Occupy Wallstreet is a prime example, Point 1, every mainstream media outlet vilified the protesters, or made them seem like clowns. Point 2, police in major cities Which are now militarized went undercover as protesters and tried And sometimes succeeded to turn a peaceful protest into a riot, so that all of those shiny new police resources could finally be used. Special Weapons and Tactics teams see more use directly against peaceful demonstrations than they do against violent criminals. Point 3, low level politicians are happy to pass resolutions and laws to say that they 'did something' and are 'listening' to the populace, but the highest levels of government, where actual, effective policy is written and enforced, is entirely beyond the influence of the public, and entirely beyond the influence of non violent forms of political expression. Please CMV. I want to think that it's still possible for us to be civilized.<|ASPECTS|>militarized, non, possible, violent forms, peaceful protest, police resources, effective policy, new, clowns, influence of the public, riot, vilified the protesters, use directly, civilized, political expression, peaceful demonstrations, violent criminals<|CONCLUSION|>","Occupy Wallstreet is a prime example, Point 1, every mainstream media outlet vilified the protesters, or made them seem like clowns. Point 2, police in major cities Which are now militarized went undercover as protesters and tried And sometimes succeeded to turn a peaceful protest into a riot, so that all of those shiny new police resources could finally be used. Special Weapons and Tactics teams see more use directly against peaceful demonstrations than they do against violent criminals. Point 3, low level politicians are happy to pass resolutions and laws to say that they 'did something' and are 'listening' to the populace, but the highest levels of government, where actual, effective policy is written and enforced, is entirely beyond the influence of the public, and entirely beyond the influence of non violent forms of political expression. Please . I want to think that it's still possible for us to be civilized.",I believe that in the United States any peaceful protest is guaranteed to cause no effective change in governmental policy.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start the FCC's new rules are Not final but this is from their blog That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network That no legal content may be blocked and That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity. When I read these it seems to be the opposite of what Reddit says will happen. First off the new laws require ISP's to disclose all information about how they govern their network. This can lead to a new level of transparency and allow us to really see what we are paying for. It also means you can see if any ISP's are negatively effecting your favorite websites service Even though this would be illegal under the new laws, see below . People argue for more transparency in corporations and this will bring just that. No legal content may be blocked, I don't believe anyone is against this rule and it prevents situations such as Turkey and Syria where governments have blocked major websites. The last rule is the most important. All deals for fast lanes need to be reviewed by the FCC so they are not commercially unreasonable. This also guarantees that all internet traffic must be provided at a baseline service level, with some companies paying to provide a better level of service. This does not allow discrimination Specifically outlawed and means that companies that use more bandwidth can pay to maintain better connections. This could also prevent throttling of service, as all traffic must be provided at a baseline level Which needs to be determined but I would like to see it guaranteed at the service level you pay for . Websites with low traffic and funds do not need to pay for a fast lane, and there will be a point where a company finds it economically feasible to pay for increased service. Some have complained that this will increase prices, but it can also increase service levels of your favorite website. I would gladly pay an extra 1 2 a month for better Netflix. We could also benefit from faster free services such as Youtube and Skype. To further my point above why shouldn't ISP's be able to charge more for better service. Like they charge customers more for faster and more usage should ISP's not be able to treat companies like their consumers? I can't think of an industry that doesn't charge more for better service and I believe if the carrier is offering better service to the company they should be allowed to charge more. Especially if the extra costs are used to improve last mile service. Overall I think the Knee Jerk reaction of reddit has really hindered the discussion about the benefits of these laws. Talk has centered around potential negative effects, instead of looking at how we can improve these laws, if they need improving. From what I gather from the FCC's proposal I see more transparency from ISP's, protection against censorship, new laws to protect against throttling and discrimination, and improved network speeds for the most popular websites. Change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start the FCC's new rules are Not final but this is from their blog That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network That no legal content may be blocked and That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity. When I read these it seems to be the opposite of what Reddit says will happen. First off the new laws require ISP's to disclose all information about how they govern their network. This can lead to a new level of transparency and allow us to really see what we are paying for. It also means you can see if any ISP's are negatively effecting your favorite websites service Even though this would be illegal under the new laws, see below . People argue for more transparency in corporations and this will bring just that. No legal content may be blocked, I don't believe anyone is against this rule and it prevents situations such as Turkey and Syria where governments have blocked major websites. The last rule is the most important. All deals for fast lanes need to be reviewed by the FCC so they are not commercially unreasonable. This also guarantees that all internet traffic must be provided at a baseline service level, with some companies paying to provide a better level of service. This does not allow discrimination Specifically outlawed and means that companies that use more bandwidth can pay to maintain better connections. This could also prevent throttling of service, as all traffic must be provided at a baseline level Which needs to be determined but I would like to see it guaranteed at the service level you pay for . Websites with low traffic and funds do not need to pay for a fast lane, and there will be a point where a company finds it economically feasible to pay for increased service. Some have complained that this will increase prices, but it can also increase service levels of your favorite website. I would gladly pay an extra 1 2 a month for better Netflix. We could also benefit from faster free services such as Youtube and Skype. To further my point above why shouldn't ISP's be able to charge more for better service. Like they charge customers more for faster and more usage should ISP's not be able to treat companies like their consumers? I can't think of an industry that doesn't charge more for better service and I believe if the carrier is offering better service to the company they should be allowed to charge more. Especially if the extra costs are used to improve last mile service. Overall I think the Knee Jerk reaction of reddit has really hindered the discussion about the benefits of these laws. Talk has centered around potential negative effects, instead of looking at how we can improve these laws, if they need improving. From what I gather from the FCC's proposal I see more transparency from ISP's, protection against censorship, new laws to protect against throttling and discrimination, and improved network speeds for the most popular websites. Change my view.<|TARGETS|>To further my point above why should n't ISP 's be able to charge more for better service ., Websites with low traffic and funds, No legal content, if the carrier, gladly pay an extra 1 2 a month for better Netflix ., to see it guaranteed at the service level you pay for .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start the FCC's new rules are Not final but this is from their blog That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network That no legal content may be blocked and That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity. When I read these it seems to be the opposite of what Reddit says will happen. First off the new laws require ISP's to disclose all information about how they govern their network. This can lead to a new level of transparency and allow us to really see what we are paying for. It also means you can see if any ISP's are negatively effecting your favorite websites service Even though this would be illegal under the new laws, see below . People argue for more transparency in corporations and this will bring just that. No legal content may be blocked, I don't believe anyone is against this rule and it prevents situations such as Turkey and Syria where governments have blocked major websites. The last rule is the most important. All deals for fast lanes need to be reviewed by the FCC so they are not commercially unreasonable. This also guarantees that all internet traffic must be provided at a baseline service level, with some companies paying to provide a better level of service. This does not allow discrimination Specifically outlawed and means that companies that use more bandwidth can pay to maintain better connections. This could also prevent throttling of service, as all traffic must be provided at a baseline level Which needs to be determined but I would like to see it guaranteed at the service level you pay for . Websites with low traffic and funds do not need to pay for a fast lane, and there will be a point where a company finds it economically feasible to pay for increased service. Some have complained that this will increase prices, but it can also increase service levels of your favorite website. I would gladly pay an extra 1 2 a month for better Netflix. We could also benefit from faster free services such as Youtube and Skype. To further my point above why shouldn't ISP's be able to charge more for better service. Like they charge customers more for faster and more usage should ISP's not be able to treat companies like their consumers? I can't think of an industry that doesn't charge more for better service and I believe if the carrier is offering better service to the company they should be allowed to charge more. Especially if the extra costs are used to improve last mile service. Overall I think the Knee Jerk reaction of reddit has really hindered the discussion about the benefits of these laws. Talk has centered around potential negative effects, instead of looking at how we can improve these laws, if they need improving. From what I gather from the FCC's proposal I see more transparency from ISP's, protection against censorship, new laws to protect against throttling and discrimination, and improved network speeds for the most popular websites. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>better service, treat companies, charge customers, prevents, view, transparency in corporations, extra, traffic, govern, benefits, illegal, prices, better netflix, lanes, blocked major websites, economically feasible, costs, improve, increase, service levels, negative effects, discrimination specifically, guaranteed, prevent, better connections, improved, laws, throttling and discrimination, last mile service, protection, fast lane, disclose all information, paying, charge, harm the internet, network speeds, network, commercially unreasonable, throttling of service, pay, service level, level of service, faster free services, blocked, usage, transparency, increased service, legal content, internet traffic, negatively effecting your favorite websites, faster, low traffic, opposite, legal content may, censorship<|CONCLUSION|>","To start the FCC's new rules are Not final but this is from their blog That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network That no legal content may be blocked and That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity. When I read these it seems to be the opposite of what Reddit says will happen. First off the new laws require ISP's to disclose all information about how they govern their network. This can lead to a new level of transparency and allow us to really see what we are paying for. It also means you can see if any ISP's are negatively effecting your favorite websites service Even though this would be illegal under the new laws, see below . People argue for more transparency in corporations and this will bring just that. No legal content may be blocked, I don't believe anyone is against this rule and it prevents situations such as Turkey and Syria where governments have blocked major websites. The last rule is the most important. All deals for fast lanes need to be reviewed by the FCC so they are not commercially unreasonable. This also guarantees that all internet traffic must be provided at a baseline service level, with some companies paying to provide a better level of service. This does not allow discrimination Specifically outlawed and means that companies that use more bandwidth can pay to maintain better connections. This could also prevent throttling of service, as all traffic must be provided at a baseline level Which needs to be determined but I would like to see it guaranteed at the service level you pay for . Websites with low traffic and funds do not need to pay for a fast lane, and there will be a point where a company finds it economically feasible to pay for increased service. Some have complained that this will increase prices, but it can also increase service levels of your favorite website. I would gladly pay an extra 1 2 a month for better Netflix. We could also benefit from faster free services such as Youtube and Skype. To further my point above why shouldn't ISP's be able to charge more for better service. Like they charge customers more for faster and more usage should ISP's not be able to treat companies like their consumers? I can't think of an industry that doesn't charge more for better service and I believe if the carrier is offering better service to the company they should be allowed to charge more. Especially if the extra costs are used to improve last mile service. Overall I think the Knee Jerk reaction of reddit has really hindered the discussion about the benefits of these laws. Talk has centered around potential negative effects, instead of looking at how we can improve these laws, if they need improving. From what I gather from the FCC's proposal I see more transparency from ISP's, protection against censorship, new laws to protect against throttling and discrimination, and improved network speeds for the most popular websites. Change my view.",I belive the new FCC rules can be beneficial for the Internet
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We live in an apartment. The only unsupervised playtime he would have with other animals would be in family members' backyard's and around family pets who are all spayed neutered . Dog Details He's 6 months, and 1 2 miniature australian terrier terrier, small guy, when full grown between 10 15lbs. Behavior He is becoming quite the humper tho. But other than that, he shows no signs of behaviour issues ie. not overly aggressive, no territorial 'marking' problems. Why under these conditions perhaps aside from the humping , would I want to neuter him? Please educate me <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We live in an apartment. The only unsupervised playtime he would have with other animals would be in family members' backyard's and around family pets who are all spayed neutered . Dog Details He's 6 months, and 1 2 miniature australian terrier terrier, small guy, when full grown between 10 15lbs. Behavior He is becoming quite the humper tho. But other than that, he shows no signs of behaviour issues ie. not overly aggressive, no territorial 'marking' problems. Why under these conditions perhaps aside from the humping , would I want to neuter him? Please educate me <|TARGETS|>Please educate me, The only unsupervised playtime he would have with other animals, the humping<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We live in an apartment. The only unsupervised playtime he would have with other animals would be in family members' backyard's and around family pets who are all spayed neutered . Dog Details He's 6 months, and 1 2 miniature australian terrier terrier, small guy, when full grown between 10 15lbs. Behavior He is becoming quite the humper tho. But other than that, he shows no signs of behaviour issues ie. not overly aggressive, no territorial 'marking' problems. Why under these conditions perhaps aside from the humping , would I want to neuter him? Please educate me <|ASPECTS|>neutered, apartment, humper, behaviour, territorial 'marking, playtime, educate, behavior, neuter, problems, unsupervised, humping, aggressive, overly<|CONCLUSION|>","We live in an apartment. The only unsupervised playtime he would have with other animals would be in family members' backyard's and around family pets who are all spayed neutered . Dog Details He's 6 months, and 1 2 miniature australian terrier terrier, small guy, when full grown between 10 15lbs. Behavior He is becoming quite the humper tho. But other than that, he shows no signs of behaviour issues ie. not overly aggressive, no territorial 'marking' problems. Why under these conditions perhaps aside from the humping , would I want to neuter him? Please educate me",I shouldn't neuter my puppy.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that this countries very foundation was based on violating human rights western expansion and manifest destiny and we continue to do so to this very day. I believe there was small window during WW2 where we were all united and prosperous but since that time has passed we've begun degenerating as a country and I fear that Americans pigheadedness and constant 'murrica circlejerk is going to blind us to the very real condition of our country where wall street robs the little man blind and a tiny majority of the populous controls a vast majority of the wealth. The average duration of unemployment in this country is at an all time high of 39 weeks, while 5.5 million Americans are unemployed and NOT receiving any benefits. Low income jobs account for 41 of all jobs in the US and a good majority of manufacturing jobs are being shipped away to foreign countries. Our education system is abysmal, tuition for higher education is going no where but up, driving many students deep into debt that they fear might never get payed off, delaying the big life events such as marriage, children and owning a home. In primary education, our country is ranked 25th in Math performance, 21st in Science, and 15th overall. This is among just a fraction of issues we face as Americans, to say that we're the greatest country on earth is arrogant and ignorant. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that this countries very foundation was based on violating human rights western expansion and manifest destiny and we continue to do so to this very day. I believe there was small window during WW2 where we were all united and prosperous but since that time has passed we've begun degenerating as a country and I fear that Americans pigheadedness and constant 'murrica circlejerk is going to blind us to the very real condition of our country where wall street robs the little man blind and a tiny majority of the populous controls a vast majority of the wealth. The average duration of unemployment in this country is at an all time high of 39 weeks, while 5.5 million Americans are unemployed and NOT receiving any benefits. Low income jobs account for 41 of all jobs in the US and a good majority of manufacturing jobs are being shipped away to foreign countries. Our education system is abysmal, tuition for higher education is going no where but up, driving many students deep into debt that they fear might never get payed off, delaying the big life events such as marriage, children and owning a home. In primary education, our country is ranked 25th in Math performance, 21st in Science, and 15th overall. This is among just a fraction of issues we face as Americans, to say that we're the greatest country on earth is arrogant and ignorant. CMV.<|TARGETS|>delaying the big life events such as marriage children and owning a home ., Our education system, that Americans pigheadedness and constant ' murrica circlejerk, The average duration of unemployment in this country<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that this countries very foundation was based on violating human rights western expansion and manifest destiny and we continue to do so to this very day. I believe there was small window during WW2 where we were all united and prosperous but since that time has passed we've begun degenerating as a country and I fear that Americans pigheadedness and constant 'murrica circlejerk is going to blind us to the very real condition of our country where wall street robs the little man blind and a tiny majority of the populous controls a vast majority of the wealth. The average duration of unemployment in this country is at an all time high of 39 weeks, while 5.5 million Americans are unemployed and NOT receiving any benefits. Low income jobs account for 41 of all jobs in the US and a good majority of manufacturing jobs are being shipped away to foreign countries. Our education system is abysmal, tuition for higher education is going no where but up, driving many students deep into debt that they fear might never get payed off, delaying the big life events such as marriage, children and owning a home. In primary education, our country is ranked 25th in Math performance, 21st in Science, and 15th overall. This is among just a fraction of issues we face as Americans, to say that we're the greatest country on earth is arrogant and ignorant. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>duration, low income jobs, expansion, benefits, united, human rights, unemployed, manifest destiny, life events, unemployment, violating, wealth, debt, delaying, degenerating, prosperous, pigheadedness, tuition for higher, shipped away, manufacturing jobs, arrogant, system, math performance, ignorant<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that this countries very foundation was based on violating human rights western expansion and manifest destiny and we continue to do so to this very day. I believe there was small window during WW2 where we were all united and prosperous but since that time has passed we've begun degenerating as a country and I fear that Americans pigheadedness and constant 'murrica circlejerk is going to blind us to the very real condition of our country where wall street robs the little man blind and a tiny majority of the populous controls a vast majority of the wealth. The average duration of unemployment in this country is at an all time high of 39 weeks, while 5.5 million Americans are unemployed and NOT receiving any benefits. Low income jobs account for 41 of all jobs in the US and a good majority of manufacturing jobs are being shipped away to foreign countries. Our education system is abysmal, tuition for higher education is going no where but up, driving many students deep into debt that they fear might never get payed off, delaying the big life events such as marriage, children and owning a home. In primary education, our country is ranked 25th in Math performance, 21st in Science, and 15th overall. This is among just a fraction of issues we face as Americans, to say that we're the greatest country on earth is arrogant and ignorant. .",I believe that The United States has no right to claim that it's the greatest country in the world.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>During the Cold War, conservatives of all sorts were ideologically opposed to Communism and found the physical threat of the conventional and nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union and China as useful scapegoats on rhetoric against more liberal values. Social Conservatives pointed to the lack of religion and conservative family values in the atheistic states of the Soviet Union and China. Free Market Capitalists greatly used the Red Scare into their advantage to eliminate the power of unions, workers rights, and more government regulation. And finally war hawks saw Communism as the reason for increased military spending on intervention. Those who often opposed the right or fought for more progressive ideals were labeled communists, communist sympathizers, atheists, and other terms. Now in the 21st century, instead of Communism, Islam is the new enemy commonly used in talking points. Sharia sympathizers, SJWs, feminazis, or globalists are now terms commonly thrown on the left. Back when social conservatives said communism would ruin the family values, religion, and culture of the United States. Now Islam is that threat, bringing multiculturalism, a different religion, and immigration. Labeling people are SJWs and pro sharia are a way for them to continue to enact their conservative social policy. Economic populist elements of conservatism now has a target to rail against the globalists and immigrants for troubling economic times. And of course with the endless turmoil in the middle east, threats of Iran, increased military spending to secure our borders and to rebuild our military is another excuse to continue the existence of the military industrial complex. Edit I should note I loosely hold this view, however I do see alot of parallels between the rhetoric used during the Cold War and presently now. Please note I understand most of the submission I posted is really a narrative, but it sets the scene. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>During the Cold War, conservatives of all sorts were ideologically opposed to Communism and found the physical threat of the conventional and nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union and China as useful scapegoats on rhetoric against more liberal values. Social Conservatives pointed to the lack of religion and conservative family values in the atheistic states of the Soviet Union and China. Free Market Capitalists greatly used the Red Scare into their advantage to eliminate the power of unions, workers rights, and more government regulation. And finally war hawks saw Communism as the reason for increased military spending on intervention. Those who often opposed the right or fought for more progressive ideals were labeled communists, communist sympathizers, atheists, and other terms. Now in the 21st century, instead of Communism, Islam is the new enemy commonly used in talking points. Sharia sympathizers, SJWs, feminazis, or globalists are now terms commonly thrown on the left. Back when social conservatives said communism would ruin the family values, religion, and culture of the United States. Now Islam is that threat, bringing multiculturalism, a different religion, and immigration. Labeling people are SJWs and pro sharia are a way for them to continue to enact their conservative social policy. Economic populist elements of conservatism now has a target to rail against the globalists and immigrants for troubling economic times. And of course with the endless turmoil in the middle east, threats of Iran, increased military spending to secure our borders and to rebuild our military is another excuse to continue the existence of the military industrial complex. Edit I should note I loosely hold this view, however I do see alot of parallels between the rhetoric used during the Cold War and presently now. Please note I understand most of the submission I posted is really a narrative, but it sets the scene. <|TARGETS|>Labeling people are SJWs and pro sharia, Free Market Capitalists, Economic populist elements of conservatism, to continue the existence of the military industrial complex, Back when social conservatives said communism, Those who often opposed the right or fought for more progressive ideals<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>During the Cold War, conservatives of all sorts were ideologically opposed to Communism and found the physical threat of the conventional and nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union and China as useful scapegoats on rhetoric against more liberal values. Social Conservatives pointed to the lack of religion and conservative family values in the atheistic states of the Soviet Union and China. Free Market Capitalists greatly used the Red Scare into their advantage to eliminate the power of unions, workers rights, and more government regulation. And finally war hawks saw Communism as the reason for increased military spending on intervention. Those who often opposed the right or fought for more progressive ideals were labeled communists, communist sympathizers, atheists, and other terms. Now in the 21st century, instead of Communism, Islam is the new enemy commonly used in talking points. Sharia sympathizers, SJWs, feminazis, or globalists are now terms commonly thrown on the left. Back when social conservatives said communism would ruin the family values, religion, and culture of the United States. Now Islam is that threat, bringing multiculturalism, a different religion, and immigration. Labeling people are SJWs and pro sharia are a way for them to continue to enact their conservative social policy. Economic populist elements of conservatism now has a target to rail against the globalists and immigrants for troubling economic times. And of course with the endless turmoil in the middle east, threats of Iran, increased military spending to secure our borders and to rebuild our military is another excuse to continue the existence of the military industrial complex. Edit I should note I loosely hold this view, however I do see alot of parallels between the rhetoric used during the Cold War and presently now. Please note I understand most of the submission I posted is really a narrative, but it sets the scene. <|ASPECTS|>power of unions, conservative family values, liberal, ruin, narrative, military spending, progressive ideals, family values, scapegoats, workers rights, opposed the right, populist, sharia sympathizers, threat, lack, communists, parallels, market, conservative social policy, islam, government regulation, atheists, sets the scene, threats of iran, rhetoric, communist sympathizers, economic times, multiculturalism, military industrial complex, turmoil, communism, religion, culture, troubling, new enemy, secure our borders, physical threat, immigration<|CONCLUSION|>","During the Cold War, conservatives of all sorts were ideologically opposed to Communism and found the physical threat of the conventional and nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union and China as useful scapegoats on rhetoric against more liberal values. Social Conservatives pointed to the lack of religion and conservative family values in the atheistic states of the Soviet Union and China. Free Market Capitalists greatly used the Red Scare into their advantage to eliminate the power of unions, workers rights, and more government regulation. And finally war hawks saw Communism as the reason for increased military spending on intervention. Those who often opposed the right or fought for more progressive ideals were labeled communists, communist sympathizers, atheists, and other terms. Now in the 21st century, instead of Communism, Islam is the new enemy commonly used in talking points. Sharia sympathizers, SJWs, feminazis, or globalists are now terms commonly thrown on the left. Back when social conservatives said communism would ruin the family values, religion, and culture of the United States. Now Islam is that threat, bringing multiculturalism, a different religion, and immigration. Labeling people are SJWs and pro sharia are a way for them to continue to enact their conservative social policy. Economic populist elements of conservatism now has a target to rail against the globalists and immigrants for troubling economic times. And of course with the endless turmoil in the middle east, threats of Iran, increased military spending to secure our borders and to rebuild our military is another excuse to continue the existence of the military industrial complex. Edit I should note I loosely hold this view, however I do see alot of parallels between the rhetoric used during the Cold War and presently now. Please note I understand most of the submission I posted is really a narrative, but it sets the scene.",Islam is the new Communism on the right
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The 2018 IPCC report that has been criticised by some climate scientists for being too conservative in its estimates of how much change needs to occur says that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally by 45 by 2030 to keep long term temperature increase below 1.5 C a level that would be extremely harmful to the environment but not catastrophic. If we fail, human civilisation as we know it could crumble and millions or even billions of people will be severely negatively impacted. x200B And I'm convinced we will fail, unless top down change occurs now. x200B It isn't impossible for those in the west to cut their emissions by 45 . Becoming vegan, stopping flying, buying an electric car and fitting solar panels will probably achieve it. For the sake of argument, say that for the 25 most polluting individuals, a 90 cut in emissions is manageable though it would be costly and remove many pleasures from life by 2030. To reduce this groups emissions by 45 , half of this group would have to reduce their emissions by 90 whilst the other half kept their's level. x200B Sounds possible? Yes. Just about, especially given that if more people reduce their emissions, each individual only has to reduce their emissions less if all of the 25 reduce their emissions, then they only have to do so by 45 . This would still require huge social change across the west that is unlikely to occur given the difficulties and costs involved in reducing CO2 emissions by this much. You can't stop flying if it is absolutely necessary for your job, and veganism can be especially difficult for those with further dietary conditions. x200B But we've forgotten the remaining 75 of the world's population. Whilst this group emits less emissions per capita than the 25 , they also need to reduce their emissions by 45 . This group have lower emissions to start with, so need to reduce their emissions by less, but it will be a lot harder for them to reduce their emissions. They are generally significantly poorer than the 25 , and live in areas with less infrastructure. You can't drive an electric car in an area without a stable electricity grid. You can't become vegan if you're a subsistence herder. You can't stop flying if you don't already fly. You can't afford to buy greener products if you're already choosing whether to pay for rent or food each week. x200B It gets worse. Over the next decade, many in the bottom 75 will become richer. They'll have more money to spend, and will acceptably use it to increase their quality of life. This will certainly increase their emissions. This then has to be balanced through even greater emissions cuts from the rest of us, and the more emissions you cut, the harder it is to reduce your emissions further. x200B And we can't stop at 2030 either. We've got to keep decreasing our emissions after then. As I said before, it will just get harder and harder. x200B Personal actions are pointless, unless those personal actions are demanding that governments actually do something about this say, close all fossil fuel power stations, open carbon neutral factories to build electric cars and faster trains and ban flying . x200B I want to be wrong, and I want my choices to mean something. Can someone please convince me they will?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The 2018 IPCC report that has been criticised by some climate scientists for being too conservative in its estimates of how much change needs to occur says that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally by 45 by 2030 to keep long term temperature increase below 1.5 C a level that would be extremely harmful to the environment but not catastrophic. If we fail, human civilisation as we know it could crumble and millions or even billions of people will be severely negatively impacted. x200B And I'm convinced we will fail, unless top down change occurs now. x200B It isn't impossible for those in the west to cut their emissions by 45 . Becoming vegan, stopping flying, buying an electric car and fitting solar panels will probably achieve it. For the sake of argument, say that for the 25 most polluting individuals, a 90 cut in emissions is manageable though it would be costly and remove many pleasures from life by 2030. To reduce this groups emissions by 45 , half of this group would have to reduce their emissions by 90 whilst the other half kept their's level. x200B Sounds possible? Yes. Just about, especially given that if more people reduce their emissions, each individual only has to reduce their emissions less if all of the 25 reduce their emissions, then they only have to do so by 45 . This would still require huge social change across the west that is unlikely to occur given the difficulties and costs involved in reducing CO2 emissions by this much. You can't stop flying if it is absolutely necessary for your job, and veganism can be especially difficult for those with further dietary conditions. x200B But we've forgotten the remaining 75 of the world's population. Whilst this group emits less emissions per capita than the 25 , they also need to reduce their emissions by 45 . This group have lower emissions to start with, so need to reduce their emissions by less, but it will be a lot harder for them to reduce their emissions. They are generally significantly poorer than the 25 , and live in areas with less infrastructure. You can't drive an electric car in an area without a stable electricity grid. You can't become vegan if you're a subsistence herder. You can't stop flying if you don't already fly. You can't afford to buy greener products if you're already choosing whether to pay for rent or food each week. x200B It gets worse. Over the next decade, many in the bottom 75 will become richer. They'll have more money to spend, and will acceptably use it to increase their quality of life. This will certainly increase their emissions. This then has to be balanced through even greater emissions cuts from the rest of us, and the more emissions you cut, the harder it is to reduce your emissions further. x200B And we can't stop at 2030 either. We've got to keep decreasing our emissions after then. As I said before, it will just get harder and harder. x200B Personal actions are pointless, unless those personal actions are demanding that governments actually do something about this say, close all fossil fuel power stations, open carbon neutral factories to build electric cars and faster trains and ban flying . x200B I want to be wrong, and I want my choices to mean something. Can someone please convince me they will?<|TARGETS|>whether to pay for rent or food each week ., x200B Personal actions, to buy greener products, stop flying if you do n't already fly ., The 2018 IPCC report, stop flying if it is absolutely necessary for your job and veganism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The 2018 IPCC report that has been criticised by some climate scientists for being too conservative in its estimates of how much change needs to occur says that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally by 45 by 2030 to keep long term temperature increase below 1.5 C a level that would be extremely harmful to the environment but not catastrophic. If we fail, human civilisation as we know it could crumble and millions or even billions of people will be severely negatively impacted. x200B And I'm convinced we will fail, unless top down change occurs now. x200B It isn't impossible for those in the west to cut their emissions by 45 . Becoming vegan, stopping flying, buying an electric car and fitting solar panels will probably achieve it. For the sake of argument, say that for the 25 most polluting individuals, a 90 cut in emissions is manageable though it would be costly and remove many pleasures from life by 2030. To reduce this groups emissions by 45 , half of this group would have to reduce their emissions by 90 whilst the other half kept their's level. x200B Sounds possible? Yes. Just about, especially given that if more people reduce their emissions, each individual only has to reduce their emissions less if all of the 25 reduce their emissions, then they only have to do so by 45 . This would still require huge social change across the west that is unlikely to occur given the difficulties and costs involved in reducing CO2 emissions by this much. You can't stop flying if it is absolutely necessary for your job, and veganism can be especially difficult for those with further dietary conditions. x200B But we've forgotten the remaining 75 of the world's population. Whilst this group emits less emissions per capita than the 25 , they also need to reduce their emissions by 45 . This group have lower emissions to start with, so need to reduce their emissions by less, but it will be a lot harder for them to reduce their emissions. They are generally significantly poorer than the 25 , and live in areas with less infrastructure. You can't drive an electric car in an area without a stable electricity grid. You can't become vegan if you're a subsistence herder. You can't stop flying if you don't already fly. You can't afford to buy greener products if you're already choosing whether to pay for rent or food each week. x200B It gets worse. Over the next decade, many in the bottom 75 will become richer. They'll have more money to spend, and will acceptably use it to increase their quality of life. This will certainly increase their emissions. This then has to be balanced through even greater emissions cuts from the rest of us, and the more emissions you cut, the harder it is to reduce your emissions further. x200B And we can't stop at 2030 either. We've got to keep decreasing our emissions after then. As I said before, it will just get harder and harder. x200B Personal actions are pointless, unless those personal actions are demanding that governments actually do something about this say, close all fossil fuel power stations, open carbon neutral factories to build electric cars and faster trains and ban flying . x200B I want to be wrong, and I want my choices to mean something. Can someone please convince me they will?<|ASPECTS|>, population, wrong, worse, pay for rent, top down change, greener products, cut, gets, greenhouse gas emissions, money, subsistence herder, co2 emissions, emissions cuts, harmful to the environment, severely, catastrophic, sounds possible, get, dietary conditions, infrastructure, ban flying, decreasing, costs, fly, increase, choices, social change, stable electricity grid, 2030, emissions per, quality of life, pointless, panels, poorer, 's, emissions, pleasures, manageable, difficulties, remove, personal actions, afford to buy, costly, negatively impacted, less, difficult, stop flying, stopping flying, carbon neutral factories, flying, change, crumble, richer, vegan, lower, fail, necessary, reduce, convince, forgotten, harder and harder, veganism<|CONCLUSION|>","The 2018 IPCC report that has been criticised by some climate scientists for being too conservative in its estimates of how much change needs to occur says that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally by 45 by 2030 to keep long term temperature increase below 1.5 C a level that would be extremely harmful to the environment but not catastrophic. If we fail, human civilisation as we know it could crumble and millions or even billions of people will be severely negatively impacted. x200B And I'm convinced we will fail, unless top down change occurs now. x200B It isn't impossible for those in the west to cut their emissions by 45 . Becoming vegan, stopping flying, buying an electric car and fitting solar panels will probably achieve it. For the sake of argument, say that for the 25 most polluting individuals, a 90 cut in emissions is manageable though it would be costly and remove many pleasures from life by 2030. To reduce this groups emissions by 45 , half of this group would have to reduce their emissions by 90 whilst the other half kept their's level. x200B Sounds possible? Yes. Just about, especially given that if more people reduce their emissions, each individual only has to reduce their emissions less if all of the 25 reduce their emissions, then they only have to do so by 45 . This would still require huge social change across the west that is unlikely to occur given the difficulties and costs involved in reducing CO2 emissions by this much. You can't stop flying if it is absolutely necessary for your job, and veganism can be especially difficult for those with further dietary conditions. x200B But we've forgotten the remaining 75 of the world's population. Whilst this group emits less emissions per capita than the 25 , they also need to reduce their emissions by 45 . This group have lower emissions to start with, so need to reduce their emissions by less, but it will be a lot harder for them to reduce their emissions. They are generally significantly poorer than the 25 , and live in areas with less infrastructure. You can't drive an electric car in an area without a stable electricity grid. You can't become vegan if you're a subsistence herder. You can't stop flying if you don't already fly. You can't afford to buy greener products if you're already choosing whether to pay for rent or food each week. x200B It gets worse. Over the next decade, many in the bottom 75 will become richer. They'll have more money to spend, and will acceptably use it to increase their quality of life. This will certainly increase their emissions. This then has to be balanced through even greater emissions cuts from the rest of us, and the more emissions you cut, the harder it is to reduce your emissions further. x200B And we can't stop at 2030 either. We've got to keep decreasing our emissions after then. As I said before, it will just get harder and harder. x200B Personal actions are pointless, unless those personal actions are demanding that governments actually do something about this say, close all fossil fuel power stations, open carbon neutral factories to build electric cars and faster trains and ban flying . x200B I want to be wrong, and I want my choices to mean something. Can someone please convince me they will?",Individual lifestyle changes are not sufficient to save us from the climate crisis
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reason 1 Most posts on Cake Day are about either their Cake Day or how they couldn't think about something for their Cake Day. They don't add any real substance to the Reddit Community. Reason 2 In one of the FAQ that Reddit has put out, they ascertain that Karma is simply a by product of being awesome. Cake Days, however, are designed specifically for someone to procure Karma in the case that they typically do not get much of it on daily basis. If Reddit doesn't want to make getting Karma the main reason for posting something, why have a Cake Day, that does exactly that?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reason 1 Most posts on Cake Day are about either their Cake Day or how they couldn't think about something for their Cake Day. They don't add any real substance to the Reddit Community. Reason 2 In one of the FAQ that Reddit has put out, they ascertain that Karma is simply a by product of being awesome. Cake Days, however, are designed specifically for someone to procure Karma in the case that they typically do not get much of it on daily basis. If Reddit doesn't want to make getting Karma the main reason for posting something, why have a Cake Day, that does exactly that?<|TARGETS|>Reason 1 Most posts on Cake Day, to procure Karma in the case that they typically do not get much of it on daily basis ., Cake Days, If Reddit, Reason 2 In one of the FAQ that Reddit<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reason 1 Most posts on Cake Day are about either their Cake Day or how they couldn't think about something for their Cake Day. They don't add any real substance to the Reddit Community. Reason 2 In one of the FAQ that Reddit has put out, they ascertain that Karma is simply a by product of being awesome. Cake Days, however, are designed specifically for someone to procure Karma in the case that they typically do not get much of it on daily basis. If Reddit doesn't want to make getting Karma the main reason for posting something, why have a Cake Day, that does exactly that?<|ASPECTS|>cake, think, procure, karma, awesome, real substance<|CONCLUSION|>","Reason 1 Most posts on Cake Day are about either their Cake Day or how they couldn't think about something for their Cake Day. They don't add any real substance to the Reddit Community. Reason 2 In one of the FAQ that Reddit has put out, they ascertain that Karma is simply a by product of being awesome. Cake Days, however, are designed specifically for someone to procure Karma in the case that they typically do not get much of it on daily basis. If Reddit doesn't want to make getting Karma the main reason for posting something, why have a Cake Day, that does exactly that?",I believe that Cake Day should be removed because people take advantage of it.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Many corporations provide separate job applications and networking events for minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ community in addition to the standard job application and networking events that anyone may use. By definition, which may vary depending on what dictionary is used , discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Basically, my viewpoint is that it is a form of discrimination to allow different categories of people to apply for a job using a separate application, since separate applications may receive less applicants than the centralized application pool. Less applicants in a specific pool means that someone that may be ranked 14 overall may appear as the 1 overall applicant for that specific category. This would make people in the separate applicant pools face less competition and stand out more. An example of this would be that there are 100 applicants for only three open positions. Out of these 100 applicants, 20 are women that applied to a women only application. Basing qualifications on merit alone, let's pretend the top 8 candidates are Indian, white, and Asian males. These 8 candidates are more qualified to perform the job than the highest ranking female. Using separate applications, the woman that is technically ranked 9th overall would be ranked 1st overall in her group, thus propelling her into a larger spotlight than she would have received through one centralized application and increasing the chances of hire. The same can be said for specialized networking events or specialized internship programs for specific groups of people. Networking events for people of color may provide an advantage over other groups that were not presented with that opportunity. Internship programs for only Hispanics would be disqualifying anyone that is not Hispanic from participating. I expect many of you to use the argument of affirmative action and leveling the playing field due to the mistakes of past generations in history. I am aware of this argument, however, I am interested in seeing what people have to say solely based on the definition of discrimination and by focusing on the present. If affirmative action is your argument, please explain how it justifies having separate applications, and how that makes separate applications NOT discriminatory by definition. Here are some questions I have. Feel free to answer as many as you'd like In a society that fights for equality, how is this equal? How is this not discrimination? Is there something that justifies this form of discrimination as being acceptable? Would a separate application that said, White males only, be discriminatory or acceptable? Other somewhat relevant questions What is stopping a biological male from claiming to be transgender in order to apply to the LGBTQ pool, then after being hired, publicly state that they have decided to return to their biological gender? Should there be a law that would make doing this illegal? If so, how would you prove that you are aren't truly transgender? What if after that person decided to return to their biological gender they were fired? Would that be grounds for a 'termination based on gender' lawsuit?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Many corporations provide separate job applications and networking events for minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ community in addition to the standard job application and networking events that anyone may use. By definition, which may vary depending on what dictionary is used , discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Basically, my viewpoint is that it is a form of discrimination to allow different categories of people to apply for a job using a separate application, since separate applications may receive less applicants than the centralized application pool. Less applicants in a specific pool means that someone that may be ranked 14 overall may appear as the 1 overall applicant for that specific category. This would make people in the separate applicant pools face less competition and stand out more. An example of this would be that there are 100 applicants for only three open positions. Out of these 100 applicants, 20 are women that applied to a women only application. Basing qualifications on merit alone, let's pretend the top 8 candidates are Indian, white, and Asian males. These 8 candidates are more qualified to perform the job than the highest ranking female. Using separate applications, the woman that is technically ranked 9th overall would be ranked 1st overall in her group, thus propelling her into a larger spotlight than she would have received through one centralized application and increasing the chances of hire. The same can be said for specialized networking events or specialized internship programs for specific groups of people. Networking events for people of color may provide an advantage over other groups that were not presented with that opportunity. Internship programs for only Hispanics would be disqualifying anyone that is not Hispanic from participating. I expect many of you to use the argument of affirmative action and leveling the playing field due to the mistakes of past generations in history. I am aware of this argument, however, I am interested in seeing what people have to say solely based on the definition of discrimination and by focusing on the present. If affirmative action is your argument, please explain how it justifies having separate applications, and how that makes separate applications NOT discriminatory by definition. Here are some questions I have. Feel free to answer as many as you'd like In a society that fights for equality, how is this equal? How is this not discrimination? Is there something that justifies this form of discrimination as being acceptable? Would a separate application that said, White males only, be discriminatory or acceptable? Other somewhat relevant questions What is stopping a biological male from claiming to be transgender in order to apply to the LGBTQ pool, then after being hired, publicly state that they have decided to return to their biological gender? Should there be a law that would make doing this illegal? If so, how would you prove that you are aren't truly transgender? What if after that person decided to return to their biological gender they were fired? Would that be grounds for a 'termination based on gender' lawsuit?<|TARGETS|>the separate applicant pools, to return to their biological gender they were fired, a ' termination based on gender ' lawsuit, Using separate applications, Feel free to answer as many as you 'd like In a society that fights for equality, seeing what people have to say solely based on the definition of discrimination and by focusing on the present .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Many corporations provide separate job applications and networking events for minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ community in addition to the standard job application and networking events that anyone may use. By definition, which may vary depending on what dictionary is used , discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Basically, my viewpoint is that it is a form of discrimination to allow different categories of people to apply for a job using a separate application, since separate applications may receive less applicants than the centralized application pool. Less applicants in a specific pool means that someone that may be ranked 14 overall may appear as the 1 overall applicant for that specific category. This would make people in the separate applicant pools face less competition and stand out more. An example of this would be that there are 100 applicants for only three open positions. Out of these 100 applicants, 20 are women that applied to a women only application. Basing qualifications on merit alone, let's pretend the top 8 candidates are Indian, white, and Asian males. These 8 candidates are more qualified to perform the job than the highest ranking female. Using separate applications, the woman that is technically ranked 9th overall would be ranked 1st overall in her group, thus propelling her into a larger spotlight than she would have received through one centralized application and increasing the chances of hire. The same can be said for specialized networking events or specialized internship programs for specific groups of people. Networking events for people of color may provide an advantage over other groups that were not presented with that opportunity. Internship programs for only Hispanics would be disqualifying anyone that is not Hispanic from participating. I expect many of you to use the argument of affirmative action and leveling the playing field due to the mistakes of past generations in history. I am aware of this argument, however, I am interested in seeing what people have to say solely based on the definition of discrimination and by focusing on the present. If affirmative action is your argument, please explain how it justifies having separate applications, and how that makes separate applications NOT discriminatory by definition. Here are some questions I have. Feel free to answer as many as you'd like In a society that fights for equality, how is this equal? How is this not discrimination? Is there something that justifies this form of discrimination as being acceptable? Would a separate application that said, White males only, be discriminatory or acceptable? Other somewhat relevant questions What is stopping a biological male from claiming to be transgender in order to apply to the LGBTQ pool, then after being hired, publicly state that they have decided to return to their biological gender? Should there be a law that would make doing this illegal? If so, how would you prove that you are aren't truly transgender? What if after that person decided to return to their biological gender they were fired? Would that be grounds for a 'termination based on gender' lawsuit?<|ASPECTS|>hispanic, application, less applicants, specialized, separate applications, unjust, merit, networking events, disqualifying, illegal, discriminatory, affirmative action, larger spotlight, women, mistakes, equal, based, males, applicants, qualifications, applicant, qualified, race, advantage, leveling, indian, definition, specialized internship, biological gender, acceptable, women only application, playing field, perform the job, less competition, transgender, prejudicial treatment, gender, fired, white males, chances of hire, separate, job applications, discrimination, open positions, minorities, equality<|CONCLUSION|>","Many corporations provide separate job applications and networking events for minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ community in addition to the standard job application and networking events that anyone may use. By definition, which may vary depending on what dictionary is used , discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Basically, my viewpoint is that it is a form of discrimination to allow different categories of people to apply for a job using a separate application, since separate applications may receive less applicants than the centralized application pool. Less applicants in a specific pool means that someone that may be ranked 14 overall may appear as the 1 overall applicant for that specific category. This would make people in the separate applicant pools face less competition and stand out more. An example of this would be that there are 100 applicants for only three open positions. Out of these 100 applicants, 20 are women that applied to a women only application. Basing qualifications on merit alone, let's pretend the top 8 candidates are Indian, white, and Asian males. These 8 candidates are more qualified to perform the job than the highest ranking female. Using separate applications, the woman that is technically ranked 9th overall would be ranked 1st overall in her group, thus propelling her into a larger spotlight than she would have received through one centralized application and increasing the chances of hire. The same can be said for specialized networking events or specialized internship programs for specific groups of people. Networking events for people of color may provide an advantage over other groups that were not presented with that opportunity. Internship programs for only Hispanics would be disqualifying anyone that is not Hispanic from participating. I expect many of you to use the argument of affirmative action and leveling the playing field due to the mistakes of past generations in history. I am aware of this argument, however, I am interested in seeing what people have to say solely based on the definition of discrimination and by focusing on the present. If affirmative action is your argument, please explain how it justifies having separate applications, and how that makes separate applications NOT discriminatory by definition. Here are some questions I have. Feel free to answer as many as you'd like In a society that fights for equality, how is this equal? How is this not discrimination? Is there something that justifies this form of discrimination as being acceptable? Would a separate application that said, White males only, be discriminatory or acceptable? Other somewhat relevant questions What is stopping a biological male from claiming to be transgender in order to apply to the LGBTQ pool, then after being hired, publicly state that they have decided to return to their biological gender? Should there be a law that would make doing this illegal? If so, how would you prove that you are aren't truly transgender? What if after that person decided to return to their biological gender they were fired? Would that be grounds for a 'termination based on gender' lawsuit?","Separate job applications and networking events for minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ members are discriminatory against other races, genders, and sexual orientations."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Presuppositions not debatable I ask about regular commercial jet airliners that any layperson in Economy Class can frequent, not Business or First Classes or private jets with upcoming supersonic models The context is obviously lengthy transoceanic flights, like Tokyo ⇿ Toronto, London ⇿ Tokyo. Current average cruising speed is Mach 0.80 0.85. I ask about increases to at least Mach 1.5, for the longest non stop flights like UK ⇿ Australia. I already know about past supersonic airliners like Concorde and TU 144, but they're withdrawn I chose '30 years' arbitrarily I just hanker to experience this in my lifetime. Arguments I take, but hate, the lengthy duration of these flights. They ought be shorter The main hitch is cost benefit analysis or economic efficiency. The average flier probably wouldn't pay more for the extra speed. Other arguments are inadequate engine technology, aerodynamic restraints e.g. Drag Divergence Mach Number and scheduling snags.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Presuppositions not debatable I ask about regular commercial jet airliners that any layperson in Economy Class can frequent, not Business or First Classes or private jets with upcoming supersonic models The context is obviously lengthy transoceanic flights, like Tokyo ⇿ Toronto, London ⇿ Tokyo. Current average cruising speed is Mach 0.80 0.85. I ask about increases to at least Mach 1.5, for the longest non stop flights like UK ⇿ Australia. I already know about past supersonic airliners like Concorde and TU 144, but they're withdrawn I chose '30 years' arbitrarily I just hanker to experience this in my lifetime. Arguments I take, but hate, the lengthy duration of these flights. They ought be shorter The main hitch is cost benefit analysis or economic efficiency. The average flier probably wouldn't pay more for the extra speed. Other arguments are inadequate engine technology, aerodynamic restraints e.g. Drag Divergence Mach Number and scheduling snags.<|TARGETS|>regular commercial jet airliners that any layperson in Economy Class, Presuppositions, Current average cruising speed, The average flier, withdrawn I chose ' 30 years' arbitrarily I just hanker to experience this in my lifetime ., supersonic airliners like Concorde and TU 144<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Presuppositions not debatable I ask about regular commercial jet airliners that any layperson in Economy Class can frequent, not Business or First Classes or private jets with upcoming supersonic models The context is obviously lengthy transoceanic flights, like Tokyo ⇿ Toronto, London ⇿ Tokyo. Current average cruising speed is Mach 0.80 0.85. I ask about increases to at least Mach 1.5, for the longest non stop flights like UK ⇿ Australia. I already know about past supersonic airliners like Concorde and TU 144, but they're withdrawn I chose '30 years' arbitrarily I just hanker to experience this in my lifetime. Arguments I take, but hate, the lengthy duration of these flights. They ought be shorter The main hitch is cost benefit analysis or economic efficiency. The average flier probably wouldn't pay more for the extra speed. Other arguments are inadequate engine technology, aerodynamic restraints e.g. Drag Divergence Mach Number and scheduling snags.<|ASPECTS|>lengthy, pay, extra speed, cost benefit analysis, aerodynamic restraints, scheduling snags, lengthy duration, mach number, transoceanic flights, mach, economic efficiency, increases, average, divergence, cruising speed, inadequate engine technology<|CONCLUSION|>","Presuppositions not debatable I ask about regular commercial jet airliners that any layperson in Economy Class can frequent, not Business or First Classes or private jets with upcoming supersonic models The context is obviously lengthy transoceanic flights, like Tokyo ⇿ Toronto, London ⇿ Tokyo. Current average cruising speed is Mach 0.80 0.85. I ask about increases to at least Mach 1.5, for the longest non stop flights like UK ⇿ Australia. I already know about past supersonic airliners like Concorde and TU 144, but they're withdrawn I chose '30 years' arbitrarily I just hanker to experience this in my lifetime. Arguments I take, but hate, the lengthy duration of these flights. They ought be shorter The main hitch is cost benefit analysis or economic efficiency. The average flier probably wouldn't pay more for the extra speed. Other arguments are inadequate engine technology, aerodynamic restraints e.g. Drag Divergence Mach Number and scheduling snags.","In the next 30 years, for the Economy Class flier, commercial jet airliners' cruising speed won't increase."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Powermat is being installed in 100,000 locations around the United States. If the next iPhone has a built in PMA component, then Qi will lose the war. Apple users are often Starbucks and Teavana regulars, so it will be convenient for them. PMA will be installed everywhere for the 50 of smartphone users in the U.S. who own an iPhone and Qi will die. CMV To be clear, I don't want this to happen. I support Qi and I don't like the data transmission pushed ads that PMA can do. So I want someone to give me hope for Qi. Please. Thank you.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Powermat is being installed in 100,000 locations around the United States. If the next iPhone has a built in PMA component, then Qi will lose the war. Apple users are often Starbucks and Teavana regulars, so it will be convenient for them. PMA will be installed everywhere for the 50 of smartphone users in the U.S. who own an iPhone and Qi will die. CMV To be clear, I don't want this to happen. I support Qi and I don't like the data transmission pushed ads that PMA can do. So I want someone to give me hope for Qi. Please. Thank you.<|TARGETS|>Apple users, If the next iPhone has a built in PMA component, PMA, Powermat, to give me hope for Qi ., the data transmission pushed ads that PMA<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Powermat is being installed in 100,000 locations around the United States. If the next iPhone has a built in PMA component, then Qi will lose the war. Apple users are often Starbucks and Teavana regulars, so it will be convenient for them. PMA will be installed everywhere for the 50 of smartphone users in the U.S. who own an iPhone and Qi will die. CMV To be clear, I don't want this to happen. I support Qi and I don't like the data transmission pushed ads that PMA can do. So I want someone to give me hope for Qi. Please. Thank you.<|ASPECTS|>, installed, pma, qi, convenient, hope for qi, powermat, lose the war, data transmission pushed ads, die<|CONCLUSION|>","Powermat is being installed in 100,000 locations around the United States. If the next iPhone has a built in PMA component, then Qi will lose the war. Apple users are often Starbucks and Teavana regulars, so it will be convenient for them. PMA will be installed everywhere for the 50 of smartphone users in the U.S. who own an iPhone and Qi will die.  To be clear, I don't want this to happen. I support Qi and I don't like the data transmission pushed ads that PMA can do. So I want someone to give me hope for Qi. Please. Thank you.","Powermat will become the wireless charging standard, not Qi."
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a small under 100 lbs female. I do not currently own a gun but I would like to buy one and learn to use it just in case I ever need to defend myself against a person much bigger than me.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a small under 100 lbs female. I do not currently own a gun but I would like to buy one and learn to use it just in case I ever need to defend myself against a person much bigger than me.<|TARGETS|>to buy one and learn to use it just in case I ever need to defend myself against a person much bigger than me ., not currently own a gun<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a small under 100 lbs female. I do not currently own a gun but I would like to buy one and learn to use it just in case I ever need to defend myself against a person much bigger than me.<|ASPECTS|>defend, small<|CONCLUSION|>",I am a small under 100 lbs female. I do not currently own a gun but I would like to buy one and learn to use it just in case I ever need to defend myself against a person much bigger than me.,"I am pro-gun rights because I think people who can't defend themselves against most attackers me, for example need to level the playing field."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Like a lot of other people, I think privately owned guns are a vile social cancer that should be excised as soon as possible. Nearly everyone I know agrees with me, but when they argue with gun nuts, our people insist that they only want to take away this or that gun, that we respect the second amendment, yada, yada. Why lie? Won't we make progress faster if we are truthful? Ideas for progressive change don't become socially accepted until they are openly discussed for a time. The sooner we start being honest and up front about our position and why we hold it, the sooner something will be done. Being cagey as a political strategy has not worked. Why is my view a minority view on the reform side? <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Like a lot of other people, I think privately owned guns are a vile social cancer that should be excised as soon as possible. Nearly everyone I know agrees with me, but when they argue with gun nuts, our people insist that they only want to take away this or that gun, that we respect the second amendment, yada, yada. Why lie? Won't we make progress faster if we are truthful? Ideas for progressive change don't become socially accepted until they are openly discussed for a time. The sooner we start being honest and up front about our position and why we hold it, the sooner something will be done. Being cagey as a political strategy has not worked. Why is my view a minority view on the reform side? <|TARGETS|>Ideas for progressive change, being honest and up front about our position and why we hold it the sooner something will be done ., privately owned guns, a minority view on the reform side, Nearly everyone I know agrees with me but when they argue with gun nuts our people insist that they only want to take away this or that gun, Being cagey as a political strategy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Like a lot of other people, I think privately owned guns are a vile social cancer that should be excised as soon as possible. Nearly everyone I know agrees with me, but when they argue with gun nuts, our people insist that they only want to take away this or that gun, that we respect the second amendment, yada, yada. Why lie? Won't we make progress faster if we are truthful? Ideas for progressive change don't become socially accepted until they are openly discussed for a time. The sooner we start being honest and up front about our position and why we hold it, the sooner something will be done. Being cagey as a political strategy has not worked. Why is my view a minority view on the reform side? <|ASPECTS|>respect, socially accepted, political strategy, honest, position, minority view, cagey, lie, second amendment, progress faster, vile, social cancer, progressive change<|CONCLUSION|>","Like a lot of other people, I think privately owned guns are a vile social cancer that should be excised as soon as possible. Nearly everyone I know agrees with me, but when they argue with gun nuts, our people insist that they only want to take away this or that gun, that we respect the second amendment, yada, yada. Why lie? Won't we make progress faster if we are truthful? Ideas for progressive change don't become socially accepted until they are openly discussed for a time. The sooner we start being honest and up front about our position and why we hold it, the sooner something will be done. Being cagey as a political strategy has not worked. Why is my view a minority view on the reform side?","If We Want All Guns Banned, We Should Say So"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'd like to start this by clearly defining my position I think only cisgender, and by that I mean identifying with the gender you are born with, is a valid gender identification. I don't know if valid is the right world but it's the only one that sounds appropriate. Essentially, I think gender and biological sex are one and the same, gender is just a social construct to express our biological sex. In every animal in nature we can find two sexes, male and female. Sometimes the sexes have similar roles, sometimes the male or the female has more important roles, it doesn't matter It's there, and it's happening in nature. I'm not making an appeal to nature as a form of fallacy, I'm merely pointing out that it's a special pleading fallacy to think humans are special because we can get away with ignoring our biological sex. I admit that Humans have less sexual dimorphism than other animals and namely we can find, aside from physical and procreation capacities, little differences between men and women because both are capable of amazing things. I'm ok with abolishing or ignoring gender roles and allowing boys and girls to play with what they want. What we can't do is to pretend that we can magically change the sex we are born into. To use an analogy, if I decided to transplant my nose and put some whiskers and called myself a tiger, would I be a tiger or just a nutjob? What would you consider me? The primary argument for transgenderism is that gender dysphoria makes people feel bad about the biological sex they are born with or the gender they were assigned at birth, and therefore they have the right to identify with what makes them more comfortable. This sounds nice and reasonable, but the issue is that thinking we are something does not make us that something. I can imagine I'm a dragon in my head but that doesn't change the fact dragons don't exist and I'm still Human. To categorize and simplify arguments 1 Every or most species have a male and female specimen and, regardless of what roles each one has, to think Humans are different is a special pleading, kinda like thinking Humans will forever be the best species on the universe 2 The fact someone's brain tells them something is wrong or better doesn't mean it's true. If your brain can identify as a genderqueer or genderneutral, I don't see how I can't identify as a rock or a dragon. Why is the latter less valid? The fact the brain identifies as such doesn't mean we are such, it's irrelevant. If you are born with a penis, you are a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. There are obvious biological features specially related to procreation and body shape. Some transgender people, even those who have surgery, will forever look similar to the gender they don't want to be associated it, it's inevitable. The fact I want to change my deepest self doesn't mean I am actually doing it. 3 Why is gender special? In short, why can't I magically change other things about myself? I look white, and I know race is a social construct It's still a useful concept to categorize us Why can't I identify as black even with pale skin? Why can't a redhead identify as a black hair? Why can't children identify as adults, etc.? Again, special pleading. Oh, I also think the word cisgender shouldn't even be used. Some notes I am not promoting violence and hate against transgender people. If I meet someone who is trans, I will treat them like I treat anyone else. I can disagree with the core idea without hating the person. Don't bring up analogies to gay people and gay marriage because both are incomparable and completely different topics. Don't use you're a bigot as an argument My arguments have nothing to do with religion, I'm an atheist.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'd like to start this by clearly defining my position I think only cisgender, and by that I mean identifying with the gender you are born with, is a valid gender identification. I don't know if valid is the right world but it's the only one that sounds appropriate. Essentially, I think gender and biological sex are one and the same, gender is just a social construct to express our biological sex. In every animal in nature we can find two sexes, male and female. Sometimes the sexes have similar roles, sometimes the male or the female has more important roles, it doesn't matter It's there, and it's happening in nature. I'm not making an appeal to nature as a form of fallacy, I'm merely pointing out that it's a special pleading fallacy to think humans are special because we can get away with ignoring our biological sex. I admit that Humans have less sexual dimorphism than other animals and namely we can find, aside from physical and procreation capacities, little differences between men and women because both are capable of amazing things. I'm ok with abolishing or ignoring gender roles and allowing boys and girls to play with what they want. What we can't do is to pretend that we can magically change the sex we are born into. To use an analogy, if I decided to transplant my nose and put some whiskers and called myself a tiger, would I be a tiger or just a nutjob? What would you consider me? The primary argument for transgenderism is that gender dysphoria makes people feel bad about the biological sex they are born with or the gender they were assigned at birth, and therefore they have the right to identify with what makes them more comfortable. This sounds nice and reasonable, but the issue is that thinking we are something does not make us that something. I can imagine I'm a dragon in my head but that doesn't change the fact dragons don't exist and I'm still Human. To categorize and simplify arguments 1 Every or most species have a male and female specimen and, regardless of what roles each one has, to think Humans are different is a special pleading, kinda like thinking Humans will forever be the best species on the universe 2 The fact someone's brain tells them something is wrong or better doesn't mean it's true. If your brain can identify as a genderqueer or genderneutral, I don't see how I can't identify as a rock or a dragon. Why is the latter less valid? The fact the brain identifies as such doesn't mean we are such, it's irrelevant. If you are born with a penis, you are a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. There are obvious biological features specially related to procreation and body shape. Some transgender people, even those who have surgery, will forever look similar to the gender they don't want to be associated it, it's inevitable. The fact I want to change my deepest self doesn't mean I am actually doing it. 3 Why is gender special? In short, why can't I magically change other things about myself? I look white, and I know race is a social construct It's still a useful concept to categorize us Why can't I identify as black even with pale skin? Why can't a redhead identify as a black hair? Why can't children identify as adults, etc.? Again, special pleading. Oh, I also think the word cisgender shouldn't even be used. Some notes I am not promoting violence and hate against transgender people. If I meet someone who is trans, I will treat them like I treat anyone else. I can disagree with the core idea without hating the person. Don't bring up analogies to gay people and gay marriage because both are incomparable and completely different topics. Don't use you're a bigot as an argument My arguments have nothing to do with religion, I'm an atheist.<|TARGETS|>to pretend that we can magically change the sex we are born into ., to categorize us Why ca n't I identify as black even with pale skin, to transplant my nose and put some whiskers and called myself a tiger, that Humans have less sexual dimorphism than other animals and namely we can find aside from physical and procreation capacities, a dragon in my head, the core idea without hating the person .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'd like to start this by clearly defining my position I think only cisgender, and by that I mean identifying with the gender you are born with, is a valid gender identification. I don't know if valid is the right world but it's the only one that sounds appropriate. Essentially, I think gender and biological sex are one and the same, gender is just a social construct to express our biological sex. In every animal in nature we can find two sexes, male and female. Sometimes the sexes have similar roles, sometimes the male or the female has more important roles, it doesn't matter It's there, and it's happening in nature. I'm not making an appeal to nature as a form of fallacy, I'm merely pointing out that it's a special pleading fallacy to think humans are special because we can get away with ignoring our biological sex. I admit that Humans have less sexual dimorphism than other animals and namely we can find, aside from physical and procreation capacities, little differences between men and women because both are capable of amazing things. I'm ok with abolishing or ignoring gender roles and allowing boys and girls to play with what they want. What we can't do is to pretend that we can magically change the sex we are born into. To use an analogy, if I decided to transplant my nose and put some whiskers and called myself a tiger, would I be a tiger or just a nutjob? What would you consider me? The primary argument for transgenderism is that gender dysphoria makes people feel bad about the biological sex they are born with or the gender they were assigned at birth, and therefore they have the right to identify with what makes them more comfortable. This sounds nice and reasonable, but the issue is that thinking we are something does not make us that something. I can imagine I'm a dragon in my head but that doesn't change the fact dragons don't exist and I'm still Human. To categorize and simplify arguments 1 Every or most species have a male and female specimen and, regardless of what roles each one has, to think Humans are different is a special pleading, kinda like thinking Humans will forever be the best species on the universe 2 The fact someone's brain tells them something is wrong or better doesn't mean it's true. If your brain can identify as a genderqueer or genderneutral, I don't see how I can't identify as a rock or a dragon. Why is the latter less valid? The fact the brain identifies as such doesn't mean we are such, it's irrelevant. If you are born with a penis, you are a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. There are obvious biological features specially related to procreation and body shape. Some transgender people, even those who have surgery, will forever look similar to the gender they don't want to be associated it, it's inevitable. The fact I want to change my deepest self doesn't mean I am actually doing it. 3 Why is gender special? In short, why can't I magically change other things about myself? I look white, and I know race is a social construct It's still a useful concept to categorize us Why can't I identify as black even with pale skin? Why can't a redhead identify as a black hair? Why can't children identify as adults, etc.? Again, special pleading. Oh, I also think the word cisgender shouldn't even be used. Some notes I am not promoting violence and hate against transgender people. If I meet someone who is trans, I will treat them like I treat anyone else. I can disagree with the core idea without hating the person. Don't bring up analogies to gay people and gay marriage because both are incomparable and completely different topics. Don't use you're a bigot as an argument My arguments have nothing to do with religion, I'm an atheist.<|ASPECTS|>, sexual dimorphism, woman, analogies, dragon, special, wrong, dragons, body shape, less valid, ignoring, nature, two sexes, differences, different topics, trans, gender identification, simplify, important roles, feel bad, genderqueer, magically, similar roles, appropriate, atheist, gay marriage, core idea, identify as adults, tiger, race, social construct, bigot, change the sex, black hair, gay people, human, biological sex, male, nutjob, genderneutral, treat, fallacy, hating the person, violence and hate, comfortable, look, play, cisgender, similar, transgender, gender roles, change other things, gender, brain identifies, gender special, less, special pleading, gender dysphoria, biological features, incomparable, sex, change, valid, children, reasonable, religion, identify, man, best species, right world, right to identify, disagree, deepest self, irrelevant<|CONCLUSION|>","I'd like to start this by clearly defining my position I think only cisgender, and by that I mean identifying with the gender you are born with, is a valid gender identification. I don't know if valid is the right world but it's the only one that sounds appropriate. Essentially, I think gender and biological sex are one and the same, gender is just a social construct to express our biological sex. In every animal in nature we can find two sexes, male and female. Sometimes the sexes have similar roles, sometimes the male or the female has more important roles, it doesn't matter It's there, and it's happening in nature. I'm not making an appeal to nature as a form of fallacy, I'm merely pointing out that it's a special pleading fallacy to think humans are special because we can get away with ignoring our biological sex. I admit that Humans have less sexual dimorphism than other animals and namely we can find, aside from physical and procreation capacities, little differences between men and women because both are capable of amazing things. I'm ok with abolishing or ignoring gender roles and allowing boys and girls to play with what they want. What we can't do is to pretend that we can magically change the sex we are born into. To use an analogy, if I decided to transplant my nose and put some whiskers and called myself a tiger, would I be a tiger or just a nutjob? What would you consider me? The primary argument for transgenderism is that gender dysphoria makes people feel bad about the biological sex they are born with or the gender they were assigned at birth, and therefore they have the right to identify with what makes them more comfortable. This sounds nice and reasonable, but the issue is that thinking we are something does not make us that something. I can imagine I'm a dragon in my head but that doesn't change the fact dragons don't exist and I'm still Human. To categorize and simplify arguments 1 Every or most species have a male and female specimen and, regardless of what roles each one has, to think Humans are different is a special pleading, kinda like thinking Humans will forever be the best species on the universe 2 The fact someone's brain tells them something is wrong or better doesn't mean it's true. If your brain can identify as a genderqueer or genderneutral, I don't see how I can't identify as a rock or a dragon. Why is the latter less valid? The fact the brain identifies as such doesn't mean we are such, it's irrelevant. If you are born with a penis, you are a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. There are obvious biological features specially related to procreation and body shape. Some transgender people, even those who have surgery, will forever look similar to the gender they don't want to be associated it, it's inevitable. The fact I want to change my deepest self doesn't mean I am actually doing it. 3 Why is gender special? In short, why can't I magically change other things about myself? I look white, and I know race is a social construct It's still a useful concept to categorize us Why can't I identify as black even with pale skin? Why can't a redhead identify as a black hair? Why can't children identify as adults, etc.? Again, special pleading. Oh, I also think the word cisgender shouldn't even be used. Some notes I am not promoting violence and hate against transgender people. If I meet someone who is trans, I will treat them like I treat anyone else. I can disagree with the core idea without hating the person. Don't bring up analogies to gay people and gay marriage because both are incomparable and completely different topics. Don't use you're a bigot as an argument My arguments have nothing to do with religion, I'm an atheist.",Only cisgender exists
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey everyone. LTL, FTP, all that jazz. So, my position is fairly simple, the Iran deal sucked. Why? Because, first and foremost, it was a band aid at best, as it allows Iran to purchase the equipment necessary to refine nuclear materials in 15 years. Next, inspections. Sure, we can inspect the sites suspected of nuclear production and testing. After a 7 day waiting period for approval FROM IRAN, then if they say no up to a few weeks if I remember right before any action can be taken. Plus, the sanctions will never be able to be put in place again, as Russia has absolutely no interest to do so to help us. Then there's how it was passed. Really? Calling it a nonbinding agreement to sidestep Congress? When you have to hide behind closed doors to make a deal, you're doing something wrong. And finally, there is the threat Iran is. People say that Iran is just trying to become a first world country, and is peaceful. Ha, yeah. And those Death to America speeches where the crowds chant back what the president says? Please. So yeah, I can't see how the Iran Deal could possibly be a good idea. I'd love to hear the other side of this though, maybe you can change my mind.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey everyone. LTL, FTP, all that jazz. So, my position is fairly simple, the Iran deal sucked. Why? Because, first and foremost, it was a band aid at best, as it allows Iran to purchase the equipment necessary to refine nuclear materials in 15 years. Next, inspections. Sure, we can inspect the sites suspected of nuclear production and testing. After a 7 day waiting period for approval FROM IRAN, then if they say no up to a few weeks if I remember right before any action can be taken. Plus, the sanctions will never be able to be put in place again, as Russia has absolutely no interest to do so to help us. Then there's how it was passed. Really? Calling it a nonbinding agreement to sidestep Congress? When you have to hide behind closed doors to make a deal, you're doing something wrong. And finally, there is the threat Iran is. People say that Iran is just trying to become a first world country, and is peaceful. Ha, yeah. And those Death to America speeches where the crowds chant back what the president says? Please. So yeah, I can't see how the Iran Deal could possibly be a good idea. I'd love to hear the other side of this though, maybe you can change my mind.<|TARGETS|>to hide behind closed doors to make a deal, the sanctions, the Iran deal, a 7 day waiting period for approval FROM IRAN, Iran, LTL<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey everyone. LTL, FTP, all that jazz. So, my position is fairly simple, the Iran deal sucked. Why? Because, first and foremost, it was a band aid at best, as it allows Iran to purchase the equipment necessary to refine nuclear materials in 15 years. Next, inspections. Sure, we can inspect the sites suspected of nuclear production and testing. After a 7 day waiting period for approval FROM IRAN, then if they say no up to a few weeks if I remember right before any action can be taken. Plus, the sanctions will never be able to be put in place again, as Russia has absolutely no interest to do so to help us. Then there's how it was passed. Really? Calling it a nonbinding agreement to sidestep Congress? When you have to hide behind closed doors to make a deal, you're doing something wrong. And finally, there is the threat Iran is. People say that Iran is just trying to become a first world country, and is peaceful. Ha, yeah. And those Death to America speeches where the crowds chant back what the president says? Please. So yeah, I can't see how the Iran Deal could possibly be a good idea. I'd love to hear the other side of this though, maybe you can change my mind.<|ASPECTS|>death, first world country, testing, passed, chant, threat iran, inspect, materials, iran deal, inspections, interest, jazz, nonbinding agreement, purchase, sidestep congress, nuclear production, doors, band aid, refine, sanctions, action, peaceful, waiting, something wrong, change my mind<|CONCLUSION|>","Hey everyone. LTL, FTP, all that jazz. So, my position is fairly simple, the Iran deal sucked. Why? Because, first and foremost, it was a band aid at best, as it allows Iran to purchase the equipment necessary to refine nuclear materials in 15 years. Next, inspections. Sure, we can inspect the sites suspected of nuclear production and testing. After a 7 day waiting period for approval FROM IRAN, then if they say no up to a few weeks if I remember right before any action can be taken. Plus, the sanctions will never be able to be put in place again, as Russia has absolutely no interest to do so to help us. Then there's how it was passed. Really? Calling it a nonbinding agreement to sidestep Congress? When you have to hide behind closed doors to make a deal, you're doing something wrong. And finally, there is the threat Iran is. People say that Iran is just trying to become a first world country, and is peaceful. Ha, yeah. And those Death to America speeches where the crowds chant back what the president says? Please. So yeah, I can't see how the Iran Deal could possibly be a good idea. I'd love to hear the other side of this though, maybe you can change my mind.","The Iran Deal was a failure to the people of the USA and to the world, and will give the Iranians the Bomb"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Philando Castile, a black man, was shot by a latino cop last year. I am not arguing if the shooting is justified or not. Philando Castile, who was armed when being shot, had a carry permit, which allowed him to carry a gun in the state of Maine. However, gt although he had a gun permit, an autopsy showed Castile had THC in his system. Under Minnesota law, it's illegal to carry while under the influence. I am unsure why NPR included Minnesota's law, since gt Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Thus, Castile was not a lawful gun owner. In fact, the NRA was parly responsible for the law the ATF is enforcing here, the Gun Control Act of 1968. The NRA does defend lawful gun owners. Castile was not one of them, so them not defending Castile is completly in line with their past actions and in no way explained by racism. Additionally, they have not stood up for the rights of cannabis users to own guns in the past. ^ 1 ^ 2 So them not standing up for the right of a cannabis user in this instance is, again, completly in line with their previous actions. The fact that they have been getting a lot of criticism, both from unimportant online forums aswell as from important liberal activists. Among them Trevor Noah , and it has also been reported in some newspapers. ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 ^ 4 It is falsely claimed that he was a lawful gun owner in all of those articles and in the daily show piece. Accepting negative claims about an organization you are opposed to without prove and spreading fake news of this sort is one of the main things Trump supporters are often accused of. The claim that the NRA is not defending Castile due to race weakens all other serious claims of racism and is missplaced. It doesn't even take 5 minutes of googling to find this out. I have gained understanding why the right accuses left wing activists of identity politics and creating divison. I am not an American citizen. I don't have a horse in the race. Where am I wrong? edit Just to make one thing clear, this does obviously not extent to all liberals, I could not find a NYT or Atlantic piece with similar content. I am also aware of the NRA's past actions and their political leaning. This is not what I am arguing about. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Philando Castile, a black man, was shot by a latino cop last year. I am not arguing if the shooting is justified or not. Philando Castile, who was armed when being shot, had a carry permit, which allowed him to carry a gun in the state of Maine. However, gt although he had a gun permit, an autopsy showed Castile had THC in his system. Under Minnesota law, it's illegal to carry while under the influence. I am unsure why NPR included Minnesota's law, since gt Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Thus, Castile was not a lawful gun owner. In fact, the NRA was parly responsible for the law the ATF is enforcing here, the Gun Control Act of 1968. The NRA does defend lawful gun owners. Castile was not one of them, so them not defending Castile is completly in line with their past actions and in no way explained by racism. Additionally, they have not stood up for the rights of cannabis users to own guns in the past. ^ 1 ^ 2 So them not standing up for the right of a cannabis user in this instance is, again, completly in line with their previous actions. The fact that they have been getting a lot of criticism, both from unimportant online forums aswell as from important liberal activists. Among them Trevor Noah , and it has also been reported in some newspapers. ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 ^ 4 It is falsely claimed that he was a lawful gun owner in all of those articles and in the daily show piece. Accepting negative claims about an organization you are opposed to without prove and spreading fake news of this sort is one of the main things Trump supporters are often accused of. The claim that the NRA is not defending Castile due to race weakens all other serious claims of racism and is missplaced. It doesn't even take 5 minutes of googling to find this out. I have gained understanding why the right accuses left wing activists of identity politics and creating divison. I am not an American citizen. I don't have a horse in the race. Where am I wrong? edit Just to make one thing clear, this does obviously not extent to all liberals, I could not find a NYT or Atlantic piece with similar content. I am also aware of the NRA's past actions and their political leaning. This is not what I am arguing about. <|TARGETS|>a gun permit, not arguing if the shooting, Trevor Noah, Philando Castile, legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, the right accuses left wing activists of identity politics and creating divison<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Philando Castile, a black man, was shot by a latino cop last year. I am not arguing if the shooting is justified or not. Philando Castile, who was armed when being shot, had a carry permit, which allowed him to carry a gun in the state of Maine. However, gt although he had a gun permit, an autopsy showed Castile had THC in his system. Under Minnesota law, it's illegal to carry while under the influence. I am unsure why NPR included Minnesota's law, since gt Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Thus, Castile was not a lawful gun owner. In fact, the NRA was parly responsible for the law the ATF is enforcing here, the Gun Control Act of 1968. The NRA does defend lawful gun owners. Castile was not one of them, so them not defending Castile is completly in line with their past actions and in no way explained by racism. Additionally, they have not stood up for the rights of cannabis users to own guns in the past. ^ 1 ^ 2 So them not standing up for the right of a cannabis user in this instance is, again, completly in line with their previous actions. The fact that they have been getting a lot of criticism, both from unimportant online forums aswell as from important liberal activists. Among them Trevor Noah , and it has also been reported in some newspapers. ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 ^ 4 It is falsely claimed that he was a lawful gun owner in all of those articles and in the daily show piece. Accepting negative claims about an organization you are opposed to without prove and spreading fake news of this sort is one of the main things Trump supporters are often accused of. The claim that the NRA is not defending Castile due to race weakens all other serious claims of racism and is missplaced. It doesn't even take 5 minutes of googling to find this out. I have gained understanding why the right accuses left wing activists of identity politics and creating divison. I am not an American citizen. I don't have a horse in the race. Where am I wrong? edit Just to make one thing clear, this does obviously not extent to all liberals, I could not find a NYT or Atlantic piece with similar content. I am also aware of the NRA's past actions and their political leaning. This is not what I am arguing about. <|ASPECTS|>, medicinal, shot, controlled, past actions, political leaning, identity politics, unlawful user, fake news, lawful gun owners, liberal activists, liberals, carry permit, criticism, race, shooting, horse, justified, wing, responsible, illegal to carry, missplaced, falsely, guns, law, latino cop, past, american citizen, right, thc, rights of cannabis users, defend, unimportant online forums, googling, lawful gun owner, gun, racism, addicted, negative claims<|CONCLUSION|>","Philando Castile, a black man, was shot by a latino cop last year. I am not arguing if the shooting is justified or not. Philando Castile, who was armed when being shot, had a carry permit, which allowed him to carry a gun in the state of Maine. However, gt although he had a gun permit, an autopsy showed Castile had THC in his system. Under Minnesota law, it's illegal to carry while under the influence. I am unsure why NPR included Minnesota's law, since gt Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Thus, Castile was not a lawful gun owner. In fact, the NRA was parly responsible for the law the ATF is enforcing here, the Gun Control Act of 1968. The NRA does defend lawful gun owners. Castile was not one of them, so them not defending Castile is completly in line with their past actions and in no way explained by racism. Additionally, they have not stood up for the rights of cannabis users to own guns in the past. ^ 1 ^ 2 So them not standing up for the right of a cannabis user in this instance is, again, completly in line with their previous actions. The fact that they have been getting a lot of criticism, both from unimportant online forums aswell as from important liberal activists. Among them Trevor Noah , and it has also been reported in some newspapers. ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 ^ 4 It is falsely claimed that he was a lawful gun owner in all of those articles and in the daily show piece. Accepting negative claims about an organization you are opposed to without prove and spreading fake news of this sort is one of the main things Trump supporters are often accused of. The claim that the NRA is not defending Castile due to race weakens all other serious claims of racism and is missplaced. It doesn't even take 5 minutes of googling to find this out. I have gained understanding why the right accuses left wing activists of identity politics and creating divison. I am not an American citizen. I don't have a horse in the race. Where am I wrong? edit Just to make one thing clear, this does obviously not extent to all liberals, I could not find a NYT or Atlantic piece with similar content. I am also aware of the NRA's past actions and their political leaning. This is not what I am arguing about.",The reaction of the NRA to the shooting of Philando Castile was not racially motivated and pretending it was shows hypocrisy among the left
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that when it comes to the female half of the human species selecting a mate i.e. choosing someone to have sex with they picked based on three characteristics Dominance Both signs of social and physical dominance Status So rather than just money, signs of success and popularity Looks Specifically when it comes to the face, the usual symmetry but also a preference for faces that show signs of higher testosterone levels Pick up artists have always held at the core that you have to change yourself into someone that showcases rock solid confidence a sign of social dominance , someone who appears to be popular with other women, which pick up artists have termed preselection which would be a sign of status , and improving your looks by dressing better and lifting weights which would also increase physical dominant presence . The suggestions made by the pickup community as a whole almost always can be pigeon holed into trying to improve one of those three as it is what women respond to in my belief . CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that when it comes to the female half of the human species selecting a mate i.e. choosing someone to have sex with they picked based on three characteristics Dominance Both signs of social and physical dominance Status So rather than just money, signs of success and popularity Looks Specifically when it comes to the face, the usual symmetry but also a preference for faces that show signs of higher testosterone levels Pick up artists have always held at the core that you have to change yourself into someone that showcases rock solid confidence a sign of social dominance , someone who appears to be popular with other women, which pick up artists have termed preselection which would be a sign of status , and improving your looks by dressing better and lifting weights which would also increase physical dominant presence . The suggestions made by the pickup community as a whole almost always can be pigeon holed into trying to improve one of those three as it is what women respond to in my belief . CMV<|TARGETS|>choosing someone to have sex with they picked based on three characteristics Dominance Both signs of social and physical dominance Status, the female half of the human species selecting a mate, The suggestions made by the pickup community as a whole<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that when it comes to the female half of the human species selecting a mate i.e. choosing someone to have sex with they picked based on three characteristics Dominance Both signs of social and physical dominance Status So rather than just money, signs of success and popularity Looks Specifically when it comes to the face, the usual symmetry but also a preference for faces that show signs of higher testosterone levels Pick up artists have always held at the core that you have to change yourself into someone that showcases rock solid confidence a sign of social dominance , someone who appears to be popular with other women, which pick up artists have termed preselection which would be a sign of status , and improving your looks by dressing better and lifting weights which would also increase physical dominant presence . The suggestions made by the pickup community as a whole almost always can be pigeon holed into trying to improve one of those three as it is what women respond to in my belief . CMV<|ASPECTS|>selecting a mate, social dominance, physical dominant presence, success, improve, popularity, social, status, pigeon holed, dominance<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that when it comes to the female half of the human species selecting a mate i.e. choosing someone to have sex with they picked based on three characteristics Dominance Both signs of social and physical dominance Status So rather than just money, signs of success and popularity Looks Specifically when it comes to the face, the usual symmetry but also a preference for faces that show signs of higher testosterone levels Pick up artists have always held at the core that you have to change yourself into someone that showcases rock solid confidence a sign of social dominance , someone who appears to be popular with other women, which pick up artists have termed preselection which would be a sign of status , and improving your looks by dressing better and lifting weights which would also increase physical dominant presence . The suggestions made by the pickup community as a whole almost always can be pigeon holed into trying to improve one of those three as it is what women respond to in my belief .","Women seek status, dominance and looks in a male above all else and thus the core principles suggested by pick up artist mantra is correct"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>please dont automatically get shitty at me for saying this. Hear me out This site can get very addicting. There's so many subs and topics for discussion all the time. The above title includes commenting obviously aswell Theres so much fast paced clicking around on this website. it has the potential to affect ones health. I believe other websites are more inclined to make the user slow down more as opposed to reddit and read things at a slower pace, moving on to the next thing in a calm manner however there is so much information available at any moment on reddit that the user you and me willingly or unwillingly speeds up their mental activity leading to stress and possibly grey hair. In other words this website is inherently stressful and has the potential to cause grey hair in individuals After using this website for hours on end i can FEEL the tension on my scalp<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>please dont automatically get shitty at me for saying this. Hear me out This site can get very addicting. There's so many subs and topics for discussion all the time. The above title includes commenting obviously aswell Theres so much fast paced clicking around on this website. it has the potential to affect ones health. I believe other websites are more inclined to make the user slow down more as opposed to reddit and read things at a slower pace, moving on to the next thing in a calm manner however there is so much information available at any moment on reddit that the user you and me willingly or unwillingly speeds up their mental activity leading to stress and possibly grey hair. In other words this website is inherently stressful and has the potential to cause grey hair in individuals After using this website for hours on end i can FEEL the tension on my scalp<|TARGETS|>Theres so much fast paced clicking around on this website, automatically get shitty at me for saying this ., this website, Hear me out This site, The above title, so much information available at any moment on reddit that the user you and me willingly or unwillingly speeds up their mental activity leading to stress and possibly grey hair .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>please dont automatically get shitty at me for saying this. Hear me out This site can get very addicting. There's so many subs and topics for discussion all the time. The above title includes commenting obviously aswell Theres so much fast paced clicking around on this website. it has the potential to affect ones health. I believe other websites are more inclined to make the user slow down more as opposed to reddit and read things at a slower pace, moving on to the next thing in a calm manner however there is so much information available at any moment on reddit that the user you and me willingly or unwillingly speeds up their mental activity leading to stress and possibly grey hair. In other words this website is inherently stressful and has the potential to cause grey hair in individuals After using this website for hours on end i can FEEL the tension on my scalp<|ASPECTS|>stressful, affect, slow, mental activity, discussion, addicting, tension, topics, fast paced clicking, ones health, stress, grey, commenting, grey hair, shitty, subs<|CONCLUSION|>","please dont automatically get shitty at me for saying this. Hear me out This site can get very addicting. There's so many subs and topics for discussion all the time. The above title includes commenting obviously aswell Theres so much fast paced clicking around on this website. it has the potential to affect ones health. I believe other websites are more inclined to make the user slow down more as opposed to reddit and read things at a slower pace, moving on to the next thing in a calm manner however there is so much information available at any moment on reddit that the user you and me willingly or unwillingly speeds up their mental activity leading to stress and possibly grey hair. In other words this website is inherently stressful and has the potential to cause grey hair in individuals After using this website for hours on end i can FEEL the tension on my scalp","I think using reddit i.e. jumping around from sub to sub, reading this and that... etc is highly stressful! and it is enough to give someone premature grey hair- when this site is used a lot."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that there are good people in the world and that the good stuff goes mostly unreported, but reading all the terrible news and blatant sexism and racism on the internet has made me believe that everything is bad and humanity is disgusting. I believe that even people I know in everyday life who I think are decent people have the capacity to do terrible things and would do them more readily than they like to believe. People say that it's the internet so the vocal ones aren't representative of the majority but I believe that many people who would not be so vocal in real life would readily display their true colors anonymously. I also think that people in large groups should never be trusted, for example the recent Islamophobia in France and attacking of Muslims, the gang rape of the young Japanese girl in India, or the driver that was nearly beaten to death by a community because he accidentally ran into a child. There are countless examples of mob mentality and it always seems to be bad. A huge number of comments on reddit are racist and sexist, even if it is casual , but when they are called out on this, the group hate towards the one who calls them out is overwhelming. I really do want my view to be changed, because it's scary seeing the world like this.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that there are good people in the world and that the good stuff goes mostly unreported, but reading all the terrible news and blatant sexism and racism on the internet has made me believe that everything is bad and humanity is disgusting. I believe that even people I know in everyday life who I think are decent people have the capacity to do terrible things and would do them more readily than they like to believe. People say that it's the internet so the vocal ones aren't representative of the majority but I believe that many people who would not be so vocal in real life would readily display their true colors anonymously. I also think that people in large groups should never be trusted, for example the recent Islamophobia in France and attacking of Muslims, the gang rape of the young Japanese girl in India, or the driver that was nearly beaten to death by a community because he accidentally ran into a child. There are countless examples of mob mentality and it always seems to be bad. A huge number of comments on reddit are racist and sexist, even if it is casual , but when they are called out on this, the group hate towards the one who calls them out is overwhelming. I really do want my view to be changed, because it's scary seeing the world like this.<|TARGETS|>the internet so the vocal ones, I believe that even people I know in everyday life who I think are decent people have the capacity to do terrible things and would do them more readily than they like to believe ., that many people who would not be so vocal in real life would readily display their true colors anonymously ., A huge number of comments on reddit, the recent Islamophobia in France and attacking of Muslims the gang rape of the young Japanese girl in India, reading all the terrible news and blatant sexism and racism on the internet<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that there are good people in the world and that the good stuff goes mostly unreported, but reading all the terrible news and blatant sexism and racism on the internet has made me believe that everything is bad and humanity is disgusting. I believe that even people I know in everyday life who I think are decent people have the capacity to do terrible things and would do them more readily than they like to believe. People say that it's the internet so the vocal ones aren't representative of the majority but I believe that many people who would not be so vocal in real life would readily display their true colors anonymously. I also think that people in large groups should never be trusted, for example the recent Islamophobia in France and attacking of Muslims, the gang rape of the young Japanese girl in India, or the driver that was nearly beaten to death by a community because he accidentally ran into a child. There are countless examples of mob mentality and it always seems to be bad. A huge number of comments on reddit are racist and sexist, even if it is casual , but when they are called out on this, the group hate towards the one who calls them out is overwhelming. I really do want my view to be changed, because it's scary seeing the world like this.<|ASPECTS|>trusted, bad, view, representative of the majority, disgusting, group, decent, hate, terrible things, true colors, scary seeing the world, gang, racist and sexist, good people, anonymously, mob mentality, sexism, humanity, racism, islamophobia, changed, capacity<|CONCLUSION|>","I know that there are good people in the world and that the good stuff goes mostly unreported, but reading all the terrible news and blatant sexism and racism on the internet has made me believe that everything is bad and humanity is disgusting. I believe that even people I know in everyday life who I think are decent people have the capacity to do terrible things and would do them more readily than they like to believe. People say that it's the internet so the vocal ones aren't representative of the majority but I believe that many people who would not be so vocal in real life would readily display their true colors anonymously. I also think that people in large groups should never be trusted, for example the recent Islamophobia in France and attacking of Muslims, the gang rape of the young Japanese girl in India, or the driver that was nearly beaten to death by a community because he accidentally ran into a child. There are countless examples of mob mentality and it always seems to be bad. A huge number of comments on reddit are racist and sexist, even if it is casual , but when they are called out on this, the group hate towards the one who calls them out is overwhelming. I really do want my view to be changed, because it's scary seeing the world like this.","I believe the world is a terrible and dangerous place filled with sick, disgusting people."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ok so watch the world burn might be a little harsh. It's probably closer to simply hating the status quo so much that eliminating it is more important than anything else. As the candidates put out more and more details regarding their policy plans, there's no doubt Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have almost nothing in common besides their hair issues and a general support for Planned Parenthood. But on the big issues that could have serious impact on the lives of people living in the US immigration, taxes, foreign policy, gun rights, free speech, health care, higher education, and the overall size and scope of the federal government they are close to polar opposites. There's no way that a person who supports Bernie, but who will vote for Trump, is thinking you know I'd like to have free health care and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but I'll settle for continuing with the current health care system and deporting all illegals. But last week, The Guardian asked 700 Bernie Sanders supporters who they would vote for if Hillary wins the nomination and 500 of them said they'd seriously consider Trump while only 200 said they'd vote Hillary. Source This makes absolutely no sense if you consider any of the candidates stances on virtually any issue. So I believe a large percentage of Bernie Sanders supporters don't actually support him for his policies but rather because of what he represents or rather what he doesn't represent . They can't stand the status quo and want to see drastic change more than they want free college or free health care or to see a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Change my view.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ok so watch the world burn might be a little harsh. It's probably closer to simply hating the status quo so much that eliminating it is more important than anything else. As the candidates put out more and more details regarding their policy plans, there's no doubt Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have almost nothing in common besides their hair issues and a general support for Planned Parenthood. But on the big issues that could have serious impact on the lives of people living in the US immigration, taxes, foreign policy, gun rights, free speech, health care, higher education, and the overall size and scope of the federal government they are close to polar opposites. There's no way that a person who supports Bernie, but who will vote for Trump, is thinking you know I'd like to have free health care and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but I'll settle for continuing with the current health care system and deporting all illegals. But last week, The Guardian asked 700 Bernie Sanders supporters who they would vote for if Hillary wins the nomination and 500 of them said they'd seriously consider Trump while only 200 said they'd vote Hillary. Source This makes absolutely no sense if you consider any of the candidates stances on virtually any issue. So I believe a large percentage of Bernie Sanders supporters don't actually support him for his policies but rather because of what he represents or rather what he doesn't represent . They can't stand the status quo and want to see drastic change more than they want free college or free health care or to see a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Change my view.<|TARGETS|>Ok so watch the world burn, to see drastic change more than they want free college or free health care or to see a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants ., a person who supports Bernie but who will vote for Trump, hating the status quo so much that eliminating it, the candidates put out more and more details regarding their policy plans, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ok so watch the world burn might be a little harsh. It's probably closer to simply hating the status quo so much that eliminating it is more important than anything else. As the candidates put out more and more details regarding their policy plans, there's no doubt Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have almost nothing in common besides their hair issues and a general support for Planned Parenthood. But on the big issues that could have serious impact on the lives of people living in the US immigration, taxes, foreign policy, gun rights, free speech, health care, higher education, and the overall size and scope of the federal government they are close to polar opposites. There's no way that a person who supports Bernie, but who will vote for Trump, is thinking you know I'd like to have free health care and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but I'll settle for continuing with the current health care system and deporting all illegals. But last week, The Guardian asked 700 Bernie Sanders supporters who they would vote for if Hillary wins the nomination and 500 of them said they'd seriously consider Trump while only 200 said they'd vote Hillary. Source This makes absolutely no sense if you consider any of the candidates stances on virtually any issue. So I believe a large percentage of Bernie Sanders supporters don't actually support him for his policies but rather because of what he represents or rather what he doesn't represent . They can't stand the status quo and want to see drastic change more than they want free college or free health care or to see a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>hair issues, immigrants, free health care, view, undocumented immigrants, drastic change, free college, harsh, burn, gun rights, free speech, polar opposites, support, status quo, free, eliminating, citizenship, deporting all illegals, candidates stances, hating the status quo, impact, consider trump, seriously<|CONCLUSION|>","Ok so watch the world burn might be a little harsh. It's probably closer to simply hating the status quo so much that eliminating it is more important than anything else. As the candidates put out more and more details regarding their policy plans, there's no doubt Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have almost nothing in common besides their hair issues and a general support for Planned Parenthood. But on the big issues that could have serious impact on the lives of people living in the US immigration, taxes, foreign policy, gun rights, free speech, health care, higher education, and the overall size and scope of the federal government they are close to polar opposites. There's no way that a person who supports Bernie, but who will vote for Trump, is thinking you know I'd like to have free health care and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but I'll settle for continuing with the current health care system and deporting all illegals. But last week, The Guardian asked 700 Bernie Sanders supporters who they would vote for if Hillary wins the nomination and 500 of them said they'd seriously consider Trump while only 200 said they'd vote Hillary. Source This makes absolutely no sense if you consider any of the candidates stances on virtually any issue. So I believe a large percentage of Bernie Sanders supporters don't actually support him for his policies but rather because of what he represents or rather what he doesn't represent . They can't stand the status quo and want to see drastic change more than they want free college or free health care or to see a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Change my view.",Anyone who supports Bernie Sanders but who will vote for Trump if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination is completely uninformed on candidate policy or doesn't care about it and simply wants to watch the world burn.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems there is a push to forgive student loan debts by democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. I completely disagree with that. It is unfair, unjust, lacks accountability, lacks integrity, and places the burden of the irresponsible on the backs of all. I’d like to provide three personal examples of students taking loans, then I’ll go into into the matter itself. I went to a state school where tuition was 12k a year. After using scholarship money for tuition, books, rent, food, I had to take out loans I had the choice to work, but I took out loans, instead. I chose the hardest major there is, graduated with 20K in debt, and landed a job with excellent pay nearly ~70k I also own shares in a business that brings it up, but that’s besides the point . My best friend went to the same school, had a little less scholarship money, and he worked throughout school and graduated with 0 in debt and landed a job making ~60k. He also owns shares in the business we co run. I have another friend who had nearly the same amount of scholarship funding as I did, but she decided to go a private school with a tuition of 30k a year. She will certainly graduate with ~100k in debt. Given her major, she won’t break 40k. To make matters worse, she rents rather than living at home which is only 15minutes away and she will graduate this December as a 5th year senior. If the government forgives her loan, it will be as if she suffers no consequence of her choices and actions, but rather, it is my best friend and I who will pay for her choices and actions. How is that fair? Do we really want to live in a society where people can take out loans without having to pay them? The lender suffers, honest people suffer, and the irresponsible profit. This is completely unjust. Loans should be based on major choice. The higher the salary for that major, the higher the loan amount. There are thousands of students out there who take the risk and “invest” in themselves. But when they graduate, they loathe the idea of giving back what they borrowed. That sort of behavior should not be rewarded at the expense of the students who are honest, the lender, and the American tax payer. There are many people out there who want people to be given a free pass on loans and I’m sure they have their ideas, so please, change my view<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems there is a push to forgive student loan debts by democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. I completely disagree with that. It is unfair, unjust, lacks accountability, lacks integrity, and places the burden of the irresponsible on the backs of all. I’d like to provide three personal examples of students taking loans, then I’ll go into into the matter itself. I went to a state school where tuition was 12k a year. After using scholarship money for tuition, books, rent, food, I had to take out loans I had the choice to work, but I took out loans, instead. I chose the hardest major there is, graduated with 20K in debt, and landed a job with excellent pay nearly ~70k I also own shares in a business that brings it up, but that’s besides the point . My best friend went to the same school, had a little less scholarship money, and he worked throughout school and graduated with 0 in debt and landed a job making ~60k. He also owns shares in the business we co run. I have another friend who had nearly the same amount of scholarship funding as I did, but she decided to go a private school with a tuition of 30k a year. She will certainly graduate with ~100k in debt. Given her major, she won’t break 40k. To make matters worse, she rents rather than living at home which is only 15minutes away and she will graduate this December as a 5th year senior. If the government forgives her loan, it will be as if she suffers no consequence of her choices and actions, but rather, it is my best friend and I who will pay for her choices and actions. How is that fair? Do we really want to live in a society where people can take out loans without having to pay them? The lender suffers, honest people suffer, and the irresponsible profit. This is completely unjust. Loans should be based on major choice. The higher the salary for that major, the higher the loan amount. There are thousands of students out there who take the risk and “invest” in themselves. But when they graduate, they loathe the idea of giving back what they borrowed. That sort of behavior should not be rewarded at the expense of the students who are honest, the lender, and the American tax payer. There are many people out there who want people to be given a free pass on loans and I’m sure they have their ideas, so please, change my view<|TARGETS|>The lender, That sort of behavior, who will pay for her choices and actions ., Loans, using scholarship money for tuition books rent food, If the government forgives her loan<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems there is a push to forgive student loan debts by democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. I completely disagree with that. It is unfair, unjust, lacks accountability, lacks integrity, and places the burden of the irresponsible on the backs of all. I’d like to provide three personal examples of students taking loans, then I’ll go into into the matter itself. I went to a state school where tuition was 12k a year. After using scholarship money for tuition, books, rent, food, I had to take out loans I had the choice to work, but I took out loans, instead. I chose the hardest major there is, graduated with 20K in debt, and landed a job with excellent pay nearly ~70k I also own shares in a business that brings it up, but that’s besides the point . My best friend went to the same school, had a little less scholarship money, and he worked throughout school and graduated with 0 in debt and landed a job making ~60k. He also owns shares in the business we co run. I have another friend who had nearly the same amount of scholarship funding as I did, but she decided to go a private school with a tuition of 30k a year. She will certainly graduate with ~100k in debt. Given her major, she won’t break 40k. To make matters worse, she rents rather than living at home which is only 15minutes away and she will graduate this December as a 5th year senior. If the government forgives her loan, it will be as if she suffers no consequence of her choices and actions, but rather, it is my best friend and I who will pay for her choices and actions. How is that fair? Do we really want to live in a society where people can take out loans without having to pay them? The lender suffers, honest people suffer, and the irresponsible profit. This is completely unjust. Loans should be based on major choice. The higher the salary for that major, the higher the loan amount. There are thousands of students out there who take the risk and “invest” in themselves. But when they graduate, they loathe the idea of giving back what they borrowed. That sort of behavior should not be rewarded at the expense of the students who are honest, the lender, and the American tax payer. There are many people out there who want people to be given a free pass on loans and I’m sure they have their ideas, so please, change my view<|ASPECTS|>lacks, , personal examples, unjust, choices and actions, rents, consequence, irresponsible profit, student loan debts, borrowed, tuition, break, students taking loans, loan amount, forgive, burden, expense, loathe, fair, debt, integrity, giving back, scholarship money, risk, home, shares, invest ”, behavior, owns, unfair, less, suffer, rewarded, suffers, excellent pay, honest people, pay, accountability, forgives, irresponsible, free pass on loans, loans, major choice, graduate, scholarship funding, choice<|CONCLUSION|>","It seems there is a push to forgive student loan debts by democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. I completely disagree with that. It is unfair, unjust, lacks accountability, lacks integrity, and places the burden of the irresponsible on the backs of all. I’d like to provide three personal examples of students taking loans, then I’ll go into into the matter itself. I went to a state school where tuition was 12k a year. After using scholarship money for tuition, books, rent, food, I had to take out loans I had the choice to work, but I took out loans, instead. I chose the hardest major there is, graduated with 20K in debt, and landed a job with excellent pay nearly ~70k I also own shares in a business that brings it up, but that’s besides the point . My best friend went to the same school, had a little less scholarship money, and he worked throughout school and graduated with 0 in debt and landed a job making ~60k. He also owns shares in the business we co run. I have another friend who had nearly the same amount of scholarship funding as I did, but she decided to go a private school with a tuition of 30k a year. She will certainly graduate with ~100k in debt. Given her major, she won’t break 40k. To make matters worse, she rents rather than living at home which is only 15minutes away and she will graduate this December as a 5th year senior. If the government forgives her loan, it will be as if she suffers no consequence of her choices and actions, but rather, it is my best friend and I who will pay for her choices and actions. How is that fair? Do we really want to live in a society where people can take out loans without having to pay them? The lender suffers, honest people suffer, and the irresponsible profit. This is completely unjust. Loans should be based on major choice. The higher the salary for that major, the higher the loan amount. There are thousands of students out there who take the risk and “invest” in themselves. But when they graduate, they loathe the idea of giving back what they borrowed. That sort of behavior should not be rewarded at the expense of the students who are honest, the lender, and the American tax payer. There are many people out there who want people to be given a free pass on loans and I’m sure they have their ideas, so please, change my view",Student loan “forgiveness” is unfair and unjust; people who take out loans should pay them back themselves.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey all, I’ve been enjoying a quiet Memorial Day holiday except for the incessant fireworks that have been raging since sun down. How did this become a custom? Is it not disrespectful to “celebrate” Memorial Day in an audacious fashion? For one, fireworks can be a trigger for veterans suffering from PTSD. In addition, aren’t fireworks reminiscent of bombs and explosives that lead to the occasion of the holiday in the first place? Furthermore, aren’t we memorializing the loss of life in war? This strikes me as a somber occasion and shouldn’t be met with festivities of barbecues, fireworks, games, etc. it should be met with remembrance of the sacrifices made.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey all, I’ve been enjoying a quiet Memorial Day holiday except for the incessant fireworks that have been raging since sun down. How did this become a custom? Is it not disrespectful to “celebrate” Memorial Day in an audacious fashion? For one, fireworks can be a trigger for veterans suffering from PTSD. In addition, aren’t fireworks reminiscent of bombs and explosives that lead to the occasion of the holiday in the first place? Furthermore, aren’t we memorializing the loss of life in war? This strikes me as a somber occasion and shouldn’t be met with festivities of barbecues, fireworks, games, etc. it should be met with remembrance of the sacrifices made.<|TARGETS|>a quiet Memorial Day holiday except for the incessant fireworks, memorializing the loss of life in war, to “ celebrate ” Memorial Day in an audacious fashion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey all, I’ve been enjoying a quiet Memorial Day holiday except for the incessant fireworks that have been raging since sun down. How did this become a custom? Is it not disrespectful to “celebrate” Memorial Day in an audacious fashion? For one, fireworks can be a trigger for veterans suffering from PTSD. In addition, aren’t fireworks reminiscent of bombs and explosives that lead to the occasion of the holiday in the first place? Furthermore, aren’t we memorializing the loss of life in war? This strikes me as a somber occasion and shouldn’t be met with festivities of barbecues, fireworks, games, etc. it should be met with remembrance of the sacrifices made.<|ASPECTS|>quiet, trigger, sacrifices, festivities, audacious, custom, memorial day holiday, incessant, games, veterans, barbecues, loss of life, disrespectful, war, remembrance, ptsd, fireworks, occasion<|CONCLUSION|>","Hey all, I’ve been enjoying a quiet Memorial Day holiday except for the incessant fireworks that have been raging since sun down. How did this become a custom? Is it not disrespectful to “celebrate” Memorial Day in an audacious fashion? For one, fireworks can be a trigger for veterans suffering from PTSD. In addition, aren’t fireworks reminiscent of bombs and explosives that lead to the occasion of the holiday in the first place? Furthermore, aren’t we memorializing the loss of life in war? This strikes me as a somber occasion and shouldn’t be met with festivities of barbecues, fireworks, games, etc. it should be met with remembrance of the sacrifices made.",Celebrating Memorial Day with fireworks is disrespectful and should not be an accepted custom
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now bear with me, religious groups coming to your door to sell you their ideology is annoying, I can admit, but if I honestly believed that everyone that didn't comply with my religion went to hell for example , then it would be very immoral for me NOT to go around telling people this. Thus by telling someone not to push their opinion on someone else, you're supporting immorality. So constantly having someone at your door would be a terrible nuisance, but morally it would be worth these people caring enough to try and help you. The issue here is the opinion that people have, not that they talk about it. The solution isn't to stop people from pushing their views, it's to educate them. This assumes three things, They honestly believe their opinion They believe it's a good thing to help others They believe they might persuade you Of course this applies to things other than religion and to places other than at your door. In general though when people say, I'm fine with , I just wish you wouldn't force your views on others. That means I don't share your view, but I don't want to debate this, so we just won't talk about it. Now reddit loves to bash vegetarians that spout their dietary decisions everywhere. And vegetarian is something a lot of people aren't, but also a lot of people consider more moral. If random guy Bob could be vegetarian and still eat meat, he probably would be. save that argument for another time If this is the case, then either Bob here should come to terms by saying I have no moral qualms with my diet , or he should decide to become a vegetarian. But telling someone not to press their views and then subsequently discuss it leads to a self indulgent vagueness of morals where you don't have to decide if what you do is right or wrong. Allowing people to press their views means discussion, good morals, breaking social stigma and if someone is convinced at the end either one less annoying opinion pusher, or one more person with a good opinion. Assuming the prevailing side is the side with the best opinion. CMV. Edit my view has been changed to the point that I think I'm fine with your opinion, just don't force it onto others is a reasonable stance the catch being that it's often disguised as something reasonable, yet used as a cop out. E.G. Bob's view is everyone has to love everyone. I'm fine with Bob's view, just don't push it on others. Well then you're not fine with his view, because it involves pushing it on others.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now bear with me, religious groups coming to your door to sell you their ideology is annoying, I can admit, but if I honestly believed that everyone that didn't comply with my religion went to hell for example , then it would be very immoral for me NOT to go around telling people this. Thus by telling someone not to push their opinion on someone else, you're supporting immorality. So constantly having someone at your door would be a terrible nuisance, but morally it would be worth these people caring enough to try and help you. The issue here is the opinion that people have, not that they talk about it. The solution isn't to stop people from pushing their views, it's to educate them. This assumes three things, They honestly believe their opinion They believe it's a good thing to help others They believe they might persuade you Of course this applies to things other than religion and to places other than at your door. In general though when people say, I'm fine with , I just wish you wouldn't force your views on others. That means I don't share your view, but I don't want to debate this, so we just won't talk about it. Now reddit loves to bash vegetarians that spout their dietary decisions everywhere. And vegetarian is something a lot of people aren't, but also a lot of people consider more moral. If random guy Bob could be vegetarian and still eat meat, he probably would be. save that argument for another time If this is the case, then either Bob here should come to terms by saying I have no moral qualms with my diet , or he should decide to become a vegetarian. But telling someone not to press their views and then subsequently discuss it leads to a self indulgent vagueness of morals where you don't have to decide if what you do is right or wrong. Allowing people to press their views means discussion, good morals, breaking social stigma and if someone is convinced at the end either one less annoying opinion pusher, or one more person with a good opinion. Assuming the prevailing side is the side with the best opinion. CMV. Edit my view has been changed to the point that I think I'm fine with your opinion, just don't force it onto others is a reasonable stance the catch being that it's often disguised as something reasonable, yet used as a cop out. E.G. Bob's view is everyone has to love everyone. I'm fine with Bob's view, just don't push it on others. Well then you're not fine with his view, because it involves pushing it on others.<|TARGETS|>reddit, Allowing people to press their views, E.G, Bob here should come to terms by saying I have no moral qualms with my diet or he should decide to become a vegetarian ., not to press their views and then subsequently discuss it leads to a self indulgent vagueness of morals where you do n't have to decide if what you do is right or wrong ., if I honestly believed that everyone that did n't comply with my religion went to hell for example<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now bear with me, religious groups coming to your door to sell you their ideology is annoying, I can admit, but if I honestly believed that everyone that didn't comply with my religion went to hell for example , then it would be very immoral for me NOT to go around telling people this. Thus by telling someone not to push their opinion on someone else, you're supporting immorality. So constantly having someone at your door would be a terrible nuisance, but morally it would be worth these people caring enough to try and help you. The issue here is the opinion that people have, not that they talk about it. The solution isn't to stop people from pushing their views, it's to educate them. This assumes three things, They honestly believe their opinion They believe it's a good thing to help others They believe they might persuade you Of course this applies to things other than religion and to places other than at your door. In general though when people say, I'm fine with , I just wish you wouldn't force your views on others. That means I don't share your view, but I don't want to debate this, so we just won't talk about it. Now reddit loves to bash vegetarians that spout their dietary decisions everywhere. And vegetarian is something a lot of people aren't, but also a lot of people consider more moral. If random guy Bob could be vegetarian and still eat meat, he probably would be. save that argument for another time If this is the case, then either Bob here should come to terms by saying I have no moral qualms with my diet , or he should decide to become a vegetarian. But telling someone not to press their views and then subsequently discuss it leads to a self indulgent vagueness of morals where you don't have to decide if what you do is right or wrong. Allowing people to press their views means discussion, good morals, breaking social stigma and if someone is convinced at the end either one less annoying opinion pusher, or one more person with a good opinion. Assuming the prevailing side is the side with the best opinion. CMV. Edit my view has been changed to the point that I think I'm fine with your opinion, just don't force it onto others is a reasonable stance the catch being that it's often disguised as something reasonable, yet used as a cop out. E.G. Bob's view is everyone has to love everyone. I'm fine with Bob's view, just don't push it on others. Well then you're not fine with his view, because it involves pushing it on others.<|ASPECTS|>self, discussion, moral, view, terrible nuisance, breaking, good morals, bash, dietary decisions, moral qualms, others, pushing, eat meat, social stigma, immoral, help others, views, cop, morally, ideology, love everyone, best opinion, immorality, right, good, persuade, force, vegetarian, pushing their views, vegetarians, debate, vagueness of morals, reasonable, religion, caring, educate, opinion, worth<|CONCLUSION|>","Now bear with me, religious groups coming to your door to sell you their ideology is annoying, I can admit, but if I honestly believed that everyone that didn't comply with my religion went to hell for example , then it would be very immoral for me NOT to go around telling people this. Thus by telling someone not to push their opinion on someone else, you're supporting immorality. So constantly having someone at your door would be a terrible nuisance, but morally it would be worth these people caring enough to try and help you. The issue here is the opinion that people have, not that they talk about it. The solution isn't to stop people from pushing their views, it's to educate them. This assumes three things, They honestly believe their opinion They believe it's a good thing to help others They believe they might persuade you Of course this applies to things other than religion and to places other than at your door. In general though when people say, I'm fine with , I just wish you wouldn't force your views on others. That means I don't share your view, but I don't want to debate this, so we just won't talk about it. Now reddit loves to bash vegetarians that spout their dietary decisions everywhere. And vegetarian is something a lot of people aren't, but also a lot of people consider more moral. If random guy Bob could be vegetarian and still eat meat, he probably would be. save that argument for another time If this is the case, then either Bob here should come to terms by saying I have no moral qualms with my diet , or he should decide to become a vegetarian. But telling someone not to press their views and then subsequently discuss it leads to a self indulgent vagueness of morals where you don't have to decide if what you do is right or wrong. Allowing people to press their views means discussion, good morals, breaking social stigma and if someone is convinced at the end either one less annoying opinion pusher, or one more person with a good opinion. Assuming the prevailing side is the side with the best opinion. . Edit my view has been changed to the point that I think I'm fine with your opinion, just don't force it onto others is a reasonable stance the catch being that it's often disguised as something reasonable, yet used as a cop out. E.G. Bob's view is everyone has to love everyone. I'm fine with Bob's view, just don't push it on others. Well then you're not fine with his view, because it involves pushing it on others.","""I'm fine with _____ opinion, just don't push it onto others"" is a cop-out, and not a legitimate stance."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A few basic things first I am solely talking about mindfulness as discussed in a Western, non spiritual context. I am not at all educated about aspects in Buddhist or Hindu religions, except to just know that it involves complicated philosophy of mind I barely understand. That said, I am fairly well educated about it in the Western context many of my colleagues are social psychologists who directly study its effects on well being. Where I'm starting here is the idea that mindfulness contains two aspects a non judgmental accepting perspective, and a focus on the present moment. My issue is These two goals are contradictory unless you happen to already be focusing on the present moment. If I'm ruminating, why would I stop ruminating unless I have a negative judgment towards my own rumination? Consider a fairly traditional mindfulness meditation exercise Focusing on my breath. First of all, why would I choose to focus on my breath unless I'm judging it to be correct or positive? And if my mind wanders or I get caught up in my thoughts, how can I non judgmentally decide to stop doing that? Deciding to alter my behavior implies a judgment that my current behavior is wrong in some way. I'm not discounting the benefits to well being and health found to be associated with mindfulness, but I don't think people can possibly be doing what they think they're doing.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A few basic things first I am solely talking about mindfulness as discussed in a Western, non spiritual context. I am not at all educated about aspects in Buddhist or Hindu religions, except to just know that it involves complicated philosophy of mind I barely understand. That said, I am fairly well educated about it in the Western context many of my colleagues are social psychologists who directly study its effects on well being. Where I'm starting here is the idea that mindfulness contains two aspects a non judgmental accepting perspective, and a focus on the present moment. My issue is These two goals are contradictory unless you happen to already be focusing on the present moment. If I'm ruminating, why would I stop ruminating unless I have a negative judgment towards my own rumination? Consider a fairly traditional mindfulness meditation exercise Focusing on my breath. First of all, why would I choose to focus on my breath unless I'm judging it to be correct or positive? And if my mind wanders or I get caught up in my thoughts, how can I non judgmentally decide to stop doing that? Deciding to alter my behavior implies a judgment that my current behavior is wrong in some way. I'm not discounting the benefits to well being and health found to be associated with mindfulness, but I don't think people can possibly be doing what they think they're doing.<|TARGETS|>to stop doing that, to already be focusing on the present moment ., stop ruminating unless I have a negative judgment towards my own rumination, the Western context many of my colleagues are social psychologists who directly study its effects on well being ., judging it to be correct or positive, to focus on my breath<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A few basic things first I am solely talking about mindfulness as discussed in a Western, non spiritual context. I am not at all educated about aspects in Buddhist or Hindu religions, except to just know that it involves complicated philosophy of mind I barely understand. That said, I am fairly well educated about it in the Western context many of my colleagues are social psychologists who directly study its effects on well being. Where I'm starting here is the idea that mindfulness contains two aspects a non judgmental accepting perspective, and a focus on the present moment. My issue is These two goals are contradictory unless you happen to already be focusing on the present moment. If I'm ruminating, why would I stop ruminating unless I have a negative judgment towards my own rumination? Consider a fairly traditional mindfulness meditation exercise Focusing on my breath. First of all, why would I choose to focus on my breath unless I'm judging it to be correct or positive? And if my mind wanders or I get caught up in my thoughts, how can I non judgmentally decide to stop doing that? Deciding to alter my behavior implies a judgment that my current behavior is wrong in some way. I'm not discounting the benefits to well being and health found to be associated with mindfulness, but I don't think people can possibly be doing what they think they're doing.<|ASPECTS|>contradictory, well, effects, negative judgment, mindfulness meditation, wrong, thoughts, current behavior, breath, positive, behavior, present moment, benefits, health, judgmental accepting perspective, wanders, decide, educated, complicated philosophy of mind, mindfulness, correct<|CONCLUSION|>","A few basic things first I am solely talking about mindfulness as discussed in a Western, non spiritual context. I am not at all educated about aspects in Buddhist or Hindu religions, except to just know that it involves complicated philosophy of mind I barely understand. That said, I am fairly well educated about it in the Western context many of my colleagues are social psychologists who directly study its effects on well being. Where I'm starting here is the idea that mindfulness contains two aspects a non judgmental accepting perspective, and a focus on the present moment. My issue is These two goals are contradictory unless you happen to already be focusing on the present moment. If I'm ruminating, why would I stop ruminating unless I have a negative judgment towards my own rumination? Consider a fairly traditional mindfulness meditation exercise Focusing on my breath. First of all, why would I choose to focus on my breath unless I'm judging it to be correct or positive? And if my mind wanders or I get caught up in my thoughts, how can I non judgmentally decide to stop doing that? Deciding to alter my behavior implies a judgment that my current behavior is wrong in some way. I'm not discounting the benefits to well being and health found to be associated with mindfulness, but I don't think people can possibly be doing what they think they're doing.",Mindfulness is paradoxical and nonsensical
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the U.S right now, there is a focus on xenophobic ideas and keeping immigrants out of our country. Given the large number of illegals we have here and the already extraordinary measures we take as a nation to keep them from coming here in the first place. I believe the best course of action is to legalize as many law abiding immigrants as possible. Why? So we can tax them. That is what I believe to be their largest negative impact on our nation. They aren't being taxed, yet they can benefit from tax funded services. The IRS loses billions every year on immigrants claiming relatives on their tax returns, as well. Claims on relatives that don't even reside in the U.S. This is really an oversight issue, but it's part of the problem. EDIT I know this may be inconsequential, but if you want to understand my disposition more then here is my view on migrants to the U.S as a whole. This is perhaps the best quote that summarizes my stance give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free Emma Lazarus<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the U.S right now, there is a focus on xenophobic ideas and keeping immigrants out of our country. Given the large number of illegals we have here and the already extraordinary measures we take as a nation to keep them from coming here in the first place. I believe the best course of action is to legalize as many law abiding immigrants as possible. Why? So we can tax them. That is what I believe to be their largest negative impact on our nation. They aren't being taxed, yet they can benefit from tax funded services. The IRS loses billions every year on immigrants claiming relatives on their tax returns, as well. Claims on relatives that don't even reside in the U.S. This is really an oversight issue, but it's part of the problem. EDIT I know this may be inconsequential, but if you want to understand my disposition more then here is my view on migrants to the U.S as a whole. This is perhaps the best quote that summarizes my stance give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free Emma Lazarus<|TARGETS|>to understand my disposition more then here is my view on migrants to the U.S as a whole ., to legalize as many law abiding immigrants as possible ., Claims on relatives that do n't even reside in the U.S, The IRS, the best quote that summarizes my stance give me your tired your poor your huddled masses yearning to breathe free Emma Lazarus, the large number of illegals we have here and the already extraordinary measures we take as a nation to keep them from coming here in the first place .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the U.S right now, there is a focus on xenophobic ideas and keeping immigrants out of our country. Given the large number of illegals we have here and the already extraordinary measures we take as a nation to keep them from coming here in the first place. I believe the best course of action is to legalize as many law abiding immigrants as possible. Why? So we can tax them. That is what I believe to be their largest negative impact on our nation. They aren't being taxed, yet they can benefit from tax funded services. The IRS loses billions every year on immigrants claiming relatives on their tax returns, as well. Claims on relatives that don't even reside in the U.S. This is really an oversight issue, but it's part of the problem. EDIT I know this may be inconsequential, but if you want to understand my disposition more then here is my view on migrants to the U.S as a whole. This is perhaps the best quote that summarizes my stance give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free Emma Lazarus<|ASPECTS|>illegals, extraordinary measures, , breathe free, disposition, benefit, tax funded services, xenophobic ideas, immigrants, billions, loses, taxed, masses, migrants, law abiding immigrants, relatives, inconsequential, negative impact, tax, immigrants claiming relatives, oversight issue<|CONCLUSION|>","In the U.S right now, there is a focus on xenophobic ideas and keeping immigrants out of our country. Given the large number of illegals we have here and the already extraordinary measures we take as a nation to keep them from coming here in the first place. I believe the best course of action is to legalize as many law abiding immigrants as possible. Why? So we can tax them. That is what I believe to be their largest negative impact on our nation. They aren't being taxed, yet they can benefit from tax funded services. The IRS loses billions every year on immigrants claiming relatives on their tax returns, as well. Claims on relatives that don't even reside in the U.S. This is really an oversight issue, but it's part of the problem. EDIT I know this may be inconsequential, but if you want to understand my disposition more then here is my view on migrants to the U.S as a whole. This is perhaps the best quote that summarizes my stance give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free Emma Lazarus","Regarding the U.S, we should focus on legalizing illegal immigrants, not deporting them"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Heyah guys, I hope I am allowed to submit this since my view is not actually a I would rather kill you then Change my mind Kind of view, but rather a simple thought I have been entertaining recently after an Argument with a friend about why I enjoy DnD. My idea is simply that from a philosophical standpoint it it perfectly reasonable for everyone to live their life in a fake reality if possible. The reason being that a virtual reality would simply have infinite possiblities and could be tailored to our liking. It could simply be the fulfillment of your dreams. I know that this is going into the why should we not all do drugs territory of philosophy but I don't think that These two Topics are the same. For one the satisfaction of a fake reality would be real, unlike a drug making you chemically happy in a virtual reality happiness would stem from actual accomplishments. Footnote ist just a Thing I have thought about in my free time, so please Refrain from telling me to see a therapist , Footnote 2 Yes I have not read 100 books on the Topic so please Refrain from telling me I am an idiot. I am however always open for book suggestions. Edit I think I Need to clarify that this is a philosophical question. Technical Problems like my Need for Food and drink are out of the equation. Edit 2 I am also not neccessarily talking about a virtual reality Headset, but about a full on virtual reality. Like the Matrix minus Hugo Weavings creepy laughter<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Heyah guys, I hope I am allowed to submit this since my view is not actually a I would rather kill you then Change my mind Kind of view, but rather a simple thought I have been entertaining recently after an Argument with a friend about why I enjoy DnD. My idea is simply that from a philosophical standpoint it it perfectly reasonable for everyone to live their life in a fake reality if possible. The reason being that a virtual reality would simply have infinite possiblities and could be tailored to our liking. It could simply be the fulfillment of your dreams. I know that this is going into the why should we not all do drugs territory of philosophy but I don't think that These two Topics are the same. For one the satisfaction of a fake reality would be real, unlike a drug making you chemically happy in a virtual reality happiness would stem from actual accomplishments. Footnote ist just a Thing I have thought about in my free time, so please Refrain from telling me to see a therapist , Footnote 2 Yes I have not read 100 books on the Topic so please Refrain from telling me I am an idiot. I am however always open for book suggestions. Edit I think I Need to clarify that this is a philosophical question. Technical Problems like my Need for Food and drink are out of the equation. Edit 2 I am also not neccessarily talking about a virtual reality Headset, but about a full on virtual reality. Like the Matrix minus Hugo Weavings creepy laughter<|TARGETS|>open for book suggestions ., Heyah, allowed to submit this since my view is not actually a I would rather kill you then Change my mind Kind of view but rather a simple thought I have been entertaining recently after an Argument with a friend about why I enjoy DnD ., a drug making you chemically happy in a virtual reality happiness, we not all do drugs territory of philosophy, Footnote ist just a Thing I have thought about in my free time so please Refrain from telling me to see a therapist Footnote 2 Yes I have not read 100 books on the Topic so please Refrain from telling me I am an idiot .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Heyah guys, I hope I am allowed to submit this since my view is not actually a I would rather kill you then Change my mind Kind of view, but rather a simple thought I have been entertaining recently after an Argument with a friend about why I enjoy DnD. My idea is simply that from a philosophical standpoint it it perfectly reasonable for everyone to live their life in a fake reality if possible. The reason being that a virtual reality would simply have infinite possiblities and could be tailored to our liking. It could simply be the fulfillment of your dreams. I know that this is going into the why should we not all do drugs territory of philosophy but I don't think that These two Topics are the same. For one the satisfaction of a fake reality would be real, unlike a drug making you chemically happy in a virtual reality happiness would stem from actual accomplishments. Footnote ist just a Thing I have thought about in my free time, so please Refrain from telling me to see a therapist , Footnote 2 Yes I have not read 100 books on the Topic so please Refrain from telling me I am an idiot. I am however always open for book suggestions. Edit I think I Need to clarify that this is a philosophical question. Technical Problems like my Need for Food and drink are out of the equation. Edit 2 I am also not neccessarily talking about a virtual reality Headset, but about a full on virtual reality. Like the Matrix minus Hugo Weavings creepy laughter<|ASPECTS|>philosophical question, fulfillment of your dreams, infinite possiblities, technical problems, idiot, reasonable, neccessarily, creepy, satisfaction, virtual reality, fake reality, fake, enjoy, book suggestions, tailored, accomplishments, actual, liking, drugs<|CONCLUSION|>","Heyah guys, I hope I am allowed to submit this since my view is not actually a I would rather kill you then Change my mind Kind of view, but rather a simple thought I have been entertaining recently after an Argument with a friend about why I enjoy DnD. My idea is simply that from a philosophical standpoint it it perfectly reasonable for everyone to live their life in a fake reality if possible. The reason being that a virtual reality would simply have infinite possiblities and could be tailored to our liking. It could simply be the fulfillment of your dreams. I know that this is going into the why should we not all do drugs territory of philosophy but I don't think that These two Topics are the same. For one the satisfaction of a fake reality would be real, unlike a drug making you chemically happy in a virtual reality happiness would stem from actual accomplishments. Footnote ist just a Thing I have thought about in my free time, so please Refrain from telling me to see a therapist , Footnote 2 Yes I have not read 100 books on the Topic so please Refrain from telling me I am an idiot. I am however always open for book suggestions. Edit I think I Need to clarify that this is a philosophical question. Technical Problems like my Need for Food and drink are out of the equation. Edit 2 I am also not neccessarily talking about a virtual reality Headset, but about a full on virtual reality. Like the Matrix minus Hugo Weavings creepy laughter",philosophically speaking there is no reason not to live in a virtual reality once it is possible.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Charlemagne is known as a great king of the middle ages, and a great conqueror. In his name is literally ingrained 'the great'. But why? In this post, I will downplay Charles, as he wasn't so 'great, and surely does not deserve such a limelight in history books. For one, I think we have all learned in school that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor. This is not practically true. Charlemagne was the first sovereign to hold the title, although he did nothing with it. At his death, his kingdoms were split and the 'Holy Roman Empire' was dismantled. The Holy Roman Empire that lasted for nearly 1000 years the Reich which inspired Kaiser Willhelm and Hitler the Holy Roman Empire which brought wealth and power to the Austrian Habsburgs, was united by Otto the Great, which expanded his kingdom from Italy to the modern day German Danish border from modern day Belgium to the Slavic Poles which, under Otto's rule, were also converted to Catholicism . Duke Otto started with a rebellious kingdom, which he expanded to the size of an empire, earning him the influence and prestige to be granted the title of 'Holy Roman Emperor' by the Pope. He managed to do all this in 30 years, including destroying the Magyar horde at Lechfeld and repelling attacks from his Frank brothers. If Otto the great isn't the mainstream character that Charlemagne is, why should Charlemagne be any more popular? Feudalism is also something regularly attributed to Charlemagne. The truth is, feudalism, much like the enlightenment, was a social movement that couldn't be attributed with any one man, or even a series of men. It was an indirect effect of the vassal lord behaviour began by Charles Martell, namely when he bought land for them in exchange for services, which expanded in complexity and decentralization over time. Feudalism was the result of increased autonomy. It is not something that should be attributed to Charlemagne. Charlemagne's conquests were inefficient and laughable. It took him 32 years to conquer a small strip of land controlled by Saxons? Surely, in comparison to his apparently 'great', mostly inherited empire, it would have taken him far a far smaller amount of time? I don't say this to deny the grandness of Charlemagne's empire, because it truly was a great one. I say this to outline the martial weakness of Charlemagne. Just a friendly reminder that it took Duke Otto 30 years to conquer Bohemia, Northern Italy, defeat the Magyars in battle, and fight and defeat France in battle. Charlemagne also failed multiple campaigns in Spain I won't get into that But perhaps the most disgusting thing Charlemagne has ever done, was ally the heathen Abbasid Caliphate, for the purpose of neutralizing the Ummayad Caliphate in Iberia. However, the alliance also seemed to be a counterweight to the Byzantine Empire's objections to Charlemagne's claims in Italy Did I mention that Charlemagne merely dethroned a usurper from the throne with a single siege and took Italy for himself even though the Pope called him to war to give the throne back to the rightful owner?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Charlemagne is known as a great king of the middle ages, and a great conqueror. In his name is literally ingrained 'the great'. But why? In this post, I will downplay Charles, as he wasn't so 'great, and surely does not deserve such a limelight in history books. For one, I think we have all learned in school that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor. This is not practically true. Charlemagne was the first sovereign to hold the title, although he did nothing with it. At his death, his kingdoms were split and the 'Holy Roman Empire' was dismantled. The Holy Roman Empire that lasted for nearly 1000 years the Reich which inspired Kaiser Willhelm and Hitler the Holy Roman Empire which brought wealth and power to the Austrian Habsburgs, was united by Otto the Great, which expanded his kingdom from Italy to the modern day German Danish border from modern day Belgium to the Slavic Poles which, under Otto's rule, were also converted to Catholicism . Duke Otto started with a rebellious kingdom, which he expanded to the size of an empire, earning him the influence and prestige to be granted the title of 'Holy Roman Emperor' by the Pope. He managed to do all this in 30 years, including destroying the Magyar horde at Lechfeld and repelling attacks from his Frank brothers. If Otto the great isn't the mainstream character that Charlemagne is, why should Charlemagne be any more popular? Feudalism is also something regularly attributed to Charlemagne. The truth is, feudalism, much like the enlightenment, was a social movement that couldn't be attributed with any one man, or even a series of men. It was an indirect effect of the vassal lord behaviour began by Charles Martell, namely when he bought land for them in exchange for services, which expanded in complexity and decentralization over time. Feudalism was the result of increased autonomy. It is not something that should be attributed to Charlemagne. Charlemagne's conquests were inefficient and laughable. It took him 32 years to conquer a small strip of land controlled by Saxons? Surely, in comparison to his apparently 'great', mostly inherited empire, it would have taken him far a far smaller amount of time? I don't say this to deny the grandness of Charlemagne's empire, because it truly was a great one. I say this to outline the martial weakness of Charlemagne. Just a friendly reminder that it took Duke Otto 30 years to conquer Bohemia, Northern Italy, defeat the Magyars in battle, and fight and defeat France in battle. Charlemagne also failed multiple campaigns in Spain I won't get into that But perhaps the most disgusting thing Charlemagne has ever done, was ally the heathen Abbasid Caliphate, for the purpose of neutralizing the Ummayad Caliphate in Iberia. However, the alliance also seemed to be a counterweight to the Byzantine Empire's objections to Charlemagne's claims in Italy Did I mention that Charlemagne merely dethroned a usurper from the throne with a single siege and took Italy for himself even though the Pope called him to war to give the throne back to the rightful owner?<|TARGETS|>the alliance, Charlemagne, such a limelight in history books ., to conquer a small strip of land controlled by Saxons, Feudalism, Charlemagne merely dethroned a usurper from the throne with a single siege and took Italy for himself even though the Pope called him to war to give the throne back to the rightful owner<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Charlemagne is known as a great king of the middle ages, and a great conqueror. In his name is literally ingrained 'the great'. But why? In this post, I will downplay Charles, as he wasn't so 'great, and surely does not deserve such a limelight in history books. For one, I think we have all learned in school that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor. This is not practically true. Charlemagne was the first sovereign to hold the title, although he did nothing with it. At his death, his kingdoms were split and the 'Holy Roman Empire' was dismantled. The Holy Roman Empire that lasted for nearly 1000 years the Reich which inspired Kaiser Willhelm and Hitler the Holy Roman Empire which brought wealth and power to the Austrian Habsburgs, was united by Otto the Great, which expanded his kingdom from Italy to the modern day German Danish border from modern day Belgium to the Slavic Poles which, under Otto's rule, were also converted to Catholicism . Duke Otto started with a rebellious kingdom, which he expanded to the size of an empire, earning him the influence and prestige to be granted the title of 'Holy Roman Emperor' by the Pope. He managed to do all this in 30 years, including destroying the Magyar horde at Lechfeld and repelling attacks from his Frank brothers. If Otto the great isn't the mainstream character that Charlemagne is, why should Charlemagne be any more popular? Feudalism is also something regularly attributed to Charlemagne. The truth is, feudalism, much like the enlightenment, was a social movement that couldn't be attributed with any one man, or even a series of men. It was an indirect effect of the vassal lord behaviour began by Charles Martell, namely when he bought land for them in exchange for services, which expanded in complexity and decentralization over time. Feudalism was the result of increased autonomy. It is not something that should be attributed to Charlemagne. Charlemagne's conquests were inefficient and laughable. It took him 32 years to conquer a small strip of land controlled by Saxons? Surely, in comparison to his apparently 'great', mostly inherited empire, it would have taken him far a far smaller amount of time? I don't say this to deny the grandness of Charlemagne's empire, because it truly was a great one. I say this to outline the martial weakness of Charlemagne. Just a friendly reminder that it took Duke Otto 30 years to conquer Bohemia, Northern Italy, defeat the Magyars in battle, and fight and defeat France in battle. Charlemagne also failed multiple campaigns in Spain I won't get into that But perhaps the most disgusting thing Charlemagne has ever done, was ally the heathen Abbasid Caliphate, for the purpose of neutralizing the Ummayad Caliphate in Iberia. However, the alliance also seemed to be a counterweight to the Byzantine Empire's objections to Charlemagne's claims in Italy Did I mention that Charlemagne merely dethroned a usurper from the throne with a single siege and took Italy for himself even though the Pope called him to war to give the throne back to the rightful owner?<|ASPECTS|>land, complexity, increased, rightful owner, catholicism, laughable, martial weakness, controlled, holy roman emperor, ingrained, conqueror, great, disgusting, prestige, destroying, neutralizing, usurper, vassal lord behaviour, empire, wealth and power, counterweight, failed, smaller amount, grandness, popular, defeat, social movement, mainstream character, magyar horde, rebellious kingdom, repelling attacks, dethroned, defeat france, influence, conquer, time, sovereign, small, split, kingdoms, autonomy, inefficient, strip, dismantled, saxons, feudalism, great king, limelight, charlemagne, decentralization<|CONCLUSION|>","Charlemagne is known as a great king of the middle ages, and a great conqueror. In his name is literally ingrained 'the great'. But why? In this post, I will downplay Charles, as he wasn't so 'great, and surely does not deserve such a limelight in history books. For one, I think we have all learned in school that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor. This is not practically true. Charlemagne was the first sovereign to hold the title, although he did nothing with it. At his death, his kingdoms were split and the 'Holy Roman Empire' was dismantled. The Holy Roman Empire that lasted for nearly 1000 years the Reich which inspired Kaiser Willhelm and Hitler the Holy Roman Empire which brought wealth and power to the Austrian Habsburgs, was united by Otto the Great, which expanded his kingdom from Italy to the modern day German Danish border from modern day Belgium to the Slavic Poles which, under Otto's rule, were also converted to Catholicism . Duke Otto started with a rebellious kingdom, which he expanded to the size of an empire, earning him the influence and prestige to be granted the title of 'Holy Roman Emperor' by the Pope. He managed to do all this in 30 years, including destroying the Magyar horde at Lechfeld and repelling attacks from his Frank brothers. If Otto the great isn't the mainstream character that Charlemagne is, why should Charlemagne be any more popular? Feudalism is also something regularly attributed to Charlemagne. The truth is, feudalism, much like the enlightenment, was a social movement that couldn't be attributed with any one man, or even a series of men. It was an indirect effect of the vassal lord behaviour began by Charles Martell, namely when he bought land for them in exchange for services, which expanded in complexity and decentralization over time. Feudalism was the result of increased autonomy. It is not something that should be attributed to Charlemagne. Charlemagne's conquests were inefficient and laughable. It took him 32 years to conquer a small strip of land controlled by Saxons? Surely, in comparison to his apparently 'great', mostly inherited empire, it would have taken him far a far smaller amount of time? I don't say this to deny the grandness of Charlemagne's empire, because it truly was a great one. I say this to outline the martial weakness of Charlemagne. Just a friendly reminder that it took Duke Otto 30 years to conquer Bohemia, Northern Italy, defeat the Magyars in battle, and fight and defeat France in battle. Charlemagne also failed multiple campaigns in Spain I won't get into that But perhaps the most disgusting thing Charlemagne has ever done, was ally the heathen Abbasid Caliphate, for the purpose of neutralizing the Ummayad Caliphate in Iberia. However, the alliance also seemed to be a counterweight to the Byzantine Empire's objections to Charlemagne's claims in Italy Did I mention that Charlemagne merely dethroned a usurper from the throne with a single siege and took Italy for himself even though the Pope called him to war to give the throne back to the rightful owner?",Charlemagne does not deserve to be held to such great esteem.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The social welfare program in the US is so geared towards helping single parents that it is often very hard for me to take them seriously when they complain about being broke. I feel that society rewards those who make irresponsible reproductive choices. Schools and parents spend so much time telling kids not to have kids unexpectedly, but conversely if they do, they are rewarded with thousands of dollars in aid each month WIC, food stamps, rent electric aid, scholarships, grocery giveaways, etc. I recently pissed off a lot of people saying this, and I want to know why. It seems like my view is just common sense observation, and is accurate please help me understand how if it is wrong. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The social welfare program in the US is so geared towards helping single parents that it is often very hard for me to take them seriously when they complain about being broke. I feel that society rewards those who make irresponsible reproductive choices. Schools and parents spend so much time telling kids not to have kids unexpectedly, but conversely if they do, they are rewarded with thousands of dollars in aid each month WIC, food stamps, rent electric aid, scholarships, grocery giveaways, etc. I recently pissed off a lot of people saying this, and I want to know why. It seems like my view is just common sense observation, and is accurate please help me understand how if it is wrong. CMV.<|TARGETS|>The social welfare program in the US, to know why .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The social welfare program in the US is so geared towards helping single parents that it is often very hard for me to take them seriously when they complain about being broke. I feel that society rewards those who make irresponsible reproductive choices. Schools and parents spend so much time telling kids not to have kids unexpectedly, but conversely if they do, they are rewarded with thousands of dollars in aid each month WIC, food stamps, rent electric aid, scholarships, grocery giveaways, etc. I recently pissed off a lot of people saying this, and I want to know why. It seems like my view is just common sense observation, and is accurate please help me understand how if it is wrong. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, pissed, unexpectedly, broke, common sense observation, social, irresponsible reproductive choices, helping single parents, accurate<|CONCLUSION|>","The social welfare program in the US is so geared towards helping single parents that it is often very hard for me to take them seriously when they complain about being broke. I feel that society rewards those who make irresponsible reproductive choices. Schools and parents spend so much time telling kids not to have kids unexpectedly, but conversely if they do, they are rewarded with thousands of dollars in aid each month WIC, food stamps, rent electric aid, scholarships, grocery giveaways, etc. I recently pissed off a lot of people saying this, and I want to know why. It seems like my view is just common sense observation, and is accurate please help me understand how if it is wrong. .",Single Moms don't deserve sympathy as most of their bills are paid by government &amp; social programs
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>At the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application. It only applies to companies that are owned at least 50 by 5 or fewer people. This basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values. This doesn't mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing. It is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 4 types of birth control. They didn't limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion. People are also under no obligation to work for these companies. Likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus aren't affected by the decision. Some people make the argument that it's a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. It doesn't open some Pandora's box. If it did though, if the world worked that way, I would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances. Why isn't that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools? I'm not Christian, I don't agree with the Hobby Lobby stances, but I think that the Supreme Court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision. CMV EDIT this is why I enjoy this sub. Thank you for thoughtful responses that are not common. I am actually inclined to agree with most of you, however I still feel as though the issues you address aren't the ones most people people are making.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>At the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application. It only applies to companies that are owned at least 50 by 5 or fewer people. This basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values. This doesn't mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing. It is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 4 types of birth control. They didn't limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion. People are also under no obligation to work for these companies. Likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus aren't affected by the decision. Some people make the argument that it's a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. It doesn't open some Pandora's box. If it did though, if the world worked that way, I would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances. Why isn't that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools? I'm not Christian, I don't agree with the Hobby Lobby stances, but I think that the Supreme Court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision. CMV EDIT this is why I enjoy this sub. Thank you for thoughtful responses that are not common. I am actually inclined to agree with most of you, however I still feel as though the issues you address aren't the ones most people people are making.<|TARGETS|>a company the size of apple, limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances ., the supreme courts, the box opened, mandating prayer in private schools<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>At the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application. It only applies to companies that are owned at least 50 by 5 or fewer people. This basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values. This doesn't mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing. It is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 4 types of birth control. They didn't limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion. People are also under no obligation to work for these companies. Likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus aren't affected by the decision. Some people make the argument that it's a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. It doesn't open some Pandora's box. If it did though, if the world worked that way, I would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances. Why isn't that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools? I'm not Christian, I don't agree with the Hobby Lobby stances, but I think that the Supreme Court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision. CMV EDIT this is why I enjoy this sub. Thank you for thoughtful responses that are not common. I am actually inclined to agree with most of you, however I still feel as though the issues you address aren't the ones most people people are making.<|ASPECTS|>obligation to work, , birth control, birth, slippery slope, neglected, limited application, owned, constitutionally correct decision, morally, raise capital, mandating prayer, pandora 's box, individual freedom from governmental power, decision, enjoy, logical fallacy, values, thoughtful responses, limit coverage, issues, affected<|CONCLUSION|>","At the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application. It only applies to companies that are owned at least 50 by 5 or fewer people. This basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values. This doesn't mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing. It is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 4 types of birth control. They didn't limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion. People are also under no obligation to work for these companies. Likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus aren't affected by the decision. Some people make the argument that it's a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. It doesn't open some Pandora's box. If it did though, if the world worked that way, I would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances. Why isn't that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools? I'm not Christian, I don't agree with the Hobby Lobby stances, but I think that the Supreme Court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision.  EDIT this is why I enjoy this sub. Thank you for thoughtful responses that are not common. I am actually inclined to agree with most of you, however I still feel as though the issues you address aren't the ones most people people are making.","The Supreme Court made the correct decision about Hobby Lobby. Everyone who disagrees either doesn't know the facts, is too easily sensationalized, or is being hypocritical."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in the UK, so what I favour is a UK model. No armed police, no armed citizenry, and special armed police units for when it's necessary. My view is based off of my broadly conventionalist moral system. I don't like people dying, guns make it dramatically more likely that people die, I don't like that. I'm not sure how an individual right to a gun can trump the freedom of other human beings to live. I also just don't buy any argument that gun ownership is a meaningful freedom. If it's about the ability to protect yourself, the facts seem to suggest that you are more likely to die if you own a gun. If it's about 'feeling' safe, I'm not sure I really care, because I think most people, when given the choice, would rather be alive than feel safe. The also are just dangerous in a world where mental health problems exist. No permit system will ever safe enough, because undiagnosed conditions slip through, and consumers have an incentive to trick the checks. Guns also have an incredibly dramatic impact on suicide rates, because they're a quick, easy way out. Change my view. EDIT Sorry everyone I've been away from my computer for days<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in the UK, so what I favour is a UK model. No armed police, no armed citizenry, and special armed police units for when it's necessary. My view is based off of my broadly conventionalist moral system. I don't like people dying, guns make it dramatically more likely that people die, I don't like that. I'm not sure how an individual right to a gun can trump the freedom of other human beings to live. I also just don't buy any argument that gun ownership is a meaningful freedom. If it's about the ability to protect yourself, the facts seem to suggest that you are more likely to die if you own a gun. If it's about 'feeling' safe, I'm not sure I really care, because I think most people, when given the choice, would rather be alive than feel safe. The also are just dangerous in a world where mental health problems exist. No permit system will ever safe enough, because undiagnosed conditions slip through, and consumers have an incentive to trick the checks. Guns also have an incredibly dramatic impact on suicide rates, because they're a quick, easy way out. Change my view. EDIT Sorry everyone I've been away from my computer for days<|TARGETS|>an individual right to a gun, n't buy any argument that gun ownership, No permit system, not sure I really care because I think most people when given the choice would rather be alive than feel safe ., to die if you own a gun .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in the UK, so what I favour is a UK model. No armed police, no armed citizenry, and special armed police units for when it's necessary. My view is based off of my broadly conventionalist moral system. I don't like people dying, guns make it dramatically more likely that people die, I don't like that. I'm not sure how an individual right to a gun can trump the freedom of other human beings to live. I also just don't buy any argument that gun ownership is a meaningful freedom. If it's about the ability to protect yourself, the facts seem to suggest that you are more likely to die if you own a gun. If it's about 'feeling' safe, I'm not sure I really care, because I think most people, when given the choice, would rather be alive than feel safe. The also are just dangerous in a world where mental health problems exist. No permit system will ever safe enough, because undiagnosed conditions slip through, and consumers have an incentive to trick the checks. Guns also have an incredibly dramatic impact on suicide rates, because they're a quick, easy way out. Change my view. EDIT Sorry everyone I've been away from my computer for days<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, people die, protect, view, alive, right to a gun, dramatic, safe, conventionalist, armed police units, suicide rates, die, armed police, moral system, undiagnosed conditions, incentive, armed citizenry, feel safe, people dying, mental health problems, individual, system, meaningful freedom, trick the checks, freedom of other human, uk model, easy way, likely<|CONCLUSION|>","I live in the UK, so what I favour is a UK model. No armed police, no armed citizenry, and special armed police units for when it's necessary. My view is based off of my broadly conventionalist moral system. I don't like people dying, guns make it dramatically more likely that people die, I don't like that. I'm not sure how an individual right to a gun can trump the freedom of other human beings to live. I also just don't buy any argument that gun ownership is a meaningful freedom. If it's about the ability to protect yourself, the facts seem to suggest that you are more likely to die if you own a gun. If it's about 'feeling' safe, I'm not sure I really care, because I think most people, when given the choice, would rather be alive than feel safe. The also are just dangerous in a world where mental health problems exist. No permit system will ever safe enough, because undiagnosed conditions slip through, and consumers have an incentive to trick the checks. Guns also have an incredibly dramatic impact on suicide rates, because they're a quick, easy way out. Change my view. EDIT Sorry everyone I've been away from my computer for days",I don't believe that private gun ownership should be legal.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This one might be easily defeated but I currently believe that monism exists, sort of like the one Parmenides talks about where change and motion doesn't exist and are just illusions. I believe this because physicists are now saying that space and time doesn't exist. If space and time doesn't exist and are just products of our minds, then how can motion and change exist if they need time and space to exist in? If such fundamental things are just a product of our minds, then what else are just a product of our minds? <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This one might be easily defeated but I currently believe that monism exists, sort of like the one Parmenides talks about where change and motion doesn't exist and are just illusions. I believe this because physicists are now saying that space and time doesn't exist. If space and time doesn't exist and are just products of our minds, then how can motion and change exist if they need time and space to exist in? If such fundamental things are just a product of our minds, then what else are just a product of our minds? <|TARGETS|>If such fundamental things are just a product of our minds, the one Parmenides talks about where change and motion, If space and time<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This one might be easily defeated but I currently believe that monism exists, sort of like the one Parmenides talks about where change and motion doesn't exist and are just illusions. I believe this because physicists are now saying that space and time doesn't exist. If space and time doesn't exist and are just products of our minds, then how can motion and change exist if they need time and space to exist in? If such fundamental things are just a product of our minds, then what else are just a product of our minds? <|ASPECTS|>, space and time, illusions, our minds, monism, minds, easily, change and motion, motion and change, fundamental things<|CONCLUSION|>","This one might be easily defeated but I currently believe that monism exists, sort of like the one Parmenides talks about where change and motion doesn't exist and are just illusions. I believe this because physicists are now saying that space and time doesn't exist. If space and time doesn't exist and are just products of our minds, then how can motion and change exist if they need time and space to exist in? If such fundamental things are just a product of our minds, then what else are just a product of our minds?",I believe that monism exists where change and motion are doesn't exist.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, for those of you living under a rock I am referring to the proposed wall between the US and Mexico. Secondly, I am not at all a Trump supporter, this is one of 3 policies of his that I agree with. Anyways, the biggest argument I have heard about not building the wall is that it won't stop illegal immigration because most illegal immigrants come in on planes and or outstay their visas. However the way I see it human trafficking and drug trafficking are some of the biggest issues and those can't occur on planes. Smuggling drugs on planes is very difficult, especially in large quantities, and you need a passport to go on a plane so human trafficking also cannot be done on planes. That leaves driving across the border where, in many spots there really is no border wall of any kind. I think we have all heard horror stories of human trafficking so I won't get into that, and drug trafficking would be greatly reduced although not stopped. Illegal immigration would also be reduced and it would add more risk to traffickers by making it way more likely to be caught. I understand that this would be very expensive but I think it would be worthwhile. Also I wrote this on mobile but I will edit it when I get a chance. Edit I have changed my view thanks mostly to u shitferbrains55. I still maintain that we need more border security, but I think that due to ecological and financial reasons a wall does not make sense. I think armed guards and drones would be more effective and efficient. Thank you all for the great respons<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, for those of you living under a rock I am referring to the proposed wall between the US and Mexico. Secondly, I am not at all a Trump supporter, this is one of 3 policies of his that I agree with. Anyways, the biggest argument I have heard about not building the wall is that it won't stop illegal immigration because most illegal immigrants come in on planes and or outstay their visas. However the way I see it human trafficking and drug trafficking are some of the biggest issues and those can't occur on planes. Smuggling drugs on planes is very difficult, especially in large quantities, and you need a passport to go on a plane so human trafficking also cannot be done on planes. That leaves driving across the border where, in many spots there really is no border wall of any kind. I think we have all heard horror stories of human trafficking so I won't get into that, and drug trafficking would be greatly reduced although not stopped. Illegal immigration would also be reduced and it would add more risk to traffickers by making it way more likely to be caught. I understand that this would be very expensive but I think it would be worthwhile. Also I wrote this on mobile but I will edit it when I get a chance. Edit I have changed my view thanks mostly to u shitferbrains55. I still maintain that we need more border security, but I think that due to ecological and financial reasons a wall does not make sense. I think armed guards and drones would be more effective and efficient. Thank you all for the great respons<|TARGETS|>more border security, drug trafficking, that due to ecological and financial reasons a wall, the proposed wall between the US and Mexico ., Smuggling drugs on planes, not building the wall<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, for those of you living under a rock I am referring to the proposed wall between the US and Mexico. Secondly, I am not at all a Trump supporter, this is one of 3 policies of his that I agree with. Anyways, the biggest argument I have heard about not building the wall is that it won't stop illegal immigration because most illegal immigrants come in on planes and or outstay their visas. However the way I see it human trafficking and drug trafficking are some of the biggest issues and those can't occur on planes. Smuggling drugs on planes is very difficult, especially in large quantities, and you need a passport to go on a plane so human trafficking also cannot be done on planes. That leaves driving across the border where, in many spots there really is no border wall of any kind. I think we have all heard horror stories of human trafficking so I won't get into that, and drug trafficking would be greatly reduced although not stopped. Illegal immigration would also be reduced and it would add more risk to traffickers by making it way more likely to be caught. I understand that this would be very expensive but I think it would be worthwhile. Also I wrote this on mobile but I will edit it when I get a chance. Edit I have changed my view thanks mostly to u shitferbrains55. I still maintain that we need more border security, but I think that due to ecological and financial reasons a wall does not make sense. I think armed guards and drones would be more effective and efficient. Thank you all for the great respons<|ASPECTS|>stop, reduced, human trafficking, armed guards, smuggling drugs, drug trafficking, edit, efficient, horror stories, proposed wall, trump supporter, illegal immigrants, caught, respons, effective, greatly, border wall, border security, ecological and financial reasons, illegal immigration, difficult, risk to traffickers, expensive, changed my view, worthwhile<|CONCLUSION|>","First off, for those of you living under a rock I am referring to the proposed wall between the US and Mexico. Secondly, I am not at all a Trump supporter, this is one of 3 policies of his that I agree with. Anyways, the biggest argument I have heard about not building the wall is that it won't stop illegal immigration because most illegal immigrants come in on planes and or outstay their visas. However the way I see it human trafficking and drug trafficking are some of the biggest issues and those can't occur on planes. Smuggling drugs on planes is very difficult, especially in large quantities, and you need a passport to go on a plane so human trafficking also cannot be done on planes. That leaves driving across the border where, in many spots there really is no border wall of any kind. I think we have all heard horror stories of human trafficking so I won't get into that, and drug trafficking would be greatly reduced although not stopped. Illegal immigration would also be reduced and it would add more risk to traffickers by making it way more likely to be caught. I understand that this would be very expensive but I think it would be worthwhile. Also I wrote this on mobile but I will edit it when I get a chance. Edit I have changed my view thanks mostly to u shitferbrains55. I still maintain that we need more border security, but I think that due to ecological and financial reasons a wall does not make sense. I think armed guards and drones would be more effective and efficient. Thank you all for the great respons","Building ""The Wall"" is a good idea"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that Had the cold war ended warm, there would have been a high death toll in the US, EU and USSR, but the world would be a more peaceful world today by one or a mix of 1 nuclear proliferation keeping mutual standoffs 2 commitments to globally eradicate nuclear weapons or 3 through the fear of repercussions after attacking nuclear states which have been shown to use these weapons. Had the US and the USSR exchanged limited nuclear attacks during the cold war, the current conflicts and terrorist actions between the Western world and predominantly muslim states would not have proliferated. Another way of thinking of this statement is why fear attacking an enemy with the biggest sword if you think they'll never use their sword? The global division currently is between the progressive and industrialised west US, Canada, EU 21 etc , Russia and other 1st world countries against the middle Eastern and predominantly Muslim countries. It is a war which is very asymmetric and routed in the ideological clashes. There is a materialistic element oil but the terror motivation is very much ideological the spread of Islam and the contrast between Islamic and non Islamic lifestyles and beliefs . My thought is what would have happened had the cold war had gone hot. Had the US and the USSR actually traded blows with nuclear weapons limited attacks, not Mutually Assure Destructions and shown the true power, violence, death and destruction that can be inflicted between two developed nations, Islamic states without nuclear weapons would have a different opinion of Western power. By this I don't mean in the sense of Western threat directly targeted at Islamic states, but the repercussions of bringing a war against a power willing to use one of humanities ultimate and indiscriminate destructive powers. Where Islam and the West have clashed have been territorial the western troops in Muslim states, Muslim terror attacks in Western countries with the propaganda spin of Islamiphication of Europe and Western Infidels in Iraq had nuclear weapons been used, I think that Islam have been more likely to be confined to within established Islamic states through fear of reprisals at sovereign state levels. This leads me to my view that had the cold war finished with a limited nuclear exchange, the death and destruction incurred would have been beneficial by preventing the terrorism seen in the post Cold War conflicts. Caveats This doesn't mean enduring peace. The West Muslim conflicts wouldn't have been resolved, just time delayed or more likely to have been mediated through dialogue, UN negotiations or peace accords to limit conflicts.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that Had the cold war ended warm, there would have been a high death toll in the US, EU and USSR, but the world would be a more peaceful world today by one or a mix of 1 nuclear proliferation keeping mutual standoffs 2 commitments to globally eradicate nuclear weapons or 3 through the fear of repercussions after attacking nuclear states which have been shown to use these weapons. Had the US and the USSR exchanged limited nuclear attacks during the cold war, the current conflicts and terrorist actions between the Western world and predominantly muslim states would not have proliferated. Another way of thinking of this statement is why fear attacking an enemy with the biggest sword if you think they'll never use their sword? The global division currently is between the progressive and industrialised west US, Canada, EU 21 etc , Russia and other 1st world countries against the middle Eastern and predominantly Muslim countries. It is a war which is very asymmetric and routed in the ideological clashes. There is a materialistic element oil but the terror motivation is very much ideological the spread of Islam and the contrast between Islamic and non Islamic lifestyles and beliefs . My thought is what would have happened had the cold war had gone hot. Had the US and the USSR actually traded blows with nuclear weapons limited attacks, not Mutually Assure Destructions and shown the true power, violence, death and destruction that can be inflicted between two developed nations, Islamic states without nuclear weapons would have a different opinion of Western power. By this I don't mean in the sense of Western threat directly targeted at Islamic states, but the repercussions of bringing a war against a power willing to use one of humanities ultimate and indiscriminate destructive powers. Where Islam and the West have clashed have been territorial the western troops in Muslim states, Muslim terror attacks in Western countries with the propaganda spin of Islamiphication of Europe and Western Infidels in Iraq had nuclear weapons been used, I think that Islam have been more likely to be confined to within established Islamic states through fear of reprisals at sovereign state levels. This leads me to my view that had the cold war finished with a limited nuclear exchange, the death and destruction incurred would have been beneficial by preventing the terrorism seen in the post Cold War conflicts. Caveats This doesn't mean enduring peace. The West Muslim conflicts wouldn't have been resolved, just time delayed or more likely to have been mediated through dialogue, UN negotiations or peace accords to limit conflicts.<|TARGETS|>Islamic states without nuclear weapons, Another way of thinking of this statement, fear attacking an enemy with the biggest sword if you think they 'll never use their sword, The global division, Where Islam and the West have clashed have been territorial the western troops in Muslim states Muslim terror attacks in Western countries with the propaganda spin of Islamiphication of Europe and Western Infidels in Iraq had nuclear weapons, Had the US and the USSR actually traded blows with nuclear weapons limited attacks<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that Had the cold war ended warm, there would have been a high death toll in the US, EU and USSR, but the world would be a more peaceful world today by one or a mix of 1 nuclear proliferation keeping mutual standoffs 2 commitments to globally eradicate nuclear weapons or 3 through the fear of repercussions after attacking nuclear states which have been shown to use these weapons. Had the US and the USSR exchanged limited nuclear attacks during the cold war, the current conflicts and terrorist actions between the Western world and predominantly muslim states would not have proliferated. Another way of thinking of this statement is why fear attacking an enemy with the biggest sword if you think they'll never use their sword? The global division currently is between the progressive and industrialised west US, Canada, EU 21 etc , Russia and other 1st world countries against the middle Eastern and predominantly Muslim countries. It is a war which is very asymmetric and routed in the ideological clashes. There is a materialistic element oil but the terror motivation is very much ideological the spread of Islam and the contrast between Islamic and non Islamic lifestyles and beliefs . My thought is what would have happened had the cold war had gone hot. Had the US and the USSR actually traded blows with nuclear weapons limited attacks, not Mutually Assure Destructions and shown the true power, violence, death and destruction that can be inflicted between two developed nations, Islamic states without nuclear weapons would have a different opinion of Western power. By this I don't mean in the sense of Western threat directly targeted at Islamic states, but the repercussions of bringing a war against a power willing to use one of humanities ultimate and indiscriminate destructive powers. Where Islam and the West have clashed have been territorial the western troops in Muslim states, Muslim terror attacks in Western countries with the propaganda spin of Islamiphication of Europe and Western Infidels in Iraq had nuclear weapons been used, I think that Islam have been more likely to be confined to within established Islamic states through fear of reprisals at sovereign state levels. This leads me to my view that had the cold war finished with a limited nuclear exchange, the death and destruction incurred would have been beneficial by preventing the terrorism seen in the post Cold War conflicts. Caveats This doesn't mean enduring peace. The West Muslim conflicts wouldn't have been resolved, just time delayed or more likely to have been mediated through dialogue, UN negotiations or peace accords to limit conflicts.<|ASPECTS|>weapons, cold war, eradicate nuclear weapons, current, terror attacks, attacks, enduring peace, terrorist actions, repercussions, spread, death and destruction, muslim, fear, death and destruction incurred, nuclear attacks, materialistic element, limit conflicts, islamic, terror motivation, high, nuclear exchange, western power, islam, violence, ideological clashes, peaceful world, death toll, western threat, beliefs, time delayed, west, industrialised, asymmetric, reprisals, conflicts, nuclear, routed, islamiphication, terrorism, fear attacking an enemy, war, global division, indiscriminate destructive powers, lifestyles<|CONCLUSION|>","My view is that Had the cold war ended warm, there would have been a high death toll in the US, EU and USSR, but the world would be a more peaceful world today by one or a mix of 1 nuclear proliferation keeping mutual standoffs 2 commitments to globally eradicate nuclear weapons or 3 through the fear of repercussions after attacking nuclear states which have been shown to use these weapons. Had the US and the USSR exchanged limited nuclear attacks during the cold war, the current conflicts and terrorist actions between the Western world and predominantly muslim states would not have proliferated. Another way of thinking of this statement is why fear attacking an enemy with the biggest sword if you think they'll never use their sword? The global division currently is between the progressive and industrialised west US, Canada, EU 21 etc , Russia and other 1st world countries against the middle Eastern and predominantly Muslim countries. It is a war which is very asymmetric and routed in the ideological clashes. There is a materialistic element oil but the terror motivation is very much ideological the spread of Islam and the contrast between Islamic and non Islamic lifestyles and beliefs . My thought is what would have happened had the cold war had gone hot. Had the US and the USSR actually traded blows with nuclear weapons limited attacks, not Mutually Assure Destructions and shown the true power, violence, death and destruction that can be inflicted between two developed nations, Islamic states without nuclear weapons would have a different opinion of Western power. By this I don't mean in the sense of Western threat directly targeted at Islamic states, but the repercussions of bringing a war against a power willing to use one of humanities ultimate and indiscriminate destructive powers. Where Islam and the West have clashed have been territorial the western troops in Muslim states, Muslim terror attacks in Western countries with the propaganda spin of Islamiphication of Europe and Western Infidels in Iraq had nuclear weapons been used, I think that Islam have been more likely to be confined to within established Islamic states through fear of reprisals at sovereign state levels. This leads me to my view that had the cold war finished with a limited nuclear exchange, the death and destruction incurred would have been beneficial by preventing the terrorism seen in the post Cold War conflicts. Caveats This doesn't mean enduring peace. The West Muslim conflicts wouldn't have been resolved, just time delayed or more likely to have been mediated through dialogue, UN negotiations or peace accords to limit conflicts.","Had the cold war finished with a limited nuclear exchange, the death and destruction incurred would have been beneficial by preventing or limiting the terrorism seen in the post-Cold War conflicts."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are several reasons why this is a good idea. In the long run it will be very good for society and even the government. It may seem bad initially but hear me out People would still likely work part time. While I'm sure you could scrape by on basic income. For most people the choice to work would be a no brainer. Then they could afford to move to a better place of living. Most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. Part time jobs would be more available. It would be easier to find a job because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to survive. This would lower unemployment as jobs could be given to more people. It would prevent exploitation of workers. Currently, workers can be exploited because leaving their job would leave them homeless and it would be hard to find a new job. If losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. Student loans would be less of an issue. It would help students pay off their student loans. Additionally, fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. It would help victims of domestic abuse Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. The money would flow back to the government easily. People would be able to afford new stuff hey can’t afford now. New clothes, books, toys, locally produced food, car repairs and with each purchase money would flow back to the government, because Value Added Tax, along with income tax. Petty crime will be drastically reduced. Less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less strain on police and security. It will help the family dynamic. Parents will be able to spend more time at home with their kids instead of working multiple jobs. Not to mention there are many teens who also have to work to support their family. This will also allow teens more time to study and get higher test scores.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are several reasons why this is a good idea. In the long run it will be very good for society and even the government. It may seem bad initially but hear me out People would still likely work part time. While I'm sure you could scrape by on basic income. For most people the choice to work would be a no brainer. Then they could afford to move to a better place of living. Most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. Part time jobs would be more available. It would be easier to find a job because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to survive. This would lower unemployment as jobs could be given to more people. It would prevent exploitation of workers. Currently, workers can be exploited because leaving their job would leave them homeless and it would be hard to find a new job. If losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. Student loans would be less of an issue. It would help students pay off their student loans. Additionally, fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. It would help victims of domestic abuse Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. The money would flow back to the government easily. People would be able to afford new stuff hey can’t afford now. New clothes, books, toys, locally produced food, car repairs and with each purchase money would flow back to the government, because Value Added Tax, along with income tax. Petty crime will be drastically reduced. Less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less strain on police and security. It will help the family dynamic. Parents will be able to spend more time at home with their kids instead of working multiple jobs. Not to mention there are many teens who also have to work to support their family. This will also allow teens more time to study and get higher test scores.<|TARGETS|>Petty crime, to work two or three jobs just to survive ., to move to a better place of living ., Student loans, to afford new stuff hey ca n’t afford now ., The money<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are several reasons why this is a good idea. In the long run it will be very good for society and even the government. It may seem bad initially but hear me out People would still likely work part time. While I'm sure you could scrape by on basic income. For most people the choice to work would be a no brainer. Then they could afford to move to a better place of living. Most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. Part time jobs would be more available. It would be easier to find a job because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to survive. This would lower unemployment as jobs could be given to more people. It would prevent exploitation of workers. Currently, workers can be exploited because leaving their job would leave them homeless and it would be hard to find a new job. If losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. Student loans would be less of an issue. It would help students pay off their student loans. Additionally, fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. It would help victims of domestic abuse Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. The money would flow back to the government easily. People would be able to afford new stuff hey can’t afford now. New clothes, books, toys, locally produced food, car repairs and with each purchase money would flow back to the government, because Value Added Tax, along with income tax. Petty crime will be drastically reduced. Less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less strain on police and security. It will help the family dynamic. Parents will be able to spend more time at home with their kids instead of working multiple jobs. Not to mention there are many teens who also have to work to support their family. This will also allow teens more time to study and get higher test scores.<|ASPECTS|>survive, dignity, bad, flunk out of school, jobs, spend, money, victims, work part time, strain, time to study, police and security, hard, government, part time jobs, available, pay off, abusive partners, student loans, government easily, homeless, afford to move, issue, brainer, unemployment, higher test scores, afford new stuff, support their family, basic income, flow back, income tax, domestic abuse, petty crime, prevent, family dynamic, good for society, financial desperation, financial disaster, value added tax, exploitation of workers, less, easier to find a job, drastically reduced, juggle studies and work, afford, better place of living, lower, exploited, time at home, multiple, choice<|CONCLUSION|>","There are several reasons why this is a good idea. In the long run it will be very good for society and even the government. It may seem bad initially but hear me out People would still likely work part time. While I'm sure you could scrape by on basic income. For most people the choice to work would be a no brainer. Then they could afford to move to a better place of living. Most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. Part time jobs would be more available. It would be easier to find a job because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to survive. This would lower unemployment as jobs could be given to more people. It would prevent exploitation of workers. Currently, workers can be exploited because leaving their job would leave them homeless and it would be hard to find a new job. If losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. Student loans would be less of an issue. It would help students pay off their student loans. Additionally, fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. It would help victims of domestic abuse Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. The money would flow back to the government easily. People would be able to afford new stuff hey can’t afford now. New clothes, books, toys, locally produced food, car repairs and with each purchase money would flow back to the government, because Value Added Tax, along with income tax. Petty crime will be drastically reduced. Less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less strain on police and security. It will help the family dynamic. Parents will be able to spend more time at home with their kids instead of working multiple jobs. Not to mention there are many teens who also have to work to support their family. This will also allow teens more time to study and get higher test scores.","All American citizens should have a basic income of 33,000 a year."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm pro choice for both father and mother. What I mean by this is, when a child is conceived whether intended or not the father is put in an awkward situation. My view is that if the father would like to legally disown the child before the 24 week abortion period have passed, he should be allowed to do so. This would except him from being forced to pay child support if the mother decides to keep the child, as well as dissociate himself entirely with the child. In the case that the father wants to keep the child but the mother does not, she could conduct this same procedure, and instead of being forced into abortion could simply pass the child to the father upon birth. There of course are some flaws in this view but I believe overall it is better than the current system. It should also be noted that I am not some male rights activist trying to help deadbeat dads weasel out of child support. This system is a tool to help children being born who should have been aborted. EDIT Great responses reading through them now my opinion is very mixed but I'll try to respond in defense of this view regardless.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm pro choice for both father and mother. What I mean by this is, when a child is conceived whether intended or not the father is put in an awkward situation. My view is that if the father would like to legally disown the child before the 24 week abortion period have passed, he should be allowed to do so. This would except him from being forced to pay child support if the mother decides to keep the child, as well as dissociate himself entirely with the child. In the case that the father wants to keep the child but the mother does not, she could conduct this same procedure, and instead of being forced into abortion could simply pass the child to the father upon birth. There of course are some flaws in this view but I believe overall it is better than the current system. It should also be noted that I am not some male rights activist trying to help deadbeat dads weasel out of child support. This system is a tool to help children being born who should have been aborted. EDIT Great responses reading through them now my opinion is very mixed but I'll try to respond in defense of this view regardless.<|TARGETS|>if the father would like to legally disown the child before the 24 week abortion period, not some male rights activist trying to help deadbeat dads weasel out of child support ., pro choice for both father and mother ., being forced to pay child support if the mother decides to keep the child as well as dissociate himself entirely with the child ., to respond in defense of this view regardless ., This system<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm pro choice for both father and mother. What I mean by this is, when a child is conceived whether intended or not the father is put in an awkward situation. My view is that if the father would like to legally disown the child before the 24 week abortion period have passed, he should be allowed to do so. This would except him from being forced to pay child support if the mother decides to keep the child, as well as dissociate himself entirely with the child. In the case that the father wants to keep the child but the mother does not, she could conduct this same procedure, and instead of being forced into abortion could simply pass the child to the father upon birth. There of course are some flaws in this view but I believe overall it is better than the current system. It should also be noted that I am not some male rights activist trying to help deadbeat dads weasel out of child support. This system is a tool to help children being born who should have been aborted. EDIT Great responses reading through them now my opinion is very mixed but I'll try to respond in defense of this view regardless.<|ASPECTS|>child support, pay, better than the current system, pro choice, help children, dissociate, flaws, male rights, legally, disown the child, awkward situation, deadbeat dads, aborted<|CONCLUSION|>","I'm pro choice for both father and mother. What I mean by this is, when a child is conceived whether intended or not the father is put in an awkward situation. My view is that if the father would like to legally disown the child before the 24 week abortion period have passed, he should be allowed to do so. This would except him from being forced to pay child support if the mother decides to keep the child, as well as dissociate himself entirely with the child. In the case that the father wants to keep the child but the mother does not, she could conduct this same procedure, and instead of being forced into abortion could simply pass the child to the father upon birth. There of course are some flaws in this view but I believe overall it is better than the current system. It should also be noted that I am not some male rights activist trying to help deadbeat dads weasel out of child support. This system is a tool to help children being born who should have been aborted. EDIT Great responses reading through them now my opinion is very mixed but I'll try to respond in defense of this view regardless.",I believe men should have the choice to legally disown their unborn children
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook owns both Facebook duhr as well as Instagram. They are THE defacto standard for social media. This is not healthy for anyone. Facebook literally reaches Billions of users. By comparison, Reddit has about 330 million, same for Twitter. Apple doesn't even try. Even mighty Google is shutting down their social media offering in April effectively surrendering the market. The fact that even Google can't compete against FB clearly illustrates that FB is a monopoly. If these tech giants with unlimited resources can't compete, how could literally anyone else? No company regardless of how you feel about Facebook's questionable ethics, and recent revelations about their abuses should own that much of any market. And no one company of this size should be largely guided by thoughts, feelings, and impulses of one man. That leads to things like this Facebook has an 'expansion at all costs' ethos that is dangerous. Granted, this is sort of the ethos of most companies of this size. Their 'break things and fix em later' policy is wreckless for company of their size. They have a propensity to not 'stay in their lane' and just help people connect and share photos of their dinners, but also do things like control how people interact with the media that people consume. The havok that just those behaviors have been bringing is a really good example of exactly why a monopoly is unhealthy. Now, I'm not sure how FB would be effectively broken up. But that was the challenge of breaking up the phone company many years ago. It was done then, and it can be done again. Stiff regulation is another option. Facebook's main product, hyper granular user marketing data is a completely new 'product' that has very little rules outside of privacy laws ones that Facebook seems a bit cavalier with. A discussion about every American's, and all human's actual right to privacy needs to begin. Thanks for reading.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook owns both Facebook duhr as well as Instagram. They are THE defacto standard for social media. This is not healthy for anyone. Facebook literally reaches Billions of users. By comparison, Reddit has about 330 million, same for Twitter. Apple doesn't even try. Even mighty Google is shutting down their social media offering in April effectively surrendering the market. The fact that even Google can't compete against FB clearly illustrates that FB is a monopoly. If these tech giants with unlimited resources can't compete, how could literally anyone else? No company regardless of how you feel about Facebook's questionable ethics, and recent revelations about their abuses should own that much of any market. And no one company of this size should be largely guided by thoughts, feelings, and impulses of one man. That leads to things like this Facebook has an 'expansion at all costs' ethos that is dangerous. Granted, this is sort of the ethos of most companies of this size. Their 'break things and fix em later' policy is wreckless for company of their size. They have a propensity to not 'stay in their lane' and just help people connect and share photos of their dinners, but also do things like control how people interact with the media that people consume. The havok that just those behaviors have been bringing is a really good example of exactly why a monopoly is unhealthy. Now, I'm not sure how FB would be effectively broken up. But that was the challenge of breaking up the phone company many years ago. It was done then, and it can be done again. Stiff regulation is another option. Facebook's main product, hyper granular user marketing data is a completely new 'product' that has very little rules outside of privacy laws ones that Facebook seems a bit cavalier with. A discussion about every American's, and all human's actual right to privacy needs to begin. Thanks for reading.<|TARGETS|>If these tech giants with unlimited resources, Stiff regulation, The fact that even Google ca n't compete against FB, Their ' break things and fix em later ' policy, to not ' stay in their lane ' and just help people connect and share photos of their dinners but also do things like control how people interact with the media that people consume ., The havok that just those behaviors have been bringing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook owns both Facebook duhr as well as Instagram. They are THE defacto standard for social media. This is not healthy for anyone. Facebook literally reaches Billions of users. By comparison, Reddit has about 330 million, same for Twitter. Apple doesn't even try. Even mighty Google is shutting down their social media offering in April effectively surrendering the market. The fact that even Google can't compete against FB clearly illustrates that FB is a monopoly. If these tech giants with unlimited resources can't compete, how could literally anyone else? No company regardless of how you feel about Facebook's questionable ethics, and recent revelations about their abuses should own that much of any market. And no one company of this size should be largely guided by thoughts, feelings, and impulses of one man. That leads to things like this Facebook has an 'expansion at all costs' ethos that is dangerous. Granted, this is sort of the ethos of most companies of this size. Their 'break things and fix em later' policy is wreckless for company of their size. They have a propensity to not 'stay in their lane' and just help people connect and share photos of their dinners, but also do things like control how people interact with the media that people consume. The havok that just those behaviors have been bringing is a really good example of exactly why a monopoly is unhealthy. Now, I'm not sure how FB would be effectively broken up. But that was the challenge of breaking up the phone company many years ago. It was done then, and it can be done again. Stiff regulation is another option. Facebook's main product, hyper granular user marketing data is a completely new 'product' that has very little rules outside of privacy laws ones that Facebook seems a bit cavalier with. A discussion about every American's, and all human's actual right to privacy needs to begin. Thanks for reading.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, , abuses, tech giants, healthy for anyone, ethos, effectively broken, interact, monopoly, connect, unlimited resources, costs, feelings, challenge, wreckless, things, media, media offering, havok, photos, impulses, granular user marketing, surrendering the market, fb, fix, billions, breaking up the phone company, control, facebook, privacy laws, apple, unhealthy, thoughts, users, stiff regulation, defacto standard, right to privacy, questionable ethics, compete, rules<|CONCLUSION|>","Facebook owns both Facebook duhr as well as Instagram. They are THE defacto standard for social media. This is not healthy for anyone. Facebook literally reaches Billions of users. By comparison, Reddit has about 330 million, same for Twitter. Apple doesn't even try. Even mighty Google is shutting down their social media offering in April effectively surrendering the market. The fact that even Google can't compete against FB clearly illustrates that FB is a monopoly. If these tech giants with unlimited resources can't compete, how could literally anyone else? No company regardless of how you feel about Facebook's questionable ethics, and recent revelations about their abuses should own that much of any market. And no one company of this size should be largely guided by thoughts, feelings, and impulses of one man. That leads to things like this Facebook has an 'expansion at all costs' ethos that is dangerous. Granted, this is sort of the ethos of most companies of this size. Their 'break things and fix em later' policy is wreckless for company of their size. They have a propensity to not 'stay in their lane' and just help people connect and share photos of their dinners, but also do things like control how people interact with the media that people consume. The havok that just those behaviors have been bringing is a really good example of exactly why a monopoly is unhealthy. Now, I'm not sure how FB would be effectively broken up. But that was the challenge of breaking up the phone company many years ago. It was done then, and it can be done again. Stiff regulation is another option. Facebook's main product, hyper granular user marketing data is a completely new 'product' that has very little rules outside of privacy laws ones that Facebook seems a bit cavalier with. A discussion about every American's, and all human's actual right to privacy needs to begin. Thanks for reading.",Facebook is effectively a monopoly in the social media market and should be broken up or highly regulated.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>During his commencement speech at Howard University, President Obama was quoted as saying the following gt “That’s a pet peeve of mine – people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky,” he said. “That God may have blessed them it wasn’t nothing you did. So don’t have an attitude.” I have several problems with this message. While I generally agree with part of the sentiment success is part work part luck circumstance whatever you want to call it , I don't believe that this is actually a good sentiment to reinforce. This message disincentivizes hard work by reminding people that hard work alone might not equate to success. It offers comfort to those who have not been successful regardless of their actual effort level by redirecting responsibility to this invisible force that they cannot control. It wasn't nothing you did is a logical extension of the you didn't build that speech. I didn't have a problem back then because of the context. But with this additional context, a troubling pattern is emerging. Instead of hammering the part luck part work narrative, he seems to be doubling down on all just luck . My opinion is that when speaking to anyone, and especially the disenfranchised, this kind of speech is far more harmful than an insensitive phrasing, a joke, or a blunt, misguided opinion. Insensitive speech hurts a groups feelings. The President's speech can wrongly alter behavior. Thus, the reaction to each kind of speech seems backwards to me. The most important part of this CMV is that I don't need to be convinced that success typically involves luck outside of your control. I need to be convinced that we are benefited more than we are harmed by reminding everyone that success is out of your control.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>During his commencement speech at Howard University, President Obama was quoted as saying the following gt “That’s a pet peeve of mine – people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky,” he said. “That God may have blessed them it wasn’t nothing you did. So don’t have an attitude.” I have several problems with this message. While I generally agree with part of the sentiment success is part work part luck circumstance whatever you want to call it , I don't believe that this is actually a good sentiment to reinforce. This message disincentivizes hard work by reminding people that hard work alone might not equate to success. It offers comfort to those who have not been successful regardless of their actual effort level by redirecting responsibility to this invisible force that they cannot control. It wasn't nothing you did is a logical extension of the you didn't build that speech. I didn't have a problem back then because of the context. But with this additional context, a troubling pattern is emerging. Instead of hammering the part luck part work narrative, he seems to be doubling down on all just luck . My opinion is that when speaking to anyone, and especially the disenfranchised, this kind of speech is far more harmful than an insensitive phrasing, a joke, or a blunt, misguided opinion. Insensitive speech hurts a groups feelings. The President's speech can wrongly alter behavior. Thus, the reaction to each kind of speech seems backwards to me. The most important part of this CMV is that I don't need to be convinced that success typically involves luck outside of your control. I need to be convinced that we are benefited more than we are harmed by reminding everyone that success is out of your control.<|TARGETS|>I generally agree with part of the sentiment success is part work part luck circumstance whatever you want to call it, The President 's speech, when speaking to anyone and especially the disenfranchised this kind of speech, hammering the part luck part work narrative, redirecting responsibility to this invisible force that they cannot control ., Insensitive speech<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>During his commencement speech at Howard University, President Obama was quoted as saying the following gt “That’s a pet peeve of mine – people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky,” he said. “That God may have blessed them it wasn’t nothing you did. So don’t have an attitude.” I have several problems with this message. While I generally agree with part of the sentiment success is part work part luck circumstance whatever you want to call it , I don't believe that this is actually a good sentiment to reinforce. This message disincentivizes hard work by reminding people that hard work alone might not equate to success. It offers comfort to those who have not been successful regardless of their actual effort level by redirecting responsibility to this invisible force that they cannot control. It wasn't nothing you did is a logical extension of the you didn't build that speech. I didn't have a problem back then because of the context. But with this additional context, a troubling pattern is emerging. Instead of hammering the part luck part work narrative, he seems to be doubling down on all just luck . My opinion is that when speaking to anyone, and especially the disenfranchised, this kind of speech is far more harmful than an insensitive phrasing, a joke, or a blunt, misguided opinion. Insensitive speech hurts a groups feelings. The President's speech can wrongly alter behavior. Thus, the reaction to each kind of speech seems backwards to me. The most important part of this CMV is that I don't need to be convinced that success typically involves luck outside of your control. I need to be convinced that we are benefited more than we are harmed by reminding everyone that success is out of your control.<|ASPECTS|>, groups feelings, success, hurts, comfort, reaction, invisible force, god, successful, misguided, luck circumstance, lucky, blessed, effort, backwards, logical extension, harmed, troubling pattern, disincentivizes, sentiment, control, luck, wrongly alter behavior, hard work, problem, benefited, pet peeve, context, insensitive speech, insensitive phrasing, harmful, attitude., responsibility<|CONCLUSION|>","During his commencement speech at Howard University, President Obama was quoted as saying the following gt “That’s a pet peeve of mine – people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky,” he said. “That God may have blessed them it wasn’t nothing you did. So don’t have an attitude.” I have several problems with this message. While I generally agree with part of the sentiment success is part work part luck circumstance whatever you want to call it , I don't believe that this is actually a good sentiment to reinforce. This message disincentivizes hard work by reminding people that hard work alone might not equate to success. It offers comfort to those who have not been successful regardless of their actual effort level by redirecting responsibility to this invisible force that they cannot control. It wasn't nothing you did is a logical extension of the you didn't build that speech. I didn't have a problem back then because of the context. But with this additional context, a troubling pattern is emerging. Instead of hammering the part luck part work narrative, he seems to be doubling down on all just luck . My opinion is that when speaking to anyone, and especially the disenfranchised, this kind of speech is far more harmful than an insensitive phrasing, a joke, or a blunt, misguided opinion. Insensitive speech hurts a groups feelings. The President's speech can wrongly alter behavior. Thus, the reaction to each kind of speech seems backwards to me. The most important part of this  is that I don't need to be convinced that success typically involves luck outside of your control. I need to be convinced that we are benefited more than we are harmed by reminding everyone that success is out of your control.","Obama's speech on luck is more destructive and harmful message than politically incorrect speech, and should incite a similar or worse reaction."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Smoking during pregnancy can lead to low birth weight infants, putting them at risk for a wide variety of health problems during infancy as well as later in life. Smoking can cause problems with the placenta, causing placental abruption, which endangers the life of both mother and baby. Babies born to women who smoke are also more likely to be born with birth defects. Smoking during pregnancy and around an infant is one of the leading causes of SIDS Sudden Infant Death Syndrom which is leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S. Source Parent's who choose to smoke endanger the lives of their children, yet their are no consequences for their actions. I believe there should be ramifications for these parents that might deter them from smoking, CMV. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Smoking during pregnancy can lead to low birth weight infants, putting them at risk for a wide variety of health problems during infancy as well as later in life. Smoking can cause problems with the placenta, causing placental abruption, which endangers the life of both mother and baby. Babies born to women who smoke are also more likely to be born with birth defects. Smoking during pregnancy and around an infant is one of the leading causes of SIDS Sudden Infant Death Syndrom which is leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S. Source Parent's who choose to smoke endanger the lives of their children, yet their are no consequences for their actions. I believe there should be ramifications for these parents that might deter them from smoking, CMV. <|TARGETS|>Smoking during pregnancy, Smoking, Babies born to women who smoke, Smoking during pregnancy and around an infant, Source Parent 's who choose to smoke endanger the lives of their children<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Smoking during pregnancy can lead to low birth weight infants, putting them at risk for a wide variety of health problems during infancy as well as later in life. Smoking can cause problems with the placenta, causing placental abruption, which endangers the life of both mother and baby. Babies born to women who smoke are also more likely to be born with birth defects. Smoking during pregnancy and around an infant is one of the leading causes of SIDS Sudden Infant Death Syndrom which is leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S. Source Parent's who choose to smoke endanger the lives of their children, yet their are no consequences for their actions. I believe there should be ramifications for these parents that might deter them from smoking, CMV. <|ASPECTS|>endanger the lives, low birth weight infants, parents, consequences, infant mortality, deter, health problems, smoking, birth defects, ramifications, placental abruption, life, problems, infant death, endangers<|CONCLUSION|>","Smoking during pregnancy can lead to low birth weight infants, putting them at risk for a wide variety of health problems during infancy as well as later in life. Smoking can cause problems with the placenta, causing placental abruption, which endangers the life of both mother and baby. Babies born to women who smoke are also more likely to be born with birth defects. Smoking during pregnancy and around an infant is one of the leading causes of SIDS Sudden Infant Death Syndrom which is leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S. Source Parent's who choose to smoke endanger the lives of their children, yet their are no consequences for their actions. I believe there should be ramifications for these parents that might deter them from smoking, .","Their should be ramifications for Women who choose to smoke during pregnancy, and when parenting an infant."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The beauty of capitalism is that there are a large amount of firms that would be willing to offer their business to me, and that firms lose out if they alienate a select part of their customer base in the form of profit. We shouldn't be forcing these businesses to cater to anyone and everyone despite their bigoted biases rather, we should actively deregulate the market and let the bigots drive themselves out of business. I also believe that it is inherently anti capitalistic and anti humanitarian for the government to force someone to offer their services to someone whom they disagree with or dislike, and that a separation of government and the economy is necessary to preserve the rights of business and deconstruct a slippery slope. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The beauty of capitalism is that there are a large amount of firms that would be willing to offer their business to me, and that firms lose out if they alienate a select part of their customer base in the form of profit. We shouldn't be forcing these businesses to cater to anyone and everyone despite their bigoted biases rather, we should actively deregulate the market and let the bigots drive themselves out of business. I also believe that it is inherently anti capitalistic and anti humanitarian for the government to force someone to offer their services to someone whom they disagree with or dislike, and that a separation of government and the economy is necessary to preserve the rights of business and deconstruct a slippery slope. <|TARGETS|>to offer their business to me and that firms lose out if they alienate a select part of their customer base in the form of profit ., The beauty of capitalism, to preserve the rights of business and deconstruct a slippery slope ., to force someone to offer their services to someone whom they disagree with or dislike and that a separation of government and the economy, forcing these businesses to cater to anyone and everyone despite their bigoted biases, actively deregulate the market and let the bigots drive themselves out of business .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The beauty of capitalism is that there are a large amount of firms that would be willing to offer their business to me, and that firms lose out if they alienate a select part of their customer base in the form of profit. We shouldn't be forcing these businesses to cater to anyone and everyone despite their bigoted biases rather, we should actively deregulate the market and let the bigots drive themselves out of business. I also believe that it is inherently anti capitalistic and anti humanitarian for the government to force someone to offer their services to someone whom they disagree with or dislike, and that a separation of government and the economy is necessary to preserve the rights of business and deconstruct a slippery slope. <|ASPECTS|>bigoted biases, capitalism, separation of government, beauty, bigots, rights of business, profit, cater, anti humanitarian, customer base, alienate, deregulate the market, slippery slope, anti capitalistic<|CONCLUSION|>","The beauty of capitalism is that there are a large amount of firms that would be willing to offer their business to me, and that firms lose out if they alienate a select part of their customer base in the form of profit. We shouldn't be forcing these businesses to cater to anyone and everyone despite their bigoted biases rather, we should actively deregulate the market and let the bigots drive themselves out of business. I also believe that it is inherently anti capitalistic and anti humanitarian for the government to force someone to offer their services to someone whom they disagree with or dislike, and that a separation of government and the economy is necessary to preserve the rights of business and deconstruct a slippery slope.",Business should not be expected to deliver their services to anyone and everyone
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I will start by saying I have travelled to over 30 countries across Europe, North America, East Asia, South East Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. I live in a country I was not born in, and hope to eventually die here too. My parents, sibling, relatives, friends, acquiescences and work colleagues all place immense value in travelling to as many countries as they can, before they become infirm and too old to fly by plane. Their FB and IG feeds attests to this. Out of loyalty to my relatives and friends, I go with them on holiday abroad every year, or even twice. Often a new country, sometimes a destination of my choosing. The truth is, and I will never admit to them, I absolutely despise going on holiday, and I'm deeply suspicious of people who make their love of travel, a central part of their personality. When I'm reminded of a holiday I have undertaken, triggered by a conversation topic or seeing an old photo, no emotions of the places are elicited in me whatsoever. Except perhaps the reminder of the frustrations that inevitably come with travelling by plane. The Sagrada Familia is just a fancy looking church to me. The Angkor Wat felt so much smaller, and less significant up close than when I read about it. San Francisco wasn't overrun by pissing and shitting vagabonds, as Reddit would like me to believe, but the city's charm was largely lost on me. I'm no foodie, eating authentic cuisines means little to me, sushi in Japan was certainly better than anywhere I can find in London, but I don't pine for it. Pizzas, pastas and gelato weren't even better in Italy, just different. My positive memories aren't things I've seen, eaten, walked through, explored, touched or smelt. My positive memories abroad almost always involved the people I travel with and care about. I already get their company back at home. And little actually to do with where I am. When left on my own devices, I much prefer to stay in my hotel room drinking tea and reading my kindle. When I do ask people why they love to travel so much, I only get the same cliche answers the food, the sights, the climate, immersing oneself in a foreign culture this last one can come across patronising, in honesty . When I ask them if they learnt anything from the experience, or had it changed them for the better, I get even less convincing answers, if any. To broaden my horizons is one, but the fact you went in the first place already suggests you were well up for opening your minds anyway. I do not imply that people who enjoy travelling are boring. No. But too many people I've met certainly put this front and centre as their most interesting attribute, naming all the cities they visited as some sort of accomplishment. I love to travel tells me as much about someone who says they watch Netflix, play video games, loves walking and listening to music. I can already anticipate some of the replies I honestly don't think I'm too boring, I have so many different hobbies and varied interests, I don't have all the time in the world to fully invest myself in each. I'm not so closed minded of different cultures, I live and enjoy working in one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and teaching myself to speak two languages. I find it easy to find something in almost anyone interesting, and worth talking about. I can hold a conversation about them, until we both exhaust ourselves. But if they want to just talk about their gap year backpacking trip to Thailand, I simply cannot relate to them on an emotional level. That subject, and cars, are probably the only two I cannot maintain much enthusiasm in. I wasn't sure where I wanted to put this post, could have been r unpopularopinion, r rant, or r offmychests. But I decided to post here, because I honestly would like to understand why you might enjoy it so much? What is it about it that excites you, the subject makes me feel like an alien. I do feel an little bad about myself for not enjoying something most intelligent and well rounded people would.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I will start by saying I have travelled to over 30 countries across Europe, North America, East Asia, South East Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. I live in a country I was not born in, and hope to eventually die here too. My parents, sibling, relatives, friends, acquiescences and work colleagues all place immense value in travelling to as many countries as they can, before they become infirm and too old to fly by plane. Their FB and IG feeds attests to this. Out of loyalty to my relatives and friends, I go with them on holiday abroad every year, or even twice. Often a new country, sometimes a destination of my choosing. The truth is, and I will never admit to them, I absolutely despise going on holiday, and I'm deeply suspicious of people who make their love of travel, a central part of their personality. When I'm reminded of a holiday I have undertaken, triggered by a conversation topic or seeing an old photo, no emotions of the places are elicited in me whatsoever. Except perhaps the reminder of the frustrations that inevitably come with travelling by plane. The Sagrada Familia is just a fancy looking church to me. The Angkor Wat felt so much smaller, and less significant up close than when I read about it. San Francisco wasn't overrun by pissing and shitting vagabonds, as Reddit would like me to believe, but the city's charm was largely lost on me. I'm no foodie, eating authentic cuisines means little to me, sushi in Japan was certainly better than anywhere I can find in London, but I don't pine for it. Pizzas, pastas and gelato weren't even better in Italy, just different. My positive memories aren't things I've seen, eaten, walked through, explored, touched or smelt. My positive memories abroad almost always involved the people I travel with and care about. I already get their company back at home. And little actually to do with where I am. When left on my own devices, I much prefer to stay in my hotel room drinking tea and reading my kindle. When I do ask people why they love to travel so much, I only get the same cliche answers the food, the sights, the climate, immersing oneself in a foreign culture this last one can come across patronising, in honesty . When I ask them if they learnt anything from the experience, or had it changed them for the better, I get even less convincing answers, if any. To broaden my horizons is one, but the fact you went in the first place already suggests you were well up for opening your minds anyway. I do not imply that people who enjoy travelling are boring. No. But too many people I've met certainly put this front and centre as their most interesting attribute, naming all the cities they visited as some sort of accomplishment. I love to travel tells me as much about someone who says they watch Netflix, play video games, loves walking and listening to music. I can already anticipate some of the replies I honestly don't think I'm too boring, I have so many different hobbies and varied interests, I don't have all the time in the world to fully invest myself in each. I'm not so closed minded of different cultures, I live and enjoy working in one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and teaching myself to speak two languages. I find it easy to find something in almost anyone interesting, and worth talking about. I can hold a conversation about them, until we both exhaust ourselves. But if they want to just talk about their gap year backpacking trip to Thailand, I simply cannot relate to them on an emotional level. That subject, and cars, are probably the only two I cannot maintain much enthusiasm in. I wasn't sure where I wanted to put this post, could have been r unpopularopinion, r rant, or r offmychests. But I decided to post here, because I honestly would like to understand why you might enjoy it so much? What is it about it that excites you, the subject makes me feel like an alien. I do feel an little bad about myself for not enjoying something most intelligent and well rounded people would.<|TARGETS|>not so closed minded of different cultures I live and enjoy working in one of the most multicultural cities in the world and teaching myself to speak two languages ., to find something in almost anyone interesting and worth talking about ., Pizzas pastas and gelato, not enjoying something most intelligent and well rounded people would ., put this front and centre as their most interesting attribute naming all the cities they visited as some sort of accomplishment ., eating authentic cuisines<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I will start by saying I have travelled to over 30 countries across Europe, North America, East Asia, South East Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. I live in a country I was not born in, and hope to eventually die here too. My parents, sibling, relatives, friends, acquiescences and work colleagues all place immense value in travelling to as many countries as they can, before they become infirm and too old to fly by plane. Their FB and IG feeds attests to this. Out of loyalty to my relatives and friends, I go with them on holiday abroad every year, or even twice. Often a new country, sometimes a destination of my choosing. The truth is, and I will never admit to them, I absolutely despise going on holiday, and I'm deeply suspicious of people who make their love of travel, a central part of their personality. When I'm reminded of a holiday I have undertaken, triggered by a conversation topic or seeing an old photo, no emotions of the places are elicited in me whatsoever. Except perhaps the reminder of the frustrations that inevitably come with travelling by plane. The Sagrada Familia is just a fancy looking church to me. The Angkor Wat felt so much smaller, and less significant up close than when I read about it. San Francisco wasn't overrun by pissing and shitting vagabonds, as Reddit would like me to believe, but the city's charm was largely lost on me. I'm no foodie, eating authentic cuisines means little to me, sushi in Japan was certainly better than anywhere I can find in London, but I don't pine for it. Pizzas, pastas and gelato weren't even better in Italy, just different. My positive memories aren't things I've seen, eaten, walked through, explored, touched or smelt. My positive memories abroad almost always involved the people I travel with and care about. I already get their company back at home. And little actually to do with where I am. When left on my own devices, I much prefer to stay in my hotel room drinking tea and reading my kindle. When I do ask people why they love to travel so much, I only get the same cliche answers the food, the sights, the climate, immersing oneself in a foreign culture this last one can come across patronising, in honesty . When I ask them if they learnt anything from the experience, or had it changed them for the better, I get even less convincing answers, if any. To broaden my horizons is one, but the fact you went in the first place already suggests you were well up for opening your minds anyway. I do not imply that people who enjoy travelling are boring. No. But too many people I've met certainly put this front and centre as their most interesting attribute, naming all the cities they visited as some sort of accomplishment. I love to travel tells me as much about someone who says they watch Netflix, play video games, loves walking and listening to music. I can already anticipate some of the replies I honestly don't think I'm too boring, I have so many different hobbies and varied interests, I don't have all the time in the world to fully invest myself in each. I'm not so closed minded of different cultures, I live and enjoy working in one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and teaching myself to speak two languages. I find it easy to find something in almost anyone interesting, and worth talking about. I can hold a conversation about them, until we both exhaust ourselves. But if they want to just talk about their gap year backpacking trip to Thailand, I simply cannot relate to them on an emotional level. That subject, and cars, are probably the only two I cannot maintain much enthusiasm in. I wasn't sure where I wanted to put this post, could have been r unpopularopinion, r rant, or r offmychests. But I decided to post here, because I honestly would like to understand why you might enjoy it so much? What is it about it that excites you, the subject makes me feel like an alien. I do feel an little bad about myself for not enjoying something most intelligent and well rounded people would.<|ASPECTS|>r unpopularopinion, infirm, smaller, relate, patronising, prefer, overrun, holiday abroad, well rounded, authentic cuisines, foreign, charm, pine, horizons, emotional level, varied interests, travel, walking, die, positive memories, exhaust, familia, feel like an alien, interesting, centre, fb, travelled, offmychests, love of travel, hobbies, reading, enthusiasm, hope, new country, pissing and shitting vagabonds, less significant, boring, anticipate, fancy looking church, despise, intelligent, opening your minds, enjoy, listening to music, less, conversation, cultures, accomplishment, value, two languages, multicultural cities, travelling, destination, emotions, better, old, loves, closed minded, suspicious, company, convincing answers, different, loyalty, excites, worth, frustrations<|CONCLUSION|>","I will start by saying I have travelled to over 30 countries across Europe, North America, East Asia, South East Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. I live in a country I was not born in, and hope to eventually die here too. My parents, sibling, relatives, friends, acquiescences and work colleagues all place immense value in travelling to as many countries as they can, before they become infirm and too old to fly by plane. Their FB and IG feeds attests to this. Out of loyalty to my relatives and friends, I go with them on holiday abroad every year, or even twice. Often a new country, sometimes a destination of my choosing. The truth is, and I will never admit to them, I absolutely despise going on holiday, and I'm deeply suspicious of people who make their love of travel, a central part of their personality. When I'm reminded of a holiday I have undertaken, triggered by a conversation topic or seeing an old photo, no emotions of the places are elicited in me whatsoever. Except perhaps the reminder of the frustrations that inevitably come with travelling by plane. The Sagrada Familia is just a fancy looking church to me. The Angkor Wat felt so much smaller, and less significant up close than when I read about it. San Francisco wasn't overrun by pissing and shitting vagabonds, as Reddit would like me to believe, but the city's charm was largely lost on me. I'm no foodie, eating authentic cuisines means little to me, sushi in Japan was certainly better than anywhere I can find in London, but I don't pine for it. Pizzas, pastas and gelato weren't even better in Italy, just different. My positive memories aren't things I've seen, eaten, walked through, explored, touched or smelt. My positive memories abroad almost always involved the people I travel with and care about. I already get their company back at home. And little actually to do with where I am. When left on my own devices, I much prefer to stay in my hotel room drinking tea and reading my kindle. When I do ask people why they love to travel so much, I only get the same cliche answers the food, the sights, the climate, immersing oneself in a foreign culture this last one can come across patronising, in honesty . When I ask them if they learnt anything from the experience, or had it changed them for the better, I get even less convincing answers, if any. To broaden my horizons is one, but the fact you went in the first place already suggests you were well up for opening your minds anyway. I do not imply that people who enjoy travelling are boring. No. But too many people I've met certainly put this front and centre as their most interesting attribute, naming all the cities they visited as some sort of accomplishment. I love to travel tells me as much about someone who says they watch Netflix, play video games, loves walking and listening to music. I can already anticipate some of the replies I honestly don't think I'm too boring, I have so many different hobbies and varied interests, I don't have all the time in the world to fully invest myself in each. I'm not so closed minded of different cultures, I live and enjoy working in one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and teaching myself to speak two languages. I find it easy to find something in almost anyone interesting, and worth talking about. I can hold a conversation about them, until we both exhaust ourselves. But if they want to just talk about their gap year backpacking trip to Thailand, I simply cannot relate to them on an emotional level. That subject, and cars, are probably the only two I cannot maintain much enthusiasm in. I wasn't sure where I wanted to put this post, could have been r unpopularopinion, r rant, or r offmychests. But I decided to post here, because I honestly would like to understand why you might enjoy it so much? What is it about it that excites you, the subject makes me feel like an alien. I do feel an little bad about myself for not enjoying something most intelligent and well rounded people would.","Travelling is a vastly overrated pastime, I wish my generation did not venerate this activity so bloody much"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was watching a Noam Chomsky interview yesterday and he made a really great point, I thought, about the contradiction inherent in our economic system, and therefore our society as a whole. Economics teaches us that consumers make rational decisions, and from this principle we extrapolate economic theory, and justify our free market capitalist system. But Chomsky makes the point that the advertising industry and, by political extension, the PR industry runs on selling things to people that they really don't need. In a sense, much of our economic system is driven by irrational choices. Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need in other words Tyler Durden . If this is the case, we don't have a free market, and the economists don't have any foundation to their theory that we make informed and rational purchases as consumers. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was watching a Noam Chomsky interview yesterday and he made a really great point, I thought, about the contradiction inherent in our economic system, and therefore our society as a whole. Economics teaches us that consumers make rational decisions, and from this principle we extrapolate economic theory, and justify our free market capitalist system. But Chomsky makes the point that the advertising industry and, by political extension, the PR industry runs on selling things to people that they really don't need. In a sense, much of our economic system is driven by irrational choices. Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need in other words Tyler Durden . If this is the case, we don't have a free market, and the economists don't have any foundation to their theory that we make informed and rational purchases as consumers. <|TARGETS|>watching a Noam Chomsky interview, Advertising, Chomsky, our free market capitalist system, the advertising industry, a free market and the economists do n't have any foundation to their theory that we make informed and rational purchases<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was watching a Noam Chomsky interview yesterday and he made a really great point, I thought, about the contradiction inherent in our economic system, and therefore our society as a whole. Economics teaches us that consumers make rational decisions, and from this principle we extrapolate economic theory, and justify our free market capitalist system. But Chomsky makes the point that the advertising industry and, by political extension, the PR industry runs on selling things to people that they really don't need. In a sense, much of our economic system is driven by irrational choices. Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need in other words Tyler Durden . If this is the case, we don't have a free market, and the economists don't have any foundation to their theory that we make informed and rational purchases as consumers. <|ASPECTS|>rational decisions, selling things to people, contradiction, free market, economic system, hate, irrational choices, informed and rational purchases, free market capitalist system, economic theory, buy shit, working jobs<|CONCLUSION|>","I was watching a Noam Chomsky interview yesterday and he made a really great point, I thought, about the contradiction inherent in our economic system, and therefore our society as a whole. Economics teaches us that consumers make rational decisions, and from this principle we extrapolate economic theory, and justify our free market capitalist system. But Chomsky makes the point that the advertising industry and, by political extension, the PR industry runs on selling things to people that they really don't need. In a sense, much of our economic system is driven by irrational choices. Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need in other words Tyler Durden . If this is the case, we don't have a free market, and the economists don't have any foundation to their theory that we make informed and rational purchases as consumers.",We don't have a free market resting on the economic principle that consumers make rational decisions because the multi-billion dollar a year advertising industry urges us to make irrational purchasing decisions.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We all know that it's derived from a racial slur in which black people originally didn't like. I completely understand that it does refer to black people currently, but it's used as a way for a black person to talk about peers, other people of the same race, but a lot of black people have called white people niggas. So what does it mean when a black person calls a white person, or another race a nigga? It obviously can't mean black person, or even black slave, so why aren't any other races allowed to say it? Also, when I talk about racism, I'm talking about the definition in the Oxford dictionary, and not the general omg u compared this black person to that black person thas raycist gt Noun Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. I believe not that all races are equal, or even that all humans are equal. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and I also believe that I'm being prejudiced by believing all humans are equal because I'm only doing such a thing because it's said so frequently. So yeah, before I deviate a bit like I usually do, let's see if anybody can change my mind.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We all know that it's derived from a racial slur in which black people originally didn't like. I completely understand that it does refer to black people currently, but it's used as a way for a black person to talk about peers, other people of the same race, but a lot of black people have called white people niggas. So what does it mean when a black person calls a white person, or another race a nigga? It obviously can't mean black person, or even black slave, so why aren't any other races allowed to say it? Also, when I talk about racism, I'm talking about the definition in the Oxford dictionary, and not the general omg u compared this black person to that black person thas raycist gt Noun Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. I believe not that all races are equal, or even that all humans are equal. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and I also believe that I'm being prejudiced by believing all humans are equal because I'm only doing such a thing because it's said so frequently. So yeah, before I deviate a bit like I usually do, let's see if anybody can change my mind.<|TARGETS|>when a black person calls a white person or another race a nigga, a racial slur in which black people originally did n't like ., any other races allowed to say it, being prejudiced by believing all humans, if anybody can change my mind ., a black person to talk about peers other people of the same race but a lot of black people have called white people niggas<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We all know that it's derived from a racial slur in which black people originally didn't like. I completely understand that it does refer to black people currently, but it's used as a way for a black person to talk about peers, other people of the same race, but a lot of black people have called white people niggas. So what does it mean when a black person calls a white person, or another race a nigga? It obviously can't mean black person, or even black slave, so why aren't any other races allowed to say it? Also, when I talk about racism, I'm talking about the definition in the Oxford dictionary, and not the general omg u compared this black person to that black person thas raycist gt Noun Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. I believe not that all races are equal, or even that all humans are equal. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and I also believe that I'm being prejudiced by believing all humans are equal because I'm only doing such a thing because it's said so frequently. So yeah, before I deviate a bit like I usually do, let's see if anybody can change my mind.<|ASPECTS|>humans, black slave, deviate, white person, races, equal, racial slur, superior, black people, strengths and weaknesses, antagonism, people, racism, black person, discrimination, nigga, change my mind, niggas<|CONCLUSION|>","We all know that it's derived from a racial slur in which black people originally didn't like. I completely understand that it does refer to black people currently, but it's used as a way for a black person to talk about peers, other people of the same race, but a lot of black people have called white people niggas. So what does it mean when a black person calls a white person, or another race a nigga? It obviously can't mean black person, or even black slave, so why aren't any other races allowed to say it? Also, when I talk about racism, I'm talking about the definition in the Oxford dictionary, and not the general omg u compared this black person to that black person thas raycist gt Noun Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. I believe not that all races are equal, or even that all humans are equal. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and I also believe that I'm being prejudiced by believing all humans are equal because I'm only doing such a thing because it's said so frequently. So yeah, before I deviate a bit like I usually do, let's see if anybody can change my mind.","The word nigga no longer means black slave, ergo it's racist to stop any other race from saying nigga."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me break this down From a political economy standpoint, they're complete idiots. They voluntarily own no land We do not Sow , so they have to rely on forms of primitive accumulation to actually feed their people. The land that they do have is basically useless. Aside from Aegon the Conqueror and a few times that failed rebellions have had to be put down, nobody has tried to invade their islands because nobody wants them. No wonder they complain about being poor and thus get basically tricked into electing you know who if you have read the books. Learn to grow some grain assholes They even say in the books that the reason they build longships is that they don't have enough natural resources to build bigger and more powerful ships. The one thing they are good at sailing pillaging and they don't even have the capital to be optimal. They democratically elect their kings when there is an interregnum, but they've always picked the same goddamn family for 300 years? This is the North Korean version of democracy. All of the characters except maybe Euron are unlikeable idiots and their stupidity actually distracts from the main narrative. I mean briefly Theon takes over a castle he can't hold and hurts some of the few people who actually loved him. And he's probably going to die for a crime that he didn't actually commit. What exactly does Aeron do except complain about Euron for a bit and then disappear? Balon starts wars he can't win twice . Yara Asha wants to rule, but says she isn't going to get pregnant to pass down the line presumably ending House Greyjoy if everything went according to her plan? Euron has some grand plan to rule, okay cool, but it all relies on some deus ex machina bullshit working out and he isn't even leading the like core main part of the plan? And he can't convince the ironborn to actually go through with other parts of the plan either. Victorian is being played so hard by his brother it's just pathetic, and he doesn't even appear in the show apparently because he presumably continues the great family tradition accomplish nothing and serve no purpose. Pyke the castle also makes no sense why build a fortress on top of a natural barrier? or 4 of them for that matter? It's like adding a moat to a moat. Just build one giant wall in the front. Not to mention, what's with the wooden bridges that presumably rot eventually? Put up a stone walkway idiots Oh wait, I forgot, you can't pillage a bridge. Even their God sucks. In order to truly worship him you have to literally drown yourself? And this society, full of dumb brutes, has figured out resuscitation? Speaking of healthcare, their main pastime is throwing axes at each other, resulting in tons of ironmen with missing fingers, which for a society in which raiding is the primary economic activity, is just brilliant. Now, you say okay, they're bad, but what about Ramsay Bolton? Walder Frey? Look man, you gotta respect that hustle. Bolton has moved up in the world legitimization and titles, not so bad for a bastard. Westeros is a brutal place and you gotta admit that Bolton has got game. Now, he's probably gonna get smashed eventually, but he at least accomplished things through intentional schemes. Frey too. In fact, basically every character you hate, you hate for the reason that they accomplished something that they wanted. Or alternatively, you love certain characters because you want to see them win and what sucks you into the story is the arc of that process. However, what do we have with House Greyjoy? Bumbling unlikeable shitheads who accomplish nothing and just create headaches for the rest of the Great Houses.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me break this down From a political economy standpoint, they're complete idiots. They voluntarily own no land We do not Sow , so they have to rely on forms of primitive accumulation to actually feed their people. The land that they do have is basically useless. Aside from Aegon the Conqueror and a few times that failed rebellions have had to be put down, nobody has tried to invade their islands because nobody wants them. No wonder they complain about being poor and thus get basically tricked into electing you know who if you have read the books. Learn to grow some grain assholes They even say in the books that the reason they build longships is that they don't have enough natural resources to build bigger and more powerful ships. The one thing they are good at sailing pillaging and they don't even have the capital to be optimal. They democratically elect their kings when there is an interregnum, but they've always picked the same goddamn family for 300 years? This is the North Korean version of democracy. All of the characters except maybe Euron are unlikeable idiots and their stupidity actually distracts from the main narrative. I mean briefly Theon takes over a castle he can't hold and hurts some of the few people who actually loved him. And he's probably going to die for a crime that he didn't actually commit. What exactly does Aeron do except complain about Euron for a bit and then disappear? Balon starts wars he can't win twice . Yara Asha wants to rule, but says she isn't going to get pregnant to pass down the line presumably ending House Greyjoy if everything went according to her plan? Euron has some grand plan to rule, okay cool, but it all relies on some deus ex machina bullshit working out and he isn't even leading the like core main part of the plan? And he can't convince the ironborn to actually go through with other parts of the plan either. Victorian is being played so hard by his brother it's just pathetic, and he doesn't even appear in the show apparently because he presumably continues the great family tradition accomplish nothing and serve no purpose. Pyke the castle also makes no sense why build a fortress on top of a natural barrier? or 4 of them for that matter? It's like adding a moat to a moat. Just build one giant wall in the front. Not to mention, what's with the wooden bridges that presumably rot eventually? Put up a stone walkway idiots Oh wait, I forgot, you can't pillage a bridge. Even their God sucks. In order to truly worship him you have to literally drown yourself? And this society, full of dumb brutes, has figured out resuscitation? Speaking of healthcare, their main pastime is throwing axes at each other, resulting in tons of ironmen with missing fingers, which for a society in which raiding is the primary economic activity, is just brilliant. Now, you say okay, they're bad, but what about Ramsay Bolton? Walder Frey? Look man, you gotta respect that hustle. Bolton has moved up in the world legitimization and titles, not so bad for a bastard. Westeros is a brutal place and you gotta admit that Bolton has got game. Now, he's probably gonna get smashed eventually, but he at least accomplished things through intentional schemes. Frey too. In fact, basically every character you hate, you hate for the reason that they accomplished something that they wanted. Or alternatively, you love certain characters because you want to see them win and what sucks you into the story is the arc of that process. However, what do we have with House Greyjoy? Bumbling unlikeable shitheads who accomplish nothing and just create headaches for the rest of the Great Houses.<|TARGETS|>democratically elect their kings when there is an interregnum, to rely on forms of primitive accumulation to actually feed their people ., Westeros, to truly worship him you have to literally drown yourself, Balon, the same goddamn family for 300 years<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me break this down From a political economy standpoint, they're complete idiots. They voluntarily own no land We do not Sow , so they have to rely on forms of primitive accumulation to actually feed their people. The land that they do have is basically useless. Aside from Aegon the Conqueror and a few times that failed rebellions have had to be put down, nobody has tried to invade their islands because nobody wants them. No wonder they complain about being poor and thus get basically tricked into electing you know who if you have read the books. Learn to grow some grain assholes They even say in the books that the reason they build longships is that they don't have enough natural resources to build bigger and more powerful ships. The one thing they are good at sailing pillaging and they don't even have the capital to be optimal. They democratically elect their kings when there is an interregnum, but they've always picked the same goddamn family for 300 years? This is the North Korean version of democracy. All of the characters except maybe Euron are unlikeable idiots and their stupidity actually distracts from the main narrative. I mean briefly Theon takes over a castle he can't hold and hurts some of the few people who actually loved him. And he's probably going to die for a crime that he didn't actually commit. What exactly does Aeron do except complain about Euron for a bit and then disappear? Balon starts wars he can't win twice . Yara Asha wants to rule, but says she isn't going to get pregnant to pass down the line presumably ending House Greyjoy if everything went according to her plan? Euron has some grand plan to rule, okay cool, but it all relies on some deus ex machina bullshit working out and he isn't even leading the like core main part of the plan? And he can't convince the ironborn to actually go through with other parts of the plan either. Victorian is being played so hard by his brother it's just pathetic, and he doesn't even appear in the show apparently because he presumably continues the great family tradition accomplish nothing and serve no purpose. Pyke the castle also makes no sense why build a fortress on top of a natural barrier? or 4 of them for that matter? It's like adding a moat to a moat. Just build one giant wall in the front. Not to mention, what's with the wooden bridges that presumably rot eventually? Put up a stone walkway idiots Oh wait, I forgot, you can't pillage a bridge. Even their God sucks. In order to truly worship him you have to literally drown yourself? And this society, full of dumb brutes, has figured out resuscitation? Speaking of healthcare, their main pastime is throwing axes at each other, resulting in tons of ironmen with missing fingers, which for a society in which raiding is the primary economic activity, is just brilliant. Now, you say okay, they're bad, but what about Ramsay Bolton? Walder Frey? Look man, you gotta respect that hustle. Bolton has moved up in the world legitimization and titles, not so bad for a bastard. Westeros is a brutal place and you gotta admit that Bolton has got game. Now, he's probably gonna get smashed eventually, but he at least accomplished things through intentional schemes. Frey too. In fact, basically every character you hate, you hate for the reason that they accomplished something that they wanted. Or alternatively, you love certain characters because you want to see them win and what sucks you into the story is the arc of that process. However, what do we have with House Greyjoy? Bumbling unlikeable shitheads who accomplish nothing and just create headaches for the rest of the Great Houses.<|ASPECTS|>, wooden bridges, land, missing fingers, democratically elect their kings, bad, economic activity, family tradition, crime, hurts, capital, accomplished things, sailing pillaging, optimal, complete idiots, win, accomplished, serve no purpose, bolton, feed, drown, ironmen, hate, ramsay bolton, grand plan, natural barrier, pillage a bridge, useless, legitimization and titles, wars, world, unlikeable, die, dumb brutes, unlikeable idiots, stupidity, moat, primitive accumulation, democracy, respect, family, played, disappear, failed rebellions, bullshit, intentional schemes, ironborn, rot eventually, create, headaches, natural resources, rule, brutal place, game, convince, electing, resuscitation, complain, poor, god sucks, accomplish nothing, grain, greyjoy, pathetic, giant wall, love<|CONCLUSION|>","Let me break this down From a political economy standpoint, they're complete idiots. They voluntarily own no land We do not Sow , so they have to rely on forms of primitive accumulation to actually feed their people. The land that they do have is basically useless. Aside from Aegon the Conqueror and a few times that failed rebellions have had to be put down, nobody has tried to invade their islands because nobody wants them. No wonder they complain about being poor and thus get basically tricked into electing you know who if you have read the books. Learn to grow some grain assholes They even say in the books that the reason they build longships is that they don't have enough natural resources to build bigger and more powerful ships. The one thing they are good at sailing pillaging and they don't even have the capital to be optimal. They democratically elect their kings when there is an interregnum, but they've always picked the same goddamn family for 300 years? This is the North Korean version of democracy. All of the characters except maybe Euron are unlikeable idiots and their stupidity actually distracts from the main narrative. I mean briefly Theon takes over a castle he can't hold and hurts some of the few people who actually loved him. And he's probably going to die for a crime that he didn't actually commit. What exactly does Aeron do except complain about Euron for a bit and then disappear? Balon starts wars he can't win twice . Yara Asha wants to rule, but says she isn't going to get pregnant to pass down the line presumably ending House Greyjoy if everything went according to her plan? Euron has some grand plan to rule, okay cool, but it all relies on some deus ex machina bullshit working out and he isn't even leading the like core main part of the plan? And he can't convince the ironborn to actually go through with other parts of the plan either. Victorian is being played so hard by his brother it's just pathetic, and he doesn't even appear in the show apparently because he presumably continues the great family tradition accomplish nothing and serve no purpose. Pyke the castle also makes no sense why build a fortress on top of a natural barrier? or 4 of them for that matter? It's like adding a moat to a moat. Just build one giant wall in the front. Not to mention, what's with the wooden bridges that presumably rot eventually? Put up a stone walkway idiots Oh wait, I forgot, you can't pillage a bridge. Even their God sucks. In order to truly worship him you have to literally drown yourself? And this society, full of dumb brutes, has figured out resuscitation? Speaking of healthcare, their main pastime is throwing axes at each other, resulting in tons of ironmen with missing fingers, which for a society in which raiding is the primary economic activity, is just brilliant. Now, you say okay, they're bad, but what about Ramsay Bolton? Walder Frey? Look man, you gotta respect that hustle. Bolton has moved up in the world legitimization and titles, not so bad for a bastard. Westeros is a brutal place and you gotta admit that Bolton has got game. Now, he's probably gonna get smashed eventually, but he at least accomplished things through intentional schemes. Frey too. In fact, basically every character you hate, you hate for the reason that they accomplished something that they wanted. Or alternatively, you love certain characters because you want to see them win and what sucks you into the story is the arc of that process. However, what do we have with House Greyjoy? Bumbling unlikeable shitheads who accomplish nothing and just create headaches for the rest of the Great Houses.",House Greyjoy is without a doubt the worst house in all of Game of Thrones / ASOIAF. Warning: Spoilers
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi everyone, I am a pretty open minded guy when it comes to most things, I like playing sports, I also like reading comics and playing cards and that sort of thing. I've never had a problem with anyone for gender, identity, social issues or interests, aside from furries, unless that qualifies as one of them I guess. I wouldn't go out of my way to hurt one or anything like that, I don't hate them at all, they just make me really uncomfortable and I can't figure out why. I just find the idea of it creepy, I can understand and enjoy a little dressing up sometimes, but the devotion that they have to it and the way they act and look just makes me uncomfortable. I don't know if I have a personal issue with them or just a slight phobia of their outfits. EDIT Thanks for your replies everyone, it was really interesting to read all of them. I've learned a bit about furries and their culture and concluded that I just don't like the fur suits, in the same way that some people don't like clowns. I have no issue with the people beneath the suits, no one seemed to take offence to my post, I just wanted to make sure that you all knew I meant no offence, but I guess that's what this sub is for, very underrated subreddit.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi everyone, I am a pretty open minded guy when it comes to most things, I like playing sports, I also like reading comics and playing cards and that sort of thing. I've never had a problem with anyone for gender, identity, social issues or interests, aside from furries, unless that qualifies as one of them I guess. I wouldn't go out of my way to hurt one or anything like that, I don't hate them at all, they just make me really uncomfortable and I can't figure out why. I just find the idea of it creepy, I can understand and enjoy a little dressing up sometimes, but the devotion that they have to it and the way they act and look just makes me uncomfortable. I don't know if I have a personal issue with them or just a slight phobia of their outfits. EDIT Thanks for your replies everyone, it was really interesting to read all of them. I've learned a bit about furries and their culture and concluded that I just don't like the fur suits, in the same way that some people don't like clowns. I have no issue with the people beneath the suits, no one seemed to take offence to my post, I just wanted to make sure that you all knew I meant no offence, but I guess that's what this sub is for, very underrated subreddit.<|TARGETS|>if I have a personal issue with them or just a slight phobia of their outfits ., to read all of them ., I just find the idea of it creepy I can understand and enjoy a little dressing up sometimes but the devotion that they have to it and the way they act and look, n't go out of my way to hurt one or anything like that I do n't hate them at all they just make me really uncomfortable and I ca n't figure out why ., to make sure that you all knew I meant no offence but I guess that 's what this sub is for very underrated subreddit ., a problem with anyone for gender identity social issues or interests aside from furries<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi everyone, I am a pretty open minded guy when it comes to most things, I like playing sports, I also like reading comics and playing cards and that sort of thing. I've never had a problem with anyone for gender, identity, social issues or interests, aside from furries, unless that qualifies as one of them I guess. I wouldn't go out of my way to hurt one or anything like that, I don't hate them at all, they just make me really uncomfortable and I can't figure out why. I just find the idea of it creepy, I can understand and enjoy a little dressing up sometimes, but the devotion that they have to it and the way they act and look just makes me uncomfortable. I don't know if I have a personal issue with them or just a slight phobia of their outfits. EDIT Thanks for your replies everyone, it was really interesting to read all of them. I've learned a bit about furries and their culture and concluded that I just don't like the fur suits, in the same way that some people don't like clowns. I have no issue with the people beneath the suits, no one seemed to take offence to my post, I just wanted to make sure that you all knew I meant no offence, but I guess that's what this sub is for, very underrated subreddit.<|ASPECTS|>slight, playing sports, open minded, devotion, clowns, subreddit, personal issue, uncomfortable, hate, phobia, dressing, interesting, underrated, reading comics, social issues, identity, fur suits, gender, furries, creepy, culture, interests, playing, hurt one<|CONCLUSION|>","Hi everyone, I am a pretty open minded guy when it comes to most things, I like playing sports, I also like reading comics and playing cards and that sort of thing. I've never had a problem with anyone for gender, identity, social issues or interests, aside from furries, unless that qualifies as one of them I guess. I wouldn't go out of my way to hurt one or anything like that, I don't hate them at all, they just make me really uncomfortable and I can't figure out why. I just find the idea of it creepy, I can understand and enjoy a little dressing up sometimes, but the devotion that they have to it and the way they act and look just makes me uncomfortable. I don't know if I have a personal issue with them or just a slight phobia of their outfits. EDIT Thanks for your replies everyone, it was really interesting to read all of them. I've learned a bit about furries and their culture and concluded that I just don't like the fur suits, in the same way that some people don't like clowns. I have no issue with the people beneath the suits, no one seemed to take offence to my post, I just wanted to make sure that you all knew I meant no offence, but I guess that's what this sub is for, very underrated subreddit.","I really dislike ""furries"""
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For this argument I feel as if the burden is on the naysayers to explain why my statement is not 100 accurate. It's sort of like telling a child to try the broccoli because its healthy for them and they may like it. Do I think shrooms should be forced into people's mouths? For some yes just kidding . I respect someone's choice if they don't want to try it, but I have never been given a reason from these people that I find sufficient. So change my mind Also let's not go into silly arguments like should seriously mentally ill people take them. No I don't think they should.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For this argument I feel as if the burden is on the naysayers to explain why my statement is not 100 accurate. It's sort of like telling a child to try the broccoli because its healthy for them and they may like it. Do I think shrooms should be forced into people's mouths? For some yes just kidding . I respect someone's choice if they don't want to try it, but I have never been given a reason from these people that I find sufficient. So change my mind Also let's not go into silly arguments like should seriously mentally ill people take them. No I don't think they should.<|TARGETS|>someone 's choice if they do n't want to try it but I have never been given a reason from these people that I find sufficient ., So change my mind Also let 's not go into silly arguments like should seriously mentally ill people take them ., to explain why my statement, telling a child to try the broccoli<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For this argument I feel as if the burden is on the naysayers to explain why my statement is not 100 accurate. It's sort of like telling a child to try the broccoli because its healthy for them and they may like it. Do I think shrooms should be forced into people's mouths? For some yes just kidding . I respect someone's choice if they don't want to try it, but I have never been given a reason from these people that I find sufficient. So change my mind Also let's not go into silly arguments like should seriously mentally ill people take them. No I don't think they should.<|ASPECTS|>respect, healthy, shrooms, forced, silly arguments, 's mouths, burden, naysayers, 's choice, mentally ill people, accurate<|CONCLUSION|>","For this argument I feel as if the burden is on the naysayers to explain why my statement is not 100 accurate. It's sort of like telling a child to try the broccoli because its healthy for them and they may like it. Do I think shrooms should be forced into people's mouths? For some yes just kidding . I respect someone's choice if they don't want to try it, but I have never been given a reason from these people that I find sufficient. So change my mind Also let's not go into silly arguments like should seriously mentally ill people take them. No I don't think they should.",Everyone Should Take Shrooms at Least Once
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My title sums most of it up. To remind anyone who hasn't seen it for a while, the Noisy Cricket is a tiny MIB gun which is extremely powerful. K's boss tells him to arm J, and K gives him the Noisy Cricket which he uses trying to catch the bug guy a few minutes later. Reasons why it's a terrible weapon Its tiny size would make it really hard to aim accurately. The comically intense recoil sends the shooter flying backwards ten feet or so. This is a terrible thing for a weapon, as the shooter is now vulnerable and disoriented after each shot. The gun has a massive blast area, much wider than even something like a sawed off shotgun. This would make it very difficult to disable a threat without putting nearby people at risk. Reasons why K was irresponsible K gives J the gun without warning him about its intense recoil or its blast area. What if J had fired it while standing with his back to a ledge or something sharp? What if there had been a hostage situation and J had fired it at the hostage taker? The blast would have easily killed the hostage as well. J is already well trained on using a standard issue police pistol. Wouldn't it be more responsible to have him start off with a gun he understands and is comfortable with? At least until he's had a few hours on the range with the noisy cricket to get some experience with it? For these reasons, I think it was a terrible weapon choice for J's first armed MIB mission, and K was very irresponsible for giving it to him. Whether it was negligence maybe he was so used to using MIB weapons that he didn't consider J's lack of knowledge experience with them or some kind of desire to emasculate J by giving him a tiny gun which doesn't really make sense considering how powerful the weapon is , K's decision was irresponsible and he should have been reprimanded by his boss.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My title sums most of it up. To remind anyone who hasn't seen it for a while, the Noisy Cricket is a tiny MIB gun which is extremely powerful. K's boss tells him to arm J, and K gives him the Noisy Cricket which he uses trying to catch the bug guy a few minutes later. Reasons why it's a terrible weapon Its tiny size would make it really hard to aim accurately. The comically intense recoil sends the shooter flying backwards ten feet or so. This is a terrible thing for a weapon, as the shooter is now vulnerable and disoriented after each shot. The gun has a massive blast area, much wider than even something like a sawed off shotgun. This would make it very difficult to disable a threat without putting nearby people at risk. Reasons why K was irresponsible K gives J the gun without warning him about its intense recoil or its blast area. What if J had fired it while standing with his back to a ledge or something sharp? What if there had been a hostage situation and J had fired it at the hostage taker? The blast would have easily killed the hostage as well. J is already well trained on using a standard issue police pistol. Wouldn't it be more responsible to have him start off with a gun he understands and is comfortable with? At least until he's had a few hours on the range with the noisy cricket to get some experience with it? For these reasons, I think it was a terrible weapon choice for J's first armed MIB mission, and K was very irresponsible for giving it to him. Whether it was negligence maybe he was so used to using MIB weapons that he didn't consider J's lack of knowledge experience with them or some kind of desire to emasculate J by giving him a tiny gun which doesn't really make sense considering how powerful the weapon is , K's decision was irresponsible and he should have been reprimanded by his boss.<|TARGETS|>The blast, if J had fired it while standing with his back to a ledge, K 's boss, Reasons why K was irresponsible K gives J the gun without warning him about its intense recoil or its blast area, using MIB weapons that he did n't consider J 's lack of knowledge experience with them or some kind of desire to emasculate J by giving him a tiny gun, to have him start off with a gun<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My title sums most of it up. To remind anyone who hasn't seen it for a while, the Noisy Cricket is a tiny MIB gun which is extremely powerful. K's boss tells him to arm J, and K gives him the Noisy Cricket which he uses trying to catch the bug guy a few minutes later. Reasons why it's a terrible weapon Its tiny size would make it really hard to aim accurately. The comically intense recoil sends the shooter flying backwards ten feet or so. This is a terrible thing for a weapon, as the shooter is now vulnerable and disoriented after each shot. The gun has a massive blast area, much wider than even something like a sawed off shotgun. This would make it very difficult to disable a threat without putting nearby people at risk. Reasons why K was irresponsible K gives J the gun without warning him about its intense recoil or its blast area. What if J had fired it while standing with his back to a ledge or something sharp? What if there had been a hostage situation and J had fired it at the hostage taker? The blast would have easily killed the hostage as well. J is already well trained on using a standard issue police pistol. Wouldn't it be more responsible to have him start off with a gun he understands and is comfortable with? At least until he's had a few hours on the range with the noisy cricket to get some experience with it? For these reasons, I think it was a terrible weapon choice for J's first armed MIB mission, and K was very irresponsible for giving it to him. Whether it was negligence maybe he was so used to using MIB weapons that he didn't consider J's lack of knowledge experience with them or some kind of desire to emasculate J by giving him a tiny gun which doesn't really make sense considering how powerful the weapon is , K's decision was irresponsible and he should have been reprimanded by his boss.<|ASPECTS|>terrible weapon, disable a threat, tiny size, hostage situation, powerful, weapon choice, killed the hostage, title, noisy cricket, lack, backwards, hard to aim accurately, standard issue, people, recoil, blast area, intense recoil, vulnerable, risk, responsible, understands, terrible, guy, comfortable, disoriented, easily, knowledge experience, difficult, hostage taker, irresponsible, negligence, emasculate j, mib gun, massive, police pistol, gun, trained<|CONCLUSION|>","My title sums most of it up. To remind anyone who hasn't seen it for a while, the Noisy Cricket is a tiny MIB gun which is extremely powerful. K's boss tells him to arm J, and K gives him the Noisy Cricket which he uses trying to catch the bug guy a few minutes later. Reasons why it's a terrible weapon Its tiny size would make it really hard to aim accurately. The comically intense recoil sends the shooter flying backwards ten feet or so. This is a terrible thing for a weapon, as the shooter is now vulnerable and disoriented after each shot. The gun has a massive blast area, much wider than even something like a sawed off shotgun. This would make it very difficult to disable a threat without putting nearby people at risk. Reasons why K was irresponsible K gives J the gun without warning him about its intense recoil or its blast area. What if J had fired it while standing with his back to a ledge or something sharp? What if there had been a hostage situation and J had fired it at the hostage taker? The blast would have easily killed the hostage as well. J is already well trained on using a standard issue police pistol. Wouldn't it be more responsible to have him start off with a gun he understands and is comfortable with? At least until he's had a few hours on the range with the noisy cricket to get some experience with it? For these reasons, I think it was a terrible weapon choice for J's first armed MIB mission, and K was very irresponsible for giving it to him. Whether it was negligence maybe he was so used to using MIB weapons that he didn't consider J's lack of knowledge experience with them or some kind of desire to emasculate J by giving him a tiny gun which doesn't really make sense considering how powerful the weapon is , K's decision was irresponsible and he should have been reprimanded by his boss.","The ""noisy cricket"" from Men in Black is a terrible weapon, and Agent K was wrong and irresponsible to give it to Agent J."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This seems like a pretty obvious solution that is supported by mainstream Dems and GOPers. It has also been a success in Australia, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand. A merit based immigration system will help reduce income inequality in the nation, help fill high skilled jobs which currently have many vacancies , and will not reduce low skilled workers due to visas like the HB2 . Not only will implementing this system help the US financially and through creating a more robust workforce, it will also help facilitate a political solution to the current immigration problem, which hasn't been comprehensively addressed since 1986. I would prefer some type of immigration system resembling but not the same as the 2013 Senate Bill. Specifically, once implemented, I would prefer that 80 of immigrants are provided lawful permanent resident LPR status each year based on a merit based system. The rest of the immigrants given the LPR's can be refugees and service industry blue collar workers. I also think there should be some special exemption for souses of US citizens and children of US citizen's that doesn't count against the quota I listed, no hard cut off for the spouses, rather that would be dependent on eligibility criteria and the naturalization process already outlined in law. The blue collar workers would have a different merit based point system that I will not get into here. I think that this approach will help reduce income inequality in America, albeit slightly. It will probably also help with assimilation because immigrants will be self sufficient and not needing to live 2 3 families a house to make rent and ends meet. They also will not be dependent upon a network of immigrants from similar home countries to find work, due to their high skill levels and experience. It will also ease assimilation through ensuring that each immigrant can speak English. It will help make the US workforce transition into the technology age and make the economy more robust. Furthermore, this type of system would incentivize politicians to increase the amount of citizens provided LPR's and also naturalized on a yearly basis. Finally, it will also incentivize politicians to increase HB2 visas and the like, to be able to fill current vacancies and vacancies created by switching to a merit based system. The political aspects of this are related to political capitol and how legislation is negotiated. The Merit System would look similar to the 2013 Senate bill indicators and point system. I would prefer to have a hard number of necessary points for acceptance for each applicant, with a flex of 5 10 points either way so that a judgement can be made on individual's who are close to said cutoff. The allocation of points in both tiers is based on a combination of factors, including education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality. For example, 15 points are allotted for a doctoral degree, 3 points for each year of work experience in a highly skilled job, 10 points for being a primary caregiver, and 8 points for being under the age of 24. There is no “passing score” that needs to be reached to qualify. However, the system prioritizes immigrants who are young, educated, experienced, skilled, and fluent in English. EDIT TO ADD DETAIL EDIT To Change My View, I will need to see a coherent and factually supported argument. Not some snark<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This seems like a pretty obvious solution that is supported by mainstream Dems and GOPers. It has also been a success in Australia, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand. A merit based immigration system will help reduce income inequality in the nation, help fill high skilled jobs which currently have many vacancies , and will not reduce low skilled workers due to visas like the HB2 . Not only will implementing this system help the US financially and through creating a more robust workforce, it will also help facilitate a political solution to the current immigration problem, which hasn't been comprehensively addressed since 1986. I would prefer some type of immigration system resembling but not the same as the 2013 Senate Bill. Specifically, once implemented, I would prefer that 80 of immigrants are provided lawful permanent resident LPR status each year based on a merit based system. The rest of the immigrants given the LPR's can be refugees and service industry blue collar workers. I also think there should be some special exemption for souses of US citizens and children of US citizen's that doesn't count against the quota I listed, no hard cut off for the spouses, rather that would be dependent on eligibility criteria and the naturalization process already outlined in law. The blue collar workers would have a different merit based point system that I will not get into here. I think that this approach will help reduce income inequality in America, albeit slightly. It will probably also help with assimilation because immigrants will be self sufficient and not needing to live 2 3 families a house to make rent and ends meet. They also will not be dependent upon a network of immigrants from similar home countries to find work, due to their high skill levels and experience. It will also ease assimilation through ensuring that each immigrant can speak English. It will help make the US workforce transition into the technology age and make the economy more robust. Furthermore, this type of system would incentivize politicians to increase the amount of citizens provided LPR's and also naturalized on a yearly basis. Finally, it will also incentivize politicians to increase HB2 visas and the like, to be able to fill current vacancies and vacancies created by switching to a merit based system. The political aspects of this are related to political capitol and how legislation is negotiated. The Merit System would look similar to the 2013 Senate bill indicators and point system. I would prefer to have a hard number of necessary points for acceptance for each applicant, with a flex of 5 10 points either way so that a judgement can be made on individual's who are close to said cutoff. The allocation of points in both tiers is based on a combination of factors, including education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality. For example, 15 points are allotted for a doctoral degree, 3 points for each year of work experience in a highly skilled job, 10 points for being a primary caregiver, and 8 points for being under the age of 24. There is no “passing score” that needs to be reached to qualify. However, the system prioritizes immigrants who are young, educated, experienced, skilled, and fluent in English. EDIT TO ADD DETAIL EDIT To Change My View, I will need to see a coherent and factually supported argument. Not some snark<|TARGETS|>to see a coherent and factually supported argument ., to live 2 3 families a house to make rent and ends meet ., implementing this system help the US financially and through creating a more robust workforce, that this approach, The allocation of points in both tiers, The Merit System<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This seems like a pretty obvious solution that is supported by mainstream Dems and GOPers. It has also been a success in Australia, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand. A merit based immigration system will help reduce income inequality in the nation, help fill high skilled jobs which currently have many vacancies , and will not reduce low skilled workers due to visas like the HB2 . Not only will implementing this system help the US financially and through creating a more robust workforce, it will also help facilitate a political solution to the current immigration problem, which hasn't been comprehensively addressed since 1986. I would prefer some type of immigration system resembling but not the same as the 2013 Senate Bill. Specifically, once implemented, I would prefer that 80 of immigrants are provided lawful permanent resident LPR status each year based on a merit based system. The rest of the immigrants given the LPR's can be refugees and service industry blue collar workers. I also think there should be some special exemption for souses of US citizens and children of US citizen's that doesn't count against the quota I listed, no hard cut off for the spouses, rather that would be dependent on eligibility criteria and the naturalization process already outlined in law. The blue collar workers would have a different merit based point system that I will not get into here. I think that this approach will help reduce income inequality in America, albeit slightly. It will probably also help with assimilation because immigrants will be self sufficient and not needing to live 2 3 families a house to make rent and ends meet. They also will not be dependent upon a network of immigrants from similar home countries to find work, due to their high skill levels and experience. It will also ease assimilation through ensuring that each immigrant can speak English. It will help make the US workforce transition into the technology age and make the economy more robust. Furthermore, this type of system would incentivize politicians to increase the amount of citizens provided LPR's and also naturalized on a yearly basis. Finally, it will also incentivize politicians to increase HB2 visas and the like, to be able to fill current vacancies and vacancies created by switching to a merit based system. The political aspects of this are related to political capitol and how legislation is negotiated. The Merit System would look similar to the 2013 Senate bill indicators and point system. I would prefer to have a hard number of necessary points for acceptance for each applicant, with a flex of 5 10 points either way so that a judgement can be made on individual's who are close to said cutoff. The allocation of points in both tiers is based on a combination of factors, including education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality. For example, 15 points are allotted for a doctoral degree, 3 points for each year of work experience in a highly skilled job, 10 points for being a primary caregiver, and 8 points for being under the age of 24. There is no “passing score” that needs to be reached to qualify. However, the system prioritizes immigrants who are young, educated, experienced, skilled, and fluent in English. EDIT TO ADD DETAIL EDIT To Change My View, I will need to see a coherent and factually supported argument. Not some snark<|ASPECTS|>skill levels, employment, blue collar workers, low skilled workers, success, robust workforce, point system, immigrants, lawful permanent resident, technology age, service industry, family ties, age, dependent, merit based system, income inequality, civic involvement, lpr status, assimilation, self sufficient, fluent in english, eligibility criteria, political capitol, highly skilled, financially, vacancies, skilled jobs, immigration problem, merit system, experienced, high, english language proficiency, economy, refugees, citizens provided lpr, experience, judgement, work experience, political solution, robust, visas, ease assimilation, passing score ”, prioritizes immigrants, coherent, nationality, fill current vacancies, legislation is negotiated, acceptance, special exemption, educated, naturalized, young, incentivize politicians, factually supported argument, merit based point system, immigration system, skilled, snark, political, reduce, education, english, necessary points, primary caregiver<|CONCLUSION|>","This seems like a pretty obvious solution that is supported by mainstream Dems and GOPers. It has also been a success in Australia, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand. A merit based immigration system will help reduce income inequality in the nation, help fill high skilled jobs which currently have many vacancies , and will not reduce low skilled workers due to visas like the HB2 . Not only will implementing this system help the US financially and through creating a more robust workforce, it will also help facilitate a political solution to the current immigration problem, which hasn't been comprehensively addressed since 1986. I would prefer some type of immigration system resembling but not the same as the 2013 Senate Bill. Specifically, once implemented, I would prefer that 80 of immigrants are provided lawful permanent resident LPR status each year based on a merit based system. The rest of the immigrants given the LPR's can be refugees and service industry blue collar workers. I also think there should be some special exemption for souses of US citizens and children of US citizen's that doesn't count against the quota I listed, no hard cut off for the spouses, rather that would be dependent on eligibility criteria and the naturalization process already outlined in law. The blue collar workers would have a different merit based point system that I will not get into here. I think that this approach will help reduce income inequality in America, albeit slightly. It will probably also help with assimilation because immigrants will be self sufficient and not needing to live 2 3 families a house to make rent and ends meet. They also will not be dependent upon a network of immigrants from similar home countries to find work, due to their high skill levels and experience. It will also ease assimilation through ensuring that each immigrant can speak English. It will help make the US workforce transition into the technology age and make the economy more robust. Furthermore, this type of system would incentivize politicians to increase the amount of citizens provided LPR's and also naturalized on a yearly basis. Finally, it will also incentivize politicians to increase HB2 visas and the like, to be able to fill current vacancies and vacancies created by switching to a merit based system. The political aspects of this are related to political capitol and how legislation is negotiated. The Merit System would look similar to the 2013 Senate bill indicators and point system. I would prefer to have a hard number of necessary points for acceptance for each applicant, with a flex of 5 10 points either way so that a judgement can be made on individual's who are close to said cutoff. The allocation of points in both tiers is based on a combination of factors, including education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality. For example, 15 points are allotted for a doctoral degree, 3 points for each year of work experience in a highly skilled job, 10 points for being a primary caregiver, and 8 points for being under the age of 24. There is no “passing score” that needs to be reached to qualify. However, the system prioritizes immigrants who are young, educated, experienced, skilled, and fluent in English. EDIT TO ADD DETAIL EDIT To Change My View, I will need to see a coherent and factually supported argument. Not some snark",The Merit Based Immigration System is the Best Option for the US
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Theresa May has recently continued to show that she does not support a second referendum, saying that a second referendum would threaten social cohesion and shatter faith in democracy I think that, perhaps, faith in democracy needs a bit of shattering. Brexit has proven some of democracy's largest flaws groups of politicians can lie to the masses about numbers they can't verify themselves think big buses saying brexit is going to add hundreds of millions of pounds to the NHS budget , have it completely work when the people vote for what is nearly an economically objectively poor decision, admit they lied about things, and get away with it with no consequences, and then any attempt to rectify the situation is seen as threatening democracy. Well, if that's how democracy can work, perhaps democracy has some flaws after all that we should look into mitigating instead of pretending its a perfect system of government. TLDR Even if a second referendum were to shatter people's faith in democracy, considering democracy got us into this situation, it ought to be shattered.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Theresa May has recently continued to show that she does not support a second referendum, saying that a second referendum would threaten social cohesion and shatter faith in democracy I think that, perhaps, faith in democracy needs a bit of shattering. Brexit has proven some of democracy's largest flaws groups of politicians can lie to the masses about numbers they can't verify themselves think big buses saying brexit is going to add hundreds of millions of pounds to the NHS budget , have it completely work when the people vote for what is nearly an economically objectively poor decision, admit they lied about things, and get away with it with no consequences, and then any attempt to rectify the situation is seen as threatening democracy. Well, if that's how democracy can work, perhaps democracy has some flaws after all that we should look into mitigating instead of pretending its a perfect system of government. TLDR Even if a second referendum were to shatter people's faith in democracy, considering democracy got us into this situation, it ought to be shattered.<|TARGETS|>Theresa May, TLDR, an economically objectively poor decision admit they lied about things and get away with it with no consequences and then any attempt to rectify the situation, big buses saying brexit, a second referendum, Brexit<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Theresa May has recently continued to show that she does not support a second referendum, saying that a second referendum would threaten social cohesion and shatter faith in democracy I think that, perhaps, faith in democracy needs a bit of shattering. Brexit has proven some of democracy's largest flaws groups of politicians can lie to the masses about numbers they can't verify themselves think big buses saying brexit is going to add hundreds of millions of pounds to the NHS budget , have it completely work when the people vote for what is nearly an economically objectively poor decision, admit they lied about things, and get away with it with no consequences, and then any attempt to rectify the situation is seen as threatening democracy. Well, if that's how democracy can work, perhaps democracy has some flaws after all that we should look into mitigating instead of pretending its a perfect system of government. TLDR Even if a second referendum were to shatter people's faith in democracy, considering democracy got us into this situation, it ought to be shattered.<|ASPECTS|>faith in democracy, mitigating, shatter, perfect system of government, social cohesion, lied, democracy, flaws, threatening<|CONCLUSION|>","Theresa May has recently continued to show that she does not support a second referendum, saying that a second referendum would threaten social cohesion and shatter faith in democracy I think that, perhaps, faith in democracy needs a bit of shattering. Brexit has proven some of democracy's largest flaws groups of politicians can lie to the masses about numbers they can't verify themselves think big buses saying brexit is going to add hundreds of millions of pounds to the NHS budget , have it completely work when the people vote for what is nearly an economically objectively poor decision, admit they lied about things, and get away with it with no consequences, and then any attempt to rectify the situation is seen as threatening democracy. Well, if that's how democracy can work, perhaps democracy has some flaws after all that we should look into mitigating instead of pretending its a perfect system of government. TLDR Even if a second referendum were to shatter people's faith in democracy, considering democracy got us into this situation, it ought to be shattered.","A second Brexit referendum would absolutely ""shatter faith in democracy"" as May claims, but that's a good thing."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My idea would be to created a graduated voting system. When you're 18 you get to vote for city and town leadership. 21 you get to vote for state legislature. 25 you get to vote for Congress. Finally, when you're 30 you get to vote for president. Similar to the way graduated driving works. The level of responsibility of the people you're voting for goes up and up. I feel this system would create a more well informed electorate. It would also weed out people being manipulated by propaganda from voting. In turn, I feel fewer people would become as disenfranchised by the political process. I see no reason why everyone below the age of 25 is qualified to be able to vote for the president or congressional seats. Rental car companies won't rent anyone below the age of 25 a car because they don't feel like they'll be responsible with it. Does that mean everyone under the age of 25 is incapable of being trusted with a rental car? No of course not. In the same way not everyone under 25 is unqualified to vote. There's simply a significant portion who aren't and they have to be weeded out somehow. Setting an age limit would be the best way to do it in regards to fairness, cost, enforcement, and simplicity. Voting ages should be raised to allow voters to warm up to the political process slowly, to develop their political ideas over time to see what works and what doesn't, and to prevent uninformed unqualified voters from voting. CMV<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My idea would be to created a graduated voting system. When you're 18 you get to vote for city and town leadership. 21 you get to vote for state legislature. 25 you get to vote for Congress. Finally, when you're 30 you get to vote for president. Similar to the way graduated driving works. The level of responsibility of the people you're voting for goes up and up. I feel this system would create a more well informed electorate. It would also weed out people being manipulated by propaganda from voting. In turn, I feel fewer people would become as disenfranchised by the political process. I see no reason why everyone below the age of 25 is qualified to be able to vote for the president or congressional seats. Rental car companies won't rent anyone below the age of 25 a car because they don't feel like they'll be responsible with it. Does that mean everyone under the age of 25 is incapable of being trusted with a rental car? No of course not. In the same way not everyone under 25 is unqualified to vote. There's simply a significant portion who aren't and they have to be weeded out somehow. Setting an age limit would be the best way to do it in regards to fairness, cost, enforcement, and simplicity. Voting ages should be raised to allow voters to warm up to the political process slowly, to develop their political ideas over time to see what works and what doesn't, and to prevent uninformed unqualified voters from voting. CMV<|TARGETS|>The level of responsibility of the people you 're voting for, Rental car companies, this system, Setting an age limit, to vote for city and town leadership, being trusted with a rental car<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My idea would be to created a graduated voting system. When you're 18 you get to vote for city and town leadership. 21 you get to vote for state legislature. 25 you get to vote for Congress. Finally, when you're 30 you get to vote for president. Similar to the way graduated driving works. The level of responsibility of the people you're voting for goes up and up. I feel this system would create a more well informed electorate. It would also weed out people being manipulated by propaganda from voting. In turn, I feel fewer people would become as disenfranchised by the political process. I see no reason why everyone below the age of 25 is qualified to be able to vote for the president or congressional seats. Rental car companies won't rent anyone below the age of 25 a car because they don't feel like they'll be responsible with it. Does that mean everyone under the age of 25 is incapable of being trusted with a rental car? No of course not. In the same way not everyone under 25 is unqualified to vote. There's simply a significant portion who aren't and they have to be weeded out somehow. Setting an age limit would be the best way to do it in regards to fairness, cost, enforcement, and simplicity. Voting ages should be raised to allow voters to warm up to the political process slowly, to develop their political ideas over time to see what works and what doesn't, and to prevent uninformed unqualified voters from voting. CMV<|ASPECTS|>town leadership, trusted, simplicity, age limit, congressional seats, vote for president, incapable of, level, political ideas, city, ages, qualified, vote for, graduated driving, well informed electorate, uninformed unqualified voters, weeded, responsible, disenfranchised, fairness, enforcement, political process, able, vote for congress, manipulated, graduated voting system, cost, rental car, responsibility, propaganda, vote, state legislature, unqualified to vote<|CONCLUSION|>","My idea would be to created a graduated voting system. When you're 18 you get to vote for city and town leadership. 21 you get to vote for state legislature. 25 you get to vote for Congress. Finally, when you're 30 you get to vote for president. Similar to the way graduated driving works. The level of responsibility of the people you're voting for goes up and up. I feel this system would create a more well informed electorate. It would also weed out people being manipulated by propaganda from voting. In turn, I feel fewer people would become as disenfranchised by the political process. I see no reason why everyone below the age of 25 is qualified to be able to vote for the president or congressional seats. Rental car companies won't rent anyone below the age of 25 a car because they don't feel like they'll be responsible with it. Does that mean everyone under the age of 25 is incapable of being trusted with a rental car? No of course not. In the same way not everyone under 25 is unqualified to vote. There's simply a significant portion who aren't and they have to be weeded out somehow. Setting an age limit would be the best way to do it in regards to fairness, cost, enforcement, and simplicity. Voting ages should be raised to allow voters to warm up to the political process slowly, to develop their political ideas over time to see what works and what doesn't, and to prevent uninformed unqualified voters from voting.",Graduated voting would be superior than simply giving the right to vote at 18
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Emily Elizabeth Howard is a young American girl who owns Clifford who is a big red dog. But not just a little bit big. Really big. Clifford is shown to be larger than a 2 story house making him probably about 30 feet tall. For comparison, the male African Bush Elephant, the largest land animal, maxes out at about 11 feet tall. A male giraffe can reach nearly to 20 feet, but is a very narrow and slight creature. So looking at his height and supposed weight, Clifford has all of the bulk and power of the elephant with the height exceeding that of giraffes, making him easily the largest land animal in the world, by a far sight. In fact, Clifford has been shown to occupy the entire bed of a 48 foot flatbed truck making him more akin to a Shantungosaurus one of the largest dinosaurs ever discovered. On top of that, dogs are carnivores the elephant, giraffe, and Shantungosaurus are herbivores. The largest carnivores in the world are Kodiak Bears A male Kodiak will reach a maximum of 10 feet long, and 5 feet tall when on all fours. Clifford is nearly 30 feet tall on all fours and 50 feet long 5 times the length and 6 times the height of a Kodiak. Imagine the power of that kind of predator being entirely managed by the wiles of a 10 year old girl it is unthinkable that this kind of danger would be allowed to freely roam the American suburbs unchecked. A male Kodiak can eat up to 90 pounds of food per day . Assuming Clifford's appetite is commensurate he would need to consume 540 pounds of food daily. Since Clifford has been shown consuming regular dog food doing some cursory research of bulk dog food costs Clifford would need to consume about 13.5 18.99 40lb dog food bags daily. This works out to 256.37 per day 93,573 per year. In comparison, the USDA estimates the monthly cost of a family of four eating very well will max out around 1,292.80 or 15,513 per year. Clifford is then eating more than 6 times the cost of a family of four which is one larger than the Howard family, with Emily being an only child. Paying this kind of money to feed a pet is simply insane. The Howards do not appear to be overly wealthy people, living in a humble neighborhood and home. Clifford very likely is on track to eat them entirely out of house and home. And for what? The novelty of having a mammalian carnivore larger than a Tyrannosaurus Rex lurking your property to keep you safe? It is clear, though, that Clifford is not at all concerned with safety. Clifford is shown as generally causing a lot of serious and not at all easily ignored mayhem around his world. A basic examination of a few of his adventures turn up the following instances Clifford delaying sewer repair work and putting workers at risk of injury Clifford crashing into cars on purpose, very probably seriously injuring the occupant Clifford smashing trees and buildings for fun at a birthday party Clifford endangering firefighters by potentially causing a backdraft by unilaterally deciding to break open the ceiling of a burning building Clifford terribly misunderstanding how fires burn by blowing air on a raging inferno while firefighters are trapped on upper floors Clifford damaging expensive construction projects Clifford causing collisions on highways, leading to a high potential for loss of life Clifford further unapologetic about highway chaos Clifford delaying infrastructure repair work while destroying private property Clifford potentially injuring other animals through recklessness Clifford cheekily endangering children to hypothermia and drowning Clifford destroying the livelihood of poor merchants Clifford toppling telephone poles Clifford tearing the Howard's home off its foundation in a fit of jealousy Clifford wantonly smashing windows of neighborhood homes Clifford causing havoc on mass transit systems and probable injury to innocent passengers Clifford callously crushing expensive, sentient, and pain feeling robotic birthday presents bought for him Now in the world of fantasy, maybe people just let this stuff go. But there have been demonstrable consequences when Clifford eats the kite of a neighbor boy, Mr. Howard must shell out for a new one. If he's taking financial responsibility for Clifford's actions on a small scale, it stands to reason that as the owner, he is going to be liable for damage and loss of life. The fact that Mr. Howard is not in prison, let alone allowed to keep is destructive monster of a pet, is a travesty of justice. I can't even imagine the amount of civil lawsuits he's facing. Beyond simply the burdens put on him by his family, Clifford is simply put an absolute menace to society. He is an uncontrollably large and unknowingly strong carnivorous beast the likes of which have never been seen on planet Earth, being cared for only by a young girl. No fences, no cages, no control. Clifford is 10 feet longer and taller than a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and is not only not kept behind an electrified fence on an isolated island, he is allowed free reign of the American countryside to traverse unchecked as he sees fit. So in closing, Clifford should not be a private pet. He should be at least in a zoo, as he is generally a friendly animal, but not be allowed to simply roam and cause death at every turn. The Howards, especially in leaving him largely in Emily's care, are deeply irresponsible as parents, citizens, and humans in allowing this. Local authorities, likely fearful of Clifford's power, have a responsibility to enjoin Federal and possibly military forces in order to secure the safety of their citizens.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Emily Elizabeth Howard is a young American girl who owns Clifford who is a big red dog. But not just a little bit big. Really big. Clifford is shown to be larger than a 2 story house making him probably about 30 feet tall. For comparison, the male African Bush Elephant, the largest land animal, maxes out at about 11 feet tall. A male giraffe can reach nearly to 20 feet, but is a very narrow and slight creature. So looking at his height and supposed weight, Clifford has all of the bulk and power of the elephant with the height exceeding that of giraffes, making him easily the largest land animal in the world, by a far sight. In fact, Clifford has been shown to occupy the entire bed of a 48 foot flatbed truck making him more akin to a Shantungosaurus one of the largest dinosaurs ever discovered. On top of that, dogs are carnivores the elephant, giraffe, and Shantungosaurus are herbivores. The largest carnivores in the world are Kodiak Bears A male Kodiak will reach a maximum of 10 feet long, and 5 feet tall when on all fours. Clifford is nearly 30 feet tall on all fours and 50 feet long 5 times the length and 6 times the height of a Kodiak. Imagine the power of that kind of predator being entirely managed by the wiles of a 10 year old girl it is unthinkable that this kind of danger would be allowed to freely roam the American suburbs unchecked. A male Kodiak can eat up to 90 pounds of food per day . Assuming Clifford's appetite is commensurate he would need to consume 540 pounds of food daily. Since Clifford has been shown consuming regular dog food doing some cursory research of bulk dog food costs Clifford would need to consume about 13.5 18.99 40lb dog food bags daily. This works out to 256.37 per day 93,573 per year. In comparison, the USDA estimates the monthly cost of a family of four eating very well will max out around 1,292.80 or 15,513 per year. Clifford is then eating more than 6 times the cost of a family of four which is one larger than the Howard family, with Emily being an only child. Paying this kind of money to feed a pet is simply insane. The Howards do not appear to be overly wealthy people, living in a humble neighborhood and home. Clifford very likely is on track to eat them entirely out of house and home. And for what? The novelty of having a mammalian carnivore larger than a Tyrannosaurus Rex lurking your property to keep you safe? It is clear, though, that Clifford is not at all concerned with safety. Clifford is shown as generally causing a lot of serious and not at all easily ignored mayhem around his world. A basic examination of a few of his adventures turn up the following instances Clifford delaying sewer repair work and putting workers at risk of injury Clifford crashing into cars on purpose, very probably seriously injuring the occupant Clifford smashing trees and buildings for fun at a birthday party Clifford endangering firefighters by potentially causing a backdraft by unilaterally deciding to break open the ceiling of a burning building Clifford terribly misunderstanding how fires burn by blowing air on a raging inferno while firefighters are trapped on upper floors Clifford damaging expensive construction projects Clifford causing collisions on highways, leading to a high potential for loss of life Clifford further unapologetic about highway chaos Clifford delaying infrastructure repair work while destroying private property Clifford potentially injuring other animals through recklessness Clifford cheekily endangering children to hypothermia and drowning Clifford destroying the livelihood of poor merchants Clifford toppling telephone poles Clifford tearing the Howard's home off its foundation in a fit of jealousy Clifford wantonly smashing windows of neighborhood homes Clifford causing havoc on mass transit systems and probable injury to innocent passengers Clifford callously crushing expensive, sentient, and pain feeling robotic birthday presents bought for him Now in the world of fantasy, maybe people just let this stuff go. But there have been demonstrable consequences when Clifford eats the kite of a neighbor boy, Mr. Howard must shell out for a new one. If he's taking financial responsibility for Clifford's actions on a small scale, it stands to reason that as the owner, he is going to be liable for damage and loss of life. The fact that Mr. Howard is not in prison, let alone allowed to keep is destructive monster of a pet, is a travesty of justice. I can't even imagine the amount of civil lawsuits he's facing. Beyond simply the burdens put on him by his family, Clifford is simply put an absolute menace to society. He is an uncontrollably large and unknowingly strong carnivorous beast the likes of which have never been seen on planet Earth, being cared for only by a young girl. No fences, no cages, no control. Clifford is 10 feet longer and taller than a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and is not only not kept behind an electrified fence on an isolated island, he is allowed free reign of the American countryside to traverse unchecked as he sees fit. So in closing, Clifford should not be a private pet. He should be at least in a zoo, as he is generally a friendly animal, but not be allowed to simply roam and cause death at every turn. The Howards, especially in leaving him largely in Emily's care, are deeply irresponsible as parents, citizens, and humans in allowing this. Local authorities, likely fearful of Clifford's power, have a responsibility to enjoin Federal and possibly military forces in order to secure the safety of their citizens.<|TARGETS|>If he 's taking financial responsibility for Clifford 's actions on a small scale, an uncontrollably large and unknowingly strong carnivorous beast the likes of which have never been seen on planet Earth, to occupy the entire bed of a 48 foot flatbed truck, to simply roam and cause death at every turn ., The fact that Mr. Howard is not in prison let alone allowed to keep is destructive monster of a pet, Clifford<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Emily Elizabeth Howard is a young American girl who owns Clifford who is a big red dog. But not just a little bit big. Really big. Clifford is shown to be larger than a 2 story house making him probably about 30 feet tall. For comparison, the male African Bush Elephant, the largest land animal, maxes out at about 11 feet tall. A male giraffe can reach nearly to 20 feet, but is a very narrow and slight creature. So looking at his height and supposed weight, Clifford has all of the bulk and power of the elephant with the height exceeding that of giraffes, making him easily the largest land animal in the world, by a far sight. In fact, Clifford has been shown to occupy the entire bed of a 48 foot flatbed truck making him more akin to a Shantungosaurus one of the largest dinosaurs ever discovered. On top of that, dogs are carnivores the elephant, giraffe, and Shantungosaurus are herbivores. The largest carnivores in the world are Kodiak Bears A male Kodiak will reach a maximum of 10 feet long, and 5 feet tall when on all fours. Clifford is nearly 30 feet tall on all fours and 50 feet long 5 times the length and 6 times the height of a Kodiak. Imagine the power of that kind of predator being entirely managed by the wiles of a 10 year old girl it is unthinkable that this kind of danger would be allowed to freely roam the American suburbs unchecked. A male Kodiak can eat up to 90 pounds of food per day . Assuming Clifford's appetite is commensurate he would need to consume 540 pounds of food daily. Since Clifford has been shown consuming regular dog food doing some cursory research of bulk dog food costs Clifford would need to consume about 13.5 18.99 40lb dog food bags daily. This works out to 256.37 per day 93,573 per year. In comparison, the USDA estimates the monthly cost of a family of four eating very well will max out around 1,292.80 or 15,513 per year. Clifford is then eating more than 6 times the cost of a family of four which is one larger than the Howard family, with Emily being an only child. Paying this kind of money to feed a pet is simply insane. The Howards do not appear to be overly wealthy people, living in a humble neighborhood and home. Clifford very likely is on track to eat them entirely out of house and home. And for what? The novelty of having a mammalian carnivore larger than a Tyrannosaurus Rex lurking your property to keep you safe? It is clear, though, that Clifford is not at all concerned with safety. Clifford is shown as generally causing a lot of serious and not at all easily ignored mayhem around his world. A basic examination of a few of his adventures turn up the following instances Clifford delaying sewer repair work and putting workers at risk of injury Clifford crashing into cars on purpose, very probably seriously injuring the occupant Clifford smashing trees and buildings for fun at a birthday party Clifford endangering firefighters by potentially causing a backdraft by unilaterally deciding to break open the ceiling of a burning building Clifford terribly misunderstanding how fires burn by blowing air on a raging inferno while firefighters are trapped on upper floors Clifford damaging expensive construction projects Clifford causing collisions on highways, leading to a high potential for loss of life Clifford further unapologetic about highway chaos Clifford delaying infrastructure repair work while destroying private property Clifford potentially injuring other animals through recklessness Clifford cheekily endangering children to hypothermia and drowning Clifford destroying the livelihood of poor merchants Clifford toppling telephone poles Clifford tearing the Howard's home off its foundation in a fit of jealousy Clifford wantonly smashing windows of neighborhood homes Clifford causing havoc on mass transit systems and probable injury to innocent passengers Clifford callously crushing expensive, sentient, and pain feeling robotic birthday presents bought for him Now in the world of fantasy, maybe people just let this stuff go. But there have been demonstrable consequences when Clifford eats the kite of a neighbor boy, Mr. Howard must shell out for a new one. If he's taking financial responsibility for Clifford's actions on a small scale, it stands to reason that as the owner, he is going to be liable for damage and loss of life. The fact that Mr. Howard is not in prison, let alone allowed to keep is destructive monster of a pet, is a travesty of justice. I can't even imagine the amount of civil lawsuits he's facing. Beyond simply the burdens put on him by his family, Clifford is simply put an absolute menace to society. He is an uncontrollably large and unknowingly strong carnivorous beast the likes of which have never been seen on planet Earth, being cared for only by a young girl. No fences, no cages, no control. Clifford is 10 feet longer and taller than a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and is not only not kept behind an electrified fence on an isolated island, he is allowed free reign of the American countryside to traverse unchecked as he sees fit. So in closing, Clifford should not be a private pet. He should be at least in a zoo, as he is generally a friendly animal, but not be allowed to simply roam and cause death at every turn. The Howards, especially in leaving him largely in Emily's care, are deeply irresponsible as parents, citizens, and humans in allowing this. Local authorities, likely fearful of Clifford's power, have a responsibility to enjoin Federal and possibly military forces in order to secure the safety of their citizens.<|ASPECTS|>travesty of justice, liable, clifford 's power, dog food bags, appetite, consequences, burdens, carnivores, money, private pet, loss of life, unknowingly, safe, property, financial responsibility, serious, deeply, free reign, land animal, costs, monthly, predator, fences, pounds, danger, dog food, humble neighborhood, herbivores, weight, slight creature, countryside, mayhem, damage, tall, eat, destructive monster, cages, ignored, control, cause death, menace to society, insane, freely, entirely, safety, citizens, maxes, friendly animal, uncontrollably, narrow, cost, irresponsible, mammalian, overly wealthy people, civil lawsuits, absolute, carnivorous beast, bulk and power, larger, food, dog<|CONCLUSION|>","Emily Elizabeth Howard is a young American girl who owns Clifford who is a big red dog. But not just a little bit big. Really big. Clifford is shown to be larger than a 2 story house making him probably about 30 feet tall. For comparison, the male African Bush Elephant, the largest land animal, maxes out at about 11 feet tall. A male giraffe can reach nearly to 20 feet, but is a very narrow and slight creature. So looking at his height and supposed weight, Clifford has all of the bulk and power of the elephant with the height exceeding that of giraffes, making him easily the largest land animal in the world, by a far sight. In fact, Clifford has been shown to occupy the entire bed of a 48 foot flatbed truck making him more akin to a Shantungosaurus one of the largest dinosaurs ever discovered. On top of that, dogs are carnivores the elephant, giraffe, and Shantungosaurus are herbivores. The largest carnivores in the world are Kodiak Bears A male Kodiak will reach a maximum of 10 feet long, and 5 feet tall when on all fours. Clifford is nearly 30 feet tall on all fours and 50 feet long 5 times the length and 6 times the height of a Kodiak. Imagine the power of that kind of predator being entirely managed by the wiles of a 10 year old girl it is unthinkable that this kind of danger would be allowed to freely roam the American suburbs unchecked. A male Kodiak can eat up to 90 pounds of food per day . Assuming Clifford's appetite is commensurate he would need to consume 540 pounds of food daily. Since Clifford has been shown consuming regular dog food doing some cursory research of bulk dog food costs Clifford would need to consume about 13.5 18.99 40lb dog food bags daily. This works out to 256.37 per day 93,573 per year. In comparison, the USDA estimates the monthly cost of a family of four eating very well will max out around 1,292.80 or 15,513 per year. Clifford is then eating more than 6 times the cost of a family of four which is one larger than the Howard family, with Emily being an only child. Paying this kind of money to feed a pet is simply insane. The Howards do not appear to be overly wealthy people, living in a humble neighborhood and home. Clifford very likely is on track to eat them entirely out of house and home. And for what? The novelty of having a mammalian carnivore larger than a Tyrannosaurus Rex lurking your property to keep you safe? It is clear, though, that Clifford is not at all concerned with safety. Clifford is shown as generally causing a lot of serious and not at all easily ignored mayhem around his world. A basic examination of a few of his adventures turn up the following instances Clifford delaying sewer repair work and putting workers at risk of injury Clifford crashing into cars on purpose, very probably seriously injuring the occupant Clifford smashing trees and buildings for fun at a birthday party Clifford endangering firefighters by potentially causing a backdraft by unilaterally deciding to break open the ceiling of a burning building Clifford terribly misunderstanding how fires burn by blowing air on a raging inferno while firefighters are trapped on upper floors Clifford damaging expensive construction projects Clifford causing collisions on highways, leading to a high potential for loss of life Clifford further unapologetic about highway chaos Clifford delaying infrastructure repair work while destroying private property Clifford potentially injuring other animals through recklessness Clifford cheekily endangering children to hypothermia and drowning Clifford destroying the livelihood of poor merchants Clifford toppling telephone poles Clifford tearing the Howard's home off its foundation in a fit of jealousy Clifford wantonly smashing windows of neighborhood homes Clifford causing havoc on mass transit systems and probable injury to innocent passengers Clifford callously crushing expensive, sentient, and pain feeling robotic birthday presents bought for him Now in the world of fantasy, maybe people just let this stuff go. But there have been demonstrable consequences when Clifford eats the kite of a neighbor boy, Mr. Howard must shell out for a new one. If he's taking financial responsibility for Clifford's actions on a small scale, it stands to reason that as the owner, he is going to be liable for damage and loss of life. The fact that Mr. Howard is not in prison, let alone allowed to keep is destructive monster of a pet, is a travesty of justice. I can't even imagine the amount of civil lawsuits he's facing. Beyond simply the burdens put on him by his family, Clifford is simply put an absolute menace to society. He is an uncontrollably large and unknowingly strong carnivorous beast the likes of which have never been seen on planet Earth, being cared for only by a young girl. No fences, no cages, no control. Clifford is 10 feet longer and taller than a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and is not only not kept behind an electrified fence on an isolated island, he is allowed free reign of the American countryside to traverse unchecked as he sees fit. So in closing, Clifford should not be a private pet. He should be at least in a zoo, as he is generally a friendly animal, but not be allowed to simply roam and cause death at every turn. The Howards, especially in leaving him largely in Emily's care, are deeply irresponsible as parents, citizens, and humans in allowing this. Local authorities, likely fearful of Clifford's power, have a responsibility to enjoin Federal and possibly military forces in order to secure the safety of their citizens.",Keeping Clifford the Big Red Dog as a private pet is deeply irresponsible and unsafe
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It could be a stray baseball, an errant puck at a hockey game or something similar. In the US at least, when a live piece of the game goes into the stands, there is a lot of pressure to give these rewards to nearby kids. I feel it's teaching bad lessons, like giving someone a fish, instead of teaching them how to fish. When I was a kid, my dad never caught a foul ball. He talked about it all the time. He finally did when I was 11 at an MLB game, one of his proudest moments, but we went to minor leagues games a lot because they were cheaper. He would have me eye up batters whether the player was batting left or right and taught me swinging patterns and probability that went along with it. By 13, I amassed four foul balls at minor leagues stadiums, from that summer, two from the same game. Years later, in 2010, I snagged a foul ball at an MLB game. There was a nearby kid, and I felt that moment coming on . . . but luckily his dad told me the outfielder threw him two baseballs during batting practice before the game. That absolved my guilt for keeping it. Since his dad got me the seats, I would've had to give the kid the ball normally, right? I just thinking snagging a live piece of sports memorabilia is fair game. Kids get older, they become adults and they learn like I did. No reason to just throw or give me a ball. The ones you earned, have a better story anyway. And no, I wouldn't take it that seriously I am open to hearing how people would handle a similar situation with maybe a disabled kid or a girl vs. a boy. I'm not closed to compassion or other special circumstances. But that's what I think. We have to earn things in life, but fate, luck and skill also play into things. Anyway, I'm ready reddit. Change my view<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It could be a stray baseball, an errant puck at a hockey game or something similar. In the US at least, when a live piece of the game goes into the stands, there is a lot of pressure to give these rewards to nearby kids. I feel it's teaching bad lessons, like giving someone a fish, instead of teaching them how to fish. When I was a kid, my dad never caught a foul ball. He talked about it all the time. He finally did when I was 11 at an MLB game, one of his proudest moments, but we went to minor leagues games a lot because they were cheaper. He would have me eye up batters whether the player was batting left or right and taught me swinging patterns and probability that went along with it. By 13, I amassed four foul balls at minor leagues stadiums, from that summer, two from the same game. Years later, in 2010, I snagged a foul ball at an MLB game. There was a nearby kid, and I felt that moment coming on . . . but luckily his dad told me the outfielder threw him two baseballs during batting practice before the game. That absolved my guilt for keeping it. Since his dad got me the seats, I would've had to give the kid the ball normally, right? I just thinking snagging a live piece of sports memorabilia is fair game. Kids get older, they become adults and they learn like I did. No reason to just throw or give me a ball. The ones you earned, have a better story anyway. And no, I wouldn't take it that seriously I am open to hearing how people would handle a similar situation with maybe a disabled kid or a girl vs. a boy. I'm not closed to compassion or other special circumstances. But that's what I think. We have to earn things in life, but fate, luck and skill also play into things. Anyway, I'm ready reddit. Change my view<|TARGETS|>whether the player was batting left or right and taught me swinging patterns and probability that went along with it ., to give the kid the ball normally, giving someone a fish instead of teaching them how to fish ., to earn things in life but fate luck and skill, snagging a live piece of sports memorabilia, open to hearing how people would handle a similar situation with maybe a disabled kid or a girl vs. a boy .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It could be a stray baseball, an errant puck at a hockey game or something similar. In the US at least, when a live piece of the game goes into the stands, there is a lot of pressure to give these rewards to nearby kids. I feel it's teaching bad lessons, like giving someone a fish, instead of teaching them how to fish. When I was a kid, my dad never caught a foul ball. He talked about it all the time. He finally did when I was 11 at an MLB game, one of his proudest moments, but we went to minor leagues games a lot because they were cheaper. He would have me eye up batters whether the player was batting left or right and taught me swinging patterns and probability that went along with it. By 13, I amassed four foul balls at minor leagues stadiums, from that summer, two from the same game. Years later, in 2010, I snagged a foul ball at an MLB game. There was a nearby kid, and I felt that moment coming on . . . but luckily his dad told me the outfielder threw him two baseballs during batting practice before the game. That absolved my guilt for keeping it. Since his dad got me the seats, I would've had to give the kid the ball normally, right? I just thinking snagging a live piece of sports memorabilia is fair game. Kids get older, they become adults and they learn like I did. No reason to just throw or give me a ball. The ones you earned, have a better story anyway. And no, I wouldn't take it that seriously I am open to hearing how people would handle a similar situation with maybe a disabled kid or a girl vs. a boy. I'm not closed to compassion or other special circumstances. But that's what I think. We have to earn things in life, but fate, luck and skill also play into things. Anyway, I'm ready reddit. Change my view<|ASPECTS|>, absolved, probability, pressure, ball, cheaper, swinging patterns, errant puck, earn things, practice, bad lessons, skill, fair game, life, snagged, foul balls, caught, similar situation, compassion, special circumstances, adults, learn, luck, better story, sports, fate, batters, guilt, stray baseball, disabled kid, rewards, foul ball, kids<|CONCLUSION|>","It could be a stray baseball, an errant puck at a hockey game or something similar. In the US at least, when a live piece of the game goes into the stands, there is a lot of pressure to give these rewards to nearby kids. I feel it's teaching bad lessons, like giving someone a fish, instead of teaching them how to fish. When I was a kid, my dad never caught a foul ball. He talked about it all the time. He finally did when I was 11 at an MLB game, one of his proudest moments, but we went to minor leagues games a lot because they were cheaper. He would have me eye up batters whether the player was batting left or right and taught me swinging patterns and probability that went along with it. By 13, I amassed four foul balls at minor leagues stadiums, from that summer, two from the same game. Years later, in 2010, I snagged a foul ball at an MLB game. There was a nearby kid, and I felt that moment coming on . . . but luckily his dad told me the outfielder threw him two baseballs during batting practice before the game. That absolved my guilt for keeping it. Since his dad got me the seats, I would've had to give the kid the ball normally, right? I just thinking snagging a live piece of sports memorabilia is fair game. Kids get older, they become adults and they learn like I did. No reason to just throw or give me a ball. The ones you earned, have a better story anyway. And no, I wouldn't take it that seriously I am open to hearing how people would handle a similar situation with maybe a disabled kid or a girl vs. a boy. I'm not closed to compassion or other special circumstances. But that's what I think. We have to earn things in life, but fate, luck and skill also play into things. Anyway, I'm ready reddit. Change my view","If you snag a foul ball, you have to give it to a little kid."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's a quote attributed to Arthur C. Clarke that I see on the internet all the time Two possibilities exist Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. Now, there may be some needed context elaboration in the original text from which that quote is pulled, but taken alone I think it's a load of crap. The possibility of our being alone in the universe is, in my view, much, much, much more terrifying than the possibility of life existing somewhere else. I'm not sure how anyone could find the very idea of life on other planets unsettling in any way let alone terrifying. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's a quote attributed to Arthur C. Clarke that I see on the internet all the time Two possibilities exist Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. Now, there may be some needed context elaboration in the original text from which that quote is pulled, but taken alone I think it's a load of crap. The possibility of our being alone in the universe is, in my view, much, much, much more terrifying than the possibility of life existing somewhere else. I'm not sure how anyone could find the very idea of life on other planets unsettling in any way let alone terrifying. CMV.<|TARGETS|>The possibility of our being alone in the universe, a quote attributed to Arthur C. Clarke that I see on the internet all the time Two possibilities exist Either we are alone in the Universe, how anyone could find the very idea of life on other planets unsettling in any way let alone terrifying ., the original text from which that quote is pulled<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's a quote attributed to Arthur C. Clarke that I see on the internet all the time Two possibilities exist Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. Now, there may be some needed context elaboration in the original text from which that quote is pulled, but taken alone I think it's a load of crap. The possibility of our being alone in the universe is, in my view, much, much, much more terrifying than the possibility of life existing somewhere else. I'm not sure how anyone could find the very idea of life on other planets unsettling in any way let alone terrifying. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>possibilities, alone in the universe, life existing, terrifying, life, context elaboration, unsettling<|CONCLUSION|>","There's a quote attributed to Arthur C. Clarke that I see on the internet all the time Two possibilities exist Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. Now, there may be some needed context elaboration in the original text from which that quote is pulled, but taken alone I think it's a load of crap. The possibility of our being alone in the universe is, in my view, much, much, much more terrifying than the possibility of life existing somewhere else. I'm not sure how anyone could find the very idea of life on other planets unsettling in any way let alone terrifying. .","I think that Arthur C. Clarke quote about ""two possibilities"" in regard to extraterrestrial life is completely wrong."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, we have a serious obligation to not needlessly kill and eat animals. Im my opinion, ignoring this moral obligation is very serious, on par with most other do not kill obligations we have in our lives. I also believe that the logic of humans are smarter than animals, therefore it's ok to eat this pig cow etc. is flawed, because most humans would feel uncomfortable eating a comatose person or someone who is profoundly mentally retarded, and yet would consider it totally fine to eat a pig with more self sufficiency and intelligence. I believe the rationale approach to issues of meat morality is to ask the question Why should it be ok to kill animals and eat their meat? rather than Why shouldn't it? Most modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong. With some edge cases, of course. Not many argue that there's nothing wrong with eating meat to save your life on a desert island. Reddit, what do you think? Is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, we have a serious obligation to not needlessly kill and eat animals. Im my opinion, ignoring this moral obligation is very serious, on par with most other do not kill obligations we have in our lives. I also believe that the logic of humans are smarter than animals, therefore it's ok to eat this pig cow etc. is flawed, because most humans would feel uncomfortable eating a comatose person or someone who is profoundly mentally retarded, and yet would consider it totally fine to eat a pig with more self sufficiency and intelligence. I believe the rationale approach to issues of meat morality is to ask the question Why should it be ok to kill animals and eat their meat? rather than Why shouldn't it? Most modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong. With some edge cases, of course. Not many argue that there's nothing wrong with eating meat to save your life on a desert island. Reddit, what do you think? Is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat?<|TARGETS|>that eating meat, that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat, to not needlessly kill and eat animals ., the rationale approach to issues of meat morality, to eat a pig with more self sufficiency and intelligence .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, we have a serious obligation to not needlessly kill and eat animals. Im my opinion, ignoring this moral obligation is very serious, on par with most other do not kill obligations we have in our lives. I also believe that the logic of humans are smarter than animals, therefore it's ok to eat this pig cow etc. is flawed, because most humans would feel uncomfortable eating a comatose person or someone who is profoundly mentally retarded, and yet would consider it totally fine to eat a pig with more self sufficiency and intelligence. I believe the rationale approach to issues of meat morality is to ask the question Why should it be ok to kill animals and eat their meat? rather than Why shouldn't it? Most modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong. With some edge cases, of course. Not many argue that there's nothing wrong with eating meat to save your life on a desert island. Reddit, what do you think? Is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat?<|ASPECTS|>ok, self sufficiency, flawed, mentally retarded, kill animals, obligations, logic, moral reasoning, kill, edge cases, save your life, meat, smarter than animals, morally justifiable, animals, morally wrong, obligation, intelligence, moral obligation, meat morality<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, we have a serious obligation to not needlessly kill and eat animals. Im my opinion, ignoring this moral obligation is very serious, on par with most other do not kill obligations we have in our lives. I also believe that the logic of humans are smarter than animals, therefore it's ok to eat this pig cow etc. is flawed, because most humans would feel uncomfortable eating a comatose person or someone who is profoundly mentally retarded, and yet would consider it totally fine to eat a pig with more self sufficiency and intelligence. I believe the rationale approach to issues of meat morality is to ask the question Why should it be ok to kill animals and eat their meat? rather than Why shouldn't it? Most modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong. With some edge cases, of course. Not many argue that there's nothing wrong with eating meat to save your life on a desert island. Reddit, what do you think? Is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat?",It is morally wrong to eat animals.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The situation as it is currently is each member state has a military, but there is not one unified army. There are several reasons this unification is very necessary Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy, the EU is not taken very seriously. If the EU had one unified military this would likely change. We would not seem as divided as we are currently viewed in the global landscape. A European army would show the world that there will never again be war between its member states. There has been much warring in Europe even in the last century. This unification would show the EU that such wars will never occur again. There are notable military threats to the EU. Specifically the threats coming from Russia and ISIS. The federation of the army would allow these issues not to pose as much of a threat. The threat is obviously too large to handle from single nation states. A joint force specialized to meet the present and future vicissitudes that may arise is necessary. The European Armed Forces would be able to defend European values with much more effectiveness and efficiency. Not only our external borders but also our interests and values through the world in cooperation with our allies. In conclusion, the unification of Europe's military forces would help Europe immensely. The European Union is Europe's greatest achievement. We should stand together united in our armed forces.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The situation as it is currently is each member state has a military, but there is not one unified army. There are several reasons this unification is very necessary Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy, the EU is not taken very seriously. If the EU had one unified military this would likely change. We would not seem as divided as we are currently viewed in the global landscape. A European army would show the world that there will never again be war between its member states. There has been much warring in Europe even in the last century. This unification would show the EU that such wars will never occur again. There are notable military threats to the EU. Specifically the threats coming from Russia and ISIS. The federation of the army would allow these issues not to pose as much of a threat. The threat is obviously too large to handle from single nation states. A joint force specialized to meet the present and future vicissitudes that may arise is necessary. The European Armed Forces would be able to defend European values with much more effectiveness and efficiency. Not only our external borders but also our interests and values through the world in cooperation with our allies. In conclusion, the unification of Europe's military forces would help Europe immensely. The European Union is Europe's greatest achievement. We should stand together united in our armed forces.<|TARGETS|>the EU, The threat, the unification of Europe 's military forces, A European army, The European Armed Forces, If the EU had one unified military this<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The situation as it is currently is each member state has a military, but there is not one unified army. There are several reasons this unification is very necessary Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy, the EU is not taken very seriously. If the EU had one unified military this would likely change. We would not seem as divided as we are currently viewed in the global landscape. A European army would show the world that there will never again be war between its member states. There has been much warring in Europe even in the last century. This unification would show the EU that such wars will never occur again. There are notable military threats to the EU. Specifically the threats coming from Russia and ISIS. The federation of the army would allow these issues not to pose as much of a threat. The threat is obviously too large to handle from single nation states. A joint force specialized to meet the present and future vicissitudes that may arise is necessary. The European Armed Forces would be able to defend European values with much more effectiveness and efficiency. Not only our external borders but also our interests and values through the world in cooperation with our allies. In conclusion, the unification of Europe's military forces would help Europe immensely. The European Union is Europe's greatest achievement. We should stand together united in our armed forces.<|ASPECTS|>external borders, unified army, isis, global landscape, military, united, interests and values, threats, warring, europe, threat, future, wars, taken, divided, eu, efficiency, respect, help europe immensely, defend european values, military forces, vicissitudes, issues, effectiveness, unification, unified military, war, military threats, armed forces, greatest achievement, seriously, large<|CONCLUSION|>","The situation as it is currently is each member state has a military, but there is not one unified army. There are several reasons this unification is very necessary Europe has lost a huge amount of respect. In foreign policy, the EU is not taken very seriously. If the EU had one unified military this would likely change. We would not seem as divided as we are currently viewed in the global landscape. A European army would show the world that there will never again be war between its member states. There has been much warring in Europe even in the last century. This unification would show the EU that such wars will never occur again. There are notable military threats to the EU. Specifically the threats coming from Russia and ISIS. The federation of the army would allow these issues not to pose as much of a threat. The threat is obviously too large to handle from single nation states. A joint force specialized to meet the present and future vicissitudes that may arise is necessary. The European Armed Forces would be able to defend European values with much more effectiveness and efficiency. Not only our external borders but also our interests and values through the world in cooperation with our allies. In conclusion, the unification of Europe's military forces would help Europe immensely. The European Union is Europe's greatest achievement. We should stand together united in our armed forces.",The European Union should unify its armed forces.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that dropbox is a great way to share files with lots of people generally. You can invite collaborators, upload to shared folders, etc. That said, when it comes to sharing photos, dropbox has the worst interface you have to click through every single photo to see them all, otherwise you just download them all and then what's the point of having put them in a shared folder? There are plenty of good layouts for sharing and viewing photos, and dropbox uses none of them, making it a bad place to share photos.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that dropbox is a great way to share files with lots of people generally. You can invite collaborators, upload to shared folders, etc. That said, when it comes to sharing photos, dropbox has the worst interface you have to click through every single photo to see them all, otherwise you just download them all and then what's the point of having put them in a shared folder? There are plenty of good layouts for sharing and viewing photos, and dropbox uses none of them, making it a bad place to share photos.<|TARGETS|>download them all and then what 's the point of having put them in a shared folder, dropbox<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that dropbox is a great way to share files with lots of people generally. You can invite collaborators, upload to shared folders, etc. That said, when it comes to sharing photos, dropbox has the worst interface you have to click through every single photo to see them all, otherwise you just download them all and then what's the point of having put them in a shared folder? There are plenty of good layouts for sharing and viewing photos, and dropbox uses none of them, making it a bad place to share photos.<|ASPECTS|>dropbox, sharing, bad, invite collaborators, good layouts, folder, photos, shared folders, share files, share photos, interface<|CONCLUSION|>","I understand that dropbox is a great way to share files with lots of people generally. You can invite collaborators, upload to shared folders, etc. That said, when it comes to sharing photos, dropbox has the worst interface you have to click through every single photo to see them all, otherwise you just download them all and then what's the point of having put them in a shared folder? There are plenty of good layouts for sharing and viewing photos, and dropbox uses none of them, making it a bad place to share photos.",Dropbox is a terrible way to share photos
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Inspired by this recent reddit post In this case there is absolute certainty that these guys committed these crimes. One was actually smiling as the recording of his victim was played. This is clearly a sociopath. I'm really strongly in favor of showing him the same punishment of his victims. Although it wouldn't bring anyone back, it would vindicate the victims parents, and hopefully act as a deterrent for future acts like this, because even if torturing others in enjoyable, seeing yourself being tortured in the same way must help prohibit this behavior. I realize this is a really harsh punishment. Change my view?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Inspired by this recent reddit post In this case there is absolute certainty that these guys committed these crimes. One was actually smiling as the recording of his victim was played. This is clearly a sociopath. I'm really strongly in favor of showing him the same punishment of his victims. Although it wouldn't bring anyone back, it would vindicate the victims parents, and hopefully act as a deterrent for future acts like this, because even if torturing others in enjoyable, seeing yourself being tortured in the same way must help prohibit this behavior. I realize this is a really harsh punishment. Change my view?<|TARGETS|>the victims parents and hopefully act as a deterrent for future acts like this because even if torturing others in enjoyable seeing yourself being tortured in the same way must help prohibit this behavior .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Inspired by this recent reddit post In this case there is absolute certainty that these guys committed these crimes. One was actually smiling as the recording of his victim was played. This is clearly a sociopath. I'm really strongly in favor of showing him the same punishment of his victims. Although it wouldn't bring anyone back, it would vindicate the victims parents, and hopefully act as a deterrent for future acts like this, because even if torturing others in enjoyable, seeing yourself being tortured in the same way must help prohibit this behavior. I realize this is a really harsh punishment. Change my view?<|ASPECTS|>certainty, committed, others, deterrent, punishment, change my view, vindicate the victims parents, smiling, crimes, harsh punishment, sociopath<|CONCLUSION|>","Inspired by this recent reddit post In this case there is absolute certainty that these guys committed these crimes. One was actually smiling as the recording of his victim was played. This is clearly a sociopath. I'm really strongly in favor of showing him the same punishment of his victims. Although it wouldn't bring anyone back, it would vindicate the victims parents, and hopefully act as a deterrent for future acts like this, because even if torturing others in enjoyable, seeing yourself being tortured in the same way must help prohibit this behavior. I realize this is a really harsh punishment. Change my view?",murderers who are sociopaths and proven guilty should get the same treatment they put on their victims
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I thought about posting this in Men's Rights since it's three times bigger than Feminism and seems a lot more active , but I don't think I'd get the kind of open minded discussion I'm looking for there. Whenever I'm reading through a thread linking to an article that depicts one sex in a negative light rape, domestic abuse, false rape accusations, etc. , it seems inevitable that I come across some MRA feminism discussion somewhere in the comments. The first few times I saw this happening, I tried to follow the discussion for any compelling arguments, but it always somehow spiraled into absurdity. I started skipping over most of those sections whenever I came across them, writing them off as a waste of time. Until one day when I was reading one of these threads, I came across someone who said, I really only read the Men's Rights sub when I'm on reddit. A quick look in his comment history proved his statement to be true. Then I started doing that whenever I came across a sexism discussion on a thread I was reading. I'd say 7 out of 10 times, the user's comment history had 80 of their comments in either r mensrights, r feminism, or r shitredditsays usually the former two subs, as SRS comments are always downvoted to the bottom of most threads . I've looked through several threads on both subreddits, and aside from links to interesting articles, I guess I just don't see the good that they're doing. The rational, intelligent conversations in those places are few and far in between name calling and berating seem to be commonplace, and this definitely spills out into the rest of reddit. Have I misinterpretted the point of these places? I see them as a little destructive and somewhat counter productive to their cause. Some of these users seem like impressionable people who have spent so much time in these places that their views are completely shaped by them. As a disclaimer I'm not gonna pretend I know what it's like as a man in this day and age, just as I don't think it's possible for a man to know what it's like to be a woman. I acknowledge there are assholes, idiots, and all around terrible examples of both sexes and that these people do not represent either sex as a whole. I kind of see these subs the same way as I see r atheism now they've lost sight of the big picture and have almost become parodies of the things they're supposed to be against. Where hivemind mentality breeds and overrides any sort of outside influence. And where there seems to be a common theme of users who tend to obsess over these issues above all else. Tell me why these subreddits are more than just circlejerks for bitching about the opposite sex. I'd like to know if there's some kind of positive influence that I'm missing. And I'd like to know if I'm being narrow minded for seeing those subreddits that way. Maybe I'm just as judgemental as I'm accusing them of being? Change my view. edit Holy crap this thread has exploded within minutes. So many good points and discussion on both sides of the coin. I have since changed my position and realize that the gender issues subs of reddit can have just as many positive influences on people as negative. The first two deltas awarded to this post by u HeyLookItsThatGuy and this post by u MyMRAccount. I'll continue to read and reply as the thread progresses. Thanks everyone.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I thought about posting this in Men's Rights since it's three times bigger than Feminism and seems a lot more active , but I don't think I'd get the kind of open minded discussion I'm looking for there. Whenever I'm reading through a thread linking to an article that depicts one sex in a negative light rape, domestic abuse, false rape accusations, etc. , it seems inevitable that I come across some MRA feminism discussion somewhere in the comments. The first few times I saw this happening, I tried to follow the discussion for any compelling arguments, but it always somehow spiraled into absurdity. I started skipping over most of those sections whenever I came across them, writing them off as a waste of time. Until one day when I was reading one of these threads, I came across someone who said, I really only read the Men's Rights sub when I'm on reddit. A quick look in his comment history proved his statement to be true. Then I started doing that whenever I came across a sexism discussion on a thread I was reading. I'd say 7 out of 10 times, the user's comment history had 80 of their comments in either r mensrights, r feminism, or r shitredditsays usually the former two subs, as SRS comments are always downvoted to the bottom of most threads . I've looked through several threads on both subreddits, and aside from links to interesting articles, I guess I just don't see the good that they're doing. The rational, intelligent conversations in those places are few and far in between name calling and berating seem to be commonplace, and this definitely spills out into the rest of reddit. Have I misinterpretted the point of these places? I see them as a little destructive and somewhat counter productive to their cause. Some of these users seem like impressionable people who have spent so much time in these places that their views are completely shaped by them. As a disclaimer I'm not gonna pretend I know what it's like as a man in this day and age, just as I don't think it's possible for a man to know what it's like to be a woman. I acknowledge there are assholes, idiots, and all around terrible examples of both sexes and that these people do not represent either sex as a whole. I kind of see these subs the same way as I see r atheism now they've lost sight of the big picture and have almost become parodies of the things they're supposed to be against. Where hivemind mentality breeds and overrides any sort of outside influence. And where there seems to be a common theme of users who tend to obsess over these issues above all else. Tell me why these subreddits are more than just circlejerks for bitching about the opposite sex. I'd like to know if there's some kind of positive influence that I'm missing. And I'd like to know if I'm being narrow minded for seeing those subreddits that way. Maybe I'm just as judgemental as I'm accusing them of being? Change my view. edit Holy crap this thread has exploded within minutes. So many good points and discussion on both sides of the coin. I have since changed my position and realize that the gender issues subs of reddit can have just as many positive influences on people as negative. The first two deltas awarded to this post by u HeyLookItsThatGuy and this post by u MyMRAccount. I'll continue to read and reply as the thread progresses. Thanks everyone.<|TARGETS|>to follow the discussion for any compelling arguments, gonna pretend I know what it 's like as a man in this day and age just as I do n't think it 's possible for a man to know what it 's like to be a woman ., some MRA feminism discussion, the Men 's Rights sub when I 'm on reddit ., reading one of these threads, several threads on both subreddits and aside from links to interesting articles<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I thought about posting this in Men's Rights since it's three times bigger than Feminism and seems a lot more active , but I don't think I'd get the kind of open minded discussion I'm looking for there. Whenever I'm reading through a thread linking to an article that depicts one sex in a negative light rape, domestic abuse, false rape accusations, etc. , it seems inevitable that I come across some MRA feminism discussion somewhere in the comments. The first few times I saw this happening, I tried to follow the discussion for any compelling arguments, but it always somehow spiraled into absurdity. I started skipping over most of those sections whenever I came across them, writing them off as a waste of time. Until one day when I was reading one of these threads, I came across someone who said, I really only read the Men's Rights sub when I'm on reddit. A quick look in his comment history proved his statement to be true. Then I started doing that whenever I came across a sexism discussion on a thread I was reading. I'd say 7 out of 10 times, the user's comment history had 80 of their comments in either r mensrights, r feminism, or r shitredditsays usually the former two subs, as SRS comments are always downvoted to the bottom of most threads . I've looked through several threads on both subreddits, and aside from links to interesting articles, I guess I just don't see the good that they're doing. The rational, intelligent conversations in those places are few and far in between name calling and berating seem to be commonplace, and this definitely spills out into the rest of reddit. Have I misinterpretted the point of these places? I see them as a little destructive and somewhat counter productive to their cause. Some of these users seem like impressionable people who have spent so much time in these places that their views are completely shaped by them. As a disclaimer I'm not gonna pretend I know what it's like as a man in this day and age, just as I don't think it's possible for a man to know what it's like to be a woman. I acknowledge there are assholes, idiots, and all around terrible examples of both sexes and that these people do not represent either sex as a whole. I kind of see these subs the same way as I see r atheism now they've lost sight of the big picture and have almost become parodies of the things they're supposed to be against. Where hivemind mentality breeds and overrides any sort of outside influence. And where there seems to be a common theme of users who tend to obsess over these issues above all else. Tell me why these subreddits are more than just circlejerks for bitching about the opposite sex. I'd like to know if there's some kind of positive influence that I'm missing. And I'd like to know if I'm being narrow minded for seeing those subreddits that way. Maybe I'm just as judgemental as I'm accusing them of being? Change my view. edit Holy crap this thread has exploded within minutes. So many good points and discussion on both sides of the coin. I have since changed my position and realize that the gender issues subs of reddit can have just as many positive influences on people as negative. The first two deltas awarded to this post by u HeyLookItsThatGuy and this post by u MyMRAccount. I'll continue to read and reply as the thread progresses. Thanks everyone.<|ASPECTS|>opposite sex, atheism, discussion, view, overrides, parodies, sexes, waste of time, judgemental, downvoted, name calling, misinterpretted the point, false rape accusations, assholes, positive influences, good points, men 's rights, absurdity, mra feminism discussion, exploded, positive influence, views, shaped, compelling arguments, open minded discussion, intelligent conversations, berating, rational, domestic abuse, impressionable people, terrible examples, read and reply, issues, counter productive, picture, sexism discussion, good, narrow minded, mensrights, destructive, obsess, gender issues, mentality, outside influence, active, circlejerks, subreddits, either<|CONCLUSION|>","I thought about posting this in Men's Rights since it's three times bigger than Feminism and seems a lot more active , but I don't think I'd get the kind of open minded discussion I'm looking for there. Whenever I'm reading through a thread linking to an article that depicts one sex in a negative light rape, domestic abuse, false rape accusations, etc. , it seems inevitable that I come across some MRA feminism discussion somewhere in the comments. The first few times I saw this happening, I tried to follow the discussion for any compelling arguments, but it always somehow spiraled into absurdity. I started skipping over most of those sections whenever I came across them, writing them off as a waste of time. Until one day when I was reading one of these threads, I came across someone who said, I really only read the Men's Rights sub when I'm on reddit. A quick look in his comment history proved his statement to be true. Then I started doing that whenever I came across a sexism discussion on a thread I was reading. I'd say 7 out of 10 times, the user's comment history had 80 of their comments in either r mensrights, r feminism, or r shitredditsays usually the former two subs, as SRS comments are always downvoted to the bottom of most threads . I've looked through several threads on both subreddits, and aside from links to interesting articles, I guess I just don't see the good that they're doing. The rational, intelligent conversations in those places are few and far in between name calling and berating seem to be commonplace, and this definitely spills out into the rest of reddit. Have I misinterpretted the point of these places? I see them as a little destructive and somewhat counter productive to their cause. Some of these users seem like impressionable people who have spent so much time in these places that their views are completely shaped by them. As a disclaimer I'm not gonna pretend I know what it's like as a man in this day and age, just as I don't think it's possible for a man to know what it's like to be a woman. I acknowledge there are assholes, idiots, and all around terrible examples of both sexes and that these people do not represent either sex as a whole. I kind of see these subs the same way as I see r atheism now they've lost sight of the big picture and have almost become parodies of the things they're supposed to be against. Where hivemind mentality breeds and overrides any sort of outside influence. And where there seems to be a common theme of users who tend to obsess over these issues above all else. Tell me why these subreddits are more than just circlejerks for bitching about the opposite sex. I'd like to know if there's some kind of positive influence that I'm missing. And I'd like to know if I'm being narrow minded for seeing those subreddits that way. Maybe I'm just as judgemental as I'm accusing them of being? Change my view. edit Holy crap this thread has exploded within minutes. So many good points and discussion on both sides of the coin. I have since changed my position and realize that the gender issues subs of reddit can have just as many positive influences on people as negative. The first two deltas awarded to this post by u HeyLookItsThatGuy and this post by u MyMRAccount. I'll continue to read and reply as the thread progresses. Thanks everyone.",I think that the Men's Rights and Feminism subreddits do more harm than good.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are two possible reasons a unit can grow at faster than the rate of inflation The unit is taking a bigger percentage of market share within its sector. The sector of the economy it is within is growing. When a unit has reached full market share it is limited to grow at a rate equal to the rate of the sector it is within. However a sector of the economy is in itself a unit within the entire economy. If the economy itself grows, inflation occurs as 'the economy' is merely the percent share of all capital. Therefore nothing can grow at a rate faster than inflation indefinitely. I posit that the next two statements are identical. The first is a largely quoted fact about the history of the stock market, the second is of my own creation. gt Over the very long run, the stock market has had an inflation adjusted annualized return rate of between six and seven percent. gt Since its inception the stock market has gained a larger share of capital at an annual rate of between six and seven percent. Whenever the share of the worlds capital that moves into the stock market increases, the supply stays constant and demand increases so based on the rules of supply and demand the the price goes up. The current investors are the ones who pocket that price difference. The gains of the stock markets as a whole are occurring because they are enveloping a bigger and bigger piece of the worlds capital. It is inevitable that at a certain point the stock market will stop going up, as it will be comprised of all most? of the worlds capital. At that point no government can do anything about it, as they can only increase inflation. After that point at a macro level the stock market will reach peak market share and will at best stay even with inflation . This includes everything that makes up the stock markets Stocks, Index funds, Shorts, Dividends, Collateralized debt obligations, everything. There will still be booms and busts, there will still be individual stocks that take market share from other stocks and risk takers can gamble on these aspects, but on average the stock market will be flat in real terms. Gone will be the days where you can gain enormous wealth by putting your retirement money in a Vanguard index fund. gt What we can say with certainty is that it's very difficult to be successful at market timing continuously over the long run. gt Investors who strive to “beat the market” are often doing so at great risk. gt the S P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.” A number of smart people are involved in running hedge funds. But to a great extent their efforts are self neutralizing, and their IQ will not overcome the costs they impose on investors. Investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low cost index fund than with a group of funds of funds. Warren Buffet This begs the question, How much further do we have to go to reach saturation? Wealthy people put their wealth into the stock market, the working class put their retirements into the stock market, the poor don't have any wealth, banks buy and sell mortgages on the stock market, companies literally are the stock market What capital isn't already invested that could be invested to grow it further? Have we already reached peak stock market? gt A Ponzi scheme is an investment operation where the operator pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors The stock market is a sophisticated mechanism to transfer wealth to the early adopters from the late adopters. QED the stock market is the worlds biggest pyramid scheme. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are two possible reasons a unit can grow at faster than the rate of inflation The unit is taking a bigger percentage of market share within its sector. The sector of the economy it is within is growing. When a unit has reached full market share it is limited to grow at a rate equal to the rate of the sector it is within. However a sector of the economy is in itself a unit within the entire economy. If the economy itself grows, inflation occurs as 'the economy' is merely the percent share of all capital. Therefore nothing can grow at a rate faster than inflation indefinitely. I posit that the next two statements are identical. The first is a largely quoted fact about the history of the stock market, the second is of my own creation. gt Over the very long run, the stock market has had an inflation adjusted annualized return rate of between six and seven percent. gt Since its inception the stock market has gained a larger share of capital at an annual rate of between six and seven percent. Whenever the share of the worlds capital that moves into the stock market increases, the supply stays constant and demand increases so based on the rules of supply and demand the the price goes up. The current investors are the ones who pocket that price difference. The gains of the stock markets as a whole are occurring because they are enveloping a bigger and bigger piece of the worlds capital. It is inevitable that at a certain point the stock market will stop going up, as it will be comprised of all most? of the worlds capital. At that point no government can do anything about it, as they can only increase inflation. After that point at a macro level the stock market will reach peak market share and will at best stay even with inflation . This includes everything that makes up the stock markets Stocks, Index funds, Shorts, Dividends, Collateralized debt obligations, everything. There will still be booms and busts, there will still be individual stocks that take market share from other stocks and risk takers can gamble on these aspects, but on average the stock market will be flat in real terms. Gone will be the days where you can gain enormous wealth by putting your retirement money in a Vanguard index fund. gt What we can say with certainty is that it's very difficult to be successful at market timing continuously over the long run. gt Investors who strive to “beat the market” are often doing so at great risk. gt the S P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.” A number of smart people are involved in running hedge funds. But to a great extent their efforts are self neutralizing, and their IQ will not overcome the costs they impose on investors. Investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low cost index fund than with a group of funds of funds. Warren Buffet This begs the question, How much further do we have to go to reach saturation? Wealthy people put their wealth into the stock market, the working class put their retirements into the stock market, the poor don't have any wealth, banks buy and sell mortgages on the stock market, companies literally are the stock market What capital isn't already invested that could be invested to grow it further? Have we already reached peak stock market? gt A Ponzi scheme is an investment operation where the operator pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors The stock market is a sophisticated mechanism to transfer wealth to the early adopters from the late adopters. QED the stock market is the worlds biggest pyramid scheme. CMV.<|TARGETS|>When a unit has reached full market share, to be successful at market timing continuously over the long run ., a sector of the economy, banks buy and sell mortgages on the stock market, gt the S P 500, gt What we can say with certainty<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are two possible reasons a unit can grow at faster than the rate of inflation The unit is taking a bigger percentage of market share within its sector. The sector of the economy it is within is growing. When a unit has reached full market share it is limited to grow at a rate equal to the rate of the sector it is within. However a sector of the economy is in itself a unit within the entire economy. If the economy itself grows, inflation occurs as 'the economy' is merely the percent share of all capital. Therefore nothing can grow at a rate faster than inflation indefinitely. I posit that the next two statements are identical. The first is a largely quoted fact about the history of the stock market, the second is of my own creation. gt Over the very long run, the stock market has had an inflation adjusted annualized return rate of between six and seven percent. gt Since its inception the stock market has gained a larger share of capital at an annual rate of between six and seven percent. Whenever the share of the worlds capital that moves into the stock market increases, the supply stays constant and demand increases so based on the rules of supply and demand the the price goes up. The current investors are the ones who pocket that price difference. The gains of the stock markets as a whole are occurring because they are enveloping a bigger and bigger piece of the worlds capital. It is inevitable that at a certain point the stock market will stop going up, as it will be comprised of all most? of the worlds capital. At that point no government can do anything about it, as they can only increase inflation. After that point at a macro level the stock market will reach peak market share and will at best stay even with inflation . This includes everything that makes up the stock markets Stocks, Index funds, Shorts, Dividends, Collateralized debt obligations, everything. There will still be booms and busts, there will still be individual stocks that take market share from other stocks and risk takers can gamble on these aspects, but on average the stock market will be flat in real terms. Gone will be the days where you can gain enormous wealth by putting your retirement money in a Vanguard index fund. gt What we can say with certainty is that it's very difficult to be successful at market timing continuously over the long run. gt Investors who strive to “beat the market” are often doing so at great risk. gt the S P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.” A number of smart people are involved in running hedge funds. But to a great extent their efforts are self neutralizing, and their IQ will not overcome the costs they impose on investors. Investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low cost index fund than with a group of funds of funds. Warren Buffet This begs the question, How much further do we have to go to reach saturation? Wealthy people put their wealth into the stock market, the working class put their retirements into the stock market, the poor don't have any wealth, banks buy and sell mortgages on the stock market, companies literally are the stock market What capital isn't already invested that could be invested to grow it further? Have we already reached peak stock market? gt A Ponzi scheme is an investment operation where the operator pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors The stock market is a sophisticated mechanism to transfer wealth to the early adopters from the late adopters. QED the stock market is the worlds biggest pyramid scheme. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>booms, market timing continuously, price goes, iq, capital, grow, history, peak stock market, beat the market, wealthy, great, risk takers, worlds, inflation, reach, smart people, gains, limited to grow, costs, saturation, price difference, market, performance, increase, economy, identical, demand increases, wealth, retirement, risk, expenses., going, peak market share, busts, share of capital, returns, pyramid scheme, transfer wealth, fees, sector of, individual, enormous, inflation adjusted annualized return rate, supply stays constant, flat, market share, worlds capital, self neutralizing, poor, low cost index fund, unit, stock market, faster, inflation occurs, larger, markets, debt obligations<|CONCLUSION|>","There are two possible reasons a unit can grow at faster than the rate of inflation The unit is taking a bigger percentage of market share within its sector. The sector of the economy it is within is growing. When a unit has reached full market share it is limited to grow at a rate equal to the rate of the sector it is within. However a sector of the economy is in itself a unit within the entire economy. If the economy itself grows, inflation occurs as 'the economy' is merely the percent share of all capital. Therefore nothing can grow at a rate faster than inflation indefinitely. I posit that the next two statements are identical. The first is a largely quoted fact about the history of the stock market, the second is of my own creation. gt Over the very long run, the stock market has had an inflation adjusted annualized return rate of between six and seven percent. gt Since its inception the stock market has gained a larger share of capital at an annual rate of between six and seven percent. Whenever the share of the worlds capital that moves into the stock market increases, the supply stays constant and demand increases so based on the rules of supply and demand the the price goes up. The current investors are the ones who pocket that price difference. The gains of the stock markets as a whole are occurring because they are enveloping a bigger and bigger piece of the worlds capital. It is inevitable that at a certain point the stock market will stop going up, as it will be comprised of all most? of the worlds capital. At that point no government can do anything about it, as they can only increase inflation. After that point at a macro level the stock market will reach peak market share and will at best stay even with inflation . This includes everything that makes up the stock markets Stocks, Index funds, Shorts, Dividends, Collateralized debt obligations, everything. There will still be booms and busts, there will still be individual stocks that take market share from other stocks and risk takers can gamble on these aspects, but on average the stock market will be flat in real terms. Gone will be the days where you can gain enormous wealth by putting your retirement money in a Vanguard index fund. gt What we can say with certainty is that it's very difficult to be successful at market timing continuously over the long run. gt Investors who strive to “beat the market” are often doing so at great risk. gt the S P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.” A number of smart people are involved in running hedge funds. But to a great extent their efforts are self neutralizing, and their IQ will not overcome the costs they impose on investors. Investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low cost index fund than with a group of funds of funds. Warren Buffet This begs the question, How much further do we have to go to reach saturation? Wealthy people put their wealth into the stock market, the working class put their retirements into the stock market, the poor don't have any wealth, banks buy and sell mortgages on the stock market, companies literally are the stock market What capital isn't already invested that could be invested to grow it further? Have we already reached peak stock market? gt A Ponzi scheme is an investment operation where the operator pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors The stock market is a sophisticated mechanism to transfer wealth to the early adopters from the late adopters. QED the stock market is the worlds biggest pyramid scheme. .",The stock market is a pyramid scheme
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK According to Wikipedia 'A Mary Sue or, in case of a male, Gary Stu or Marty Stu is an idealized fictional character, a young or low rank person who saves the day through extraordinary abilities. Often but not necessarily this character is recognized as an author insert and or wish fulfillmen '. Here are my arguments that Rey is a Mary Sue 1 , She has no flaws . She is in danger once in the film, and immediately overcomes it. Said danger is the main villain and arguably one of the most powerful characters to grace the series, demonstrating a level of ability with the force not witnessed before freezing bolts in mid air . 2, She is a perfect swiss army knife of a character . She can beat people up with a staff. She can speak all the languages she needed too. She is a great scavenger. She enters the Millennial Falcon, makes it better, and flies it with precision on par with Han Solo despite never leaving her planet, and thus, likely never having flew before. She has the force used on her by someone trained by both Luke Skywalker and Snoke, and almost immediately overpowers him with her own force powers. She later uses the force to bring Lukes sabre towards her. She also cleanly beats Kylo Ren without taking a hit. 3, She has almost love like bonds with a number of characters , despite only just meeting them. Han immediately warms to her and she literally replaces him at the end of the film . Leia hugs her at the end of the film despite never ? having met her. Rey quite literally, minutes after being exposed to the force, not only out maneuvers a well versed user of force not only a blood relation to Luke Skywalker, but also trained by him and a Sith Lord. She then quite easily kicks his ass with a light sabre. That even sounds fan fiction tier. Like, if this wasn't actually in the movie, and someone wrote this, it would be laughed at. Luke is not a Gary Stu because 1, He's shit. He loses repeatedly. He gets saved by Obi Wan twice in the first film, against the Tuskan and in the Bar, gets saved by Han Solo, gets saved by Leia from falling to his death after fighting Darth Vadar. He gets wrecked by Vader after a year of training with Yoda. 2, Luke's main achievement in Episode Four is blowing up the Death Star using the force . This is the culmination of the film, after Luke travels with Obi Wan and is made aware of the force. He is also being aided by Han Solo who is shooting down Vader's elite troops. Also, by luck or fate, the way through the Death Star is in a crevice much like the valleys he would have flew on his own planet, and, due to Luke, at this point in time being the equivalent to an Intergalactic Hillbilly, is in a situation where his one strength is needed. As Luke states, he'd spent his time taking pot shots at rats on his planets, and was thus a 'crack shot'. To summarize Luke is able to take out the death star after being made well aware of the force, after making a number of fuck ups throughout the film, with the support of Han Solo protecting him, guided by the ghost of Obi Wan who has become one with the force, in a situation that uniquely applies to the one thing he's good at piloting in tight spaces and that he's spent his whole life training for, with a single 'pot shot' guided by the force using all his willpower. Ren is able to use the force minutes after seeing it, against the strongest foe in her film also a trained force user , is able to use the force on the storm trooper, and is able to use the force to bring Luke's sabre to her. She also uses the force to beat Kylo Ren a man with years of experience with the force trained by both a Jedi Master and a Sithlord. Merely a few hours after being made aware of the force. 3, In Episode Four, Luke's only strength is as a pilot . It takes him another film to be able to bring his sabre to him. He gets destroyed by Vader when he goes to fight him. Luke routinely fails at things, takes years of training, is the 'one to bring balance to the force', and still isn't able to defeat Vader. So that's my reasoning. I see a lot of stuff about people being sexist I don't care that she's a woman. I also see a lot of articles vitriolically stating you have to be some sort of monster to think this. I don't get it. To stave off the inevitable Finn comparison Kylo Ren was clearly toying with Finn, swinging and brandishing his sabre to show off, and quite easily takes him out. It isn't the same situation. So yeah, CMV?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK According to Wikipedia 'A Mary Sue or, in case of a male, Gary Stu or Marty Stu is an idealized fictional character, a young or low rank person who saves the day through extraordinary abilities. Often but not necessarily this character is recognized as an author insert and or wish fulfillmen '. Here are my arguments that Rey is a Mary Sue 1 , She has no flaws . She is in danger once in the film, and immediately overcomes it. Said danger is the main villain and arguably one of the most powerful characters to grace the series, demonstrating a level of ability with the force not witnessed before freezing bolts in mid air . 2, She is a perfect swiss army knife of a character . She can beat people up with a staff. She can speak all the languages she needed too. She is a great scavenger. She enters the Millennial Falcon, makes it better, and flies it with precision on par with Han Solo despite never leaving her planet, and thus, likely never having flew before. She has the force used on her by someone trained by both Luke Skywalker and Snoke, and almost immediately overpowers him with her own force powers. She later uses the force to bring Lukes sabre towards her. She also cleanly beats Kylo Ren without taking a hit. 3, She has almost love like bonds with a number of characters , despite only just meeting them. Han immediately warms to her and she literally replaces him at the end of the film . Leia hugs her at the end of the film despite never ? having met her. Rey quite literally, minutes after being exposed to the force, not only out maneuvers a well versed user of force not only a blood relation to Luke Skywalker, but also trained by him and a Sith Lord. She then quite easily kicks his ass with a light sabre. That even sounds fan fiction tier. Like, if this wasn't actually in the movie, and someone wrote this, it would be laughed at. Luke is not a Gary Stu because 1, He's shit. He loses repeatedly. He gets saved by Obi Wan twice in the first film, against the Tuskan and in the Bar, gets saved by Han Solo, gets saved by Leia from falling to his death after fighting Darth Vadar. He gets wrecked by Vader after a year of training with Yoda. 2, Luke's main achievement in Episode Four is blowing up the Death Star using the force . This is the culmination of the film, after Luke travels with Obi Wan and is made aware of the force. He is also being aided by Han Solo who is shooting down Vader's elite troops. Also, by luck or fate, the way through the Death Star is in a crevice much like the valleys he would have flew on his own planet, and, due to Luke, at this point in time being the equivalent to an Intergalactic Hillbilly, is in a situation where his one strength is needed. As Luke states, he'd spent his time taking pot shots at rats on his planets, and was thus a 'crack shot'. To summarize Luke is able to take out the death star after being made well aware of the force, after making a number of fuck ups throughout the film, with the support of Han Solo protecting him, guided by the ghost of Obi Wan who has become one with the force, in a situation that uniquely applies to the one thing he's good at piloting in tight spaces and that he's spent his whole life training for, with a single 'pot shot' guided by the force using all his willpower. Ren is able to use the force minutes after seeing it, against the strongest foe in her film also a trained force user , is able to use the force on the storm trooper, and is able to use the force to bring Luke's sabre to her. She also uses the force to beat Kylo Ren a man with years of experience with the force trained by both a Jedi Master and a Sithlord. Merely a few hours after being made aware of the force. 3, In Episode Four, Luke's only strength is as a pilot . It takes him another film to be able to bring his sabre to him. He gets destroyed by Vader when he goes to fight him. Luke routinely fails at things, takes years of training, is the 'one to bring balance to the force', and still isn't able to defeat Vader. So that's my reasoning. I see a lot of stuff about people being sexist I don't care that she's a woman. I also see a lot of articles vitriolically stating you have to be some sort of monster to think this. I don't get it. To stave off the inevitable Finn comparison Kylo Ren was clearly toying with Finn, swinging and brandishing his sabre to show off, and quite easily takes him out. It isn't the same situation. So yeah, CMV?<|TARGETS|>a lot of stuff about people being sexist I do n't care that she 's a woman ., Luke, Obi Wan twice in the first film, To summarize Luke is able to take out the death star after being made well aware of the force after making a number of fuck ups throughout the film with the support of Han Solo protecting him guided by the ghost of Obi Wan, Wikipedia ' A Mary Sue or in case of a male Gary Stu or Marty Stu, Rey<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK According to Wikipedia 'A Mary Sue or, in case of a male, Gary Stu or Marty Stu is an idealized fictional character, a young or low rank person who saves the day through extraordinary abilities. Often but not necessarily this character is recognized as an author insert and or wish fulfillmen '. Here are my arguments that Rey is a Mary Sue 1 , She has no flaws . She is in danger once in the film, and immediately overcomes it. Said danger is the main villain and arguably one of the most powerful characters to grace the series, demonstrating a level of ability with the force not witnessed before freezing bolts in mid air . 2, She is a perfect swiss army knife of a character . She can beat people up with a staff. She can speak all the languages she needed too. She is a great scavenger. She enters the Millennial Falcon, makes it better, and flies it with precision on par with Han Solo despite never leaving her planet, and thus, likely never having flew before. She has the force used on her by someone trained by both Luke Skywalker and Snoke, and almost immediately overpowers him with her own force powers. She later uses the force to bring Lukes sabre towards her. She also cleanly beats Kylo Ren without taking a hit. 3, She has almost love like bonds with a number of characters , despite only just meeting them. Han immediately warms to her and she literally replaces him at the end of the film . Leia hugs her at the end of the film despite never ? having met her. Rey quite literally, minutes after being exposed to the force, not only out maneuvers a well versed user of force not only a blood relation to Luke Skywalker, but also trained by him and a Sith Lord. She then quite easily kicks his ass with a light sabre. That even sounds fan fiction tier. Like, if this wasn't actually in the movie, and someone wrote this, it would be laughed at. Luke is not a Gary Stu because 1, He's shit. He loses repeatedly. He gets saved by Obi Wan twice in the first film, against the Tuskan and in the Bar, gets saved by Han Solo, gets saved by Leia from falling to his death after fighting Darth Vadar. He gets wrecked by Vader after a year of training with Yoda. 2, Luke's main achievement in Episode Four is blowing up the Death Star using the force . This is the culmination of the film, after Luke travels with Obi Wan and is made aware of the force. He is also being aided by Han Solo who is shooting down Vader's elite troops. Also, by luck or fate, the way through the Death Star is in a crevice much like the valleys he would have flew on his own planet, and, due to Luke, at this point in time being the equivalent to an Intergalactic Hillbilly, is in a situation where his one strength is needed. As Luke states, he'd spent his time taking pot shots at rats on his planets, and was thus a 'crack shot'. To summarize Luke is able to take out the death star after being made well aware of the force, after making a number of fuck ups throughout the film, with the support of Han Solo protecting him, guided by the ghost of Obi Wan who has become one with the force, in a situation that uniquely applies to the one thing he's good at piloting in tight spaces and that he's spent his whole life training for, with a single 'pot shot' guided by the force using all his willpower. Ren is able to use the force minutes after seeing it, against the strongest foe in her film also a trained force user , is able to use the force on the storm trooper, and is able to use the force to bring Luke's sabre to her. She also uses the force to beat Kylo Ren a man with years of experience with the force trained by both a Jedi Master and a Sithlord. Merely a few hours after being made aware of the force. 3, In Episode Four, Luke's only strength is as a pilot . It takes him another film to be able to bring his sabre to him. He gets destroyed by Vader when he goes to fight him. Luke routinely fails at things, takes years of training, is the 'one to bring balance to the force', and still isn't able to defeat Vader. So that's my reasoning. I see a lot of stuff about people being sexist I don't care that she's a woman. I also see a lot of articles vitriolically stating you have to be some sort of monster to think this. I don't get it. To stave off the inevitable Finn comparison Kylo Ren was clearly toying with Finn, swinging and brandishing his sabre to show off, and quite easily takes him out. It isn't the same situation. So yeah, CMV?<|ASPECTS|>woman, willpower, shot, loses repeatedly, blowing, defeat vader, wrecked by vader, ability, shots, beat, powerful, speak, great, languages, laughed, hugs, kicks his ass, crevice, saved, situation, overcomes, precision, author insert, finn, vader, shooting, wish fulfillmen, danger, destroyed, toying, rats, flaws, overpowers, army knife, shit, gary, fan fiction tier, elite troops, millennial, strength, scavenger, love like bonds, saves the day, sexist, death star, force powers, force, replaces, cleanly beats, fails at things, balance, monster, aware, vitriolically, beat people, user of force, extraordinary abilities<|CONCLUSION|>","SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK According to Wikipedia 'A Mary Sue or, in case of a male, Gary Stu or Marty Stu is an idealized fictional character, a young or low rank person who saves the day through extraordinary abilities. Often but not necessarily this character is recognized as an author insert and or wish fulfillmen '. Here are my arguments that Rey is a Mary Sue 1 , She has no flaws . She is in danger once in the film, and immediately overcomes it. Said danger is the main villain and arguably one of the most powerful characters to grace the series, demonstrating a level of ability with the force not witnessed before freezing bolts in mid air . 2, She is a perfect swiss army knife of a character . She can beat people up with a staff. She can speak all the languages she needed too. She is a great scavenger. She enters the Millennial Falcon, makes it better, and flies it with precision on par with Han Solo despite never leaving her planet, and thus, likely never having flew before. She has the force used on her by someone trained by both Luke Skywalker and Snoke, and almost immediately overpowers him with her own force powers. She later uses the force to bring Lukes sabre towards her. She also cleanly beats Kylo Ren without taking a hit. 3, She has almost love like bonds with a number of characters , despite only just meeting them. Han immediately warms to her and she literally replaces him at the end of the film . Leia hugs her at the end of the film despite never ? having met her. Rey quite literally, minutes after being exposed to the force, not only out maneuvers a well versed user of force not only a blood relation to Luke Skywalker, but also trained by him and a Sith Lord. She then quite easily kicks his ass with a light sabre. That even sounds fan fiction tier. Like, if this wasn't actually in the movie, and someone wrote this, it would be laughed at. Luke is not a Gary Stu because 1, He's shit. He loses repeatedly. He gets saved by Obi Wan twice in the first film, against the Tuskan and in the Bar, gets saved by Han Solo, gets saved by Leia from falling to his death after fighting Darth Vadar. He gets wrecked by Vader after a year of training with Yoda. 2, Luke's main achievement in Episode Four is blowing up the Death Star using the force . This is the culmination of the film, after Luke travels with Obi Wan and is made aware of the force. He is also being aided by Han Solo who is shooting down Vader's elite troops. Also, by luck or fate, the way through the Death Star is in a crevice much like the valleys he would have flew on his own planet, and, due to Luke, at this point in time being the equivalent to an Intergalactic Hillbilly, is in a situation where his one strength is needed. As Luke states, he'd spent his time taking pot shots at rats on his planets, and was thus a 'crack shot'. To summarize Luke is able to take out the death star after being made well aware of the force, after making a number of fuck ups throughout the film, with the support of Han Solo protecting him, guided by the ghost of Obi Wan who has become one with the force, in a situation that uniquely applies to the one thing he's good at piloting in tight spaces and that he's spent his whole life training for, with a single 'pot shot' guided by the force using all his willpower. Ren is able to use the force minutes after seeing it, against the strongest foe in her film also a trained force user , is able to use the force on the storm trooper, and is able to use the force to bring Luke's sabre to her. She also uses the force to beat Kylo Ren a man with years of experience with the force trained by both a Jedi Master and a Sithlord. Merely a few hours after being made aware of the force. 3, In Episode Four, Luke's only strength is as a pilot . It takes him another film to be able to bring his sabre to him. He gets destroyed by Vader when he goes to fight him. Luke routinely fails at things, takes years of training, is the 'one to bring balance to the force', and still isn't able to defeat Vader. So that's my reasoning. I see a lot of stuff about people being sexist I don't care that she's a woman. I also see a lot of articles vitriolically stating you have to be some sort of monster to think this. I don't get it. To stave off the inevitable Finn comparison Kylo Ren was clearly toying with Finn, swinging and brandishing his sabre to show off, and quite easily takes him out. It isn't the same situation. So yeah, ?","Rey is a Mary Sue, Luke is not a Gary Stu"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be more specific, I understand why we would need to list other human beings as 'Male' and 'Female' when it comes to reproduction, or accepted biological differences such as increased testosterone and estrogen. My main problem lies in this idea that there are a correct 'Feminine' and 'Masculine' behaviours that we should or shouldn't exhibit especially considering how much we've progressed in society now. As an example, there are many stereotypes that are often attributed to different genders, such as Men are not in touch with their feelings, or women don't play computer games. Personally I think any such things are mainly determined by our society and, therefore, are archaic and outdated. I think it is possible for a man to be far more intouch with his emotions than some women. So we shouldn't define characteristics in this way. EDIT Well I didn't expect this many responses, I want to thank everyone for the effort in getting back to me. I believe my question should maybe have been phrased a little differently but, if I was to do so, I'd have a pretty obvious answer. Special thanks to Dr Wreck and NefariousMagpie, I enjoyed their conversation a lot<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be more specific, I understand why we would need to list other human beings as 'Male' and 'Female' when it comes to reproduction, or accepted biological differences such as increased testosterone and estrogen. My main problem lies in this idea that there are a correct 'Feminine' and 'Masculine' behaviours that we should or shouldn't exhibit especially considering how much we've progressed in society now. As an example, there are many stereotypes that are often attributed to different genders, such as Men are not in touch with their feelings, or women don't play computer games. Personally I think any such things are mainly determined by our society and, therefore, are archaic and outdated. I think it is possible for a man to be far more intouch with his emotions than some women. So we shouldn't define characteristics in this way. EDIT Well I didn't expect this many responses, I want to thank everyone for the effort in getting back to me. I believe my question should maybe have been phrased a little differently but, if I was to do so, I'd have a pretty obvious answer. Special thanks to Dr Wreck and NefariousMagpie, I enjoyed their conversation a lot<|TARGETS|>To be more specific, to be far more intouch with his emotions than some women ., to thank everyone for the effort in getting back to me ., a correct ' Feminine ' and ' Masculine ' behaviours that we should or should n't exhibit<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be more specific, I understand why we would need to list other human beings as 'Male' and 'Female' when it comes to reproduction, or accepted biological differences such as increased testosterone and estrogen. My main problem lies in this idea that there are a correct 'Feminine' and 'Masculine' behaviours that we should or shouldn't exhibit especially considering how much we've progressed in society now. As an example, there are many stereotypes that are often attributed to different genders, such as Men are not in touch with their feelings, or women don't play computer games. Personally I think any such things are mainly determined by our society and, therefore, are archaic and outdated. I think it is possible for a man to be far more intouch with his emotions than some women. So we shouldn't define characteristics in this way. EDIT Well I didn't expect this many responses, I want to thank everyone for the effort in getting back to me. I believe my question should maybe have been phrased a little differently but, if I was to do so, I'd have a pretty obvious answer. Special thanks to Dr Wreck and NefariousMagpie, I enjoyed their conversation a lot<|ASPECTS|>, society, effort, feelings, emotions, stereotypes, obvious answer, games, progressed, behaviours, archaic, outdated, biological differences, characteristics, conversation, reproduction, correct<|CONCLUSION|>","To be more specific, I understand why we would need to list other human beings as 'Male' and 'Female' when it comes to reproduction, or accepted biological differences such as increased testosterone and estrogen. My main problem lies in this idea that there are a correct 'Feminine' and 'Masculine' behaviours that we should or shouldn't exhibit especially considering how much we've progressed in society now. As an example, there are many stereotypes that are often attributed to different genders, such as Men are not in touch with their feelings, or women don't play computer games. Personally I think any such things are mainly determined by our society and, therefore, are archaic and outdated. I think it is possible for a man to be far more intouch with his emotions than some women. So we shouldn't define characteristics in this way. EDIT Well I didn't expect this many responses, I want to thank everyone for the effort in getting back to me. I believe my question should maybe have been phrased a little differently but, if I was to do so, I'd have a pretty obvious answer. Special thanks to Dr Wreck and NefariousMagpie, I enjoyed their conversation a lot","I believe that, besides basic biological differences, such as reproduction, there isn't really any need for a gender definitions such as 'Masculinity/Femininity'"
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have several arguments as to why I believe the movement to replace the electoral college is misguided. The core tenet is that the main actors at play in the U.S political system are the reason why the EC generates negative impacts and those actors will still exist in a direct popular vote count. To expect their nefarious outcomes to change in a world where the vote counting method changes is somewhat silly. Two party machine The two party machine in the U.S is the precursor to any discussion of swing states. The reason why there are only a few swing states is that the two parties have built up reliable enough voting blocks to have their set wall of states mostly in place. Those voting blocks will likely hold in direct popular vote count. Partisan Media The media in my opinion carries large influence in our perception of safe and swing states. The media uses voting data from past elections to sell the narrative that various states are liberal or conservative and voters act in accordance by not voting when they assume their state is safely going against their choice. The direct popular vote count would be analyzed based on voting data from EC elections so the narrative that pushes specific blocks to vote or not will still remain. Urban areas especially those in blue states that have their voting weight diminished in the EC benefit from stronger state and municipal governments than folks in mostly rural states. In fact I would see it as a negative if folks who live in states less dependent on federal policies had equal voting weight to folks who were more dependent on fed policy. The urban voters would be having their cake and eating it too in a direct popular vote which would further infuriate rural voters and polarize the government. A direct popular vote places are larger share of power in the hands of suburban voters than any urban vs rural weighting in the EC can account for. Population data tells us that 15 of the U.S population lives within the city limits of one of the 50 major metros. Expand to includes the metro areas in those 50 cities and you get 80 of the U.S. population. 65 of the U.S. lives in a suburb thus suburban voter interests would decide EVERY popular vote count. This has negative impacts on rural and urban voters since these folks are in the status quo more marginalized socioeconomically than suburban folks. <|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have several arguments as to why I believe the movement to replace the electoral college is misguided. The core tenet is that the main actors at play in the U.S political system are the reason why the EC generates negative impacts and those actors will still exist in a direct popular vote count. To expect their nefarious outcomes to change in a world where the vote counting method changes is somewhat silly. Two party machine The two party machine in the U.S is the precursor to any discussion of swing states. The reason why there are only a few swing states is that the two parties have built up reliable enough voting blocks to have their set wall of states mostly in place. Those voting blocks will likely hold in direct popular vote count. Partisan Media The media in my opinion carries large influence in our perception of safe and swing states. The media uses voting data from past elections to sell the narrative that various states are liberal or conservative and voters act in accordance by not voting when they assume their state is safely going against their choice. The direct popular vote count would be analyzed based on voting data from EC elections so the narrative that pushes specific blocks to vote or not will still remain. Urban areas especially those in blue states that have their voting weight diminished in the EC benefit from stronger state and municipal governments than folks in mostly rural states. In fact I would see it as a negative if folks who live in states less dependent on federal policies had equal voting weight to folks who were more dependent on fed policy. The urban voters would be having their cake and eating it too in a direct popular vote which would further infuriate rural voters and polarize the government. A direct popular vote places are larger share of power in the hands of suburban voters than any urban vs rural weighting in the EC can account for. Population data tells us that 15 of the U.S population lives within the city limits of one of the 50 major metros. Expand to includes the metro areas in those 50 cities and you get 80 of the U.S. population. 65 of the U.S. lives in a suburb thus suburban voter interests would decide EVERY popular vote count. This has negative impacts on rural and urban voters since these folks are in the status quo more marginalized socioeconomically than suburban folks. <|TARGETS|>A direct popular vote places, The core tenet, To expect their nefarious outcomes to change in a world where the vote counting method changes, Two party machine The two party machine in the U.S, the main actors at play in the U.S political system, The urban voters<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have several arguments as to why I believe the movement to replace the electoral college is misguided. The core tenet is that the main actors at play in the U.S political system are the reason why the EC generates negative impacts and those actors will still exist in a direct popular vote count. To expect their nefarious outcomes to change in a world where the vote counting method changes is somewhat silly. Two party machine The two party machine in the U.S is the precursor to any discussion of swing states. The reason why there are only a few swing states is that the two parties have built up reliable enough voting blocks to have their set wall of states mostly in place. Those voting blocks will likely hold in direct popular vote count. Partisan Media The media in my opinion carries large influence in our perception of safe and swing states. The media uses voting data from past elections to sell the narrative that various states are liberal or conservative and voters act in accordance by not voting when they assume their state is safely going against their choice. The direct popular vote count would be analyzed based on voting data from EC elections so the narrative that pushes specific blocks to vote or not will still remain. Urban areas especially those in blue states that have their voting weight diminished in the EC benefit from stronger state and municipal governments than folks in mostly rural states. In fact I would see it as a negative if folks who live in states less dependent on federal policies had equal voting weight to folks who were more dependent on fed policy. The urban voters would be having their cake and eating it too in a direct popular vote which would further infuriate rural voters and polarize the government. A direct popular vote places are larger share of power in the hands of suburban voters than any urban vs rural weighting in the EC can account for. Population data tells us that 15 of the U.S population lives within the city limits of one of the 50 major metros. Expand to includes the metro areas in those 50 cities and you get 80 of the U.S. population. 65 of the U.S. lives in a suburb thus suburban voter interests would decide EVERY popular vote count. This has negative impacts on rural and urban voters since these folks are in the status quo more marginalized socioeconomically than suburban folks. <|ASPECTS|>population, suburban voters, suburban, popular vote count, wall of states, liberal, swing states, safely, conservative, safe and swing states, share of power, misguided, act, accordance, blocks, equal, choice, negative impacts, u.s. population, direct, reliable enough voting blocks, urban voters, perception, policy, u.s, metro areas, voting data, stronger state and municipal governments, voting weight diminished, direct popular vote count, nefarious outcomes, infuriate rural voters, marginalized socioeconomically, voter interests, population lives, vote counting, electoral college, polarize the government, limits, voting weight, rural<|CONCLUSION|>",I have several arguments as to why I believe the movement to replace the electoral college is misguided. The core tenet is that the main actors at play in the U.S political system are the reason why the EC generates negative impacts and those actors will still exist in a direct popular vote count. To expect their nefarious outcomes to change in a world where the vote counting method changes is somewhat silly. Two party machine The two party machine in the U.S is the precursor to any discussion of swing states. The reason why there are only a few swing states is that the two parties have built up reliable enough voting blocks to have their set wall of states mostly in place. Those voting blocks will likely hold in direct popular vote count. Partisan Media The media in my opinion carries large influence in our perception of safe and swing states. The media uses voting data from past elections to sell the narrative that various states are liberal or conservative and voters act in accordance by not voting when they assume their state is safely going against their choice. The direct popular vote count would be analyzed based on voting data from EC elections so the narrative that pushes specific blocks to vote or not will still remain. Urban areas especially those in blue states that have their voting weight diminished in the EC benefit from stronger state and municipal governments than folks in mostly rural states. In fact I would see it as a negative if folks who live in states less dependent on federal policies had equal voting weight to folks who were more dependent on fed policy. The urban voters would be having their cake and eating it too in a direct popular vote which would further infuriate rural voters and polarize the government. A direct popular vote places are larger share of power in the hands of suburban voters than any urban vs rural weighting in the EC can account for. Population data tells us that 15 of the U.S population lives within the city limits of one of the 50 major metros. Expand to includes the metro areas in those 50 cities and you get 80 of the U.S. population. 65 of the U.S. lives in a suburb thus suburban voter interests would decide EVERY popular vote count. This has negative impacts on rural and urban voters since these folks are in the status quo more marginalized socioeconomically than suburban folks.,Arguments to dump the Electoral College are seriously misguided
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have noticed that a lot of people use emotional support dogs to help them deal with anxiety, depression, addictions etc. Some people will say their dog helps them for essential things like getting up in the morning or being reminded to take pills, or to alert them to the fact that there is pollution in the air for those with asthma . While those are all great uses of a service dog, those issues can be managed in other ways setting an alarm, avoiding places with smoke, getting counseling etc. . And while I don't doubt that dogs can provide great mental relief, they should just be called a pet, not a service animal, if they are not assisting with essential PHYSICAL functions i.e. replacing one's sight or hearing . So only those with an actual impairment to one of their bodily senses should call their dogs service dogs. To be clear this is close to the ADA standard but even more stringent. As someone whose cat has provided me mental relief, I don't refer to him as my service or emotional support animal. He's just a cat, that helps me through life. I wouldn't conflate his purpose with that of a seeing dog.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have noticed that a lot of people use emotional support dogs to help them deal with anxiety, depression, addictions etc. Some people will say their dog helps them for essential things like getting up in the morning or being reminded to take pills, or to alert them to the fact that there is pollution in the air for those with asthma . While those are all great uses of a service dog, those issues can be managed in other ways setting an alarm, avoiding places with smoke, getting counseling etc. . And while I don't doubt that dogs can provide great mental relief, they should just be called a pet, not a service animal, if they are not assisting with essential PHYSICAL functions i.e. replacing one's sight or hearing . So only those with an actual impairment to one of their bodily senses should call their dogs service dogs. To be clear this is close to the ADA standard but even more stringent. As someone whose cat has provided me mental relief, I don't refer to him as my service or emotional support animal. He's just a cat, that helps me through life. I wouldn't conflate his purpose with that of a seeing dog.<|TARGETS|>getting up in the morning or being reminded to take pills, the ADA standard, replacing one 's sight or hearing, an actual impairment to one of their bodily senses, that a lot of people use emotional support dogs to help them deal with anxiety depression addictions, n't refer to him as my service or emotional support animal .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have noticed that a lot of people use emotional support dogs to help them deal with anxiety, depression, addictions etc. Some people will say their dog helps them for essential things like getting up in the morning or being reminded to take pills, or to alert them to the fact that there is pollution in the air for those with asthma . While those are all great uses of a service dog, those issues can be managed in other ways setting an alarm, avoiding places with smoke, getting counseling etc. . And while I don't doubt that dogs can provide great mental relief, they should just be called a pet, not a service animal, if they are not assisting with essential PHYSICAL functions i.e. replacing one's sight or hearing . So only those with an actual impairment to one of their bodily senses should call their dogs service dogs. To be clear this is close to the ADA standard but even more stringent. As someone whose cat has provided me mental relief, I don't refer to him as my service or emotional support animal. He's just a cat, that helps me through life. I wouldn't conflate his purpose with that of a seeing dog.<|ASPECTS|>depression, emotional support animal, ada standard, alarm, managed, emotional support, seeing dog, avoiding, life, stringent, sight or hearing, impairment, senses, service, pollution in the air, mental relief, helps, anxiety, addictions, service dogs, essential, counseling, purpose, issues<|CONCLUSION|>","I have noticed that a lot of people use emotional support dogs to help them deal with anxiety, depression, addictions etc. Some people will say their dog helps them for essential things like getting up in the morning or being reminded to take pills, or to alert them to the fact that there is pollution in the air for those with asthma . While those are all great uses of a service dog, those issues can be managed in other ways setting an alarm, avoiding places with smoke, getting counseling etc. . And while I don't doubt that dogs can provide great mental relief, they should just be called a pet, not a service animal, if they are not assisting with essential PHYSICAL functions i.e. replacing one's sight or hearing . So only those with an actual impairment to one of their bodily senses should call their dogs service dogs. To be clear this is close to the ADA standard but even more stringent. As someone whose cat has provided me mental relief, I don't refer to him as my service or emotional support animal. He's just a cat, that helps me through life. I wouldn't conflate his purpose with that of a seeing dog.","Service dogs should only be allowed for blind/deaf people, not for mental health/anxiety/reminder to take pills, emotional support etc."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Data comes from If the above data is correct, given that Obama beat Romney, according to the above Trump out performed Romney by 11 of Asian voters, 8 of Hispanic Latino voters, 7 of black voters and only 1 of other, white voters. Wouldn't this indicate that the difference between Obama Clinton vs Romney Trump was primarily in the non white vote? The simplest negation to this I could think of would be a sufficient disparity of voter turn out between white, and non white voters changing between 2012 and 2016, certainly there is some reason to believe that attempts at party specific voter suppression have been made however at the moment I have been unable to find hard data on the success of said measures, and most of the measures I have seen are identified as targeting minorities primarily and thus democrats disproportionately as minority vote is disproportionately in favour of Democratic candidates . Which would predict a lower minority turnout, but not a higher of the minority vote that did turn out supporting the republican candidate which is reported by the initial article. So, I am left with the position that the data I have largest change between Obama and Trump was the non white vote is contradictory to the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote , something is amiss, so for now I hold the position the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote is incorrect, change my view. Edit The numbers I indicated 1 , 7 , 8 11 are misleading or at least I had misread them , they are net change for the democrats and thus include votes for a third party so more accurately Trump got 1 less of the white vote 0.2 change instead of the 1 I indicated Trump got 2 more of the black vote 33 change instead of the 7 I indicated Trump got 2 more of the Latino Hispanic vote 7.4 change instead of the 8 I indicated Trump got 3 more of the Asian vote 11.5 change instead of the 11 I indicated woot I accidently got one right I think that actually strengthens my point though as Trump got less of the white vote according to the data than Romney. Second Edit I will probably be slower to respond now, I have just learned we lost Leonard Cohen today. Fuck 2016.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Data comes from If the above data is correct, given that Obama beat Romney, according to the above Trump out performed Romney by 11 of Asian voters, 8 of Hispanic Latino voters, 7 of black voters and only 1 of other, white voters. Wouldn't this indicate that the difference between Obama Clinton vs Romney Trump was primarily in the non white vote? The simplest negation to this I could think of would be a sufficient disparity of voter turn out between white, and non white voters changing between 2012 and 2016, certainly there is some reason to believe that attempts at party specific voter suppression have been made however at the moment I have been unable to find hard data on the success of said measures, and most of the measures I have seen are identified as targeting minorities primarily and thus democrats disproportionately as minority vote is disproportionately in favour of Democratic candidates . Which would predict a lower minority turnout, but not a higher of the minority vote that did turn out supporting the republican candidate which is reported by the initial article. So, I am left with the position that the data I have largest change between Obama and Trump was the non white vote is contradictory to the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote , something is amiss, so for now I hold the position the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote is incorrect, change my view. Edit The numbers I indicated 1 , 7 , 8 11 are misleading or at least I had misread them , they are net change for the democrats and thus include votes for a third party so more accurately Trump got 1 less of the white vote 0.2 change instead of the 1 I indicated Trump got 2 more of the black vote 33 change instead of the 7 I indicated Trump got 2 more of the Latino Hispanic vote 7.4 change instead of the 8 I indicated Trump got 3 more of the Asian vote 11.5 change instead of the 11 I indicated woot I accidently got one right I think that actually strengthens my point though as Trump got less of the white vote according to the data than Romney. Second Edit I will probably be slower to respond now, I have just learned we lost Leonard Cohen today. Fuck 2016.<|TARGETS|>the position the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote, a sufficient disparity of voter turn out between white and non white voters changing between 2012 and 2016, Leonard Cohen today ., to find hard data on the success of said measures and most of the measures I have seen are identified as targeting minorities primarily and thus democrats disproportionately as minority vote, the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote, Obama Clinton vs Romney Trump<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Data comes from If the above data is correct, given that Obama beat Romney, according to the above Trump out performed Romney by 11 of Asian voters, 8 of Hispanic Latino voters, 7 of black voters and only 1 of other, white voters. Wouldn't this indicate that the difference between Obama Clinton vs Romney Trump was primarily in the non white vote? The simplest negation to this I could think of would be a sufficient disparity of voter turn out between white, and non white voters changing between 2012 and 2016, certainly there is some reason to believe that attempts at party specific voter suppression have been made however at the moment I have been unable to find hard data on the success of said measures, and most of the measures I have seen are identified as targeting minorities primarily and thus democrats disproportionately as minority vote is disproportionately in favour of Democratic candidates . Which would predict a lower minority turnout, but not a higher of the minority vote that did turn out supporting the republican candidate which is reported by the initial article. So, I am left with the position that the data I have largest change between Obama and Trump was the non white vote is contradictory to the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote , something is amiss, so for now I hold the position the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote is incorrect, change my view. Edit The numbers I indicated 1 , 7 , 8 11 are misleading or at least I had misread them , they are net change for the democrats and thus include votes for a third party so more accurately Trump got 1 less of the white vote 0.2 change instead of the 1 I indicated Trump got 2 more of the black vote 33 change instead of the 7 I indicated Trump got 2 more of the Latino Hispanic vote 7.4 change instead of the 8 I indicated Trump got 3 more of the Asian vote 11.5 change instead of the 11 I indicated woot I accidently got one right I think that actually strengthens my point though as Trump got less of the white vote according to the data than Romney. Second Edit I will probably be slower to respond now, I have just learned we lost Leonard Cohen today. Fuck 2016.<|ASPECTS|>lost, hispanic, leonard cohen, lower, voter suppression, black, targeting minorities, white, minority vote, specific, net change, non white vote, minority turnout, slower to respond, disparity of voter turn, white vote<|CONCLUSION|>","Data comes from If the above data is correct, given that Obama beat Romney, according to the above Trump out performed Romney by 11 of Asian voters, 8 of Hispanic Latino voters, 7 of black voters and only 1 of other, white voters. Wouldn't this indicate that the difference between Obama Clinton vs Romney Trump was primarily in the non white vote? The simplest negation to this I could think of would be a sufficient disparity of voter turn out between white, and non white voters changing between 2012 and 2016, certainly there is some reason to believe that attempts at party specific voter suppression have been made however at the moment I have been unable to find hard data on the success of said measures, and most of the measures I have seen are identified as targeting minorities primarily and thus democrats disproportionately as minority vote is disproportionately in favour of Democratic candidates . Which would predict a lower minority turnout, but not a higher of the minority vote that did turn out supporting the republican candidate which is reported by the initial article. So, I am left with the position that the data I have largest change between Obama and Trump was the non white vote is contradictory to the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote , something is amiss, so for now I hold the position the discussion I hear Trump won because of the white vote is incorrect, change my view. Edit The numbers I indicated 1 , 7 , 8 11 are misleading or at least I had misread them , they are net change for the democrats and thus include votes for a third party so more accurately Trump got 1 less of the white vote 0.2 change instead of the 1 I indicated Trump got 2 more of the black vote 33 change instead of the 7 I indicated Trump got 2 more of the Latino Hispanic vote 7.4 change instead of the 8 I indicated Trump got 3 more of the Asian vote 11.5 change instead of the 11 I indicated woot I accidently got one right I think that actually strengthens my point though as Trump got less of the white vote according to the data than Romney. Second Edit I will probably be slower to respond now, I have just learned we lost Leonard Cohen today. Fuck 2016.","Non-white voters, were the primary difference in this election going Trump over Clinton."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Since I live in a household with a very singular view on the subject my current view is liable to be extremely biased, but I am pushed to ask the question here because all research I have done has done nothing to help me understand it. I don't understand the cause and effect of inequality. Every time I have looked it up, it has been described in terms I find to be sort of indirect, but I get the gist that the unequal distribution of wealth leads to all sorts of problems in the economy and the welfare of people in general. What I don't get is when people compare the United States to Third World Countries and say they are on the same level in terms of income inequality and we should be ashamed. That seems nonsensical to me, because the overall standard of living in the United States is way better than those countries. I also don't understand how income inequality causes all the things it is listed as causing. Does the difference in wealth between the rich and poor really cause people to behave differently, or when people refer to income inequality are they actually talking about poverty? It is probably ignorant, but I have a hard time understanding why the difference between the most and least wealthy has an effect on anything, rather than just the standard of living of the least wealthy on its own. In addition, I do not agree with the idea of wealth redistribution as a solution. The top 10 already pay a hugely disproportionate part of the taxes in America, and it seems like taxing them more would only cause them to be more clever about avoiding taxes or just simply taking their business elsewhere. Note Reading some of the things that appear on this site, I understand that many of you will think this question I have as just a passive aggressive attack on liberal thought, but I assure you that I am asking in an effort to better myself and to gain a better understanding of the issue. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Since I live in a household with a very singular view on the subject my current view is liable to be extremely biased, but I am pushed to ask the question here because all research I have done has done nothing to help me understand it. I don't understand the cause and effect of inequality. Every time I have looked it up, it has been described in terms I find to be sort of indirect, but I get the gist that the unequal distribution of wealth leads to all sorts of problems in the economy and the welfare of people in general. What I don't get is when people compare the United States to Third World Countries and say they are on the same level in terms of income inequality and we should be ashamed. That seems nonsensical to me, because the overall standard of living in the United States is way better than those countries. I also don't understand how income inequality causes all the things it is listed as causing. Does the difference in wealth between the rich and poor really cause people to behave differently, or when people refer to income inequality are they actually talking about poverty? It is probably ignorant, but I have a hard time understanding why the difference between the most and least wealthy has an effect on anything, rather than just the standard of living of the least wealthy on its own. In addition, I do not agree with the idea of wealth redistribution as a solution. The top 10 already pay a hugely disproportionate part of the taxes in America, and it seems like taxing them more would only cause them to be more clever about avoiding taxes or just simply taking their business elsewhere. Note Reading some of the things that appear on this site, I understand that many of you will think this question I have as just a passive aggressive attack on liberal thought, but I assure you that I am asking in an effort to better myself and to gain a better understanding of the issue. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>a passive aggressive attack on liberal thought, to be more clever about avoiding taxes or just simply taking their business elsewhere ., I live in a household with a very singular view on the subject my current view, Does the difference in wealth between the rich and poor really cause people to behave differently or when people refer to income inequality are they actually talking about poverty, pushed to ask the question here because all research I have done, the idea of wealth redistribution<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Since I live in a household with a very singular view on the subject my current view is liable to be extremely biased, but I am pushed to ask the question here because all research I have done has done nothing to help me understand it. I don't understand the cause and effect of inequality. Every time I have looked it up, it has been described in terms I find to be sort of indirect, but I get the gist that the unequal distribution of wealth leads to all sorts of problems in the economy and the welfare of people in general. What I don't get is when people compare the United States to Third World Countries and say they are on the same level in terms of income inequality and we should be ashamed. That seems nonsensical to me, because the overall standard of living in the United States is way better than those countries. I also don't understand how income inequality causes all the things it is listed as causing. Does the difference in wealth between the rich and poor really cause people to behave differently, or when people refer to income inequality are they actually talking about poverty? It is probably ignorant, but I have a hard time understanding why the difference between the most and least wealthy has an effect on anything, rather than just the standard of living of the least wealthy on its own. In addition, I do not agree with the idea of wealth redistribution as a solution. The top 10 already pay a hugely disproportionate part of the taxes in America, and it seems like taxing them more would only cause them to be more clever about avoiding taxes or just simply taking their business elsewhere. Note Reading some of the things that appear on this site, I understand that many of you will think this question I have as just a passive aggressive attack on liberal thought, but I assure you that I am asking in an effort to better myself and to gain a better understanding of the issue. gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>clever, passive aggressive attack, taxing, liberal thought, problems, income inequality, remind, least wealthy, popular topics, standard of living, wealth redistribution, disproportionate, wealth, cause, avoiding taxes, taxes, concerns, unequal distribution of wealth, understanding, effective, downvotes, happy cmving, biased, behave differently, inequality, ashamed, message us, change, downvote, better, welfare of people, questions, poverty, ignorant<|CONCLUSION|>","Since I live in a household with a very singular view on the subject my current view is liable to be extremely biased, but I am pushed to ask the question here because all research I have done has done nothing to help me understand it. I don't understand the cause and effect of inequality. Every time I have looked it up, it has been described in terms I find to be sort of indirect, but I get the gist that the unequal distribution of wealth leads to all sorts of problems in the economy and the welfare of people in general. What I don't get is when people compare the United States to Third World Countries and say they are on the same level in terms of income inequality and we should be ashamed. That seems nonsensical to me, because the overall standard of living in the United States is way better than those countries. I also don't understand how income inequality causes all the things it is listed as causing. Does the difference in wealth between the rich and poor really cause people to behave differently, or when people refer to income inequality are they actually talking about poverty? It is probably ignorant, but I have a hard time understanding why the difference between the most and least wealthy has an effect on anything, rather than just the standard of living of the least wealthy on its own. In addition, I do not agree with the idea of wealth redistribution as a solution. The top 10 already pay a hugely disproportionate part of the taxes in America, and it seems like taxing them more would only cause them to be more clever about avoiding taxes or just simply taking their business elsewhere. Note Reading some of the things that appear on this site, I understand that many of you will think this question I have as just a passive aggressive attack on liberal thought, but I assure you that I am asking in an effort to better myself and to gain a better understanding of the issue. gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing",I don't understand the issue of income inequality.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I graduated last year with a BS in mechanical engineering from a respectable school, and am working in the aerospace industry in a position I enjoy. I was recently admitted into the same school for their master's of mechanical engineering program. Since I am relatively fresh out of college, I place higher value on industry work experience than I do higher education, and therefore if I were to go back to school, it would be with full time work, and one, possibly two, online classes a quarter. With that, I would finish in 3 4 years after the ~ 40k price tag. My dilemma is I am already in my preferred industry, so although a masters would allow me to specialize and I'm unsure what specialty I would choose , it has seemingly intangible value at this point. Coupled with not having much of a life outside of work and school for the rest of my 20s, I am concerned that I won't have time for anything else e.g. travel, hobbies, family, etc. . It seems like a risky investment, can you convince me otherwise?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I graduated last year with a BS in mechanical engineering from a respectable school, and am working in the aerospace industry in a position I enjoy. I was recently admitted into the same school for their master's of mechanical engineering program. Since I am relatively fresh out of college, I place higher value on industry work experience than I do higher education, and therefore if I were to go back to school, it would be with full time work, and one, possibly two, online classes a quarter. With that, I would finish in 3 4 years after the ~ 40k price tag. My dilemma is I am already in my preferred industry, so although a masters would allow me to specialize and I'm unsure what specialty I would choose , it has seemingly intangible value at this point. Coupled with not having much of a life outside of work and school for the rest of my 20s, I am concerned that I won't have time for anything else e.g. travel, hobbies, family, etc. . It seems like a risky investment, can you convince me otherwise?<|TARGETS|>a masters would allow me to specialize and I 'm unsure what specialty I would choose it has seemingly intangible value at this point ., having much of a life outside of work and school for the rest of my 20s, the same school for their master 's of mechanical engineering program, wo n't have time for anything else e.g ., to go back to school<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I graduated last year with a BS in mechanical engineering from a respectable school, and am working in the aerospace industry in a position I enjoy. I was recently admitted into the same school for their master's of mechanical engineering program. Since I am relatively fresh out of college, I place higher value on industry work experience than I do higher education, and therefore if I were to go back to school, it would be with full time work, and one, possibly two, online classes a quarter. With that, I would finish in 3 4 years after the ~ 40k price tag. My dilemma is I am already in my preferred industry, so although a masters would allow me to specialize and I'm unsure what specialty I would choose , it has seemingly intangible value at this point. Coupled with not having much of a life outside of work and school for the rest of my 20s, I am concerned that I won't have time for anything else e.g. travel, hobbies, family, etc. . It seems like a risky investment, can you convince me otherwise?<|ASPECTS|>school, family, value, hobbies, risky investment, mechanical, price tag, industry work experience, online classes, aerospace, full time work, life, intangible value, travel, work, time, preferred industry<|CONCLUSION|>","I graduated last year with a BS in mechanical engineering from a respectable school, and am working in the aerospace industry in a position I enjoy. I was recently admitted into the same school for their master's of mechanical engineering program. Since I am relatively fresh out of college, I place higher value on industry work experience than I do higher education, and therefore if I were to go back to school, it would be with full time work, and one, possibly two, online classes a quarter. With that, I would finish in 3 4 years after the ~ 40k price tag. My dilemma is I am already in my preferred industry, so although a masters would allow me to specialize and I'm unsure what specialty I would choose , it has seemingly intangible value at this point. Coupled with not having much of a life outside of work and school for the rest of my 20s, I am concerned that I won't have time for anything else e.g. travel, hobbies, family, etc. . It seems like a risky investment, can you convince me otherwise?",earning a master's degree in engineering is not worth the time and effort if I am already in the field I desire.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Depending on personality type, I think most agree that the closer you are to the middle of the table, the more involved you are in the situation and the more enjoyable it is, being as if you are on the end of the table you are limited to who you can talk to. Whenever I go out to eat with a group of 6 or more friends has to be more than 4 to have a 'middle' of the table seat , my best friend always comments if I choose the middle seat first, if I am first to the table. Its not a jab or an argument, i think it just gets under his skin. He usually just sits on an end or close to the end. I personally think nothing is wrong with this. I subconsciously gauge how comfortable I am in the given group and if I am comfortable with talking to everyone in the group I will choose the middle most seat if I am first presented the opportunity to do so. If someone else gets the middle seat I don't think twice about it and just fill in starting from the middle out. I don't feel as if i am just seeking the limelight because I have no problem sitting on the very end of the table either. There's some situations where I won't take the middle seat, for instance with family or if I am eating with people I'm not that acquainted with. To me it's just like calling shotgun to sit in the passenger seat of a car. I just consider it first come first serve. Edit Let's assume the example is a completely accessible table from all sides and everyone gets along with everyone and there isn't any emphasis on a specific person or persons at the table event. There are obvious situations where it would be conceited to sit in the middle if you're being an inconvenience to others or splitting up people that are only comfortable around each other. Im very conscious of these things.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Depending on personality type, I think most agree that the closer you are to the middle of the table, the more involved you are in the situation and the more enjoyable it is, being as if you are on the end of the table you are limited to who you can talk to. Whenever I go out to eat with a group of 6 or more friends has to be more than 4 to have a 'middle' of the table seat , my best friend always comments if I choose the middle seat first, if I am first to the table. Its not a jab or an argument, i think it just gets under his skin. He usually just sits on an end or close to the end. I personally think nothing is wrong with this. I subconsciously gauge how comfortable I am in the given group and if I am comfortable with talking to everyone in the group I will choose the middle most seat if I am first presented the opportunity to do so. If someone else gets the middle seat I don't think twice about it and just fill in starting from the middle out. I don't feel as if i am just seeking the limelight because I have no problem sitting on the very end of the table either. There's some situations where I won't take the middle seat, for instance with family or if I am eating with people I'm not that acquainted with. To me it's just like calling shotgun to sit in the passenger seat of a car. I just consider it first come first serve. Edit Let's assume the example is a completely accessible table from all sides and everyone gets along with everyone and there isn't any emphasis on a specific person or persons at the table event. There are obvious situations where it would be conceited to sit in the middle if you're being an inconvenience to others or splitting up people that are only comfortable around each other. Im very conscious of these things.<|TARGETS|>subconsciously gauge how comfortable I am in the given group and if I am comfortable with talking to everyone in the group I will choose the middle most seat if I am first presented the opportunity to do so ., calling shotgun to sit in the passenger seat of a car ., the closer you are to the middle of the table the more involved you are in the situation and the more enjoyable it is being as if you are on the end of the table you are limited to who you can talk to ., If someone else gets the middle seat I do n't think twice about it and just fill in starting from the middle out ., Its not a jab or an argument, seeking the limelight because I have no problem sitting on the very end of the table either .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Depending on personality type, I think most agree that the closer you are to the middle of the table, the more involved you are in the situation and the more enjoyable it is, being as if you are on the end of the table you are limited to who you can talk to. Whenever I go out to eat with a group of 6 or more friends has to be more than 4 to have a 'middle' of the table seat , my best friend always comments if I choose the middle seat first, if I am first to the table. Its not a jab or an argument, i think it just gets under his skin. He usually just sits on an end or close to the end. I personally think nothing is wrong with this. I subconsciously gauge how comfortable I am in the given group and if I am comfortable with talking to everyone in the group I will choose the middle most seat if I am first presented the opportunity to do so. If someone else gets the middle seat I don't think twice about it and just fill in starting from the middle out. I don't feel as if i am just seeking the limelight because I have no problem sitting on the very end of the table either. There's some situations where I won't take the middle seat, for instance with family or if I am eating with people I'm not that acquainted with. To me it's just like calling shotgun to sit in the passenger seat of a car. I just consider it first come first serve. Edit Let's assume the example is a completely accessible table from all sides and everyone gets along with everyone and there isn't any emphasis on a specific person or persons at the table event. There are obvious situations where it would be conceited to sit in the middle if you're being an inconvenience to others or splitting up people that are only comfortable around each other. Im very conscious of these things.<|ASPECTS|>family, limited, middle most seat, enjoyable, conscious, shotgun, middle, comfortable, limelight, involved, nothing is wrong, middle seat, talk, comfortable around, accessible table, personality type, skin, inconvenience to others, seeking, first come first serve<|CONCLUSION|>","Depending on personality type, I think most agree that the closer you are to the middle of the table, the more involved you are in the situation and the more enjoyable it is, being as if you are on the end of the table you are limited to who you can talk to. Whenever I go out to eat with a group of 6 or more friends has to be more than 4 to have a 'middle' of the table seat , my best friend always comments if I choose the middle seat first, if I am first to the table. Its not a jab or an argument, i think it just gets under his skin. He usually just sits on an end or close to the end. I personally think nothing is wrong with this. I subconsciously gauge how comfortable I am in the given group and if I am comfortable with talking to everyone in the group I will choose the middle most seat if I am first presented the opportunity to do so. If someone else gets the middle seat I don't think twice about it and just fill in starting from the middle out. I don't feel as if i am just seeking the limelight because I have no problem sitting on the very end of the table either. There's some situations where I won't take the middle seat, for instance with family or if I am eating with people I'm not that acquainted with. To me it's just like calling shotgun to sit in the passenger seat of a car. I just consider it first come first serve. Edit Let's assume the example is a completely accessible table from all sides and everyone gets along with everyone and there isn't any emphasis on a specific person or persons at the table event. There are obvious situations where it would be conceited to sit in the middle if you're being an inconvenience to others or splitting up people that are only comfortable around each other. Im very conscious of these things.","Given a dining table of 6 or more, whoever is first to the table can choose the middle most seat first."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Background Comedy Central CC announced Trevor Noah, a correspondent on The Daily Show TDS , would replace John Stewart on TDS when John steps down. Initial responses were positive, then a bunch of controversial tweets were noticed, and claims of antisemitism and misogyny have started a now familiar pattern of Internet Outrage. My opinion, that I would like to see if you can CMV This isn't a surprise, it's nothing more or less than CC should expect, given the direction TDS has taken, and its audience. So TDS can't blame anyone but themselves. Note that I am NOT saying the outrage is or is not justified. That's beside the point. I'm just saying it isn't surprising. Ok, here is why I think this isn't a surprise, and why TDS is responsible. A TDS has not been about comedy for a long time now . It's about politics . John uses it as a platform to bash Fox News and to a lesser extent the Republicans and also CNN and Arby's When John has to decide between making something funnier or making his criticism of Fox News more on point he always chooses the latter. I personally dislike Fox News, and happy to see it criticized. But that's not the issue. The issue is that TDS is a political satire show, not a comedy for sake of comedy show. Just to make that clear, look at Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live. Obviously everyone involved there is left leaning, pro gay rights, etc., yet it isn't about politics. Politics are one thing they make fun of. It's the comedy they place as their highest priority. I'm not saying they are or are not funnier than TDS just that the shows' priorities are flipped. Weekend Update jokes about 1,000 other things than politics, and they poke fun every which way even when they are talking about politics. TDS isn't anywhere close to that. On TDS, the message is the point, and the message is a political one. Comedy is the means of making it interesting for the audience. There's nothing wrong with that, of course political satire is very important. But my point so far is that TDS isn't about Comedy, it's about Politics. B Furthermore, TDS has slid to left wing outrage based identity politics . TDS has been very focused on proper PC messaging for a while, from William's and Schaal's feminist pieces on women, to a strong focus on hiring minority people, to Stewart explaining white privilege to that Fox News guy, etc. etc. Not that any of those things are wrong. It's great Stewart worked to get more minorities into CC now both his show and the one after are or will be hosted by funny black guys , and some of them are amazing Aasif Mandvi is my favorite . And it's great that there are pieces on women's issues, but they bring out the same old tired talking points like the 70 cent misrepresentation of the wage gap all the time, with the same biting sarcasm that you hear from feminists on Tumblr and Twitter. And TDS has been using more and more terminology from that political space, like White Privilege , as well as bringing on guests promoting it. Again, I'm not arguing any of those are wrong, nor that TDS is wrong to go that way. It's fine if they want to. But that brings me to my final point C So far I've claimed that TDS is a show about politics, and increasingly outrage driven internet style politics. It's audience is, unsurprisingly, similar those that don't like those politics have simply left . So TDS is watched by people that care more about politics than comedy, and that have very strict rules about what is ok to say and what isn't, for fear of Outrage breaking out and being Shamed. So why is it surprising that those people are Outraged about Trevor Noah's not perfectly politically aligned tweets? It isn't surprising, it's the obvious result. For such an audience, which TDS has either adopted or created, the host has to be first and foremost ok politically. Strong preference for anyone that isn't a white dude that goes without saying but more importantly, that doesn't make jokes about stuff that isn't ok to joke about. Be funny if you can, it's a plus, but first of all don't pick the wrong topics that's how things work for that audience. Am I wrong? Is there anything surprising about this? edit It's Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live, not Weekly Update . Thanks mizz kittay<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Background Comedy Central CC announced Trevor Noah, a correspondent on The Daily Show TDS , would replace John Stewart on TDS when John steps down. Initial responses were positive, then a bunch of controversial tweets were noticed, and claims of antisemitism and misogyny have started a now familiar pattern of Internet Outrage. My opinion, that I would like to see if you can CMV This isn't a surprise, it's nothing more or less than CC should expect, given the direction TDS has taken, and its audience. So TDS can't blame anyone but themselves. Note that I am NOT saying the outrage is or is not justified. That's beside the point. I'm just saying it isn't surprising. Ok, here is why I think this isn't a surprise, and why TDS is responsible. A TDS has not been about comedy for a long time now . It's about politics . John uses it as a platform to bash Fox News and to a lesser extent the Republicans and also CNN and Arby's When John has to decide between making something funnier or making his criticism of Fox News more on point he always chooses the latter. I personally dislike Fox News, and happy to see it criticized. But that's not the issue. The issue is that TDS is a political satire show, not a comedy for sake of comedy show. Just to make that clear, look at Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live. Obviously everyone involved there is left leaning, pro gay rights, etc., yet it isn't about politics. Politics are one thing they make fun of. It's the comedy they place as their highest priority. I'm not saying they are or are not funnier than TDS just that the shows' priorities are flipped. Weekend Update jokes about 1,000 other things than politics, and they poke fun every which way even when they are talking about politics. TDS isn't anywhere close to that. On TDS, the message is the point, and the message is a political one. Comedy is the means of making it interesting for the audience. There's nothing wrong with that, of course political satire is very important. But my point so far is that TDS isn't about Comedy, it's about Politics. B Furthermore, TDS has slid to left wing outrage based identity politics . TDS has been very focused on proper PC messaging for a while, from William's and Schaal's feminist pieces on women, to a strong focus on hiring minority people, to Stewart explaining white privilege to that Fox News guy, etc. etc. Not that any of those things are wrong. It's great Stewart worked to get more minorities into CC now both his show and the one after are or will be hosted by funny black guys , and some of them are amazing Aasif Mandvi is my favorite . And it's great that there are pieces on women's issues, but they bring out the same old tired talking points like the 70 cent misrepresentation of the wage gap all the time, with the same biting sarcasm that you hear from feminists on Tumblr and Twitter. And TDS has been using more and more terminology from that political space, like White Privilege , as well as bringing on guests promoting it. Again, I'm not arguing any of those are wrong, nor that TDS is wrong to go that way. It's fine if they want to. But that brings me to my final point C So far I've claimed that TDS is a show about politics, and increasingly outrage driven internet style politics. It's audience is, unsurprisingly, similar those that don't like those politics have simply left . So TDS is watched by people that care more about politics than comedy, and that have very strict rules about what is ok to say and what isn't, for fear of Outrage breaking out and being Shamed. So why is it surprising that those people are Outraged about Trevor Noah's not perfectly politically aligned tweets? It isn't surprising, it's the obvious result. For such an audience, which TDS has either adopted or created, the host has to be first and foremost ok politically. Strong preference for anyone that isn't a white dude that goes without saying but more importantly, that doesn't make jokes about stuff that isn't ok to joke about. Be funny if you can, it's a plus, but first of all don't pick the wrong topics that's how things work for that audience. Am I wrong? Is there anything surprising about this? edit It's Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live, not Weekly Update . Thanks mizz kittay<|TARGETS|>to get more minorities into CC now both his show and the one after, mizz kittay, the 70 cent misrepresentation of the wage gap all the time with the same biting sarcasm that you hear from feminists on Tumblr and Twitter, Aasif Mandvi, Initial responses, Comedy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Background Comedy Central CC announced Trevor Noah, a correspondent on The Daily Show TDS , would replace John Stewart on TDS when John steps down. Initial responses were positive, then a bunch of controversial tweets were noticed, and claims of antisemitism and misogyny have started a now familiar pattern of Internet Outrage. My opinion, that I would like to see if you can CMV This isn't a surprise, it's nothing more or less than CC should expect, given the direction TDS has taken, and its audience. So TDS can't blame anyone but themselves. Note that I am NOT saying the outrage is or is not justified. That's beside the point. I'm just saying it isn't surprising. Ok, here is why I think this isn't a surprise, and why TDS is responsible. A TDS has not been about comedy for a long time now . It's about politics . John uses it as a platform to bash Fox News and to a lesser extent the Republicans and also CNN and Arby's When John has to decide between making something funnier or making his criticism of Fox News more on point he always chooses the latter. I personally dislike Fox News, and happy to see it criticized. But that's not the issue. The issue is that TDS is a political satire show, not a comedy for sake of comedy show. Just to make that clear, look at Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live. Obviously everyone involved there is left leaning, pro gay rights, etc., yet it isn't about politics. Politics are one thing they make fun of. It's the comedy they place as their highest priority. I'm not saying they are or are not funnier than TDS just that the shows' priorities are flipped. Weekend Update jokes about 1,000 other things than politics, and they poke fun every which way even when they are talking about politics. TDS isn't anywhere close to that. On TDS, the message is the point, and the message is a political one. Comedy is the means of making it interesting for the audience. There's nothing wrong with that, of course political satire is very important. But my point so far is that TDS isn't about Comedy, it's about Politics. B Furthermore, TDS has slid to left wing outrage based identity politics . TDS has been very focused on proper PC messaging for a while, from William's and Schaal's feminist pieces on women, to a strong focus on hiring minority people, to Stewart explaining white privilege to that Fox News guy, etc. etc. Not that any of those things are wrong. It's great Stewart worked to get more minorities into CC now both his show and the one after are or will be hosted by funny black guys , and some of them are amazing Aasif Mandvi is my favorite . And it's great that there are pieces on women's issues, but they bring out the same old tired talking points like the 70 cent misrepresentation of the wage gap all the time, with the same biting sarcasm that you hear from feminists on Tumblr and Twitter. And TDS has been using more and more terminology from that political space, like White Privilege , as well as bringing on guests promoting it. Again, I'm not arguing any of those are wrong, nor that TDS is wrong to go that way. It's fine if they want to. But that brings me to my final point C So far I've claimed that TDS is a show about politics, and increasingly outrage driven internet style politics. It's audience is, unsurprisingly, similar those that don't like those politics have simply left . So TDS is watched by people that care more about politics than comedy, and that have very strict rules about what is ok to say and what isn't, for fear of Outrage breaking out and being Shamed. So why is it surprising that those people are Outraged about Trevor Noah's not perfectly politically aligned tweets? It isn't surprising, it's the obvious result. For such an audience, which TDS has either adopted or created, the host has to be first and foremost ok politically. Strong preference for anyone that isn't a white dude that goes without saying but more importantly, that doesn't make jokes about stuff that isn't ok to joke about. Be funny if you can, it's a plus, but first of all don't pick the wrong topics that's how things work for that audience. Am I wrong? Is there anything surprising about this? edit It's Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live, not Weekly Update . Thanks mizz kittay<|ASPECTS|>fine, priority, wrong, internet outrage, pc messaging, ok politically, terminology, left wing outrage, blame anyone, identity politics, criticized, tds, bash, outrage, audience, cmv, misrepresentation, white privilege, justified, comedy, strict rules, proper, women 's issues, wrong topics, preference, interesting, hiring minority people, responsible, left leaning, misogyny, priorities, poke fun, internet style politics, antisemitism, minorities, politically aligned, outraged, politics, political satire, surprising, outrage driven, political, funnier, obvious result, dislike, gay rights, tired talking points, controversial, wage gap<|CONCLUSION|>","Background Comedy Central CC announced Trevor Noah, a correspondent on The Daily Show TDS , would replace John Stewart on TDS when John steps down. Initial responses were positive, then a bunch of controversial tweets were noticed, and claims of antisemitism and misogyny have started a now familiar pattern of Internet Outrage. My opinion, that I would like to see if you can  This isn't a surprise, it's nothing more or less than CC should expect, given the direction TDS has taken, and its audience. So TDS can't blame anyone but themselves. Note that I am NOT saying the outrage is or is not justified. That's beside the point. I'm just saying it isn't surprising. Ok, here is why I think this isn't a surprise, and why TDS is responsible. A TDS has not been about comedy for a long time now . It's about politics . John uses it as a platform to bash Fox News and to a lesser extent the Republicans and also CNN and Arby's When John has to decide between making something funnier or making his criticism of Fox News more on point he always chooses the latter. I personally dislike Fox News, and happy to see it criticized. But that's not the issue. The issue is that TDS is a political satire show, not a comedy for sake of comedy show. Just to make that clear, look at Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live. Obviously everyone involved there is left leaning, pro gay rights, etc., yet it isn't about politics. Politics are one thing they make fun of. It's the comedy they place as their highest priority. I'm not saying they are or are not funnier than TDS just that the shows' priorities are flipped. Weekend Update jokes about 1,000 other things than politics, and they poke fun every which way even when they are talking about politics. TDS isn't anywhere close to that. On TDS, the message is the point, and the message is a political one. Comedy is the means of making it interesting for the audience. There's nothing wrong with that, of course political satire is very important. But my point so far is that TDS isn't about Comedy, it's about Politics. B Furthermore, TDS has slid to left wing outrage based identity politics . TDS has been very focused on proper PC messaging for a while, from William's and Schaal's feminist pieces on women, to a strong focus on hiring minority people, to Stewart explaining white privilege to that Fox News guy, etc. etc. Not that any of those things are wrong. It's great Stewart worked to get more minorities into CC now both his show and the one after are or will be hosted by funny black guys , and some of them are amazing Aasif Mandvi is my favorite . And it's great that there are pieces on women's issues, but they bring out the same old tired talking points like the 70 cent misrepresentation of the wage gap all the time, with the same biting sarcasm that you hear from feminists on Tumblr and Twitter. And TDS has been using more and more terminology from that political space, like White Privilege , as well as bringing on guests promoting it. Again, I'm not arguing any of those are wrong, nor that TDS is wrong to go that way. It's fine if they want to. But that brings me to my final point C So far I've claimed that TDS is a show about politics, and increasingly outrage driven internet style politics. It's audience is, unsurprisingly, similar those that don't like those politics have simply left . So TDS is watched by people that care more about politics than comedy, and that have very strict rules about what is ok to say and what isn't, for fear of Outrage breaking out and being Shamed. So why is it surprising that those people are Outraged about Trevor Noah's not perfectly politically aligned tweets? It isn't surprising, it's the obvious result. For such an audience, which TDS has either adopted or created, the host has to be first and foremost ok politically. Strong preference for anyone that isn't a white dude that goes without saying but more importantly, that doesn't make jokes about stuff that isn't ok to joke about. Be funny if you can, it's a plus, but first of all don't pick the wrong topics that's how things work for that audience. Am I wrong? Is there anything surprising about this? edit It's Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live, not Weekly Update . Thanks mizz kittay","The Daily Show has only itself to blame for the Trevor Noah ""outrage"""
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Specifically I am thinking of the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to due process, and the right to vote. Right now in Washington there is serious consideration to restrict an individual's Constitutional rights based on being placed on a terrorism watch list. The proposal so far is to restrict them from exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. I believe that if that proposal was to be passed, then it should also restrict all of the other Constitutional rights. If the logic of the proposal is that anyone included on that list is dangerous enough to not be allowed to own a weapon, then they should also be considered to dangerous to be able to speak freely. A single man with a weapon can kill 50 people, but if this person was allowed to spread his philosophy he could be exponentially more dangerous by recruiting others to join his cause. These people should also be denied to freedom to associate assemble due to the danger of them planning a terrorist attack. It almost goes without saying that these people should also be denied their right to vote. Anyone who is dangerous enough to be placed on a terrorism watch list is clearly not someone who should have a voice in the workings of government. And last, since we are restricting Constitutional rights, why beat around the bush about it? If someone is dangerous enough to be on a watch list, then they should lose their 5th amendment right to due process. This is already implicit in the proposal being suggested since there is no due process protection related to the administration of the list. It just makes sense that inclusion on the list should be enough to entirely strip you of that right.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Specifically I am thinking of the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to due process, and the right to vote. Right now in Washington there is serious consideration to restrict an individual's Constitutional rights based on being placed on a terrorism watch list. The proposal so far is to restrict them from exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. I believe that if that proposal was to be passed, then it should also restrict all of the other Constitutional rights. If the logic of the proposal is that anyone included on that list is dangerous enough to not be allowed to own a weapon, then they should also be considered to dangerous to be able to speak freely. A single man with a weapon can kill 50 people, but if this person was allowed to spread his philosophy he could be exponentially more dangerous by recruiting others to join his cause. These people should also be denied to freedom to associate assemble due to the danger of them planning a terrorist attack. It almost goes without saying that these people should also be denied their right to vote. Anyone who is dangerous enough to be placed on a terrorism watch list is clearly not someone who should have a voice in the workings of government. And last, since we are restricting Constitutional rights, why beat around the bush about it? If someone is dangerous enough to be on a watch list, then they should lose their 5th amendment right to due process. This is already implicit in the proposal being suggested since there is no due process protection related to the administration of the list. It just makes sense that inclusion on the list should be enough to entirely strip you of that right.<|TARGETS|>to restrict an individual 's Constitutional rights based on being placed on a terrorism watch list, If someone is dangerous enough to be on a watch list, Anyone who is dangerous enough to be placed on a terrorism watch list, If the logic of the proposal is that anyone included on that list, the right to free speech the right to assemble the right to due process and the right to vote ., be denied to freedom to associate assemble due to the danger of them planning a terrorist attack<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Specifically I am thinking of the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to due process, and the right to vote. Right now in Washington there is serious consideration to restrict an individual's Constitutional rights based on being placed on a terrorism watch list. The proposal so far is to restrict them from exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. I believe that if that proposal was to be passed, then it should also restrict all of the other Constitutional rights. If the logic of the proposal is that anyone included on that list is dangerous enough to not be allowed to own a weapon, then they should also be considered to dangerous to be able to speak freely. A single man with a weapon can kill 50 people, but if this person was allowed to spread his philosophy he could be exponentially more dangerous by recruiting others to join his cause. These people should also be denied to freedom to associate assemble due to the danger of them planning a terrorist attack. It almost goes without saying that these people should also be denied their right to vote. Anyone who is dangerous enough to be placed on a terrorism watch list is clearly not someone who should have a voice in the workings of government. And last, since we are restricting Constitutional rights, why beat around the bush about it? If someone is dangerous enough to be on a watch list, then they should lose their 5th amendment right to due process. This is already implicit in the proposal being suggested since there is no due process protection related to the administration of the list. It just makes sense that inclusion on the list should be enough to entirely strip you of that right.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, restrict, right to keep, 2nd amendment, voice, right to assemble, due process, constitutional rights, kill, right to vote, 5th amendment, speak freely, freedom to associate assemble, terrorist attack, inclusion, denied, right, arms, right to free speech, terrorism, workings of government, right to due process, strip, due process protection<|CONCLUSION|>","Specifically I am thinking of the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to due process, and the right to vote. Right now in Washington there is serious consideration to restrict an individual's Constitutional rights based on being placed on a terrorism watch list. The proposal so far is to restrict them from exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. I believe that if that proposal was to be passed, then it should also restrict all of the other Constitutional rights. If the logic of the proposal is that anyone included on that list is dangerous enough to not be allowed to own a weapon, then they should also be considered to dangerous to be able to speak freely. A single man with a weapon can kill 50 people, but if this person was allowed to spread his philosophy he could be exponentially more dangerous by recruiting others to join his cause. These people should also be denied to freedom to associate assemble due to the danger of them planning a terrorist attack. It almost goes without saying that these people should also be denied their right to vote. Anyone who is dangerous enough to be placed on a terrorism watch list is clearly not someone who should have a voice in the workings of government. And last, since we are restricting Constitutional rights, why beat around the bush about it? If someone is dangerous enough to be on a watch list, then they should lose their 5th amendment right to due process. This is already implicit in the proposal being suggested since there is no due process protection related to the administration of the list. It just makes sense that inclusion on the list should be enough to entirely strip you of that right.","If someone on the terrorism watch list loses their Constitutional right to own a firearm, they should also lose all of their other Constitutional rights."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that until we are free to do what we want to with our own bodies and our own lives we do not have true personal freedom. This belief extends into gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and a lot of other things for me but for the sake of this argument I'm just focusing on drugs. I don't see how it's the government's business to pass laws on what chemicals we put into our own bodies, period. I think if America erased the drug laws, stopped incarcerating people for nonviolent drug offenses, and instituted a focus on a world class drug rehabilitation system we would see a revolution in people's attitudes and habits regarding them. I think what's happening in America with people voting on marijuana decriminalization is a sign that the culture is starting to realize that we need to deal with drug use in a more responsible, educated, and mature way. If you think you can change my views on this I'd love to hear your argument. Ninja grammar edit<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that until we are free to do what we want to with our own bodies and our own lives we do not have true personal freedom. This belief extends into gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and a lot of other things for me but for the sake of this argument I'm just focusing on drugs. I don't see how it's the government's business to pass laws on what chemicals we put into our own bodies, period. I think if America erased the drug laws, stopped incarcerating people for nonviolent drug offenses, and instituted a focus on a world class drug rehabilitation system we would see a revolution in people's attitudes and habits regarding them. I think what's happening in America with people voting on marijuana decriminalization is a sign that the culture is starting to realize that we need to deal with drug use in a more responsible, educated, and mature way. If you think you can change my views on this I'd love to hear your argument. Ninja grammar edit<|TARGETS|>a world class drug rehabilitation system, what 's happening in America with people voting on marijuana decriminalization, the drug laws, If you think you can change my views on this I 'd love to hear your argument ., the government 's business to pass laws on what chemicals we put into our own bodies, free to do what we want to with our own bodies and our own lives we do not have true personal freedom .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that until we are free to do what we want to with our own bodies and our own lives we do not have true personal freedom. This belief extends into gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and a lot of other things for me but for the sake of this argument I'm just focusing on drugs. I don't see how it's the government's business to pass laws on what chemicals we put into our own bodies, period. I think if America erased the drug laws, stopped incarcerating people for nonviolent drug offenses, and instituted a focus on a world class drug rehabilitation system we would see a revolution in people's attitudes and habits regarding them. I think what's happening in America with people voting on marijuana decriminalization is a sign that the culture is starting to realize that we need to deal with drug use in a more responsible, educated, and mature way. If you think you can change my views on this I'd love to hear your argument. Ninja grammar edit<|ASPECTS|>responsible, euthanasia, drug use, 's, pass laws, gay marriage, drug rehabilitation, change my views, personal freedom, drug laws, nonviolent drug offenses, incarcerating people, educated, drugs, attitudes and habits, mature, ninja grammar<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that until we are free to do what we want to with our own bodies and our own lives we do not have true personal freedom. This belief extends into gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and a lot of other things for me but for the sake of this argument I'm just focusing on drugs. I don't see how it's the government's business to pass laws on what chemicals we put into our own bodies, period. I think if America erased the drug laws, stopped incarcerating people for nonviolent drug offenses, and instituted a focus on a world class drug rehabilitation system we would see a revolution in people's attitudes and habits regarding them. I think what's happening in America with people voting on marijuana decriminalization is a sign that the culture is starting to realize that we need to deal with drug use in a more responsible, educated, and mature way. If you think you can change my views on this I'd love to hear your argument. Ninja grammar edit","I believe that all drugs should be legal,"
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Music streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music have been rising in popularity over the past few years for a variety of reasons. For a small fee each month, users have access to thousands and thousands of songs and can listen to each one without having to pay more. Instead of purchasing a single album by a single artist for around 10 or 15, that same amount can give you access to thousands of albums by different artists. You have the ability to hear full versions of songs without having to pay for them individually as it is included in your monthly description. Overall, your money goes further on a music streaming platform. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Music streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music have been rising in popularity over the past few years for a variety of reasons. For a small fee each month, users have access to thousands and thousands of songs and can listen to each one without having to pay more. Instead of purchasing a single album by a single artist for around 10 or 15, that same amount can give you access to thousands of albums by different artists. You have the ability to hear full versions of songs without having to pay for them individually as it is included in your monthly description. Overall, your money goes further on a music streaming platform. <|TARGETS|>Music streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music, a music streaming platform, the ability to hear full versions of songs without having to pay for them individually as it is included in your monthly description ., purchasing a single album by a single artist for around 10 or 15 that same amount<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Music streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music have been rising in popularity over the past few years for a variety of reasons. For a small fee each month, users have access to thousands and thousands of songs and can listen to each one without having to pay more. Instead of purchasing a single album by a single artist for around 10 or 15, that same amount can give you access to thousands of albums by different artists. You have the ability to hear full versions of songs without having to pay for them individually as it is included in your monthly description. Overall, your money goes further on a music streaming platform. <|ASPECTS|>pay, listen, thousands of albums, hear full versions of songs, streaming, popularity, songs, different, music streaming, money goes, access<|CONCLUSION|>","Music streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music have been rising in popularity over the past few years for a variety of reasons. For a small fee each month, users have access to thousands and thousands of songs and can listen to each one without having to pay more. Instead of purchasing a single album by a single artist for around 10 or 15, that same amount can give you access to thousands of albums by different artists. You have the ability to hear full versions of songs without having to pay for them individually as it is included in your monthly description. Overall, your money goes further on a music streaming platform.",Paying for a subscription to a music streaming platform is better than purchasing and owning music.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that socialism is better than capitalism. The basis of capitalism is that the hard working have a comfortable life and the non hard workers have a relatively less comfortable life. Sometimes, the people with the less comfortable life work extremely hard only to scrape by. In socialism, every single person has a relatively equal income. I'm not talking about Communism in which there is no currency or ownership, but a market in which everyone is free to spend but the poor are uplifted and the rich are taxed. According to capitalists, socialism corrupts. Under socialism, ideally everyone should have an equal life, can you please try to CMV and offer good arguments for the benefits of capitalism? EDIT Thank you for all your answers and apologies for not being so clear. You have all definitely showed me the pros to capitalism, and helped me remove the connotation of socialism to a perfectly equal society.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that socialism is better than capitalism. The basis of capitalism is that the hard working have a comfortable life and the non hard workers have a relatively less comfortable life. Sometimes, the people with the less comfortable life work extremely hard only to scrape by. In socialism, every single person has a relatively equal income. I'm not talking about Communism in which there is no currency or ownership, but a market in which everyone is free to spend but the poor are uplifted and the rich are taxed. According to capitalists, socialism corrupts. Under socialism, ideally everyone should have an equal life, can you please try to CMV and offer good arguments for the benefits of capitalism? EDIT Thank you for all your answers and apologies for not being so clear. You have all definitely showed me the pros to capitalism, and helped me remove the connotation of socialism to a perfectly equal society.<|TARGETS|>the pros to capitalism and helped me remove the connotation of socialism to a perfectly equal society ., not talking about Communism in which there is no currency or ownership but a market in which everyone is free to spend but the poor are uplifted and the rich are taxed ., The basis of capitalism, all your answers and apologies for not being so clear .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that socialism is better than capitalism. The basis of capitalism is that the hard working have a comfortable life and the non hard workers have a relatively less comfortable life. Sometimes, the people with the less comfortable life work extremely hard only to scrape by. In socialism, every single person has a relatively equal income. I'm not talking about Communism in which there is no currency or ownership, but a market in which everyone is free to spend but the poor are uplifted and the rich are taxed. According to capitalists, socialism corrupts. Under socialism, ideally everyone should have an equal life, can you please try to CMV and offer good arguments for the benefits of capitalism? EDIT Thank you for all your answers and apologies for not being so clear. You have all definitely showed me the pros to capitalism, and helped me remove the connotation of socialism to a perfectly equal society.<|ASPECTS|>work extremely hard, equal income, comfortable life, capitalism, better than capitalism, equal life, socialism corrupts, communism, socialism, benefits of capitalism, taxed, scrape, ownership, free to spend, poor, rich, equal society, less, currency<|CONCLUSION|>","I believe that socialism is better than capitalism. The basis of capitalism is that the hard working have a comfortable life and the non hard workers have a relatively less comfortable life. Sometimes, the people with the less comfortable life work extremely hard only to scrape by. In socialism, every single person has a relatively equal income. I'm not talking about Communism in which there is no currency or ownership, but a market in which everyone is free to spend but the poor are uplifted and the rich are taxed. According to capitalists, socialism corrupts. Under socialism, ideally everyone should have an equal life, can you please try to  and offer good arguments for the benefits of capitalism? EDIT Thank you for all your answers and apologies for not being so clear. You have all definitely showed me the pros to capitalism, and helped me remove the connotation of socialism to a perfectly equal society.",Socialism is better than Capitalism
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't believe that people can be fat without it being their fault. So I think we should make public places accessible only to healthy sized people. with exceptions for disabled people, I'm not suggesting removing wheelchair ramps or anything of that nature . I'm not referring to the people who could afford to lose a few pounds, I meant the ones who have to adjust tables in restaurant booths so they can squeeze in or who need an electric scooter to get around when their only health issue is their weight. I feel this way because A they're disgusting and B some of these people manage to reproduce and usually pass on the habits and attitudes that led to their situation Edit Its late here, I'm going to bed be back in the afternoon to continue replies discussion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't believe that people can be fat without it being their fault. So I think we should make public places accessible only to healthy sized people. with exceptions for disabled people, I'm not suggesting removing wheelchair ramps or anything of that nature . I'm not referring to the people who could afford to lose a few pounds, I meant the ones who have to adjust tables in restaurant booths so they can squeeze in or who need an electric scooter to get around when their only health issue is their weight. I feel this way because A they're disgusting and B some of these people manage to reproduce and usually pass on the habits and attitudes that led to their situation Edit Its late here, I'm going to bed be back in the afternoon to continue replies discussion<|TARGETS|>not referring to the people who could afford to lose a few pounds, to adjust tables in restaurant booths, removing wheelchair ramps, an electric scooter to get around when their only health issue, make public places accessible only to healthy sized people .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't believe that people can be fat without it being their fault. So I think we should make public places accessible only to healthy sized people. with exceptions for disabled people, I'm not suggesting removing wheelchair ramps or anything of that nature . I'm not referring to the people who could afford to lose a few pounds, I meant the ones who have to adjust tables in restaurant booths so they can squeeze in or who need an electric scooter to get around when their only health issue is their weight. I feel this way because A they're disgusting and B some of these people manage to reproduce and usually pass on the habits and attitudes that led to their situation Edit Its late here, I'm going to bed be back in the afternoon to continue replies discussion<|ASPECTS|>weight, fault, healthy sized people, fat, afford, public places, tables, health issue, reproduce, disgusting, disabled people, wheelchair ramps, habits and attitudes, accessible<|CONCLUSION|>","I don't believe that people can be fat without it being their fault. So I think we should make public places accessible only to healthy sized people. with exceptions for disabled people, I'm not suggesting removing wheelchair ramps or anything of that nature . I'm not referring to the people who could afford to lose a few pounds, I meant the ones who have to adjust tables in restaurant booths so they can squeeze in or who need an electric scooter to get around when their only health issue is their weight. I feel this way because A they're disgusting and B some of these people manage to reproduce and usually pass on the habits and attitudes that led to their situation Edit Its late here, I'm going to bed be back in the afternoon to continue replies discussion",I think that we should discriminate against fat people.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First I would like to state that I am no psychologist. First of all, and most obviously, tulpas bear a resemblance to dissociative identity disorder. DID is recognized as a metal disorder by both the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association. Next. It seems like tulpas are created by people who have undergone a recent trauma, or are seriously introverted. Further reinforcing my conclusion that this fantasy is not a product of a healthy mind. I would like to apologize if I offended anyone, but this is you chance to change my view. To clear up any confusion I am referring to the modern western use of the word tulpa. Not the Buddhist idea, but the seemingly popular internet meme that one can create a sentient person with their mind.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First I would like to state that I am no psychologist. First of all, and most obviously, tulpas bear a resemblance to dissociative identity disorder. DID is recognized as a metal disorder by both the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association. Next. It seems like tulpas are created by people who have undergone a recent trauma, or are seriously introverted. Further reinforcing my conclusion that this fantasy is not a product of a healthy mind. I would like to apologize if I offended anyone, but this is you chance to change my view. To clear up any confusion I am referring to the modern western use of the word tulpa. Not the Buddhist idea, but the seemingly popular internet meme that one can create a sentient person with their mind.<|TARGETS|>To clear up any confusion, the modern western use of the word tulpa, Not the Buddhist idea, to apologize if I offended anyone but this is you chance to change my view ., the seemingly popular internet meme, Further reinforcing my conclusion that this fantasy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First I would like to state that I am no psychologist. First of all, and most obviously, tulpas bear a resemblance to dissociative identity disorder. DID is recognized as a metal disorder by both the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association. Next. It seems like tulpas are created by people who have undergone a recent trauma, or are seriously introverted. Further reinforcing my conclusion that this fantasy is not a product of a healthy mind. I would like to apologize if I offended anyone, but this is you chance to change my view. To clear up any confusion I am referring to the modern western use of the word tulpa. Not the Buddhist idea, but the seemingly popular internet meme that one can create a sentient person with their mind.<|ASPECTS|>recent, confusion, sentient person, change, metal disorder, psychologist, view, offended anyone, healthy mind, dissociative identity disorder, trauma, introverted<|CONCLUSION|>","First I would like to state that I am no psychologist. First of all, and most obviously, tulpas bear a resemblance to dissociative identity disorder. DID is recognized as a metal disorder by both the World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association. Next. It seems like tulpas are created by people who have undergone a recent trauma, or are seriously introverted. Further reinforcing my conclusion that this fantasy is not a product of a healthy mind. I would like to apologize if I offended anyone, but this is you chance to change my view. To clear up any confusion I am referring to the modern western use of the word tulpa. Not the Buddhist idea, but the seemingly popular internet meme that one can create a sentient person with their mind.","I believe that tulpas are ridiculous, and people who believe that they created a sentient imaginary friend need medication."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As much as we want to believe we are individuals, we all compelled to conform to the values of society. When it comes to what society holds to be of value, we have no choice but to see those things to be of value as well because we are part of society. And being part of a society means being able to think like others, whether we like it or not. I am not saying you have to conform. I'm saying we do conform. Humans spend their time doing relationships and activities. But what value do these things really have to us? Relationships are innately valuable to us? Or do we only care because the popular view is that they are important. Do we innately desire to do activities and experiences? Or do we only do them because the popular view is that if you don't do things, you are wasting your life. I think if all humans were to disappear, I we would have no other values besides my our existence. I am compelled to value relationships and activities because the popular view that I am aware of everyday is that those things are what is of value and that if you don't do those things, you are wasting your life not getting what life has to offer. And I an compelled to conform because other people exist, and so many people value those things. I personally innately don't, but I do now only because others exist, others who specifically think those things are of value. Relationships have no value to me, same for activities or new experiences. Their only value to me is from the fact that other people value those things. And my brain has no choice but to value those things as well. My brain can't think otherwise because that's how it is programmed. You can't be an individual in your values because so much of what is said to be of value is determined by popular opinion. If you truly think you don't value others, you will have a hard time executing that value because the popular view is that relationships are of value. So in your mind you will think you are wasting your life are doing something worthless worth less than the other options available. Evolutionary, this would make sense. Individuals in a group would get kicked out if they did not conform to a certain extent to the values of the group society they are in. So they are very prone to valuing what is popular even if they couldn't care less to begin with. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As much as we want to believe we are individuals, we all compelled to conform to the values of society. When it comes to what society holds to be of value, we have no choice but to see those things to be of value as well because we are part of society. And being part of a society means being able to think like others, whether we like it or not. I am not saying you have to conform. I'm saying we do conform. Humans spend their time doing relationships and activities. But what value do these things really have to us? Relationships are innately valuable to us? Or do we only care because the popular view is that they are important. Do we innately desire to do activities and experiences? Or do we only do them because the popular view is that if you don't do things, you are wasting your life. I think if all humans were to disappear, I we would have no other values besides my our existence. I am compelled to value relationships and activities because the popular view that I am aware of everyday is that those things are what is of value and that if you don't do those things, you are wasting your life not getting what life has to offer. And I an compelled to conform because other people exist, and so many people value those things. I personally innately don't, but I do now only because others exist, others who specifically think those things are of value. Relationships have no value to me, same for activities or new experiences. Their only value to me is from the fact that other people value those things. And my brain has no choice but to value those things as well. My brain can't think otherwise because that's how it is programmed. You can't be an individual in your values because so much of what is said to be of value is determined by popular opinion. If you truly think you don't value others, you will have a hard time executing that value because the popular view is that relationships are of value. So in your mind you will think you are wasting your life are doing something worthless worth less than the other options available. Evolutionary, this would make sense. Individuals in a group would get kicked out if they did not conform to a certain extent to the values of the group society they are in. So they are very prone to valuing what is popular even if they couldn't care less to begin with. <|TARGETS|>to see those things to be of value as well because we are part of society ., wasting your life not getting what life has to offer ., wasting your life are doing something worthless worth less than the other options available ., to value relationships and activities because the popular view that I am aware of everyday is that those things are what is of value and that if you do n't do those things, to conform to the values of society ., to conform because other people exist and so many people value those things .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As much as we want to believe we are individuals, we all compelled to conform to the values of society. When it comes to what society holds to be of value, we have no choice but to see those things to be of value as well because we are part of society. And being part of a society means being able to think like others, whether we like it or not. I am not saying you have to conform. I'm saying we do conform. Humans spend their time doing relationships and activities. But what value do these things really have to us? Relationships are innately valuable to us? Or do we only care because the popular view is that they are important. Do we innately desire to do activities and experiences? Or do we only do them because the popular view is that if you don't do things, you are wasting your life. I think if all humans were to disappear, I we would have no other values besides my our existence. I am compelled to value relationships and activities because the popular view that I am aware of everyday is that those things are what is of value and that if you don't do those things, you are wasting your life not getting what life has to offer. And I an compelled to conform because other people exist, and so many people value those things. I personally innately don't, but I do now only because others exist, others who specifically think those things are of value. Relationships have no value to me, same for activities or new experiences. Their only value to me is from the fact that other people value those things. And my brain has no choice but to value those things as well. My brain can't think otherwise because that's how it is programmed. You can't be an individual in your values because so much of what is said to be of value is determined by popular opinion. If you truly think you don't value others, you will have a hard time executing that value because the popular view is that relationships are of value. So in your mind you will think you are wasting your life are doing something worthless worth less than the other options available. Evolutionary, this would make sense. Individuals in a group would get kicked out if they did not conform to a certain extent to the values of the group society they are in. So they are very prone to valuing what is popular even if they couldn't care less to begin with. <|ASPECTS|>desire to, innately, valuing, group, brain, evolutionary, society, prone, values of society, think otherwise, worthless worth less, life, wasting your life, value others, important, relationships and activities, valuable, popular opinion, individual, relationships, wasting, values, value, compelled to conform, conform, value relationships and activities, programmed, think like others, individuals, kicked, activities and experiences, popular, choice<|CONCLUSION|>","As much as we want to believe we are individuals, we all compelled to conform to the values of society. When it comes to what society holds to be of value, we have no choice but to see those things to be of value as well because we are part of society. And being part of a society means being able to think like others, whether we like it or not. I am not saying you have to conform. I'm saying we do conform. Humans spend their time doing relationships and activities. But what value do these things really have to us? Relationships are innately valuable to us? Or do we only care because the popular view is that they are important. Do we innately desire to do activities and experiences? Or do we only do them because the popular view is that if you don't do things, you are wasting your life. I think if all humans were to disappear, I we would have no other values besides my our existence. I am compelled to value relationships and activities because the popular view that I am aware of everyday is that those things are what is of value and that if you don't do those things, you are wasting your life not getting what life has to offer. And I an compelled to conform because other people exist, and so many people value those things. I personally innately don't, but I do now only because others exist, others who specifically think those things are of value. Relationships have no value to me, same for activities or new experiences. Their only value to me is from the fact that other people value those things. And my brain has no choice but to value those things as well. My brain can't think otherwise because that's how it is programmed. You can't be an individual in your values because so much of what is said to be of value is determined by popular opinion. If you truly think you don't value others, you will have a hard time executing that value because the popular view is that relationships are of value. So in your mind you will think you are wasting your life are doing something worthless worth less than the other options available. Evolutionary, this would make sense. Individuals in a group would get kicked out if they did not conform to a certain extent to the values of the group society they are in. So they are very prone to valuing what is popular even if they couldn't care less to begin with.","As humans, we must conform to a certain extent to society's values because we are programmed to do so."
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Based on my understanding of the US constitution, the only real argument against incestuous marriage is that the children might be at risk due to inbreeding. With same sex marriages that concern does not exist, so it would be unconstitutional to disallow incestuous same sex marriages for that reason. After same sex incestuous marriages are allowed, it becomes a violation of equal protection to disallow opposite sex marriages. There might be some issues relating to family power dynamics, but I'm not sure if that is enough of a justification to deny marriage. Also I could see courts saying that opposite sex incestuous couples are in a different position from same sex couples, but I don't see that holding water. CMV gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Based on my understanding of the US constitution, the only real argument against incestuous marriage is that the children might be at risk due to inbreeding. With same sex marriages that concern does not exist, so it would be unconstitutional to disallow incestuous same sex marriages for that reason. After same sex incestuous marriages are allowed, it becomes a violation of equal protection to disallow opposite sex marriages. There might be some issues relating to family power dynamics, but I'm not sure if that is enough of a justification to deny marriage. Also I could see courts saying that opposite sex incestuous couples are in a different position from same sex couples, but I don't see that holding water. CMV gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|TARGETS|>Based on my understanding of the US constitution the only real argument against incestuous marriage, to remind you of a couple of things ., After same sex incestuous marriages, to deny marriage ., to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, courts saying that opposite sex incestuous couples<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Based on my understanding of the US constitution, the only real argument against incestuous marriage is that the children might be at risk due to inbreeding. With same sex marriages that concern does not exist, so it would be unconstitutional to disallow incestuous same sex marriages for that reason. After same sex incestuous marriages are allowed, it becomes a violation of equal protection to disallow opposite sex marriages. There might be some issues relating to family power dynamics, but I'm not sure if that is enough of a justification to deny marriage. Also I could see courts saying that opposite sex incestuous couples are in a different position from same sex couples, but I don't see that holding water. CMV gt Hello, users of CMV This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy CMVing<|ASPECTS|>incestuous marriage, violation, incestuous same sex marriages, incestuous marriages, remind, popular topics, inbreeding, different position, concerns, opposite sex incestuous couples, risk, effective, downvotes, happy cmving, unconstitutional, opposite sex marriages, message us, change, downvote, disallow, questions, equal protection, family power dynamics<|CONCLUSION|>","Based on my understanding of the US constitution, the only real argument against incestuous marriage is that the children might be at risk due to inbreeding. With same sex marriages that concern does not exist, so it would be unconstitutional to disallow incestuous same sex marriages for that reason. After same sex incestuous marriages are allowed, it becomes a violation of equal protection to disallow opposite sex marriages. There might be some issues relating to family power dynamics, but I'm not sure if that is enough of a justification to deny marriage. Also I could see courts saying that opposite sex incestuous couples are in a different position from same sex couples, but I don't see that holding water.  gt Hello, users of  This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a  yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing",I don't think it's constitutional to disallow incestuous marriages.
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>OK everybody, provocative title, I know lol. I wasn't sure how to word it, but I'd like to discuss a pretty complex philosophical concept that I've been thinking about a lot. If there's a better sub to post this in, please, recommend it for me. This is not related to criminal justice, it's more about the nature of sentience. x200B Ok, so what makes it wrong to kill something, say a person. Why is death bad? Well, three reasons. 1 There's the pain of the actual death, say a gunshot, as well as that fear and mental trauma while you're dying. 2 Robbing someone's future. That person had things they wanted to do and goals they wanted to achieve. That person still has goals you just robbed. 3 Their loved ones would be sad. x200B I'd like to take a look at that second one. Why do people have a yearning to continue their existence, into the future? I believe the entire reason for this are the emotions of empathy and sadness. Sadness is the most complex emotion. You have the five core emotions and psychologist will tell you, happiness, anger, fear, disgust, and sadness. Most of these are pretty primitive emotions that go way back in our evolutionary timeline, and they serve obvious purposes. Fear keeps us out of danger. Anger motivates us to fight back. Disgust keeps us from getting diseases or poisoning. Pleasure rewards us for doing basically survival stuff, eating food, having sex, forming social bond, etc. But what's the point of sadness? How does being sad help you survive? Sadness is a function of empathy, without feeling sad ourselves, we wouldn't be capable of feeling bad for other people. And sadness and empathy are pro social emotions, that's what allow social groups to function. The reason why we feel a yearning for the future is sadness. Think about it. People strive for happiness in life, that's the main goal. If you were always happy all the time, you wouldn't have a feeling of wanting to be happy. You need contrast, and sadness provides that. And people strive for emotional connections, those wouldn't work without sadness. Why do we feel nostalgia? We get nostalgic about fond memories, but it's not a feeling of happiness. Nostalgia is a mix of happiness, but also sadness. We miss those old times. Without the sadness, we wouldn't have a reason to care why the past is gone, and we wouldn't have a reason to hope that the future will be good. So even if something is conscious, it still needs sadness to yearn for the future. Take sociopaths. Sociopaths are people who don't have the capacity to feel empathy. Uncoincidentally, they don't feel sadness either. A key trait of sociopaths is that they're impulsive and drawn to risk averse behavior. Life is a game to them, and they don't truly care if they die or others die. Sadness is the emotion that takes us out of the present. It's not for those immediate survival gratifications, sadness lets us contemplate the future or the past emotionally. x200B A lot to unpackage here, but basically I would sum it up as this. It is wrong to kill people because people feel pain, and they feel remorse. Remorse meaning the summation of empathy, sadness, and that whole intertwined emotional complex. Everything that makes killing something else wrong stems from that thing's abilities to feel those two things. Now, if you were to kill someone via lethal injection in their sleep, that takes away the issue of pain. They don't feel physical pain, and they don't feel the emotional pain of fear and trauma. That only leaves the issue of remorse. That person got robbed of their future, and if you had asked them whether they'd be ok with it ahead of time, they'd say no. Yes, that answer is both cause of the fear of dying and the sadness of not enjoying the future, but I'm saying this example to just give a better grip of the concept. In reality we would eliminate the fear because we just kill them without their consent. I swear I'm not a psychopath Therefore, it's only wrong to kill a thing in it's sleep if it is capable of feeling remorse. Now let's apply this concept to different levels of organisms. x200B Bacteria And Single Celled I give zero fucks. Slaughter them. No really, they aren't even conscious, let alone able to feel remorse, so they are basically just a bunch of moving organic parts. They are robots made out of organic materials. If you made a robot that could recharge itself and could build another robot just like it, that would be equivalent in every way to these guys. Kill bacteria any time anywhere Planeria Fish Limited brain function, capacity to feel pain as a physical response, but it's apparently less complex than humans. But human emotions? Doubtful, again limited brain capacity. Not even the basic emotions are there, let alone sadness. So it might not be harmless to kill them straight up, but if you put them to sleep, yes, because they don't have the capacity to care about their future. So in a high tech world where we could put all fish to sleep before killing them, we probably should Animals Highly divisive, debated, and inconclusive whether or not animals feel true human emotions. We simply don't have enough knowledge about the brain to tell. But they have found certain animals like elephants showing behavior indicative of a capacity to feel empathy. Whether or not an animal has the cognitive capacity to understand that it has a future, I have no clue. But if animals do, basically if they are sentient, and if they feel sadness and empathy and all that, they deserve to live Fetus Lmao you thought I was gonna take a stance on Abortion here? No way do I have the guts. Next Sociopaths Not wrong. If you killed a sociopath in their sleep, on an isolated planet where they have no loved ones, it would not be wrong. Because they do not have the capacity for sadness or empathy, so life is a game to them, they don't have that wanting to live out the future. Sure, they work towards the goals of grandeur and success, but they do not feel saddened for not having those. They seek out pleasure and avoid pain, but they do not seek out true happiness or meaningful relationships or anything that would give their life a greater sense of meaning. So without sadness, they don't truly care, about anything. x200B Thoughts on this idea?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>OK everybody, provocative title, I know lol. I wasn't sure how to word it, but I'd like to discuss a pretty complex philosophical concept that I've been thinking about a lot. If there's a better sub to post this in, please, recommend it for me. This is not related to criminal justice, it's more about the nature of sentience. x200B Ok, so what makes it wrong to kill something, say a person. Why is death bad? Well, three reasons. 1 There's the pain of the actual death, say a gunshot, as well as that fear and mental trauma while you're dying. 2 Robbing someone's future. That person had things they wanted to do and goals they wanted to achieve. That person still has goals you just robbed. 3 Their loved ones would be sad. x200B I'd like to take a look at that second one. Why do people have a yearning to continue their existence, into the future? I believe the entire reason for this are the emotions of empathy and sadness. Sadness is the most complex emotion. You have the five core emotions and psychologist will tell you, happiness, anger, fear, disgust, and sadness. Most of these are pretty primitive emotions that go way back in our evolutionary timeline, and they serve obvious purposes. Fear keeps us out of danger. Anger motivates us to fight back. Disgust keeps us from getting diseases or poisoning. Pleasure rewards us for doing basically survival stuff, eating food, having sex, forming social bond, etc. But what's the point of sadness? How does being sad help you survive? Sadness is a function of empathy, without feeling sad ourselves, we wouldn't be capable of feeling bad for other people. And sadness and empathy are pro social emotions, that's what allow social groups to function. The reason why we feel a yearning for the future is sadness. Think about it. People strive for happiness in life, that's the main goal. If you were always happy all the time, you wouldn't have a feeling of wanting to be happy. You need contrast, and sadness provides that. And people strive for emotional connections, those wouldn't work without sadness. Why do we feel nostalgia? We get nostalgic about fond memories, but it's not a feeling of happiness. Nostalgia is a mix of happiness, but also sadness. We miss those old times. Without the sadness, we wouldn't have a reason to care why the past is gone, and we wouldn't have a reason to hope that the future will be good. So even if something is conscious, it still needs sadness to yearn for the future. Take sociopaths. Sociopaths are people who don't have the capacity to feel empathy. Uncoincidentally, they don't feel sadness either. A key trait of sociopaths is that they're impulsive and drawn to risk averse behavior. Life is a game to them, and they don't truly care if they die or others die. Sadness is the emotion that takes us out of the present. It's not for those immediate survival gratifications, sadness lets us contemplate the future or the past emotionally. x200B A lot to unpackage here, but basically I would sum it up as this. It is wrong to kill people because people feel pain, and they feel remorse. Remorse meaning the summation of empathy, sadness, and that whole intertwined emotional complex. Everything that makes killing something else wrong stems from that thing's abilities to feel those two things. Now, if you were to kill someone via lethal injection in their sleep, that takes away the issue of pain. They don't feel physical pain, and they don't feel the emotional pain of fear and trauma. That only leaves the issue of remorse. That person got robbed of their future, and if you had asked them whether they'd be ok with it ahead of time, they'd say no. Yes, that answer is both cause of the fear of dying and the sadness of not enjoying the future, but I'm saying this example to just give a better grip of the concept. In reality we would eliminate the fear because we just kill them without their consent. I swear I'm not a psychopath Therefore, it's only wrong to kill a thing in it's sleep if it is capable of feeling remorse. Now let's apply this concept to different levels of organisms. x200B Bacteria And Single Celled I give zero fucks. Slaughter them. No really, they aren't even conscious, let alone able to feel remorse, so they are basically just a bunch of moving organic parts. They are robots made out of organic materials. If you made a robot that could recharge itself and could build another robot just like it, that would be equivalent in every way to these guys. Kill bacteria any time anywhere Planeria Fish Limited brain function, capacity to feel pain as a physical response, but it's apparently less complex than humans. But human emotions? Doubtful, again limited brain capacity. Not even the basic emotions are there, let alone sadness. So it might not be harmless to kill them straight up, but if you put them to sleep, yes, because they don't have the capacity to care about their future. So in a high tech world where we could put all fish to sleep before killing them, we probably should Animals Highly divisive, debated, and inconclusive whether or not animals feel true human emotions. We simply don't have enough knowledge about the brain to tell. But they have found certain animals like elephants showing behavior indicative of a capacity to feel empathy. Whether or not an animal has the cognitive capacity to understand that it has a future, I have no clue. But if animals do, basically if they are sentient, and if they feel sadness and empathy and all that, they deserve to live Fetus Lmao you thought I was gonna take a stance on Abortion here? No way do I have the guts. Next Sociopaths Not wrong. If you killed a sociopath in their sleep, on an isolated planet where they have no loved ones, it would not be wrong. Because they do not have the capacity for sadness or empathy, so life is a game to them, they don't have that wanting to live out the future. Sure, they work towards the goals of grandeur and success, but they do not feel saddened for not having those. They seek out pleasure and avoid pain, but they do not seek out true happiness or meaningful relationships or anything that would give their life a greater sense of meaning. So without sadness, they don't truly care, about anything. x200B Thoughts on this idea?<|TARGETS|>a yearning to continue their existence into the future, wanting to be happy ., a yearning for the future, Remorse meaning the summation of empathy sadness and that whole intertwined emotional complex ., if they die or others die ., the capacity to care about their future .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>OK everybody, provocative title, I know lol. I wasn't sure how to word it, but I'd like to discuss a pretty complex philosophical concept that I've been thinking about a lot. If there's a better sub to post this in, please, recommend it for me. This is not related to criminal justice, it's more about the nature of sentience. x200B Ok, so what makes it wrong to kill something, say a person. Why is death bad? Well, three reasons. 1 There's the pain of the actual death, say a gunshot, as well as that fear and mental trauma while you're dying. 2 Robbing someone's future. That person had things they wanted to do and goals they wanted to achieve. That person still has goals you just robbed. 3 Their loved ones would be sad. x200B I'd like to take a look at that second one. Why do people have a yearning to continue their existence, into the future? I believe the entire reason for this are the emotions of empathy and sadness. Sadness is the most complex emotion. You have the five core emotions and psychologist will tell you, happiness, anger, fear, disgust, and sadness. Most of these are pretty primitive emotions that go way back in our evolutionary timeline, and they serve obvious purposes. Fear keeps us out of danger. Anger motivates us to fight back. Disgust keeps us from getting diseases or poisoning. Pleasure rewards us for doing basically survival stuff, eating food, having sex, forming social bond, etc. But what's the point of sadness? How does being sad help you survive? Sadness is a function of empathy, without feeling sad ourselves, we wouldn't be capable of feeling bad for other people. And sadness and empathy are pro social emotions, that's what allow social groups to function. The reason why we feel a yearning for the future is sadness. Think about it. People strive for happiness in life, that's the main goal. If you were always happy all the time, you wouldn't have a feeling of wanting to be happy. You need contrast, and sadness provides that. And people strive for emotional connections, those wouldn't work without sadness. Why do we feel nostalgia? We get nostalgic about fond memories, but it's not a feeling of happiness. Nostalgia is a mix of happiness, but also sadness. We miss those old times. Without the sadness, we wouldn't have a reason to care why the past is gone, and we wouldn't have a reason to hope that the future will be good. So even if something is conscious, it still needs sadness to yearn for the future. Take sociopaths. Sociopaths are people who don't have the capacity to feel empathy. Uncoincidentally, they don't feel sadness either. A key trait of sociopaths is that they're impulsive and drawn to risk averse behavior. Life is a game to them, and they don't truly care if they die or others die. Sadness is the emotion that takes us out of the present. It's not for those immediate survival gratifications, sadness lets us contemplate the future or the past emotionally. x200B A lot to unpackage here, but basically I would sum it up as this. It is wrong to kill people because people feel pain, and they feel remorse. Remorse meaning the summation of empathy, sadness, and that whole intertwined emotional complex. Everything that makes killing something else wrong stems from that thing's abilities to feel those two things. Now, if you were to kill someone via lethal injection in their sleep, that takes away the issue of pain. They don't feel physical pain, and they don't feel the emotional pain of fear and trauma. That only leaves the issue of remorse. That person got robbed of their future, and if you had asked them whether they'd be ok with it ahead of time, they'd say no. Yes, that answer is both cause of the fear of dying and the sadness of not enjoying the future, but I'm saying this example to just give a better grip of the concept. In reality we would eliminate the fear because we just kill them without their consent. I swear I'm not a psychopath Therefore, it's only wrong to kill a thing in it's sleep if it is capable of feeling remorse. Now let's apply this concept to different levels of organisms. x200B Bacteria And Single Celled I give zero fucks. Slaughter them. No really, they aren't even conscious, let alone able to feel remorse, so they are basically just a bunch of moving organic parts. They are robots made out of organic materials. If you made a robot that could recharge itself and could build another robot just like it, that would be equivalent in every way to these guys. Kill bacteria any time anywhere Planeria Fish Limited brain function, capacity to feel pain as a physical response, but it's apparently less complex than humans. But human emotions? Doubtful, again limited brain capacity. Not even the basic emotions are there, let alone sadness. So it might not be harmless to kill them straight up, but if you put them to sleep, yes, because they don't have the capacity to care about their future. So in a high tech world where we could put all fish to sleep before killing them, we probably should Animals Highly divisive, debated, and inconclusive whether or not animals feel true human emotions. We simply don't have enough knowledge about the brain to tell. But they have found certain animals like elephants showing behavior indicative of a capacity to feel empathy. Whether or not an animal has the cognitive capacity to understand that it has a future, I have no clue. But if animals do, basically if they are sentient, and if they feel sadness and empathy and all that, they deserve to live Fetus Lmao you thought I was gonna take a stance on Abortion here? No way do I have the guts. Next Sociopaths Not wrong. If you killed a sociopath in their sleep, on an isolated planet where they have no loved ones, it would not be wrong. Because they do not have the capacity for sadness or empathy, so life is a game to them, they don't have that wanting to live out the future. Sure, they work towards the goals of grandeur and success, but they do not feel saddened for not having those. They seek out pleasure and avoid pain, but they do not seek out true happiness or meaningful relationships or anything that would give their life a greater sense of meaning. So without sadness, they don't truly care, about anything. x200B Thoughts on this idea?<|ASPECTS|>, social bond, success, pain, social groups, feel pain, eliminate, intertwined, emotion, sub, pleasure, psychopath, levels of organisms, life, diseases, die, brain function, limited, harmless, poisoning, mental trauma, human emotions, killed, avoid pain, better, feel, basic, complex, criminal justice, contrast, wrong, risk averse behavior, cognitive capacity, organic materials, anger, robbed of, kill, miss, wanting to be happy, future, slaughter, loved, empathy, social emotions, recharge, actual death, care, complex emotion, sentience, primitive emotions, good, death bad, help, thoughts, unpackage, emotions, capacity, meaning, old times, survival stuff, robots, emotional complex, provocative title, guts, trauma, goals, celled, existence, fear of dying, happy, moving organic parts, nostalgia, danger, emotional pain, feeling, philosophical concept, less complex, sentient, happiness in life, sad, kill bacteria, impulsive, emotional connections, survival gratifications, brain capacity, sociopaths, disgust, abilities to feel, robbing, survive, kill people, physical pain, wrong to kill something, nature, fight back, knowledge about the brain, obvious purposes, fear, divisive, remorse, meaningful relationships, deserve, isolated, sadness, happiness, past, behavior, 's future, feeling bad, loved ones, game, sociopath, live, killing something, enjoying the future, conscious, live out the future, saddened, fond memories, response, equivalent, grandeur<|CONCLUSION|>","OK everybody, provocative title, I know lol. I wasn't sure how to word it, but I'd like to discuss a pretty complex philosophical concept that I've been thinking about a lot. If there's a better sub to post this in, please, recommend it for me. This is not related to criminal justice, it's more about the nature of sentience. x200B Ok, so what makes it wrong to kill something, say a person. Why is death bad? Well, three reasons. 1 There's the pain of the actual death, say a gunshot, as well as that fear and mental trauma while you're dying. 2 Robbing someone's future. That person had things they wanted to do and goals they wanted to achieve. That person still has goals you just robbed. 3 Their loved ones would be sad. x200B I'd like to take a look at that second one. Why do people have a yearning to continue their existence, into the future? I believe the entire reason for this are the emotions of empathy and sadness. Sadness is the most complex emotion. You have the five core emotions and psychologist will tell you, happiness, anger, fear, disgust, and sadness. Most of these are pretty primitive emotions that go way back in our evolutionary timeline, and they serve obvious purposes. Fear keeps us out of danger. Anger motivates us to fight back. Disgust keeps us from getting diseases or poisoning. Pleasure rewards us for doing basically survival stuff, eating food, having sex, forming social bond, etc. But what's the point of sadness? How does being sad help you survive? Sadness is a function of empathy, without feeling sad ourselves, we wouldn't be capable of feeling bad for other people. And sadness and empathy are pro social emotions, that's what allow social groups to function. The reason why we feel a yearning for the future is sadness. Think about it. People strive for happiness in life, that's the main goal. If you were always happy all the time, you wouldn't have a feeling of wanting to be happy. You need contrast, and sadness provides that. And people strive for emotional connections, those wouldn't work without sadness. Why do we feel nostalgia? We get nostalgic about fond memories, but it's not a feeling of happiness. Nostalgia is a mix of happiness, but also sadness. We miss those old times. Without the sadness, we wouldn't have a reason to care why the past is gone, and we wouldn't have a reason to hope that the future will be good. So even if something is conscious, it still needs sadness to yearn for the future. Take sociopaths. Sociopaths are people who don't have the capacity to feel empathy. Uncoincidentally, they don't feel sadness either. A key trait of sociopaths is that they're impulsive and drawn to risk averse behavior. Life is a game to them, and they don't truly care if they die or others die. Sadness is the emotion that takes us out of the present. It's not for those immediate survival gratifications, sadness lets us contemplate the future or the past emotionally. x200B A lot to unpackage here, but basically I would sum it up as this. It is wrong to kill people because people feel pain, and they feel remorse. Remorse meaning the summation of empathy, sadness, and that whole intertwined emotional complex. Everything that makes killing something else wrong stems from that thing's abilities to feel those two things. Now, if you were to kill someone via lethal injection in their sleep, that takes away the issue of pain. They don't feel physical pain, and they don't feel the emotional pain of fear and trauma. That only leaves the issue of remorse. That person got robbed of their future, and if you had asked them whether they'd be ok with it ahead of time, they'd say no. Yes, that answer is both cause of the fear of dying and the sadness of not enjoying the future, but I'm saying this example to just give a better grip of the concept. In reality we would eliminate the fear because we just kill them without their consent. I swear I'm not a psychopath Therefore, it's only wrong to kill a thing in it's sleep if it is capable of feeling remorse. Now let's apply this concept to different levels of organisms. x200B Bacteria And Single Celled I give zero fucks. Slaughter them. No really, they aren't even conscious, let alone able to feel remorse, so they are basically just a bunch of moving organic parts. They are robots made out of organic materials. If you made a robot that could recharge itself and could build another robot just like it, that would be equivalent in every way to these guys. Kill bacteria any time anywhere Planeria Fish Limited brain function, capacity to feel pain as a physical response, but it's apparently less complex than humans. But human emotions? Doubtful, again limited brain capacity. Not even the basic emotions are there, let alone sadness. So it might not be harmless to kill them straight up, but if you put them to sleep, yes, because they don't have the capacity to care about their future. So in a high tech world where we could put all fish to sleep before killing them, we probably should Animals Highly divisive, debated, and inconclusive whether or not animals feel true human emotions. We simply don't have enough knowledge about the brain to tell. But they have found certain animals like elephants showing behavior indicative of a capacity to feel empathy. Whether or not an animal has the cognitive capacity to understand that it has a future, I have no clue. But if animals do, basically if they are sentient, and if they feel sadness and empathy and all that, they deserve to live Fetus Lmao you thought I was gonna take a stance on Abortion here? No way do I have the guts. Next Sociopaths Not wrong. If you killed a sociopath in their sleep, on an isolated planet where they have no loved ones, it would not be wrong. Because they do not have the capacity for sadness or empathy, so life is a game to them, they don't have that wanting to live out the future. Sure, they work towards the goals of grandeur and success, but they do not feel saddened for not having those. They seek out pleasure and avoid pain, but they do not seek out true happiness or meaningful relationships or anything that would give their life a greater sense of meaning. So without sadness, they don't truly care, about anything. x200B Thoughts on this idea?",It is not wrong to kill animals or even certain humans
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand why minorities in America may want more representation in movies, but I feel, as one of these minorities, we don't really have the right to be too angry when we get replaced by white people or when white people get more parts in movies. White people make up about 80 of the population and it makes complete sense that white people are cast in these movies. In japan the entire cast is Japanese. In Bollywood the entire cast is Indian. Is it wrong for a dominantly white country to have a dominantly white cast? White washing probably shouldn't be done if the race of the character brings extra meaning, or if the character actually exists looking at Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson . Maybe if a fictional character changes race this goes both ways between white and whatever other race its perfectly okay. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand why minorities in America may want more representation in movies, but I feel, as one of these minorities, we don't really have the right to be too angry when we get replaced by white people or when white people get more parts in movies. White people make up about 80 of the population and it makes complete sense that white people are cast in these movies. In japan the entire cast is Japanese. In Bollywood the entire cast is Indian. Is it wrong for a dominantly white country to have a dominantly white cast? White washing probably shouldn't be done if the race of the character brings extra meaning, or if the character actually exists looking at Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson . Maybe if a fictional character changes race this goes both ways between white and whatever other race its perfectly okay. <|TARGETS|>Bollywood the entire cast, White washing, a dominantly white country to have a dominantly white cast, more representation in movies, the right to be too angry when we get replaced by white people or when white people get more parts in movies, japan the entire cast<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand why minorities in America may want more representation in movies, but I feel, as one of these minorities, we don't really have the right to be too angry when we get replaced by white people or when white people get more parts in movies. White people make up about 80 of the population and it makes complete sense that white people are cast in these movies. In japan the entire cast is Japanese. In Bollywood the entire cast is Indian. Is it wrong for a dominantly white country to have a dominantly white cast? White washing probably shouldn't be done if the race of the character brings extra meaning, or if the character actually exists looking at Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson . Maybe if a fictional character changes race this goes both ways between white and whatever other race its perfectly okay. <|ASPECTS|>japanese, dominantly, representation, white washing, dominantly white, right to be too angry, race, white people, white cast, minorities, indian, cast, meaning<|CONCLUSION|>","I understand why minorities in America may want more representation in movies, but I feel, as one of these minorities, we don't really have the right to be too angry when we get replaced by white people or when white people get more parts in movies. White people make up about 80 of the population and it makes complete sense that white people are cast in these movies. In japan the entire cast is Japanese. In Bollywood the entire cast is Indian. Is it wrong for a dominantly white country to have a dominantly white cast? White washing probably shouldn't be done if the race of the character brings extra meaning, or if the character actually exists looking at Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson . Maybe if a fictional character changes race this goes both ways between white and whatever other race its perfectly okay.",American cinema is justified in casting mostly white people in movies
"<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll try to rephrase this to make more sense, I had to try to sum it up for the title. I believe that any type of radical is an idiot. Whether it is political someone on the very end of the left wing or right wing , social ex. hard core hate every male feminist , or religious asshole atheist or overbearing Christian etc . I think this because if someone is so far on one end of the spectrum, I believe they did no research to form their own opinion and were hand fed what they believe. Or they only researched one side, and ignored the other. It makes me think that they are unintelligent and unable to think for themselves, thus their opinions are nullified. CMV.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll try to rephrase this to make more sense, I had to try to sum it up for the title. I believe that any type of radical is an idiot. Whether it is political someone on the very end of the left wing or right wing , social ex. hard core hate every male feminist , or religious asshole atheist or overbearing Christian etc . I think this because if someone is so far on one end of the spectrum, I believe they did no research to form their own opinion and were hand fed what they believe. Or they only researched one side, and ignored the other. It makes me think that they are unintelligent and unable to think for themselves, thus their opinions are nullified. CMV.<|TARGETS|>to try to sum it up for the title ., try to rephrase this to make more sense, Whether it is political someone on the very end of the left wing or right wing social ex ., hard core hate every male feminist or religious asshole atheist or overbearing Christian etc ., if someone is so far on one end of the spectrum, any type of radical<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll try to rephrase this to make more sense, I had to try to sum it up for the title. I believe that any type of radical is an idiot. Whether it is political someone on the very end of the left wing or right wing , social ex. hard core hate every male feminist , or religious asshole atheist or overbearing Christian etc . I think this because if someone is so far on one end of the spectrum, I believe they did no research to form their own opinion and were hand fed what they believe. Or they only researched one side, and ignored the other. It makes me think that they are unintelligent and unable to think for themselves, thus their opinions are nullified. CMV.<|ASPECTS|>hand fed, idiot, hate, unintelligent, researched one side, atheist, political, ignored, social, religious asshole, overbearing, unable to think, nullified, research, radical, opinions<|CONCLUSION|>","I'll try to rephrase this to make more sense, I had to try to sum it up for the title. I believe that any type of radical is an idiot. Whether it is political someone on the very end of the left wing or right wing , social ex. hard core hate every male feminist , or religious asshole atheist or overbearing Christian etc . I think this because if someone is so far on one end of the spectrum, I believe they did no research to form their own opinion and were hand fed what they believe. Or they only researched one side, and ignored the other. It makes me think that they are unintelligent and unable to think for themselves, thus their opinions are nullified. .","I believe any type of ""radical"" is an idiot and their opinion should be taken with a grain of salt."
"<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>Currently, the way that brains process information and make decisions is far beyond our understanding, thus the data required to disprove free will cannot currently be processed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>Currently, the way that brains process information and make decisions is far beyond our understanding, thus the data required to disprove free will cannot currently be processed.<|TARGETS|>the way that brains process information and make decisions<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>Currently, the way that brains process information and make decisions is far beyond our understanding, thus the data required to disprove free will cannot currently be processed.<|ASPECTS|>truth, free, interactions, function properly<|CONCLUSION|>","Currently, the way that brains process information and make decisions is far beyond our understanding, thus the data required to disprove free will cannot currently be processed.",Brain science is still in a relatively crude stage even after great advancements in the last few decades.
"<|TOPIC|>ban animal testing<|ARGUMENT|>23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone .[1]. While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered. New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case. [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>ban animal testing<|ARGUMENT|>23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone .[1]. While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered. New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case. [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'. <|TARGETS|>New drugs that are approved for medical use, Falling drug breakthroughs, Adopting this proposition, If drugs<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>ban animal testing<|ARGUMENT|>23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone .[1]. While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered. New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case. [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'. <|ASPECTS|>protect these organisations, treated, simple, restricting, illegal suffering, maltreatment, necessary, treatment of animals, moral tension, cruelty, legal position, animals, prohibit treating animals, criminal offense, legal exceptions<|CONCLUSION|>","23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone .1. While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered. New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case. 1 BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.",People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy
<|TOPIC|>How can we improve delivery of Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)<|ARGUMENT|>Properly joined up IT should include investment in the necessary safeguards against hackers and malware. Some of these will be how we work these systems and who has access to what level. Others will be about the right tech such as encryption and platform security monitoring.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>How can we improve delivery of Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)<|ARGUMENT|>Properly joined up IT should include investment in the necessary safeguards against hackers and malware. Some of these will be how we work these systems and who has access to what level. Others will be about the right tech such as encryption and platform security monitoring.<|TARGETS|>Properly joined up IT<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>How can we improve delivery of Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)<|ARGUMENT|>Properly joined up IT should include investment in the necessary safeguards against hackers and malware. Some of these will be how we work these systems and who has access to what level. Others will be about the right tech such as encryption and platform security monitoring.<|ASPECTS|>encryption, right tech, platform security monitoring, hackers, malware, safeguards<|CONCLUSION|>",Properly joined up IT should include investment in the necessary safeguards against hackers and malware. Some of these will be how we work these systems and who has access to what level. Others will be about the right tech such as encryption and platform security monitoring.,Data protection is just another place where awkward people in awkward systems may inhibit change
"<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>A majority vote is one that can be agreed on. The slight ""Leave"" majority is an aggregate of \(in the broadest sense\) two, mutually exclusive scenarios- soft and hard Brexit. A single ""leave"" position does not exist, which is proven by the two-year delay and confident denial of May's plan.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>A majority vote is one that can be agreed on. The slight ""Leave"" majority is an aggregate of \(in the broadest sense\) two, mutually exclusive scenarios- soft and hard Brexit. A single ""leave"" position does not exist, which is proven by the two-year delay and confident denial of May's plan.<|TARGETS|>A single "" leave "" position, A majority vote, The slight "" Leave "" majority<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>A majority vote is one that can be agreed on. The slight ""Leave"" majority is an aggregate of \(in the broadest sense\) two, mutually exclusive scenarios- soft and hard Brexit. A single ""leave"" position does not exist, which is proven by the two-year delay and confident denial of May's plan.<|ASPECTS|>media propaganda, remain messaging, leave campaigning, fair, remain campaigning, consistent<|CONCLUSION|>","A majority vote is one that can be agreed on. The slight ""Leave"" majority is an aggregate of in the broadest sense two, mutually exclusive scenarios- soft and hard Brexit. A single ""leave"" position does not exist, which is proven by the two-year delay and confident denial of May's plan.","If one vote leads to several mutually exclusive options, that voting rule is not a valid representation of the will of the voters. There are different alternatives to account for the split in the leave option."
"<|TOPIC|>Should we adopt a universal language?<|ARGUMENT|>The democratic way would be to choose the most spoken language, which is [Mandarin Chinese]( This will lead to billions of people having to learn this challenging language.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we adopt a universal language?<|ARGUMENT|>The democratic way would be to choose the most spoken language, which is [Mandarin Chinese]( This will lead to billions of people having to learn this challenging language.<|TARGETS|>to learn this challenging language ., to choose the most spoken language<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we adopt a universal language?<|ARGUMENT|>The democratic way would be to choose the most spoken language, which is [Mandarin Chinese]( This will lead to billions of people having to learn this challenging language.<|ASPECTS|>spoken language, democratic, challenging language<|CONCLUSION|>","The democratic way would be to choose the most spoken language, which is Mandarin Chinese This will lead to billions of people having to learn this challenging language.","Any universal language created would inevitably favour one language or language group more than others, which would spark inequity."
<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>The right to life is the most basic right that every human possesses. We all have an obligation to ensure that this right is safeguarded for as many people as possible.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>The right to life is the most basic right that every human possesses. We all have an obligation to ensure that this right is safeguarded for as many people as possible.<|TARGETS|>to ensure that this right is safeguarded for as many people as possible ., The right to life<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>The right to life is the most basic right that every human possesses. We all have an obligation to ensure that this right is safeguarded for as many people as possible.<|ASPECTS|>deny service, economic interest, white supremacists<|CONCLUSION|>",The right to life is the most basic right that every human possesses. We all have an obligation to ensure that this right is safeguarded for as many people as possible.,"If only some of the tens of thousands of people killed in terror attacks every year can be saved, there is a moral obligation to do so."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Hunger Games-Style Tournaments Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Violent video games allow players to release their stress and anger in the game, leading to less real world aggression. For example, 69% of male gamers reported that it relieves stress \([Olson et al, p. 82](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Hunger Games-Style Tournaments Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Violent video games allow players to release their stress and anger in the game, leading to less real world aggression. For example, 69% of male gamers reported that it relieves stress \([Olson et al, p. 82](<|TARGETS|>Violent video games<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Hunger Games-Style Tournaments Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Violent video games allow players to release their stress and anger in the game, leading to less real world aggression. For example, 69% of male gamers reported that it relieves stress \([Olson et al, p. 82](<|ASPECTS|>stress, relieves, real world aggression, less, anger<|CONCLUSION|>","Violent video games allow players to release their stress and anger in the game, leading to less real world aggression. For example, 69% of male gamers reported that it relieves stress Olson et al, p. 82","Humans can very well separate between entertainment and real world violence. Violent PC games, for example, do not lead to more violence even though humans enjoy it."
"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>UBI increases the difference in standard of living between countries, thus creating unsustainable migration pressure \(that may lead to overpopulation or very strict border control\).<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>UBI increases the difference in standard of living between countries, thus creating unsustainable migration pressure \(that may lead to overpopulation or very strict border control\).<|TARGETS|>UBI<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>UBI increases the difference in standard of living between countries, thus creating unsustainable migration pressure \(that may lead to overpopulation or very strict border control\).<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>","UBI increases the difference in standard of living between countries, thus creating unsustainable migration pressure that may lead to overpopulation or very strict border control.",Universal Basic Income creates fiscal incentives for a country to reduce immigration
"<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>In many systems the ruling party creates the budget. If Liquid Democracy without a ruling party allowed public voting on individual aspects of the budget, it would descend into a [design by committee](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>In many systems the ruling party creates the budget. If Liquid Democracy without a ruling party allowed public voting on individual aspects of the budget, it would descend into a [design by committee](<|TARGETS|>If Liquid Democracy without a ruling party allowed public voting on individual aspects of the budget, many systems the ruling party<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>In many systems the ruling party creates the budget. If Liquid Democracy without a ruling party allowed public voting on individual aspects of the budget, it would descend into a [design by committee](<|ASPECTS|>budget, public voting<|CONCLUSION|>","In many systems the ruling party creates the budget. If Liquid Democracy without a ruling party allowed public voting on individual aspects of the budget, it would descend into a design by committee",A balanced budget can be seen as constraint which could become harder to reach through Liquid Democracy.
"<|TOPIC|>If God is Real, Should we File a Class Action Lawsuit Against It?<|ARGUMENT|>Modern law shows how god's actions in regard to original sin are unjust and how Adam and Eve should not be held liable.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>If God is Real, Should we File a Class Action Lawsuit Against It?<|ARGUMENT|>Modern law shows how god's actions in regard to original sin are unjust and how Adam and Eve should not be held liable.<|TARGETS|>Modern law<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>If God is Real, Should we File a Class Action Lawsuit Against It?<|ARGUMENT|>Modern law shows how god's actions in regard to original sin are unjust and how Adam and Eve should not be held liable.<|ASPECTS|>god 's actions, original sin, liable, unjust<|CONCLUSION|>",Modern law shows how god's actions in regard to original sin are unjust and how Adam and Eve should not be held liable.,There exists a plethora of legal claims that could be filed against god for adjudication.
"<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>No Gospel According to Jesus, Revelation of Jesus, or Epistle of Jesus, exists, so Allah/God chose not to protect Jesus' message, nor has it been propagated in anything resembling its pristine form \(least of all by Paul, whose only claim to apostleship was a brief hallucination of what he claimed was a Koine Greek-speaking Jesus, when he was thrown from his horse onto his head & suffered concussion & temporary blindness\). Allah has protected only His final Message in pristine form: the Quran.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>No Gospel According to Jesus, Revelation of Jesus, or Epistle of Jesus, exists, so Allah/God chose not to protect Jesus' message, nor has it been propagated in anything resembling its pristine form \(least of all by Paul, whose only claim to apostleship was a brief hallucination of what he claimed was a Koine Greek-speaking Jesus, when he was thrown from his horse onto his head & suffered concussion & temporary blindness\). Allah has protected only His final Message in pristine form: the Quran.<|TARGETS|>Allah, to protect Jesus' message nor has it been propagated in anything resembling its pristine form least of all by Paul whose only claim to apostleship<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>No Gospel According to Jesus, Revelation of Jesus, or Epistle of Jesus, exists, so Allah/God chose not to protect Jesus' message, nor has it been propagated in anything resembling its pristine form \(least of all by Paul, whose only claim to apostleship was a brief hallucination of what he claimed was a Koine Greek-speaking Jesus, when he was thrown from his horse onto his head & suffered concussion & temporary blindness\). Allah has protected only His final Message in pristine form: the Quran.<|ASPECTS|>right the consequences, evil, god, remove evil<|CONCLUSION|>","No Gospel According to Jesus, Revelation of Jesus, or Epistle of Jesus, exists, so Allah/God chose not to protect Jesus' message, nor has it been propagated in anything resembling its pristine form least of all by Paul, whose only claim to apostleship was a brief hallucination of what he claimed was a Koine Greek-speaking Jesus, when he was thrown from his horse onto his head & suffered concussion & temporary blindness. Allah has protected only His final Message in pristine form: the Quran.","The original Jesus sect of Christianity, which was primarily attached to & located around the Jerusalem Temple, was effectively wiped out in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, so failed to propagate Jesus' revelation & mission. All the New Testament texts were composed, in Koine Greek, by members of the Pauline sect, which Paul set up to spread his corrupted & heretical ""Christianity"" to non-Jews, so they are not valid as evidence of Jesus' actual mission, revelation or intentions."
"<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>If the decision to kill or harm were never made in the first place, gun control would not be required at all.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>If the decision to kill or harm were never made in the first place, gun control would not be required at all.<|TARGETS|>If the decision to kill or harm were never made in the first place gun control<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>If the decision to kill or harm were never made in the first place, gun control would not be required at all.<|ASPECTS|>rates, coercive behavior, sex work increase<|CONCLUSION|>","If the decision to kill or harm were never made in the first place, gun control would not be required at all.",Passing stricter gun control laws will not reduce crime because criminals will ignore those laws.
"<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>It is indeed better to have those bad ideas out in the open and allow for peer pressure and normative culture to shape them. People don't change their minds when they feel unheard or persecuted, but change can occur when they learn from others and come to realize that their beliefs are in the small minority.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>It is indeed better to have those bad ideas out in the open and allow for peer pressure and normative culture to shape them. People don't change their minds when they feel unheard or persecuted, but change can occur when they learn from others and come to realize that their beliefs are in the small minority.<|TARGETS|>to have those bad ideas out in the open and allow for peer pressure and normative culture to shape them ., when they feel unheard or persecuted but change can occur when they learn from others and come to realize that their beliefs are in the small minority .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>It is indeed better to have those bad ideas out in the open and allow for peer pressure and normative culture to shape them. People don't change their minds when they feel unheard or persecuted, but change can occur when they learn from others and come to realize that their beliefs are in the small minority.<|ASPECTS|>public, popular opinions, built for everyone, political correctness<|CONCLUSION|>","It is indeed better to have those bad ideas out in the open and allow for peer pressure and normative culture to shape them. People don't change their minds when they feel unheard or persecuted, but change can occur when they learn from others and come to realize that their beliefs are in the small minority.","A broadly accepted PC culture won't eliminate hate speech, because instead of allowing those bad ideas out in the open, and combatting them with better ideas, you're simply driving hate speech underground and making it part of the counterculture."
"<|TOPIC|>allow gay couples to marry<|ARGUMENT|>It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false. improve this<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>allow gay couples to marry<|ARGUMENT|>It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false. improve this<|TARGETS|>many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own often by choice and infertile couples who cannot conceive children, revealing society 's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments, They marry because marriage, the advance of medical science, to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>allow gay couples to marry<|ARGUMENT|>It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false. improve this<|ASPECTS|>married couples, loving home environments, right to marriage, same-sex couples, children, capable parents, institution, pledge to reproduce, long-term commitment to one, medical, surrogate mothers, false, raise children adequately, adopt children, homosexual couples, child-raising purposes, infertile couples<|CONCLUSION|>","It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false. improve this","Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology."
<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>Keeping some people from having children could keep many societally valuable people from being born.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>Keeping some people from having children could keep many societally valuable people from being born.<|TARGETS|>Keeping some people from having children<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>Keeping some people from having children could keep many societally valuable people from being born.<|ASPECTS|>noticeable, genocide, license, easily, quickly condemned, attempted<|CONCLUSION|>",Keeping some people from having children could keep many societally valuable people from being born.,Psychological research indicates that there's no formula for raising successful vs. unsuccessful children.
<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>[A Rocha]( was founded by an Anglican priest and operates close to the values of the church.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>[A Rocha]( was founded by an Anglican priest and operates close to the values of the church.<|TARGETS|>A Rocha was founded by an Anglican priest<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>[A Rocha]( was founded by an Anglican priest and operates close to the values of the church.<|ASPECTS|>lean machine, expenditure<|CONCLUSION|>",A Rocha was founded by an Anglican priest and operates close to the values of the church.,There are many NGOs that emerged with a religious motivation for the protection of the environment.
<|TOPIC|>Should conscientious objection to abortion be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>It would be wrong to force doctors to perform abortions or otherwise face legal consequences given that there are circumstances where a doctor may rightly feel an abortion is risky or would be harmful to a patient's health<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should conscientious objection to abortion be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>It would be wrong to force doctors to perform abortions or otherwise face legal consequences given that there are circumstances where a doctor may rightly feel an abortion is risky or would be harmful to a patient's health<|TARGETS|>to force doctors to perform abortions or otherwise face legal consequences given that there are circumstances where a doctor may rightly feel an abortion<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should conscientious objection to abortion be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>It would be wrong to force doctors to perform abortions or otherwise face legal consequences given that there are circumstances where a doctor may rightly feel an abortion is risky or would be harmful to a patient's health<|ASPECTS|>risky, harmful, patient, legal consequences<|CONCLUSION|>",It would be wrong to force doctors to perform abortions or otherwise face legal consequences given that there are circumstances where a doctor may rightly feel an abortion is risky or would be harmful to a patient's health,The state cannot legitimately force doctors to perform an abortion.
<|TOPIC|>The European Union should become a United States of Europe<|ARGUMENT|>The USE will enable a more assertive foreign and defense policy for the benefit of its members.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>The European Union should become a United States of Europe<|ARGUMENT|>The USE will enable a more assertive foreign and defense policy for the benefit of its members.<|TARGETS|>The USE<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>The European Union should become a United States of Europe<|ARGUMENT|>The USE will enable a more assertive foreign and defense policy for the benefit of its members.<|ASPECTS|>assertive, benefit, foreign and defense policy<|CONCLUSION|>",The USE will enable a more assertive foreign and defense policy for the benefit of its members.,The USE will be more effective than the EU at promoting a common European foreign policy.
"<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>Liquid Democracy is conceptually more democratic than a Representative Democracy. Assuming that the effectiveness of government increases with its basis on the consent of the governed, then Liquid Democracy is indeed a better mechanism of governance.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>Liquid Democracy is conceptually more democratic than a Representative Democracy. Assuming that the effectiveness of government increases with its basis on the consent of the governed, then Liquid Democracy is indeed a better mechanism of governance.<|TARGETS|>Assuming that the effectiveness of government increases with its basis on the consent of the governed, Liquid Democracy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>Liquid Democracy is conceptually more democratic than a Representative Democracy. Assuming that the effectiveness of government increases with its basis on the consent of the governed, then Liquid Democracy is indeed a better mechanism of governance.<|ASPECTS|>budget, public voting<|CONCLUSION|>","Liquid Democracy is conceptually more democratic than a Representative Democracy. Assuming that the effectiveness of government increases with its basis on the consent of the governed, then Liquid Democracy is indeed a better mechanism of governance.",Liquid Democracy would be a better mechanism of governance than current representative democracy.
"<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>The shots were from comparative point blank range by Federation standards. Observe the [battle]( At 3:25, the Reliant makes a longer range shot. Though the shot misses, it was meant as a warning shot \(Kirks comments afterwards make that clear\).<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>The shots were from comparative point blank range by Federation standards. Observe the [battle]( At 3:25, the Reliant makes a longer range shot. Though the shot misses, it was meant as a warning shot \(Kirks comments afterwards make that clear\).<|TARGETS|>The shots, Observe the battle At 3:25 the Reliant<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>The shots were from comparative point blank range by Federation standards. Observe the [battle]( At 3:25, the Reliant makes a longer range shot. Though the shot misses, it was meant as a warning shot \(Kirks comments afterwards make that clear\).<|ASPECTS|>highly, creative solutions, unique<|CONCLUSION|>","The shots were from comparative point blank range by Federation standards. Observe the battle At 3:25, the Reliant makes a longer range shot. Though the shot misses, it was meant as a warning shot Kirks comments afterwards make that clear.",The only hits in that fight were from point blank range or instances when the targets were standing still.
"<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>If all existence flows from God \(a traditional monotheistic belief\), then all concepts, including good and evil, also flow from God. If God is sovereign \(omniscient, omnipotent, and free to act\), then evil exists by his will.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>If all existence flows from God \(a traditional monotheistic belief\), then all concepts, including good and evil, also flow from God. If God is sovereign \(omniscient, omnipotent, and free to act\), then evil exists by his will.<|TARGETS|>If God is sovereign omniscient omnipotent and free to act, If all existence flows from God a traditional monotheistic belief<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>If all existence flows from God \(a traditional monotheistic belief\), then all concepts, including good and evil, also flow from God. If God is sovereign \(omniscient, omnipotent, and free to act\), then evil exists by his will.<|ASPECTS|>right the consequences, evil, god, remove evil<|CONCLUSION|>","If all existence flows from God a traditional monotheistic belief, then all concepts, including good and evil, also flow from God. If God is sovereign omniscient, omnipotent, and free to act, then evil exists by his will.",The existence of evil can be reconciled with an all-powerful and all-loving God. God would not want to remove evil if a greater good were only achievable with the existence of evil.
"<|TOPIC|>Museums Should Be Free<|ARGUMENT|>Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative industries (e.g. art, design, fashion, and architecture). Free access is an investment in the future of this sector of the economy and therefore has long-term benefits in securing prosperity for the whole of society. Similarly, tourism is an important sector of our economy and many visitors will be deterred from visiting our country if they think it will be very expensive to visit its great museums and galleries. Tourists do contribute hugely to government revenues through the indirect taxes they pay and the jobs they generate, so free museum access to support the tourism industry is a sensible investment.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Museums Should Be Free<|ARGUMENT|>Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative industries (e.g. art, design, fashion, and architecture). Free access is an investment in the future of this sector of the economy and therefore has long-term benefits in securing prosperity for the whole of society. Similarly, tourism is an important sector of our economy and many visitors will be deterred from visiting our country if they think it will be very expensive to visit its great museums and galleries. Tourists do contribute hugely to government revenues through the indirect taxes they pay and the jobs they generate, so free museum access to support the tourism industry is a sensible investment.<|TARGETS|>Free access, to visit its great museums and galleries, Museums, art design fashion and architecture, free museum access to support the tourism industry<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Museums Should Be Free<|ARGUMENT|>Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative industries (e.g. art, design, fashion, and architecture). Free access is an investment in the future of this sector of the economy and therefore has long-term benefits in securing prosperity for the whole of society. Similarly, tourism is an important sector of our economy and many visitors will be deterred from visiting our country if they think it will be very expensive to visit its great museums and galleries. Tourists do contribute hugely to government revenues through the indirect taxes they pay and the jobs they generate, so free museum access to support the tourism industry is a sensible investment.<|ASPECTS|>sensible investment, prosperity, creative industries, indirect taxes, free access, economy, education, benefits, expensive, tourism, government revenues, museum access, securing, inspiration<|CONCLUSION|>","Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative industries e.g. art, design, fashion, and architecture. Free access is an investment in the future of this sector of the economy and therefore has long-term benefits in securing prosperity for the whole of society. Similarly, tourism is an important sector of our economy and many visitors will be deterred from visiting our country if they think it will be very expensive to visit its great museums and galleries. Tourists do contribute hugely to government revenues through the indirect taxes they pay and the jobs they generate, so free museum access to support the tourism industry is a sensible investment.",Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative in...
"<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>The costs paid for so-called ""easy free"" abortions are shifted onto taxpayers. This is bad because other taxpayers may be more sexually responsible and yet are being forced to cover the enormous costs of the sexually irresponsible.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>The costs paid for so-called ""easy free"" abortions are shifted onto taxpayers. This is bad because other taxpayers may be more sexually responsible and yet are being forced to cover the enormous costs of the sexually irresponsible.<|TARGETS|>The costs paid for so-called "" easy free "" abortions, being forced to cover the enormous costs of the sexually irresponsible .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>The costs paid for so-called ""easy free"" abortions are shifted onto taxpayers. This is bad because other taxpayers may be more sexually responsible and yet are being forced to cover the enormous costs of the sexually irresponsible.<|ASPECTS|>reject its own life, desire, aborted<|CONCLUSION|>","The costs paid for so-called ""easy free"" abortions are shifted onto taxpayers. This is bad because other taxpayers may be more sexually responsible and yet are being forced to cover the enormous costs of the sexually irresponsible.","Free or cheap abortions enable couples to worry less about contraception, as they might see it as an easy fallback option."
"<|TOPIC|>Do we exist within a Simulated Reality?<|ARGUMENT|>The simulation could have different logic from the real world. Because there is no limit to potential options when we cannot determine any to be impossible, there is truly an infinite number of ways to be in simulation.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do we exist within a Simulated Reality?<|ARGUMENT|>The simulation could have different logic from the real world. Because there is no limit to potential options when we cannot determine any to be impossible, there is truly an infinite number of ways to be in simulation.<|TARGETS|>The simulation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do we exist within a Simulated Reality?<|ARGUMENT|>The simulation could have different logic from the real world. Because there is no limit to potential options when we cannot determine any to be impossible, there is truly an infinite number of ways to be in simulation.<|ASPECTS|>potential options, simulation, different logic<|CONCLUSION|>","The simulation could have different logic from the real world. Because there is no limit to potential options when we cannot determine any to be impossible, there is truly an infinite number of ways to be in simulation.","There are infinite ways to simulate a reality, and only one way for a reality to be unsimulated. Probability therefore gives as close to a guarantee as can exist that we are in simulation."
<|TOPIC|>Should cities have bike share?<|ARGUMENT|>Having the available facilities of bike share gives city inhabitants more choice in how they wish to travel around the city.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should cities have bike share?<|ARGUMENT|>Having the available facilities of bike share gives city inhabitants more choice in how they wish to travel around the city.<|TARGETS|>Having the available facilities of bike share<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should cities have bike share?<|ARGUMENT|>Having the available facilities of bike share gives city inhabitants more choice in how they wish to travel around the city.<|ASPECTS|>bike share, choice<|CONCLUSION|>",Having the available facilities of bike share gives city inhabitants more choice in how they wish to travel around the city.,"Bike share provides additional mobility options beyond driving, walking, transit"
<|TOPIC|>Should the United States be the global police?<|ARGUMENT|>The US' views are often at odds with much of the rest of the world and as such cannot be seen as representative.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the United States be the global police?<|ARGUMENT|>The US' views are often at odds with much of the rest of the world and as such cannot be seen as representative.<|TARGETS|>The US ' views<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the United States be the global police?<|ARGUMENT|>The US' views are often at odds with much of the rest of the world and as such cannot be seen as representative.<|ASPECTS|>representative<|CONCLUSION|>,The US' views are often at odds with much of the rest of the world and as such cannot be seen as representative.,The United States does not have the moral or legal authority to decide what is or isn't right for another country.
<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>We already exclude some humans from equal rights. An example of this is nations hosting refugees not granting them equal rights to their own citizens. This is based on an arbitrary separation of borders that we accept in order to have a functional society.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>We already exclude some humans from equal rights. An example of this is nations hosting refugees not granting them equal rights to their own citizens. This is based on an arbitrary separation of borders that we accept in order to have a functional society.<|TARGETS|>an arbitrary separation of borders that we accept in order to have a functional society .<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>We already exclude some humans from equal rights. An example of this is nations hosting refugees not granting them equal rights to their own citizens. This is based on an arbitrary separation of borders that we accept in order to have a functional society.<|ASPECTS|>functional society, refugees, separation of borders, equal rights, arbitrary<|CONCLUSION|>",We already exclude some humans from equal rights. An example of this is nations hosting refugees not granting them equal rights to their own citizens. This is based on an arbitrary separation of borders that we accept in order to have a functional society.,"Restricting the scope of moral consideration to members of one's own species is morally acceptable. Williams, p. 138-141"
"<|TOPIC|>Should People in Positions of Authority Resign When Accused of Sexual Assault?<|ARGUMENT|>Being raped may be more harmful than a false rape accusation. That, along with real rapes being 60-400x more likely than a false rape accusation, real rapes are far more of a concern than false rape accusations.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should People in Positions of Authority Resign When Accused of Sexual Assault?<|ARGUMENT|>Being raped may be more harmful than a false rape accusation. That, along with real rapes being 60-400x more likely than a false rape accusation, real rapes are far more of a concern than false rape accusations.<|TARGETS|>Being raped<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should People in Positions of Authority Resign When Accused of Sexual Assault?<|ARGUMENT|>Being raped may be more harmful than a false rape accusation. That, along with real rapes being 60-400x more likely than a false rape accusation, real rapes are far more of a concern than false rape accusations.<|ASPECTS|>false rape accusation, harmful, false rape accusations<|CONCLUSION|>","Being raped may be more harmful than a false rape accusation. That, along with real rapes being 60-400x more likely than a false rape accusation, real rapes are far more of a concern than false rape accusations.","Only 5%-33% of real rapes are reported. Of all rape accusations, about 5% are false."
"<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>""All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."" \(2Ti 3:16, 17\) This is a very bold claim, but millions of Bible readers have found this to be true. Not everyone, of course. Understanding requires a measure of faith.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>""All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."" \(2Ti 3:16, 17\) This is a very bold claim, but millions of Bible readers have found this to be true. Not everyone, of course. Understanding requires a measure of faith.<|TARGETS|>reproving for setting things straight for disciplining in righteousness so that the man of God may be fully competent completely equipped for every good work . ""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>""All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."" \(2Ti 3:16, 17\) This is a very bold claim, but millions of Bible readers have found this to be true. Not everyone, of course. Understanding requires a measure of faith.<|ASPECTS|>competent, beneficial, righteousness, faith, inspired of god<|CONCLUSION|>","""All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."" 2Ti 3:16, 17 This is a very bold claim, but millions of Bible readers have found this to be true. Not everyone, of course. Understanding requires a measure of faith.",The effect of studying Scripture the Bible depends on whether the student is willing to accept the totality of its teachings rather than rely on only parts of it or on other texts or on deduced ideas.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Feminism a Force For Good?<|ARGUMENT|>Feminism as a 'linguistic term' often misses clarity, universal definition and regularly incorporates opposite goals at the same time in regard to key feminist issues as gender equality, gender-neutrality, non-binary and gender-related rights. The linguistic term thereby clouds public debate and hampers the setting of clear social and political goals in society.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Feminism a Force For Good?<|ARGUMENT|>Feminism as a 'linguistic term' often misses clarity, universal definition and regularly incorporates opposite goals at the same time in regard to key feminist issues as gender equality, gender-neutrality, non-binary and gender-related rights. The linguistic term thereby clouds public debate and hampers the setting of clear social and political goals in society.<|TARGETS|>The linguistic term, Feminism as a ' linguistic term<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Feminism a Force For Good?<|ARGUMENT|>Feminism as a 'linguistic term' often misses clarity, universal definition and regularly incorporates opposite goals at the same time in regard to key feminist issues as gender equality, gender-neutrality, non-binary and gender-related rights. The linguistic term thereby clouds public debate and hampers the setting of clear social and political goals in society.<|ASPECTS|>clouds, gender equality, non-binary, opposite goals, public debate, gender-related rights, clarity, gender-neutrality, social and political goals, universal definition<|CONCLUSION|>","Feminism as a 'linguistic term' often misses clarity, universal definition and regularly incorporates opposite goals at the same time in regard to key feminist issues as gender equality, gender-neutrality, non-binary and gender-related rights. The linguistic term thereby clouds public debate and hampers the setting of clear social and political goals in society.","Feminism is an umbrella of ideologies first and foremost, and consequently, it muddies the discussion of gender equality with its ideological baggage."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Religions Receive Public Funding?<|ARGUMENT|>The presence of a formal relationship between the state and religious groups encourages those religious groups to evolve in tandem with the state. If religious organisations become totally disconnected from the state's secular norms, then extremism is encouraged.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Religions Receive Public Funding?<|ARGUMENT|>The presence of a formal relationship between the state and religious groups encourages those religious groups to evolve in tandem with the state. If religious organisations become totally disconnected from the state's secular norms, then extremism is encouraged.<|TARGETS|>If religious organisations become totally disconnected from the state 's secular norms, The presence of a formal relationship between the state and religious groups<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Religions Receive Public Funding?<|ARGUMENT|>The presence of a formal relationship between the state and religious groups encourages those religious groups to evolve in tandem with the state. If religious organisations become totally disconnected from the state's secular norms, then extremism is encouraged.<|ASPECTS|>standardized tests, behavioral issues, faith-based<|CONCLUSION|>","The presence of a formal relationship between the state and religious groups encourages those religious groups to evolve in tandem with the state. If religious organisations become totally disconnected from the state's secular norms, then extremism is encouraged.",Norms are dynamic and change over time. The government can use tax breaks to give religions financial incentives to make their norms more progressive.
"<|TOPIC|>Israeli military assault in Gaza, Israeli Invasion of Gaza<|ARGUMENT|>While there can be debate as to whether Israel's Gaza assault achieved its objectives of securing the nation overall, there can be no debate that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to determine how best to do so. While it is easy for countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel's security interests and how its actions may or may not fullfill them, Israel's right to make that judgement for itself must be respected. In addition, it is probably true that only Israelis themselves can fully understand their own interests, take heart of direct threats to their lives, and develop appropriate security imperatives.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Israeli military assault in Gaza, Israeli Invasion of Gaza<|ARGUMENT|>While there can be debate as to whether Israel's Gaza assault achieved its objectives of securing the nation overall, there can be no debate that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to determine how best to do so. While it is easy for countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel's security interests and how its actions may or may not fullfill them, Israel's right to make that judgement for itself must be respected. In addition, it is probably true that only Israelis themselves can fully understand their own interests, take heart of direct threats to their lives, and develop appropriate security imperatives.<|TARGETS|>whether Israel 's Gaza assault, countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel 's security interests and how its actions, that only Israelis themselves can fully understand their own interests take heart of direct threats to their lives, Israel 's right to make that judgement for itself<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Israeli military assault in Gaza, Israeli Invasion of Gaza<|ARGUMENT|>While there can be debate as to whether Israel's Gaza assault achieved its objectives of securing the nation overall, there can be no debate that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to determine how best to do so. While it is easy for countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel's security interests and how its actions may or may not fullfill them, Israel's right to make that judgement for itself must be respected. In addition, it is probably true that only Israelis themselves can fully understand their own interests, take heart of direct threats to their lives, and develop appropriate security imperatives.<|ASPECTS|>threats, security interests, israel, interests, right to defend, security imperatives, right, securing the nation<|CONCLUSION|>","While there can be debate as to whether Israel's Gaza assault achieved its objectives of securing the nation overall, there can be no debate that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to determine how best to do so. While it is easy for countries and foreigners to state their opinions about Israel's security interests and how its actions may or may not fullfill them, Israel's right to make that judgement for itself must be respected. In addition, it is probably true that only Israelis themselves can fully understand their own interests, take heart of direct threats to their lives, and develop appropriate security imperatives.",Israel has a right to determine how best to uphold its security.
"<|TOPIC|>Abortion<|ARGUMENT|>Victoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly (September 23, 1871). - ""Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women.""[14]<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Abortion<|ARGUMENT|>Victoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly (September 23, 1871). - ""Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women.""[14]<|TARGETS|>Child-bearing, Victoria Woodhull, Abortion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Abortion<|ARGUMENT|>Victoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly (September 23, 1871). - ""Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women.""[14]<|ASPECTS|>beautiful office of nature, child-bearing, fearful ordeal, choice of evils, disease, unwelcome guest<|CONCLUSION|>","Victoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly September 23, 1871. - ""Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women.""14","Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural process, not a burden"
"<|TOPIC|>Should cheerleading be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>In the context of cheerleading, the artists are the choreographers and cheerleaders, the artwork is the performance, and the audience are the spectators. Therefore, cheerleading is objectively a form of art.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should cheerleading be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>In the context of cheerleading, the artists are the choreographers and cheerleaders, the artwork is the performance, and the audience are the spectators. Therefore, cheerleading is objectively a form of art.<|TARGETS|>cheerleading<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should cheerleading be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>In the context of cheerleading, the artists are the choreographers and cheerleaders, the artwork is the performance, and the audience are the spectators. Therefore, cheerleading is objectively a form of art.<|ASPECTS|>form of art, spectators<|CONCLUSION|>","In the context of cheerleading, the artists are the choreographers and cheerleaders, the artwork is the performance, and the audience are the spectators. Therefore, cheerleading is objectively a form of art.","Art is objective because it satisfies specific and objective criteria there is an artist, an artwork, and an audience."
<|TOPIC|>Should Felons be Allowed to Vote?<|ARGUMENT|>The state is taking on responsibility for prisoners; the prisoners' lives are in the government's control. Letting felons vote allows better democratic oversight over people whose lives are the responsibility of the government.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Felons be Allowed to Vote?<|ARGUMENT|>The state is taking on responsibility for prisoners; the prisoners' lives are in the government's control. Letting felons vote allows better democratic oversight over people whose lives are the responsibility of the government.<|TARGETS|>Letting felons vote<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Felons be Allowed to Vote?<|ARGUMENT|>The state is taking on responsibility for prisoners; the prisoners' lives are in the government's control. Letting felons vote allows better democratic oversight over people whose lives are the responsibility of the government.<|ASPECTS|>government 's control, prisoners ' lives, prisoners, responsibility, democratic oversight<|CONCLUSION|>",The state is taking on responsibility for prisoners; the prisoners' lives are in the government's control. Letting felons vote allows better democratic oversight over people whose lives are the responsibility of the government.,"Felons understand the prison system and its impact on people better than non-felons. By allowing them to vote, we can encourage better/more realistic laws and policies regarding incarceration."
<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>An attempted genocide via parent standardization perpetuated at the level of an entire country would be easily noticeable and quickly condemned. It would be very difficult to believably explain how not a single family from a certain ethnic group in an entire country was granted a license without the international community becoming enormously alarmed.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>An attempted genocide via parent standardization perpetuated at the level of an entire country would be easily noticeable and quickly condemned. It would be very difficult to believably explain how not a single family from a certain ethnic group in an entire country was granted a license without the international community becoming enormously alarmed.<|TARGETS|>An attempted genocide via parent standardization perpetuated at the level of an entire country, to believably explain how not a single family from a certain ethnic group in an entire country was granted a license without the international community<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>An attempted genocide via parent standardization perpetuated at the level of an entire country would be easily noticeable and quickly condemned. It would be very difficult to believably explain how not a single family from a certain ethnic group in an entire country was granted a license without the international community becoming enormously alarmed.<|ASPECTS|>noticeable, genocide, license, easily, quickly condemned, attempted<|CONCLUSION|>",An attempted genocide via parent standardization perpetuated at the level of an entire country would be easily noticeable and quickly condemned. It would be very difficult to believably explain how not a single family from a certain ethnic group in an entire country was granted a license without the international community becoming enormously alarmed.,"Stringent requirements that would become culturally invasive or discriminatory would be open to widespread criticism and backlash, much like discriminatory laws have faced in the past. This would be a strong disincentive to the imposition of a licensing body's own agenda."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>The construction of settlements [endangers]( the two state solution as it entrenches Israeli presence in the Palestinian territories, thus taking more and more land away from Palestinians and giving it to Israelis.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>The construction of settlements [endangers]( the two state solution as it entrenches Israeli presence in the Palestinian territories, thus taking more and more land away from Palestinians and giving it to Israelis.<|TARGETS|>The construction of settlements<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>The construction of settlements [endangers]( the two state solution as it entrenches Israeli presence in the Palestinian territories, thus taking more and more land away from Palestinians and giving it to Israelis.<|ASPECTS|>land, endangers, israeli presence<|CONCLUSION|>","The construction of settlements endangers the two state solution as it entrenches Israeli presence in the Palestinian territories, thus taking more and more land away from Palestinians and giving it to Israelis.",Israel continues to construct settlements in Palestinian territories which makes the two state solution impossible to implement.
"<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>The question of whether belief in God is warranted can’t be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations; it is at bottom not merely an epistemological dispute, but an ontological or theological dispute. It follows that there is no de jure \(undermining\) objection to theistic belief independent of the de facto \(factual\) question of whether theism is true.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>The question of whether belief in God is warranted can’t be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations; it is at bottom not merely an epistemological dispute, but an ontological or theological dispute. It follows that there is no de jure \(undermining\) objection to theistic belief independent of the de facto \(factual\) question of whether theism is true.<|TARGETS|>undermining objection to theistic belief independent of the de facto factual question of whether theism is true ., The question of whether belief in God is warranted ca n’t be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>The question of whether belief in God is warranted can’t be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations; it is at bottom not merely an epistemological dispute, but an ontological or theological dispute. It follows that there is no de jure \(undermining\) objection to theistic belief independent of the de facto \(factual\) question of whether theism is true.<|ASPECTS|>god ’ s existence, evidence, physical evidence, god, hard incontrovertible, incontrovertible, criminals<|CONCLUSION|>","The question of whether belief in God is warranted can’t be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations; it is at bottom not merely an epistemological dispute, but an ontological or theological dispute. It follows that there is no de jure undermining objection to theistic belief independent of the de facto factual question of whether theism is true.",Belief in God is not merely justified but also warranted. Warrant is that property that converts mere true belief into knowledge when possessed in sufficient degree.
"<|TOPIC|>Is eating meat ethically wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, a human is naturally unable to catch and kill a cow with the small and weak human nails and jaw, a human is unable to bite through animal skin and digest raw meat in abundant quantity. Therefore claiming that eating a cow is natural is false.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is eating meat ethically wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, a human is naturally unable to catch and kill a cow with the small and weak human nails and jaw, a human is unable to bite through animal skin and digest raw meat in abundant quantity. Therefore claiming that eating a cow is natural is false.<|TARGETS|>Therefore claiming that eating a cow<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is eating meat ethically wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, a human is naturally unable to catch and kill a cow with the small and weak human nails and jaw, a human is unable to bite through animal skin and digest raw meat in abundant quantity. Therefore claiming that eating a cow is natural is false.<|ASPECTS|>kill, natural<|CONCLUSION|>","For example, a human is naturally unable to catch and kill a cow with the small and weak human nails and jaw, a human is unable to bite through animal skin and digest raw meat in abundant quantity. Therefore claiming that eating a cow is natural is false.","Claiming something ""natural"" must consider all other elements of nature around the subject. We cannot consider meat eating natural when we lack the natural biological tools on our bodies to catch the type of animals we consume."
"<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>Labels such as ""addict"" and ""alcoholic"" may allow people battling with addiction to feel a sense of community and belonging with other people battling addiction.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>Labels such as ""addict"" and ""alcoholic"" may allow people battling with addiction to feel a sense of community and belonging with other people battling addiction.<|TARGETS|>Labels such as "" addict "" and "" alcoholic<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>Labels such as ""addict"" and ""alcoholic"" may allow people battling with addiction to feel a sense of community and belonging with other people battling addiction.<|ASPECTS|>community, addict, belonging<|CONCLUSION|>","Labels such as ""addict"" and ""alcoholic"" may allow people battling with addiction to feel a sense of community and belonging with other people battling addiction.","Labels such as ""addict"" and ""alcoholic"" facilitate the process of rehabilitation for people battling addiction."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaked [documents]( have shown how Facebook policies are unclear, often [arbitrary]( and performed by moderators that have about only 10 seconds to decide if they allow an image or they censor it.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaked [documents]( have shown how Facebook policies are unclear, often [arbitrary]( and performed by moderators that have about only 10 seconds to decide if they allow an image or they censor it.<|TARGETS|>Leaked documents have shown how Facebook policies, to decide if they allow an image or they censor it .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaked [documents]( have shown how Facebook policies are unclear, often [arbitrary]( and performed by moderators that have about only 10 seconds to decide if they allow an image or they censor it.<|ASPECTS|>islam<|CONCLUSION|>","Leaked documents have shown how Facebook policies are unclear, often arbitrary and performed by moderators that have about only 10 seconds to decide if they allow an image or they censor it.",Facebook has open-ended community standards and a reporting system that makes the rules and their application vague.
"<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>The dispersion of early Christians away from Judea begins with Acts 8 with Philip going into Caesarea, the Ethiopian going to Africa. Paul goes into Europe, perhaps as far as Spain, with the message spreading faster than he does. Thomas is even reported to have made it to India. All of these events happen at least a decade before the destruction of the second temple. If the message was later changed, it would have been very hard to convince the vast people who had learned the original message.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>The dispersion of early Christians away from Judea begins with Acts 8 with Philip going into Caesarea, the Ethiopian going to Africa. Paul goes into Europe, perhaps as far as Spain, with the message spreading faster than he does. Thomas is even reported to have made it to India. All of these events happen at least a decade before the destruction of the second temple. If the message was later changed, it would have been very hard to convince the vast people who had learned the original message.<|TARGETS|>to convince the vast people who had learned the original message ., The dispersion of early Christians away from Judea, If the message was later changed, Thomas<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>The dispersion of early Christians away from Judea begins with Acts 8 with Philip going into Caesarea, the Ethiopian going to Africa. Paul goes into Europe, perhaps as far as Spain, with the message spreading faster than he does. Thomas is even reported to have made it to India. All of these events happen at least a decade before the destruction of the second temple. If the message was later changed, it would have been very hard to convince the vast people who had learned the original message.<|ASPECTS|>destruction, message spreading faster, dispersion of early christians<|CONCLUSION|>","The dispersion of early Christians away from Judea begins with Acts 8 with Philip going into Caesarea, the Ethiopian going to Africa. Paul goes into Europe, perhaps as far as Spain, with the message spreading faster than he does. Thomas is even reported to have made it to India. All of these events happen at least a decade before the destruction of the second temple. If the message was later changed, it would have been very hard to convince the vast people who had learned the original message.",The relative proliferation of biblical texts compared to other writings of the time would have made such obvious lies especially difficult to gain the momentum they did as the foundation of the world's eventual most popular religion.
"<|TOPIC|>Are gender and sex the same thing?<|ARGUMENT|>By comparison, a trans or non-binary person still faces many obstacles relating to their gender identity in their daily lives \(recognition, medical needs, discrimination etc.\). Concepts of sex and gender that include their lived experience are important to reduce these obstacles.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are gender and sex the same thing?<|ARGUMENT|>By comparison, a trans or non-binary person still faces many obstacles relating to their gender identity in their daily lives \(recognition, medical needs, discrimination etc.\). Concepts of sex and gender that include their lived experience are important to reduce these obstacles.<|TARGETS|>Concepts of sex and gender that include their lived experience, a trans or non-binary person<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are gender and sex the same thing?<|ARGUMENT|>By comparison, a trans or non-binary person still faces many obstacles relating to their gender identity in their daily lives \(recognition, medical needs, discrimination etc.\). Concepts of sex and gender that include their lived experience are important to reduce these obstacles.<|ASPECTS|>lived experience, reduce, gender identity, medical needs, discrimination, obstacles<|CONCLUSION|>","By comparison, a trans or non-binary person still faces many obstacles relating to their gender identity in their daily lives recognition, medical needs, discrimination etc.. Concepts of sex and gender that include their lived experience are important to reduce these obstacles.","For the average cisgender person, they may never need or want to engage with the concepts of sex and gender. Their ease of understanding has very little impact in their daily lives."
<|TOPIC|>Should Seattle pass a big-business tax to pay for homelessness and affordable housing services?<|ARGUMENT|>The Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council [expressed concern]( that forcing businesses to pay this tax would kill construction jobs.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Seattle pass a big-business tax to pay for homelessness and affordable housing services?<|ARGUMENT|>The Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council [expressed concern]( that forcing businesses to pay this tax would kill construction jobs.<|TARGETS|>The Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council, forcing businesses to pay this tax<|CONCLUSION|>",<|TOPIC|>Should Seattle pass a big-business tax to pay for homelessness and affordable housing services?<|ARGUMENT|>The Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council [expressed concern]( that forcing businesses to pay this tax would kill construction jobs.<|ASPECTS|>kill construction jobs<|CONCLUSION|>,The Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council expressed concern that forcing businesses to pay this tax would kill construction jobs.,Big business might move out of Seattle as a result of special taxation.
"<|TOPIC|>#timesup: Should individuals credibly accused of sexual assault or harassment be fired from positions of authority?<|ARGUMENT|>The lives of women who've been abused are changed profoundly \(lost careers, self-worth, living in fear/anxiety, addiction, suicide\). Woman have been silenced, blamed, or accused of lying. Courts have done little \(temporary restraining orders/shelters\). Society has been too quiet. No significant changes have happened to prevent abuse & save lives. A new movement is alive, a major transition - starting w/ a voice. Prevention is a goal. Getting it right is a challenge. Adjustments are inevitable.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>#timesup: Should individuals credibly accused of sexual assault or harassment be fired from positions of authority?<|ARGUMENT|>The lives of women who've been abused are changed profoundly \(lost careers, self-worth, living in fear/anxiety, addiction, suicide\). Woman have been silenced, blamed, or accused of lying. Courts have done little \(temporary restraining orders/shelters\). Society has been too quiet. No significant changes have happened to prevent abuse & save lives. A new movement is alive, a major transition - starting w/ a voice. Prevention is a goal. Getting it right is a challenge. Adjustments are inevitable.<|TARGETS|>The lives of women who 've been abused, A new movement, temporary restraining orders / shelters, Prevention, Getting it right<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>#timesup: Should individuals credibly accused of sexual assault or harassment be fired from positions of authority?<|ARGUMENT|>The lives of women who've been abused are changed profoundly \(lost careers, self-worth, living in fear/anxiety, addiction, suicide\). Woman have been silenced, blamed, or accused of lying. Courts have done little \(temporary restraining orders/shelters\). Society has been too quiet. No significant changes have happened to prevent abuse & save lives. A new movement is alive, a major transition - starting w/ a voice. Prevention is a goal. Getting it right is a challenge. Adjustments are inevitable.<|ASPECTS|>quiet, lying, prevent abuse, addiction, careers, little, transition, adjustments, self-worth, prevention, save lives, fear/anxiety, lives, blamed, silenced<|CONCLUSION|>","The lives of women who've been abused are changed profoundly lost careers, self-worth, living in fear/anxiety, addiction, suicide. Woman have been silenced, blamed, or accused of lying. Courts have done little temporary restraining orders/shelters. Society has been too quiet. No significant changes have happened to prevent abuse & save lives. A new movement is alive, a major transition - starting w/ a voice. Prevention is a goal. Getting it right is a challenge. Adjustments are inevitable.","The justice system is seen to fail victims in a variety of cases and contexts. In the US, cases like that of Brock Turner exemplify the serious flaws in how rape and sexual harassment are treated. As such, ensuring that there are reasonable consequences outside of the justice system is vital."
"<|TOPIC|>Should sensitive social and political topics be discussed in school?<|ARGUMENT|>Teachers probably already bring up these topics here and there. But if teachers can only mention sensitive topics as an aside to the main lesson, they're going to have to keep that discussion very brief. There wouldn't be time or a process for them to present both sides fairly. Any exposure students currently get to difficult topics from teachers is likely only the view the teacher agrees with.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should sensitive social and political topics be discussed in school?<|ARGUMENT|>Teachers probably already bring up these topics here and there. But if teachers can only mention sensitive topics as an aside to the main lesson, they're going to have to keep that discussion very brief. There wouldn't be time or a process for them to present both sides fairly. Any exposure students currently get to difficult topics from teachers is likely only the view the teacher agrees with.<|TARGETS|>to keep that discussion very brief ., if teachers can only mention sensitive topics as an aside to the main lesson, Any exposure students currently get to difficult topics from teachers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should sensitive social and political topics be discussed in school?<|ARGUMENT|>Teachers probably already bring up these topics here and there. But if teachers can only mention sensitive topics as an aside to the main lesson, they're going to have to keep that discussion very brief. There wouldn't be time or a process for them to present both sides fairly. Any exposure students currently get to difficult topics from teachers is likely only the view the teacher agrees with.<|ASPECTS|>difficult topics, sensitive topics, time<|CONCLUSION|>","Teachers probably already bring up these topics here and there. But if teachers can only mention sensitive topics as an aside to the main lesson, they're going to have to keep that discussion very brief. There wouldn't be time or a process for them to present both sides fairly. Any exposure students currently get to difficult topics from teachers is likely only the view the teacher agrees with.","If teachers desire to bias students, they can and will do so, without explicitly mentioning the topics but just alluding to them and ""bad arguments"" of the other side. Thus better to have an open discussion where all sides are heard."
<|TOPIC|>The US Should Not Have Pulled Out of the Iran Deal.<|ARGUMENT|>Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are critical [allies]( in the War on Terror. US efficacy in achieving strategic aims in this region is dependent on their support.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>The US Should Not Have Pulled Out of the Iran Deal.<|ARGUMENT|>Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are critical [allies]( in the War on Terror. US efficacy in achieving strategic aims in this region is dependent on their support.<|TARGETS|>US efficacy in achieving strategic aims in this region, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The US Should Not Have Pulled Out of the Iran Deal.<|ARGUMENT|>Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are critical [allies]( in the War on Terror. US efficacy in achieving strategic aims in this region is dependent on their support.<|ASPECTS|>allies, strategic aims, critical, support, efficacy<|CONCLUSION|>",Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are critical allies in the War on Terror. US efficacy in achieving strategic aims in this region is dependent on their support.,Alienating key regional allies has the potential to undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.
"<|TOPIC|>Should all children should be taught to code in school?<|ARGUMENT|>Machine learning and data science are gradually permeating all aspects of our lives and transform industries, often being referred to as the driving force behind a [new industrial revolution](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all children should be taught to code in school?<|ARGUMENT|>Machine learning and data science are gradually permeating all aspects of our lives and transform industries, often being referred to as the driving force behind a [new industrial revolution](<|TARGETS|>Machine learning and data science<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all children should be taught to code in school?<|ARGUMENT|>Machine learning and data science are gradually permeating all aspects of our lives and transform industries, often being referred to as the driving force behind a [new industrial revolution](<|ASPECTS|>transform industries, industrial revolution<|CONCLUSION|>","Machine learning and data science are gradually permeating all aspects of our lives and transform industries, often being referred to as the driving force behind a new industrial revolution","More and more fields such as finance, medicine, entertainment etc. are relying on programming."
"<|TOPIC|>Will a nuclear war cause human extinction<|ARGUMENT|>Nuclear weapon states \(USA, UK, France\) have nuclear weapon systems deployed in many fellow NATO countries \(""[Nuclear Sharing](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will a nuclear war cause human extinction<|ARGUMENT|>Nuclear weapon states \(USA, UK, France\) have nuclear weapon systems deployed in many fellow NATO countries \(""[Nuclear Sharing](<|TARGETS|>Nuclear weapon states<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will a nuclear war cause human extinction<|ARGUMENT|>Nuclear weapon states \(USA, UK, France\) have nuclear weapon systems deployed in many fellow NATO countries \(""[Nuclear Sharing](<|ASPECTS|>weapon<|CONCLUSION|>","Nuclear weapon states USA, UK, France have nuclear weapon systems deployed in many fellow NATO countries ""Nuclear Sharing",Being part of a defensive alliance such as the NATO would make a country a target.
"<|TOPIC|>People should negotiate relationship agreements.<|ARGUMENT|>Wedding vows have long been considered to be relationship contracts. The original idea was to have two people enter into an agreement before a witness and a community. The default relationship being ""until one of us dies""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>People should negotiate relationship agreements.<|ARGUMENT|>Wedding vows have long been considered to be relationship contracts. The original idea was to have two people enter into an agreement before a witness and a community. The default relationship being ""until one of us dies""<|TARGETS|>The default relationship, Wedding vows, The original idea<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>People should negotiate relationship agreements.<|ARGUMENT|>Wedding vows have long been considered to be relationship contracts. The original idea was to have two people enter into an agreement before a witness and a community. The default relationship being ""until one of us dies""<|ASPECTS|>default relationship, vows, relationship contracts<|CONCLUSION|>","Wedding vows have long been considered to be relationship contracts. The original idea was to have two people enter into an agreement before a witness and a community. The default relationship being ""until one of us dies""","Relationships are an agreement anyway, even though it may be unspoken."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>Not an entirety moot point, the example of Mexico shows that the gun restrictions in Mexico are not a sufficient condition to bring about the end of gun violence \(although they may well be a neccesary one\).<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>Not an entirety moot point, the example of Mexico shows that the gun restrictions in Mexico are not a sufficient condition to bring about the end of gun violence \(although they may well be a neccesary one\).<|TARGETS|>the gun restrictions in Mexico<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>Not an entirety moot point, the example of Mexico shows that the gun restrictions in Mexico are not a sufficient condition to bring about the end of gun violence \(although they may well be a neccesary one\).<|ASPECTS|>political and social lobbying, political discussion<|CONCLUSION|>","Not an entirety moot point, the example of Mexico shows that the gun restrictions in Mexico are not a sufficient condition to bring about the end of gun violence although they may well be a neccesary one.","Guns are practically illegal for the average citizen of Mexico. Despite these restrictive gun laws, the gun homicide rate is significantly higher in Mexico than the United States."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>As man created artificial intelligence, robots & automatons which follow his instructions blindly evidently without criticizing, blaming or going against him, it is unlikely God would be so foolish to have created conscious beings with free will many of whom don’t believe He exists, criticize Him, even blame, go against or harm Him, which may indicate that nature, e.g., humans, is not the creation of God/God does not exist.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>As man created artificial intelligence, robots & automatons which follow his instructions blindly evidently without criticizing, blaming or going against him, it is unlikely God would be so foolish to have created conscious beings with free will many of whom don’t believe He exists, criticize Him, even blame, go against or harm Him, which may indicate that nature, e.g., humans, is not the creation of God/God does not exist.<|TARGETS|>to have created conscious beings with free will many of whom do n’t believe He exists criticize Him even blame go against or harm Him which<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>As man created artificial intelligence, robots & automatons which follow his instructions blindly evidently without criticizing, blaming or going against him, it is unlikely God would be so foolish to have created conscious beings with free will many of whom don’t believe He exists, criticize Him, even blame, go against or harm Him, which may indicate that nature, e.g., humans, is not the creation of God/God does not exist.<|ASPECTS|>source of value<|CONCLUSION|>","As man created artificial intelligence, robots & automatons which follow his instructions blindly evidently without criticizing, blaming or going against him, it is unlikely God would be so foolish to have created conscious beings with free will many of whom don’t believe He exists, criticize Him, even blame, go against or harm Him, which may indicate that nature, e.g., humans, is not the creation of God/God does not exist.",Biological evolution demonstrates that a God that directly created humans animals and plants does not exist.
"<|TOPIC|>Who Will Win the Game of Thrones?<|ARGUMENT|>Because Bran could warg into a dragon, he could automatically side with Daenerys Targaryen, who is another prominent prospect for the throne.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Who Will Win the Game of Thrones?<|ARGUMENT|>Because Bran could warg into a dragon, he could automatically side with Daenerys Targaryen, who is another prominent prospect for the throne.<|TARGETS|>Daenerys Targaryen, Bran could warg into a dragon<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Who Will Win the Game of Thrones?<|ARGUMENT|>Because Bran could warg into a dragon, he could automatically side with Daenerys Targaryen, who is another prominent prospect for the throne.<|ASPECTS|>mop, vital, battle<|CONCLUSION|>","Because Bran could warg into a dragon, he could automatically side with Daenerys Targaryen, who is another prominent prospect for the throne.","Bran can become his own army by warging into a dragon, or people he wants to control."
"<|TOPIC|>Universities should make all academic work they produce, including scholarly articles, course handbooks and recorded lectures, available to the general public.<|ARGUMENT|>The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9.[1] In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources.[2] Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce. Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university [1] Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012,  [2] Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010. <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Universities should make all academic work they produce, including scholarly articles, course handbooks and recorded lectures, available to the general public.<|ARGUMENT|>The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9.[1] In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources.[2] Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce. Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university [1] Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012,  [2] Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010. <|TARGETS|>to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce ., The United States University system, the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers, Moreover those who have paid for a university course, access to these materials as the tuition fees<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Universities should make all academic work they produce, including scholarly articles, course handbooks and recorded lectures, available to the general public.<|ARGUMENT|>The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9.[1] In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources.[2] Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce. Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university [1] Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012,  [2] Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010. <|ASPECTS|>, materials, spending, tuition fees, universities, money, academic work, public funding, fees, government sources, expensive, funding, personal teaching time, access<|CONCLUSION|>","The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9.1 In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources.2 Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce. Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university 1 Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012, 2 Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010.",Most universities are publically funded so should have to be open with their materials.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US government guarantee every citizen a job?<|ARGUMENT|>Furthermore, the healthcare, wage and benefits package would set a minimum standard for private businesses as they would have to match the government offer. Aiding employees who are not involved in the program with healthcare.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US government guarantee every citizen a job?<|ARGUMENT|>Furthermore, the healthcare, wage and benefits package would set a minimum standard for private businesses as they would have to match the government offer. Aiding employees who are not involved in the program with healthcare.<|TARGETS|>the healthcare wage and benefits package<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US government guarantee every citizen a job?<|ARGUMENT|>Furthermore, the healthcare, wage and benefits package would set a minimum standard for private businesses as they would have to match the government offer. Aiding employees who are not involved in the program with healthcare.<|ASPECTS|>healthily, eat<|CONCLUSION|>","Furthermore, the healthcare, wage and benefits package would set a minimum standard for private businesses as they would have to match the government offer. Aiding employees who are not involved in the program with healthcare.","With the provision of health benefits to full-time workers through the jobs guarantee program, a sizable fall in the need for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program can be expected."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>The country was founded as a Republic to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It was not founded to permit a tyranny of the minorities. There is no prohibition against offensive speech in the Constitution. Indeed, the 1st Amendment specifically protects such speech. Whether the statues are interpreted by some as pro-slavery is irrelevant.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>The country was founded as a Republic to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It was not founded to permit a tyranny of the minorities. There is no prohibition against offensive speech in the Constitution. Indeed, the 1st Amendment specifically protects such speech. Whether the statues are interpreted by some as pro-slavery is irrelevant.<|TARGETS|>Whether the statues are interpreted by some as pro-slavery, to permit a tyranny of the minorities .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>The country was founded as a Republic to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It was not founded to permit a tyranny of the minorities. There is no prohibition against offensive speech in the Constitution. Indeed, the 1st Amendment specifically protects such speech. Whether the statues are interpreted by some as pro-slavery is irrelevant.<|ASPECTS|>, honoring, monuments, confederacy, slave-holding figures<|CONCLUSION|>","The country was founded as a Republic to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It was not founded to permit a tyranny of the minorities. There is no prohibition against offensive speech in the Constitution. Indeed, the 1st Amendment specifically protects such speech. Whether the statues are interpreted by some as pro-slavery is irrelevant.","Removing these statues and flags helps hate groups recruit new members. Not everyone considers them symbols of slavery, but as expression of a political ideal, and might feel threatened and radicalise if these symbols are removed."
"<|TOPIC|>NATO expansion<|ARGUMENT|>""Why Ukrainians stand up strongly against NATO"". Pravda. 1 May 2008 - ""On April 24 a Ukrainian social service announced sensational changes in Ukrainians’ preferences in foreign policy. The number of Ukrainians who backed up the country’s entry into NATO dropped ten percent within the past four months. This statement was issued by Ilko Kucheriv, the Democratic Initiatives Fund Director, who presented the results of research conducted by the Ukrainian Sociology Service by order of the fund within the period from March 17 to 31.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NATO expansion<|ARGUMENT|>""Why Ukrainians stand up strongly against NATO"". Pravda. 1 May 2008 - ""On April 24 a Ukrainian social service announced sensational changes in Ukrainians’ preferences in foreign policy. The number of Ukrainians who backed up the country’s entry into NATO dropped ten percent within the past four months. This statement was issued by Ilko Kucheriv, the Democratic Initiatives Fund Director, who presented the results of research conducted by the Ukrainian Sociology Service by order of the fund within the period from March 17 to 31.<|TARGETS|>Pravda, The number of Ukrainians who backed up the country ’s entry into NATO, Ilko Kucheriv<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NATO expansion<|ARGUMENT|>""Why Ukrainians stand up strongly against NATO"". Pravda. 1 May 2008 - ""On April 24 a Ukrainian social service announced sensational changes in Ukrainians’ preferences in foreign policy. The number of Ukrainians who backed up the country’s entry into NATO dropped ten percent within the past four months. This statement was issued by Ilko Kucheriv, the Democratic Initiatives Fund Director, who presented the results of research conducted by the Ukrainian Sociology Service by order of the fund within the period from March 17 to 31.<|ASPECTS|>sensational changes, strongly against nato, ukrainians, foreign policy, nato, research, preferences, backed<|CONCLUSION|>","""Why Ukrainians stand up strongly against NATO"". Pravda. 1 May 2008 - ""On April 24 a Ukrainian social service announced sensational changes in Ukrainians’ preferences in foreign policy. The number of Ukrainians who backed up the country’s entry into NATO dropped ten percent within the past four months. This statement was issued by Ilko Kucheriv, the Democratic Initiatives Fund Director, who presented the results of research conducted by the Ukrainian Sociology Service by order of the fund within the period from March 17 to 31.",Vast majority of Ukrainians don't want to join NATO
"<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>A host is not legally considered a hotel owner if a room of their house is only rented for [up to 14 days]( per year \(or is only rented once or twice during any four consecutive tax quarters of a 12-month filing period\). Thus Airbnb hosts could rent out a room in their house for 14 days or less per year, and not be liable to pay income tax for this.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>A host is not legally considered a hotel owner if a room of their house is only rented for [up to 14 days]( per year \(or is only rented once or twice during any four consecutive tax quarters of a 12-month filing period\). Thus Airbnb hosts could rent out a room in their house for 14 days or less per year, and not be liable to pay income tax for this.<|TARGETS|>Airbnb hosts, A host<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>A host is not legally considered a hotel owner if a room of their house is only rented for [up to 14 days]( per year \(or is only rented once or twice during any four consecutive tax quarters of a 12-month filing period\). Thus Airbnb hosts could rent out a room in their house for 14 days or less per year, and not be liable to pay income tax for this.<|ASPECTS|>government interference, internet communication, robust nature, defamatory posts<|CONCLUSION|>","A host is not legally considered a hotel owner if a room of their house is only rented for up to 14 days per year or is only rented once or twice during any four consecutive tax quarters of a 12-month filing period. Thus Airbnb hosts could rent out a room in their house for 14 days or less per year, and not be liable to pay income tax for this.","All hotel and lodging businesses are legally required to pay various taxes, whereas certain Airbnb hosts are not."
"<|TOPIC|>Humans should act to fight climate change<|ARGUMENT|>We need to capture and use one 10,000th part of the total incoming solar radiation to satisfy our present energy needs. [www.energy.gov]( This can be visualised as an area the size of Britain occupying the Sahara desert - a tiny proportion of that desert.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Humans should act to fight climate change<|ARGUMENT|>We need to capture and use one 10,000th part of the total incoming solar radiation to satisfy our present energy needs. [www.energy.gov]( This can be visualised as an area the size of Britain occupying the Sahara desert - a tiny proportion of that desert.<|TARGETS|>an area the size of Britain occupying the Sahara desert<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Humans should act to fight climate change<|ARGUMENT|>We need to capture and use one 10,000th part of the total incoming solar radiation to satisfy our present energy needs. [www.energy.gov]( This can be visualised as an area the size of Britain occupying the Sahara desert - a tiny proportion of that desert.<|ASPECTS|>grid parity, energy shortages, climate change<|CONCLUSION|>","We need to capture and use one 10,000th part of the total incoming solar radiation to satisfy our present energy needs. www.energy.gov This can be visualised as an area the size of Britain occupying the Sahara desert - a tiny proportion of that desert.",It is technically feasible that the world's energy production could be completely powered by renewable energy sources.
"<|TOPIC|>Tibet independence<|ARGUMENT|>It is important to put Tibet's struggle for independence in historical perspective in this way. Few doubt the righteousness of the United States' declaration of independence in 1776 and its revolution against the British. But, it was not given permission to do this. Rather, it just did it. Similarly, Tibet's case is not one in which the right to self-determination is granted. It is, rather, a matter of Tibet seizing its right to determine its future (self-determination). This can only be driven by an internal will among Tibetans to obtain freedom where their own consciences tell them there is none; it cannot and will not be driven by an external offering of a right to self-determination. That right exists within. That's why it is called ""self-determination"".<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Tibet independence<|ARGUMENT|>It is important to put Tibet's struggle for independence in historical perspective in this way. Few doubt the righteousness of the United States' declaration of independence in 1776 and its revolution against the British. But, it was not given permission to do this. Rather, it just did it. Similarly, Tibet's case is not one in which the right to self-determination is granted. It is, rather, a matter of Tibet seizing its right to determine its future (self-determination). This can only be driven by an internal will among Tibetans to obtain freedom where their own consciences tell them there is none; it cannot and will not be driven by an external offering of a right to self-determination. That right exists within. That's why it is called ""self-determination"".<|TARGETS|>an internal will among Tibetans to obtain freedom where their own consciences tell them there is none ; it cannot and will not be driven by an external offering of a right to self-determination ., to put Tibet 's struggle for independence in historical perspective in this way ., Tibet 's case, Tibet seizing its right to determine its future self-determination .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Tibet independence<|ARGUMENT|>It is important to put Tibet's struggle for independence in historical perspective in this way. Few doubt the righteousness of the United States' declaration of independence in 1776 and its revolution against the British. But, it was not given permission to do this. Rather, it just did it. Similarly, Tibet's case is not one in which the right to self-determination is granted. It is, rather, a matter of Tibet seizing its right to determine its future (self-determination). This can only be driven by an internal will among Tibetans to obtain freedom where their own consciences tell them there is none; it cannot and will not be driven by an external offering of a right to self-determination. That right exists within. That's why it is called ""self-determination"".<|ASPECTS|>freedom, internal, revolution, self-determination, independence, right to determine its future, righteousness, struggle, permission, right to self-determination, right exists<|CONCLUSION|>","It is important to put Tibet's struggle for independence in historical perspective in this way. Few doubt the righteousness of the United States' declaration of independence in 1776 and its revolution against the British. But, it was not given permission to do this. Rather, it just did it. Similarly, Tibet's case is not one in which the right to self-determination is granted. It is, rather, a matter of Tibet seizing its right to determine its future self-determination. This can only be driven by an internal will among Tibetans to obtain freedom where their own consciences tell them there is none; it cannot and will not be driven by an external offering of a right to self-determination. That right exists within. That's why it is called ""self-determination"".",The Tibetan case for independence is analogous to US rationales for independence in 1776.
<|TOPIC|>The US should adopt a better voting system (for elected bodies)<|ARGUMENT|>.It should not change its system. The US should continue using the First-Past-The-Post voting system. Described here: [en.wikipedia.org](<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>The US should adopt a better voting system (for elected bodies)<|ARGUMENT|>.It should not change its system. The US should continue using the First-Past-The-Post voting system. Described here: [en.wikipedia.org](<|TARGETS|>the First-Past-The-Post voting system<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>The US should adopt a better voting system (for elected bodies)<|ARGUMENT|>.It should not change its system. The US should continue using the First-Past-The-Post voting system. Described here: [en.wikipedia.org](<|ASPECTS|>system<|CONCLUSION|>,.It should not change its system. The US should continue using the First-Past-The-Post voting system. Described here: en.wikipedia.org,The US should continue electing its representatives individually using FPTP
"<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Every foundation ever has been denied with no objective effect. For every god there are people who deny its existence. For every nation, there are people who are outsiders. And finally, for every aim that morality is supposed to deliver, there are people who want to apply it only to their [ingroup]( Morality is subjective because people apply moral frameworks selectively to favour their ingroups.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Every foundation ever has been denied with no objective effect. For every god there are people who deny its existence. For every nation, there are people who are outsiders. And finally, for every aim that morality is supposed to deliver, there are people who want to apply it only to their [ingroup]( Morality is subjective because people apply moral frameworks selectively to favour their ingroups.<|TARGETS|>to apply it only to their ingroup Morality is subjective because people apply moral frameworks selectively to favour their ingroups .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Every foundation ever has been denied with no objective effect. For every god there are people who deny its existence. For every nation, there are people who are outsiders. And finally, for every aim that morality is supposed to deliver, there are people who want to apply it only to their [ingroup]( Morality is subjective because people apply moral frameworks selectively to favour their ingroups.<|ASPECTS|>source of value<|CONCLUSION|>","Every foundation ever has been denied with no objective effect. For every god there are people who deny its existence. For every nation, there are people who are outsiders. And finally, for every aim that morality is supposed to deliver, there are people who want to apply it only to their ingroup Morality is subjective because people apply moral frameworks selectively to favour their ingroups.","Moral frameworks can only be constructed by and apply to specific societies, so morality can't be truly objective."
"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Unlike the current guaranteed income regime, because UBI is an individual unit, it can become a [women’s autonomous guaranteed income]( that does not require a husband as a route. For that reason, women with no direct economic income can experience a substantial benefit in the area of economic independence.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Unlike the current guaranteed income regime, because UBI is an individual unit, it can become a [women’s autonomous guaranteed income]( that does not require a husband as a route. For that reason, women with no direct economic income can experience a substantial benefit in the area of economic independence.<|TARGETS|>the current guaranteed income regime, UBI<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Unlike the current guaranteed income regime, because UBI is an individual unit, it can become a [women’s autonomous guaranteed income]( that does not require a husband as a route. For that reason, women with no direct economic income can experience a substantial benefit in the area of economic independence.<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>","Unlike the current guaranteed income regime, because UBI is an individual unit, it can become a women’s autonomous guaranteed income that does not require a husband as a route. For that reason, women with no direct economic income can experience a substantial benefit in the area of economic independence.","A UBI is a way of reevaluating the economic value of the work women have primarily handled in the past, while also promoting the economic independence of women. UBIs are an “Emancipation Fee” paid to promote women’s liberation Katada, p. 3"
"<|TOPIC|>Should Evangelicals vote for Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>Jack Graham, Pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, [advocated]( that ""Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony \[is\] compelling, convincing and credible. He should be confirmed and will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice"".<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Evangelicals vote for Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>Jack Graham, Pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, [advocated]( that ""Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony \[is\] compelling, convincing and credible. He should be confirmed and will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice"".<|TARGETS|>Judge Kavanaugh ’s testimony, Jack Graham Pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Evangelicals vote for Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>Jack Graham, Pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, [advocated]( that ""Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony \[is\] compelling, convincing and credible. He should be confirmed and will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice"".<|ASPECTS|>supreme court justice, convincing, compelling, credible, outstanding<|CONCLUSION|>","Jack Graham, Pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, advocated that ""Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony is compelling, convincing and credible. He should be confirmed and will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice"".","Even in the light of accusations of sexual assault and proof against him, Kavanaugh has had his nomination defended by evangelical leaders."
"<|TOPIC|>the right to anonymous posting on the internet should be protected by law<|ARGUMENT|>Citizens have a right to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously.[1] Internet anonymity guarantees that people can actually exercise their right to free speech: anonymity takes away the fear of potential political consequences. The reason why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity is exactly this: they don’t like being criticized. For example, China recently introduced a bill requiring ‘real name registration’ of every Chinese internet user, thus hampering free communication and the airing of political dissident opinions.[2] Conversely, internet anonymity has helped in the Arab Uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia: people used anonymising software like TOR to come online and communicate, organize and criticize freely without fear of political repercussions.[3] [1] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Anonymity’. URL:  [2] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Renewed Restrictions Send Online Chill’, January 4, 2013. URL:  [3] University for Peace, ‘Tor, Anonymity, and the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum’, August 1, 2011. URL: <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>the right to anonymous posting on the internet should be protected by law<|ARGUMENT|>Citizens have a right to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously.[1] Internet anonymity guarantees that people can actually exercise their right to free speech: anonymity takes away the fear of potential political consequences. The reason why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity is exactly this: they don’t like being criticized. For example, China recently introduced a bill requiring ‘real name registration’ of every Chinese internet user, thus hampering free communication and the airing of political dissident opinions.[2] Conversely, internet anonymity has helped in the Arab Uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia: people used anonymising software like TOR to come online and communicate, organize and criticize freely without fear of political repercussions.[3] [1] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Anonymity’. URL:  [2] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Renewed Restrictions Send Online Chill’, January 4, 2013. URL:  [3] University for Peace, ‘Tor, Anonymity, and the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum’, August 1, 2011. URL: <|TARGETS|>URL, internet anonymity, why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity, to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously ., China, Internet anonymity<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>the right to anonymous posting on the internet should be protected by law<|ARGUMENT|>Citizens have a right to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously.[1] Internet anonymity guarantees that people can actually exercise their right to free speech: anonymity takes away the fear of potential political consequences. The reason why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity is exactly this: they don’t like being criticized. For example, China recently introduced a bill requiring ‘real name registration’ of every Chinese internet user, thus hampering free communication and the airing of political dissident opinions.[2] Conversely, internet anonymity has helped in the Arab Uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia: people used anonymising software like TOR to come online and communicate, organize and criticize freely without fear of political repercussions.[3] [1] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Anonymity’. URL:  [2] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Renewed Restrictions Send Online Chill’, January 4, 2013. URL:  [3] University for Peace, ‘Tor, Anonymity, and the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum’, August 1, 2011. URL: <|ASPECTS|>right to free speech, fear, government interference, internet anonymity, right to speak anonymously, political repercussions, political consequences, political dissident opinions, right to speak their mind, free communication, real name registration ’, restrictions<|CONCLUSION|>","Citizens have a right to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously.1 Internet anonymity guarantees that people can actually exercise their right to free speech: anonymity takes away the fear of potential political consequences. The reason why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity is exactly this: they don’t like being criticized. For example, China recently introduced a bill requiring ‘real name registration’ of every Chinese internet user, thus hampering free communication and the airing of political dissident opinions.2 Conversely, internet anonymity has helped in the Arab Uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia: people used anonymising software like TOR to come online and communicate, organize and criticize freely without fear of political repercussions.3 1 Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Anonymity’. URL: 2 Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Renewed Restrictions Send Online Chill’, January 4, 2013. URL: 3 University for Peace, ‘Tor, Anonymity, and the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum’, August 1, 2011. URL:",Internet anonymity enables citizens to exercise their right to free speech
<|TOPIC|>Is banning books inherently wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>One could read the Anarchist Cookbook to understand how a bomb was made in order to know how best to defuse a bomb.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is banning books inherently wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>One could read the Anarchist Cookbook to understand how a bomb was made in order to know how best to defuse a bomb.<|TARGETS|>the Anarchist Cookbook<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is banning books inherently wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>One could read the Anarchist Cookbook to understand how a bomb was made in order to know how best to defuse a bomb.<|ASPECTS|>bomb, defuse<|CONCLUSION|>",One could read the Anarchist Cookbook to understand how a bomb was made in order to know how best to defuse a bomb.,The knowledge can be used to find a cure/response to the possible harm.
<|TOPIC|>Should Conduct in Virtual Reality be Subject to the Laws of the Real World?<|ARGUMENT|>It is plausible that torture in virtual reality will be experienced as equally real if not worse — [bodily measures of stress are already highly responsive to virtual environments even when they do not simulate physical sensations](<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Conduct in Virtual Reality be Subject to the Laws of the Real World?<|ARGUMENT|>It is plausible that torture in virtual reality will be experienced as equally real if not worse — [bodily measures of stress are already highly responsive to virtual environments even when they do not simulate physical sensations](<|TARGETS|>that torture in virtual reality<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Conduct in Virtual Reality be Subject to the Laws of the Real World?<|ARGUMENT|>It is plausible that torture in virtual reality will be experienced as equally real if not worse — [bodily measures of stress are already highly responsive to virtual environments even when they do not simulate physical sensations](<|ASPECTS|>monopoly, monopoly of violence, legitimacy<|CONCLUSION|>",It is plausible that torture in virtual reality will be experienced as equally real if not worse — bodily measures of stress are already highly responsive to virtual environments even when they do not simulate physical sensations,Given that virtual reality has been used in mental health treatment it seems plausible that it could also be a highly effective tool at damaging the psyches of others.
<|TOPIC|>Is it OK to publicly approach a stranger for sex?<|ARGUMENT|>Whatever minor insult that might arise \(or not\) from approaching a stranger does not rise to the level that would warrant interference in the liberties of the individual doing the approaching. These considerations are generally balanced against each other in a civilized society.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is it OK to publicly approach a stranger for sex?<|ARGUMENT|>Whatever minor insult that might arise \(or not\) from approaching a stranger does not rise to the level that would warrant interference in the liberties of the individual doing the approaching. These considerations are generally balanced against each other in a civilized society.<|TARGETS|>Whatever minor insult that might arise or not from approaching a stranger<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is it OK to publicly approach a stranger for sex?<|ARGUMENT|>Whatever minor insult that might arise \(or not\) from approaching a stranger does not rise to the level that would warrant interference in the liberties of the individual doing the approaching. These considerations are generally balanced against each other in a civilized society.<|ASPECTS|>instability, secure a mate, promiscuity, decline of marriage, anger<|CONCLUSION|>",Whatever minor insult that might arise or not from approaching a stranger does not rise to the level that would warrant interference in the liberties of the individual doing the approaching. These considerations are generally balanced against each other in a civilized society.,It's OK to approach strangers in public in an attempt to have consensual sex with them.
<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>Looking at numerous aspects of a persons life rather than simply whether they have been previously discovered to have committed a crime provides a clearer picture of their suitability to be a citizen.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>Looking at numerous aspects of a persons life rather than simply whether they have been previously discovered to have committed a crime provides a clearer picture of their suitability to be a citizen.<|TARGETS|>Looking at numerous aspects of a persons life rather than simply whether they have been previously discovered to have committed a crime<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>Looking at numerous aspects of a persons life rather than simply whether they have been previously discovered to have committed a crime provides a clearer picture of their suitability to be a citizen.<|ASPECTS|>immutable characteristic<|CONCLUSION|>,Looking at numerous aspects of a persons life rather than simply whether they have been previously discovered to have committed a crime provides a clearer picture of their suitability to be a citizen.,"DACA applicants are only fingerprinted in order to have a criminal background check. In contrast, Refugees undergo a series of interviews and their backgrounds are thoroughly analysed."
"<|TOPIC|>marriage is an outdated institution<|ARGUMENT|>With pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics) Since the purpose of marriage has always been to foster a stable and permanent relationship, it is clearly an entirely outdated institution as it no longer leads to a stable or permanent relationship.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>marriage is an outdated institution<|ARGUMENT|>With pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics) Since the purpose of marriage has always been to foster a stable and permanent relationship, it is clearly an entirely outdated institution as it no longer leads to a stable or permanent relationship.<|TARGETS|>Serial monogamy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>marriage is an outdated institution<|ARGUMENT|>With pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics) Since the purpose of marriage has always been to foster a stable and permanent relationship, it is clearly an entirely outdated institution as it no longer leads to a stable or permanent relationship.<|ASPECTS|>remarry, divorces, marriage, divorce, stable and permanent relationship, obtain, permanent relationship, outdated institution, serial monogamy, permanent institution, stable<|CONCLUSION|>","With pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. Office for National Statistics Since the purpose of marriage has always been to foster a stable and permanent relationship, it is clearly an entirely outdated institution as it no longer leads to a stable or permanent relationship.",Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage
"<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>The long-run growth impact of aid is conditional on the degree of political and civil liberties in the recipient country. Aid has a positive impact on growth in countries with an institutionalised check on governmental power, i.e. in more democratic countries. If these checks do not exist, aid will simply be used to further the regimes own personal goals. \([Svensson, p. 275](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>The long-run growth impact of aid is conditional on the degree of political and civil liberties in the recipient country. Aid has a positive impact on growth in countries with an institutionalised check on governmental power, i.e. in more democratic countries. If these checks do not exist, aid will simply be used to further the regimes own personal goals. \([Svensson, p. 275](<|TARGETS|>If these checks, The long-run growth impact of aid, Aid<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>The long-run growth impact of aid is conditional on the degree of political and civil liberties in the recipient country. Aid has a positive impact on growth in countries with an institutionalised check on governmental power, i.e. in more democratic countries. If these checks do not exist, aid will simply be used to further the regimes own personal goals. \([Svensson, p. 275](<|ASPECTS|>, positive, growth impact of aid, democratic, political and civil liberties, governmental power, aid, impact, personal goals, growth<|CONCLUSION|>","The long-run growth impact of aid is conditional on the degree of political and civil liberties in the recipient country. Aid has a positive impact on growth in countries with an institutionalised check on governmental power, i.e. in more democratic countries. If these checks do not exist, aid will simply be used to further the regimes own personal goals. Svensson, p. 275","The Development Assistance Committee DAC of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD has stated: 'There is a vital connection between open, democratic and accountable systems of governance and respect for human rights, and the ability to achieve sustained economic and social development' DAC, p. 8"
"<|TOPIC|>Colonization of the Moon<|ARGUMENT|>Because the Moon's axis of rotation is almost perfectly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, it may be possible to power polar colonies exclusively with solar energy. For example, Malapert mountain, located near the Shackleton crater at the lunar south pole is attractive as a possible site for a lunar base, (not only) because it receives nearly continuous sunlight.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Colonization of the Moon<|ARGUMENT|>Because the Moon's axis of rotation is almost perfectly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, it may be possible to power polar colonies exclusively with solar energy. For example, Malapert mountain, located near the Shackleton crater at the lunar south pole is attractive as a possible site for a lunar base, (not only) because it receives nearly continuous sunlight.<|TARGETS|>the Moon 's axis of rotation, Malapert mountain located near the Shackleton crater at the lunar south pole<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Colonization of the Moon<|ARGUMENT|>Because the Moon's axis of rotation is almost perfectly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, it may be possible to power polar colonies exclusively with solar energy. For example, Malapert mountain, located near the Shackleton crater at the lunar south pole is attractive as a possible site for a lunar base, (not only) because it receives nearly continuous sunlight.<|ASPECTS|>power polar colonies, continuous sunlight, attractive, solar energy<|CONCLUSION|>","Because the Moon's axis of rotation is almost perfectly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, it may be possible to power polar colonies exclusively with solar energy. For example, Malapert mountain, located near the Shackleton crater at the lunar south pole is attractive as a possible site for a lunar base, not only because it receives nearly continuous sunlight.",A colony at the Lunar north pole could rely on solar energy.
<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>An immutable characteristic is something which cannot be changed. As someone can change from being a non citizen into being a citizen it is very clearly not an immutable characteristic.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>An immutable characteristic is something which cannot be changed. As someone can change from being a non citizen into being a citizen it is very clearly not an immutable characteristic.<|TARGETS|>An immutable characteristic, being a non citizen into being a citizen it<|CONCLUSION|>",<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>An immutable characteristic is something which cannot be changed. As someone can change from being a non citizen into being a citizen it is very clearly not an immutable characteristic.<|ASPECTS|>immutable characteristic<|CONCLUSION|>,An immutable characteristic is something which cannot be changed. As someone can change from being a non citizen into being a citizen it is very clearly not an immutable characteristic.,Immigration laws differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. Being a non-citizen is not an immutable characteristic.
"<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>If you value an animal's life higher than a human's life, than I guess many people would put you in the at least very odd category, if not sick, category. Pets are a special case, but animals in general, would be deeply disturbing.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>If you value an animal's life higher than a human's life, than I guess many people would put you in the at least very odd category, if not sick, category. Pets are a special case, but animals in general, would be deeply disturbing.<|TARGETS|>Pets, If you value an animal 's life higher than a human 's life<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>If you value an animal's life higher than a human's life, than I guess many people would put you in the at least very odd category, if not sick, category. Pets are a special case, but animals in general, would be deeply disturbing.<|ASPECTS|>beautiful colors, less humans<|CONCLUSION|>","If you value an animal's life higher than a human's life, than I guess many people would put you in the at least very odd category, if not sick, category. Pets are a special case, but animals in general, would be deeply disturbing.","If you were to put the suffering human and the suffering animal in close contact with humans, most, besides ""psychopaths"" would go and help fellow human beings survive, rather than dogs."
"<|TOPIC|>Cultural Treasures Should Be Returned<|ARGUMENT|>Display of cultural treasures in western museums is a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true successors to Greece and Rome, and that the modern inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre has become offensive.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Cultural Treasures Should Be Returned<|ARGUMENT|>Display of cultural treasures in western museums is a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true successors to Greece and Rome, and that the modern inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre has become offensive.<|TARGETS|>Display of cultural treasures in western museums, the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre, Whether that was true in the 19th century<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Cultural Treasures Should Be Returned<|ARGUMENT|>Display of cultural treasures in western museums is a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true successors to Greece and Rome, and that the modern inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre has become offensive.<|ASPECTS|>cultural treasures, valid, offensive, imperial trophies, artistic heritage<|CONCLUSION|>","Display of cultural treasures in western museums is a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true successors to Greece and Rome, and that the modern inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre has become offensive.",Display of cultural treasures in western museums is a last hangover from the imperial belief that “c...
"<|TOPIC|>ban the development of genetically modified organisms<|ARGUMENT|>The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions. Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions.[1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation.[2] In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions.[3] [1]Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published December 2007,  accessed 09/05/2011 [2] African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa,  accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008,  accessed 09/02/2011<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>ban the development of genetically modified organisms<|ARGUMENT|>The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions. Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions.[1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation.[2] In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions.[3] [1]Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published December 2007,  accessed 09/05/2011 [2] African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa,  accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008,  accessed 09/02/2011<|TARGETS|>Evolution, genetically modified maize, to starve while we wait for this to occur ., These crops, Rodomiro Ortiz, The temperature of the earth<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>ban the development of genetically modified organisms<|ARGUMENT|>The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions. Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions.[1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation.[2] In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions.[3] [1]Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published December 2007,  accessed 09/05/2011 [2] African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa,  accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008,  accessed 09/02/2011<|ASPECTS|>, food supply, low nutrient content soil, grow, acclimatized, gm, starve, temperature of, foods, improve, resource mobilization, future, supply of food, rate of increase, weather conditions, changing environment, prevent, gm crops, transport, time, environment, drought conditions, starvation, impacting, crops, soil, hotter conditions, cultured, foods could, evolution takes, withstand, environmental costs<|CONCLUSION|>","The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions. Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions.1 This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation.2 In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions.3 1Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published December 2007, accessed 09/05/2011 2 African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa, accessed 09/02/2011 3 Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008, accessed 09/02/2011",Genetically modified organisms will prevent starvation due to global climate changes.
"<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>You wouldn't sell your house to someone and hand over the deed of ownership if they had given you a post dated cheque, so why should we believe the scientists when they say they will one day be able to explain how consciousness is produced as an epiphenomenon of matter, how life came to be, or how the universe originated?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>You wouldn't sell your house to someone and hand over the deed of ownership if they had given you a post dated cheque, so why should we believe the scientists when they say they will one day be able to explain how consciousness is produced as an epiphenomenon of matter, how life came to be, or how the universe originated?<|TARGETS|>n't sell your house to someone and hand over the deed of ownership if they had given you a post dated cheque, the scientists when they say they will one day be able to explain how consciousness is produced as an epiphenomenon of matter how life came to be or how the universe originated<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>You wouldn't sell your house to someone and hand over the deed of ownership if they had given you a post dated cheque, so why should we believe the scientists when they say they will one day be able to explain how consciousness is produced as an epiphenomenon of matter, how life came to be, or how the universe originated?<|ASPECTS|>affairs, divine communication, human psychological development, direct, lessons, statecraft, human morality, biased.\, divine intervention, philosophy<|CONCLUSION|>","You wouldn't sell your house to someone and hand over the deed of ownership if they had given you a post dated cheque, so why should we believe the scientists when they say they will one day be able to explain how consciousness is produced as an epiphenomenon of matter, how life came to be, or how the universe originated?",The claim that science will one day be able to explain the gaps is a post dated cheque. It's an empty promise.
"<|TOPIC|>A Socialist Economy would work better than a Capitalist Economy.<|ARGUMENT|>The exhaustive list of possibilities is: 1\) taxation is legitimate in democratic systems, 2\) taxation isn't legitimate in democratic systems, 3\) taxation is legitimate in non-democratic systems, 4\) taxation isn't legitimate in non- democratic systems. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive. But 1 being true cannot conclude anything about 3 or 4.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>A Socialist Economy would work better than a Capitalist Economy.<|ARGUMENT|>The exhaustive list of possibilities is: 1\) taxation is legitimate in democratic systems, 2\) taxation isn't legitimate in democratic systems, 3\) taxation is legitimate in non-democratic systems, 4\) taxation isn't legitimate in non- democratic systems. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive. But 1 being true cannot conclude anything about 3 or 4.<|TARGETS|>The exhaustive list of possibilities<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>A Socialist Economy would work better than a Capitalist Economy.<|ARGUMENT|>The exhaustive list of possibilities is: 1\) taxation is legitimate in democratic systems, 2\) taxation isn't legitimate in democratic systems, 3\) taxation is legitimate in non-democratic systems, 4\) taxation isn't legitimate in non- democratic systems. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive. But 1 being true cannot conclude anything about 3 or 4.<|ASPECTS|>taxation, mutually exclusive, legitimate<|CONCLUSION|>","The exhaustive list of possibilities is: 1 taxation is legitimate in democratic systems, 2 taxation isn't legitimate in democratic systems, 3 taxation is legitimate in non-democratic systems, 4 taxation isn't legitimate in non- democratic systems. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive. But 1 being true cannot conclude anything about 3 or 4.",Just because it is legitimate via democracy doesn't make it illegitimate without democracy. Such as how writing with a pen being a legitimate way to write doesn't make writing with a pencil less legitimate.
<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>Joseph Smith initially wondered whether his purported experiences with [Moroni]( the guardian of the [golden plates]( were a dream.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>Joseph Smith initially wondered whether his purported experiences with [Moroni]( the guardian of the [golden plates]( were a dream.<|TARGETS|>whether his purported experiences with Moroni the guardian of the golden plates, Joseph Smith<|CONCLUSION|>",<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>Joseph Smith initially wondered whether his purported experiences with [Moroni]( the guardian of the [golden plates]( were a dream.<|ASPECTS|>names<|CONCLUSION|>,Joseph Smith initially wondered whether his purported experiences with Moroni the guardian of the golden plates were a dream.,Joseph Smith did not obtain or translate the golden plates in the way he claimed.
<|TOPIC|>Is chivalry sexist?<|ARGUMENT|>Sports tournaments mostly separate male and female competitors because of significant gender-specific differences which would make mixed tournaments unfair.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is chivalry sexist?<|ARGUMENT|>Sports tournaments mostly separate male and female competitors because of significant gender-specific differences which would make mixed tournaments unfair.<|TARGETS|>Sports tournaments<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is chivalry sexist?<|ARGUMENT|>Sports tournaments mostly separate male and female competitors because of significant gender-specific differences which would make mixed tournaments unfair.<|ASPECTS|>separate, tournaments, gender-specific differences<|CONCLUSION|>",Sports tournaments mostly separate male and female competitors because of significant gender-specific differences which would make mixed tournaments unfair.,"Women, on average, are physically weaker, thus men should be chivalrous."
<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>With gender-separated restrooms it arouses instant suspicion if a person hangs out around a bathroom designated for the opposite sex. With unisex bathrooms this would become a common situation that people with malicious intentions could easily take advantage of.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>With gender-separated restrooms it arouses instant suspicion if a person hangs out around a bathroom designated for the opposite sex. With unisex bathrooms this would become a common situation that people with malicious intentions could easily take advantage of.<|TARGETS|>gender-separated restrooms, unisex bathrooms<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>With gender-separated restrooms it arouses instant suspicion if a person hangs out around a bathroom designated for the opposite sex. With unisex bathrooms this would become a common situation that people with malicious intentions could easily take advantage of.<|ASPECTS|>crossed gender lines, hygiene needs, motivation, legitimate, right, unwilling social activities, private matter<|CONCLUSION|>",With gender-separated restrooms it arouses instant suspicion if a person hangs out around a bathroom designated for the opposite sex. With unisex bathrooms this would become a common situation that people with malicious intentions could easily take advantage of.,"Unisex bathrooms provide rapists, abusers and stalkers easier access to potential victims."
<|TOPIC|>Is cultural diversity beneficial to develop a successful organisation?<|ARGUMENT|>Research shows that companies that harness both innate diversity in their workforce and acquired diversity in leadership are measurably [more innovative]( than companies that fail to harness these drivers \(p. 6\).<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is cultural diversity beneficial to develop a successful organisation?<|ARGUMENT|>Research shows that companies that harness both innate diversity in their workforce and acquired diversity in leadership are measurably [more innovative]( than companies that fail to harness these drivers \(p. 6\).<|TARGETS|>Research<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is cultural diversity beneficial to develop a successful organisation?<|ARGUMENT|>Research shows that companies that harness both innate diversity in their workforce and acquired diversity in leadership are measurably [more innovative]( than companies that fail to harness these drivers \(p. 6\).<|ASPECTS|>diversity<|CONCLUSION|>,Research shows that companies that harness both innate diversity in their workforce and acquired diversity in leadership are measurably more innovative than companies that fail to harness these drivers p. 6.,Workforce diversity increases creativity within a company because heterogeneous groups are cross-fertilizing one another within the organization.
<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>A strong German identity in the 1930s did not bring about more peace. A strong Russian identity in the 1910s did not bring about more peace. A strong British identity in the 1800s did not bring about more peace. An expansionist EU identity could also increase the risk of conflict.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>A strong German identity in the 1930s did not bring about more peace. A strong Russian identity in the 1910s did not bring about more peace. A strong British identity in the 1800s did not bring about more peace. An expansionist EU identity could also increase the risk of conflict.<|TARGETS|>A strong Russian identity in the 1910s, An expansionist EU identity, A strong British identity in the 1800s, A strong German identity in the 1930s<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>A strong German identity in the 1930s did not bring about more peace. A strong Russian identity in the 1910s did not bring about more peace. A strong British identity in the 1800s did not bring about more peace. An expansionist EU identity could also increase the risk of conflict.<|ASPECTS|>risk of conflict, eu, russian identity, peace, german identity, british identity<|CONCLUSION|>",A strong German identity in the 1930s did not bring about more peace. A strong Russian identity in the 1910s did not bring about more peace. A strong British identity in the 1800s did not bring about more peace. An expansionist EU identity could also increase the risk of conflict.,"Historically, strong national identities have not made nations more peaceful."
"<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Some historians argue that the [origin]( of capitalism can be found in the so called ""[Crisis of the 14th Century]( a conflict between agricultural producers and land-owning aristocrats.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Some historians argue that the [origin]( of capitalism can be found in the so called ""[Crisis of the 14th Century]( a conflict between agricultural producers and land-owning aristocrats.<|TARGETS|>the origin of capitalism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Some historians argue that the [origin]( of capitalism can be found in the so called ""[Crisis of the 14th Century]( a conflict between agricultural producers and land-owning aristocrats.<|ASPECTS|>lean machine, expenditure<|CONCLUSION|>","Some historians argue that the origin of capitalism can be found in the so called ""Crisis of the 14th Century a conflict between agricultural producers and land-owning aristocrats.","Robertson points out that capitalism began to flourish not in Britain, but in pre-Reformation 14th century Italy. Thus Protestantism was not decisive."
<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system?<|ARGUMENT|>People would not have to make choices on health care plan options as a gamble on how sick you might get that year<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system?<|ARGUMENT|>People would not have to make choices on health care plan options as a gamble on how sick you might get that year<|TARGETS|>to make choices on health care plan options<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system?<|ARGUMENT|>People would not have to make choices on health care plan options as a gamble on how sick you might get that year<|ASPECTS|>choices, health care plan options<|CONCLUSION|>",People would not have to make choices on health care plan options as a gamble on how sick you might get that year,It would provide equal access to the same health care regardless of level of income.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Since Washington and Jefferson were not alive at the time of the Confederacy, it should not be assumed that they would have been on the side of the Confederacy had they been alive to make that choice. So objecting to monuments of the Confederacy does not imply that one must object to honoring all slave-holding figures in history.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Since Washington and Jefferson were not alive at the time of the Confederacy, it should not be assumed that they would have been on the side of the Confederacy had they been alive to make that choice. So objecting to monuments of the Confederacy does not imply that one must object to honoring all slave-holding figures in history.<|TARGETS|>objecting to monuments of the Confederacy, Washington and Jefferson were not alive at the time of the Confederacy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Since Washington and Jefferson were not alive at the time of the Confederacy, it should not be assumed that they would have been on the side of the Confederacy had they been alive to make that choice. So objecting to monuments of the Confederacy does not imply that one must object to honoring all slave-holding figures in history.<|ASPECTS|>, honoring, monuments, confederacy, slave-holding figures<|CONCLUSION|>","Since Washington and Jefferson were not alive at the time of the Confederacy, it should not be assumed that they would have been on the side of the Confederacy had they been alive to make that choice. So objecting to monuments of the Confederacy does not imply that one must object to honoring all slave-holding figures in history.","We would remember Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and other slave-owning founders even if they had not owned slaves. Their contributions transcend the stain of slavery. Confederate heroes, in contrast, are only remembered for defending slavery. Whatever other qualities they may have possessed would not have resulted in monuments bearing their likenesses."
<|TOPIC|>2020 Predictions: Who Has The Best Shot at Winning 2020?<|ARGUMENT|>The anti-inflationary impact of abolishing the life-threatening perversions of private health insurance industry would be large due to lifting benefits costs for employers as well as reducing some consumption nationally due to the downsizing of the administrative redundancy of a marginally competitive industry. It nearly pays for itself.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>2020 Predictions: Who Has The Best Shot at Winning 2020?<|ARGUMENT|>The anti-inflationary impact of abolishing the life-threatening perversions of private health insurance industry would be large due to lifting benefits costs for employers as well as reducing some consumption nationally due to the downsizing of the administrative redundancy of a marginally competitive industry. It nearly pays for itself.<|TARGETS|>The anti-inflationary impact of abolishing the life-threatening perversions of private health insurance industry<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>2020 Predictions: Who Has The Best Shot at Winning 2020?<|ARGUMENT|>The anti-inflationary impact of abolishing the life-threatening perversions of private health insurance industry would be large due to lifting benefits costs for employers as well as reducing some consumption nationally due to the downsizing of the administrative redundancy of a marginally competitive industry. It nearly pays for itself.<|ASPECTS|>stereotypes, stereotype content, backlash to female candidates, competency, warmth, lacking<|CONCLUSION|>",The anti-inflationary impact of abolishing the life-threatening perversions of private health insurance industry would be large due to lifting benefits costs for employers as well as reducing some consumption nationally due to the downsizing of the administrative redundancy of a marginally competitive industry. It nearly pays for itself.,Although 70% of the Americans support Medicare For All and abolishing private health insurance as we know it now reduces the inflationary impact and/or tax burden of such a proposal.
"<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Firemen save humans first. Even after they have saved any humans, they will only save animals if they can do so without risk.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Firemen save humans first. Even after they have saved any humans, they will only save animals if they can do so without risk.<|TARGETS|>Firemen<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Firemen save humans first. Even after they have saved any humans, they will only save animals if they can do so without risk.<|ASPECTS|>beautiful colors, less humans<|CONCLUSION|>","Firemen save humans first. Even after they have saved any humans, they will only save animals if they can do so without risk.","Generally speaking, in all societies, humans treat a human's life as more important than that of an animal."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Communication links between operator and drones can be jammed or hijacked. AKMs do not require these and, therefore, are better.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Communication links between operator and drones can be jammed or hijacked. AKMs do not require these and, therefore, are better.<|TARGETS|>Communication links between operator and drones, AKMs<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Communication links between operator and drones can be jammed or hijacked. AKMs do not require these and, therefore, are better.<|ASPECTS|>better neighborhoods, upward mobility, housing voucher, schooling, resources, safer neighborhoods\<|CONCLUSION|>","Communication links between operator and drones can be jammed or hijacked. AKMs do not require these and, therefore, are better.",AKMs are better than drones because they do not require communication time between operator and drone.
"<|TOPIC|>Biodiversity and Endangered Species<|ARGUMENT|>The most successful pharmaceuticals have often used Nature as a starting point. Antibiotics were first discovered through the study of fungi, and many anticancer drugs are derived from the bark of exotic Amazon trees. Every time a species becomes extinct, scientists forever lose an opportunity to make a new discovery.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Biodiversity and Endangered Species<|ARGUMENT|>The most successful pharmaceuticals have often used Nature as a starting point. Antibiotics were first discovered through the study of fungi, and many anticancer drugs are derived from the bark of exotic Amazon trees. Every time a species becomes extinct, scientists forever lose an opportunity to make a new discovery.<|TARGETS|>Antibiotics<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Biodiversity and Endangered Species<|ARGUMENT|>The most successful pharmaceuticals have often used Nature as a starting point. Antibiotics were first discovered through the study of fungi, and many anticancer drugs are derived from the bark of exotic Amazon trees. Every time a species becomes extinct, scientists forever lose an opportunity to make a new discovery.<|ASPECTS|>nature, discovery, antibiotics, anticancer<|CONCLUSION|>","The most successful pharmaceuticals have often used Nature as a starting point. Antibiotics were first discovered through the study of fungi, and many anticancer drugs are derived from the bark of exotic Amazon trees. Every time a species becomes extinct, scientists forever lose an opportunity to make a new discovery.",The most successful pharmaceuticals have often used Nature as a starting point. Antibiotics were fir...
"<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>Although Huck is the narrator, Jim's voice is amply present. Indeed, Jim is arguably the [moral center]( of the work.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>Although Huck is the narrator, Jim's voice is amply present. Indeed, Jim is arguably the [moral center]( of the work.<|TARGETS|>Jim, Huck is the narrator Jim 's voice<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>Although Huck is the narrator, Jim's voice is amply present. Indeed, Jim is arguably the [moral center]( of the work.<|ASPECTS|>present, moral center<|CONCLUSION|>","Although Huck is the narrator, Jim's voice is amply present. Indeed, Jim is arguably the moral center of the work.",A bowdlerized version of Huckleberry Finn fits into the modern educational curriculum better than an unmodified version.
"<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>A developed lunar colony would be a necessary prerequisite for the creation of an effective extra-Terran colonization effort. An effective Mars colonization effort essentially means that a ""practice"" Lunar colony becomes vital.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>A developed lunar colony would be a necessary prerequisite for the creation of an effective extra-Terran colonization effort. An effective Mars colonization effort essentially means that a ""practice"" Lunar colony becomes vital.<|TARGETS|>An effective Mars colonization effort, A developed lunar colony<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>A developed lunar colony would be a necessary prerequisite for the creation of an effective extra-Terran colonization effort. An effective Mars colonization effort essentially means that a ""practice"" Lunar colony becomes vital.<|ASPECTS|>transport, improve<|CONCLUSION|>","A developed lunar colony would be a necessary prerequisite for the creation of an effective extra-Terran colonization effort. An effective Mars colonization effort essentially means that a ""practice"" Lunar colony becomes vital.",The Moon is much closer to Earth than Mars making it a better choice.
"<|TOPIC|>Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change<|ARGUMENT|>India and China are two of the worst polluters on the face of the earth. As they industrialize, their contributions to global warming will become astounding and far exceed the emissions from other countries. Compared to 2005, China's total emissions increased by 9% in 2006 (to 6.2 billion tons of CO2), while emissions in the US decreased by 1.4% (to 5.8 billion), compared to the previous year. China's increasing rate of CO2 emissions is heading toward a 50-100% increase above the current world total for CO2 emissions, by 20 years from 2008. The scientists warn that if China continues to increase its GDP at a rate of at least 7% per year, it will by then be emitting as much CO2 per year as the whole world emitted in 2007, -- 8 gigatons per year. China has a unique obligation to cut this high and dangerous emissions growth rate. Holding them to lower standards with emissions exemptions would exacerbate this already disastrous prospect.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change<|ARGUMENT|>India and China are two of the worst polluters on the face of the earth. As they industrialize, their contributions to global warming will become astounding and far exceed the emissions from other countries. Compared to 2005, China's total emissions increased by 9% in 2006 (to 6.2 billion tons of CO2), while emissions in the US decreased by 1.4% (to 5.8 billion), compared to the previous year. China's increasing rate of CO2 emissions is heading toward a 50-100% increase above the current world total for CO2 emissions, by 20 years from 2008. The scientists warn that if China continues to increase its GDP at a rate of at least 7% per year, it will by then be emitting as much CO2 per year as the whole world emitted in 2007, -- 8 gigatons per year. China has a unique obligation to cut this high and dangerous emissions growth rate. Holding them to lower standards with emissions exemptions would exacerbate this already disastrous prospect.<|TARGETS|>Holding them to lower standards with emissions exemptions, The scientists, China 's total emissions, China 's increasing rate of CO2 emissions, China, India and China<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change<|ARGUMENT|>India and China are two of the worst polluters on the face of the earth. As they industrialize, their contributions to global warming will become astounding and far exceed the emissions from other countries. Compared to 2005, China's total emissions increased by 9% in 2006 (to 6.2 billion tons of CO2), while emissions in the US decreased by 1.4% (to 5.8 billion), compared to the previous year. China's increasing rate of CO2 emissions is heading toward a 50-100% increase above the current world total for CO2 emissions, by 20 years from 2008. The scientists warn that if China continues to increase its GDP at a rate of at least 7% per year, it will by then be emitting as much CO2 per year as the whole world emitted in 2007, -- 8 gigatons per year. China has a unique obligation to cut this high and dangerous emissions growth rate. Holding them to lower standards with emissions exemptions would exacerbate this already disastrous prospect.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, emissions exemptions, disastrous prospect, gdp, emissions growth rate, global warming, emissions, standards, co2 emissions, co2, polluters<|CONCLUSION|>","India and China are two of the worst polluters on the face of the earth. As they industrialize, their contributions to global warming will become astounding and far exceed the emissions from other countries. Compared to 2005, China's total emissions increased by 9% in 2006 to 6.2 billion tons of CO2, while emissions in the US decreased by 1.4% to 5.8 billion, compared to the previous year. China's increasing rate of CO2 emissions is heading toward a 50-100% increase above the current world total for CO2 emissions, by 20 years from 2008. The scientists warn that if China continues to increase its GDP at a rate of at least 7% per year, it will by then be emitting as much CO2 per year as the whole world emitted in 2007, -- 8 gigatons per year. China has a unique obligation to cut this high and dangerous emissions growth rate. Holding them to lower standards with emissions exemptions would exacerbate this already disastrous prospect.",China and India emissions will increase over time; cannot be exempted.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Hate Speech Be Legally Protected?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, ""threatening"" may mean simply having a ""hostile quality"" or, in law, ""showing an intention to cause bodily harm."" ""Abusive"" may be ""extremely offensive and insulting"" or ""engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty."" Thus ""hate speech"" could be considered either constituting psychic harm or physical harm, which must be distinguished from one another.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Hate Speech Be Legally Protected?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, ""threatening"" may mean simply having a ""hostile quality"" or, in law, ""showing an intention to cause bodily harm."" ""Abusive"" may be ""extremely offensive and insulting"" or ""engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty."" Thus ""hate speech"" could be considered either constituting psychic harm or physical harm, which must be distinguished from one another.<|TARGETS|>Thus "" hate speech ""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Hate Speech Be Legally Protected?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, ""threatening"" may mean simply having a ""hostile quality"" or, in law, ""showing an intention to cause bodily harm."" ""Abusive"" may be ""extremely offensive and insulting"" or ""engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty."" Thus ""hate speech"" could be considered either constituting psychic harm or physical harm, which must be distinguished from one another.<|ASPECTS|>hate, bodily harm, abusive, hostile quality, offensive, physical harm, cruelty, violence, psychic harm<|CONCLUSION|>","For example, ""threatening"" may mean simply having a ""hostile quality"" or, in law, ""showing an intention to cause bodily harm."" ""Abusive"" may be ""extremely offensive and insulting"" or ""engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty."" Thus ""hate speech"" could be considered either constituting psychic harm or physical harm, which must be distinguished from one another.","The terms ""abusive"" and ""threatening"" are by no means objective or even consistently defined. Oxford Dictionaries"
"<|TOPIC|>Is Adultery Ethical?<|ARGUMENT|>Some couples find that one or both of them are not completely fulfilled romantically or sexually, and agree to and open relationship in which having such relations outside of their relationship is accepted, resulting in increased happiness and preserving the stability of the partnership.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Adultery Ethical?<|ARGUMENT|>Some couples find that one or both of them are not completely fulfilled romantically or sexually, and agree to and open relationship in which having such relations outside of their relationship is accepted, resulting in increased happiness and preserving the stability of the partnership.<|TARGETS|>Some couples find that one or both of them are not completely fulfilled romantically or sexually and agree to and open relationship in which having such relations outside of their relationship<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Adultery Ethical?<|ARGUMENT|>Some couples find that one or both of them are not completely fulfilled romantically or sexually, and agree to and open relationship in which having such relations outside of their relationship is accepted, resulting in increased happiness and preserving the stability of the partnership.<|ASPECTS|>happiness, fulfilled, stability, increased<|CONCLUSION|>","Some couples find that one or both of them are not completely fulfilled romantically or sexually, and agree to and open relationship in which having such relations outside of their relationship is accepted, resulting in increased happiness and preserving the stability of the partnership.",It's possible the person's spouse won't mind.
"<|TOPIC|>THBT intellectual migration (brain drain) is caused by a lack of belonging rather than a lack of opportunities<|ARGUMENT|>Intellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments. Family ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>THBT intellectual migration (brain drain) is caused by a lack of belonging rather than a lack of opportunities<|ARGUMENT|>Intellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments. Family ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.<|TARGETS|>Some intellectuals from developing countries, Family ties<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>THBT intellectual migration (brain drain) is caused by a lack of belonging rather than a lack of opportunities<|ARGUMENT|>Intellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments. Family ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.<|ASPECTS|>freedom, organisation, intellectual freedom, economic opportunities, stimulation, national culture, family ties, recognition, intellectual belonging, alienation, conservative culture, government policy<|CONCLUSION|>","Intellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition 3 that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country 3. This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments. Family ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.",Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country
"<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>The route to said mass adoption is known as the '[technology adoption life cycle]( in the case of robotics, the military adopts the technology first, followed by early-adopter enthusiasts who lend it credibility \(and often publicity\) by touting it as '[the Next Big Thing](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>The route to said mass adoption is known as the '[technology adoption life cycle]( in the case of robotics, the military adopts the technology first, followed by early-adopter enthusiasts who lend it credibility \(and often publicity\) by touting it as '[the Next Big Thing](<|TARGETS|>The route to said mass adoption<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>The route to said mass adoption is known as the '[technology adoption life cycle]( in the case of robotics, the military adopts the technology first, followed by early-adopter enthusiasts who lend it credibility \(and often publicity\) by touting it as '[the Next Big Thing](<|ASPECTS|>data, outrage, class action<|CONCLUSION|>","The route to said mass adoption is known as the 'technology adoption life cycle in the case of robotics, the military adopts the technology first, followed by early-adopter enthusiasts who lend it credibility and often publicity by touting it as 'the Next Big Thing","Almost all technological developments have experienced mass adoption as soon as they become known by the public, usually correlating with affordable commercial release."
"<|TOPIC|>Abolition of nuclear weapons<|ARGUMENT|>Many believe that the end of the Cold War spelled the end of the notion of nuclear deterrence. Yet, nuclear deterrence remains relevant and an important element of international stability. As mentioned above, great power rivalries between China, United States, and Russia seem to persist, and nuclear weapons help maintain the level of sobriety between them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Abolition of nuclear weapons<|ARGUMENT|>Many believe that the end of the Cold War spelled the end of the notion of nuclear deterrence. Yet, nuclear deterrence remains relevant and an important element of international stability. As mentioned above, great power rivalries between China, United States, and Russia seem to persist, and nuclear weapons help maintain the level of sobriety between them.<|TARGETS|>nuclear deterrence, nuclear weapons<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Abolition of nuclear weapons<|ARGUMENT|>Many believe that the end of the Cold War spelled the end of the notion of nuclear deterrence. Yet, nuclear deterrence remains relevant and an important element of international stability. As mentioned above, great power rivalries between China, United States, and Russia seem to persist, and nuclear weapons help maintain the level of sobriety between them.<|ASPECTS|>sobriety, nuclear deterrence, international stability, great power rivalries<|CONCLUSION|>","Many believe that the end of the Cold War spelled the end of the notion of nuclear deterrence. Yet, nuclear deterrence remains relevant and an important element of international stability. As mentioned above, great power rivalries between China, United States, and Russia seem to persist, and nuclear weapons help maintain the level of sobriety between them.",Nuclear deterrence remains important in the post-Cold War era
"<|TOPIC|>Governments should impose methods of population control.<|ARGUMENT|>Taking care of fewer children requires fewer resources, and therefore strains local and global resources less.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Governments should impose methods of population control.<|ARGUMENT|>Taking care of fewer children requires fewer resources, and therefore strains local and global resources less.<|TARGETS|>Taking care of fewer children<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Governments should impose methods of population control.<|ARGUMENT|>Taking care of fewer children requires fewer resources, and therefore strains local and global resources less.<|ASPECTS|>local and global resources, fewer resources<|CONCLUSION|>","Taking care of fewer children requires fewer resources, and therefore strains local and global resources less.",Population control can solve the problem of regional or global overpopulation.
<|TOPIC|>Cruel and Unusual: Should Capital Punishment Hurt?<|ARGUMENT|>Retribution is not the only goal of punishment; deterrence is another one. Inflicting harm can therefore be [valuable]( even if it does not have any effect on the criminal's behavior beyond that of a pain-free penalty.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Cruel and Unusual: Should Capital Punishment Hurt?<|ARGUMENT|>Retribution is not the only goal of punishment; deterrence is another one. Inflicting harm can therefore be [valuable]( even if it does not have any effect on the criminal's behavior beyond that of a pain-free penalty.<|TARGETS|>Retribution, the criminal 's behavior beyond that of a pain-free penalty .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Cruel and Unusual: Should Capital Punishment Hurt?<|ARGUMENT|>Retribution is not the only goal of punishment; deterrence is another one. Inflicting harm can therefore be [valuable]( even if it does not have any effect on the criminal's behavior beyond that of a pain-free penalty.<|ASPECTS|>criminal 's behavior, pain-free penalty<|CONCLUSION|>",Retribution is not the only goal of punishment; deterrence is another one. Inflicting harm can therefore be valuable even if it does not have any effect on the criminal's behavior beyond that of a pain-free penalty.,This argument stands on the assumption that painful execution cannot be beneficial in a utilitarian way. This assumption is not warranted as there might be a deterrent effect.
"<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>People make decisions that have wider impacts outside the self. Recognizing that we are beholden to the social impacts of our actions is the first step towards self-mastery, \(aka freedom\).<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>People make decisions that have wider impacts outside the self. Recognizing that we are beholden to the social impacts of our actions is the first step towards self-mastery, \(aka freedom\).<|TARGETS|>Recognizing that we are beholden to the social impacts of our actions<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>People make decisions that have wider impacts outside the self. Recognizing that we are beholden to the social impacts of our actions is the first step towards self-mastery, \(aka freedom\).<|ASPECTS|>truth, free, interactions, function properly<|CONCLUSION|>","People make decisions that have wider impacts outside the self. Recognizing that we are beholden to the social impacts of our actions is the first step towards self-mastery, aka freedom.","We have the ability to choose to express kindness, mercy and love as opposed to hatred and oppression regardless of socially constructed concepts and thereby express our free will."
"<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>God is temporarily tolerating evil as a consequence of the assertion that we would be better off without him. Once it is clear to everyone that this was not true, God will use his omnipotence to right the consequences and remove evil completely.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>God is temporarily tolerating evil as a consequence of the assertion that we would be better off without him. Once it is clear to everyone that this was not true, God will use his omnipotence to right the consequences and remove evil completely.<|TARGETS|>temporarily tolerating evil as a consequence of the assertion, God will use his omnipotence to right the consequences and remove evil completely .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>God is temporarily tolerating evil as a consequence of the assertion that we would be better off without him. Once it is clear to everyone that this was not true, God will use his omnipotence to right the consequences and remove evil completely.<|ASPECTS|>right the consequences, evil, god, remove evil<|CONCLUSION|>","God is temporarily tolerating evil as a consequence of the assertion that we would be better off without him. Once it is clear to everyone that this was not true, God will use his omnipotence to right the consequences and remove evil completely.",The existence of evil can be reconciled with an all-powerful and all-loving God. God would not want to remove evil if a greater good were only achievable with the existence of evil.
<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Numbers 31:17]( they are told to murder all the children amongst the enemies and any woman who might be pregnant.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Numbers 31:17]( they are told to murder all the children amongst the enemies and any woman who might be pregnant.<|TARGETS|>to murder all the children amongst the enemies and any woman who might be pregnant .<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Numbers 31:17]( they are told to murder all the children amongst the enemies and any woman who might be pregnant.<|ASPECTS|>production, factory, efficient large<|CONCLUSION|>",In Numbers 31:17 they are told to murder all the children amongst the enemies and any woman who might be pregnant.,The Old Testament provides evidence for God's promotion of evil.
"<|TOPIC|>Is The Ubiquity of Heterosexuality Chiefly a Product Of Heteronormativity?<|ARGUMENT|>In fact, this social constructionist idea of society ""indoctrinating"" people to have a certain sexuality is ridiculous and goes against LGBT rights. If being gay is simply social conditioning, then that means there can be ways to reprogram gay people to be straight. This is incorrect and takes away one of the strongest defences that LGBT people have--which is that their sexuality is innate and biological and NOT a choice.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is The Ubiquity of Heterosexuality Chiefly a Product Of Heteronormativity?<|ARGUMENT|>In fact, this social constructionist idea of society ""indoctrinating"" people to have a certain sexuality is ridiculous and goes against LGBT rights. If being gay is simply social conditioning, then that means there can be ways to reprogram gay people to be straight. This is incorrect and takes away one of the strongest defences that LGBT people have--which is that their sexuality is innate and biological and NOT a choice.<|TARGETS|>this social constructionist idea of society "" indoctrinating "" people to have a certain sexuality, If being gay<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is The Ubiquity of Heterosexuality Chiefly a Product Of Heteronormativity?<|ARGUMENT|>In fact, this social constructionist idea of society ""indoctrinating"" people to have a certain sexuality is ridiculous and goes against LGBT rights. If being gay is simply social conditioning, then that means there can be ways to reprogram gay people to be straight. This is incorrect and takes away one of the strongest defences that LGBT people have--which is that their sexuality is innate and biological and NOT a choice.<|ASPECTS|>innate, lgbt rights, social constructionist, social conditioning, biological, sexuality, indoctrinating, reprogram gay people, choice<|CONCLUSION|>","In fact, this social constructionist idea of society ""indoctrinating"" people to have a certain sexuality is ridiculous and goes against LGBT rights. If being gay is simply social conditioning, then that means there can be ways to reprogram gay people to be straight. This is incorrect and takes away one of the strongest defences that LGBT people have--which is that their sexuality is innate and biological and NOT a choice.",There is no evidence that it is possible to change sexuality.
"<|TOPIC|>Should cannabis be legalised for medical use in the UK?<|ARGUMENT|>A lot of the benefit of cannabis comes from the [entourage effect]( of these compounds together, by simply isolating 1 or 2 of these compounds we potentially lose a lot of the medicinal benefits of the plant.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should cannabis be legalised for medical use in the UK?<|ARGUMENT|>A lot of the benefit of cannabis comes from the [entourage effect]( of these compounds together, by simply isolating 1 or 2 of these compounds we potentially lose a lot of the medicinal benefits of the plant.<|TARGETS|>A lot of the benefit of cannabis<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should cannabis be legalised for medical use in the UK?<|ARGUMENT|>A lot of the benefit of cannabis comes from the [entourage effect]( of these compounds together, by simply isolating 1 or 2 of these compounds we potentially lose a lot of the medicinal benefits of the plant.<|ASPECTS|>medicinal benefits, benefit<|CONCLUSION|>","A lot of the benefit of cannabis comes from the entourage effect of these compounds together, by simply isolating 1 or 2 of these compounds we potentially lose a lot of the medicinal benefits of the plant.","This ignores the fact that many of the compounds in cannabis have not been identified, and their interactions with each other."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A former reporter for the Associate Press in Jerusalem [argued that]( the international media tends to assign blame for the region's conflict primarily to Israel, is being co-opted by its enemies and thereby became ""an amplifier for the propaganda"" of radical Palestinian forces.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A former reporter for the Associate Press in Jerusalem [argued that]( the international media tends to assign blame for the region's conflict primarily to Israel, is being co-opted by its enemies and thereby became ""an amplifier for the propaganda"" of radical Palestinian forces.<|TARGETS|>A former reporter for the Associate Press in Jerusalem<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A former reporter for the Associate Press in Jerusalem [argued that]( the international media tends to assign blame for the region's conflict primarily to Israel, is being co-opted by its enemies and thereby became ""an amplifier for the propaganda"" of radical Palestinian forces.<|ASPECTS|>land, endangers, israeli presence<|CONCLUSION|>","A former reporter for the Associate Press in Jerusalem argued that the international media tends to assign blame for the region's conflict primarily to Israel, is being co-opted by its enemies and thereby became ""an amplifier for the propaganda"" of radical Palestinian forces.","These negative perceptions of Israel do not exist in a vacuum and should at least be taken with a grain of salt, as they might be based on biased reporting in the media."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Government regulated industries tend to stagnate. The relatively unregulated Internet has thrived. In 2001, there were 10,620 [regulated radio stations]( in 2015, there are 10,927. In 2001, there were 56M [daily newspapers circulated]( in 2015, only 38M. What about lightly regulated Internet? In 2001, there were 29.2 million Internet [websites]( in 2015, there are 863 million. If you want Internet to go the stagnant way of radio and print, it seems that regulation is a good way to accomplish that.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Government regulated industries tend to stagnate. The relatively unregulated Internet has thrived. In 2001, there were 10,620 [regulated radio stations]( in 2015, there are 10,927. In 2001, there were 56M [daily newspapers circulated]( in 2015, only 38M. What about lightly regulated Internet? In 2001, there were 29.2 million Internet [websites]( in 2015, there are 863 million. If you want Internet to go the stagnant way of radio and print, it seems that regulation is a good way to accomplish that.<|TARGETS|>lightly regulated Internet, The relatively unregulated Internet, Government regulated industries, If you want Internet to go the stagnant way of radio and print<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Government regulated industries tend to stagnate. The relatively unregulated Internet has thrived. In 2001, there were 10,620 [regulated radio stations]( in 2015, there are 10,927. In 2001, there were 56M [daily newspapers circulated]( in 2015, only 38M. What about lightly regulated Internet? In 2001, there were 29.2 million Internet [websites]( in 2015, there are 863 million. If you want Internet to go the stagnant way of radio and print, it seems that regulation is a good way to accomplish that.<|ASPECTS|>incentive, value, monopolists, discriminating, price/profits\, prices<|CONCLUSION|>","Government regulated industries tend to stagnate. The relatively unregulated Internet has thrived. In 2001, there were 10,620 regulated radio stations in 2015, there are 10,927. In 2001, there were 56M daily newspapers circulated in 2015, only 38M. What about lightly regulated Internet? In 2001, there were 29.2 million Internet websites in 2015, there are 863 million. If you want Internet to go the stagnant way of radio and print, it seems that regulation is a good way to accomplish that.",Prior to 2015 there were no Title II regulations applied to ISPs and the internet had developed as an open and free system.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Sex Reassignment Surgery the Best Option for Transgender People?<|ARGUMENT|>According to study done by UCLA the high suicide rate of transgender individuals \(around 40%\) does not drastically change after a surgery. Therefore, this should be looked at and treated as a mental disorder over a need of surgery. Even if the best cure is to change genders we do not have the technology to biologically fully change someone’s gender. There needs to be real psychological treatment to help these people and lower the drastically high suicide rate.[williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Sex Reassignment Surgery the Best Option for Transgender People?<|ARGUMENT|>According to study done by UCLA the high suicide rate of transgender individuals \(around 40%\) does not drastically change after a surgery. Therefore, this should be looked at and treated as a mental disorder over a need of surgery. Even if the best cure is to change genders we do not have the technology to biologically fully change someone’s gender. There needs to be real psychological treatment to help these people and lower the drastically high suicide rate.[williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu](<|TARGETS|>According to study done by UCLA the high suicide rate of transgender individuals, to be real psychological treatment to help these people and lower the drastically high suicide rate<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Sex Reassignment Surgery the Best Option for Transgender People?<|ARGUMENT|>According to study done by UCLA the high suicide rate of transgender individuals \(around 40%\) does not drastically change after a surgery. Therefore, this should be looked at and treated as a mental disorder over a need of surgery. Even if the best cure is to change genders we do not have the technology to biologically fully change someone’s gender. There needs to be real psychological treatment to help these people and lower the drastically high suicide rate.[williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu](<|ASPECTS|>psychological treatment, mental disorder, change genders, gender, high, biologically fully change, suicide rate<|CONCLUSION|>","According to study done by UCLA the high suicide rate of transgender individuals around 40% does not drastically change after a surgery. Therefore, this should be looked at and treated as a mental disorder over a need of surgery. Even if the best cure is to change genders we do not have the technology to biologically fully change someone’s gender. There needs to be real psychological treatment to help these people and lower the drastically high suicide rate.williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu",Gender dysphoria is a psychological problem and should be treated as such.
"<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>A more reasoned discussion of the word would highlight the origin of the word and how it gradually transformed to likely adopt a dialect in pronunciation. The word of origin was negro, which in of itself was not a word that implied ""slave."" Given a southern and Cajun dialect then, the word could have developed as ""spell it like you hear it"" from the way it was pronounced. Understanding this could remove the attached stigma.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>A more reasoned discussion of the word would highlight the origin of the word and how it gradually transformed to likely adopt a dialect in pronunciation. The word of origin was negro, which in of itself was not a word that implied ""slave."" Given a southern and Cajun dialect then, the word could have developed as ""spell it like you hear it"" from the way it was pronounced. Understanding this could remove the attached stigma.<|TARGETS|>The word of origin, A more reasoned discussion of the word<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>A more reasoned discussion of the word would highlight the origin of the word and how it gradually transformed to likely adopt a dialect in pronunciation. The word of origin was negro, which in of itself was not a word that implied ""slave."" Given a southern and Cajun dialect then, the word could have developed as ""spell it like you hear it"" from the way it was pronounced. Understanding this could remove the attached stigma.<|ASPECTS|>present, moral center<|CONCLUSION|>","A more reasoned discussion of the word would highlight the origin of the word and how it gradually transformed to likely adopt a dialect in pronunciation. The word of origin was negro, which in of itself was not a word that implied ""slave."" Given a southern and Cajun dialect then, the word could have developed as ""spell it like you hear it"" from the way it was pronounced. Understanding this could remove the attached stigma.","To the extent it is inflammatory, distressing, and offensive, it must be being taught without context."
"<|TOPIC|>Should ISIS fighters be allowed to return home?<|ARGUMENT|>People who participate in unsanctioned foreign conflicts ought to be better managed in their home countries. This way their actions could be assessed, and therefore could be properly managed, detained, or punished by their respective nations therefore diminishing further possible radicalization or potential utilization for future conflicts.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should ISIS fighters be allowed to return home?<|ARGUMENT|>People who participate in unsanctioned foreign conflicts ought to be better managed in their home countries. This way their actions could be assessed, and therefore could be properly managed, detained, or punished by their respective nations therefore diminishing further possible radicalization or potential utilization for future conflicts.<|TARGETS|>People who participate in unsanctioned foreign conflicts<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should ISIS fighters be allowed to return home?<|ARGUMENT|>People who participate in unsanctioned foreign conflicts ought to be better managed in their home countries. This way their actions could be assessed, and therefore could be properly managed, detained, or punished by their respective nations therefore diminishing further possible radicalization or potential utilization for future conflicts.<|ASPECTS|>radicalization, unsanctioned foreign conflicts, better managed, properly, possible, managed, detained, future conflicts<|CONCLUSION|>","People who participate in unsanctioned foreign conflicts ought to be better managed in their home countries. This way their actions could be assessed, and therefore could be properly managed, detained, or punished by their respective nations therefore diminishing further possible radicalization or potential utilization for future conflicts.",Allowing former ISIS fighters re-entry could help to weaken the organisation.
<|TOPIC|>English language spelling reform<|ARGUMENT|>It is difficult for non-English speakers to learn English as a second language. Students can never be sure from reading a word how it is pronounced. They have to hear it aloud at the same time as seeing it written down. Then they have to learn by heart the many difficult spelling rules and exceptions to them. If English is to hold its own as a global language it must become easier to learn.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>English language spelling reform<|ARGUMENT|>It is difficult for non-English speakers to learn English as a second language. Students can never be sure from reading a word how it is pronounced. They have to hear it aloud at the same time as seeing it written down. Then they have to learn by heart the many difficult spelling rules and exceptions to them. If English is to hold its own as a global language it must become easier to learn.<|TARGETS|>reading a word how it is pronounced ., to hold its own as a global language, to hear it aloud at the same time as seeing it written down .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>English language spelling reform<|ARGUMENT|>It is difficult for non-English speakers to learn English as a second language. Students can never be sure from reading a word how it is pronounced. They have to hear it aloud at the same time as seeing it written down. Then they have to learn by heart the many difficult spelling rules and exceptions to them. If English is to hold its own as a global language it must become easier to learn.<|ASPECTS|>easier to learn, learn english, difficult, global, second language, pronounced, sure, difficult spelling rules, aloud, exceptions, speakers<|CONCLUSION|>",It is difficult for non-English speakers to learn English as a second language. Students can never be sure from reading a word how it is pronounced. They have to hear it aloud at the same time as seeing it written down. Then they have to learn by heart the many difficult spelling rules and exceptions to them. If English is to hold its own as a global language it must become easier to learn.,It is difficult for non-English speakers to learn English as a second language. Students can never ...
"<|TOPIC|>Is transhumanism the next step in human evolution?<|ARGUMENT|>From the beginning of humanity, humans always find ways to evade evolution and escape natural selection's effects: by inventing medics, prostheses, vaccines, etc. Transhumanism is just another method, nothing different than what we've already achieved in isolating ourselves from evolution to begin with.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is transhumanism the next step in human evolution?<|ARGUMENT|>From the beginning of humanity, humans always find ways to evade evolution and escape natural selection's effects: by inventing medics, prostheses, vaccines, etc. Transhumanism is just another method, nothing different than what we've already achieved in isolating ourselves from evolution to begin with.<|TARGETS|>Transhumanism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is transhumanism the next step in human evolution?<|ARGUMENT|>From the beginning of humanity, humans always find ways to evade evolution and escape natural selection's effects: by inventing medics, prostheses, vaccines, etc. Transhumanism is just another method, nothing different than what we've already achieved in isolating ourselves from evolution to begin with.<|ASPECTS|>evade evolution, evolution, escape, isolating, natural selection 's effects<|CONCLUSION|>","From the beginning of humanity, humans always find ways to evade evolution and escape natural selection's effects: by inventing medics, prostheses, vaccines, etc. Transhumanism is just another method, nothing different than what we've already achieved in isolating ourselves from evolution to begin with.","Transhumanism would be the end of biological evolution, as it would rely on design as opposed to natural selection of mutated traits."
<|TOPIC|>Should a maximum wage be introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Research suggests societies with large inequality [suffer more problems]( than those which are more equal.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should a maximum wage be introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Research suggests societies with large inequality [suffer more problems]( than those which are more equal.<|TARGETS|>Research<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should a maximum wage be introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Research suggests societies with large inequality [suffer more problems]( than those which are more equal.<|ASPECTS|><|CONCLUSION|>,Research suggests societies with large inequality suffer more problems than those which are more equal.,"A maximum wage would help bridge wealth inequality, benefiting the most vulnerable in society."
"<|TOPIC|>Do Bollywood movies normalise stalking in the name of romance?<|ARGUMENT|>In many films, such as [Raanjhanaa]( the woman falls in love after realizing the man in love with her will not take no for an answer.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do Bollywood movies normalise stalking in the name of romance?<|ARGUMENT|>In many films, such as [Raanjhanaa]( the woman falls in love after realizing the man in love with her will not take no for an answer.<|TARGETS|>Raanjhanaa the woman falls in love after realizing the man in love with her will not take no for an answer .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do Bollywood movies normalise stalking in the name of romance?<|ARGUMENT|>In many films, such as [Raanjhanaa]( the woman falls in love after realizing the man in love with her will not take no for an answer.<|ASPECTS|>love<|CONCLUSION|>","In many films, such as Raanjhanaa the woman falls in love after realizing the man in love with her will not take no for an answer.",They deny the woman the right to say no to a man.
<|TOPIC|>Should the US stop trying to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear program?<|ARGUMENT|>The drug trade in the Golden Triangle has lead to armed militias that control regions. At various times national actors are thought to have sought to use these militias to vie for influence in the region \(e.g the CIAs involvement\)<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the US stop trying to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear program?<|ARGUMENT|>The drug trade in the Golden Triangle has lead to armed militias that control regions. At various times national actors are thought to have sought to use these militias to vie for influence in the region \(e.g the CIAs involvement\)<|TARGETS|>The drug trade in the Golden Triangle<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US stop trying to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear program?<|ARGUMENT|>The drug trade in the Golden Triangle has lead to armed militias that control regions. At various times national actors are thought to have sought to use these militias to vie for influence in the region \(e.g the CIAs involvement\)<|ASPECTS|>nuclear weapons, costs, excessive<|CONCLUSION|>",The drug trade in the Golden Triangle has lead to armed militias that control regions. At various times national actors are thought to have sought to use these militias to vie for influence in the region e.g the CIAs involvement,Concern on the grounds of destabilisation is hypocrisy. Most of the major actors on the issue are or have been involved in actions that caused destabilisation in Northeast Asia.
<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Allowing the state to restrict freedom of speech in any narrow sense subsequently legitimises the state's scope to [misuse]( this power in pursuit of broader political ends.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Allowing the state to restrict freedom of speech in any narrow sense subsequently legitimises the state's scope to [misuse]( this power in pursuit of broader political ends.<|TARGETS|>Allowing the state to restrict freedom of speech in any narrow sense<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Allowing the state to restrict freedom of speech in any narrow sense subsequently legitimises the state's scope to [misuse]( this power in pursuit of broader political ends.<|ASPECTS|>authentic representation, homophobic slurs<|CONCLUSION|>",Allowing the state to restrict freedom of speech in any narrow sense subsequently legitimises the state's scope to misuse this power in pursuit of broader political ends.,The right to freedom of speech is what guarantees the ability of people to support or criticise a position.
"<|TOPIC|>Abortion<|ARGUMENT|>Naomi Wolf, feminist author and advocate of legal abortion, in ""Our Bodies, Our Souls"", The New Republic (October 15, 1995) - ""Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere 'uterine material'?""[2]<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Abortion<|ARGUMENT|>Naomi Wolf, feminist author and advocate of legal abortion, in ""Our Bodies, Our Souls"", The New Republic (October 15, 1995) - ""Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere 'uterine material'?""[2]<|TARGETS|>Naomi Wolf, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Abortion<|ARGUMENT|>Naomi Wolf, feminist author and advocate of legal abortion, in ""Our Bodies, Our Souls"", The New Republic (October 15, 1995) - ""Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere 'uterine material'?""[2]<|ASPECTS|>beautiful office of nature, child-bearing, fearful ordeal, choice of evils, disease, unwelcome guest<|CONCLUSION|>","Naomi Wolf, feminist author and advocate of legal abortion, in ""Our Bodies, Our Souls"", The New Republic October 15, 1995 - ""Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere 'uterine material'?""2","Wanted fetuses are beloved ""babies""; unwanted ones are ""tissue"" inconsistent"
"<|TOPIC|>Should schools have more security?<|ARGUMENT|>Schools may need to dedicate parts of their budgets to security, thus under-funding other areas and likely decreasing their teaching quality and standards.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should schools have more security?<|ARGUMENT|>Schools may need to dedicate parts of their budgets to security, thus under-funding other areas and likely decreasing their teaching quality and standards.<|TARGETS|>Schools<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should schools have more security?<|ARGUMENT|>Schools may need to dedicate parts of their budgets to security, thus under-funding other areas and likely decreasing their teaching quality and standards.<|ASPECTS|>teaching quality and standards, security<|CONCLUSION|>","Schools may need to dedicate parts of their budgets to security, thus under-funding other areas and likely decreasing their teaching quality and standards.",More school security measures can cost a lot of money.
<|TOPIC|>Is Media That Openly Declares Bias Better Than Media Claiming To Be Neutral?<|ARGUMENT|>The people are willing to listen to a multitude of opinions from presenters rather than spin doctors who only attack the media.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is Media That Openly Declares Bias Better Than Media Claiming To Be Neutral?<|ARGUMENT|>The people are willing to listen to a multitude of opinions from presenters rather than spin doctors who only attack the media.<|TARGETS|>to listen to a multitude of opinions from presenters rather than spin doctors who only attack the media<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is Media That Openly Declares Bias Better Than Media Claiming To Be Neutral?<|ARGUMENT|>The people are willing to listen to a multitude of opinions from presenters rather than spin doctors who only attack the media.<|ASPECTS|>media, opinions<|CONCLUSION|>",The people are willing to listen to a multitude of opinions from presenters rather than spin doctors who only attack the media.,It would be harder to rally against the media as an enemy.
"<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>John Kelly, an addiction specialist, says that it is the [""fellowship factor""]( that's effective and online forums provide this 24/7.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>John Kelly, an addiction specialist, says that it is the [""fellowship factor""]( that's effective and online forums provide this 24/7.<|TARGETS|>John Kelly an addiction specialist<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>John Kelly, an addiction specialist, says that it is the [""fellowship factor""]( that's effective and online forums provide this 24/7.<|ASPECTS|>community, addict, belonging<|CONCLUSION|>","John Kelly, an addiction specialist, says that it is the ""fellowship factor"" that's effective and online forums provide this 24/7.","Online communities are available 24/7, making reaching out for and receiving support more instantaneous."
"<|TOPIC|>Civil unions vs. gay marriage<|ARGUMENT|>. In so far as the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution applies to homosexuals and marriage, they have the same right to enter into the same type of traditional marriage contract. Even without civil unions they are equal in the eyes of the law.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Civil unions vs. gay marriage<|ARGUMENT|>. In so far as the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution applies to homosexuals and marriage, they have the same right to enter into the same type of traditional marriage contract. Even without civil unions they are equal in the eyes of the law.<|TARGETS|>the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Civil unions vs. gay marriage<|ARGUMENT|>. In so far as the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution applies to homosexuals and marriage, they have the same right to enter into the same type of traditional marriage contract. Even without civil unions they are equal in the eyes of the law.<|ASPECTS|>traditional marriage contract, equal, equal protection, right to enter<|CONCLUSION|>",". In so far as the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution applies to homosexuals and marriage, they have the same right to enter into the same type of traditional marriage contract. Even without civil unions they are equal in the eyes of the law.",Homosexuals have the same right to marry members of the opposite sex
"<|TOPIC|>Who Should Self-Driving Cars Kill?<|ARGUMENT|>If another car, due to driver or software error makes a mistake, then that car caused the accident. The passengers in the self-driving car would thus not be to blame.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Who Should Self-Driving Cars Kill?<|ARGUMENT|>If another car, due to driver or software error makes a mistake, then that car caused the accident. The passengers in the self-driving car would thus not be to blame.<|TARGETS|>The passengers in the self-driving car, If another car due to driver or software error<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Who Should Self-Driving Cars Kill?<|ARGUMENT|>If another car, due to driver or software error makes a mistake, then that car caused the accident. The passengers in the self-driving car would thus not be to blame.<|ASPECTS|>mistake, accident, error<|CONCLUSION|>","If another car, due to driver or software error makes a mistake, then that car caused the accident. The passengers in the self-driving car would thus not be to blame.",The self-driving car could have been brought into this situation by a third party. That person or entity would always be more to blame than the passengers.
"<|TOPIC|>Age Of Criminal Responsibility Should Be Raised<|ARGUMENT|>Children do not have the emotional maturity to be responsible in law for their actions. We all know that children cannot always make informed decisions. It is for this reason that children in many countries cannot vote or drink alcohol or consent to sex. Children have not had enough experience of life and do not yet have the same mental and emotional abilities as adults. They are often not aware of the consequences of their actions. Even where they know the difference between right and wrong, they often don't understand the difference between various levels of wrongdoing. It is therefore unfair to hold them criminally responsible for these actions.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Age Of Criminal Responsibility Should Be Raised<|ARGUMENT|>Children do not have the emotional maturity to be responsible in law for their actions. We all know that children cannot always make informed decisions. It is for this reason that children in many countries cannot vote or drink alcohol or consent to sex. Children have not had enough experience of life and do not yet have the same mental and emotional abilities as adults. They are often not aware of the consequences of their actions. Even where they know the difference between right and wrong, they often don't understand the difference between various levels of wrongdoing. It is therefore unfair to hold them criminally responsible for these actions.<|TARGETS|>that children in many countries cannot vote or drink alcohol or consent to sex ., to hold them criminally responsible for these actions ., the same mental and emotional abilities as adults .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Age Of Criminal Responsibility Should Be Raised<|ARGUMENT|>Children do not have the emotional maturity to be responsible in law for their actions. We all know that children cannot always make informed decisions. It is for this reason that children in many countries cannot vote or drink alcohol or consent to sex. Children have not had enough experience of life and do not yet have the same mental and emotional abilities as adults. They are often not aware of the consequences of their actions. Even where they know the difference between right and wrong, they often don't understand the difference between various levels of wrongdoing. It is therefore unfair to hold them criminally responsible for these actions.<|ASPECTS|>mental and emotional abilities, criminally responsible, responsible, right and wrong, emotional maturity, consequences, consent to sex, alcohol, wrongdoing, experience of life, informed decisions, vote<|CONCLUSION|>","Children do not have the emotional maturity to be responsible in law for their actions. We all know that children cannot always make informed decisions. It is for this reason that children in many countries cannot vote or drink alcohol or consent to sex. Children have not had enough experience of life and do not yet have the same mental and emotional abilities as adults. They are often not aware of the consequences of their actions. Even where they know the difference between right and wrong, they often don't understand the difference between various levels of wrongdoing. It is therefore unfair to hold them criminally responsible for these actions.",Children do not have the emotional maturity to be responsible in law for their actions. We all know...
"<|TOPIC|>Is Gillette's toxic masculinity ad good?<|ARGUMENT|>The ad is anti-feminist as you can see in the scene where a man is condescendingly ""mansplaining"" what a woman beside him said. Instead of showing her standing up to him and saying that she can speak for herself, thank you, \(as an empowered woman should\), she shies away submissively.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Gillette's toxic masculinity ad good?<|ARGUMENT|>The ad is anti-feminist as you can see in the scene where a man is condescendingly ""mansplaining"" what a woman beside him said. Instead of showing her standing up to him and saying that she can speak for herself, thank you, \(as an empowered woman should\), she shies away submissively.<|TARGETS|>The ad, Instead of showing her standing up to him and saying that she can speak for herself thank you as an empowered woman should she shies away submissively .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Gillette's toxic masculinity ad good?<|ARGUMENT|>The ad is anti-feminist as you can see in the scene where a man is condescendingly ""mansplaining"" what a woman beside him said. Instead of showing her standing up to him and saying that she can speak for herself, thank you, \(as an empowered woman should\), she shies away submissively.<|ASPECTS|>anti-feminist, submissively, condescendingly<|CONCLUSION|>","The ad is anti-feminist as you can see in the scene where a man is condescendingly ""mansplaining"" what a woman beside him said. Instead of showing her standing up to him and saying that she can speak for herself, thank you, as an empowered woman should, she shies away submissively.",Women have their own voices. They can stand up for themselves.
"<|TOPIC|>Should All Bee Products Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Broccoli, asparagus, cantaloupes, cucumbers, pumpkins, blueberries, watermelons, almonds, apples, cranberries, and cherries - all this sources of food are [pollinated]( asparagus, cantaloupes, cucumbers, pumpkins, blueberries, watermelons, almonds, apples, cranberries, and cherries.) by bees and would vanish without their work.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should All Bee Products Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Broccoli, asparagus, cantaloupes, cucumbers, pumpkins, blueberries, watermelons, almonds, apples, cranberries, and cherries - all this sources of food are [pollinated]( asparagus, cantaloupes, cucumbers, pumpkins, blueberries, watermelons, almonds, apples, cranberries, and cherries.) by bees and would vanish without their work.<|TARGETS|>Broccoli<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should All Bee Products Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Broccoli, asparagus, cantaloupes, cucumbers, pumpkins, blueberries, watermelons, almonds, apples, cranberries, and cherries - all this sources of food are [pollinated]( asparagus, cantaloupes, cucumbers, pumpkins, blueberries, watermelons, almonds, apples, cranberries, and cherries.) by bees and would vanish without their work.<|ASPECTS|>food, sources, vanish<|CONCLUSION|>","Broccoli, asparagus, cantaloupes, cucumbers, pumpkins, blueberries, watermelons, almonds, apples, cranberries, and cherries - all this sources of food are pollinated asparagus, cantaloupes, cucumbers, pumpkins, blueberries, watermelons, almonds, apples, cranberries, and cherries. by bees and would vanish without their work.",Bees are vital for the pollination of many plants and must therefore be protected.
"<|TOPIC|>The Gospels are Not Historically Reliable<|ARGUMENT|>Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ in [Mark 8:29-30]( is similar to Eurycleia's recognition of Odysseus in [Odyssey 19:467-490]( In Mark, Peter says ""You are the Messiah,"" and in Odyssey, Eurycleia says ""You are Odysseus."" Also, Mark says Jesus ""sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him,"" similar to how Odysseus tells Eurycleia ""be quiet and keep it from all the rest of the house.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Gospels are Not Historically Reliable<|ARGUMENT|>Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ in [Mark 8:29-30]( is similar to Eurycleia's recognition of Odysseus in [Odyssey 19:467-490]( In Mark, Peter says ""You are the Messiah,"" and in Odyssey, Eurycleia says ""You are Odysseus."" Also, Mark says Jesus ""sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him,"" similar to how Odysseus tells Eurycleia ""be quiet and keep it from all the rest of the house.""<|TARGETS|>ordered them not to tell anyone about him "" similar to how Odysseus tells Eurycleia "" be quiet and keep it from all the rest of the house . "", Peter 's confession of Jesus as the Christ in Mark 8:29-30<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Gospels are Not Historically Reliable<|ARGUMENT|>Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ in [Mark 8:29-30]( is similar to Eurycleia's recognition of Odysseus in [Odyssey 19:467-490]( In Mark, Peter says ""You are the Messiah,"" and in Odyssey, Eurycleia says ""You are Odysseus."" Also, Mark says Jesus ""sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him,"" similar to how Odysseus tells Eurycleia ""be quiet and keep it from all the rest of the house.""<|ASPECTS|>, quiet, messiah<|CONCLUSION|>","Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ in Mark 8:29-30 is similar to Eurycleia's recognition of Odysseus in Odyssey 19:467-490 In Mark, Peter says ""You are the Messiah,"" and in Odyssey, Eurycleia says ""You are Odysseus."" Also, Mark says Jesus ""sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him,"" similar to how Odysseus tells Eurycleia ""be quiet and keep it from all the rest of the house.""",Some accounts in the gospels seem to be based off of stories in classical Greek mythology.
"<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>The proof of the existence of God should be based on hard incontrovertible physical or experimental evidence & not just reasoning, e.g., hard incontrovertible evidences captured by CCTV or camera instead of mere reasoning have resulted in criminals such as robbers being convicted. There’s no hard incontrovertible physical evidence of God’s existence.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>The proof of the existence of God should be based on hard incontrovertible physical or experimental evidence & not just reasoning, e.g., hard incontrovertible evidences captured by CCTV or camera instead of mere reasoning have resulted in criminals such as robbers being convicted. There’s no hard incontrovertible physical evidence of God’s existence.<|TARGETS|>The proof of the existence of God should be based on hard incontrovertible physical or experimental evidence not just reasoning e.g. hard incontrovertible evidences captured by CCTV or camera instead of mere reasoning<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>The proof of the existence of God should be based on hard incontrovertible physical or experimental evidence & not just reasoning, e.g., hard incontrovertible evidences captured by CCTV or camera instead of mere reasoning have resulted in criminals such as robbers being convicted. There’s no hard incontrovertible physical evidence of God’s existence.<|ASPECTS|>god ’ s existence, evidence, physical evidence, god, hard incontrovertible, incontrovertible, criminals<|CONCLUSION|>","The proof of the existence of God should be based on hard incontrovertible physical or experimental evidence & not just reasoning, e.g., hard incontrovertible evidences captured by CCTV or camera instead of mere reasoning have resulted in criminals such as robbers being convicted. There’s no hard incontrovertible physical evidence of God’s existence.","The classical definition of God is contradictory or incoherent, and thus God cannot in principle exist."
"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>UBI requires redistribution of fairly earned income from those who require ""assistance"" to those who do not.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>UBI requires redistribution of fairly earned income from those who require ""assistance"" to those who do not.<|TARGETS|>UBI<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>UBI requires redistribution of fairly earned income from those who require ""assistance"" to those who do not.<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>","UBI requires redistribution of fairly earned income from those who require ""assistance"" to those who do not.","A UBI erodes the personal and societal incentives for financial responsibility, self-improvement, and hard work."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>If a Creator or God may exist naturally \(without the need of a Higher Creator\), so may the things of nature, e.g., human beings.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>If a Creator or God may exist naturally \(without the need of a Higher Creator\), so may the things of nature, e.g., human beings.<|TARGETS|>If a Creator or God, the need of a Higher Creator<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>If a Creator or God may exist naturally \(without the need of a Higher Creator\), so may the things of nature, e.g., human beings.<|ASPECTS|>source of value<|CONCLUSION|>","If a Creator or God may exist naturally without the need of a Higher Creator, so may the things of nature, e.g., human beings.",Biological evolution demonstrates that a God that directly created humans animals and plants does not exist.
"<|TOPIC|>The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.<|ARGUMENT|>Until you're actually shot and/or killed, it's never too late to at least try your luck in running away or laying down/behind cover. That's almost always your best bet for survival unless you're a well-trained fighter.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.<|ARGUMENT|>Until you're actually shot and/or killed, it's never too late to at least try your luck in running away or laying down/behind cover. That's almost always your best bet for survival unless you're a well-trained fighter.<|TARGETS|>to at least try your luck in running away or laying down / behind cover .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.<|ARGUMENT|>Until you're actually shot and/or killed, it's never too late to at least try your luck in running away or laying down/behind cover. That's almost always your best bet for survival unless you're a well-trained fighter.<|ASPECTS|>well-trained fighter, and/or, cover, survival, running away<|CONCLUSION|>","Until you're actually shot and/or killed, it's never too late to at least try your luck in running away or laying down/behind cover. That's almost always your best bet for survival unless you're a well-trained fighter.","Unless extensively trained like law enforcement, trying to use a gun as a defense during an attack is more likely to get you killed than if you did nothing."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Felons be Allowed to Vote?<|ARGUMENT|>Education is a commonly solution for political ignorance, yet US American have [remained just as ignorant]( is often named as a solution for political ignorance, yet US American have remained just as ignorant as levels of education improved.) about politics as levels of education improved in the recent past.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Felons be Allowed to Vote?<|ARGUMENT|>Education is a commonly solution for political ignorance, yet US American have [remained just as ignorant]( is often named as a solution for political ignorance, yet US American have remained just as ignorant as levels of education improved.) about politics as levels of education improved in the recent past.<|TARGETS|>US American have remained just as ignorant is often named as a solution for political ignorance yet US American have remained just as ignorant as levels of education, Education<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Felons be Allowed to Vote?<|ARGUMENT|>Education is a commonly solution for political ignorance, yet US American have [remained just as ignorant]( is often named as a solution for political ignorance, yet US American have remained just as ignorant as levels of education improved.) about politics as levels of education improved in the recent past.<|ASPECTS|>government 's control, prisoners ' lives, prisoners, responsibility, democratic oversight<|CONCLUSION|>","Education is a commonly solution for political ignorance, yet US American have remained just as ignorant is often named as a solution for political ignorance, yet US American have remained just as ignorant as levels of education improved. about politics as levels of education improved in the recent past.","There is no effective and proven strategy for meaningfully improving citizens' level of information, governments have tried and failed in the past. Hence, this is not a realistic alternative to abolishing referendums."
<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>Transport on Earth will improve when we can use [city-to-city rockets]( instead of planes for long distance flights as envisioned by<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>Transport on Earth will improve when we can use [city-to-city rockets]( instead of planes for long distance flights as envisioned by<|TARGETS|>city-to-city rockets, Transport on Earth<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>Transport on Earth will improve when we can use [city-to-city rockets]( instead of planes for long distance flights as envisioned by<|ASPECTS|>transport, improve<|CONCLUSION|>",Transport on Earth will improve when we can use city-to-city rockets instead of planes for long distance flights as envisioned by,Space colonization starting with Mars can boost the economy and the process of job creation from anywhere in the universe.
"<|TOPIC|>remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy<|ARGUMENT|>The Catholic church should not bend its principles for the sake of expediency. Many more issues divide Roman Catholicism from other churches (e.g. the authority of the Pope, the nature of the sacrament, even the wording of the creed). If the church accepted this change for the sake of convenience, where would it stop? Should women also be allowed to become priests? What about practising homosexuals? More likely such a compromise would see a further split in the church, as those who upheld traditional Catholic teaching rejected the change. Look how the Episcopal (Anglican) church is falling apart over the ordination of gay priests and women bishops, including some bishops leaving the Anglican for Catholic Church.[1] In any case, allowing priests to marry would undoubtedly lead to a two-class priesthood, with many good Catholics continuing to feel that clergy who continue to choose celibacy are superior to those who reject it. That would hardly be a healthy development for the unity of the church or for the authority of the priesthood. [1] Butt, Riazat, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury accepts resignation of Anglican bishops’, guardian.co.uk, 8 November 2011, <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy<|ARGUMENT|>The Catholic church should not bend its principles for the sake of expediency. Many more issues divide Roman Catholicism from other churches (e.g. the authority of the Pope, the nature of the sacrament, even the wording of the creed). If the church accepted this change for the sake of convenience, where would it stop? Should women also be allowed to become priests? What about practising homosexuals? More likely such a compromise would see a further split in the church, as those who upheld traditional Catholic teaching rejected the change. Look how the Episcopal (Anglican) church is falling apart over the ordination of gay priests and women bishops, including some bishops leaving the Anglican for Catholic Church.[1] In any case, allowing priests to marry would undoubtedly lead to a two-class priesthood, with many good Catholics continuing to feel that clergy who continue to choose celibacy are superior to those who reject it. That would hardly be a healthy development for the unity of the church or for the authority of the priesthood. [1] Butt, Riazat, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury accepts resignation of Anglican bishops’, guardian.co.uk, 8 November 2011, <|TARGETS|>allowing priests to marry, a two-class priesthood with many good Catholics continuing to feel that clergy who continue to choose celibacy, If the church accepted this change for the sake of convenience, the authority of the Pope the nature of the sacrament<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy<|ARGUMENT|>The Catholic church should not bend its principles for the sake of expediency. Many more issues divide Roman Catholicism from other churches (e.g. the authority of the Pope, the nature of the sacrament, even the wording of the creed). If the church accepted this change for the sake of convenience, where would it stop? Should women also be allowed to become priests? What about practising homosexuals? More likely such a compromise would see a further split in the church, as those who upheld traditional Catholic teaching rejected the change. Look how the Episcopal (Anglican) church is falling apart over the ordination of gay priests and women bishops, including some bishops leaving the Anglican for Catholic Church.[1] In any case, allowing priests to marry would undoubtedly lead to a two-class priesthood, with many good Catholics continuing to feel that clergy who continue to choose celibacy are superior to those who reject it. That would hardly be a healthy development for the unity of the church or for the authority of the priesthood. [1] Butt, Riazat, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury accepts resignation of Anglican bishops’, guardian.co.uk, 8 November 2011, <|ASPECTS|>catholic teaching, expediency, gay priests, bend, bishops, unity of the church, two-class priesthood, principles, authority, superior, sacrament, split in the church, healthy development, convenience, resignation, divide roman catholicism, priests, authority of the priesthood, practising homosexuals<|CONCLUSION|>","The Catholic church should not bend its principles for the sake of expediency. Many more issues divide Roman Catholicism from other churches e.g. the authority of the Pope, the nature of the sacrament, even the wording of the creed. If the church accepted this change for the sake of convenience, where would it stop? Should women also be allowed to become priests? What about practising homosexuals? More likely such a compromise would see a further split in the church, as those who upheld traditional Catholic teaching rejected the change. Look how the Episcopal Anglican church is falling apart over the ordination of gay priests and women bishops, including some bishops leaving the Anglican for Catholic Church.1 In any case, allowing priests to marry would undoubtedly lead to a two-class priesthood, with many good Catholics continuing to feel that clergy who continue to choose celibacy are superior to those who reject it. That would hardly be a healthy development for the unity of the church or for the authority of the priesthood. 1 Butt, Riazat, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury accepts resignation of Anglican bishops’, guardian.co.uk, 8 November 2011,",Principles should be maintained even when it is convenient to change them
"<|TOPIC|>Should Human Life Be Valued Above Animal Life?<|ARGUMENT|>No other animal inherently cares for the well-being of other species outside of human interference or other extenuating circumstances. The fact the humans value other species at all demonstrates that we are, in fact, more important by virtue of our benevolence.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Human Life Be Valued Above Animal Life?<|ARGUMENT|>No other animal inherently cares for the well-being of other species outside of human interference or other extenuating circumstances. The fact the humans value other species at all demonstrates that we are, in fact, more important by virtue of our benevolence.<|TARGETS|>The fact the humans value other species at all<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Human Life Be Valued Above Animal Life?<|ARGUMENT|>No other animal inherently cares for the well-being of other species outside of human interference or other extenuating circumstances. The fact the humans value other species at all demonstrates that we are, in fact, more important by virtue of our benevolence.<|ASPECTS|>protect their, protect young<|CONCLUSION|>","No other animal inherently cares for the well-being of other species outside of human interference or other extenuating circumstances. The fact the humans value other species at all demonstrates that we are, in fact, more important by virtue of our benevolence.",Humans intelligence allows us to act against our instincts. We are capable of altruism. It is this singular potential to be that selfless that makes humanity more valuable.
<|TOPIC|>Should health care providers annually be made to get the flu vaccine?<|ARGUMENT|>Many nursing homes would already have policies in place to ensure workers with flu exposure and symptoms were not in contact with vulnerable residents. This could render the impact of the vaccination on this group particularly hard to measure given existing measures used to protect patients.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should health care providers annually be made to get the flu vaccine?<|ARGUMENT|>Many nursing homes would already have policies in place to ensure workers with flu exposure and symptoms were not in contact with vulnerable residents. This could render the impact of the vaccination on this group particularly hard to measure given existing measures used to protect patients.<|TARGETS|>Many nursing homes, the vaccination on this group<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should health care providers annually be made to get the flu vaccine?<|ARGUMENT|>Many nursing homes would already have policies in place to ensure workers with flu exposure and symptoms were not in contact with vulnerable residents. This could render the impact of the vaccination on this group particularly hard to measure given existing measures used to protect patients.<|ASPECTS|>vaccination, policies, protect patients, vulnerable residents, flu exposure, symptoms, impact<|CONCLUSION|>",Many nursing homes would already have policies in place to ensure workers with flu exposure and symptoms were not in contact with vulnerable residents. This could render the impact of the vaccination on this group particularly hard to measure given existing measures used to protect patients.,A lack of significant reduction in hospitalization or death in the nursing home population does not mean that vaccination is ineffective. Efficacy could materialise in many ways and still fail to procude significant reductions in the two metrics observed by the study.
<|TOPIC|>The EU should promote the official use of a common language in Europe.<|ARGUMENT|>The official language will be the language of business and politics. Citizens who are unable or only partially able to speak it will mostly be excluded from these fields.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>The EU should promote the official use of a common language in Europe.<|ARGUMENT|>The official language will be the language of business and politics. Citizens who are unable or only partially able to speak it will mostly be excluded from these fields.<|TARGETS|>Citizens who are unable or only partially able to speak it will mostly be excluded from these fields ., The official language<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The EU should promote the official use of a common language in Europe.<|ARGUMENT|>The official language will be the language of business and politics. Citizens who are unable or only partially able to speak it will mostly be excluded from these fields.<|ASPECTS|>business and politics, language<|CONCLUSION|>",The official language will be the language of business and politics. Citizens who are unable or only partially able to speak it will mostly be excluded from these fields.,Citizens who are unable to learn the official language would be excluded from public discourse and political as well as economic life.
"<|TOPIC|>Should selective breeding of animals be prohibited?<|ARGUMENT|>Aristotle [argued]( that there is a natural hierarchy of living beings with plants serving humans and animals, and animals in turn serving the needs of humans.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should selective breeding of animals be prohibited?<|ARGUMENT|>Aristotle [argued]( that there is a natural hierarchy of living beings with plants serving humans and animals, and animals in turn serving the needs of humans.<|TARGETS|>Aristotle, a natural hierarchy of living beings with plants serving humans and animals and animals in turn serving the needs of humans .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should selective breeding of animals be prohibited?<|ARGUMENT|>Aristotle [argued]( that there is a natural hierarchy of living beings with plants serving humans and animals, and animals in turn serving the needs of humans.<|ASPECTS|>natural hierarchy, needs of humans, living<|CONCLUSION|>","Aristotle argued that there is a natural hierarchy of living beings with plants serving humans and animals, and animals in turn serving the needs of humans.",It is morally permissible to use animals for human benefit as long as their welfare is taken into consideration.
"<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>Also, if you take into account the last book of the Christian Bible, this fallen state is only temporary. God is being merciful, in allowing us more time to choose our final destiny.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>Also, if you take into account the last book of the Christian Bible, this fallen state is only temporary. God is being merciful, in allowing us more time to choose our final destiny.<|TARGETS|>if you take into account the last book of the Christian Bible this fallen state, allowing us more time to choose our final destiny .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>Also, if you take into account the last book of the Christian Bible, this fallen state is only temporary. God is being merciful, in allowing us more time to choose our final destiny.<|ASPECTS|>right the consequences, evil, god, remove evil<|CONCLUSION|>","Also, if you take into account the last book of the Christian Bible, this fallen state is only temporary. God is being merciful, in allowing us more time to choose our final destiny.","In the christian tradition, the earth is a fallen world that needs redeeming and acts as a testing ground to see if individuals deserve to go to heaven."
"<|TOPIC|>NFL Player Protests: Should NFL Players Stand or Kneel for the National Anthem?<|ARGUMENT|>Anthems, when used for teams in a competition between countries, makes sense. When used for national sports as opposed to international sports, it seems strange from outside the US, particularly as athletes could be from anywhere in the world and are not representing the US specifically.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NFL Player Protests: Should NFL Players Stand or Kneel for the National Anthem?<|ARGUMENT|>Anthems, when used for teams in a competition between countries, makes sense. When used for national sports as opposed to international sports, it seems strange from outside the US, particularly as athletes could be from anywhere in the world and are not representing the US specifically.<|TARGETS|>When used for national sports as opposed to international sports<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>NFL Player Protests: Should NFL Players Stand or Kneel for the National Anthem?<|ARGUMENT|>Anthems, when used for teams in a competition between countries, makes sense. When used for national sports as opposed to international sports, it seems strange from outside the US, particularly as athletes could be from anywhere in the world and are not representing the US specifically.<|ASPECTS|>strange<|CONCLUSION|>","Anthems, when used for teams in a competition between countries, makes sense. When used for national sports as opposed to international sports, it seems strange from outside the US, particularly as athletes could be from anywhere in the world and are not representing the US specifically.","When sports are a source of pride on the international stage, they can have huge political significance."
"<|TOPIC|>Enhanced interrogation techniques<|ARGUMENT|>The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate US prohibitions against torture if their methods avoided inflicting ""severe pain and suffering"". The main reason for this is that prisoners can tolerate a little bit of discomfort and even pain, but severe pain and suffering can have the effect of lasting bodily or psychological damage. Enhanced interrogations succeed at allowing interogators to inflict some discomfort and low-level pain - waterboarding, slapping on the belly, sensory bombardment, prolonged isolation all qualify as such - in order to succeed in obtaining critical national security intelligence, while avoiding the higher level ""severe pain and suffering"" that could be called ""torture"".[19]<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Enhanced interrogation techniques<|ARGUMENT|>The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate US prohibitions against torture if their methods avoided inflicting ""severe pain and suffering"". The main reason for this is that prisoners can tolerate a little bit of discomfort and even pain, but severe pain and suffering can have the effect of lasting bodily or psychological damage. Enhanced interrogations succeed at allowing interogators to inflict some discomfort and low-level pain - waterboarding, slapping on the belly, sensory bombardment, prolonged isolation all qualify as such - in order to succeed in obtaining critical national security intelligence, while avoiding the higher level ""severe pain and suffering"" that could be called ""torture"".[19]<|TARGETS|>Enhanced interrogations, a little bit of discomfort and even pain but severe pain and suffering, The Bush administration<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Enhanced interrogation techniques<|ARGUMENT|>The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate US prohibitions against torture if their methods avoided inflicting ""severe pain and suffering"". The main reason for this is that prisoners can tolerate a little bit of discomfort and even pain, but severe pain and suffering can have the effect of lasting bodily or psychological damage. Enhanced interrogations succeed at allowing interogators to inflict some discomfort and low-level pain - waterboarding, slapping on the belly, sensory bombardment, prolonged isolation all qualify as such - in order to succeed in obtaining critical national security intelligence, while avoiding the higher level ""severe pain and suffering"" that could be called ""torture"".[19]<|ASPECTS|>severe, pain, bodily, psychological damage, pain and suffering, torture, discomfort, lasting<|CONCLUSION|>","The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate US prohibitions against torture if their methods avoided inflicting ""severe pain and suffering"". The main reason for this is that prisoners can tolerate a little bit of discomfort and even pain, but severe pain and suffering can have the effect of lasting bodily or psychological damage. Enhanced interrogations succeed at allowing interogators to inflict some discomfort and low-level pain - waterboarding, slapping on the belly, sensory bombardment, prolonged isolation all qualify as such - in order to succeed in obtaining critical national security intelligence, while avoiding the higher level ""severe pain and suffering"" that could be called ""torture"".19",Enhanced interrogations don't inflict severe pain/suffering not torture.
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Ban the Production and Distribution of Genetically Modified Foods?<|ARGUMENT|>The principle behind genetically modified foods is the same as the domestication of plants and animals during the Agricultural Revolution; plant species are chosen based on their ability to produce food for people.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the US Ban the Production and Distribution of Genetically Modified Foods?<|ARGUMENT|>The principle behind genetically modified foods is the same as the domestication of plants and animals during the Agricultural Revolution; plant species are chosen based on their ability to produce food for people.<|TARGETS|>genetically modified foods<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Ban the Production and Distribution of Genetically Modified Foods?<|ARGUMENT|>The principle behind genetically modified foods is the same as the domestication of plants and animals during the Agricultural Revolution; plant species are chosen based on their ability to produce food for people.<|ASPECTS|>species, genetically modified foods, produce food for people<|CONCLUSION|>",The principle behind genetically modified foods is the same as the domestication of plants and animals during the Agricultural Revolution; plant species are chosen based on their ability to produce food for people.,"There is no real evidence of the harms of GMOs, the principle behind which is not too different from that used in other conventional practices."
<|TOPIC|>We should close Guantanamo Bay detention camp<|ARGUMENT|>the detention camp is a stain on the honor of the usa.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>We should close Guantanamo Bay detention camp<|ARGUMENT|>the detention camp is a stain on the honor of the usa.<|TARGETS|>the detention camp<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>We should close Guantanamo Bay detention camp<|ARGUMENT|>the detention camp is a stain on the honor of the usa.<|ASPECTS|>reputation<|CONCLUSION|>,the detention camp is a stain on the honor of the usa.,The Guantanamo bay detention camp harms the US image/reputation/institutions
"<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook and Twitter sell inherently global rather than regionalised products - no matter whether someone uses the platform in German or in Bahasa Melayu, they all have access to the same content and can follow the same people.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook and Twitter sell inherently global rather than regionalised products - no matter whether someone uses the platform in German or in Bahasa Melayu, they all have access to the same content and can follow the same people.<|TARGETS|>Facebook and Twitter<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook and Twitter sell inherently global rather than regionalised products - no matter whether someone uses the platform in German or in Bahasa Melayu, they all have access to the same content and can follow the same people.<|ASPECTS|>deny service, economic interest, white supremacists<|CONCLUSION|>","Facebook and Twitter sell inherently global rather than regionalised products - no matter whether someone uses the platform in German or in Bahasa Melayu, they all have access to the same content and can follow the same people.",Complying with the laws of every single country where the services of Internet companies are accessible would be impractical.
"<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>The most realistic approach to this question will certainly be that no one can ever be sure whether God exists or not. Our whole world is dependent on beliefs, we can never be certain of anything for sure.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>The most realistic approach to this question will certainly be that no one can ever be sure whether God exists or not. Our whole world is dependent on beliefs, we can never be certain of anything for sure.<|TARGETS|>The most realistic approach to this question<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>The most realistic approach to this question will certainly be that no one can ever be sure whether God exists or not. Our whole world is dependent on beliefs, we can never be certain of anything for sure.<|ASPECTS|>competent, beneficial, righteousness, faith, inspired of god<|CONCLUSION|>","The most realistic approach to this question will certainly be that no one can ever be sure whether God exists or not. Our whole world is dependent on beliefs, we can never be certain of anything for sure.","Science doesn't prove that there is a God, and neither does it prove that there isn't a God. Therefore, science can't back the certain claim that there is no God."
"<|TOPIC|>Humans should act to fight climate change<|ARGUMENT|>Theories inspire engineering solutions that in themselves are tested, but the theory remains a separate thing that is not proved. The success of the engineering solution may strengthen the theory but not necessarily. The success or failure of the engineering solution may add strength to the understanding of the design yet add nothing to the strength or weakness of the underlying theory from which it was developed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Humans should act to fight climate change<|ARGUMENT|>Theories inspire engineering solutions that in themselves are tested, but the theory remains a separate thing that is not proved. The success of the engineering solution may strengthen the theory but not necessarily. The success or failure of the engineering solution may add strength to the understanding of the design yet add nothing to the strength or weakness of the underlying theory from which it was developed.<|TARGETS|>The success of the engineering solution, The success or failure of the engineering solution<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Humans should act to fight climate change<|ARGUMENT|>Theories inspire engineering solutions that in themselves are tested, but the theory remains a separate thing that is not proved. The success of the engineering solution may strengthen the theory but not necessarily. The success or failure of the engineering solution may add strength to the understanding of the design yet add nothing to the strength or weakness of the underlying theory from which it was developed.<|ASPECTS|>grid parity, energy shortages, climate change<|CONCLUSION|>","Theories inspire engineering solutions that in themselves are tested, but the theory remains a separate thing that is not proved. The success of the engineering solution may strengthen the theory but not necessarily. The success or failure of the engineering solution may add strength to the understanding of the design yet add nothing to the strength or weakness of the underlying theory from which it was developed.",There are several competing theories of flight yet we build airplanes.
<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Allowing access to sex work reinforces the stereotype that paying for sex is the only way that disabled people can be sexual.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Allowing access to sex work reinforces the stereotype that paying for sex is the only way that disabled people can be sexual.<|TARGETS|>Allowing access to sex work<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Allowing access to sex work reinforces the stereotype that paying for sex is the only way that disabled people can be sexual.<|ASPECTS|>stereotype, sexual, disabled people, paying<|CONCLUSION|>",Allowing access to sex work reinforces the stereotype that paying for sex is the only way that disabled people can be sexual.,This perpetuates ableist attitudes in society that assume the disabled are sexually unappealing to all people.
<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>It used to be punishable by [death]( to have sex outside of marriage and some countries still [penalize]( extra-marital sex.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>It used to be punishable by [death]( to have sex outside of marriage and some countries still [penalize]( extra-marital sex.<|TARGETS|>It used to be punishable by death to have sex outside of marriage and some countries still penalize extra-marital sex .<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>It used to be punishable by [death]( to have sex outside of marriage and some countries still [penalize]( extra-marital sex.<|ASPECTS|>supernatural forces, religious ideas<|CONCLUSION|>",It used to be punishable by death to have sex outside of marriage and some countries still penalize extra-marital sex.,"Which means that contemporary laws have unjust laws, which would less likely to be a problem without religion."
<|TOPIC|>Should culturally diverse writers be mandatory in English curricula?<|ARGUMENT|>Having culturally diverse writers present in common academic discourse could potentially break the stereotypes surrounding them.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should culturally diverse writers be mandatory in English curricula?<|ARGUMENT|>Having culturally diverse writers present in common academic discourse could potentially break the stereotypes surrounding them.<|TARGETS|>Having culturally diverse writers present in common academic discourse<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should culturally diverse writers be mandatory in English curricula?<|ARGUMENT|>Having culturally diverse writers present in common academic discourse could potentially break the stereotypes surrounding them.<|ASPECTS|>stereotypes, culturally diverse<|CONCLUSION|>",Having culturally diverse writers present in common academic discourse could potentially break the stereotypes surrounding them.,"This promotes inclusivity and intercultural understanding, which could potentially reduce racial and cultural biases."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Further, it will remove the implied government endorsement of the ideals of those monuments. These monuments should be preserved, because, for better or worse, they're part of our history. However, using the tax dollars of the people—particularly the very people that were oppressed by the confederacy—would seem to rub salt in a still-open wound.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Further, it will remove the implied government endorsement of the ideals of those monuments. These monuments should be preserved, because, for better or worse, they're part of our history. However, using the tax dollars of the people—particularly the very people that were oppressed by the confederacy—would seem to rub salt in a still-open wound.<|TARGETS|>using the tax dollars of the people — particularly the very people that were oppressed by the confederacy —<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Further, it will remove the implied government endorsement of the ideals of those monuments. These monuments should be preserved, because, for better or worse, they're part of our history. However, using the tax dollars of the people—particularly the very people that were oppressed by the confederacy—would seem to rub salt in a still-open wound.<|ASPECTS|>, honoring, monuments, confederacy, slave-holding figures<|CONCLUSION|>","Further, it will remove the implied government endorsement of the ideals of those monuments. These monuments should be preserved, because, for better or worse, they're part of our history. However, using the tax dollars of the people—particularly the very people that were oppressed by the confederacy—would seem to rub salt in a still-open wound.",The movement of these statues to museums allow historians to contextualize and historicize why these statues exist and who these people were. It will also reduce cost on local government to maintain these statues by moving them to private institutions
"<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>The Galaxy Class was more than a match for the Lysian High Command, something more than 20 times its mass and could destroy it with a single torpedo.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>The Galaxy Class was more than a match for the Lysian High Command, something more than 20 times its mass and could destroy it with a single torpedo.<|TARGETS|>The Galaxy Class<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>The Galaxy Class was more than a match for the Lysian High Command, something more than 20 times its mass and could destroy it with a single torpedo.<|ASPECTS|>highly, creative solutions, unique<|CONCLUSION|>","The Galaxy Class was more than a match for the Lysian High Command, something more than 20 times its mass and could destroy it with a single torpedo.",Galaxy Class Explorers 643m are matches for D'Deredix between 1042m and 1420m class Warbirds.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the NHS be privatised?<|ARGUMENT|>In [British Columbia]( families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 no longer have to pay any prescription deductibles, making it easier for them to avail healthcare services.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the NHS be privatised?<|ARGUMENT|>In [British Columbia]( families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 no longer have to pay any prescription deductibles, making it easier for them to avail healthcare services.<|TARGETS|>to pay any prescription deductibles<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the NHS be privatised?<|ARGUMENT|>In [British Columbia]( families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 no longer have to pay any prescription deductibles, making it easier for them to avail healthcare services.<|ASPECTS|>prescription deductibles, avail healthcare services<|CONCLUSION|>","In British Columbia families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 no longer have to pay any prescription deductibles, making it easier for them to avail healthcare services.",The government can choose to help low income families pay these deductibles through assistance schemes.
"<|TOPIC|>Arranged Marriages are Better than Love Matches<|ARGUMENT|>You cannot control who you develop feelings for. It may be difficult to accept in the beginning years, for people who enter into arranged marriages despite having feelings for other people, that they will never act on their feelings or pursue certain opportunities.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Arranged Marriages are Better than Love Matches<|ARGUMENT|>You cannot control who you develop feelings for. It may be difficult to accept in the beginning years, for people who enter into arranged marriages despite having feelings for other people, that they will never act on their feelings or pursue certain opportunities.<|TARGETS|>to accept in the beginning years for people who enter into arranged marriages despite having feelings for other people that they will never act on their feelings or pursue certain opportunities .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Arranged Marriages are Better than Love Matches<|ARGUMENT|>You cannot control who you develop feelings for. It may be difficult to accept in the beginning years, for people who enter into arranged marriages despite having feelings for other people, that they will never act on their feelings or pursue certain opportunities.<|ASPECTS|>opportunities, control, feelings, difficult to accept, feelings for<|CONCLUSION|>","You cannot control who you develop feelings for. It may be difficult to accept in the beginning years, for people who enter into arranged marriages despite having feelings for other people, that they will never act on their feelings or pursue certain opportunities.",About 2 or 3 years of living with someone you don't really love - up to the time you would develop significant feelings - is hard.
"<|TOPIC|>Is eating meat ethically wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Placing a restriction on only a limited subset \(of species, methods, and the like\) is actually a clear indication that these scriptures reject the assertion that eating animals is intrinsically wrong.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is eating meat ethically wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Placing a restriction on only a limited subset \(of species, methods, and the like\) is actually a clear indication that these scriptures reject the assertion that eating animals is intrinsically wrong.<|TARGETS|>Placing a restriction<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is eating meat ethically wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Placing a restriction on only a limited subset \(of species, methods, and the like\) is actually a clear indication that these scriptures reject the assertion that eating animals is intrinsically wrong.<|ASPECTS|>kill, natural<|CONCLUSION|>","Placing a restriction on only a limited subset of species, methods, and the like is actually a clear indication that these scriptures reject the assertion that eating animals is intrinsically wrong.","No major religion outright prohibits the eating of meat, even if restrictions are stipulated."
<|TOPIC|>Free Julian Assange<|ARGUMENT|>More than [60 doctors]( have written an open letter saying they fear Julian Assange’s health is so bad that he could die inside a top-security British jail.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Free Julian Assange<|ARGUMENT|>More than [60 doctors]( have written an open letter saying they fear Julian Assange’s health is so bad that he could die inside a top-security British jail.<|TARGETS|>an open letter saying they fear Julian Assange ’s health<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Free Julian Assange<|ARGUMENT|>More than [60 doctors]( have written an open letter saying they fear Julian Assange’s health is so bad that he could die inside a top-security British jail.<|ASPECTS|>die, health<|CONCLUSION|>",More than 60 doctors have written an open letter saying they fear Julian Assange’s health is so bad that he could die inside a top-security British jail.,Julian Assange's health is so bad that he could die in prison.
"<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>One of the cornerstones of the classical God is that it is everywhere, though it 's nowhere. It exists yet you cannot point your finger at it. Existence is too human a term to define such a being, regardless it actually may or maynot be.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>One of the cornerstones of the classical God is that it is everywhere, though it 's nowhere. It exists yet you cannot point your finger at it. Existence is too human a term to define such a being, regardless it actually may or maynot be.<|TARGETS|>Existence<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>One of the cornerstones of the classical God is that it is everywhere, though it 's nowhere. It exists yet you cannot point your finger at it. Existence is too human a term to define such a being, regardless it actually may or maynot be.<|ASPECTS|>god ’ s existence, evidence, physical evidence, god, hard incontrovertible, incontrovertible, criminals<|CONCLUSION|>","One of the cornerstones of the classical God is that it is everywhere, though it 's nowhere. It exists yet you cannot point your finger at it. Existence is too human a term to define such a being, regardless it actually may or maynot be.","It is logically impossible for God to be omnipresent and having been there when there was nothing yet. The quality of God would have to include both 'existing' and 'not existing' simultaneously, therefore God is simply non-existent."
"<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>The problem of evil proposes that a God can exist with evil but with certain qualifiers, namely that God is not all powerful, benevolent, or omniscient. If God does not by definition have to be all three of those traits, then the argument that God and evil cannot exist fails.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>The problem of evil proposes that a God can exist with evil but with certain qualifiers, namely that God is not all powerful, benevolent, or omniscient. If God does not by definition have to be all three of those traits, then the argument that God and evil cannot exist fails.<|TARGETS|>If God does not by definition have to be all three of those traits then the argument that God and evil cannot exist<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>The problem of evil proposes that a God can exist with evil but with certain qualifiers, namely that God is not all powerful, benevolent, or omniscient. If God does not by definition have to be all three of those traits, then the argument that God and evil cannot exist fails.<|ASPECTS|>right the consequences, evil, god, remove evil<|CONCLUSION|>","The problem of evil proposes that a God can exist with evil but with certain qualifiers, namely that God is not all powerful, benevolent, or omniscient. If God does not by definition have to be all three of those traits, then the argument that God and evil cannot exist fails.","Monotheism does not preclude the existence of evil, insofar as some of the features of the traditional conception of God can be abandoned without rejecting the traditional conception of God in toto in its entirety."
"<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>[""Liquid Feedback can only be accessed by registered members.""]( This adds another barrier to entry for prospective voters.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>[""Liquid Feedback can only be accessed by registered members.""]( This adds another barrier to entry for prospective voters.<|TARGETS|>"" Liquid Feedback<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>[""Liquid Feedback can only be accessed by registered members.""]( This adds another barrier to entry for prospective voters.<|ASPECTS|>budget, public voting<|CONCLUSION|>","""Liquid Feedback can only be accessed by registered members."" This adds another barrier to entry for prospective voters.",This was a poorly implemented example of Liquid Democracy and so should not be extrapolated from.
"<|TOPIC|>be a libertarian; right or left, right or wrong.<|ARGUMENT|>A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so. The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state[i]. [i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>be a libertarian; right or left, right or wrong.<|ARGUMENT|>A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so. The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state[i]. [i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990<|TARGETS|>the legalization of drugs or gay rights, A libertarian agenda, libertarianism from across the political spectrum, The crisis in the financial sector, Micklethwaite .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>be a libertarian; right or left, right or wrong.<|ARGUMENT|>A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so. The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state[i]. [i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990<|ASPECTS|>financial institutions, sector, crisis, regulate corporations, reducing taxation, right - independence, political, reduce, judge, close, libertarian agenda, size of government, libertarianism, individual policies, business<|CONCLUSION|>","A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so. The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the statei. i Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990",A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century
"<|TOPIC|>Should Inheritance Be Minimized to Create an Equal Outset for Everyone?<|ARGUMENT|>Assets accumulated in life should pass to your chosen beneficiaries, or children if you die without a will, with no further taxes or fees imposed on your assets, after being taxed on your income\(s\) and consumption your whole life. No, inheritance should not be ""minimized"" for your beneficiaries for any reason.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Inheritance Be Minimized to Create an Equal Outset for Everyone?<|ARGUMENT|>Assets accumulated in life should pass to your chosen beneficiaries, or children if you die without a will, with no further taxes or fees imposed on your assets, after being taxed on your income\(s\) and consumption your whole life. No, inheritance should not be ""minimized"" for your beneficiaries for any reason.<|TARGETS|>Assets accumulated in life should pass to your chosen beneficiaries or children if you die without a will with no further taxes or fees imposed on your assets after being taxed on your income s and consumption your whole life .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Inheritance Be Minimized to Create an Equal Outset for Everyone?<|ARGUMENT|>Assets accumulated in life should pass to your chosen beneficiaries, or children if you die without a will, with no further taxes or fees imposed on your assets, after being taxed on your income\(s\) and consumption your whole life. No, inheritance should not be ""minimized"" for your beneficiaries for any reason.<|ASPECTS|>taxes, inheritance, fees, minimized<|CONCLUSION|>","Assets accumulated in life should pass to your chosen beneficiaries, or children if you die without a will, with no further taxes or fees imposed on your assets, after being taxed on your incomes and consumption your whole life. No, inheritance should not be ""minimized"" for your beneficiaries for any reason.",It is unfair to remove somebody's life work and earnings.
<|TOPIC|>Sporting Idols and Domestic Abuse: Where Should Sporting Leagues Draw a Line?<|ARGUMENT|>League violence prevention initiatives are little more than disingenuous [public relations]( stunts until paired with the tangible action that has been [promised](<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Sporting Idols and Domestic Abuse: Where Should Sporting Leagues Draw a Line?<|ARGUMENT|>League violence prevention initiatives are little more than disingenuous [public relations]( stunts until paired with the tangible action that has been [promised](<|TARGETS|>League violence prevention initiatives<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Sporting Idols and Domestic Abuse: Where Should Sporting Leagues Draw a Line?<|ARGUMENT|>League violence prevention initiatives are little more than disingenuous [public relations]( stunts until paired with the tangible action that has been [promised](<|ASPECTS|>disingenuous, violence prevention initiatives<|CONCLUSION|>",League violence prevention initiatives are little more than disingenuous public relations stunts until paired with the tangible action that has been promised,Leagues have an obligation to take strong action against domestic violence.
"<|TOPIC|>Ethereum and Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPow)<|ARGUMENT|>The vision and promise of Ethereum improved upon Bitcoin in several important ways. One of the most significant was the valuation and incentive for people of all types, nations, geographies and socio-economic status to participate. It was understood that ETHASH would support this vision by removing advantages inherent in ASIC miners. ProgPOW is simply an update this already established pillar of Ethereum, to NOT move to ProgPOW is to change the fundamental values of Ethereum.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Ethereum and Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPow)<|ARGUMENT|>The vision and promise of Ethereum improved upon Bitcoin in several important ways. One of the most significant was the valuation and incentive for people of all types, nations, geographies and socio-economic status to participate. It was understood that ETHASH would support this vision by removing advantages inherent in ASIC miners. ProgPOW is simply an update this already established pillar of Ethereum, to NOT move to ProgPOW is to change the fundamental values of Ethereum.<|TARGETS|>ProgPOW, ETHASH<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Ethereum and Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPow)<|ARGUMENT|>The vision and promise of Ethereum improved upon Bitcoin in several important ways. One of the most significant was the valuation and incentive for people of all types, nations, geographies and socio-economic status to participate. It was understood that ETHASH would support this vision by removing advantages inherent in ASIC miners. ProgPOW is simply an update this already established pillar of Ethereum, to NOT move to ProgPOW is to change the fundamental values of Ethereum.<|ASPECTS|>fundamental values, advantages, improved, promise, socio-economic status, valuation and incentive, vision<|CONCLUSION|>","The vision and promise of Ethereum improved upon Bitcoin in several important ways. One of the most significant was the valuation and incentive for people of all types, nations, geographies and socio-economic status to participate. It was understood that ETHASH would support this vision by removing advantages inherent in ASIC miners. ProgPOW is simply an update this already established pillar of Ethereum, to NOT move to ProgPOW is to change the fundamental values of Ethereum.",The spirit and declared goal of Ethereum was always to have an egalitarian decentralized network.
"<|TOPIC|>Edible Landscapes: Should Lawns Be Replaced?<|ARGUMENT|>The sheer diversity of edible landscapes increases the risk of one of the plants acquiring diseases specific to it \(as with [citrus]( and [bananas]( There are only a few diseases that can affect lawns, as it's just one species: grass!<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Edible Landscapes: Should Lawns Be Replaced?<|ARGUMENT|>The sheer diversity of edible landscapes increases the risk of one of the plants acquiring diseases specific to it \(as with [citrus]( and [bananas]( There are only a few diseases that can affect lawns, as it's just one species: grass!<|TARGETS|>The sheer diversity of edible landscapes<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Edible Landscapes: Should Lawns Be Replaced?<|ARGUMENT|>The sheer diversity of edible landscapes increases the risk of one of the plants acquiring diseases specific to it \(as with [citrus]( and [bananas]( There are only a few diseases that can affect lawns, as it's just one species: grass!<|ASPECTS|>gas needed, carbons emitted, decrease<|CONCLUSION|>","The sheer diversity of edible landscapes increases the risk of one of the plants acquiring diseases specific to it as with citrus and bananas There are only a few diseases that can affect lawns, as it's just one species: grass!",Edible landscapes are more likely to be attacked by insects and other plant plagues.
"<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>In that sense, if ""[secular]( organizations could replicate the sort of tight, interlocking friendship networks found within religious organizations"" it is likely they can achieve a ""comparable level of charitable giving"".<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>In that sense, if ""[secular]( organizations could replicate the sort of tight, interlocking friendship networks found within religious organizations"" it is likely they can achieve a ""comparable level of charitable giving"".<|TARGETS|>if "" secular organizations could replicate the sort of tight interlocking friendship networks found within religious organizations<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>In that sense, if ""[secular]( organizations could replicate the sort of tight, interlocking friendship networks found within religious organizations"" it is likely they can achieve a ""comparable level of charitable giving"".<|ASPECTS|>social justice, equal, ordinary life, god, god without form, live honestly, direct access to god, gender<|CONCLUSION|>","In that sense, if ""secular organizations could replicate the sort of tight, interlocking friendship networks found within religious organizations"" it is likely they can achieve a ""comparable level of charitable giving"".","Experts suggest that those who are more charitable, are not so for their religious or humanists beliefs, but based on the social connections and ties they have with charities."
"<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>In the Bible it says: ""My son, do not scorn correction from the Lord, do not resent his training, \[.\] Of course, any discipline is at the time a matter for grief, not joy; but later, in those who have undergone it, it bears fruit in peace and uprightness."" \(Letter to the Hebrews 12,5.11\)<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>In the Bible it says: ""My son, do not scorn correction from the Lord, do not resent his training, \[.\] Of course, any discipline is at the time a matter for grief, not joy; but later, in those who have undergone it, it bears fruit in peace and uprightness."" \(Letter to the Hebrews 12,5.11\)<|TARGETS|>not scorn correction from the Lord do not resent his training . Of course any discipline is at the time a matter for grief not joy ; but later in those who have undergone it<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>In the Bible it says: ""My son, do not scorn correction from the Lord, do not resent his training, \[.\] Of course, any discipline is at the time a matter for grief, not joy; but later, in those who have undergone it, it bears fruit in peace and uprightness."" \(Letter to the Hebrews 12,5.11\)<|ASPECTS|>production, factory, efficient large<|CONCLUSION|>","In the Bible it says: ""My son, do not scorn correction from the Lord, do not resent his training, . Of course, any discipline is at the time a matter for grief, not joy; but later, in those who have undergone it, it bears fruit in peace and uprightness."" Letter to the Hebrews 12,5.11",Our idea of what we define as evil might be a limited vision of a bigger plan in which evil is a necessary element to its realization.
"<|TOPIC|>Should people marry outside their religious faith?<|ARGUMENT|>Many people [consider]( it is more important that couples share the same values, regardless of whether they have the same religion or not.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should people marry outside their religious faith?<|ARGUMENT|>Many people [consider]( it is more important that couples share the same values, regardless of whether they have the same religion or not.<|TARGETS|>that couples share the same values regardless of whether they have the same religion or not .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should people marry outside their religious faith?<|ARGUMENT|>Many people [consider]( it is more important that couples share the same values, regardless of whether they have the same religion or not.<|ASPECTS|>values<|CONCLUSION|>","Many people consider it is more important that couples share the same values, regardless of whether they have the same religion or not.",Someone's faith should not be a factor that is taken into account when considering marrying them.
<|TOPIC|>Should Parliamentary Systems Enforce Proportional Representation?<|ARGUMENT|>Coalitions are vulnerable to [blame game politics]( where parties blame their failures on their coalition partners.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Parliamentary Systems Enforce Proportional Representation?<|ARGUMENT|>Coalitions are vulnerable to [blame game politics]( where parties blame their failures on their coalition partners.<|TARGETS|>Coalitions<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Parliamentary Systems Enforce Proportional Representation?<|ARGUMENT|>Coalitions are vulnerable to [blame game politics]( where parties blame their failures on their coalition partners.<|ASPECTS|>failures, vulnerable, blame game politics<|CONCLUSION|>",Coalitions are vulnerable to blame game politics where parties blame their failures on their coalition partners.,Inefficiencies in bargaining as a result of electoral conflict induce excessive government spending p. 12.
"<|TOPIC|>There should be no limit to freedom of speech.<|ARGUMENT|>Limits on freedom of speech diminish our humanity. It suggests that people will be unable to make good decisions, and it does not give the opportunity for people to make good decisions with the information we are given.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>There should be no limit to freedom of speech.<|ARGUMENT|>Limits on freedom of speech diminish our humanity. It suggests that people will be unable to make good decisions, and it does not give the opportunity for people to make good decisions with the information we are given.<|TARGETS|>Limits on freedom of speech, to make good decisions with the information we are given .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>There should be no limit to freedom of speech.<|ARGUMENT|>Limits on freedom of speech diminish our humanity. It suggests that people will be unable to make good decisions, and it does not give the opportunity for people to make good decisions with the information we are given.<|ASPECTS|>freedom of speech, diminish, humanity, good decisions<|CONCLUSION|>","Limits on freedom of speech diminish our humanity. It suggests that people will be unable to make good decisions, and it does not give the opportunity for people to make good decisions with the information we are given.",Censorship leads to narrow mindedness by preventing sincere and open discussion.
"<|TOPIC|>Do Parents Have an Obligation to Genetically Enhance Their Babies?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [evidence]( that abortions are emotionally damaging to some women who receive them. Even if the number of women who are negatively impacted is small, this lowers the total number of abortions, which reduces the number of women who suffer negative consequences.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do Parents Have an Obligation to Genetically Enhance Their Babies?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [evidence]( that abortions are emotionally damaging to some women who receive them. Even if the number of women who are negatively impacted is small, this lowers the total number of abortions, which reduces the number of women who suffer negative consequences.<|TARGETS|>if the number of women who are negatively impacted<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do Parents Have an Obligation to Genetically Enhance Their Babies?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [evidence]( that abortions are emotionally damaging to some women who receive them. Even if the number of women who are negatively impacted is small, this lowers the total number of abortions, which reduces the number of women who suffer negative consequences.<|ASPECTS|>emotionally damaging, negatively impacted, negative consequences<|CONCLUSION|>","There is evidence that abortions are emotionally damaging to some women who receive them. Even if the number of women who are negatively impacted is small, this lowers the total number of abortions, which reduces the number of women who suffer negative consequences.",Genetic enhancement of fetuses would reduce abortions caused by fetal anomaly.
<|TOPIC|>Should people have the right and means to end their lives?<|ARGUMENT|>The general public health benefits from major absence of diseases which can cause serious problems and spread quickly \(e.g. measles\).<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should people have the right and means to end their lives?<|ARGUMENT|>The general public health benefits from major absence of diseases which can cause serious problems and spread quickly \(e.g. measles\).<|TARGETS|>measles<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should people have the right and means to end their lives?<|ARGUMENT|>The general public health benefits from major absence of diseases which can cause serious problems and spread quickly \(e.g. measles\).<|ASPECTS|>happiness, mental illnesses, suffering, suffering-inducing, terminal diseases<|CONCLUSION|>",The general public health benefits from major absence of diseases which can cause serious problems and spread quickly e.g. measles.,This is why in Germany there are public vaccination recommendations.
"<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>Loyalty to the poor design \(no supermajority, exclusion of EU residents, failure to administer overseas british citizens competently\) is less important than the basic injustice that a vote inclusive of all those affected would not have opted to leave.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>Loyalty to the poor design \(no supermajority, exclusion of EU residents, failure to administer overseas british citizens competently\) is less important than the basic injustice that a vote inclusive of all those affected would not have opted to leave.<|TARGETS|>to administer overseas british citizens competently, Loyalty to the poor design<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>Loyalty to the poor design \(no supermajority, exclusion of EU residents, failure to administer overseas british citizens competently\) is less important than the basic injustice that a vote inclusive of all those affected would not have opted to leave.<|ASPECTS|>media propaganda, remain messaging, leave campaigning, fair, remain campaigning, consistent<|CONCLUSION|>","Loyalty to the poor design no supermajority, exclusion of EU residents, failure to administer overseas british citizens competently is less important than the basic injustice that a vote inclusive of all those affected would not have opted to leave.","There are around 65 million people resident and affected by the vote to Leave. Only 17+ million actually voted to Leave. That is not ""the will of the people""."
"<|TOPIC|>Can news sources be trusted?<|ARGUMENT|>The pressure to produce a continuous stream of new content may be forcing journalists to [skip the stages of conventional journalistic information processing]( thus creating a favourable environment for mistakes, such as misleading information and fake news.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Can news sources be trusted?<|ARGUMENT|>The pressure to produce a continuous stream of new content may be forcing journalists to [skip the stages of conventional journalistic information processing]( thus creating a favourable environment for mistakes, such as misleading information and fake news.<|TARGETS|>The pressure to produce a continuous stream of new content<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Can news sources be trusted?<|ARGUMENT|>The pressure to produce a continuous stream of new content may be forcing journalists to [skip the stages of conventional journalistic information processing]( thus creating a favourable environment for mistakes, such as misleading information and fake news.<|ASPECTS|>fake, misleading information, mistakes<|CONCLUSION|>","The pressure to produce a continuous stream of new content may be forcing journalists to skip the stages of conventional journalistic information processing thus creating a favourable environment for mistakes, such as misleading information and fake news.",Mistakes are occurring so frequently because of the mounting pressure to report as many stories as quickly as possible.
"<|TOPIC|>United States Foreign Policy: Isolationism vs Interventionism<|ARGUMENT|>If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad, it could put more emphasis on its own defence. Its armies and troops can be brought home to defend its own borders and cities - rather than fighting and dying in unwinnable foreign wars. American citizens and troops would be safer if the US government put all of its focus on its own security, rather than foreign affairs. The US can more than support itself with essentials such as food and fuel and it can secure everything else it needs through trade.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>United States Foreign Policy: Isolationism vs Interventionism<|ARGUMENT|>If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad, it could put more emphasis on its own defence. Its armies and troops can be brought home to defend its own borders and cities - rather than fighting and dying in unwinnable foreign wars. American citizens and troops would be safer if the US government put all of its focus on its own security, rather than foreign affairs. The US can more than support itself with essentials such as food and fuel and it can secure everything else it needs through trade.<|TARGETS|>Its armies and troops, The US, If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>United States Foreign Policy: Isolationism vs Interventionism<|ARGUMENT|>If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad, it could put more emphasis on its own defence. Its armies and troops can be brought home to defend its own borders and cities - rather than fighting and dying in unwinnable foreign wars. American citizens and troops would be safer if the US government put all of its focus on its own security, rather than foreign affairs. The US can more than support itself with essentials such as food and fuel and it can secure everything else it needs through trade.<|ASPECTS|>conflicts, defend, essentials, foreign wars, defence, secure everything, support, borders, safer, security<|CONCLUSION|>","If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad, it could put more emphasis on its own defence. Its armies and troops can be brought home to defend its own borders and cities - rather than fighting and dying in unwinnable foreign wars. American citizens and troops would be safer if the US government put all of its focus on its own security, rather than foreign affairs. The US can more than support itself with essentials such as food and fuel and it can secure everything else it needs through trade.","If the US stopped getting into conflicts abroad, it could put more emphasis on its own defence. Its..."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>Androgen and estrogen contribute to fetal programming of [ovarian dysfunction]( Fetal estrogen deficiency, for example, results in irregularities of ovarian development, and subsequently immature and abnormal adult ovaries.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>Androgen and estrogen contribute to fetal programming of [ovarian dysfunction]( Fetal estrogen deficiency, for example, results in irregularities of ovarian development, and subsequently immature and abnormal adult ovaries.<|TARGETS|>Androgen and estrogen<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>Androgen and estrogen contribute to fetal programming of [ovarian dysfunction]( Fetal estrogen deficiency, for example, results in irregularities of ovarian development, and subsequently immature and abnormal adult ovaries.<|ASPECTS|>socially constructed, sex-differentiated behaviours, social, universal, gender, stable<|CONCLUSION|>","Androgen and estrogen contribute to fetal programming of ovarian dysfunction Fetal estrogen deficiency, for example, results in irregularities of ovarian development, and subsequently immature and abnormal adult ovaries.","Androgens and estrogens, as well as other hormones, have an undeniable effect on our brains during gestation. The effect of such hormones is not transient but lasting."
"<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Judge Moshe Landau \(who tried Eichmann\) considered, based on evidence, that Eichmann was “a Jew-hater who strove to exterminate the Jews” doing so “filled with joy” and that “he carried out his activities out of an internal conviction and not under the force of orders” [\(Shaked, p. 26\)](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Judge Moshe Landau \(who tried Eichmann\) considered, based on evidence, that Eichmann was “a Jew-hater who strove to exterminate the Jews” doing so “filled with joy” and that “he carried out his activities out of an internal conviction and not under the force of orders” [\(Shaked, p. 26\)](<|TARGETS|>to exterminate the Jews ” doing so “ filled with joy ” and that “ he carried out his activities out of an internal conviction and not under the force of orders ” Shaked p. 26, Moshe Landau<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Judge Moshe Landau \(who tried Eichmann\) considered, based on evidence, that Eichmann was “a Jew-hater who strove to exterminate the Jews” doing so “filled with joy” and that “he carried out his activities out of an internal conviction and not under the force of orders” [\(Shaked, p. 26\)](<|ASPECTS|>supernatural forces, religious ideas<|CONCLUSION|>","Judge Moshe Landau who tried Eichmann considered, based on evidence, that Eichmann was “a Jew-hater who strove to exterminate the Jews” doing so “filled with joy” and that “he carried out his activities out of an internal conviction and not under the force of orders” Shaked, p. 26",Experts and scholars have considered that Eichmann distorted Kant's philosophy to make it fit his needs.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Having Children Selfish?<|ARGUMENT|>Humanity is undoubtedly going to be the cause of the next [mass extinction]( already, all varieties of animal are being wiped out at a rate comparable to the previous five known mass extinctions.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Having Children Selfish?<|ARGUMENT|>Humanity is undoubtedly going to be the cause of the next [mass extinction]( already, all varieties of animal are being wiped out at a rate comparable to the previous five known mass extinctions.<|TARGETS|>Humanity<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Having Children Selfish?<|ARGUMENT|>Humanity is undoubtedly going to be the cause of the next [mass extinction]( already, all varieties of animal are being wiped out at a rate comparable to the previous five known mass extinctions.<|ASPECTS|>wiped, mass extinctions, mass extinction<|CONCLUSION|>","Humanity is undoubtedly going to be the cause of the next mass extinction already, all varieties of animal are being wiped out at a rate comparable to the previous five known mass extinctions.","Humanity is harming the planet; having children for your own happiness, at the expense of the planet, is nothing short of selfishness."
<|TOPIC|>Is it Time to 'Free the Nipple'? Toplessness and Gender Equality in the US<|ARGUMENT|>Censoring nipples has led to a lack of education about them. Thus many women are ashamed and confused to ask about many [benign]( health issues relating to the nipples.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is it Time to 'Free the Nipple'? Toplessness and Gender Equality in the US<|ARGUMENT|>Censoring nipples has led to a lack of education about them. Thus many women are ashamed and confused to ask about many [benign]( health issues relating to the nipples.<|TARGETS|>Censoring nipples, to ask about many benign health issues relating to the nipples .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is it Time to 'Free the Nipple'? Toplessness and Gender Equality in the US<|ARGUMENT|>Censoring nipples has led to a lack of education about them. Thus many women are ashamed and confused to ask about many [benign]( health issues relating to the nipples.<|ASPECTS|>normal, equality for males, expose their bodies, insecure, nudists<|CONCLUSION|>",Censoring nipples has led to a lack of education about them. Thus many women are ashamed and confused to ask about many benign health issues relating to the nipples.,Nipple showing helps people in gaining body and health awareness.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>A study of a panel of countries between 1960 and 2010 found that a country that transitions from a non-democracy to a democracy achieves about 20 percent higher GDP per capita in the next 25 years \([Acemoglu, et al., p. 1](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>A study of a panel of countries between 1960 and 2010 found that a country that transitions from a non-democracy to a democracy achieves about 20 percent higher GDP per capita in the next 25 years \([Acemoglu, et al., p. 1](<|TARGETS|>a non-democracy to a democracy, A study of a panel of countries between 1960 and 2010<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>A study of a panel of countries between 1960 and 2010 found that a country that transitions from a non-democracy to a democracy achieves about 20 percent higher GDP per capita in the next 25 years \([Acemoglu, et al., p. 1](<|ASPECTS|>, positive, growth impact of aid, democratic, political and civil liberties, governmental power, aid, impact, personal goals, growth<|CONCLUSION|>","A study of a panel of countries between 1960 and 2010 found that a country that transitions from a non-democracy to a democracy achieves about 20 percent higher GDP per capita in the next 25 years Acemoglu, et al., p. 1",Implementing democracy is the best way to sustainably help developing countries.
"<|TOPIC|>Is the UK Truly a Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>True democracy should not just be about reflecting the prejudices, biases, ignorance and educational deficits that characterise the population. It would rely on people all being equally capable of rational thought and analysis and knowledgeable on all issues. Clearly that is unattainable. Any form of government is predicated on a delegation of decision making and it is inevitable that those to whom we delegate will aggregate together in groups where there will be compromise in order to achieve outcomes that can be implemented. It also allows for those with more knowledge to make unpopular decisions that might not have majority support. One has to agree with Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others that have been tried. As such, the UK has one of the best implementations of democracy; which is not to say that it could not be further improved.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the UK Truly a Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>True democracy should not just be about reflecting the prejudices, biases, ignorance and educational deficits that characterise the population. It would rely on people all being equally capable of rational thought and analysis and knowledgeable on all issues. Clearly that is unattainable. Any form of government is predicated on a delegation of decision making and it is inevitable that those to whom we delegate will aggregate together in groups where there will be compromise in order to achieve outcomes that can be implemented. It also allows for those with more knowledge to make unpopular decisions that might not have majority support. One has to agree with Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others that have been tried. As such, the UK has one of the best implementations of democracy; which is not to say that it could not be further improved.<|TARGETS|>Any form of government, to agree with Churchill that democracy, True democracy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the UK Truly a Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>True democracy should not just be about reflecting the prejudices, biases, ignorance and educational deficits that characterise the population. It would rely on people all being equally capable of rational thought and analysis and knowledgeable on all issues. Clearly that is unattainable. Any form of government is predicated on a delegation of decision making and it is inevitable that those to whom we delegate will aggregate together in groups where there will be compromise in order to achieve outcomes that can be implemented. It also allows for those with more knowledge to make unpopular decisions that might not have majority support. One has to agree with Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others that have been tried. As such, the UK has one of the best implementations of democracy; which is not to say that it could not be further improved.<|ASPECTS|>unpopular decisions, rational thought and analysis, improved, educational deficits, majority support, ignorance, compromise, delegation of decision making, implementations, outcomes, unattainable, knowledgeable, democracy, prejudices, biases, knowledge, worst form of government<|CONCLUSION|>","True democracy should not just be about reflecting the prejudices, biases, ignorance and educational deficits that characterise the population. It would rely on people all being equally capable of rational thought and analysis and knowledgeable on all issues. Clearly that is unattainable. Any form of government is predicated on a delegation of decision making and it is inevitable that those to whom we delegate will aggregate together in groups where there will be compromise in order to achieve outcomes that can be implemented. It also allows for those with more knowledge to make unpopular decisions that might not have majority support. One has to agree with Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others that have been tried. As such, the UK has one of the best implementations of democracy; which is not to say that it could not be further improved.","As an ideal it depends on all being equally well informed, thoughtful and rational. Unattainable."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Children Learn About Gender Identity And Sexual Orientation In School?<|ARGUMENT|>While though addressing these topics in schools would be a huge step forward for the LGBTQ+ movement, keeping this an ""at home"" discussion forces parents to educate themselves on these matters, and would prove to be more beneficial in ensuring many families gain an understanding together on this subject.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Children Learn About Gender Identity And Sexual Orientation In School?<|ARGUMENT|>While though addressing these topics in schools would be a huge step forward for the LGBTQ+ movement, keeping this an ""at home"" discussion forces parents to educate themselves on these matters, and would prove to be more beneficial in ensuring many families gain an understanding together on this subject.<|TARGETS|>addressing these topics in schools<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Children Learn About Gender Identity And Sexual Orientation In School?<|ARGUMENT|>While though addressing these topics in schools would be a huge step forward for the LGBTQ+ movement, keeping this an ""at home"" discussion forces parents to educate themselves on these matters, and would prove to be more beneficial in ensuring many families gain an understanding together on this subject.<|ASPECTS|>understanding together, lgbtq+, educate<|CONCLUSION|>","While though addressing these topics in schools would be a huge step forward for the LGBTQ+ movement, keeping this an ""at home"" discussion forces parents to educate themselves on these matters, and would prove to be more beneficial in ensuring many families gain an understanding together on this subject.",Children should learn about gender identity and sexual orientation from their families rather than in class.
"<|TOPIC|>Autonomous Killing Machines: The Future of Warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>It is easy to equip AKMs with cameras and microphones, so they could spy on citizens and transfer the collected data to the authorities.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Autonomous Killing Machines: The Future of Warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>It is easy to equip AKMs with cameras and microphones, so they could spy on citizens and transfer the collected data to the authorities.<|TARGETS|>to equip AKMs with cameras and microphones<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Autonomous Killing Machines: The Future of Warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>It is easy to equip AKMs with cameras and microphones, so they could spy on citizens and transfer the collected data to the authorities.<|ASPECTS|>easy, collected data, spy on citizens<|CONCLUSION|>","It is easy to equip AKMs with cameras and microphones, so they could spy on citizens and transfer the collected data to the authorities.",Mobile internet and big data collection combined with autonomous police robots could lead to a perfect surveillance state.
<|TOPIC|>Should a child's primary carer receive a wage until the child enters childcare?<|ARGUMENT|>The birth of new children is crucial for the maintenance of a substantial [workforce]( without which an industrial economy can no longer function.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should a child's primary carer receive a wage until the child enters childcare?<|ARGUMENT|>The birth of new children is crucial for the maintenance of a substantial [workforce]( without which an industrial economy can no longer function.<|TARGETS|>The birth of new children<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should a child's primary carer receive a wage until the child enters childcare?<|ARGUMENT|>The birth of new children is crucial for the maintenance of a substantial [workforce]( without which an industrial economy can no longer function.<|ASPECTS|>substantial, industrial economy, maintenance, workforce<|CONCLUSION|>",The birth of new children is crucial for the maintenance of a substantial workforce without which an industrial economy can no longer function.,Child raising benefits society just as much as any other job and therefore should receive economic recognition.
"<|TOPIC|>The Libertarian Solution: Can People Govern Themselves?<|ARGUMENT|>The supposed role of the government is to protect its citizens, but the statement in itself is patrimonial due to its origins in the past where patriarchy dominated, but some forms of universal government protection needs to exist, particularly in regards to military and partially economy.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Libertarian Solution: Can People Govern Themselves?<|ARGUMENT|>The supposed role of the government is to protect its citizens, but the statement in itself is patrimonial due to its origins in the past where patriarchy dominated, but some forms of universal government protection needs to exist, particularly in regards to military and partially economy.<|TARGETS|>The supposed role of the government<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Libertarian Solution: Can People Govern Themselves?<|ARGUMENT|>The supposed role of the government is to protect its citizens, but the statement in itself is patrimonial due to its origins in the past where patriarchy dominated, but some forms of universal government protection needs to exist, particularly in regards to military and partially economy.<|ASPECTS|>universal, protect its citizens, patrimonial, government protection<|CONCLUSION|>","The supposed role of the government is to protect its citizens, but the statement in itself is patrimonial due to its origins in the past where patriarchy dominated, but some forms of universal government protection needs to exist, particularly in regards to military and partially economy.","The intended role of the government is protection, not social intervention."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>This proof would only support the existence of something that nobody could imagine something greater then, that thing need not be God in the traditional sense.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>This proof would only support the existence of something that nobody could imagine something greater then, that thing need not be God in the traditional sense.<|TARGETS|>the existence of something that nobody could imagine something greater then that thing need not be God in the traditional sense .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>This proof would only support the existence of something that nobody could imagine something greater then, that thing need not be God in the traditional sense.<|ASPECTS|>source of value<|CONCLUSION|>","This proof would only support the existence of something that nobody could imagine something greater then, that thing need not be God in the traditional sense.","If God does not exist, and so is nothing, then we can easily imagine a being greater than God."
"<|TOPIC|>Is the UK NHS (National Health Service) sustainable?<|ARGUMENT|>Because of this inadequate digital infrastructure, there is a lack of communication between departments and areas of the NHS that is unsustainable.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the UK NHS (National Health Service) sustainable?<|ARGUMENT|>Because of this inadequate digital infrastructure, there is a lack of communication between departments and areas of the NHS that is unsustainable.<|TARGETS|>this inadequate digital infrastructure<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the UK NHS (National Health Service) sustainable?<|ARGUMENT|>Because of this inadequate digital infrastructure, there is a lack of communication between departments and areas of the NHS that is unsustainable.<|ASPECTS|>digital infrastructure<|CONCLUSION|>","Because of this inadequate digital infrastructure, there is a lack of communication between departments and areas of the NHS that is unsustainable.",The existing infrastructure of the NHS' digital system is inadequate and thus unsustainable.
"<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>The usual religious con goes like this: They Once you've accepted that there may be heaven and/or hell, then the con has succeeded and the carrot and/or stick will provide the payoff, whether it's someone to stand behind a priest when he rails at local government or money in the collection box.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>The usual religious con goes like this: They Once you've accepted that there may be heaven and/or hell, then the con has succeeded and the carrot and/or stick will provide the payoff, whether it's someone to stand behind a priest when he rails at local government or money in the collection box.<|TARGETS|>the con has succeeded and the carrot and / or stick will provide the payoff whether it 's someone to stand behind a priest when he rails at local government or money in the collection box, The usual religious con<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>The usual religious con goes like this: They Once you've accepted that there may be heaven and/or hell, then the con has succeeded and the carrot and/or stick will provide the payoff, whether it's someone to stand behind a priest when he rails at local government or money in the collection box.<|ASPECTS|>social justice, equal, ordinary life, god, god without form, live honestly, direct access to god, gender<|CONCLUSION|>","The usual religious con goes like this: They Once you've accepted that there may be heaven and/or hell, then the con has succeeded and the carrot and/or stick will provide the payoff, whether it's someone to stand behind a priest when he rails at local government or money in the collection box.","The mark uses the information presented to them and makes what appears to be a rational decision. It may even seem to be their own idea, but the information isn't what it appears to be or it isn't the whole picture."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Removing confederate statues or indeed any public memorial that one faction views negatively is that you create the same type of intellectual vacuum we see now in the regions controlled by the Taliban/ ISIS. Obliteration of icons of a fallen foe is a demonstration of assumed superiority. Use them as a teachable moment.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Removing confederate statues or indeed any public memorial that one faction views negatively is that you create the same type of intellectual vacuum we see now in the regions controlled by the Taliban/ ISIS. Obliteration of icons of a fallen foe is a demonstration of assumed superiority. Use them as a teachable moment.<|TARGETS|>Use them, Removing confederate statues or indeed any public memorial that one faction views negatively, Obliteration of icons of a fallen foe<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Removing confederate statues or indeed any public memorial that one faction views negatively is that you create the same type of intellectual vacuum we see now in the regions controlled by the Taliban/ ISIS. Obliteration of icons of a fallen foe is a demonstration of assumed superiority. Use them as a teachable moment.<|ASPECTS|>, honoring, monuments, confederacy, slave-holding figures<|CONCLUSION|>",Removing confederate statues or indeed any public memorial that one faction views negatively is that you create the same type of intellectual vacuum we see now in the regions controlled by the Taliban/ ISIS. Obliteration of icons of a fallen foe is a demonstration of assumed superiority. Use them as a teachable moment.,The power to take down a statue has the potential for abuse and should be exercised with caution.
<|TOPIC|>allow donations of vital organs even at the expense of the donor's life<|ARGUMENT|>The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>allow donations of vital organs even at the expense of the donor's life<|ARGUMENT|>The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life<|TARGETS|>The guilt<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>allow donations of vital organs even at the expense of the donor's life<|ARGUMENT|>The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life<|ASPECTS|>saved, guilt, burden<|CONCLUSION|>",The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life,allow donations of vital organs even at the expense of the donor's life
"<|TOPIC|>International Adoption should be banned<|ARGUMENT|>After WWII, United States citizens began adopting children from other countries in large numbers. Between 1971 and 2001, America has adopted far more children internationally than any other country, more than 265,000. According to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, international adoptions have more than doubled over the past 11 years. [[ Adopted children come from countries all around the world. However, Guatemala, China, Russia and S. Korea make up a large majority. At the same time, the USA is faced with a very serious problem. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services between 1999-2006, an average of 129,884 children are in public foster care every year waiting to be adopted. [[ In 2008, American couples adopted 17,229 children from abroad. This presents our government with a very grim reality. Despite the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of American born children are in need of basic care from real parents, over 17,000 couples ignored this fact and made the decision to adopt children from other counties. We firmly believe that we have a right to help all American citizens, orphans included, before we take into account problems of other nations. At this point, we feel the context is sufficient to state our opening argument. American citizens should be banned from adopting children internationally because currently there is great need for domestic adoption. Nowadays, there are far too many unwanted children domestically in American that need parents to adopt them. As the federal government of the USA, we have the constitutional responsibility to protect the basic rights of our citizens with a higher priority than those of other nations. As we will show below, children in foster care in America are being deprived of their basic rights of equal opportunity and pursuit of happiness. Until this problem is remedied, we cannot justify allowing American couples to meet their adoption needs abroad. As full citizens of the USA, we are determined to do everything within reason to provide these children with an equal opportunity to life a full and happy life. We also believe that adopting internationally has negative and unintended effects and may not be in the best interest of the child. We will discuss this argument in greater detail in our rebuttal. The foster care system in America is under critical stress and in desperate need of more couples willing to adopt. In 2004, ABC news conducted a special report on the nation’s foster care system. Here are some of their findings: 520, 000 kids end up in foster care every year, costing taxpayers $40,000 a head and 22 billion dollars total every year. 40,000 infants are placed in foster care every year. 20% of these kids end up in the system for 5 years are more. But, despite these revealing statistics we saved the most important one for last: “Thirty percent of the homeless in America and some 25 percent of those in prison were once in foster care.” “ [[ These are the forgotten and neglected children of America. Being in foster care, they are deprived of a loving family, an essential element to living a balanced and stable life. They end up in the system for years, taken care of by adults whose only qualifications are that they can provide them with the very basic care of food and shelter. It is not surprising then that they are much more likelihood than any other demographic to end up homeless or in jail. I ask the opposition, how can we allow a single couple to adopt a baby from another country as long as this current problem exists? With such a supply of children needing parents to adopt them, many would wonder why so many American couples choose to adopt kids from overseas in the first place. This is, of course, is at the heart of the issue. If there is any strong opposition, it must be able to give a compelling reason why people should be allowed to adopt internationally. Based on our research, we have listed the most common reasons why people adopt as follows: There is less chance the birth parent will change their mind and try to reclaim the child legally; Less chance the biological parents will try and find their children later in life; There are too many restrictions to adopting domestically and it takes longer. While we do sympathize with these reasons, we do not find any of them compelling. The fact remains that in 2008 there was potentially 17,000 couples who could have adopted domestically but chose to go abroad instead. That means there are 17,000 kids still in the foster care system in American that doesn’t need to be. All 17,000 of those adoption cases would likely not have happened in America. The main reason being that adoption requirements domestically are often stricter than those in other countries. These strict laws regulate and help orphans to find much more qualified parents. Many times, before adopting kids, training classes are required. For example, the state of Kansas requires that prospective parents attend Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting (MAPP) classes. [[ So to deal with the current number of over 1 million children in foster care, the government proposes to have international adoption banned and put our own national domestic problems as the number one priority.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>International Adoption should be banned<|ARGUMENT|>After WWII, United States citizens began adopting children from other countries in large numbers. Between 1971 and 2001, America has adopted far more children internationally than any other country, more than 265,000. According to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, international adoptions have more than doubled over the past 11 years. [[ Adopted children come from countries all around the world. However, Guatemala, China, Russia and S. Korea make up a large majority. At the same time, the USA is faced with a very serious problem. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services between 1999-2006, an average of 129,884 children are in public foster care every year waiting to be adopted. [[ In 2008, American couples adopted 17,229 children from abroad. This presents our government with a very grim reality. Despite the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of American born children are in need of basic care from real parents, over 17,000 couples ignored this fact and made the decision to adopt children from other counties. We firmly believe that we have a right to help all American citizens, orphans included, before we take into account problems of other nations. At this point, we feel the context is sufficient to state our opening argument. American citizens should be banned from adopting children internationally because currently there is great need for domestic adoption. Nowadays, there are far too many unwanted children domestically in American that need parents to adopt them. As the federal government of the USA, we have the constitutional responsibility to protect the basic rights of our citizens with a higher priority than those of other nations. As we will show below, children in foster care in America are being deprived of their basic rights of equal opportunity and pursuit of happiness. Until this problem is remedied, we cannot justify allowing American couples to meet their adoption needs abroad. As full citizens of the USA, we are determined to do everything within reason to provide these children with an equal opportunity to life a full and happy life. We also believe that adopting internationally has negative and unintended effects and may not be in the best interest of the child. We will discuss this argument in greater detail in our rebuttal. The foster care system in America is under critical stress and in desperate need of more couples willing to adopt. In 2004, ABC news conducted a special report on the nation’s foster care system. Here are some of their findings: 520, 000 kids end up in foster care every year, costing taxpayers $40,000 a head and 22 billion dollars total every year. 40,000 infants are placed in foster care every year. 20% of these kids end up in the system for 5 years are more. But, despite these revealing statistics we saved the most important one for last: “Thirty percent of the homeless in America and some 25 percent of those in prison were once in foster care.” “ [[ These are the forgotten and neglected children of America. Being in foster care, they are deprived of a loving family, an essential element to living a balanced and stable life. They end up in the system for years, taken care of by adults whose only qualifications are that they can provide them with the very basic care of food and shelter. It is not surprising then that they are much more likelihood than any other demographic to end up homeless or in jail. I ask the opposition, how can we allow a single couple to adopt a baby from another country as long as this current problem exists? With such a supply of children needing parents to adopt them, many would wonder why so many American couples choose to adopt kids from overseas in the first place. This is, of course, is at the heart of the issue. If there is any strong opposition, it must be able to give a compelling reason why people should be allowed to adopt internationally. Based on our research, we have listed the most common reasons why people adopt as follows: There is less chance the birth parent will change their mind and try to reclaim the child legally; Less chance the biological parents will try and find their children later in life; There are too many restrictions to adopting domestically and it takes longer. While we do sympathize with these reasons, we do not find any of them compelling. The fact remains that in 2008 there was potentially 17,000 couples who could have adopted domestically but chose to go abroad instead. That means there are 17,000 kids still in the foster care system in American that doesn’t need to be. All 17,000 of those adoption cases would likely not have happened in America. The main reason being that adoption requirements domestically are often stricter than those in other countries. These strict laws regulate and help orphans to find much more qualified parents. Many times, before adopting kids, training classes are required. For example, the state of Kansas requires that prospective parents attend Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting (MAPP) classes. [[ So to deal with the current number of over 1 million children in foster care, the government proposes to have international adoption banned and put our own national domestic problems as the number one priority.<|TARGETS|>that adopting internationally, These strict laws, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, that adoption requirements domestically, to deal with the current number of over 1 million children in foster care, to help all American citizens orphans included before we take into account problems of other nations .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>International Adoption should be banned<|ARGUMENT|>After WWII, United States citizens began adopting children from other countries in large numbers. Between 1971 and 2001, America has adopted far more children internationally than any other country, more than 265,000. According to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, international adoptions have more than doubled over the past 11 years. [[ Adopted children come from countries all around the world. However, Guatemala, China, Russia and S. Korea make up a large majority. At the same time, the USA is faced with a very serious problem. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services between 1999-2006, an average of 129,884 children are in public foster care every year waiting to be adopted. [[ In 2008, American couples adopted 17,229 children from abroad. This presents our government with a very grim reality. Despite the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of American born children are in need of basic care from real parents, over 17,000 couples ignored this fact and made the decision to adopt children from other counties. We firmly believe that we have a right to help all American citizens, orphans included, before we take into account problems of other nations. At this point, we feel the context is sufficient to state our opening argument. American citizens should be banned from adopting children internationally because currently there is great need for domestic adoption. Nowadays, there are far too many unwanted children domestically in American that need parents to adopt them. As the federal government of the USA, we have the constitutional responsibility to protect the basic rights of our citizens with a higher priority than those of other nations. As we will show below, children in foster care in America are being deprived of their basic rights of equal opportunity and pursuit of happiness. Until this problem is remedied, we cannot justify allowing American couples to meet their adoption needs abroad. As full citizens of the USA, we are determined to do everything within reason to provide these children with an equal opportunity to life a full and happy life. We also believe that adopting internationally has negative and unintended effects and may not be in the best interest of the child. We will discuss this argument in greater detail in our rebuttal. The foster care system in America is under critical stress and in desperate need of more couples willing to adopt. In 2004, ABC news conducted a special report on the nation’s foster care system. Here are some of their findings: 520, 000 kids end up in foster care every year, costing taxpayers $40,000 a head and 22 billion dollars total every year. 40,000 infants are placed in foster care every year. 20% of these kids end up in the system for 5 years are more. But, despite these revealing statistics we saved the most important one for last: “Thirty percent of the homeless in America and some 25 percent of those in prison were once in foster care.” “ [[ These are the forgotten and neglected children of America. Being in foster care, they are deprived of a loving family, an essential element to living a balanced and stable life. They end up in the system for years, taken care of by adults whose only qualifications are that they can provide them with the very basic care of food and shelter. It is not surprising then that they are much more likelihood than any other demographic to end up homeless or in jail. I ask the opposition, how can we allow a single couple to adopt a baby from another country as long as this current problem exists? With such a supply of children needing parents to adopt them, many would wonder why so many American couples choose to adopt kids from overseas in the first place. This is, of course, is at the heart of the issue. If there is any strong opposition, it must be able to give a compelling reason why people should be allowed to adopt internationally. Based on our research, we have listed the most common reasons why people adopt as follows: There is less chance the birth parent will change their mind and try to reclaim the child legally; Less chance the biological parents will try and find their children later in life; There are too many restrictions to adopting domestically and it takes longer. While we do sympathize with these reasons, we do not find any of them compelling. The fact remains that in 2008 there was potentially 17,000 couples who could have adopted domestically but chose to go abroad instead. That means there are 17,000 kids still in the foster care system in American that doesn’t need to be. All 17,000 of those adoption cases would likely not have happened in America. The main reason being that adoption requirements domestically are often stricter than those in other countries. These strict laws regulate and help orphans to find much more qualified parents. Many times, before adopting kids, training classes are required. For example, the state of Kansas requires that prospective parents attend Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting (MAPP) classes. [[ So to deal with the current number of over 1 million children in foster care, the government proposes to have international adoption banned and put our own national domestic problems as the number one priority.<|ASPECTS|>critical stress, regulate, the system, international adoptions, stricter, unintended effects, couples, loving family, national, adopted, problems, public, full, right to help all american citizens, homeless, domestic adoption, child, reclaim the child legally, training classes, grim reality, negative, neglected children, deprived, international adoption, children needing, adopt kids, foster care, takes, basic rights, current problem, jail, constitutional responsibility, adopted domestically, adoption cases, stable life, likelihood, happiness, mind, pursuit, orphans, adopt, basic care of food and shelter, adoption requirements, foster care system, context, help, costing, happy life, serious problem, balanced, children, foster care., adoption needs, basic care, equal opportunity, equal opportunity to life, domestic problems, restrictions, unwanted children, forgotten, qualified parents, adopted children, adopting children, kids<|CONCLUSION|>","After WWII, United States citizens began adopting children from other countries in large numbers. Between 1971 and 2001, America has adopted far more children internationally than any other country, more than 265,000. According to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, international adoptions have more than doubled over the past 11 years. Adopted children come from countries all around the world. However, Guatemala, China, Russia and S. Korea make up a large majority. At the same time, the USA is faced with a very serious problem. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services between 1999-2006, an average of 129,884 children are in public foster care every year waiting to be adopted. In 2008, American couples adopted 17,229 children from abroad. This presents our government with a very grim reality. Despite the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of American born children are in need of basic care from real parents, over 17,000 couples ignored this fact and made the decision to adopt children from other counties. We firmly believe that we have a right to help all American citizens, orphans included, before we take into account problems of other nations. At this point, we feel the context is sufficient to state our opening argument. American citizens should be banned from adopting children internationally because currently there is great need for domestic adoption. Nowadays, there are far too many unwanted children domestically in American that need parents to adopt them. As the federal government of the USA, we have the constitutional responsibility to protect the basic rights of our citizens with a higher priority than those of other nations. As we will show below, children in foster care in America are being deprived of their basic rights of equal opportunity and pursuit of happiness. Until this problem is remedied, we cannot justify allowing American couples to meet their adoption needs abroad. As full citizens of the USA, we are determined to do everything within reason to provide these children with an equal opportunity to life a full and happy life. We also believe that adopting internationally has negative and unintended effects and may not be in the best interest of the child. We will discuss this argument in greater detail in our rebuttal. The foster care system in America is under critical stress and in desperate need of more couples willing to adopt. In 2004, ABC news conducted a special report on the nation’s foster care system. Here are some of their findings: 520, 000 kids end up in foster care every year, costing taxpayers $40,000 a head and 22 billion dollars total every year. 40,000 infants are placed in foster care every year. 20% of these kids end up in the system for 5 years are more. But, despite these revealing statistics we saved the most important one for last: “Thirty percent of the homeless in America and some 25 percent of those in prison were once in foster care.” “ These are the forgotten and neglected children of America. Being in foster care, they are deprived of a loving family, an essential element to living a balanced and stable life. They end up in the system for years, taken care of by adults whose only qualifications are that they can provide them with the very basic care of food and shelter. It is not surprising then that they are much more likelihood than any other demographic to end up homeless or in jail. I ask the opposition, how can we allow a single couple to adopt a baby from another country as long as this current problem exists? With such a supply of children needing parents to adopt them, many would wonder why so many American couples choose to adopt kids from overseas in the first place. This is, of course, is at the heart of the issue. If there is any strong opposition, it must be able to give a compelling reason why people should be allowed to adopt internationally. Based on our research, we have listed the most common reasons why people adopt as follows: There is less chance the birth parent will change their mind and try to reclaim the child legally; Less chance the biological parents will try and find their children later in life; There are too many restrictions to adopting domestically and it takes longer. While we do sympathize with these reasons, we do not find any of them compelling. The fact remains that in 2008 there was potentially 17,000 couples who could have adopted domestically but chose to go abroad instead. That means there are 17,000 kids still in the foster care system in American that doesn’t need to be. All 17,000 of those adoption cases would likely not have happened in America. The main reason being that adoption requirements domestically are often stricter than those in other countries. These strict laws regulate and help orphans to find much more qualified parents. Many times, before adopting kids, training classes are required. For example, the state of Kansas requires that prospective parents attend Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting MAPP classes. So to deal with the current number of over 1 million children in foster care, the government proposes to have international adoption banned and put our own national domestic problems as the number one priority.",American citizens should be banned from adopting children internationally because currently there is great need for adoption domestically.
<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The fact that humans are flawed and corruptible is the very reason that the right to gun ownership was put in place as a failsafe against tyrannical systems and government intrusion into civilian life without just cause or due process.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The fact that humans are flawed and corruptible is the very reason that the right to gun ownership was put in place as a failsafe against tyrannical systems and government intrusion into civilian life without just cause or due process.<|TARGETS|>the right to gun ownership, The fact that humans are flawed and corruptible<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The fact that humans are flawed and corruptible is the very reason that the right to gun ownership was put in place as a failsafe against tyrannical systems and government intrusion into civilian life without just cause or due process.<|ASPECTS|>political and social lobbying, political discussion<|CONCLUSION|>",The fact that humans are flawed and corruptible is the very reason that the right to gun ownership was put in place as a failsafe against tyrannical systems and government intrusion into civilian life without just cause or due process.,"We only have issues with surveillance because humans are involved, and humans have a propensity for bias and abuse of power."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Communism Actually Viable In The USA?<|ARGUMENT|>The human mind is innately capable of normalizing to the physical conditions of its existence and developing unique, innovative strategies for improving things and pursuing one's interests.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Communism Actually Viable In The USA?<|ARGUMENT|>The human mind is innately capable of normalizing to the physical conditions of its existence and developing unique, innovative strategies for improving things and pursuing one's interests.<|TARGETS|>The human mind<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Communism Actually Viable In The USA?<|ARGUMENT|>The human mind is innately capable of normalizing to the physical conditions of its existence and developing unique, innovative strategies for improving things and pursuing one's interests.<|ASPECTS|>physical conditions, normalizing, improving things, innovative strategies<|CONCLUSION|>","The human mind is innately capable of normalizing to the physical conditions of its existence and developing unique, innovative strategies for improving things and pursuing one's interests.",There will always be a purpose for human labor because human labor will always find a way to make a contribution to the value of capital.
<|TOPIC|>Arranged Marriages are Better than Love Matches<|ARGUMENT|>People can change throughout a marriage. The person that someone may of married may no longer be the same person they fell in love with.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Arranged Marriages are Better than Love Matches<|ARGUMENT|>People can change throughout a marriage. The person that someone may of married may no longer be the same person they fell in love with.<|TARGETS|>The person that someone may of married may no longer be the same person they fell in love with .<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Arranged Marriages are Better than Love Matches<|ARGUMENT|>People can change throughout a marriage. The person that someone may of married may no longer be the same person they fell in love with.<|ASPECTS|>opportunities, control, feelings, difficult to accept, feelings for<|CONCLUSION|>",People can change throughout a marriage. The person that someone may of married may no longer be the same person they fell in love with.,A person may end up disliking their partner in a love marriage.
"<|TOPIC|>Is taxation theft?<|ARGUMENT|>Theft, like in the US which occurred through the genocide of Native Americans, is how the US was formed and began the process of privatization. The foundation and expansion of private property is predicated on theft.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is taxation theft?<|ARGUMENT|>Theft, like in the US which occurred through the genocide of Native Americans, is how the US was formed and began the process of privatization. The foundation and expansion of private property is predicated on theft.<|TARGETS|>The foundation and expansion of private property<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is taxation theft?<|ARGUMENT|>Theft, like in the US which occurred through the genocide of Native Americans, is how the US was formed and began the process of privatization. The foundation and expansion of private property is predicated on theft.<|ASPECTS|>privatization, theft, property<|CONCLUSION|>","Theft, like in the US which occurred through the genocide of Native Americans, is how the US was formed and began the process of privatization. The foundation and expansion of private property is predicated on theft.",This is a list of a bunch of words whose definitions are all debated by various ideologies. This is the essence of the argument.
"<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>If travel to Mars took say one day or even better one hour, then let's visit Mars. But until we develop a quick method of travel in space we should use those resources to make sure we don't windup destroying our current habitat.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>If travel to Mars took say one day or even better one hour, then let's visit Mars. But until we develop a quick method of travel in space we should use those resources to make sure we don't windup destroying our current habitat.<|TARGETS|>a quick method of travel in space, If travel to Mars took say one day or even better one hour<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>If travel to Mars took say one day or even better one hour, then let's visit Mars. But until we develop a quick method of travel in space we should use those resources to make sure we don't windup destroying our current habitat.<|ASPECTS|>transport, improve<|CONCLUSION|>","If travel to Mars took say one day or even better one hour, then let's visit Mars. But until we develop a quick method of travel in space we should use those resources to make sure we don't windup destroying our current habitat.",The voyage to Mars alone is riddled with difficulties large and many that moving there might not be worth the effort.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>Governments can place limitations on the amount that an individual can donate to a candidate or a party. This reduces the ability of a select few individuals to have a disproportionate influence over politicians [\(International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, p. 19\)](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>Governments can place limitations on the amount that an individual can donate to a candidate or a party. This reduces the ability of a select few individuals to have a disproportionate influence over politicians [\(International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, p. 19\)](<|TARGETS|>Governments<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>Governments can place limitations on the amount that an individual can donate to a candidate or a party. This reduces the ability of a select few individuals to have a disproportionate influence over politicians [\(International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, p. 19\)](<|ASPECTS|>limitations, influence over politicians, disproportionate, donate<|CONCLUSION|>","Governments can place limitations on the amount that an individual can donate to a candidate or a party. This reduces the ability of a select few individuals to have a disproportionate influence over politicians International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, p. 19","It is not necessary to ban private donations; rather, legislation can be used to reduce the likelihood of corporate influence."
<|TOPIC|>Was Barack Obama a good President?<|ARGUMENT|>Some believe that the poor Democrat performance during the 2014 midterms was [due to the fact that]( Obama's approval ratings were low at the time.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Was Barack Obama a good President?<|ARGUMENT|>Some believe that the poor Democrat performance during the 2014 midterms was [due to the fact that]( Obama's approval ratings were low at the time.<|TARGETS|>Obama 's approval ratings, the poor Democrat performance during the 2014 midterms<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Was Barack Obama a good President?<|ARGUMENT|>Some believe that the poor Democrat performance during the 2014 midterms was [due to the fact that]( Obama's approval ratings were low at the time.<|ASPECTS|>approval ratings, poor democrat performance<|CONCLUSION|>",Some believe that the poor Democrat performance during the 2014 midterms was due to the fact that Obama's approval ratings were low at the time.,"During his Presidency the Democrats failed to win hundreds of elected positions, which suggests that Obama failed to keep voters on side."
"<|TOPIC|>Should culturally diverse writers be mandatory in English curricula?<|ARGUMENT|>[Publishers]( often want the covers of novels by Asian British writers to stick to a limited color palette of yellows, reds and purples, accented by “exotic” images.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should culturally diverse writers be mandatory in English curricula?<|ARGUMENT|>[Publishers]( often want the covers of novels by Asian British writers to stick to a limited color palette of yellows, reds and purples, accented by “exotic” images.<|TARGETS|>the covers of novels by Asian British writers to stick to a limited color palette of yellows reds and purples accented by “ exotic ” images .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should culturally diverse writers be mandatory in English curricula?<|ARGUMENT|>[Publishers]( often want the covers of novels by Asian British writers to stick to a limited color palette of yellows, reds and purples, accented by “exotic” images.<|ASPECTS|>stereotypes, culturally diverse<|CONCLUSION|>","Publishers often want the covers of novels by Asian British writers to stick to a limited color palette of yellows, reds and purples, accented by “exotic” images.",Black and Asian writers have described feeling pressure to conform to cultural stereotypes in their work in order to get published.
"<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>There is strength in numbers, as long as that strength is not used inwards. A European Foreign policy is the only real option when China will permanently move the geopolical pole in Asia.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>There is strength in numbers, as long as that strength is not used inwards. A European Foreign policy is the only real option when China will permanently move the geopolical pole in Asia.<|TARGETS|>A European Foreign policy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>There is strength in numbers, as long as that strength is not used inwards. A European Foreign policy is the only real option when China will permanently move the geopolical pole in Asia.<|ASPECTS|>risk of conflict, eu, russian identity, peace, german identity, british identity<|CONCLUSION|>","There is strength in numbers, as long as that strength is not used inwards. A European Foreign policy is the only real option when China will permanently move the geopolical pole in Asia.",The USE is beneficial for all member states as many strategic interests and social values in Europe are shared among all countries.
"<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>Though they have fewer weapon systems, Federation weapon systems have better arcs than their Rebel counterparts. The increased manoeuvrability allows them to bring more weapons to bear on a target as well as bring their strongest weapons, such as torpedoes, phaser lances and cannons, which might otherwise not have such great arc coverage, to bear more easily.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>Though they have fewer weapon systems, Federation weapon systems have better arcs than their Rebel counterparts. The increased manoeuvrability allows them to bring more weapons to bear on a target as well as bring their strongest weapons, such as torpedoes, phaser lances and cannons, which might otherwise not have such great arc coverage, to bear more easily.<|TARGETS|>Federation weapon systems, The increased manoeuvrability<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>Though they have fewer weapon systems, Federation weapon systems have better arcs than their Rebel counterparts. The increased manoeuvrability allows them to bring more weapons to bear on a target as well as bring their strongest weapons, such as torpedoes, phaser lances and cannons, which might otherwise not have such great arc coverage, to bear more easily.<|ASPECTS|>highly, creative solutions, unique<|CONCLUSION|>","Though they have fewer weapon systems, Federation weapon systems have better arcs than their Rebel counterparts. The increased manoeuvrability allows them to bring more weapons to bear on a target as well as bring their strongest weapons, such as torpedoes, phaser lances and cannons, which might otherwise not have such great arc coverage, to bear more easily.","While the Rebels have fighters, Federation capital chips are far more manoeuvrable then their Rebellion counterparts, able to make extreme course corrections and evasive manoeuvres Rebel ships could only dream and wish for. This is a key issue and has many implications, both in terms of attack and defence."
"<|TOPIC|>Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poorer countries<|ARGUMENT|>Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poor ones, and with this freedom must come the responsibility to reimburse them fully for the cost of their training.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poorer countries<|ARGUMENT|>Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poor ones, and with this freedom must come the responsibility to reimburse them fully for the cost of their training.<|TARGETS|>to reimburse them fully for the cost of their training ., Rich countries<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poorer countries<|ARGUMENT|>Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poor ones, and with this freedom must come the responsibility to reimburse them fully for the cost of their training.<|ASPECTS|>cost, training, poor, reimburse, recruit medical personnel<|CONCLUSION|>","Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poor ones, and with this freedom must come the responsibility to reimburse them fully for the cost of their training.",Rich countries should actively recruit medical personnel from poorer countries
<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>The US has proven that there are no safe havens for terrorists when it killed Osama Bin-Laden.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>The US has proven that there are no safe havens for terrorists when it killed Osama Bin-Laden.<|TARGETS|>The US<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>The US has proven that there are no safe havens for terrorists when it killed Osama Bin-Laden.<|ASPECTS|>islam<|CONCLUSION|>,The US has proven that there are no safe havens for terrorists when it killed Osama Bin-Laden.,There are many signs that the war on terror was successful.
<|TOPIC|>Should Shark Culling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Rising ocean temperatures due to climate change have changed marine life habitats and may be responsible for changing shark presences around areas habituated by humans.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Shark Culling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Rising ocean temperatures due to climate change have changed marine life habitats and may be responsible for changing shark presences around areas habituated by humans.<|TARGETS|>Rising ocean temperatures due to climate change<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Shark Culling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Rising ocean temperatures due to climate change have changed marine life habitats and may be responsible for changing shark presences around areas habituated by humans.<|ASPECTS|>overfishing, numbers, prey, balance of ecosystem<|CONCLUSION|>",Rising ocean temperatures due to climate change have changed marine life habitats and may be responsible for changing shark presences around areas habituated by humans.,"Several factors besides culls will have effects on the frequency and severity of shark attacks, making the effects of culls especially hard to measure."
"<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Homogeneity within a team breeds conformity and complacency due to the [fluency effect where more easily-processed information is judged to be more correct]( the fluency heuristic: We prefer information that is processed more easily, or fluently, judging it to be truer or more beautiful.). Having slight amounts of conflict and uncertainty within a team helps better scrutinise information.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Homogeneity within a team breeds conformity and complacency due to the [fluency effect where more easily-processed information is judged to be more correct]( the fluency heuristic: We prefer information that is processed more easily, or fluently, judging it to be truer or more beautiful.). Having slight amounts of conflict and uncertainty within a team helps better scrutinise information.<|TARGETS|>Having slight amounts of conflict and uncertainty within a team<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Homogeneity within a team breeds conformity and complacency due to the [fluency effect where more easily-processed information is judged to be more correct]( the fluency heuristic: We prefer information that is processed more easily, or fluently, judging it to be truer or more beautiful.). Having slight amounts of conflict and uncertainty within a team helps better scrutinise information.<|ASPECTS|>black american issues, negative<|CONCLUSION|>","Homogeneity within a team breeds conformity and complacency due to the fluency effect where more easily-processed information is judged to be more correct the fluency heuristic: We prefer information that is processed more easily, or fluently, judging it to be truer or more beautiful.. Having slight amounts of conflict and uncertainty within a team helps better scrutinise information.","Socially diverse groups are more innovative and better at solving complex, non-routine problems."
<|TOPIC|>Should the US have withdrawn from NAFTA?<|ARGUMENT|>The investor dispute settlement mechanism protected American [investors]( by ensuring they would not be arbitrarily hard done by as a result of the rules of Canada and Mexico. This decreased the risk of investing in those countries and thereby encourages the most efficient allocation of American capital across the three countries.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the US have withdrawn from NAFTA?<|ARGUMENT|>The investor dispute settlement mechanism protected American [investors]( by ensuring they would not be arbitrarily hard done by as a result of the rules of Canada and Mexico. This decreased the risk of investing in those countries and thereby encourages the most efficient allocation of American capital across the three countries.<|TARGETS|>The investor dispute settlement mechanism<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US have withdrawn from NAFTA?<|ARGUMENT|>The investor dispute settlement mechanism protected American [investors]( by ensuring they would not be arbitrarily hard done by as a result of the rules of Canada and Mexico. This decreased the risk of investing in those countries and thereby encourages the most efficient allocation of American capital across the three countries.<|ASPECTS|>investor dispute settlement mechanism, protected american, american capital, risk of investing, efficient allocation, hard<|CONCLUSION|>",The investor dispute settlement mechanism protected American investors by ensuring they would not be arbitrarily hard done by as a result of the rules of Canada and Mexico. This decreased the risk of investing in those countries and thereby encourages the most efficient allocation of American capital across the three countries.,The USMCA has involved the loss of NAFTA's investor dispute settlement mechanism which allowed American firms to sue Canada and Mexico for anticompetitive practices.
"<|TOPIC|>Should citizens be able to crowdsource laws?<|ARGUMENT|>Crowd Sourcing, collaboration, and debating laws online will allow everyone to participate in the same linked debate instead of having millions of sperate debates scattered across every types of media in forums elected officials don't use our see.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should citizens be able to crowdsource laws?<|ARGUMENT|>Crowd Sourcing, collaboration, and debating laws online will allow everyone to participate in the same linked debate instead of having millions of sperate debates scattered across every types of media in forums elected officials don't use our see.<|TARGETS|>Crowd Sourcing collaboration and debating laws online<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should citizens be able to crowdsource laws?<|ARGUMENT|>Crowd Sourcing, collaboration, and debating laws online will allow everyone to participate in the same linked debate instead of having millions of sperate debates scattered across every types of media in forums elected officials don't use our see.<|ASPECTS|>sperate debates, debate<|CONCLUSION|>","Crowd Sourcing, collaboration, and debating laws online will allow everyone to participate in the same linked debate instead of having millions of sperate debates scattered across every types of media in forums elected officials don't use our see.","Crowd sourcing is the only way that a city, state, or nation can come together in a high resolution way that has the potential of addressing the complexity of our problems."
"<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Many people take comfort in religious ideas of people still ""existing"" or ""being alive"" via supernatural forces \(becoming a spirit, becoming one with the world, looking down from heaven, etc.\)<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Many people take comfort in religious ideas of people still ""existing"" or ""being alive"" via supernatural forces \(becoming a spirit, becoming one with the world, looking down from heaven, etc.\)<|TARGETS|>Many people take comfort in religious ideas of people still "" existing "" or "" being alive "" via supernatural forces becoming a spirit becoming one with the world looking down from heaven etc .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Many people take comfort in religious ideas of people still ""existing"" or ""being alive"" via supernatural forces \(becoming a spirit, becoming one with the world, looking down from heaven, etc.\)<|ASPECTS|>supernatural forces, religious ideas<|CONCLUSION|>","Many people take comfort in religious ideas of people still ""existing"" or ""being alive"" via supernatural forces becoming a spirit, becoming one with the world, looking down from heaven, etc.",Religion provides solace to humans upon the death of a loved one.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Current non-monetary methods of benefitting the Black community have proven inadequate at properly providing recompense, meaning that a monetary program is needed to bridge the gap.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Current non-monetary methods of benefitting the Black community have proven inadequate at properly providing recompense, meaning that a monetary program is needed to bridge the gap.<|TARGETS|>Current non-monetary methods of benefitting the Black community, a monetary program<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Current non-monetary methods of benefitting the Black community have proven inadequate at properly providing recompense, meaning that a monetary program is needed to bridge the gap.<|ASPECTS|>better neighborhoods, upward mobility, housing voucher, schooling, resources, safer neighborhoods\<|CONCLUSION|>","Current non-monetary methods of benefitting the Black community have proven inadequate at properly providing recompense, meaning that a monetary program is needed to bridge the gap.",America as a collective entity promoted and profited from the injustice that slavery was.
"<|TOPIC|>Should some teachers be armed?<|ARGUMENT|>Most rampage shootings end very shortly after the shooter's fire is first returned, even when the shooters themselves are not injured. The earlier the shooter is fired upon, the more lives can be saved.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should some teachers be armed?<|ARGUMENT|>Most rampage shootings end very shortly after the shooter's fire is first returned, even when the shooters themselves are not injured. The earlier the shooter is fired upon, the more lives can be saved.<|TARGETS|>The earlier the shooter, Most rampage shootings<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should some teachers be armed?<|ARGUMENT|>Most rampage shootings end very shortly after the shooter's fire is first returned, even when the shooters themselves are not injured. The earlier the shooter is fired upon, the more lives can be saved.<|ASPECTS|>lives can be saved, injured, rampage shootings<|CONCLUSION|>","Most rampage shootings end very shortly after the shooter's fire is first returned, even when the shooters themselves are not injured. The earlier the shooter is fired upon, the more lives can be saved.","There is a chance that a well-trained, armed teacher could shoot and kill a rampaging shooter, saving lives."
<|TOPIC|>Should the sale of genetically modified food be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease resulted in [millions]( of animals being killed in order to limit the spread of infections. Genetic modification of animals could help prevent such incidents reoccurring. \(p.277\)<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the sale of genetically modified food be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease resulted in [millions]( of animals being killed in order to limit the spread of infections. Genetic modification of animals could help prevent such incidents reoccurring. \(p.277\)<|TARGETS|>Genetic modification of animals, Foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease<|CONCLUSION|>",<|TOPIC|>Should the sale of genetically modified food be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease resulted in [millions]( of animals being killed in order to limit the spread of infections. Genetic modification of animals could help prevent such incidents reoccurring. \(p.277\)<|ASPECTS|>genetic modification of animals<|CONCLUSION|>,Foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease resulted in millions of animals being killed in order to limit the spread of infections. Genetic modification of animals could help prevent such incidents reoccurring. p.277,Genetically modifying animals to prevent them being prone to disease is ethical.
<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Laws can be from internal sources. Many laws that affect the United States were written after its foundation by its citizens.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Laws can be from internal sources. Many laws that affect the United States were written after its foundation by its citizens.<|TARGETS|>Laws, Many laws that affect the United States<|CONCLUSION|>",<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Laws can be from internal sources. Many laws that affect the United States were written after its foundation by its citizens.<|ASPECTS|>source of value<|CONCLUSION|>,Laws can be from internal sources. Many laws that affect the United States were written after its foundation by its citizens.,"CS Lewis's third premise ""If there is a Moral Law-giver, it must be something beyond the universe."" is unsubstantiated."
"<|TOPIC|>Was the EU right to approve the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market?<|ARGUMENT|>According to Article 13\(4\)a, online content sharing providers are not liable when they have obtained authorisation for works uploaded.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Was the EU right to approve the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market?<|ARGUMENT|>According to Article 13\(4\)a, online content sharing providers are not liable when they have obtained authorisation for works uploaded.<|TARGETS|>online content sharing providers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Was the EU right to approve the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market?<|ARGUMENT|>According to Article 13\(4\)a, online content sharing providers are not liable when they have obtained authorisation for works uploaded.<|ASPECTS|>content sharing providers, liable<|CONCLUSION|>","According to Article 134a, online content sharing providers are not liable when they have obtained authorisation for works uploaded.",Article 13 ensures that platforms can no longer claim innocence when enabling piracy.
"<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Order and structure in the universe emereges when spans of time are so large that they permit the inefficient, non orderly things to weed themselves out of existence.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Order and structure in the universe emereges when spans of time are so large that they permit the inefficient, non orderly things to weed themselves out of existence.<|TARGETS|>Order and structure in the universe<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Order and structure in the universe emereges when spans of time are so large that they permit the inefficient, non orderly things to weed themselves out of existence.<|ASPECTS|>affairs, divine communication, human psychological development, direct, lessons, statecraft, human morality, biased.\, divine intervention, philosophy<|CONCLUSION|>","Order and structure in the universe emereges when spans of time are so large that they permit the inefficient, non orderly things to weed themselves out of existence.",The universe and nature show all the characteristics we would expect if there were no God.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The only training one needs in an active shooter situation is to be able to slow, stop or distract the active shooter. Thus allowing: 1. Potential victims the ability to get out of harm's way 2. Allowing law enforcement the time to arrive on site 3. Allowing for the possibility of the ""defender"" to de-escalate the situation by way of defense.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The only training one needs in an active shooter situation is to be able to slow, stop or distract the active shooter. Thus allowing: 1. Potential victims the ability to get out of harm's way 2. Allowing law enforcement the time to arrive on site 3. Allowing for the possibility of the ""defender"" to de-escalate the situation by way of defense.<|TARGETS|>Allowing law enforcement the time to arrive on site, Allowing for the possibility of the "" defender "" to de-escalate the situation by way of defense ., an active shooter situation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The only training one needs in an active shooter situation is to be able to slow, stop or distract the active shooter. Thus allowing: 1. Potential victims the ability to get out of harm's way 2. Allowing law enforcement the time to arrive on site 3. Allowing for the possibility of the ""defender"" to de-escalate the situation by way of defense.<|ASPECTS|>political and social lobbying, political discussion<|CONCLUSION|>","The only training one needs in an active shooter situation is to be able to slow, stop or distract the active shooter. Thus allowing: 1. Potential victims the ability to get out of harm's way 2. Allowing law enforcement the time to arrive on site 3. Allowing for the possibility of the ""defender"" to de-escalate the situation by way of defense.","De-escalation training is irrelevant to an active shooter situation, as the person is already attempting to murder as many people as possible."
"<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>Going potty is by its nature a private matter. There can be no legitimate motivation in advocating for sharing a restroom simultaneously with other people, especially if those people are made uncomfortable by crossed gender lines. That is, insisting one has a right to go potty simultaneously with others makes it less about the hygiene needs and more about forcing others to make these into unwilling social activities.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>Going potty is by its nature a private matter. There can be no legitimate motivation in advocating for sharing a restroom simultaneously with other people, especially if those people are made uncomfortable by crossed gender lines. That is, insisting one has a right to go potty simultaneously with others makes it less about the hygiene needs and more about forcing others to make these into unwilling social activities.<|TARGETS|>a right to go potty simultaneously with others, advocating for sharing a restroom simultaneously with other people, Going potty, forcing others to make these into unwilling social activities .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>Going potty is by its nature a private matter. There can be no legitimate motivation in advocating for sharing a restroom simultaneously with other people, especially if those people are made uncomfortable by crossed gender lines. That is, insisting one has a right to go potty simultaneously with others makes it less about the hygiene needs and more about forcing others to make these into unwilling social activities.<|ASPECTS|>crossed gender lines, hygiene needs, motivation, legitimate, right, unwilling social activities, private matter<|CONCLUSION|>","Going potty is by its nature a private matter. There can be no legitimate motivation in advocating for sharing a restroom simultaneously with other people, especially if those people are made uncomfortable by crossed gender lines. That is, insisting one has a right to go potty simultaneously with others makes it less about the hygiene needs and more about forcing others to make these into unwilling social activities.","As long as restrooms are multiple occupancy - implying co-ed - then in principle this is a bad idea and serves only to make planting seeds in the litter box a communal event across gender boundaries - thereby sexualizing these activities. Where single-occupancy bathrooms exist, there is little issue. Where multi-occupancy bathrooms exist, there are only questionable motivations."
<|TOPIC|>Is Undocumented Immigration Into the United States a Problem?<|ARGUMENT|>Not cracking down on undocumented immigration makes it easier for terrorists to enter our country.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is Undocumented Immigration Into the United States a Problem?<|ARGUMENT|>Not cracking down on undocumented immigration makes it easier for terrorists to enter our country.<|TARGETS|>Not cracking down on undocumented immigration<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is Undocumented Immigration Into the United States a Problem?<|ARGUMENT|>Not cracking down on undocumented immigration makes it easier for terrorists to enter our country.<|ASPECTS|>easier, terrorists, undocumented immigration<|CONCLUSION|>",Not cracking down on undocumented immigration makes it easier for terrorists to enter our country.,Undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than US citizens.
"<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>When criminals with illegal guns are caught by police, they are likely to fire their weapons at officers.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>When criminals with illegal guns are caught by police, they are likely to fire their weapons at officers.<|TARGETS|>When criminals with illegal guns are caught by police<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>When criminals with illegal guns are caught by police, they are likely to fire their weapons at officers.<|ASPECTS|>rates, coercive behavior, sex work increase<|CONCLUSION|>","When criminals with illegal guns are caught by police, they are likely to fire their weapons at officers.",Gun control is likely to put police in harm's way.
<|TOPIC|>Who Should Self-Driving Cars Kill?<|ARGUMENT|>Pedestrians and cyclists are much more vulnerable than cars and thus much less risk inclined already. Any additional risks make them even more risk averse.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Who Should Self-Driving Cars Kill?<|ARGUMENT|>Pedestrians and cyclists are much more vulnerable than cars and thus much less risk inclined already. Any additional risks make them even more risk averse.<|TARGETS|>Any additional risks, Pedestrians and cyclists<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Who Should Self-Driving Cars Kill?<|ARGUMENT|>Pedestrians and cyclists are much more vulnerable than cars and thus much less risk inclined already. Any additional risks make them even more risk averse.<|ASPECTS|>mistake, accident, error<|CONCLUSION|>",Pedestrians and cyclists are much more vulnerable than cars and thus much less risk inclined already. Any additional risks make them even more risk averse.,Pedestrians and cyclists are less likely to engage in risky behaviour if they know that accidents will likely harm them over others.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Post-1994, the [Rwandan military]( played a crucial role in internally developing an inclusive national identity, and then propagating that identity to the rest of society.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Post-1994, the [Rwandan military]( played a crucial role in internally developing an inclusive national identity, and then propagating that identity to the rest of society.<|TARGETS|>Post-1994<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Post-1994, the [Rwandan military]( played a crucial role in internally developing an inclusive national identity, and then propagating that identity to the rest of society.<|ASPECTS|>duty, international law and thinking, right, rights<|CONCLUSION|>","Post-1994, the Rwandan military played a crucial role in internally developing an inclusive national identity, and then propagating that identity to the rest of society.","Militaries focus on homogenizing their recruits, which breaks down prior divisions due to ethnicity, culture, or class."
"<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Zeran v American Online]( the court held that AOL's failure to remove defamatory posts quickly was protected by s 230 as s 230 was enacted ""to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum"".<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Zeran v American Online]( the court held that AOL's failure to remove defamatory posts quickly was protected by s 230 as s 230 was enacted ""to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum"".<|TARGETS|>AOL 's failure to remove defamatory posts, Zeran v American Online<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Zeran v American Online]( the court held that AOL's failure to remove defamatory posts quickly was protected by s 230 as s 230 was enacted ""to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum"".<|ASPECTS|>government interference, internet communication, robust nature, defamatory posts<|CONCLUSION|>","In Zeran v American Online the court held that AOL's failure to remove defamatory posts quickly was protected by s 230 as s 230 was enacted ""to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum"".",Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to third parties in relation to the content of what is published through internet services.
"<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Kantian ethics was used by Eichmann as a [justification]( of the [Holocaust]( He said that he [represented]( the moral will of the people and that overruled his personal feelings about the jews, being a yiddish speaking self proclaimed zionists himself. As explained in [Hannah Arendt]( 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil' \(1963\).<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Kantian ethics was used by Eichmann as a [justification]( of the [Holocaust]( He said that he [represented]( the moral will of the people and that overruled his personal feelings about the jews, being a yiddish speaking self proclaimed zionists himself. As explained in [Hannah Arendt]( 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil' \(1963\).<|TARGETS|>Kantian ethics, the moral will of the people and that overruled his personal feelings about the jews being a yiddish speaking self proclaimed zionists himself ., Hannah Arendt ' Eichmann in Jerusalem<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Kantian ethics was used by Eichmann as a [justification]( of the [Holocaust]( He said that he [represented]( the moral will of the people and that overruled his personal feelings about the jews, being a yiddish speaking self proclaimed zionists himself. As explained in [Hannah Arendt]( 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil' \(1963\).<|ASPECTS|>supernatural forces, religious ideas<|CONCLUSION|>","Kantian ethics was used by Eichmann as a justification of the Holocaust He said that he represented the moral will of the people and that overruled his personal feelings about the jews, being a yiddish speaking self proclaimed zionists himself. As explained in Hannah Arendt 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil' 1963.","Absent religion, ideologies fill the void and motivate humans to do terrible things."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Star Citizen a scam?<|ARGUMENT|>Yes, people fail to understand how much tech innovations there is in this game vs. other games. Today most studios follow hypes \(Battle Royales, Survivals, etc\). CIG is one of the few really innovatives projects in the industry. If it succeeds, the technologies developed will benefit the whole industry.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Star Citizen a scam?<|ARGUMENT|>Yes, people fail to understand how much tech innovations there is in this game vs. other games. Today most studios follow hypes \(Battle Royales, Survivals, etc\). CIG is one of the few really innovatives projects in the industry. If it succeeds, the technologies developed will benefit the whole industry.<|TARGETS|>to understand how much tech innovations there, CIG, the technologies developed<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Star Citizen a scam?<|ARGUMENT|>Yes, people fail to understand how much tech innovations there is in this game vs. other games. Today most studios follow hypes \(Battle Royales, Survivals, etc\). CIG is one of the few really innovatives projects in the industry. If it succeeds, the technologies developed will benefit the whole industry.<|ASPECTS|>technologies, benefit, hypes, industry, innovatives, tech innovations<|CONCLUSION|>","Yes, people fail to understand how much tech innovations there is in this game vs. other games. Today most studios follow hypes Battle Royales, Survivals, etc. CIG is one of the few really innovatives projects in the industry. If it succeeds, the technologies developed will benefit the whole industry.","The tech created by CIG is revolutionary and will raise the bar for video games. That, obviously, takes time and money"
<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>The universal scope of a UBI allows it to support a greater range of endeavours without causing social backlash - it is the targeted nature of welfare that is precisely what prevents it from rewarding 'extraneous' activities such as education or art.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>The universal scope of a UBI allows it to support a greater range of endeavours without causing social backlash - it is the targeted nature of welfare that is precisely what prevents it from rewarding 'extraneous' activities such as education or art.<|TARGETS|>The universal scope of a UBI<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>The universal scope of a UBI allows it to support a greater range of endeavours without causing social backlash - it is the targeted nature of welfare that is precisely what prevents it from rewarding 'extraneous' activities such as education or art.<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>",The universal scope of a UBI allows it to support a greater range of endeavours without causing social backlash - it is the targeted nature of welfare that is precisely what prevents it from rewarding 'extraneous' activities such as education or art.,When only the lower classes receive a benefit then it is framed as a handout and only designed to tide people over while they go back to traditional employment.
<|TOPIC|>Do we need religion for morality?<|ARGUMENT|>There is strong evidence that religions have been part of the tool set in communicating morality \(and sometimes pragmatic community interests \) but not any exclusivity of morality. Non religious morality [exists](<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Do we need religion for morality?<|ARGUMENT|>There is strong evidence that religions have been part of the tool set in communicating morality \(and sometimes pragmatic community interests \) but not any exclusivity of morality. Non religious morality [exists](<|TARGETS|>Non religious morality<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Do we need religion for morality?<|ARGUMENT|>There is strong evidence that religions have been part of the tool set in communicating morality \(and sometimes pragmatic community interests \) but not any exclusivity of morality. Non religious morality [exists](<|ASPECTS|>religious morality, morality, exclusivity of morality<|CONCLUSION|>",There is strong evidence that religions have been part of the tool set in communicating morality and sometimes pragmatic community interests but not any exclusivity of morality. Non religious morality exists,"Even if religion is a sufficient condition for morality, it does not imply it is a necessary condition."
"<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>Theologians and scientists [collaborate]( in the field of evolutionary ethics. ""The theologian Sarah Coakley has cooperated with the mathematician and biologist Martin Nowak to understand altruism and game theory in a broader theological and scientific context"".<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>Theologians and scientists [collaborate]( in the field of evolutionary ethics. ""The theologian Sarah Coakley has cooperated with the mathematician and biologist Martin Nowak to understand altruism and game theory in a broader theological and scientific context"".<|TARGETS|>The theologian Sarah Coakley has cooperated with the mathematician and biologist Martin Nowak to understand altruism and game theory in a broader theological and scientific context<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>Theologians and scientists [collaborate]( in the field of evolutionary ethics. ""The theologian Sarah Coakley has cooperated with the mathematician and biologist Martin Nowak to understand altruism and game theory in a broader theological and scientific context"".<|ASPECTS|>social justice, equal, ordinary life, god, god without form, live honestly, direct access to god, gender<|CONCLUSION|>","Theologians and scientists collaborate in the field of evolutionary ethics. ""The theologian Sarah Coakley has cooperated with the mathematician and biologist Martin Nowak to understand altruism and game theory in a broader theological and scientific context"".","Advancing fast is not necessarily a good thing. For instance, religion has stimulated debate about the ethics of science and so has made science better."
"<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>The potato can be viewed as the decisive innovation – even as a central [cultural norm]( – during the emergence of the modern system of dishes and meals in the 18th century, but it only entered the dietary culture of the broad masses of central Europe during the 17th century.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>The potato can be viewed as the decisive innovation – even as a central [cultural norm]( – during the emergence of the modern system of dishes and meals in the 18th century, but it only entered the dietary culture of the broad masses of central Europe during the 17th century.<|TARGETS|>the emergence of the modern system of dishes and meals in the 18th century, The potato<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>The potato can be viewed as the decisive innovation – even as a central [cultural norm]( – during the emergence of the modern system of dishes and meals in the 18th century, but it only entered the dietary culture of the broad masses of central Europe during the 17th century.<|ASPECTS|>decisive, innovation, dietary culture, cultural norm, central<|CONCLUSION|>","The potato can be viewed as the decisive innovation – even as a central cultural norm – during the emergence of the modern system of dishes and meals in the 18th century, but it only entered the dietary culture of the broad masses of central Europe during the 17th century.","Convictions surrounding different foodstuffs, and their corresponding cultural importance, change over time."
"<|TOPIC|>Algae biofuel<|ARGUMENT|>Growing algae absorbs C02 in the process of photosynthesis. It is a carbon sink. This is why, when algae biofuels are burned and emit some C02, the emission balance is C02 neutral; it emits only C02 it previously absorbed, adding no new C02 into the atmosphere. Because it is carbon neutral in this way, it is a renewable energy source that can be produced and burned for energy sustainably.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Algae biofuel<|ARGUMENT|>Growing algae absorbs C02 in the process of photosynthesis. It is a carbon sink. This is why, when algae biofuels are burned and emit some C02, the emission balance is C02 neutral; it emits only C02 it previously absorbed, adding no new C02 into the atmosphere. Because it is carbon neutral in this way, it is a renewable energy source that can be produced and burned for energy sustainably.<|TARGETS|>when algae biofuels, Growing algae<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Algae biofuel<|ARGUMENT|>Growing algae absorbs C02 in the process of photosynthesis. It is a carbon sink. This is why, when algae biofuels are burned and emit some C02, the emission balance is C02 neutral; it emits only C02 it previously absorbed, adding no new C02 into the atmosphere. Because it is carbon neutral in this way, it is a renewable energy source that can be produced and burned for energy sustainably.<|ASPECTS|>photosynthesis, energy sustainably, neutral, emission balance, carbon sink, renewable energy source, carbon neutral, absorbs c02<|CONCLUSION|>","Growing algae absorbs C02 in the process of photosynthesis. It is a carbon sink. This is why, when algae biofuels are burned and emit some C02, the emission balance is C02 neutral; it emits only C02 it previously absorbed, adding no new C02 into the atmosphere. Because it is carbon neutral in this way, it is a renewable energy source that can be produced and burned for energy sustainably.",Algae biofuel is carbon neutral; only emits C02 that it absorbs.
<|TOPIC|>Facebook's collection of user data is unethical<|ARGUMENT|>This data can enable a visionary to suggest ways to improve the world in ways that most people can not yet imagine.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Facebook's collection of user data is unethical<|ARGUMENT|>This data can enable a visionary to suggest ways to improve the world in ways that most people can not yet imagine.<|TARGETS|>This data<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Facebook's collection of user data is unethical<|ARGUMENT|>This data can enable a visionary to suggest ways to improve the world in ways that most people can not yet imagine.<|ASPECTS|>improve the world<|CONCLUSION|>,This data can enable a visionary to suggest ways to improve the world in ways that most people can not yet imagine.,Facebook scripts track you around the internet even if you are not logged in.
"<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>Atheism has poorer explanations about many important aspects of life, including morality and beauty, than theism.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>Atheism has poorer explanations about many important aspects of life, including morality and beauty, than theism.<|TARGETS|>Atheism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>Atheism has poorer explanations about many important aspects of life, including morality and beauty, than theism.<|ASPECTS|>destruction, message spreading faster, dispersion of early christians<|CONCLUSION|>","Atheism has poorer explanations about many important aspects of life, including morality and beauty, than theism.",The rationale for morality seems lacking in a system with no authority or objective standard.
<|TOPIC|>All US and EU sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 should be lifted<|ARGUMENT|>President Trump has [continued to deny]( any instance of Russian meddling during the US Presidential Election.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>All US and EU sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 should be lifted<|ARGUMENT|>President Trump has [continued to deny]( any instance of Russian meddling during the US Presidential Election.<|TARGETS|>to deny any instance of Russian meddling during the US Presidential Election ., President Trump<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>All US and EU sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 should be lifted<|ARGUMENT|>President Trump has [continued to deny]( any instance of Russian meddling during the US Presidential Election.<|ASPECTS|>meddling, russian<|CONCLUSION|>",President Trump has continued to deny any instance of Russian meddling during the US Presidential Election.,Sanctions have increased tensions between the US and the EU.
"<|TOPIC|>Global overpopulation is a myth.<|ARGUMENT|>Many food around the world is thrown away everyday, overpopulation is not the problem, it seems to be more resources misallocation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Global overpopulation is a myth.<|ARGUMENT|>Many food around the world is thrown away everyday, overpopulation is not the problem, it seems to be more resources misallocation<|TARGETS|>Many food around the world<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Global overpopulation is a myth.<|ARGUMENT|>Many food around the world is thrown away everyday, overpopulation is not the problem, it seems to be more resources misallocation<|ASPECTS|>resources misallocation, overpopulation<|CONCLUSION|>","Many food around the world is thrown away everyday, overpopulation is not the problem, it seems to be more resources misallocation","There is actually no global overpopulation, just an uneven distribution of populations and resources."
"<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>Consider the claim, ""There are an even number of electrons in the universe."" If there is no good reason to believe this, it would be absurd to then conclude that ""There are an odd number of electrons in the universe.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>Consider the claim, ""There are an even number of electrons in the universe."" If there is no good reason to believe this, it would be absurd to then conclude that ""There are an odd number of electrons in the universe.""<|TARGETS|>to then conclude that "" There are an odd number of electrons in the universe<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>Consider the claim, ""There are an even number of electrons in the universe."" If there is no good reason to believe this, it would be absurd to then conclude that ""There are an odd number of electrons in the universe.""<|ASPECTS|>god ’ s existence, evidence, physical evidence, god, hard incontrovertible, incontrovertible, criminals<|CONCLUSION|>","Consider the claim, ""There are an even number of electrons in the universe."" If there is no good reason to believe this, it would be absurd to then conclude that ""There are an odd number of electrons in the universe.""",Most empirical evidence against God derives from an absence of observations of God. A lack of identified evidence is not a positive argument for the non-existence of God.
<|TOPIC|>Should pet stores only sell dogs and cats from shelters?<|ARGUMENT|>An information study showed that spending time with animals like cats [increases the production]( of oxytocin in the human brain.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should pet stores only sell dogs and cats from shelters?<|ARGUMENT|>An information study showed that spending time with animals like cats [increases the production]( of oxytocin in the human brain.<|TARGETS|>An information study<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should pet stores only sell dogs and cats from shelters?<|ARGUMENT|>An information study showed that spending time with animals like cats [increases the production]( of oxytocin in the human brain.<|ASPECTS|>increases, production, spending<|CONCLUSION|>",An information study showed that spending time with animals like cats increases the production of oxytocin in the human brain.,Research has shown that owning pets can improve personal well-being and longevity.
<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Competition still provides incentives for ISPs to do produce value for consumers; cutting off access to the sites/apps consumers want is thus not in their best interests.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Competition still provides incentives for ISPs to do produce value for consumers; cutting off access to the sites/apps consumers want is thus not in their best interests.<|TARGETS|>cutting off access to the sites / apps consumers, Competition<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Competition still provides incentives for ISPs to do produce value for consumers; cutting off access to the sites/apps consumers want is thus not in their best interests.<|ASPECTS|>incentive, value, monopolists, discriminating, price/profits\, prices<|CONCLUSION|>",Competition still provides incentives for ISPs to do produce value for consumers; cutting off access to the sites/apps consumers want is thus not in their best interests.,These fears are largely unfounded and based on speculation about what ISPs could do without reference to whether the scenarios are in fact likely.
"<|TOPIC|>Mexican culture was incurably damaged by the introduction of Christianity<|ARGUMENT|>Time after time, the Catholic Church has narrowly escaped destruction and survived only because of popular support that defied the law of the land. It was Hernan Cortes who brought the Catholic Church to Mexico. Pope Alexander VI had ordered that natives of the new lands discovered by Columbus, be instructed in Catholicism for the ""salvation of their souls."" Cortes accepted this wholeheartedly and acted accordingly. He was also punctilious about christening women given to the Spaniards as slaves. It was forbidden for his men to have intercourse with any woman until she had been baptized. The woman who history calls La Malinche, baptized as Donna Marina, not only served Cortes as an interpreter and later, as his mistress. She became a fervent Christian, and according to Bernal Diaz, worked hard to convert her fellow Indians. Schools for Indians were founded, and now the true meaning of Christianity was made clear to those who had converted. There can be little doubt that the firm grip of Catholicism on Mexico can be traced back to the efforts of Archbishop Juan de Zumarraga. The Church, with government approval, would monitor the treatment of Indians. When the Spanish landowners foiled efforts to force them to grant Indians freedom, De Quiroga, started to set up monasteries and community centers in which Indian children could be educated. Manned by friars, they gave instruction in Christianity plus arts and crafts. The Catholic Church saved the Mexican people by treating them as human beings and giving them the chance to live as free people.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mexican culture was incurably damaged by the introduction of Christianity<|ARGUMENT|>Time after time, the Catholic Church has narrowly escaped destruction and survived only because of popular support that defied the law of the land. It was Hernan Cortes who brought the Catholic Church to Mexico. Pope Alexander VI had ordered that natives of the new lands discovered by Columbus, be instructed in Catholicism for the ""salvation of their souls."" Cortes accepted this wholeheartedly and acted accordingly. He was also punctilious about christening women given to the Spaniards as slaves. It was forbidden for his men to have intercourse with any woman until she had been baptized. The woman who history calls La Malinche, baptized as Donna Marina, not only served Cortes as an interpreter and later, as his mistress. She became a fervent Christian, and according to Bernal Diaz, worked hard to convert her fellow Indians. Schools for Indians were founded, and now the true meaning of Christianity was made clear to those who had converted. There can be little doubt that the firm grip of Catholicism on Mexico can be traced back to the efforts of Archbishop Juan de Zumarraga. The Church, with government approval, would monitor the treatment of Indians. When the Spanish landowners foiled efforts to force them to grant Indians freedom, De Quiroga, started to set up monasteries and community centers in which Indian children could be educated. Manned by friars, they gave instruction in Christianity plus arts and crafts. The Catholic Church saved the Mexican people by treating them as human beings and giving them the chance to live as free people.<|TARGETS|>Pope Alexander VI, to have intercourse with any woman until she had been baptized ., Hernan Cortes, Cortes, Manned by friars, the firm grip of Catholicism on Mexico<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mexican culture was incurably damaged by the introduction of Christianity<|ARGUMENT|>Time after time, the Catholic Church has narrowly escaped destruction and survived only because of popular support that defied the law of the land. It was Hernan Cortes who brought the Catholic Church to Mexico. Pope Alexander VI had ordered that natives of the new lands discovered by Columbus, be instructed in Catholicism for the ""salvation of their souls."" Cortes accepted this wholeheartedly and acted accordingly. He was also punctilious about christening women given to the Spaniards as slaves. It was forbidden for his men to have intercourse with any woman until she had been baptized. The woman who history calls La Malinche, baptized as Donna Marina, not only served Cortes as an interpreter and later, as his mistress. She became a fervent Christian, and according to Bernal Diaz, worked hard to convert her fellow Indians. Schools for Indians were founded, and now the true meaning of Christianity was made clear to those who had converted. There can be little doubt that the firm grip of Catholicism on Mexico can be traced back to the efforts of Archbishop Juan de Zumarraga. The Church, with government approval, would monitor the treatment of Indians. When the Spanish landowners foiled efforts to force them to grant Indians freedom, De Quiroga, started to set up monasteries and community centers in which Indian children could be educated. Manned by friars, they gave instruction in Christianity plus arts and crafts. The Catholic Church saved the Mexican people by treating them as human beings and giving them the chance to live as free people.<|ASPECTS|>arts, catholicism, slaves, catholic church, monitor, community centers, saved, free people, salvation of their souls, indians freedom, human beings, meaning of christianity, instruction in christianity, convert, treatment of indians, educated, grip, escaped destruction, fervent christian, indian children, popular support, law of, church<|CONCLUSION|>","Time after time, the Catholic Church has narrowly escaped destruction and survived only because of popular support that defied the law of the land. It was Hernan Cortes who brought the Catholic Church to Mexico. Pope Alexander VI had ordered that natives of the new lands discovered by Columbus, be instructed in Catholicism for the ""salvation of their souls."" Cortes accepted this wholeheartedly and acted accordingly. He was also punctilious about christening women given to the Spaniards as slaves. It was forbidden for his men to have intercourse with any woman until she had been baptized. The woman who history calls La Malinche, baptized as Donna Marina, not only served Cortes as an interpreter and later, as his mistress. She became a fervent Christian, and according to Bernal Diaz, worked hard to convert her fellow Indians. Schools for Indians were founded, and now the true meaning of Christianity was made clear to those who had converted. There can be little doubt that the firm grip of Catholicism on Mexico can be traced back to the efforts of Archbishop Juan de Zumarraga. The Church, with government approval, would monitor the treatment of Indians. When the Spanish landowners foiled efforts to force them to grant Indians freedom, De Quiroga, started to set up monasteries and community centers in which Indian children could be educated. Manned by friars, they gave instruction in Christianity plus arts and crafts. The Catholic Church saved the Mexican people by treating them as human beings and giving them the chance to live as free people.",The Catholic Church saved the Mexican people by treating them as human beings and giving them the chance to live as free people.
"<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>Hotels are subject to external inspections to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. While the residents of apartment buildings can report their landlord for failing to ensure minimum standards of health and safety, the building is not subject to external inspections unless [requested](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>Hotels are subject to external inspections to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. While the residents of apartment buildings can report their landlord for failing to ensure minimum standards of health and safety, the building is not subject to external inspections unless [requested](<|TARGETS|>Hotels, the residents of apartment buildings<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>Hotels are subject to external inspections to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. While the residents of apartment buildings can report their landlord for failing to ensure minimum standards of health and safety, the building is not subject to external inspections unless [requested](<|ASPECTS|>government interference, internet communication, robust nature, defamatory posts<|CONCLUSION|>","Hotels are subject to external inspections to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. While the residents of apartment buildings can report their landlord for failing to ensure minimum standards of health and safety, the building is not subject to external inspections unless requested",Health and safety regulations are necessary to ensure the safety of residents.
"<|TOPIC|>Should life skills be taught in K12 school?<|ARGUMENT|>Many of the existing fields already cover things that are considered life skills - domestic science, or home economics, covers many life skills including nutrition, cooking and food safety, accounting covers budgeting, biology covers reproductive health etc. A specific life skills curriculum is not needed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should life skills be taught in K12 school?<|ARGUMENT|>Many of the existing fields already cover things that are considered life skills - domestic science, or home economics, covers many life skills including nutrition, cooking and food safety, accounting covers budgeting, biology covers reproductive health etc. A specific life skills curriculum is not needed.<|TARGETS|>A specific life skills curriculum<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should life skills be taught in K12 school?<|ARGUMENT|>Many of the existing fields already cover things that are considered life skills - domestic science, or home economics, covers many life skills including nutrition, cooking and food safety, accounting covers budgeting, biology covers reproductive health etc. A specific life skills curriculum is not needed.<|ASPECTS|>life skills, life skills curriculum, reproductive health<|CONCLUSION|>","Many of the existing fields already cover things that are considered life skills - domestic science, or home economics, covers many life skills including nutrition, cooking and food safety, accounting covers budgeting, biology covers reproductive health etc. A specific life skills curriculum is not needed.",Revamping the education system would be more hassle than it is worth to put in relevant courses.
<|TOPIC|>Is it Ok to incentivise moral behaviour?<|ARGUMENT|>Whistle-blowers often pay a high price for doing the right thing. This is very discouraging for other potential whistle-blowers. Compensation would mitigate this effect.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is it Ok to incentivise moral behaviour?<|ARGUMENT|>Whistle-blowers often pay a high price for doing the right thing. This is very discouraging for other potential whistle-blowers. Compensation would mitigate this effect.<|TARGETS|>Whistle-blowers, Compensation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is it Ok to incentivise moral behaviour?<|ARGUMENT|>Whistle-blowers often pay a high price for doing the right thing. This is very discouraging for other potential whistle-blowers. Compensation would mitigate this effect.<|ASPECTS|>price, discouraging<|CONCLUSION|>",Whistle-blowers often pay a high price for doing the right thing. This is very discouraging for other potential whistle-blowers. Compensation would mitigate this effect.,"If doing the right thing is costly, it would be good to compensate."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>ISIS exists under the banner of Islam, once ISIS is banned there is no limit to what you can ban in regard to the entire religion.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>ISIS exists under the banner of Islam, once ISIS is banned there is no limit to what you can ban in regard to the entire religion.<|TARGETS|>ISIS<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>ISIS exists under the banner of Islam, once ISIS is banned there is no limit to what you can ban in regard to the entire religion.<|ASPECTS|>islam<|CONCLUSION|>","ISIS exists under the banner of Islam, once ISIS is banned there is no limit to what you can ban in regard to the entire religion.",Fighting terrorists' Facebook and Twitter activities limits freedom of speech enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>""You have to have money to make money"". Have you ever tried to get a job with old, used clothes? Do you think a person can possibly be in equal terms with someone who can present himself without sacrificing the small amount of money one have to eat, when the person does have? Can a beggar stop being a beggar without any external force acting?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>""You have to have money to make money"". Have you ever tried to get a job with old, used clothes? Do you think a person can possibly be in equal terms with someone who can present himself without sacrificing the small amount of money one have to eat, when the person does have? Can a beggar stop being a beggar without any external force acting?<|TARGETS|>to have money to make money "" ., a beggar stop being a beggar without any external force acting, Have you ever tried to get a job with old used clothes, a person can possibly be in equal terms with someone who can present himself without sacrificing the small amount of money one have to eat when the person does have<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>""You have to have money to make money"". Have you ever tried to get a job with old, used clothes? Do you think a person can possibly be in equal terms with someone who can present himself without sacrificing the small amount of money one have to eat, when the person does have? Can a beggar stop being a beggar without any external force acting?<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>","""You have to have money to make money"". Have you ever tried to get a job with old, used clothes? Do you think a person can possibly be in equal terms with someone who can present himself without sacrificing the small amount of money one have to eat, when the person does have? Can a beggar stop being a beggar without any external force acting?","A basic income would provide a person with multiple chances to become financially literate. Currently, without affluent parents or any other sturdy safety net, one or two bad decisions or unlucky outcomes can be a slippery slope into debt and/or poverty."
"<|TOPIC|>Are Cryptocurrencies And Blockchain Technologies The Next 'Industrial Revolution'?<|ARGUMENT|>Before the speculative market, the black market and other anonymous transactions were the primary uses for BTC. However, the price of BTC has aligned with news that would be of interest to speculative investors. Good news results in a big rise in price, bad news with lower price. BTC is acting as a speculative market.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are Cryptocurrencies And Blockchain Technologies The Next 'Industrial Revolution'?<|ARGUMENT|>Before the speculative market, the black market and other anonymous transactions were the primary uses for BTC. However, the price of BTC has aligned with news that would be of interest to speculative investors. Good news results in a big rise in price, bad news with lower price. BTC is acting as a speculative market.<|TARGETS|>BTC, the price of BTC, the speculative market<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are Cryptocurrencies And Blockchain Technologies The Next 'Industrial Revolution'?<|ARGUMENT|>Before the speculative market, the black market and other anonymous transactions were the primary uses for BTC. However, the price of BTC has aligned with news that would be of interest to speculative investors. Good news results in a big rise in price, bad news with lower price. BTC is acting as a speculative market.<|ASPECTS|>price, investors, lower price, rise, black market, anonymous transactions, speculative market<|CONCLUSION|>","Before the speculative market, the black market and other anonymous transactions were the primary uses for BTC. However, the price of BTC has aligned with news that would be of interest to speculative investors. Good news results in a big rise in price, bad news with lower price. BTC is acting as a speculative market.",Bitcoin is based on credibility so we assign it actual value - some event or happening may remove the credibility thus removing the perceived value of bitcoins.
"<|TOPIC|>Is being asexual/aromantic inherently under the LGBT+ umbrella?<|ARGUMENT|>Some asexuals are not [invested]( in the general advancement of the LGBT+ community. Instead, they are focused solely on their own interests.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is being asexual/aromantic inherently under the LGBT+ umbrella?<|ARGUMENT|>Some asexuals are not [invested]( in the general advancement of the LGBT+ community. Instead, they are focused solely on their own interests.<|TARGETS|>Some asexuals<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is being asexual/aromantic inherently under the LGBT+ umbrella?<|ARGUMENT|>Some asexuals are not [invested]( in the general advancement of the LGBT+ community. Instead, they are focused solely on their own interests.<|ASPECTS|>discrimination, inequality<|CONCLUSION|>","Some asexuals are not invested in the general advancement of the LGBT+ community. Instead, they are focused solely on their own interests.",Many asexuals and aromantics do not support the LGBT community.
"<|TOPIC|>Is it Time to 'Free the Nipple'? Toplessness and Gender Equality in the US<|ARGUMENT|>'Nipple showing' as we currently know it hasn't created a culture whereby men feel pressured to expose their bodies. While everyone can feel insecure about exposing skin, 'freeing the nipple' does not seem to create a wave of nudists or a dramatic shift in what is considered normal. It's merely going to result in equality for males and females.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is it Time to 'Free the Nipple'? Toplessness and Gender Equality in the US<|ARGUMENT|>'Nipple showing' as we currently know it hasn't created a culture whereby men feel pressured to expose their bodies. While everyone can feel insecure about exposing skin, 'freeing the nipple' does not seem to create a wave of nudists or a dramatic shift in what is considered normal. It's merely going to result in equality for males and females.<|TARGETS|>freeing the nipple ', ' Nipple showing ' as we currently know it<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is it Time to 'Free the Nipple'? Toplessness and Gender Equality in the US<|ARGUMENT|>'Nipple showing' as we currently know it hasn't created a culture whereby men feel pressured to expose their bodies. While everyone can feel insecure about exposing skin, 'freeing the nipple' does not seem to create a wave of nudists or a dramatic shift in what is considered normal. It's merely going to result in equality for males and females.<|ASPECTS|>normal, equality for males, expose their bodies, insecure, nudists<|CONCLUSION|>","'Nipple showing' as we currently know it hasn't created a culture whereby men feel pressured to expose their bodies. While everyone can feel insecure about exposing skin, 'freeing the nipple' does not seem to create a wave of nudists or a dramatic shift in what is considered normal. It's merely going to result in equality for males and females.",Having the right to go topless in public doesn't imply that women will be tempted to do so in greater numbers or at greater frequency.
<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>The same holds true with someone from the majority who has a politically incorrect idea. Peer pressure exists in every society and it effects everyone.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>The same holds true with someone from the majority who has a politically incorrect idea. Peer pressure exists in every society and it effects everyone.<|TARGETS|>Peer pressure<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>The same holds true with someone from the majority who has a politically incorrect idea. Peer pressure exists in every society and it effects everyone.<|ASPECTS|>public, popular opinions, built for everyone, political correctness<|CONCLUSION|>",The same holds true with someone from the majority who has a politically incorrect idea. Peer pressure exists in every society and it effects everyone.,Political correctness deals in a lot in ideals. A minority who holds a politically incorrect idea will be an outcast among outcasts.
"<|TOPIC|>Should higher education be publicly funded?<|ARGUMENT|>Publicly funded higher education is essential if we are going to have a fair and equal society, where children from a higher class background doesn't have more opportunity through the education system.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should higher education be publicly funded?<|ARGUMENT|>Publicly funded higher education is essential if we are going to have a fair and equal society, where children from a higher class background doesn't have more opportunity through the education system.<|TARGETS|>Publicly funded higher education<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should higher education be publicly funded?<|ARGUMENT|>Publicly funded higher education is essential if we are going to have a fair and equal society, where children from a higher class background doesn't have more opportunity through the education system.<|ASPECTS|>opportunity, class, fair and equal society<|CONCLUSION|>","Publicly funded higher education is essential if we are going to have a fair and equal society, where children from a higher class background doesn't have more opportunity through the education system.",Publicly funded schooling would give equal access to education and makes for a more fair and equal society.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the U.S. increase the quota of H-1B visas?<|ARGUMENT|>By adding the supply of skilled workers could lower their salary. Since every H-1B worker creates four new jobs,the request for such somewhat un-quailefied but necessary workers would reduce their wages.This,meaning if a company provides $25 an hour to their workers and has 50 workers,but then gets 15 new workers,the company will have to decrease the amount of what all the workers get paid.The output will be that workers quit because of the low expense pay.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the U.S. increase the quota of H-1B visas?<|ARGUMENT|>By adding the supply of skilled workers could lower their salary. Since every H-1B worker creates four new jobs,the request for such somewhat un-quailefied but necessary workers would reduce their wages.This,meaning if a company provides $25 an hour to their workers and has 50 workers,but then gets 15 new workers,the company will have to decrease the amount of what all the workers get paid.The output will be that workers quit because of the low expense pay.<|TARGETS|>every H-1B worker<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the U.S. increase the quota of H-1B visas?<|ARGUMENT|>By adding the supply of skilled workers could lower their salary. Since every H-1B worker creates four new jobs,the request for such somewhat un-quailefied but necessary workers would reduce their wages.This,meaning if a company provides $25 an hour to their workers and has 50 workers,but then gets 15 new workers,the company will have to decrease the amount of what all the workers get paid.The output will be that workers quit because of the low expense pay.<|ASPECTS|>low, quit, lower, reduce, expense pay, un-quailefied, supply, skilled workers, wages.this, salary<|CONCLUSION|>","By adding the supply of skilled workers could lower their salary. Since every H-1B worker creates four new jobs,the request for such somewhat un-quailefied but necessary workers would reduce their wages.This,meaning if a company provides $25 an hour to their workers and has 50 workers,but then gets 15 new workers,the company will have to decrease the amount of what all the workers get paid.The output will be that workers quit because of the low expense pay.","When companies cannot hire as many highly skilled workers as they need, competition drives wages up, so raising the visa cap may indeed cause the wages of some Americans to fall or stagnate. Source"
<|TOPIC|>Should Religions Receive Public Funding?<|ARGUMENT|>A [meta-analysis of 90 studies]( found that students at faith-based schools scored 11 percentile points higher on standardized tests on average than their peers at traditional public and charter schools. The researchers also concluded that students at faith-based schools had fewer behavioral issues.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Religions Receive Public Funding?<|ARGUMENT|>A [meta-analysis of 90 studies]( found that students at faith-based schools scored 11 percentile points higher on standardized tests on average than their peers at traditional public and charter schools. The researchers also concluded that students at faith-based schools had fewer behavioral issues.<|TARGETS|>The researchers, A meta-analysis of 90 studies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Religions Receive Public Funding?<|ARGUMENT|>A [meta-analysis of 90 studies]( found that students at faith-based schools scored 11 percentile points higher on standardized tests on average than their peers at traditional public and charter schools. The researchers also concluded that students at faith-based schools had fewer behavioral issues.<|ASPECTS|>standardized tests, behavioral issues, faith-based<|CONCLUSION|>",A meta-analysis of 90 studies found that students at faith-based schools scored 11 percentile points higher on standardized tests on average than their peers at traditional public and charter schools. The researchers also concluded that students at faith-based schools had fewer behavioral issues.,"Religious schools provide valuable education to many children in society; without state assistance, some of these children will lose out on such education."
"<|TOPIC|>the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children's school attendance records<|ARGUMENT|>This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, ""The School Breakfast Program"",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), ""Hunger in America: Key Facts"", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, ""Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger"", [Accessed July 21, 2011].<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children's school attendance records<|ARGUMENT|>This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, ""The School Breakfast Program"",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), ""Hunger in America: Key Facts"", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, ""Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger"", [Accessed July 21, 2011].<|TARGETS|>Cutting benefits, subsidizing school supplies, Free breakfast programs, Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children's school attendance records<|ARGUMENT|>This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, ""The School Breakfast Program"",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), ""Hunger in America: Key Facts"", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, ""Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger"", [Accessed July 21, 2011].<|ASPECTS|>free breakfast, hurt the children, extreme, children, good grades, hurts, good attendance records, cost of school, resources, subsidizing school supplies, benefits, poverty, hungry, deprived, hunger, rewards, confused<|CONCLUSION|>","This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, ""The School Breakfast Program"",Accessed July 21, 2011. 2 Feeding America 2010, ""Hunger in America: Key Facts"", Accessed July 21, 2011. and UNICEF, ""Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger"", Accessed July 21, 2011.","There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend."
"<|TOPIC|>Should There Be a Global Evaluation/Rating System for Students' Performances?<|ARGUMENT|>Certain subjects are more likely to be favoured in other countries, too; all countries have controversy over subjects like bible studies, which would be even worse translated to a global scale.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There Be a Global Evaluation/Rating System for Students' Performances?<|ARGUMENT|>Certain subjects are more likely to be favoured in other countries, too; all countries have controversy over subjects like bible studies, which would be even worse translated to a global scale.<|TARGETS|>all countries have controversy over subjects like bible studies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There Be a Global Evaluation/Rating System for Students' Performances?<|ARGUMENT|>Certain subjects are more likely to be favoured in other countries, too; all countries have controversy over subjects like bible studies, which would be even worse translated to a global scale.<|ASPECTS|>academic progress, less well-rounded, pastoral care<|CONCLUSION|>","Certain subjects are more likely to be favoured in other countries, too; all countries have controversy over subjects like bible studies, which would be even worse translated to a global scale.",Educational possibilities differ from nation to nation still favoring wealthy countries.
"<|TOPIC|>Banning cell phones in cars<|ARGUMENT|>Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. ""Ban Cell Phones In Cars?"". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - ""Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Banning cell phones in cars<|ARGUMENT|>Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. ""Ban Cell Phones In Cars?"". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - ""Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents.""<|TARGETS|>whether cell phone use while driving, vehicular cell phone use, the 41000 annual deaths from car accidents, Ban Cell Phones In Cars, that car accidents associated with phone use, Paul Tetlock<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Banning cell phones in cars<|ARGUMENT|>Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. ""Ban Cell Phones In Cars?"". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - ""Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents.""<|ASPECTS|>cell phone risks, risk, losses, ban cell phones, injured parties, government, premiums, higher premiums, higher-risk, problem<|CONCLUSION|>","Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. ""Ban Cell Phones In Cars?"". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - ""Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents.""",Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents
"<|TOPIC|>Impeachment proceedings won't hurt Dems, and do NOT help GOP in 2020.<|ARGUMENT|>From August to October 2019, the percentage of the American public who want Congress to try and impeach Trump has [increased]( from 35% to 44%.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Impeachment proceedings won't hurt Dems, and do NOT help GOP in 2020.<|ARGUMENT|>From August to October 2019, the percentage of the American public who want Congress to try and impeach Trump has [increased]( from 35% to 44%.<|TARGETS|>Congress to try and impeach Trump<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Impeachment proceedings won't hurt Dems, and do NOT help GOP in 2020.<|ARGUMENT|>From August to October 2019, the percentage of the American public who want Congress to try and impeach Trump has [increased]( from 35% to 44%.<|ASPECTS|>impeach<|CONCLUSION|>","From August to October 2019, the percentage of the American public who want Congress to try and impeach Trump has increased from 35% to 44%.",Recent polls have shown a clear and significant increase in the public's support for impeachment.
<|TOPIC|>Should Parliamentary Systems Enforce Proportional Representation?<|ARGUMENT|>A [study]( has found that multiparty coalition governments tend to have higher degrees of stability and less policy change.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Parliamentary Systems Enforce Proportional Representation?<|ARGUMENT|>A [study]( has found that multiparty coalition governments tend to have higher degrees of stability and less policy change.<|TARGETS|>multiparty coalition governments<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Parliamentary Systems Enforce Proportional Representation?<|ARGUMENT|>A [study]( has found that multiparty coalition governments tend to have higher degrees of stability and less policy change.<|ASPECTS|>failures, vulnerable, blame game politics<|CONCLUSION|>",A study has found that multiparty coalition governments tend to have higher degrees of stability and less policy change.,Proportional representation systems lead to more stable governments by virtue of coalition governments being formed.
"<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>There is something sad when you see people enjoying the torture an death of an animal. Even if its prettied up with music, sun, sangria, beautiful colors and a pasodoble played by the band. To kill an animal for pleasure, art or joy makes us less humans.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>There is something sad when you see people enjoying the torture an death of an animal. Even if its prettied up with music, sun, sangria, beautiful colors and a pasodoble played by the band. To kill an animal for pleasure, art or joy makes us less humans.<|TARGETS|>To kill an animal for pleasure art or joy, the torture an death of an animal .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>There is something sad when you see people enjoying the torture an death of an animal. Even if its prettied up with music, sun, sangria, beautiful colors and a pasodoble played by the band. To kill an animal for pleasure, art or joy makes us less humans.<|ASPECTS|>beautiful colors, less humans<|CONCLUSION|>","There is something sad when you see people enjoying the torture an death of an animal. Even if its prettied up with music, sun, sangria, beautiful colors and a pasodoble played by the band. To kill an animal for pleasure, art or joy makes us less humans.","The public celebration of cruelty, violence and death normalises these things in society."
"<|TOPIC|>Should unpaid internships be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>In the United States there is ""[substantial confusion]( around what types of internships must be paid.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should unpaid internships be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>In the United States there is ""[substantial confusion]( around what types of internships must be paid.<|TARGETS|>what types of internships<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should unpaid internships be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>In the United States there is ""[substantial confusion]( around what types of internships must be paid.<|ASPECTS|>similar, benefit, displaces regular employees<|CONCLUSION|>","In the United States there is ""substantial confusion around what types of internships must be paid.",In many countries the test for what constitutes an internship can be vague or confusing.
"<|TOPIC|>North Korea should not give up its nuclear weapons for its national security.<|ARGUMENT|>In 2013, Korean Central News Agency said in its commentary that the [North Korea's underground nuclear test]( was an unavoidable just option to protect the sovereignty and dignity of the country and nation from the ceaseless nuclear threats of the U.S. technically at war with it.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>North Korea should not give up its nuclear weapons for its national security.<|ARGUMENT|>In 2013, Korean Central News Agency said in its commentary that the [North Korea's underground nuclear test]( was an unavoidable just option to protect the sovereignty and dignity of the country and nation from the ceaseless nuclear threats of the U.S. technically at war with it.<|TARGETS|>North Korea 's underground nuclear test<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>North Korea should not give up its nuclear weapons for its national security.<|ARGUMENT|>In 2013, Korean Central News Agency said in its commentary that the [North Korea's underground nuclear test]( was an unavoidable just option to protect the sovereignty and dignity of the country and nation from the ceaseless nuclear threats of the U.S. technically at war with it.<|ASPECTS|>sovereignty, nuclear threats, dignity<|CONCLUSION|>","In 2013, Korean Central News Agency said in its commentary that the North Korea's underground nuclear test was an unavoidable just option to protect the sovereignty and dignity of the country and nation from the ceaseless nuclear threats of the U.S. technically at war with it.",North Korea has been intimidated by other countries threatening to attack it with nuclear weapons.
<|TOPIC|>Should there be one World Government?<|ARGUMENT|>A single world government would have the ability to optimally allocate and coordinate all scientific and technological resources.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should there be one World Government?<|ARGUMENT|>A single world government would have the ability to optimally allocate and coordinate all scientific and technological resources.<|TARGETS|>A single world government<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should there be one World Government?<|ARGUMENT|>A single world government would have the ability to optimally allocate and coordinate all scientific and technological resources.<|ASPECTS|>scientific and technological resources, coordinate, optimally allocate<|CONCLUSION|>",A single world government would have the ability to optimally allocate and coordinate all scientific and technological resources.,The creation of this state would lead to incredible advancements in science and technology.
"<|TOPIC|>Does Hell Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Science can not directly on a local level observe the past, future, consciousness or other dimensions \(if they exist\).<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does Hell Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Science can not directly on a local level observe the past, future, consciousness or other dimensions \(if they exist\).<|TARGETS|>Science<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does Hell Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Science can not directly on a local level observe the past, future, consciousness or other dimensions \(if they exist\).<|ASPECTS|>sin, god could, 's, god<|CONCLUSION|>","Science can not directly on a local level observe the past, future, consciousness or other dimensions if they exist.",The existence or non-existence of Hell is beyond the realms of science to investigate.
<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>Child prostitution has dramatically risen in [Victoria]( compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>Child prostitution has dramatically risen in [Victoria]( compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized.<|TARGETS|>Child prostitution<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>Child prostitution has dramatically risen in [Victoria]( compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized.<|ASPECTS|>rates, coercive behavior, sex work increase<|CONCLUSION|>",Child prostitution has dramatically risen in Victoria compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized.,Legalizing sex work has been shown to increase child sex work.
"<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>A baby/fetus cannot legitimately express a desire to be aborted. If it could, it is unlikely that a fetus would reject its own life.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>A baby/fetus cannot legitimately express a desire to be aborted. If it could, it is unlikely that a fetus would reject its own life.<|TARGETS|>A baby / fetus<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>A baby/fetus cannot legitimately express a desire to be aborted. If it could, it is unlikely that a fetus would reject its own life.<|ASPECTS|>reject its own life, desire, aborted<|CONCLUSION|>","A baby/fetus cannot legitimately express a desire to be aborted. If it could, it is unlikely that a fetus would reject its own life.","Choosing euthanasia ends only the choosers life. Choosing an abortion ends only the life of the child, not the person doing the choosing."
"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Many economists have suggested revenue neutral workable UBI plans that are affordable. For example, the [FairTax version of UBI]( has been studied by economists at the beacon hill institute and in-house economists with various government institutions and concluded that it would be able to cover 30% of the needs at the poverty level with no change to existing welfare programs. If we further assume that some portion of existing welfare programs would be reallocated, that percentage increases.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Many economists have suggested revenue neutral workable UBI plans that are affordable. For example, the [FairTax version of UBI]( has been studied by economists at the beacon hill institute and in-house economists with various government institutions and concluded that it would be able to cover 30% of the needs at the poverty level with no change to existing welfare programs. If we further assume that some portion of existing welfare programs would be reallocated, that percentage increases.<|TARGETS|>the FairTax version of UBI, If we further assume that some portion of existing welfare programs, revenue neutral workable UBI plans<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Many economists have suggested revenue neutral workable UBI plans that are affordable. For example, the [FairTax version of UBI]( has been studied by economists at the beacon hill institute and in-house economists with various government institutions and concluded that it would be able to cover 30% of the needs at the poverty level with no change to existing welfare programs. If we further assume that some portion of existing welfare programs would be reallocated, that percentage increases.<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>","Many economists have suggested revenue neutral workable UBI plans that are affordable. For example, the FairTax version of UBI has been studied by economists at the beacon hill institute and in-house economists with various government institutions and concluded that it would be able to cover 30% of the needs at the poverty level with no change to existing welfare programs. If we further assume that some portion of existing welfare programs would be reallocated, that percentage increases.","A UBI would enable other forms of revenue collection that could help offset its cost. Hence, it would be partially self-funded, so it can be affordable."
"<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Songs and their lyrics have often been used to promote nationalism, with [Nazism]( being an example of a nationalist movement using songs in this way.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Songs and their lyrics have often been used to promote nationalism, with [Nazism]( being an example of a nationalist movement using songs in this way.<|TARGETS|>Songs and their lyrics<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Songs and their lyrics have often been used to promote nationalism, with [Nazism]( being an example of a nationalist movement using songs in this way.<|ASPECTS|>authentic representation, homophobic slurs<|CONCLUSION|>","Songs and their lyrics have often been used to promote nationalism, with Nazism being an example of a nationalist movement using songs in this way.","If lyrics can be used to raise awareness of social justice issues, it is likely they could be used to promote other ideas."
"<|TOPIC|>Promote Safe Sex through Education at Schools<|ARGUMENT|>The internet provides a vast amount of easily accessible information about sex, of varying degrees of quality. Most children in the west now have access to the internet and are therefore likely to have access to this information on sex, or at least educational materials on sex even if the child’s access to the internet is controlled. Given that it is impossible to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want to, it makes sense to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion. Rather than allowing children to find information on their own through what may well be unreliable resources it is necessary that they should get good reliable information. That this information when there is safe sex education comes from the school means that the children know that they information is reliable. They can then use this information to help them decide how reliable any further information they may find from other sources is.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Promote Safe Sex through Education at Schools<|ARGUMENT|>The internet provides a vast amount of easily accessible information about sex, of varying degrees of quality. Most children in the west now have access to the internet and are therefore likely to have access to this information on sex, or at least educational materials on sex even if the child’s access to the internet is controlled. Given that it is impossible to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want to, it makes sense to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion. Rather than allowing children to find information on their own through what may well be unreliable resources it is necessary that they should get good reliable information. That this information when there is safe sex education comes from the school means that the children know that they information is reliable. They can then use this information to help them decide how reliable any further information they may find from other sources is.<|TARGETS|>allowing children to find information on their own through what, The internet, to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want to, to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion ., That this information when there is safe sex education, this information to help them decide how reliable any further information they may find from other sources<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Promote Safe Sex through Education at Schools<|ARGUMENT|>The internet provides a vast amount of easily accessible information about sex, of varying degrees of quality. Most children in the west now have access to the internet and are therefore likely to have access to this information on sex, or at least educational materials on sex even if the child’s access to the internet is controlled. Given that it is impossible to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want to, it makes sense to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion. Rather than allowing children to find information on their own through what may well be unreliable resources it is necessary that they should get good reliable information. That this information when there is safe sex education comes from the school means that the children know that they information is reliable. They can then use this information to help them decide how reliable any further information they may find from other sources is.<|ASPECTS|>quality, easily accessible information, sex, reliable information, information, reliable, unreliable, safe sex education, educational materials, accurate<|CONCLUSION|>","The internet provides a vast amount of easily accessible information about sex, of varying degrees of quality. Most children in the west now have access to the internet and are therefore likely to have access to this information on sex, or at least educational materials on sex even if the child’s access to the internet is controlled. Given that it is impossible to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want to, it makes sense to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion. Rather than allowing children to find information on their own through what may well be unreliable resources it is necessary that they should get good reliable information. That this information when there is safe sex education comes from the school means that the children know that they information is reliable. They can then use this information to help them decide how reliable any further information they may find from other sources is.",The information age makes attempting to hide information on sex impossible
<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>The oppressive nature of the N-word towards black people can make black teachers feel disempowered when dealing with it in class.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>The oppressive nature of the N-word towards black people can make black teachers feel disempowered when dealing with it in class.<|TARGETS|>The oppressive nature of the N-word towards black people<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>The oppressive nature of the N-word towards black people can make black teachers feel disempowered when dealing with it in class.<|ASPECTS|>present, moral center<|CONCLUSION|>",The oppressive nature of the N-word towards black people can make black teachers feel disempowered when dealing with it in class.,Black teachers in particular might feel uncomfortable when dealing with the N-word and reading it aloud.
"<|TOPIC|>Should we have a single global language?<|ARGUMENT|>All people will be able to understand each other and able to exchange with each other. This will not create groups of people who find it difficult to talk to other groups of people, because they have to learn a language first.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we have a single global language?<|ARGUMENT|>All people will be able to understand each other and able to exchange with each other. This will not create groups of people who find it difficult to talk to other groups of people, because they have to learn a language first.<|TARGETS|>to talk to other groups of people, to understand each other and able to exchange with each other ., to learn a language first .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we have a single global language?<|ARGUMENT|>All people will be able to understand each other and able to exchange with each other. This will not create groups of people who find it difficult to talk to other groups of people, because they have to learn a language first.<|ASPECTS|>exchange with, learn, difficult to talk, understand each<|CONCLUSION|>","All people will be able to understand each other and able to exchange with each other. This will not create groups of people who find it difficult to talk to other groups of people, because they have to learn a language first.","With one global language, people will be able to communicate with each other regardless of their area."
<|TOPIC|>Does Marriage Equality Mean Eliminating Marriage Licenses And Tax Deductions?<|ARGUMENT|>The largest reason state governments have to require marriage licenses is for tax purposes. Eliminating special treatment of married couples in the tax code removes a huge portion of the reasoning behind licenses.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does Marriage Equality Mean Eliminating Marriage Licenses And Tax Deductions?<|ARGUMENT|>The largest reason state governments have to require marriage licenses is for tax purposes. Eliminating special treatment of married couples in the tax code removes a huge portion of the reasoning behind licenses.<|TARGETS|>state governments have to require marriage licenses, Eliminating special treatment of married couples in the tax code<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does Marriage Equality Mean Eliminating Marriage Licenses And Tax Deductions?<|ARGUMENT|>The largest reason state governments have to require marriage licenses is for tax purposes. Eliminating special treatment of married couples in the tax code removes a huge portion of the reasoning behind licenses.<|ASPECTS|>tax purposes, reasoning, special treatment of married couples<|CONCLUSION|>",The largest reason state governments have to require marriage licenses is for tax purposes. Eliminating special treatment of married couples in the tax code removes a huge portion of the reasoning behind licenses.,Marriage equality means eliminating marriage licenses and special tax deductions for married couples.
"<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Loving your neighbor as yourself is the second most important commandment, as stated by Jesus \(mark 12:31\). At a different time, Jesus elaborated on who your neighbor is by telling the parable of the good Samaritan \(luke 10:25-37\), which when summed up states that everyone, even those you hate, are considered your neighbor and you should treat as yourself.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Loving your neighbor as yourself is the second most important commandment, as stated by Jesus \(mark 12:31\). At a different time, Jesus elaborated on who your neighbor is by telling the parable of the good Samaritan \(luke 10:25-37\), which when summed up states that everyone, even those you hate, are considered your neighbor and you should treat as yourself.<|TARGETS|>Loving your neighbor as yourself, Jesus elaborated on who your neighbor is by telling the parable of the good Samaritan luke 10:25-37 which when summed up states that everyone even those you hate are considered your neighbor and you should treat as yourself .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Loving your neighbor as yourself is the second most important commandment, as stated by Jesus \(mark 12:31\). At a different time, Jesus elaborated on who your neighbor is by telling the parable of the good Samaritan \(luke 10:25-37\), which when summed up states that everyone, even those you hate, are considered your neighbor and you should treat as yourself.<|ASPECTS|>lean machine, expenditure<|CONCLUSION|>","Loving your neighbor as yourself is the second most important commandment, as stated by Jesus mark 12:31. At a different time, Jesus elaborated on who your neighbor is by telling the parable of the good Samaritan luke 10:25-37, which when summed up states that everyone, even those you hate, are considered your neighbor and you should treat as yourself.",Christianity embraced the peaceful coexistence among believers and non-believers and therewith enhanced peaceful multiculturalism in European societies.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Darwinian Evolution Philosophy or Science?<|ARGUMENT|>Science deals with what we can test and observe. If I come up with a theory that theory, however well grounded in sound reason, still must be tested in order for it to be accepted as scientific fact. Einstein would not be the genius that we regard him as today if his theories of gravity affecting the path of light or time dilation were never observed. His theories would have died.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Darwinian Evolution Philosophy or Science?<|ARGUMENT|>Science deals with what we can test and observe. If I come up with a theory that theory, however well grounded in sound reason, still must be tested in order for it to be accepted as scientific fact. Einstein would not be the genius that we regard him as today if his theories of gravity affecting the path of light or time dilation were never observed. His theories would have died.<|TARGETS|>Science, if his theories of gravity affecting the path of light or time dilation, Einstein, If I come up with a theory that theory however well grounded in sound reason<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Darwinian Evolution Philosophy or Science?<|ARGUMENT|>Science deals with what we can test and observe. If I come up with a theory that theory, however well grounded in sound reason, still must be tested in order for it to be accepted as scientific fact. Einstein would not be the genius that we regard him as today if his theories of gravity affecting the path of light or time dilation were never observed. His theories would have died.<|ASPECTS|>time dilation, gravity, sound reason, died, test and observe, scientific fact, theories<|CONCLUSION|>","Science deals with what we can test and observe. If I come up with a theory that theory, however well grounded in sound reason, still must be tested in order for it to be accepted as scientific fact. Einstein would not be the genius that we regard him as today if his theories of gravity affecting the path of light or time dilation were never observed. His theories would have died.",Unobserved events with no experimental backup are only philosophical ideas.
<|TOPIC|>Do we need nuclear power for sustainable energy production?<|ARGUMENT|>Utility scale renewables now cost less per KWH over a 20 year life cycle than any other means of power production. Costs continue to drop 10%-20%+ per year.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Do we need nuclear power for sustainable energy production?<|ARGUMENT|>Utility scale renewables now cost less per KWH over a 20 year life cycle than any other means of power production. Costs continue to drop 10%-20%+ per year.<|TARGETS|>Utility scale renewables<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Do we need nuclear power for sustainable energy production?<|ARGUMENT|>Utility scale renewables now cost less per KWH over a 20 year life cycle than any other means of power production. Costs continue to drop 10%-20%+ per year.<|ASPECTS|>costs, cost less, scale renewables<|CONCLUSION|>",Utility scale renewables now cost less per KWH over a 20 year life cycle than any other means of power production. Costs continue to drop 10%-20%+ per year.,Nuclear fission is economically obsolete. Comparative Costs per Megawatt Hour
"<|TOPIC|>US Customs and Immigrations Enforcement  should be investigated for crimes against humanity<|ARGUMENT|>The doctrine of sovereign immunity is inconsistent with the more important constitutional principles of the rule of law and the supremacy of the US Constitution \([Chemerinsky, p. 1211-1216](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>US Customs and Immigrations Enforcement  should be investigated for crimes against humanity<|ARGUMENT|>The doctrine of sovereign immunity is inconsistent with the more important constitutional principles of the rule of law and the supremacy of the US Constitution \([Chemerinsky, p. 1211-1216](<|TARGETS|>The doctrine of sovereign immunity<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>US Customs and Immigrations Enforcement  should be investigated for crimes against humanity<|ARGUMENT|>The doctrine of sovereign immunity is inconsistent with the more important constitutional principles of the rule of law and the supremacy of the US Constitution \([Chemerinsky, p. 1211-1216](<|ASPECTS|>sovereign immunity, constitution, constitutional principles<|CONCLUSION|>","The doctrine of sovereign immunity is inconsistent with the more important constitutional principles of the rule of law and the supremacy of the US Constitution Chemerinsky, p. 1211-1216",The doctrine of sovereign immunity can itself be called into question.
"<|TOPIC|>Mission to the Moon or Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>Buzz Aldrin. ""Commentary: Let's aim for Mars"". CNN. June 23, 2009: ""Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of [.] how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape. By exploring and understanding Mars, we may gain key insights into the past and future of our own world.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mission to the Moon or Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>Buzz Aldrin. ""Commentary: Let's aim for Mars"". CNN. June 23, 2009: ""Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of [.] how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape. By exploring and understanding Mars, we may gain key insights into the past and future of our own world.""<|TARGETS|>Exploring and colonizing Mars, Buzz Aldrin, how planet-wide processes, Commentary, CNN<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mission to the Moon or Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>Buzz Aldrin. ""Commentary: Let's aim for Mars"". CNN. June 23, 2009: ""Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of [.] how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape. By exploring and understanding Mars, we may gain key insights into the past and future of our own world.""<|ASPECTS|>aim for mars, past, future, insights, planet-wide processes, scientific understanding, warm and wet world, barren landscape<|CONCLUSION|>","Buzz Aldrin. ""Commentary: Let's aim for Mars"". CNN. June 23, 2009: ""Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of . how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape. By exploring and understanding Mars, we may gain key insights into the past and future of our own world.""",Mars mission would reveal much about Earth's history/future.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Turkey Be Accepted In The EU<|ARGUMENT|>Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its recent election of a party with islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). Turkey’s human rights record is also improving rapidly, with the recent abolition of the death penalty and the removal of some restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. These advances have been prompted by the improved prospect of EU entry if Turkey conforms to 'democratic norms', and this process is sure to continue to the benefit of both Turkish citizens and the EU if accession is offered in good faith.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Turkey Be Accepted In The EU<|ARGUMENT|>Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its recent election of a party with islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). Turkey’s human rights record is also improving rapidly, with the recent abolition of the death penalty and the removal of some restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. These advances have been prompted by the improved prospect of EU entry if Turkey conforms to 'democratic norms', and this process is sure to continue to the benefit of both Turkish citizens and the EU if accession is offered in good faith.<|TARGETS|>Its recent election of a party with islamist roots, Turkey, Turkey ’s human rights record<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Turkey Be Accepted In The EU<|ARGUMENT|>Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its recent election of a party with islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). Turkey’s human rights record is also improving rapidly, with the recent abolition of the death penalty and the removal of some restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. These advances have been prompted by the improved prospect of EU entry if Turkey conforms to 'democratic norms', and this process is sure to continue to the benefit of both Turkish citizens and the EU if accession is offered in good faith.<|ASPECTS|>kurdish language, human rights record, democratic elections, prospect, norms, eu entry, history, intervention, secularist military, smooth transfer of power, islamist roots, death penalty<|CONCLUSION|>","Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its recent election of a party with islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military as in the past. Turkey’s human rights record is also improving rapidly, with the recent abolition of the death penalty and the removal of some restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. These advances have been prompted by the improved prospect of EU entry if Turkey conforms to 'democratic norms', and this process is sure to continue to the benefit of both Turkish citizens and the EU if accession is offered in good faith.",Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states.
"<|TOPIC|>The European Union should become a United States of Europe<|ARGUMENT|>The USE would be in a stronger position than in the current system to design a humane and equitable joint immigration policy, one that serves migrants' interests, as well as those of the countries that welcome them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The European Union should become a United States of Europe<|ARGUMENT|>The USE would be in a stronger position than in the current system to design a humane and equitable joint immigration policy, one that serves migrants' interests, as well as those of the countries that welcome them.<|TARGETS|>The USE<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The European Union should become a United States of Europe<|ARGUMENT|>The USE would be in a stronger position than in the current system to design a humane and equitable joint immigration policy, one that serves migrants' interests, as well as those of the countries that welcome them.<|ASPECTS|>assertive, benefit, foreign and defense policy<|CONCLUSION|>","The USE would be in a stronger position than in the current system to design a humane and equitable joint immigration policy, one that serves migrants' interests, as well as those of the countries that welcome them.","USE as a single entity could define tailor-made policies for regions that do not necessarily belong to the same nation today, but share the same conditions/needs."
<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Those who serve in the military could ultimately lose their life or sustain serious injuries as a result of their service.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Those who serve in the military could ultimately lose their life or sustain serious injuries as a result of their service.<|TARGETS|>Those who serve in the military<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>Those who serve in the military could ultimately lose their life or sustain serious injuries as a result of their service.<|ASPECTS|>duty, international law and thinking, right, rights<|CONCLUSION|>",Those who serve in the military could ultimately lose their life or sustain serious injuries as a result of their service.,Conscription infringes on an individual's right to consent to potential bodily harm.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Turkey be part of the European Union?<|ARGUMENT|>[Jean-Claude Juncker]( President of the [European Commission]( has [stated]( that ""a government that blocks Twitter is certainly not ready for accession"".<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Turkey be part of the European Union?<|ARGUMENT|>[Jean-Claude Juncker]( President of the [European Commission]( has [stated]( that ""a government that blocks Twitter is certainly not ready for accession"".<|TARGETS|>a government that blocks Twitter, Jean-Claude Juncker President of the European Commission<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Turkey be part of the European Union?<|ARGUMENT|>[Jean-Claude Juncker]( President of the [European Commission]( has [stated]( that ""a government that blocks Twitter is certainly not ready for accession"".<|ASPECTS|>accession<|CONCLUSION|>","Jean-Claude Juncker President of the European Commission has stated that ""a government that blocks Twitter is certainly not ready for accession"".",Turkey blocked access to Twitter in 2014 following leaks which allegedly showed evidence of corruption relating to Erdogan.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Internet access a human right?<|ARGUMENT|>Matt Asay. ""Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?"" CNET. May 6th, 2009: ""The Western world is big on rights these days, and seems to forget its responsibilities. Indeed, the interesting thing about the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is that they mostly involve keeping government out of the lives of citizens, whereas these new government-granted rights do the opposite: they beg government to get deeply involved with citizens' lives through taxes and regulation.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Internet access a human right?<|ARGUMENT|>Matt Asay. ""Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?"" CNET. May 6th, 2009: ""The Western world is big on rights these days, and seems to forget its responsibilities. Indeed, the interesting thing about the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is that they mostly involve keeping government out of the lives of citizens, whereas these new government-granted rights do the opposite: they beg government to get deeply involved with citizens' lives through taxes and regulation.""<|TARGETS|>CNET, to get deeply involved with citizens' lives through taxes and regulation, Internet access, the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, Matt Asay<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Internet access a human right?<|ARGUMENT|>Matt Asay. ""Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?"" CNET. May 6th, 2009: ""The Western world is big on rights these days, and seems to forget its responsibilities. Indeed, the interesting thing about the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is that they mostly involve keeping government out of the lives of citizens, whereas these new government-granted rights do the opposite: they beg government to get deeply involved with citizens' lives through taxes and regulation.""<|ASPECTS|>taxes, regulation, rights, government, right, lives, responsibilities, fundamental rights<|CONCLUSION|>","Matt Asay. ""Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?"" CNET. May 6th, 2009: ""The Western world is big on rights these days, and seems to forget its responsibilities. Indeed, the interesting thing about the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is that they mostly involve keeping government out of the lives of citizens, whereas these new government-granted rights do the opposite: they beg government to get deeply involved with citizens' lives through taxes and regulation.""","Rights are things govts can't take, not things they must give"
"<|TOPIC|>Should the United States attack Iran?<|ARGUMENT|>Iran signed the ""Iran Nuclear Deal"" \([JCPOA]( with [inspections]( successfully ensuring uranium enrichment was only for peaceful purposes.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the United States attack Iran?<|ARGUMENT|>Iran signed the ""Iran Nuclear Deal"" \([JCPOA]( with [inspections]( successfully ensuring uranium enrichment was only for peaceful purposes.<|TARGETS|>Iran<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the United States attack Iran?<|ARGUMENT|>Iran signed the ""Iran Nuclear Deal"" \([JCPOA]( with [inspections]( successfully ensuring uranium enrichment was only for peaceful purposes.<|ASPECTS|>peaceful purposes, uranium enrichment<|CONCLUSION|>","Iran signed the ""Iran Nuclear Deal"" JCPOA with inspections successfully ensuring uranium enrichment was only for peaceful purposes.",International sanctions and agreements are a better way to address the issues.
"<|TOPIC|>US and NATO Should Withdraw from Afghanistan<|ARGUMENT|>The Afghan government and USAID [constructed]( more than 3,000 wells, primarily in rural communities, to provide reliable clean water for the first time to more than 863,000 Afghans, and nearly 42,000 latrines to prevent the spread of disease.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>US and NATO Should Withdraw from Afghanistan<|ARGUMENT|>The Afghan government and USAID [constructed]( more than 3,000 wells, primarily in rural communities, to provide reliable clean water for the first time to more than 863,000 Afghans, and nearly 42,000 latrines to prevent the spread of disease.<|TARGETS|>The Afghan government and USAID<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>US and NATO Should Withdraw from Afghanistan<|ARGUMENT|>The Afghan government and USAID [constructed]( more than 3,000 wells, primarily in rural communities, to provide reliable clean water for the first time to more than 863,000 Afghans, and nearly 42,000 latrines to prevent the spread of disease.<|ASPECTS|>spread, disease, clean water, reliable<|CONCLUSION|>","The Afghan government and USAID constructed more than 3,000 wells, primarily in rural communities, to provide reliable clean water for the first time to more than 863,000 Afghans, and nearly 42,000 latrines to prevent the spread of disease.",USAID has invested heavily in the development of proper water infrastructure in Afghanistan.
"<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>A recent Nielsen global survey found that [over two thirds]( of respondents said they would both share their assets for financial gain, and rent products/services from others in a share community. This suggests that the majority of people believe that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of a service that functions via the sharing economy, and support its continued existence.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>A recent Nielsen global survey found that [over two thirds]( of respondents said they would both share their assets for financial gain, and rent products/services from others in a share community. This suggests that the majority of people believe that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of a service that functions via the sharing economy, and support its continued existence.<|TARGETS|>a service that functions via the sharing economy, A recent Nielsen global survey<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>A recent Nielsen global survey found that [over two thirds]( of respondents said they would both share their assets for financial gain, and rent products/services from others in a share community. This suggests that the majority of people believe that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of a service that functions via the sharing economy, and support its continued existence.<|ASPECTS|>government interference, internet communication, robust nature, defamatory posts<|CONCLUSION|>","A recent Nielsen global survey found that over two thirds of respondents said they would both share their assets for financial gain, and rent products/services from others in a share community. This suggests that the majority of people believe that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of a service that functions via the sharing economy, and support its continued existence.",Governments have a duty to represent citizens' views and desires and the community does not want Airbnb to be prohibited.
"<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>On New Year's Eve 2015, Airbnb hosted [twice as many]( guests as it had hosted just one year before; any hotel would have to build significant additional lodging at an unrealistic speed to adapt to the same surge in demand so quickly.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>On New Year's Eve 2015, Airbnb hosted [twice as many]( guests as it had hosted just one year before; any hotel would have to build significant additional lodging at an unrealistic speed to adapt to the same surge in demand so quickly.<|TARGETS|>Airbnb<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>On New Year's Eve 2015, Airbnb hosted [twice as many]( guests as it had hosted just one year before; any hotel would have to build significant additional lodging at an unrealistic speed to adapt to the same surge in demand so quickly.<|ASPECTS|>government interference, internet communication, robust nature, defamatory posts<|CONCLUSION|>","On New Year's Eve 2015, Airbnb hosted twice as many guests as it had hosted just one year before; any hotel would have to build significant additional lodging at an unrealistic speed to adapt to the same surge in demand so quickly.","At times of peak seasonality, the nature of Airbnb means that it has an elasticity of accommodation availability that hotels simply cannot match."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>Christianity has its origins in today's Middle East. And yet the religion's link and claim to territories outside the region that became associated with it much later, like The Vatican, are undisputed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>Christianity has its origins in today's Middle East. And yet the religion's link and claim to territories outside the region that became associated with it much later, like The Vatican, are undisputed.<|TARGETS|>the religion 's link and claim to territories outside the region that became associated with it much later like The Vatican, Christianity<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>Christianity has its origins in today's Middle East. And yet the religion's link and claim to territories outside the region that became associated with it much later, like The Vatican, are undisputed.<|ASPECTS|>land, endangers, israeli presence<|CONCLUSION|>","Christianity has its origins in today's Middle East. And yet the religion's link and claim to territories outside the region that became associated with it much later, like The Vatican, are undisputed.","Religious connections and claims to territory are not purely determined based on where a religion originated, as various widely-accepted examples illustrate."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the EU introduce a carbon tax?<|ARGUMENT|>Wealthier households are in the best position to bear the impacts of this policy with losing access to any essential goods necessary for their livelihood. They are more likely to lose access to voluntary luxury goods, which is a negligible cost compared to a similar impact on the poorest households.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the EU introduce a carbon tax?<|ARGUMENT|>Wealthier households are in the best position to bear the impacts of this policy with losing access to any essential goods necessary for their livelihood. They are more likely to lose access to voluntary luxury goods, which is a negligible cost compared to a similar impact on the poorest households.<|TARGETS|>to lose access to voluntary luxury goods, Wealthier households<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the EU introduce a carbon tax?<|ARGUMENT|>Wealthier households are in the best position to bear the impacts of this policy with losing access to any essential goods necessary for their livelihood. They are more likely to lose access to voluntary luxury goods, which is a negligible cost compared to a similar impact on the poorest households.<|ASPECTS|>essential goods, voluntary luxury goods, livelihood, cost, wealthier households<|CONCLUSION|>","Wealthier households are in the best position to bear the impacts of this policy with losing access to any essential goods necessary for their livelihood. They are more likely to lose access to voluntary luxury goods, which is a negligible cost compared to a similar impact on the poorest households.",The impact on wealthier households is less worthy of our moral concern.
"<|TOPIC|>Should The Catholic Church Publicly Elect Its Leaders?<|ARGUMENT|>Pope Francis has shown himself to be [compassionate]( and welcoming, making the Catholic church appear much more open than past popes.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should The Catholic Church Publicly Elect Its Leaders?<|ARGUMENT|>Pope Francis has shown himself to be [compassionate]( and welcoming, making the Catholic church appear much more open than past popes.<|TARGETS|>Pope Francis<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should The Catholic Church Publicly Elect Its Leaders?<|ARGUMENT|>Pope Francis has shown himself to be [compassionate]( and welcoming, making the Catholic church appear much more open than past popes.<|ASPECTS|>compassionate, welcoming, open<|CONCLUSION|>","Pope Francis has shown himself to be compassionate and welcoming, making the Catholic church appear much more open than past popes.",Pope Francis has made the Catholic church significantly more open and welcoming.
<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>This has been proven true for at least [one user]( who claims using sex robots has improved his performance in bed.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>This has been proven true for at least [one user]( who claims using sex robots has improved his performance in bed.<|TARGETS|>using sex robots<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>This has been proven true for at least [one user]( who claims using sex robots has improved his performance in bed.<|ASPECTS|>data, outrage, class action<|CONCLUSION|>",This has been proven true for at least one user who claims using sex robots has improved his performance in bed.,Sex robots could act as an educational or training tool for making real-life sex interactions better.
"<|TOPIC|>Nuclear energy<|ARGUMENT|>Solar power is more renewable and cleaner. Its supply is endless, unlike that of nuclear energy. Similarly, wind power generates no waste and can sustain our planet for millenia to come. Nuclear power is not the answer. When there are so many cheaper, safer, cleaner and more sustainable alternatives, why the debate?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Nuclear energy<|ARGUMENT|>Solar power is more renewable and cleaner. Its supply is endless, unlike that of nuclear energy. Similarly, wind power generates no waste and can sustain our planet for millenia to come. Nuclear power is not the answer. When there are so many cheaper, safer, cleaner and more sustainable alternatives, why the debate?<|TARGETS|>wind power, Its supply, Nuclear power, Solar power<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Nuclear energy<|ARGUMENT|>Solar power is more renewable and cleaner. Its supply is endless, unlike that of nuclear energy. Similarly, wind power generates no waste and can sustain our planet for millenia to come. Nuclear power is not the answer. When there are so many cheaper, safer, cleaner and more sustainable alternatives, why the debate?<|ASPECTS|>endless, sustainable alternatives, generates, sustain our planet, waste, supply, renewable, safer, cheaper, cleaner<|CONCLUSION|>","Solar power is more renewable and cleaner. Its supply is endless, unlike that of nuclear energy. Similarly, wind power generates no waste and can sustain our planet for millenia to come. Nuclear power is not the answer. When there are so many cheaper, safer, cleaner and more sustainable alternatives, why the debate?",Nuclear energy has a limited supply and is far inferior to solar power.
"<|TOPIC|>news organisations should be free to exclude news of homosexuality where it causes offence to their viewers<|ARGUMENT|>Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives[1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement[2]. Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech. It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership.[3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs.[4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact. [1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997,  [2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy. [3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005,  [4] Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358, <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>news organisations should be free to exclude news of homosexuality where it causes offence to their viewers<|ARGUMENT|>Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives[1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement[2]. Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech. It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership.[3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs.[4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact. [1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997,  [2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy. [3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005,  [4] Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358, <|TARGETS|>to exercise self-censorship – it ’s called discretion and professional judgement, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this, to avoid offending their market ; so liberal newspapers avoid expose ́ s of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they would n’t have a readership ., Where a particular fact or image, that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities, to suggest that journalists report the ‘ unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>news organisations should be free to exclude news of homosexuality where it causes offence to their viewers<|ARGUMENT|>Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives[1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement[2]. Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech. It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership.[3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs.[4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact. [1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997,  [2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy. [3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005,  [4] Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358, <|ASPECTS|>palpably, violence or sex, distress, autonomy, offence, transparency, market, homosexuality, cultural sensibilities, self-censorship, editorial policy, unvarnished truth, free speech, harm, professional judgement, identities of minors, bad behaviour, offending, discretion<|CONCLUSION|>","Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives1 or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement2. Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech. It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership.3 Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs.4 Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact. 1 Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997, 2 For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy. 3 Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005, 4 Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358,","Broadcasters almost never show scenes of torture or torment because they know this will cause offence, the same principle should apply here."
<|TOPIC|>Do Aliens Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Religions are not designed to provide commentary on scientific discovery. They are there to reveal truths about human spirituality and it is a mistake to expand that conversation into the empirical conversation wherein scientific discovery occurs.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Do Aliens Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Religions are not designed to provide commentary on scientific discovery. They are there to reveal truths about human spirituality and it is a mistake to expand that conversation into the empirical conversation wherein scientific discovery occurs.<|TARGETS|>to expand that conversation into the empirical conversation wherein scientific discovery, to reveal truths about human spirituality<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do Aliens Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Religions are not designed to provide commentary on scientific discovery. They are there to reveal truths about human spirituality and it is a mistake to expand that conversation into the empirical conversation wherein scientific discovery occurs.<|ASPECTS|>observation of life, unique occurrence<|CONCLUSION|>",Religions are not designed to provide commentary on scientific discovery. They are there to reveal truths about human spirituality and it is a mistake to expand that conversation into the empirical conversation wherein scientific discovery occurs.,"It is of absolutely no consequence what a faith-based religious system thinks of claims, as these do not base their proclamations on fact."
<|TOPIC|>Who will win the UK general election?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaving the customs union would allow the UK to negotiate its own overseas trade deals rather than being restricted by EU-agreed tariffs.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Who will win the UK general election?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaving the customs union would allow the UK to negotiate its own overseas trade deals rather than being restricted by EU-agreed tariffs.<|TARGETS|>to negotiate its own overseas trade deals, Leaving the customs union<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Who will win the UK general election?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaving the customs union would allow the UK to negotiate its own overseas trade deals rather than being restricted by EU-agreed tariffs.<|ASPECTS|>eu-agreed tariffs, overseas trade deals<|CONCLUSION|>",Leaving the customs union would allow the UK to negotiate its own overseas trade deals rather than being restricted by EU-agreed tariffs.,Under the current Conservative Brexit proposal the UK would leave the EU customs union. This could be financially advantageous.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the electoral college be abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>Most countries with significant female participation in the legislature began with a quota system reserving a certain percentage of seats for women, although participation may now have exceeded the quota.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the electoral college be abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>Most countries with significant female participation in the legislature began with a quota system reserving a certain percentage of seats for women, although participation may now have exceeded the quota.<|TARGETS|>a quota system, Most countries with significant female participation in the legislature<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the electoral college be abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>Most countries with significant female participation in the legislature began with a quota system reserving a certain percentage of seats for women, although participation may now have exceeded the quota.<|ASPECTS|>centralising power, helpless and frustrated, impact, power<|CONCLUSION|>","Most countries with significant female participation in the legislature began with a quota system reserving a certain percentage of seats for women, although participation may now have exceeded the quota.",There is not a proportionate number of women in congress compared to the percentage of men and women in the country; therefore the tyrannical majority has not been avoided.
<|TOPIC|>Is the Mercedes-Benz User Experience (MBUX) really a revolution in the vehicle cockpit?<|ARGUMENT|>For car sharing programs it is possible to individualise the driving experience through the cell phone.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is the Mercedes-Benz User Experience (MBUX) really a revolution in the vehicle cockpit?<|ARGUMENT|>For car sharing programs it is possible to individualise the driving experience through the cell phone.<|TARGETS|>car sharing programs<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is the Mercedes-Benz User Experience (MBUX) really a revolution in the vehicle cockpit?<|ARGUMENT|>For car sharing programs it is possible to individualise the driving experience through the cell phone.<|ASPECTS|>driving experience, individualise<|CONCLUSION|>",For car sharing programs it is possible to individualise the driving experience through the cell phone.,The system features state-of-the art connectivity to third-party devices.
"<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>""Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. . Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."" - [John Adams]( \(He is referring here to direct democracy, like Athens, as opposed to a representative democracy like the Roman Republic.\).<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>""Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. . Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."" - [John Adams]( \(He is referring here to direct democracy, like Athens, as opposed to a representative democracy like the Roman Republic.\).<|TARGETS|>democracy, Democracy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>""Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. . Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."" - [John Adams]( \(He is referring here to direct democracy, like Athens, as opposed to a representative democracy like the Roman Republic.\).<|ASPECTS|>populist parties, backlash, refugees, advance<|CONCLUSION|>","""Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. . Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."" - John Adams He is referring here to direct democracy, like Athens, as opposed to a representative democracy like the Roman Republic..","Conservative conceptions of justice are also skeptical of untempered democratic mandate. Nations should do what is right, not necessarily what has the most popular support."
"<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>Small autonomous drones could be mass-produced cheaply, for less than 10k per piece. They would be expendable, similar to how an ant colony has no problem to sacrifice thousands of its members.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>Small autonomous drones could be mass-produced cheaply, for less than 10k per piece. They would be expendable, similar to how an ant colony has no problem to sacrifice thousands of its members.<|TARGETS|>Small autonomous drones<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>Small autonomous drones could be mass-produced cheaply, for less than 10k per piece. They would be expendable, similar to how an ant colony has no problem to sacrifice thousands of its members.<|ASPECTS|>ai, rights, enhanced<|CONCLUSION|>","Small autonomous drones could be mass-produced cheaply, for less than 10k per piece. They would be expendable, similar to how an ant colony has no problem to sacrifice thousands of its members.","Many kinds of AKDs will actually be very small ones that will operate in swarms, instead of the big chunky predator drones today. Eg bird and bee sized."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Gerrymandering Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Milwaukee]( a city where white and black areas are geographically relatively clearly separated, gerrymandering has packed African-American and Latino voters into predominantly white voting districts. This makes it practically impossible for them to elect politicians who clearly represent them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Gerrymandering Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Milwaukee]( a city where white and black areas are geographically relatively clearly separated, gerrymandering has packed African-American and Latino voters into predominantly white voting districts. This makes it practically impossible for them to elect politicians who clearly represent them.<|TARGETS|>a city where white and black areas, to elect politicians who clearly represent them .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Gerrymandering Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Milwaukee]( a city where white and black areas are geographically relatively clearly separated, gerrymandering has packed African-American and Latino voters into predominantly white voting districts. This makes it practically impossible for them to elect politicians who clearly represent them.<|ASPECTS|>african-american, gerrymandering, voters, elect politicians, white voting districts<|CONCLUSION|>","In Milwaukee a city where white and black areas are geographically relatively clearly separated, gerrymandering has packed African-American and Latino voters into predominantly white voting districts. This makes it practically impossible for them to elect politicians who clearly represent them.",Gerrymandering itself is the reason why many members of minorities are unable to elect representatives from their own groups.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Shark Culling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>The overfishing of sharks in the North Atlantic has led to the increase in the numbers of their prey by tenfold, disturbing the balance of ecosystem. \([Griffin et al, 2008, p. 5](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Shark Culling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>The overfishing of sharks in the North Atlantic has led to the increase in the numbers of their prey by tenfold, disturbing the balance of ecosystem. \([Griffin et al, 2008, p. 5](<|TARGETS|>Griffin et al, The overfishing of sharks in the North Atlantic<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Shark Culling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>The overfishing of sharks in the North Atlantic has led to the increase in the numbers of their prey by tenfold, disturbing the balance of ecosystem. \([Griffin et al, 2008, p. 5](<|ASPECTS|>overfishing, numbers, prey, balance of ecosystem<|CONCLUSION|>","The overfishing of sharks in the North Atlantic has led to the increase in the numbers of their prey by tenfold, disturbing the balance of ecosystem. Griffin et al, 2008, p. 5",Sharks are an important part of marine ecosystems because they reduce the super-abundance of other species.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Discriminating against a popular service limits the value \(and thus price/profits\) of an internet package. ISPs have little incentive to do so, as even the prices of monopolists are limited by consumer's willingness to pay for the value they receive.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Discriminating against a popular service limits the value \(and thus price/profits\) of an internet package. ISPs have little incentive to do so, as even the prices of monopolists are limited by consumer's willingness to pay for the value they receive.<|TARGETS|>Discriminating against a popular service, ISPs<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Discriminating against a popular service limits the value \(and thus price/profits\) of an internet package. ISPs have little incentive to do so, as even the prices of monopolists are limited by consumer's willingness to pay for the value they receive.<|ASPECTS|>incentive, value, monopolists, discriminating, price/profits\, prices<|CONCLUSION|>","Discriminating against a popular service limits the value and thus price/profits of an internet package. ISPs have little incentive to do so, as even the prices of monopolists are limited by consumer's willingness to pay for the value they receive.","Placeholder Competition will generally prevent price gouging or other forms of market abuse, just as it does with the rest of the economy overall."
"<|TOPIC|>What Is the Best Drug Regulation System?<|ARGUMENT|>According to proper calculations the economic pros could outweigh the cons, like it seems to be in parts of the USA, where marijuana is either fully legalized for recreational purposes or partially legalized for medical use \(which means you need to pay another extra 40 dollars at certain doctors to get a license, thus it is pretty much legal\). [1\)](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>What Is the Best Drug Regulation System?<|ARGUMENT|>According to proper calculations the economic pros could outweigh the cons, like it seems to be in parts of the USA, where marijuana is either fully legalized for recreational purposes or partially legalized for medical use \(which means you need to pay another extra 40 dollars at certain doctors to get a license, thus it is pretty much legal\). [1\)](<|TARGETS|>to pay another extra 40 dollars at certain doctors to get a license, According to proper calculations the economic pros<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>What Is the Best Drug Regulation System?<|ARGUMENT|>According to proper calculations the economic pros could outweigh the cons, like it seems to be in parts of the USA, where marijuana is either fully legalized for recreational purposes or partially legalized for medical use \(which means you need to pay another extra 40 dollars at certain doctors to get a license, thus it is pretty much legal\). [1\)](<|ASPECTS|>market demand, violent gangs, thugs<|CONCLUSION|>","According to proper calculations the economic pros could outweigh the cons, like it seems to be in parts of the USA, where marijuana is either fully legalized for recreational purposes or partially legalized for medical use which means you need to pay another extra 40 dollars at certain doctors to get a license, thus it is pretty much legal. 1",Economic facts and conclusions of a legalisation would be calculated properly on a basis of a realistic and possible different legislation towards the drug on which is voted.
"<|TOPIC|>Could adopting a discussion platform like Kialo help improve the quality of Ethereum's political + governance debates?<|ARGUMENT|>Not having a face, a name, a follower count or a big bag of karma next to your comment pro or con levels the playing field and refocuses the issue on . the issue, rather than the personality behind the idea.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Could adopting a discussion platform like Kialo help improve the quality of Ethereum's political + governance debates?<|ARGUMENT|>Not having a face, a name, a follower count or a big bag of karma next to your comment pro or con levels the playing field and refocuses the issue on . the issue, rather than the personality behind the idea.<|TARGETS|>Not having a face a name a follower count or a big bag of karma next to your comment pro or con<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Could adopting a discussion platform like Kialo help improve the quality of Ethereum's political + governance debates?<|ARGUMENT|>Not having a face, a name, a follower count or a big bag of karma next to your comment pro or con levels the playing field and refocuses the issue on . the issue, rather than the personality behind the idea.<|ASPECTS|>karma, personality, field, follower count<|CONCLUSION|>","Not having a face, a name, a follower count or a big bag of karma next to your comment pro or con levels the playing field and refocuses the issue on . the issue, rather than the personality behind the idea.",Adopting a discussion platform like Kialo will help improve the quality of Ethereum's political + governance debates.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the Tampon Tax be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>It is cheaper in the long run to buy a menstrual cup as they do not have to be bought monthly, like tampons.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the Tampon Tax be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>It is cheaper in the long run to buy a menstrual cup as they do not have to be bought monthly, like tampons.<|TARGETS|>the long run to buy a menstrual cup as they do not have to be bought monthly<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the Tampon Tax be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>It is cheaper in the long run to buy a menstrual cup as they do not have to be bought monthly, like tampons.<|ASPECTS|>sanitary products, aesthetic choice<|CONCLUSION|>","It is cheaper in the long run to buy a menstrual cup as they do not have to be bought monthly, like tampons.","Women could use cheaper options, such as the reusable menstrual cups or moon pads."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook and Twitter have a track record of censoring content that is legitimate, such as [breastfeeding]( or images of the [Vietnam War](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook and Twitter have a track record of censoring content that is legitimate, such as [breastfeeding]( or images of the [Vietnam War](<|TARGETS|>Facebook and Twitter<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook and Twitter have a track record of censoring content that is legitimate, such as [breastfeeding]( or images of the [Vietnam War](<|ASPECTS|>islam<|CONCLUSION|>","Facebook and Twitter have a track record of censoring content that is legitimate, such as breastfeeding or images of the Vietnam War","So far, rules on removing terrorist accounts are vague and might lead to the censorship of other content and accounts."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Hunger Games-Style Tournaments Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>The individual's freedom should only be limited where it affects the freedom of other individuals. As this is not the case here, the tournaments should be legal.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Hunger Games-Style Tournaments Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>The individual's freedom should only be limited where it affects the freedom of other individuals. As this is not the case here, the tournaments should be legal.<|TARGETS|>the tournaments, The individual 's freedom<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Hunger Games-Style Tournaments Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>The individual's freedom should only be limited where it affects the freedom of other individuals. As this is not the case here, the tournaments should be legal.<|ASPECTS|>stress, relieves, real world aggression, less, anger<|CONCLUSION|>","The individual's freedom should only be limited where it affects the freedom of other individuals. As this is not the case here, the tournaments should be legal.",The right to compete in these tournaments is a natural extension of the way that society currently promotes freedom.
"<|TOPIC|>Should public transport be free?<|ARGUMENT|>In 2019, London public transport was able to raise [£0.9 billion]( using a combination of mechanisms including bonds, commercial papers, loans for specific projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public Works Loan Board.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should public transport be free?<|ARGUMENT|>In 2019, London public transport was able to raise [£0.9 billion]( using a combination of mechanisms including bonds, commercial papers, loans for specific projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public Works Loan Board.<|TARGETS|>London public transport<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should public transport be free?<|ARGUMENT|>In 2019, London public transport was able to raise [£0.9 billion]( using a combination of mechanisms including bonds, commercial papers, loans for specific projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public Works Loan Board.<|ASPECTS|>transportation<|CONCLUSION|>","In 2019, London public transport was able to raise £0.9 billion using a combination of mechanisms including bonds, commercial papers, loans for specific projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public Works Loan Board.",Public transport in London can easily generate more money from sources other than transportation fares.
"<|TOPIC|>Should There Be a Global Evaluation/Rating System for Students' Performances?<|ARGUMENT|>As it is, the constant focus of school league tables on academic progress ignores the standard of pastoral care or non-academic subjects, which means students will be less well-rounded.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There Be a Global Evaluation/Rating System for Students' Performances?<|ARGUMENT|>As it is, the constant focus of school league tables on academic progress ignores the standard of pastoral care or non-academic subjects, which means students will be less well-rounded.<|TARGETS|>the constant focus of school league tables on academic progress<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There Be a Global Evaluation/Rating System for Students' Performances?<|ARGUMENT|>As it is, the constant focus of school league tables on academic progress ignores the standard of pastoral care or non-academic subjects, which means students will be less well-rounded.<|ASPECTS|>academic progress, less well-rounded, pastoral care<|CONCLUSION|>","As it is, the constant focus of school league tables on academic progress ignores the standard of pastoral care or non-academic subjects, which means students will be less well-rounded.",The perception of therole of schools would change towards pure productivity enhancement. Aspects like social education etc. would be pushed into the background.
"<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Even if He lacked libertarian free will, God could still think and act \(even if those thoughts and actions are determined\), making Him a conscious agent and thus greater than a force.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Even if He lacked libertarian free will, God could still think and act \(even if those thoughts and actions are determined\), making Him a conscious agent and thus greater than a force.<|TARGETS|>He lacked libertarian free will God could still think and act even if those thoughts and actions<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Even if He lacked libertarian free will, God could still think and act \(even if those thoughts and actions are determined\), making Him a conscious agent and thus greater than a force.<|ASPECTS|>affairs, divine communication, human psychological development, direct, lessons, statecraft, human morality, biased.\, divine intervention, philosophy<|CONCLUSION|>","Even if He lacked libertarian free will, God could still think and act even if those thoughts and actions are determined, making Him a conscious agent and thus greater than a force.","Not all things that lack libertarian free will are ""just a force""."
<|TOPIC|>Edible Landscapes: Should Lawns Be Replaced?<|ARGUMENT|>Edible landscaping would decrease gas needed and carbons emitted in order to transport produce from farm to market.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Edible Landscapes: Should Lawns Be Replaced?<|ARGUMENT|>Edible landscaping would decrease gas needed and carbons emitted in order to transport produce from farm to market.<|TARGETS|>Edible landscaping<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Edible Landscapes: Should Lawns Be Replaced?<|ARGUMENT|>Edible landscaping would decrease gas needed and carbons emitted in order to transport produce from farm to market.<|ASPECTS|>gas needed, carbons emitted, decrease<|CONCLUSION|>",Edible landscaping would decrease gas needed and carbons emitted in order to transport produce from farm to market.,Edible landscapes can simultaneously spawn newer and more positive industries while also decreasing negative ones.
<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The massive political and social lobbying [power of the NRA]( enables them to occupy more of the political discussion than the size of their membership justifies.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The massive political and social lobbying [power of the NRA]( enables them to occupy more of the political discussion than the size of their membership justifies.<|TARGETS|>The massive political and social lobbying power of the NRA<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The massive political and social lobbying [power of the NRA]( enables them to occupy more of the political discussion than the size of their membership justifies.<|ASPECTS|>political and social lobbying, political discussion<|CONCLUSION|>",The massive political and social lobbying power of the NRA enables them to occupy more of the political discussion than the size of their membership justifies.,This support suggests that those opposed to gun reform are only a vocal minority.
"<|TOPIC|>ban child performers<|ARGUMENT|>In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age.[1] [1] Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>ban child performers<|ARGUMENT|>In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age.[1] [1] Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’<|TARGETS|>some films or television shows, Child actors, The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, Ice skaters and dancers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>ban child performers<|ARGUMENT|>In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age.[1] [1] Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’<|ASPECTS|>child actors, , dance training, realistically portray society, benefit, schoolchildren, endangered, convincing, younger audience, roles, training<|CONCLUSION|>","In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age.1 1 Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’","Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports"
<|TOPIC|>The best Science Fiction movie is?<|ARGUMENT|>This film has a mismatch where it is more for younger people \(in terms of learning basic mathematical concepts\) with an older audience appeal \(due to the horror and mental health elements\).<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>The best Science Fiction movie is?<|ARGUMENT|>This film has a mismatch where it is more for younger people \(in terms of learning basic mathematical concepts\) with an older audience appeal \(due to the horror and mental health elements\).<|TARGETS|>This film<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>The best Science Fiction movie is?<|ARGUMENT|>This film has a mismatch where it is more for younger people \(in terms of learning basic mathematical concepts\) with an older audience appeal \(due to the horror and mental health elements\).<|ASPECTS|>mismatch, younger people, mental health, older audience appeal<|CONCLUSION|>",This film has a mismatch where it is more for younger people in terms of learning basic mathematical concepts with an older audience appeal due to the horror and mental health elements.,This film has issues that take away from making it great.
<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>A 100 round .50 caliber magazine would hold over 25 lbs. of ammunition. This doesn't even count the weight of the magazine itself.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>A 100 round .50 caliber magazine would hold over 25 lbs. of ammunition. This doesn't even count the weight of the magazine itself.<|TARGETS|>A 100 round . 50 caliber magazine<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>A 100 round .50 caliber magazine would hold over 25 lbs. of ammunition. This doesn't even count the weight of the magazine itself.<|ASPECTS|>political and social lobbying, political discussion<|CONCLUSION|>",A 100 round .50 caliber magazine would hold over 25 lbs. of ammunition. This doesn't even count the weight of the magazine itself.,100 round .50 caliber magazines do not exist. probably because they don't make any sense.
"<|TOPIC|>EU constitution reform treaty (Lisbon Treaty)<|ARGUMENT|>""Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty at a glance"". Europa. - ""Improving the life of Europeans: the Treaty of Lisbon improves the EU's ability to act in several policy areas of major priority for today's Union and its citizens. This is the case in particular for the policy areas of freedom, security and justice, such as combating terrorism or tackling crime. It also concerns to some extent other areas including energy policy, public health, civil protection, climate change, services of general interest, research, space, territorial cohesion, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism and administrative cooperation.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>EU constitution reform treaty (Lisbon Treaty)<|ARGUMENT|>""Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty at a glance"". Europa. - ""Improving the life of Europeans: the Treaty of Lisbon improves the EU's ability to act in several policy areas of major priority for today's Union and its citizens. This is the case in particular for the policy areas of freedom, security and justice, such as combating terrorism or tackling crime. It also concerns to some extent other areas including energy policy, public health, civil protection, climate change, services of general interest, research, space, territorial cohesion, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism and administrative cooperation.""<|TARGETS|>Europa, The Treaty<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>EU constitution reform treaty (Lisbon Treaty)<|ARGUMENT|>""Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty at a glance"". Europa. - ""Improving the life of Europeans: the Treaty of Lisbon improves the EU's ability to act in several policy areas of major priority for today's Union and its citizens. This is the case in particular for the policy areas of freedom, security and justice, such as combating terrorism or tackling crime. It also concerns to some extent other areas including energy policy, public health, civil protection, climate change, services of general interest, research, space, territorial cohesion, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism and administrative cooperation.""<|ASPECTS|>social achievements<|CONCLUSION|>","""Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty at a glance"". Europa. - ""Improving the life of Europeans: the Treaty of Lisbon improves the EU's ability to act in several policy areas of major priority for today's Union and its citizens. This is the case in particular for the policy areas of freedom, security and justice, such as combating terrorism or tackling crime. It also concerns to some extent other areas including energy policy, public health, civil protection, climate change, services of general interest, research, space, territorial cohesion, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism and administrative cooperation.""",Lisbon Treaty strengthens the EU's ability to secure Europe
<|TOPIC|>Is Having Children Selfish?<|ARGUMENT|>The act of leaving the Earth and populating a new planet is likely to be a profoundly traumatic and difficult experience for all of humanity. It would seem odd to inflict this on ourselves when we could just limit the damage to our own planet by not having children.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is Having Children Selfish?<|ARGUMENT|>The act of leaving the Earth and populating a new planet is likely to be a profoundly traumatic and difficult experience for all of humanity. It would seem odd to inflict this on ourselves when we could just limit the damage to our own planet by not having children.<|TARGETS|>The act of leaving the Earth and populating a new planet, to inflict this on ourselves when we could just limit the damage to our own planet by not having children .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Having Children Selfish?<|ARGUMENT|>The act of leaving the Earth and populating a new planet is likely to be a profoundly traumatic and difficult experience for all of humanity. It would seem odd to inflict this on ourselves when we could just limit the damage to our own planet by not having children.<|ASPECTS|>wiped, mass extinctions, mass extinction<|CONCLUSION|>",The act of leaving the Earth and populating a new planet is likely to be a profoundly traumatic and difficult experience for all of humanity. It would seem odd to inflict this on ourselves when we could just limit the damage to our own planet by not having children.,Putting the burden on a species to develop sustainable environments on other planets instead of refraining from having children is a selfish act.
"<|TOPIC|>Does the Bible allow women to hold the church office of ""deacon""?<|ARGUMENT|>John Calvin believed that the order of Nuns, which the Catholic church had started, was begun by Paul’s orders in [1 Timothy 5](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the Bible allow women to hold the church office of ""deacon""?<|ARGUMENT|>John Calvin believed that the order of Nuns, which the Catholic church had started, was begun by Paul’s orders in [1 Timothy 5](<|TARGETS|>John Calvin<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the Bible allow women to hold the church office of ""deacon""?<|ARGUMENT|>John Calvin believed that the order of Nuns, which the Catholic church had started, was begun by Paul’s orders in [1 Timothy 5](<|ASPECTS|>order of nuns, ’<|CONCLUSION|>","John Calvin believed that the order of Nuns, which the Catholic church had started, was begun by Paul’s orders in 1 Timothy 5","Does the Bible allow women to hold the church office of ""deacon""/""deaconess""?"
"<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>In the status quo, no matter which bathroom they choose to use, transgender individuals face backlash or even violence. This policy's approach removes that fear and threat.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>In the status quo, no matter which bathroom they choose to use, transgender individuals face backlash or even violence. This policy's approach removes that fear and threat.<|TARGETS|>This policy 's approach<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?<|ARGUMENT|>In the status quo, no matter which bathroom they choose to use, transgender individuals face backlash or even violence. This policy's approach removes that fear and threat.<|ASPECTS|>crossed gender lines, hygiene needs, motivation, legitimate, right, unwilling social activities, private matter<|CONCLUSION|>","In the status quo, no matter which bathroom they choose to use, transgender individuals face backlash or even violence. This policy's approach removes that fear and threat.","From a gender and trans-rights perspective, it is only right to introduce unisex bathrooms."
<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>The traditional values can be preserved without the royal family having any de facto power over the country. Be it as a merely honorary title or by the promotion of institutions with the intent of preserving the knowledge if those traditions.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>The traditional values can be preserved without the royal family having any de facto power over the country. Be it as a merely honorary title or by the promotion of institutions with the intent of preserving the knowledge if those traditions.<|TARGETS|>The traditional values, the promotion of institutions with the intent of preserving the knowledge if those traditions .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>The traditional values can be preserved without the royal family having any de facto power over the country. Be it as a merely honorary title or by the promotion of institutions with the intent of preserving the knowledge if those traditions.<|ASPECTS|>traditional values, preserving the knowledge, de, honorary title, power, promotion of institutions<|CONCLUSION|>",The traditional values can be preserved without the royal family having any de facto power over the country. Be it as a merely honorary title or by the promotion of institutions with the intent of preserving the knowledge if those traditions.,Having a monarchy is not necessary to ensure history continuity or to maintain the country's origins and what they represent.
"<|TOPIC|>Israeli military assault in Gaza, Israeli Invasion of Gaza<|ARGUMENT|>Israel should not have to restrain itself in what is, on Hamas' own terms, an existential war. Provoked by Hamas, Israel has every right to wage a disproportionate and overwhelming response.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Israeli military assault in Gaza, Israeli Invasion of Gaza<|ARGUMENT|>Israel should not have to restrain itself in what is, on Hamas' own terms, an existential war. Provoked by Hamas, Israel has every right to wage a disproportionate and overwhelming response.<|TARGETS|>Israel<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Israeli military assault in Gaza, Israeli Invasion of Gaza<|ARGUMENT|>Israel should not have to restrain itself in what is, on Hamas' own terms, an existential war. Provoked by Hamas, Israel has every right to wage a disproportionate and overwhelming response.<|ASPECTS|>threats, security interests, israel, interests, right to defend, security imperatives, right, securing the nation<|CONCLUSION|>","Israel should not have to restrain itself in what is, on Hamas' own terms, an existential war. Provoked by Hamas, Israel has every right to wage a disproportionate and overwhelming response.",Israel is legitimate in using full force to win war on Hamas
"<|TOPIC|>Should governments pursue predictive policing technology?<|ARGUMENT|>[Data]( found that black people are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than white people, despite using illegal substances at a lower rate.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should governments pursue predictive policing technology?<|ARGUMENT|>[Data]( found that black people are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than white people, despite using illegal substances at a lower rate.<|TARGETS|>using illegal substances<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should governments pursue predictive policing technology?<|ARGUMENT|>[Data]( found that black people are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than white people, despite using illegal substances at a lower rate.<|ASPECTS|>stopped and searched<|CONCLUSION|>","Data found that black people are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than white people, despite using illegal substances at a lower rate.","In the UK, studies show that racial profiling in police stop-and-searches was worse in 2018 compared to 2011."
"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Current welfare systems induce a psychology of fear of ['earning too much']( which can hinder the potential for self-reliance and economic growth. A UBI would remove this fear, as it is not dependent on one's earnings.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Current welfare systems induce a psychology of fear of ['earning too much']( which can hinder the potential for self-reliance and economic growth. A UBI would remove this fear, as it is not dependent on one's earnings.<|TARGETS|>A UBI, Current welfare systems<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Current welfare systems induce a psychology of fear of ['earning too much']( which can hinder the potential for self-reliance and economic growth. A UBI would remove this fear, as it is not dependent on one's earnings.<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>","Current welfare systems induce a psychology of fear of 'earning too much' which can hinder the potential for self-reliance and economic growth. A UBI would remove this fear, as it is not dependent on one's earnings.",Evidence suggests UBI is good from a psychological well-being and productivity perspective.
"<|TOPIC|>US electoral college<|ARGUMENT|>George Bush’s disputed victory in 2000 was unhealthy for democracy and for the authority of the President, since many people said that he had no right to govern, regardless of what the outcome of the electoral college was. If a President cannot command the respect and acceptance of his country, he will be a very ineffective leader.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>US electoral college<|ARGUMENT|>George Bush’s disputed victory in 2000 was unhealthy for democracy and for the authority of the President, since many people said that he had no right to govern, regardless of what the outcome of the electoral college was. If a President cannot command the respect and acceptance of his country, he will be a very ineffective leader.<|TARGETS|>If a President cannot command the respect and acceptance of his country, George Bush ’s disputed victory in 2000<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>US electoral college<|ARGUMENT|>George Bush’s disputed victory in 2000 was unhealthy for democracy and for the authority of the President, since many people said that he had no right to govern, regardless of what the outcome of the electoral college was. If a President cannot command the respect and acceptance of his country, he will be a very ineffective leader.<|ASPECTS|>respect, authority of the president, right to govern, acceptance, ineffective leader, democracy, unhealthy<|CONCLUSION|>","George Bush’s disputed victory in 2000 was unhealthy for democracy and for the authority of the President, since many people said that he had no right to govern, regardless of what the outcome of the electoral college was. If a President cannot command the respect and acceptance of his country, he will be a very ineffective leader.","Leaders are legitimized by winning a popular majority or plurality, but the electoral college undermines this:"
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [a lack of archaeological evidence]( for the existence of King David. The stories of who he was and what he did are conflicting and give no coherent account.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [a lack of archaeological evidence]( for the existence of King David. The stories of who he was and what he did are conflicting and give no coherent account.<|TARGETS|>The stories of who he was and what he did are conflicting and give no coherent account .<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [a lack of archaeological evidence]( for the existence of King David. The stories of who he was and what he did are conflicting and give no coherent account.<|ASPECTS|>land, endangers, israeli presence<|CONCLUSION|>",There is a lack of archaeological evidence for the existence of King David. The stories of who he was and what he did are conflicting and give no coherent account.,Accounts of past Jewish sovereignty on the disputed territories are based on historical accounts not backed up by research and archaeological evidence.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>The people paying for reparations may not be morally culpable for slavery. Indeed, their ancestors may have fought and died to free slaves.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>The people paying for reparations may not be morally culpable for slavery. Indeed, their ancestors may have fought and died to free slaves.<|TARGETS|>The people paying for reparations<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>The people paying for reparations may not be morally culpable for slavery. Indeed, their ancestors may have fought and died to free slaves.<|ASPECTS|>better neighborhoods, upward mobility, housing voucher, schooling, resources, safer neighborhoods\<|CONCLUSION|>","The people paying for reparations may not be morally culpable for slavery. Indeed, their ancestors may have fought and died to free slaves.",Not all US citizens during slavery owned slaves. America as a whole can therefore hardly be at fault.
"<|TOPIC|>Appointments to the US Supreme Court should be for fixed 18-year terms<|ARGUMENT|>For example, a judge who has spent a lifetime ruling on [traffic court]( cases has significant legal experience, but their experience may lack breadth and depth.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Appointments to the US Supreme Court should be for fixed 18-year terms<|ARGUMENT|>For example, a judge who has spent a lifetime ruling on [traffic court]( cases has significant legal experience, but their experience may lack breadth and depth.<|TARGETS|>a lifetime ruling on traffic court cases<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Appointments to the US Supreme Court should be for fixed 18-year terms<|ARGUMENT|>For example, a judge who has spent a lifetime ruling on [traffic court]( cases has significant legal experience, but their experience may lack breadth and depth.<|ASPECTS|>breadth and depth, legal experience<|CONCLUSION|>","For example, a judge who has spent a lifetime ruling on traffic court cases has significant legal experience, but their experience may lack breadth and depth.",The quality of a Supreme Court Justice's experience is far more important than the quantity of their experience.
"<|TOPIC|>Should price gouging be legal?<|ARGUMENT|>In a free-market, price gouging is nothing more than an economic opportunity for individuals. There are no moral calculations to be made.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should price gouging be legal?<|ARGUMENT|>In a free-market, price gouging is nothing more than an economic opportunity for individuals. There are no moral calculations to be made.<|TARGETS|>a free-market price gouging<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should price gouging be legal?<|ARGUMENT|>In a free-market, price gouging is nothing more than an economic opportunity for individuals. There are no moral calculations to be made.<|ASPECTS|>economic opportunity, moral calculations, price gouging<|CONCLUSION|>","In a free-market, price gouging is nothing more than an economic opportunity for individuals. There are no moral calculations to be made.","It is unethical to deny people the opportunity to freely buy and sell among themselves, of their own free will."
"<|TOPIC|>ban sexist advertising<|ARGUMENT|>Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a ""victim"" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. ""The New Sexism."" Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September improve this<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>ban sexist advertising<|ARGUMENT|>Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a ""victim"" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. ""The New Sexism."" Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September improve this<|TARGETS|>How ads attract and influence, Advertisements, the right to self determine one 's consumer behaviour, to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour, The purchase and consumption of beauty products, to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>ban sexist advertising<|ARGUMENT|>Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a ""victim"" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. ""The New Sexism."" Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September improve this<|ASPECTS|>values, empower, personal behaviour, ideals, consumer behaviour, individual beliefs, institutional power structures, personal choice, ignored, expose, attract, influence, choices, right to self determine, power structures, advertising, attitudes, deleted, dependence, victim<|CONCLUSION|>","Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a ""victim"" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. ""The New Sexism."" Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September improve this",Individuals have a choice and right to respond to ads and their meaning.
"<|TOPIC|>The Correct Donation: Gorillas or Starving Children?<|ARGUMENT|>Starving families will do anything to survive, often resulting in greatly damaged ecosystems and many killed animals, like gorillas. Thus, even if gorillas are important for an ecosystem, supporting the humans around them to not burn down their forest or kill them for meat and trophies, is more important.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Correct Donation: Gorillas or Starving Children?<|ARGUMENT|>Starving families will do anything to survive, often resulting in greatly damaged ecosystems and many killed animals, like gorillas. Thus, even if gorillas are important for an ecosystem, supporting the humans around them to not burn down their forest or kill them for meat and trophies, is more important.<|TARGETS|>Starving families, supporting the humans around them to not burn down their forest or kill them for meat and trophies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Correct Donation: Gorillas or Starving Children?<|ARGUMENT|>Starving families will do anything to survive, often resulting in greatly damaged ecosystems and many killed animals, like gorillas. Thus, even if gorillas are important for an ecosystem, supporting the humans around them to not burn down their forest or kill them for meat and trophies, is more important.<|ASPECTS|>high mental abilities, human survival, animal survival<|CONCLUSION|>","Starving families will do anything to survive, often resulting in greatly damaged ecosystems and many killed animals, like gorillas. Thus, even if gorillas are important for an ecosystem, supporting the humans around them to not burn down their forest or kill them for meat and trophies, is more important.","Eradicating human starvation helps best to protect gorillas because ultimately, human poverty represents the biggest threat to gorillas. This makes donations to gorillas a worse option."
"<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>Chiasm have been found in ancient Mayan literature, the likely ancestors of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. [publications.mi.byu.edu](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>Chiasm have been found in ancient Mayan literature, the likely ancestors of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. [publications.mi.byu.edu](<|TARGETS|>Chiasm<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>Chiasm have been found in ancient Mayan literature, the likely ancestors of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. [publications.mi.byu.edu](<|ASPECTS|>names<|CONCLUSION|>","Chiasm have been found in ancient Mayan literature, the likely ancestors of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. publications.mi.byu.edu","Chiasmus as used in the Book or Mormon are similar to those written in the Bible, an ancient Hebrew writing."
<|TOPIC|>Does Feminism Strive For Equality?<|ARGUMENT|>Breast cancer research receives more [funding]( than prostate cancer research despite a similar number of victims.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Does Feminism Strive For Equality?<|ARGUMENT|>Breast cancer research receives more [funding]( than prostate cancer research despite a similar number of victims.<|TARGETS|>Breast cancer research<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does Feminism Strive For Equality?<|ARGUMENT|>Breast cancer research receives more [funding]( than prostate cancer research despite a similar number of victims.<|ASPECTS|>funding, victims, cancer<|CONCLUSION|>",Breast cancer research receives more funding than prostate cancer research despite a similar number of victims.,Feminism overlooks areas in which men are disadvantaged and do not reach equality.
"<|TOPIC|>Parents Who Don't Vaccinate Their Children Should Be Fined If The Child Gets A Vaccine-Preventable Illness<|ARGUMENT|>If people do not wish to abide by the norms the government sets, they pay the penalty and move on.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Parents Who Don't Vaccinate Their Children Should Be Fined If The Child Gets A Vaccine-Preventable Illness<|ARGUMENT|>If people do not wish to abide by the norms the government sets, they pay the penalty and move on.<|TARGETS|>If people do not wish to abide by the norms the government sets<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Parents Who Don't Vaccinate Their Children Should Be Fined If The Child Gets A Vaccine-Preventable Illness<|ARGUMENT|>If people do not wish to abide by the norms the government sets, they pay the penalty and move on.<|ASPECTS|>norms<|CONCLUSION|>","If people do not wish to abide by the norms the government sets, they pay the penalty and move on.",Using laws to set norms about expectations in society is exactly what governments do.
<|TOPIC|>Should everyone's wealth and income information be publicly available?<|ARGUMENT|>Politicians would no longer be able to hide or lie about their financial interests when running for office or making policy decisions.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should everyone's wealth and income information be publicly available?<|ARGUMENT|>Politicians would no longer be able to hide or lie about their financial interests when running for office or making policy decisions.<|TARGETS|>to hide or lie about their financial interests when running for office or making policy decisions<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should everyone's wealth and income information be publicly available?<|ARGUMENT|>Politicians would no longer be able to hide or lie about their financial interests when running for office or making policy decisions.<|ASPECTS|>financial interests, policy decisions<|CONCLUSION|>",Politicians would no longer be able to hide or lie about their financial interests when running for office or making policy decisions.,There would be significant political benefits to making this information publicly available.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Countries Taking In Refugees Confiscate their Valuables?<|ARGUMENT|>The economic situation in home countries does not change in a couple of years, thus making a quick return less likely.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Countries Taking In Refugees Confiscate their Valuables?<|ARGUMENT|>The economic situation in home countries does not change in a couple of years, thus making a quick return less likely.<|TARGETS|>The economic situation in home countries<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Countries Taking In Refugees Confiscate their Valuables?<|ARGUMENT|>The economic situation in home countries does not change in a couple of years, thus making a quick return less likely.<|ASPECTS|>economic situation, quick return less<|CONCLUSION|>","The economic situation in home countries does not change in a couple of years, thus making a quick return less likely.","Causes of migration and flight are protracted. Therefore, refugees have to care about their mid-range future in the host country."
"<|TOPIC|>All drugs should be legalized.<|ARGUMENT|>[Mexico]( has been destabilized by drug cartel activities such as lawlessness, kidnappings, increasing corruption and frequent assassinations.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>All drugs should be legalized.<|ARGUMENT|>[Mexico]( has been destabilized by drug cartel activities such as lawlessness, kidnappings, increasing corruption and frequent assassinations.<|TARGETS|>drug cartel activities<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>All drugs should be legalized.<|ARGUMENT|>[Mexico]( has been destabilized by drug cartel activities such as lawlessness, kidnappings, increasing corruption and frequent assassinations.<|ASPECTS|>freedom, promotion, liberty, freedom and liberty<|CONCLUSION|>","Mexico has been destabilized by drug cartel activities such as lawlessness, kidnappings, increasing corruption and frequent assassinations.",Drug cartels destabilize Latin America. With legalization they would disappear and Latin America would gain stability.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Zoos Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Today's zoos do more to help animals than hurt them. Rather than anthropomorphize animals, assuming they feel about freedom as we do, we need to recognize that a good zoo home can keep an animal content as well as healthy.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Zoos Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Today's zoos do more to help animals than hurt them. Rather than anthropomorphize animals, assuming they feel about freedom as we do, we need to recognize that a good zoo home can keep an animal content as well as healthy.<|TARGETS|>to recognize that a good zoo home, Today 's zoos<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Zoos Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Today's zoos do more to help animals than hurt them. Rather than anthropomorphize animals, assuming they feel about freedom as we do, we need to recognize that a good zoo home can keep an animal content as well as healthy.<|ASPECTS|>value hierarchy<|CONCLUSION|>","Today's zoos do more to help animals than hurt them. Rather than anthropomorphize animals, assuming they feel about freedom as we do, we need to recognize that a good zoo home can keep an animal content as well as healthy.",Zoos do a lot of important work to improve animal well-being.
"<|TOPIC|>Should single sex schools be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Some students find it easier to focus and take risks in the classroom if members of the opposite gender are not present, particularly during adolescent years.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should single sex schools be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Some students find it easier to focus and take risks in the classroom if members of the opposite gender are not present, particularly during adolescent years.<|TARGETS|>to focus and take risks in the classroom if members of the opposite gender<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should single sex schools be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Some students find it easier to focus and take risks in the classroom if members of the opposite gender are not present, particularly during adolescent years.<|ASPECTS|>take, easier to focus, risks<|CONCLUSION|>","Some students find it easier to focus and take risks in the classroom if members of the opposite gender are not present, particularly during adolescent years.",Boys and girls learn differently and need individual learning environments to attend to their different needs
"<|TOPIC|>Does the Bible support the conclusion that 'homosexuality' is a sin against God?<|ARGUMENT|>With respect to Lev [18:22]( & [20:13]( given Rule #1&2, there is a distinct possibility that the rationale underpinning this law might’ve been tied to apostate worship. That is, [some scholars have postulated]( that the Canaanites engaged in male+male sex \(ritualistically or otherwise\), and as such, male+male relations must therefore be legally prohibitive \(""bounded""\) in order to avoid apostate worship.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the Bible support the conclusion that 'homosexuality' is a sin against God?<|ARGUMENT|>With respect to Lev [18:22]( & [20:13]( given Rule #1&2, there is a distinct possibility that the rationale underpinning this law might’ve been tied to apostate worship. That is, [some scholars have postulated]( that the Canaanites engaged in male+male sex \(ritualistically or otherwise\), and as such, male+male relations must therefore be legally prohibitive \(""bounded""\) in order to avoid apostate worship.<|TARGETS|>some scholars have postulated that the Canaanites engaged in male + male sex ritualistically or otherwise and as such male + male relations, the rationale underpinning this law<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the Bible support the conclusion that 'homosexuality' is a sin against God?<|ARGUMENT|>With respect to Lev [18:22]( & [20:13]( given Rule #1&2, there is a distinct possibility that the rationale underpinning this law might’ve been tied to apostate worship. That is, [some scholars have postulated]( that the Canaanites engaged in male+male sex \(ritualistically or otherwise\), and as such, male+male relations must therefore be legally prohibitive \(""bounded""\) in order to avoid apostate worship.<|ASPECTS|>apostate worship, legally prohibitive<|CONCLUSION|>","With respect to Lev 18:22 & 20:13 given Rule #1&2, there is a distinct possibility that the rationale underpinning this law might’ve been tied to apostate worship. That is, some scholars have postulated that the Canaanites engaged in male+male sex ritualistically or otherwise, and as such, male+male relations must therefore be legally prohibitive ""bounded"" in order to avoid apostate worship.","The instructions of Moses from Yahweh to the now-nomadic Israelites—realized through narrative & laws—were to elucidate the proper norms of living ‘as a set-apart people’ from their Pagan neighbors. Rule #1: Yahweh is singularly sovereign and absolute. Rule #2, don't be like other nations."
<|TOPIC|>Is the Gulabi Gang a force for good in India?<|ARGUMENT|>The Evidence Act now includes a presumption of [no consent]( in cases where it is proven that a sexual act occurred and the victim states in court that she did not consent.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is the Gulabi Gang a force for good in India?<|ARGUMENT|>The Evidence Act now includes a presumption of [no consent]( in cases where it is proven that a sexual act occurred and the victim states in court that she did not consent.<|TARGETS|>The Evidence Act<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is the Gulabi Gang a force for good in India?<|ARGUMENT|>The Evidence Act now includes a presumption of [no consent]( in cases where it is proven that a sexual act occurred and the victim states in court that she did not consent.<|ASPECTS|>sexual act, consent, presumption<|CONCLUSION|>",The Evidence Act now includes a presumption of no consent in cases where it is proven that a sexual act occurred and the victim states in court that she did not consent.,Following the 2012 gang-rape and death of a female physiotherapy student on a bus in Delhi the Indian government introduced a series of reforms to the laws surrounding sexual assault.
"<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>The backlash that has come from accepting refugees has helped galvanize far-right populist parties, and has allowed them to advance their agenda on a range of issues.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>The backlash that has come from accepting refugees has helped galvanize far-right populist parties, and has allowed them to advance their agenda on a range of issues.<|TARGETS|>accepting refugees<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>The backlash that has come from accepting refugees has helped galvanize far-right populist parties, and has allowed them to advance their agenda on a range of issues.<|ASPECTS|>populist parties, backlash, refugees, advance<|CONCLUSION|>","The backlash that has come from accepting refugees has helped galvanize far-right populist parties, and has allowed them to advance their agenda on a range of issues.","Taking in refugees may spark a political backlash, which increases political instability and the risk of conflict."
<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>The principle of the presumption of innocence is one that is [fundamental]( to Western Liberal judicial systems.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>The principle of the presumption of innocence is one that is [fundamental]( to Western Liberal judicial systems.<|TARGETS|>The principle of the presumption of innocence<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>The principle of the presumption of innocence is one that is [fundamental]( to Western Liberal judicial systems.<|ASPECTS|>noticeable, genocide, license, easily, quickly condemned, attempted<|CONCLUSION|>",The principle of the presumption of innocence is one that is fundamental to Western Liberal judicial systems.,Parenting licenses assess parents' competency prospectively. This violates the presumption of innocence
<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Shane MacGowen argues that the use of homophobic slurs is merely a way to [ensure the authentic representation]( of the character he was attempting to portray.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Shane MacGowen argues that the use of homophobic slurs is merely a way to [ensure the authentic representation]( of the character he was attempting to portray.<|TARGETS|>Shane MacGowen, the use of homophobic slurs<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Shane MacGowen argues that the use of homophobic slurs is merely a way to [ensure the authentic representation]( of the character he was attempting to portray.<|ASPECTS|>authentic representation, homophobic slurs<|CONCLUSION|>",Shane MacGowen argues that the use of homophobic slurs is merely a way to ensure the authentic representation of the character he was attempting to portray.,Artistic expression involves the use of characters who say and do things which we may not agree with.
"<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>[1 Nephi 11:22]( in a passage ostensibly dating to the 500s BCE, states, ""Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men."" This is a predating reference to [Romans 5:5]( \(KJV\): ""\[T\]he love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>[1 Nephi 11:22]( in a passage ostensibly dating to the 500s BCE, states, ""Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men."" This is a predating reference to [Romans 5:5]( \(KJV\): ""\[T\]he love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.""<|TARGETS|>T he love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which, the love of God which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>[1 Nephi 11:22]( in a passage ostensibly dating to the 500s BCE, states, ""Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men."" This is a predating reference to [Romans 5:5]( \(KJV\): ""\[T\]he love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.""<|ASPECTS|>names<|CONCLUSION|>","1 Nephi 11:22 in a passage ostensibly dating to the 500s BCE, states, ""Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men."" This is a predating reference to Romans 5:5 KJV: ""The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.""","The Book of Mormon uses phrases, idioms, and analogies from the New Testament in passages ostensibly dated prior to the Christian era."
<|TOPIC|>Creationism is not a valid model of origins.<|ARGUMENT|>There is no particular reason that people's beliefs about the origin of the universe should be based in scientific evidence.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Creationism is not a valid model of origins.<|ARGUMENT|>There is no particular reason that people's beliefs about the origin of the universe should be based in scientific evidence.<|TARGETS|>that people 's beliefs about the origin of the universe<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Creationism is not a valid model of origins.<|ARGUMENT|>There is no particular reason that people's beliefs about the origin of the universe should be based in scientific evidence.<|ASPECTS|>scientific evidence<|CONCLUSION|>,There is no particular reason that people's beliefs about the origin of the universe should be based in scientific evidence.,"Allegorically speaking Creationism is accurate. However, as a scientific model of the Universe it is not accurate."
"<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>The rate of sexual abuse in foster homes in the UK was found to be [four times higher]( than the national average, and twenty eight times higher in group homes.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>The rate of sexual abuse in foster homes in the UK was found to be [four times higher]( than the national average, and twenty eight times higher in group homes.<|TARGETS|>The rate of sexual abuse in foster homes in the UK<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child (procreate)?<|ARGUMENT|>The rate of sexual abuse in foster homes in the UK was found to be [four times higher]( than the national average, and twenty eight times higher in group homes.<|ASPECTS|>noticeable, genocide, license, easily, quickly condemned, attempted<|CONCLUSION|>","The rate of sexual abuse in foster homes in the UK was found to be four times higher than the national average, and twenty eight times higher in group homes.",Abuse and neglect are endemic in many countries' foster care and group homes
"<|TOPIC|>Water Privatisation<|ARGUMENT|>When water is not treated as an economic good, it is wasted. On a domestic level, unmetered access to water means that consumers do not pay according to the quantity they use and so they will use it wastefully. At a national level, subsidised water for farmers and industry encourages wasteful methods and inappropriate crops (e.g. growing water-hungry cotton in California or Central Asia, both naturally areas of semi-desert), often with a damaging impact upon the environment. Pricing water according to its true cost would promote more efficient and environmentally-friendly practices, e.g. the use of drip-irrigation or dry farming in agriculture.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Water Privatisation<|ARGUMENT|>When water is not treated as an economic good, it is wasted. On a domestic level, unmetered access to water means that consumers do not pay according to the quantity they use and so they will use it wastefully. At a national level, subsidised water for farmers and industry encourages wasteful methods and inappropriate crops (e.g. growing water-hungry cotton in California or Central Asia, both naturally areas of semi-desert), often with a damaging impact upon the environment. Pricing water according to its true cost would promote more efficient and environmentally-friendly practices, e.g. the use of drip-irrigation or dry farming in agriculture.<|TARGETS|>the use of drip-irrigation or dry farming in agriculture, Pricing water according to its true cost, subsidised water for farmers and industry, unmetered access to water, When water<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Water Privatisation<|ARGUMENT|>When water is not treated as an economic good, it is wasted. On a domestic level, unmetered access to water means that consumers do not pay according to the quantity they use and so they will use it wastefully. At a national level, subsidised water for farmers and industry encourages wasteful methods and inappropriate crops (e.g. growing water-hungry cotton in California or Central Asia, both naturally areas of semi-desert), often with a damaging impact upon the environment. Pricing water according to its true cost would promote more efficient and environmentally-friendly practices, e.g. the use of drip-irrigation or dry farming in agriculture.<|ASPECTS|>water-hungry cotton, wasteful methods, pay, unmetered access to water, cost, efficient, damaging impact, wastefully, subsidised, environmentally-friendly practices, inappropriate crops, drip-irrigation, dry farming, wasted, economic good, environment<|CONCLUSION|>","When water is not treated as an economic good, it is wasted. On a domestic level, unmetered access to water means that consumers do not pay according to the quantity they use and so they will use it wastefully. At a national level, subsidised water for farmers and industry encourages wasteful methods and inappropriate crops e.g. growing water-hungry cotton in California or Central Asia, both naturally areas of semi-desert, often with a damaging impact upon the environment. Pricing water according to its true cost would promote more efficient and environmentally-friendly practices, e.g. the use of drip-irrigation or dry farming in agriculture.","When water is not treated as an economic good, it is wasted. On a domestic level, unmetered access ..."
"<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>There are virtually an infinite number of ways for spiritual development \(each person can have his own\). When following one specific dogma, you can't explore the other ways and can't decide by your own experience which one is best for you.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>There are virtually an infinite number of ways for spiritual development \(each person can have his own\). When following one specific dogma, you can't explore the other ways and can't decide by your own experience which one is best for you.<|TARGETS|>When following one specific dogma<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>There are virtually an infinite number of ways for spiritual development \(each person can have his own\). When following one specific dogma, you can't explore the other ways and can't decide by your own experience which one is best for you.<|ASPECTS|>social justice, equal, ordinary life, god, god without form, live honestly, direct access to god, gender<|CONCLUSION|>","There are virtually an infinite number of ways for spiritual development each person can have his own. When following one specific dogma, you can't explore the other ways and can't decide by your own experience which one is best for you.",Religious dogma can block the exploration of personal spiritual development.
"<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Saying there is no god is atheism and it has many complex assumptions as a theory, such as assuming that free will arose from deterministic processes, or that free will is just an illusion, which seems extremely counter intuitive and defeating.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Saying there is no god is atheism and it has many complex assumptions as a theory, such as assuming that free will arose from deterministic processes, or that free will is just an illusion, which seems extremely counter intuitive and defeating.<|TARGETS|>free will arose from deterministic processes or that free will<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Saying there is no god is atheism and it has many complex assumptions as a theory, such as assuming that free will arose from deterministic processes, or that free will is just an illusion, which seems extremely counter intuitive and defeating.<|ASPECTS|>affairs, divine communication, human psychological development, direct, lessons, statecraft, human morality, biased.\, divine intervention, philosophy<|CONCLUSION|>","Saying there is no god is atheism and it has many complex assumptions as a theory, such as assuming that free will arose from deterministic processes, or that free will is just an illusion, which seems extremely counter intuitive and defeating.","If there is not one god, then there are either no gods or more than one god."
"<|TOPIC|>Should video games that allow players to virtually rape people be permitted?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaving the freedom to play these games could be a different and useful way to gain knowledge of a problem, something that you can not get by prohibiting them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should video games that allow players to virtually rape people be permitted?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaving the freedom to play these games could be a different and useful way to gain knowledge of a problem, something that you can not get by prohibiting them.<|TARGETS|>Leaving the freedom to play these games<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should video games that allow players to virtually rape people be permitted?<|ARGUMENT|>Leaving the freedom to play these games could be a different and useful way to gain knowledge of a problem, something that you can not get by prohibiting them.<|ASPECTS|>freedom, knowledge of a problem<|CONCLUSION|>","Leaving the freedom to play these games could be a different and useful way to gain knowledge of a problem, something that you can not get by prohibiting them.",Games about rape should be sold to show people how bad rape is and why its not right.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Human Life Be Valued Above Animal Life?<|ARGUMENT|>The adult water buffalo would instinctively [protect young water buffalo]( at the expense of the starving lion cub. If humans are no different, than they too would protect their own before that of another species.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Human Life Be Valued Above Animal Life?<|ARGUMENT|>The adult water buffalo would instinctively [protect young water buffalo]( at the expense of the starving lion cub. If humans are no different, than they too would protect their own before that of another species.<|TARGETS|>The adult water buffalo, If humans<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Human Life Be Valued Above Animal Life?<|ARGUMENT|>The adult water buffalo would instinctively [protect young water buffalo]( at the expense of the starving lion cub. If humans are no different, than they too would protect their own before that of another species.<|ASPECTS|>protect their, protect young<|CONCLUSION|>","The adult water buffalo would instinctively protect young water buffalo at the expense of the starving lion cub. If humans are no different, than they too would protect their own before that of another species.","If humans are no different than animals then one would expect a human to value human life over an animal's life, just as many animal species do."
"<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>[Roughly half]( the apartments in New York city are under rent regulation, public housing or a government program, meaning everyone else has to compete for the places with market-determined rent prices, thereby limiting the supply available.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>[Roughly half]( the apartments in New York city are under rent regulation, public housing or a government program, meaning everyone else has to compete for the places with market-determined rent prices, thereby limiting the supply available.<|TARGETS|>market-determined rent prices<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>[Roughly half]( the apartments in New York city are under rent regulation, public housing or a government program, meaning everyone else has to compete for the places with market-determined rent prices, thereby limiting the supply available.<|ASPECTS|>government interference, internet communication, robust nature, defamatory posts<|CONCLUSION|>","Roughly half the apartments in New York city are under rent regulation, public housing or a government program, meaning everyone else has to compete for the places with market-determined rent prices, thereby limiting the supply available.",Rent-controlled and rent-stabilised apartments in New York City have an adverse effect on the supply and price distribution of apartments.
"<|TOPIC|>Is software developing a good field to go into?<|ARGUMENT|>In-demand programming languages are updated each year, meaning that developers have to change their preferences and learn a new language to ensure that they stay in demand within the software industry.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is software developing a good field to go into?<|ARGUMENT|>In-demand programming languages are updated each year, meaning that developers have to change their preferences and learn a new language to ensure that they stay in demand within the software industry.<|TARGETS|>In-demand programming languages<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is software developing a good field to go into?<|ARGUMENT|>In-demand programming languages are updated each year, meaning that developers have to change their preferences and learn a new language to ensure that they stay in demand within the software industry.<|ASPECTS|>change their preferences, in-demand, demand<|CONCLUSION|>","In-demand programming languages are updated each year, meaning that developers have to change their preferences and learn a new language to ensure that they stay in demand within the software industry.",Programming languages are constantly updated which means that a software developer has to keep learning the languages as technology gets updated.
"<|TOPIC|>Affirmative Action: Useful Once, Outdated Today?<|ARGUMENT|>Given that whites with college degrees make up most of the political and business elite it makes sense that they might be especially offended by policies like affirmative action that directly relate to their own life experiences. Given this, it is probably better to expend political capital on policies that enhance the lives of minorities without triggering this particular form of backlash.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Affirmative Action: Useful Once, Outdated Today?<|ARGUMENT|>Given that whites with college degrees make up most of the political and business elite it makes sense that they might be especially offended by policies like affirmative action that directly relate to their own life experiences. Given this, it is probably better to expend political capital on policies that enhance the lives of minorities without triggering this particular form of backlash.<|TARGETS|>Given that whites with college degrees make up most of the political and business elite, to expend political capital on policies that enhance the lives of minorities without triggering this particular form of backlash ., policies like affirmative action that directly relate to their own life experiences .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Affirmative Action: Useful Once, Outdated Today?<|ARGUMENT|>Given that whites with college degrees make up most of the political and business elite it makes sense that they might be especially offended by policies like affirmative action that directly relate to their own life experiences. Given this, it is probably better to expend political capital on policies that enhance the lives of minorities without triggering this particular form of backlash.<|ASPECTS|>personal privilege, equal society, loss, resentment<|CONCLUSION|>","Given that whites with college degrees make up most of the political and business elite it makes sense that they might be especially offended by policies like affirmative action that directly relate to their own life experiences. Given this, it is probably better to expend political capital on policies that enhance the lives of minorities without triggering this particular form of backlash.","Government policy that affects minorities i.e. welfare, affirmative action would be more popular and better resourced if it targeted the effects of discrimination poverty, lack of education than if it explicitly targeted race."
<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook's violent image policy has lead to the removal of pictures of [crimes committed]( by the Syrian government. Many locals have little other options to reach \(and report\) on local cruelties.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook's violent image policy has lead to the removal of pictures of [crimes committed]( by the Syrian government. Many locals have little other options to reach \(and report\) on local cruelties.<|TARGETS|>Facebook 's violent image policy<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook's violent image policy has lead to the removal of pictures of [crimes committed]( by the Syrian government. Many locals have little other options to reach \(and report\) on local cruelties.<|ASPECTS|>islam<|CONCLUSION|>,Facebook's violent image policy has lead to the removal of pictures of crimes committed by the Syrian government. Many locals have little other options to reach and report on local cruelties.,"The blanket application of rules based on strictly defined categories such as ""violent imagery is always unacceptable"" misses many important nuances of debates about legitimate speech."
"<|TOPIC|>Withdrawing from Iraq<|ARGUMENT|>While there may be some questions regarding the legal justifications for the invasion of Iraq, there is no question that the UN has provided resolutions authorizing the post-invasion presence of coalition forces in Iraq. On January 1, 2009, the last UN resolution providing this authorization will expire. The United State will likely seek an additional resolution to extend into 2009 and beyond. The point here is that a continuum of UN resolutions have provided continual legitimacy to the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. They also override any argument that the Iraq War is illegal based on the lack of a UN resolution; subsequent UN authorization has been provided. There is, therefore, no justification for withdrawing on the basis of a lack of UN resolutions.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Withdrawing from Iraq<|ARGUMENT|>While there may be some questions regarding the legal justifications for the invasion of Iraq, there is no question that the UN has provided resolutions authorizing the post-invasion presence of coalition forces in Iraq. On January 1, 2009, the last UN resolution providing this authorization will expire. The United State will likely seek an additional resolution to extend into 2009 and beyond. The point here is that a continuum of UN resolutions have provided continual legitimacy to the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. They also override any argument that the Iraq War is illegal based on the lack of a UN resolution; subsequent UN authorization has been provided. There is, therefore, no justification for withdrawing on the basis of a lack of UN resolutions.<|TARGETS|>withdrawing on the basis of a lack of UN resolutions, the last UN resolution providing this authorization, authorizing the post-invasion presence of coalition forces in Iraq, the Iraq War, The United State, a continuum of UN resolutions<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Withdrawing from Iraq<|ARGUMENT|>While there may be some questions regarding the legal justifications for the invasion of Iraq, there is no question that the UN has provided resolutions authorizing the post-invasion presence of coalition forces in Iraq. On January 1, 2009, the last UN resolution providing this authorization will expire. The United State will likely seek an additional resolution to extend into 2009 and beyond. The point here is that a continuum of UN resolutions have provided continual legitimacy to the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. They also override any argument that the Iraq War is illegal based on the lack of a UN resolution; subsequent UN authorization has been provided. There is, therefore, no justification for withdrawing on the basis of a lack of UN resolutions.<|ASPECTS|>post-invasion, authorization, iraq war, legal justifications, resolution, legitimacy, coalition, illegal, un resolutions, justification<|CONCLUSION|>","While there may be some questions regarding the legal justifications for the invasion of Iraq, there is no question that the UN has provided resolutions authorizing the post-invasion presence of coalition forces in Iraq. On January 1, 2009, the last UN resolution providing this authorization will expire. The United State will likely seek an additional resolution to extend into 2009 and beyond. The point here is that a continuum of UN resolutions have provided continual legitimacy to the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. They also override any argument that the Iraq War is illegal based on the lack of a UN resolution; subsequent UN authorization has been provided. There is, therefore, no justification for withdrawing on the basis of a lack of UN resolutions.",Post-invasion UN resolutions authorized the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.
"<|TOPIC|>individuals who have committed atrocities in the Syrian Civil War should be investigated by the ICC.<|ARGUMENT|>The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law.[1] The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them. [1] Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012, <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>individuals who have committed atrocities in the Syrian Civil War should be investigated by the ICC.<|ARGUMENT|>The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law.[1] The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them. [1] Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012, <|TARGETS|>The ICC, the resources to investigate and prosecute backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community, Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo, The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they ca n’t get away with such crimes ., Grono<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>individuals who have committed atrocities in the Syrian Civil War should be investigated by the ICC.<|ARGUMENT|>The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law.[1] The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them. [1] Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012, <|ASPECTS|>chemical weapons, crimes against humanity, war crimes, effective deterrent, norms, resources, build, norm against war, international crimes, international law, deterrent effect, support, ruthless, soft power<|CONCLUSION|>","The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law.1 The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them. 1 Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012,","The threat of investigation could deter future war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons"
"<|TOPIC|>Omniscience is the only logical power god could have<|ARGUMENT|>John 4:16 [notes]( that ''God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.''<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Omniscience is the only logical power god could have<|ARGUMENT|>John 4:16 [notes]( that ''God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.''<|TARGETS|>John 4:16 notes that '' God is love and whoever abides in love abides in God and God abides in him . ''<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Omniscience is the only logical power god could have<|ARGUMENT|>John 4:16 [notes]( that ''God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.''<|ASPECTS|>god, love<|CONCLUSION|>","John 4:16 notes that ''God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.''",It is stated throughout religious scriptures that God is omni-benevolence all-loving.
<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>Control implies dominion. And an AGI could have more resources \(or faster access to those resources\) of forcing submission than humans do. Especially since most technology is interlinked through the internet.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>Control implies dominion. And an AGI could have more resources \(or faster access to those resources\) of forcing submission than humans do. Especially since most technology is interlinked through the internet.<|TARGETS|>an AGI, Control<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>Control implies dominion. And an AGI could have more resources \(or faster access to those resources\) of forcing submission than humans do. Especially since most technology is interlinked through the internet.<|ASPECTS|>ai, rights, enhanced<|CONCLUSION|>",Control implies dominion. And an AGI could have more resources or faster access to those resources of forcing submission than humans do. Especially since most technology is interlinked through the internet.,An AGI would be impossible to control or regulate once its abilities or reasoning surpasses our understanding.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) a threat to humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>It was once believed that the world will run out of food because farming technology can't keep up with demand growth. But as we know, farmers innovated and the world has not run out.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) a threat to humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>It was once believed that the world will run out of food because farming technology can't keep up with demand growth. But as we know, farmers innovated and the world has not run out.<|TARGETS|>farming technology<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) a threat to humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>It was once believed that the world will run out of food because farming technology can't keep up with demand growth. But as we know, farmers innovated and the world has not run out.<|ASPECTS|>of food, demand growth, world, farmers innovated<|CONCLUSION|>","It was once believed that the world will run out of food because farming technology can't keep up with demand growth. But as we know, farmers innovated and the world has not run out.","With innovation, we can reduce or completely remove our dependence on resources that are otherwise scarce."
"<|TOPIC|>Would the world be a better place without humans?<|ARGUMENT|>Human beings are the only life form we know today that have the potential to go to other planets. If humans die out, it is a horrible possibility that when earth collapses into the sun, all life in the universe will be dead forever.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Would the world be a better place without humans?<|ARGUMENT|>Human beings are the only life form we know today that have the potential to go to other planets. If humans die out, it is a horrible possibility that when earth collapses into the sun, all life in the universe will be dead forever.<|TARGETS|>If humans die out, Human beings<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Would the world be a better place without humans?<|ARGUMENT|>Human beings are the only life form we know today that have the potential to go to other planets. If humans die out, it is a horrible possibility that when earth collapses into the sun, all life in the universe will be dead forever.<|ASPECTS|>, dead forever, life form, go, life<|CONCLUSION|>","Human beings are the only life form we know today that have the potential to go to other planets. If humans die out, it is a horrible possibility that when earth collapses into the sun, all life in the universe will be dead forever.","Humans are the most evolved species that have ever been on Earth, and humanity is still socially and technologically evolving. Removing humanity from existence would remove this advancement."
<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>One of the goals of religion isn't to make you good but to remind you that you can be. If we agree on this it means that humans can also be bad. If the counter to 'bad' people in a state is the court and police. Then for the world it is God.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>One of the goals of religion isn't to make you good but to remind you that you can be. If we agree on this it means that humans can also be bad. If the counter to 'bad' people in a state is the court and police. Then for the world it is God.<|TARGETS|>If the counter to ' bad ' people in a state<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>One of the goals of religion isn't to make you good but to remind you that you can be. If we agree on this it means that humans can also be bad. If the counter to 'bad' people in a state is the court and police. Then for the world it is God.<|ASPECTS|>competent, beneficial, righteousness, faith, inspired of god<|CONCLUSION|>",One of the goals of religion isn't to make you good but to remind you that you can be. If we agree on this it means that humans can also be bad. If the counter to 'bad' people in a state is the court and police. Then for the world it is God.,"Shared religions with ""big gods"" that see everything and punish moral transgressions in the afterlife was initially needed to achieve trust between strangers who would otherwise cheat and exploit each other. This makes larger societies possible causing such religions to spread and gain dominance through ""cultural evolution"""
"<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>If gender was socially constructed, we would expect no stable sex-differentiated behaviours across cultures. There are sex-differentiated behaviours that are universal or near-universal \([Wood & Eagly, 2002]( Therefore, it is inappropriate to reduce gender to a social construct.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>If gender was socially constructed, we would expect no stable sex-differentiated behaviours across cultures. There are sex-differentiated behaviours that are universal or near-universal \([Wood & Eagly, 2002]( Therefore, it is inappropriate to reduce gender to a social construct.<|TARGETS|>If gender was socially constructed, to reduce gender to a social construct .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>If gender was socially constructed, we would expect no stable sex-differentiated behaviours across cultures. There are sex-differentiated behaviours that are universal or near-universal \([Wood & Eagly, 2002]( Therefore, it is inappropriate to reduce gender to a social construct.<|ASPECTS|>socially constructed, sex-differentiated behaviours, social, universal, gender, stable<|CONCLUSION|>","If gender was socially constructed, we would expect no stable sex-differentiated behaviours across cultures. There are sex-differentiated behaviours that are universal or near-universal Wood & Eagly, 2002 Therefore, it is inappropriate to reduce gender to a social construct.","Most cultures divide labor between men and women, thus at least some aspects of gender are universally shared and not socially constructed."
<|TOPIC|>Is violence always wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>States have a [duty to protect]( their citizens from groups or countries that would attack them and harm them. Violence in these situations is justified.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is violence always wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>States have a [duty to protect]( their citizens from groups or countries that would attack them and harm them. Violence in these situations is justified.<|TARGETS|>to protect their citizens from groups or countries that would attack them and harm them ., Violence in these situations<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is violence always wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>States have a [duty to protect]( their citizens from groups or countries that would attack them and harm them. Violence in these situations is justified.<|ASPECTS|>duty to protect, justified, violence, harm, attack<|CONCLUSION|>",States have a duty to protect their citizens from groups or countries that would attack them and harm them. Violence in these situations is justified.,Violence in war can sometimes be necessary to protect human life.
<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>If a person does not want to conceive a child \(be it man or woman\) they simply should not have sex. Creating new life is a potential consequence of having sex. While risk can be mitigated it can not be avoided entirely.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>If a person does not want to conceive a child \(be it man or woman\) they simply should not have sex. Creating new life is a potential consequence of having sex. While risk can be mitigated it can not be avoided entirely.<|TARGETS|>If a person does not want to conceive a child be it man or woman they simply should not have sex ., Creating new life<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>If a person does not want to conceive a child \(be it man or woman\) they simply should not have sex. Creating new life is a potential consequence of having sex. While risk can be mitigated it can not be avoided entirely.<|ASPECTS|>reject its own life, desire, aborted<|CONCLUSION|>",If a person does not want to conceive a child be it man or woman they simply should not have sex. Creating new life is a potential consequence of having sex. While risk can be mitigated it can not be avoided entirely.,Women consent to the risk of becoming pregnant whenever they choose to have sex.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the Primary Focus of Prisons be Rehabilitation, or Punishment?<|ARGUMENT|>If prisoners are not allowed access to new technologies, upon release after a long sentence served they will be unable to use such basic tools as email or Google.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the Primary Focus of Prisons be Rehabilitation, or Punishment?<|ARGUMENT|>If prisoners are not allowed access to new technologies, upon release after a long sentence served they will be unable to use such basic tools as email or Google.<|TARGETS|>If prisoners are not allowed access to new technologies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the Primary Focus of Prisons be Rehabilitation, or Punishment?<|ARGUMENT|>If prisoners are not allowed access to new technologies, upon release after a long sentence served they will be unable to use such basic tools as email or Google.<|ASPECTS|>basic tools, new technologies<|CONCLUSION|>","If prisoners are not allowed access to new technologies, upon release after a long sentence served they will be unable to use such basic tools as email or Google.","Long prison sentences disconnect convicted individuals further from society, which can leave them stranded and unable to cope upon release."
"<|TOPIC|>Affirmative Action: Useful Once, Outdated Today?<|ARGUMENT|>Affirmative Action addresses the symptom, not the cause. We should address the causes and watch the symptom to measure the effectiveness of the solution.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Affirmative Action: Useful Once, Outdated Today?<|ARGUMENT|>Affirmative Action addresses the symptom, not the cause. We should address the causes and watch the symptom to measure the effectiveness of the solution.<|TARGETS|>Affirmative Action<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Affirmative Action: Useful Once, Outdated Today?<|ARGUMENT|>Affirmative Action addresses the symptom, not the cause. We should address the causes and watch the symptom to measure the effectiveness of the solution.<|ASPECTS|>personal privilege, equal society, loss, resentment<|CONCLUSION|>","Affirmative Action addresses the symptom, not the cause. We should address the causes and watch the symptom to measure the effectiveness of the solution.",Addressing educational inequality at a college level through affirmative action comes too late to create effective academic balance.
"<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>Inter-personal interactions, relationships, families, universally in any society, are only working if we grant each other the belief that we do have free will and we act on that belief. The universality of this shows that free will is an underlying truth that human beings work on, and without which we cannot function properly.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>Inter-personal interactions, relationships, families, universally in any society, are only working if we grant each other the belief that we do have free will and we act on that belief. The universality of this shows that free will is an underlying truth that human beings work on, and without which we cannot function properly.<|TARGETS|>Inter-personal interactions, grant each other the belief that we do have free will and we act on that belief .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>Inter-personal interactions, relationships, families, universally in any society, are only working if we grant each other the belief that we do have free will and we act on that belief. The universality of this shows that free will is an underlying truth that human beings work on, and without which we cannot function properly.<|ASPECTS|>truth, free, interactions, function properly<|CONCLUSION|>","Inter-personal interactions, relationships, families, universally in any society, are only working if we grant each other the belief that we do have free will and we act on that belief. The universality of this shows that free will is an underlying truth that human beings work on, and without which we cannot function properly.",Lived experience and observation suggest that we have free will.
"<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Denmark]( the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph \(Article 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment\), but Article 115 allows for doubling of the usual punishment when a royal is target of the libel.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Denmark]( the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph \(Article 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment\), but Article 115 allows for doubling of the usual punishment when a royal is target of the libel.<|TARGETS|>Article 267 of the penal code<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In [Denmark]( the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph \(Article 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment\), but Article 115 allows for doubling of the usual punishment when a royal is target of the libel.<|ASPECTS|>traditional values, preserving the knowledge, de, honorary title, power, promotion of institutions<|CONCLUSION|>","In Denmark the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph Article 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment, but Article 115 allows for doubling of the usual punishment when a royal is target of the libel.",Monarchies limit freedom of expression and speech by making criticism of the Crown or members of the royal family a punishable offence.
"<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>Some refugees hold highly illiberal views / beliefs. If we simply accept any refugee who seeks entry, some will believe that the penalty for homosexuality should be death. Others will believe that apostates should be killed. Still others will believe that women do not deserve the same rights as men. People with beliefs such as these just cannot be safely allowed into a western culture that abhors these illiberal views.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>Some refugees hold highly illiberal views / beliefs. If we simply accept any refugee who seeks entry, some will believe that the penalty for homosexuality should be death. Others will believe that apostates should be killed. Still others will believe that women do not deserve the same rights as men. People with beliefs such as these just cannot be safely allowed into a western culture that abhors these illiberal views.<|TARGETS|>If we simply accept any refugee who seeks entry, the penalty for homosexuality, People with beliefs such as these just cannot be safely allowed into a western culture that abhors these illiberal views .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>Some refugees hold highly illiberal views / beliefs. If we simply accept any refugee who seeks entry, some will believe that the penalty for homosexuality should be death. Others will believe that apostates should be killed. Still others will believe that women do not deserve the same rights as men. People with beliefs such as these just cannot be safely allowed into a western culture that abhors these illiberal views.<|ASPECTS|>populist parties, backlash, refugees, advance<|CONCLUSION|>","Some refugees hold highly illiberal views / beliefs. If we simply accept any refugee who seeks entry, some will believe that the penalty for homosexuality should be death. Others will believe that apostates should be killed. Still others will believe that women do not deserve the same rights as men. People with beliefs such as these just cannot be safely allowed into a western culture that abhors these illiberal views.",Allowing a huge number of refugees into a country is a safety risk.
<|TOPIC|>Is enlightened despotism superior to democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>If policy can change on a whim then investors may be uncomfortable investing which would hurt the economy<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is enlightened despotism superior to democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>If policy can change on a whim then investors may be uncomfortable investing which would hurt the economy<|TARGETS|>If policy can change on a whim then investors<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is enlightened despotism superior to democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>If policy can change on a whim then investors may be uncomfortable investing which would hurt the economy<|ASPECTS|>uncomfortable investing, hurt<|CONCLUSION|>",If policy can change on a whim then investors may be uncomfortable investing which would hurt the economy,Sudden changes in public opinion could cause drastic policy changes.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Society Normalise Men Wearing Dresses/Skirts?<|ARGUMENT|>Fashion is becoming technologically advanced and flexible. So wearing dresses/skirts, if technology necessitates it, will allow men to advance, by wearing 21st century fashion instead of 19th century garb.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Society Normalise Men Wearing Dresses/Skirts?<|ARGUMENT|>Fashion is becoming technologically advanced and flexible. So wearing dresses/skirts, if technology necessitates it, will allow men to advance, by wearing 21st century fashion instead of 19th century garb.<|TARGETS|>So wearing dresses / skirts, Fashion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Society Normalise Men Wearing Dresses/Skirts?<|ARGUMENT|>Fashion is becoming technologically advanced and flexible. So wearing dresses/skirts, if technology necessitates it, will allow men to advance, by wearing 21st century fashion instead of 19th century garb.<|ASPECTS|>flexible, century fashion, technologically advanced, men to advance<|CONCLUSION|>","Fashion is becoming technologically advanced and flexible. So wearing dresses/skirts, if technology necessitates it, will allow men to advance, by wearing 21st century fashion instead of 19th century garb.",There is no reason to have fashion structured this way in the modern era.
"<|TOPIC|>Should a child's primary carer receive a wage until the child enters childcare?<|ARGUMENT|>In many countries, women are still the majority of the caregivers and are financially dependent on men. Providing them a wage would give them more financial independence which is key to tackling gender injustice.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should a child's primary carer receive a wage until the child enters childcare?<|ARGUMENT|>In many countries, women are still the majority of the caregivers and are financially dependent on men. Providing them a wage would give them more financial independence which is key to tackling gender injustice.<|TARGETS|>Providing them a wage<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should a child's primary carer receive a wage until the child enters childcare?<|ARGUMENT|>In many countries, women are still the majority of the caregivers and are financially dependent on men. Providing them a wage would give them more financial independence which is key to tackling gender injustice.<|ASPECTS|>substantial, industrial economy, maintenance, workforce<|CONCLUSION|>","In many countries, women are still the majority of the caregivers and are financially dependent on men. Providing them a wage would give them more financial independence which is key to tackling gender injustice.","At the very least, woman might gain financial independence even if they would still not be working."
<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>It requires special knowledge to know about ISIS controlled media. To search these already implies a particular interest in the subject.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>It requires special knowledge to know about ISIS controlled media. To search these already implies a particular interest in the subject.<|TARGETS|>To search these, ISIS controlled media<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>It requires special knowledge to know about ISIS controlled media. To search these already implies a particular interest in the subject.<|ASPECTS|>deny service, economic interest, white supremacists<|CONCLUSION|>",It requires special knowledge to know about ISIS controlled media. To search these already implies a particular interest in the subject.,Those watching these sites already are convinced supporters. Only in mainstream outlets can ISIS recruit new sources hitherto being neutral.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>[The Lieber code]( the foundation upon which the Geneva Conventions were built, was drafted on the basis of a philosophy of ""no right without its duties, no duty without its rights"". They therefore constitute a core part of international law and thinking.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>[The Lieber code]( the foundation upon which the Geneva Conventions were built, was drafted on the basis of a philosophy of ""no right without its duties, no duty without its rights"". They therefore constitute a core part of international law and thinking.<|TARGETS|>The Lieber code<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>[The Lieber code]( the foundation upon which the Geneva Conventions were built, was drafted on the basis of a philosophy of ""no right without its duties, no duty without its rights"". They therefore constitute a core part of international law and thinking.<|ASPECTS|>duty, international law and thinking, right, rights<|CONCLUSION|>","The Lieber code the foundation upon which the Geneva Conventions were built, was drafted on the basis of a philosophy of ""no right without its duties, no duty without its rights"". They therefore constitute a core part of international law and thinking.",Citizens have a moral duty to serve their society in return for the various rights and privileges that they are granted by society.
"<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>Omniscience, from the Christian Bible: ""Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father"" \(Matt. 10:29\); ""Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world"" \(Acts 15:18\)<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>Omniscience, from the Christian Bible: ""Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father"" \(Matt. 10:29\); ""Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world"" \(Acts 15:18\)<|TARGETS|>Omniscience from the Christian Bible<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>Omniscience, from the Christian Bible: ""Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father"" \(Matt. 10:29\); ""Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world"" \(Acts 15:18\)<|ASPECTS|>right the consequences, evil, god, remove evil<|CONCLUSION|>","Omniscience, from the Christian Bible: ""Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father"" Matt. 10:29; ""Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world"" Acts 15:18","There are verses from all three holy books listed here which explicitly assert the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence of God. See the Pros to this claim."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US establish a Space Force?<|ARGUMENT|>Russia had an independent Space Force twice, from [1992-1997]( and [2001-2011]( The Russian Space Force is now a sub-branch of the Russian Aerospace Forces.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US establish a Space Force?<|ARGUMENT|>Russia had an independent Space Force twice, from [1992-1997]( and [2001-2011]( The Russian Space Force is now a sub-branch of the Russian Aerospace Forces.<|TARGETS|>The Russian Space Force, Russia<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US establish a Space Force?<|ARGUMENT|>Russia had an independent Space Force twice, from [1992-1997]( and [2001-2011]( The Russian Space Force is now a sub-branch of the Russian Aerospace Forces.<|ASPECTS|>space force, independent<|CONCLUSION|>","Russia had an independent Space Force twice, from 1992-1997 and 2001-2011 The Russian Space Force is now a sub-branch of the Russian Aerospace Forces.",Other nations are already making rapid progress in the space arms race.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Upon finding that the chance of upward mobility is increased if young children are exposed to resources that are typically reserved for the rich \(e.g., better schooling and safer neighborhoods\), Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren recommend [housing voucher programs]( to enable lower-income families to move to better neighborhoods with quality pre-school programs.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Upon finding that the chance of upward mobility is increased if young children are exposed to resources that are typically reserved for the rich \(e.g., better schooling and safer neighborhoods\), Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren recommend [housing voucher programs]( to enable lower-income families to move to better neighborhoods with quality pre-school programs.<|TARGETS|>housing voucher programs, Upon finding that the chance of upward mobility<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Upon finding that the chance of upward mobility is increased if young children are exposed to resources that are typically reserved for the rich \(e.g., better schooling and safer neighborhoods\), Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren recommend [housing voucher programs]( to enable lower-income families to move to better neighborhoods with quality pre-school programs.<|ASPECTS|>better neighborhoods, upward mobility, housing voucher, schooling, resources, safer neighborhoods\<|CONCLUSION|>","Upon finding that the chance of upward mobility is increased if young children are exposed to resources that are typically reserved for the rich e.g., better schooling and safer neighborhoods, Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren recommend housing voucher programs to enable lower-income families to move to better neighborhoods with quality pre-school programs.","Home ownership and usual income can account for 80 percent of the observed wealth differences between white and Black families Thompson/Suarez, p. 33 Reparations can provide the capital for homeownership."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>In many countries, interim governments are decided by [majoritarian consensus]( which gives them an advantage as they hold the current plurality or absolute majority.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>In many countries, interim governments are decided by [majoritarian consensus]( which gives them an advantage as they hold the current plurality or absolute majority.<|TARGETS|>interim governments<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>In many countries, interim governments are decided by [majoritarian consensus]( which gives them an advantage as they hold the current plurality or absolute majority.<|ASPECTS|>limitations, influence over politicians, disproportionate, donate<|CONCLUSION|>","In many countries, interim governments are decided by majoritarian consensus which gives them an advantage as they hold the current plurality or absolute majority.","In corrupt regimes, incumbent governments have a strong influence on how this funding is dispensed."
"<|TOPIC|>Anarchy is the only ethical system of society.<|ARGUMENT|>By having voluntaryism instead of government \(democracy or other\), there is no entity dictating how should people live. As long as they don't violate NAP, they can act on their own ideology and live as they wish. It'd be unethical to force them to live differently therefore voluntaryism is the only ethical solution.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Anarchy is the only ethical system of society.<|ARGUMENT|>By having voluntaryism instead of government \(democracy or other\), there is no entity dictating how should people live. As long as they don't violate NAP, they can act on their own ideology and live as they wish. It'd be unethical to force them to live differently therefore voluntaryism is the only ethical solution.<|TARGETS|>having voluntaryism instead of government democracy or other, to force them to live differently therefore voluntaryism<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Anarchy is the only ethical system of society.<|ARGUMENT|>By having voluntaryism instead of government \(democracy or other\), there is no entity dictating how should people live. As long as they don't violate NAP, they can act on their own ideology and live as they wish. It'd be unethical to force them to live differently therefore voluntaryism is the only ethical solution.<|ASPECTS|>voluntaryism, unethical, live, ideology, ethical solution<|CONCLUSION|>","By having voluntaryism instead of government democracy or other, there is no entity dictating how should people live. As long as they don't violate NAP, they can act on their own ideology and live as they wish. It'd be unethical to force them to live differently therefore voluntaryism is the only ethical solution.","The Non-aggression principle is logical and objective and between societies in Voluntaryism there doesn't have to be an 'only' solution, different communities can all live in peace. Socialism even works for some small countries."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>\(Placeholder\) Competition will generally prevent price gouging or other forms of market abuse, just as it does with the rest of the economy overall.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>\(Placeholder\) Competition will generally prevent price gouging or other forms of market abuse, just as it does with the rest of the economy overall.<|TARGETS|>Placeholder Competition<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>\(Placeholder\) Competition will generally prevent price gouging or other forms of market abuse, just as it does with the rest of the economy overall.<|ASPECTS|>incentive, value, monopolists, discriminating, price/profits\, prices<|CONCLUSION|>","Placeholder Competition will generally prevent price gouging or other forms of market abuse, just as it does with the rest of the economy overall.",Placeholder It is unlikely that ISPs will be able to engage in such anti-competitive/abusive behavior. Grouping/organizational claim; see children for support
"<|TOPIC|>Should Whaling Still be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [no humane way]( to kill a whale at sea. The hunting process can never be an exact exercise - whales are a moving target, shot at from a moving vessel which sits on a moving sea. Grenade harpoons are often used to kill whales subjecting them to a long, slow and painful death.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Whaling Still be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [no humane way]( to kill a whale at sea. The hunting process can never be an exact exercise - whales are a moving target, shot at from a moving vessel which sits on a moving sea. Grenade harpoons are often used to kill whales subjecting them to a long, slow and painful death.<|TARGETS|>Grenade harpoons, to kill a whale at sea ., The hunting process<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Whaling Still be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [no humane way]( to kill a whale at sea. The hunting process can never be an exact exercise - whales are a moving target, shot at from a moving vessel which sits on a moving sea. Grenade harpoons are often used to kill whales subjecting them to a long, slow and painful death.<|ASPECTS|>natural habitats, beaching, noise pollution, stress, flight, underwater<|CONCLUSION|>","There is no humane way to kill a whale at sea. The hunting process can never be an exact exercise - whales are a moving target, shot at from a moving vessel which sits on a moving sea. Grenade harpoons are often used to kill whales subjecting them to a long, slow and painful death.",The Humane Society of the United States cites an average time to death of four minutes with the most effective modern method explosive harpoons.
<|TOPIC|>hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.<|ARGUMENT|>The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.<|ARGUMENT|>The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns<|TARGETS|>The current system<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.<|ARGUMENT|>The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns<|ASPECTS|>practical benefits, involvement in issues, international crisis, pressure, poor showing, compel, effectively, raised, costs, undermining opponents, party, national campaign, positive policy statements, funded, national unity, democratic party nomination, repeat performances, attack campaigning-, differing perspectives, debate, cost, reduce, decisive lead, clearer result, treated-, blunder<|CONCLUSION|>",The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns,hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.
<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Spirituality enables a person to develop good [moral]( habits by reducing stress and increasing creativity.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Spirituality enables a person to develop good [moral]( habits by reducing stress and increasing creativity.<|TARGETS|>Spirituality<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Spirituality enables a person to develop good [moral]( habits by reducing stress and increasing creativity.<|ASPECTS|>lean machine, expenditure<|CONCLUSION|>",Spirituality enables a person to develop good moral habits by reducing stress and increasing creativity.,Christianity is beneficial for trusting business partners and thus conducive to commerce.
"<|TOPIC|>Pride organisers should refuse corporate sponsorship<|ARGUMENT|>North Carolina's ""bathroom bill"", which limited LGBTQ+ protections, will [cost the state]( more than $3.76 billion in lost business over a dozen years, all because businesses boycotted the state over the discriminatory law. These boycotts led to the [repeal]( of the law, a clear example of corporations ending discriminatory practices.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Pride organisers should refuse corporate sponsorship<|ARGUMENT|>North Carolina's ""bathroom bill"", which limited LGBTQ+ protections, will [cost the state]( more than $3.76 billion in lost business over a dozen years, all because businesses boycotted the state over the discriminatory law. These boycotts led to the [repeal]( of the law, a clear example of corporations ending discriminatory practices.<|TARGETS|>North Carolina 's "" bathroom bill, These boycotts<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Pride organisers should refuse corporate sponsorship<|ARGUMENT|>North Carolina's ""bathroom bill"", which limited LGBTQ+ protections, will [cost the state]( more than $3.76 billion in lost business over a dozen years, all because businesses boycotted the state over the discriminatory law. These boycotts led to the [repeal]( of the law, a clear example of corporations ending discriminatory practices.<|ASPECTS|>bathroom, cost, lgbtq+ protections, discriminatory practices, discriminatory law, lost business<|CONCLUSION|>","North Carolina's ""bathroom bill"", which limited LGBTQ+ protections, will cost the state more than $3.76 billion in lost business over a dozen years, all because businesses boycotted the state over the discriminatory law. These boycotts led to the repeal of the law, a clear example of corporations ending discriminatory practices.","Corporations have become a key ally of the LGBTQ+ movement, and have aided the movement in many ways."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Democracies adapt to improve?<|ARGUMENT|>Advancements in Technology mean that many more people can be involved in think tanks, consultations, policy research etc. - all supported by a single, central, professional Civil Service.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Democracies adapt to improve?<|ARGUMENT|>Advancements in Technology mean that many more people can be involved in think tanks, consultations, policy research etc. - all supported by a single, central, professional Civil Service.<|TARGETS|>Advancements in Technology<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Democracies adapt to improve?<|ARGUMENT|>Advancements in Technology mean that many more people can be involved in think tanks, consultations, policy research etc. - all supported by a single, central, professional Civil Service.<|ASPECTS|>policy research, think tanks<|CONCLUSION|>","Advancements in Technology mean that many more people can be involved in think tanks, consultations, policy research etc. - all supported by a single, central, professional Civil Service.","Progress in technology, the media, and the spread of education allows for many more methods to be practically adopted now than last century."
<|TOPIC|>Is Conflict Between Groups Inevitable?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no historical indication of a link between abundance and social harmony. Outside the sphere of politics and the history of civilizations there is no way to assess degrees of abundance. Inside the same sphere the highest points of abundance were reached by the most advanced military powers in a certain place and time.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is Conflict Between Groups Inevitable?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no historical indication of a link between abundance and social harmony. Outside the sphere of politics and the history of civilizations there is no way to assess degrees of abundance. Inside the same sphere the highest points of abundance were reached by the most advanced military powers in a certain place and time.<|TARGETS|>Outside the sphere of politics and the history of civilizations<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is Conflict Between Groups Inevitable?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no historical indication of a link between abundance and social harmony. Outside the sphere of politics and the history of civilizations there is no way to assess degrees of abundance. Inside the same sphere the highest points of abundance were reached by the most advanced military powers in a certain place and time.<|ASPECTS|>highest points, abundance, social harmony<|CONCLUSION|>",There is no historical indication of a link between abundance and social harmony. Outside the sphere of politics and the history of civilizations there is no way to assess degrees of abundance. Inside the same sphere the highest points of abundance were reached by the most advanced military powers in a certain place and time.,Evolution is propelled by competition for limited resources. Scarcity is what allows both human and nonhuman life to seek new solutions and grow.
"<|TOPIC|>Does professional sport provide a framework that assists social change, and therefore is sport a social movement?<|ARGUMENT|>Atheletes such as LeBron James and Colin Kaepernick have been able to [draw attention]( to the issue of police brutality.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does professional sport provide a framework that assists social change, and therefore is sport a social movement?<|ARGUMENT|>Atheletes such as LeBron James and Colin Kaepernick have been able to [draw attention]( to the issue of police brutality.<|TARGETS|>Atheletes such as LeBron James and Colin Kaepernick<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does professional sport provide a framework that assists social change, and therefore is sport a social movement?<|ARGUMENT|>Atheletes such as LeBron James and Colin Kaepernick have been able to [draw attention]( to the issue of police brutality.<|ASPECTS|>police brutality<|CONCLUSION|>",Atheletes such as LeBron James and Colin Kaepernick have been able to draw attention to the issue of police brutality.,"Athletes can use their fame to shed light on important social issues, which may become social movements."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>In the Colorado Springs \(Planned Parenthood\) and Las Vegas shootings, armed individuals, if they were to fire upon the perceived shooter, would have drawn the fire of other defenders and potentially fired upon innocent persons in the area.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>In the Colorado Springs \(Planned Parenthood\) and Las Vegas shootings, armed individuals, if they were to fire upon the perceived shooter, would have drawn the fire of other defenders and potentially fired upon innocent persons in the area.<|TARGETS|>Las Vegas shootings<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>In the Colorado Springs \(Planned Parenthood\) and Las Vegas shootings, armed individuals, if they were to fire upon the perceived shooter, would have drawn the fire of other defenders and potentially fired upon innocent persons in the area.<|ASPECTS|>political and social lobbying, political discussion<|CONCLUSION|>","In the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood and Las Vegas shootings, armed individuals, if they were to fire upon the perceived shooter, would have drawn the fire of other defenders and potentially fired upon innocent persons in the area.","Average citizens do not have advanced deescalation and/or crisis training, and are far more likely to exacerbate a bad situation by making misjudgments in the stress of a crisis."
"<|TOPIC|>Medical marijuana dispensaries<|ARGUMENT|>People should be at liberty to treat their bodies how they want to. Indeed, people are allowed to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use? This is, of course, assuming that their use does not harm anyone else. This means, as with substances such as alcohol or cigarrettes, that regulations be put in place to ensure that one individual's consumption of marijuana does not violate the liberties of another citizen. If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes, it seems achievable with marijuana.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Medical marijuana dispensaries<|ARGUMENT|>People should be at liberty to treat their bodies how they want to. Indeed, people are allowed to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use? This is, of course, assuming that their use does not harm anyone else. This means, as with substances such as alcohol or cigarrettes, that regulations be put in place to ensure that one individual's consumption of marijuana does not violate the liberties of another citizen. If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes, it seems achievable with marijuana.<|TARGETS|>to treat their bodies how they want to ., to eat and drink to their detriment and even death so why should n't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use, If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Medical marijuana dispensaries<|ARGUMENT|>People should be at liberty to treat their bodies how they want to. Indeed, people are allowed to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use? This is, of course, assuming that their use does not harm anyone else. This means, as with substances such as alcohol or cigarrettes, that regulations be put in place to ensure that one individual's consumption of marijuana does not violate the liberties of another citizen. If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes, it seems achievable with marijuana.<|ASPECTS|>cocaine users, gateway drug, correlation, cocaine user, marijuana consumers<|CONCLUSION|>","People should be at liberty to treat their bodies how they want to. Indeed, people are allowed to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use? This is, of course, assuming that their use does not harm anyone else. This means, as with substances such as alcohol or cigarrettes, that regulations be put in place to ensure that one individual's consumption of marijuana does not violate the liberties of another citizen. If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes, it seems achievable with marijuana.",People should be free to use marijuana as long as it harms no one else
<|TOPIC|>Should puberty in children be delayed in preparation for gender reassignment?<|ARGUMENT|>Vaccines are at times [mandatory]( for children. This prioritises the child's health over parental rights to make decisions about their children's health.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should puberty in children be delayed in preparation for gender reassignment?<|ARGUMENT|>Vaccines are at times [mandatory]( for children. This prioritises the child's health over parental rights to make decisions about their children's health.<|TARGETS|>Vaccines<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should puberty in children be delayed in preparation for gender reassignment?<|ARGUMENT|>Vaccines are at times [mandatory]( for children. This prioritises the child's health over parental rights to make decisions about their children's health.<|ASPECTS|>children 's, child 's health, parental rights<|CONCLUSION|>",Vaccines are at times mandatory for children. This prioritises the child's health over parental rights to make decisions about their children's health.,Individuals can still seek appropriate treatment without violating others' bodily autonomy.
<|TOPIC|>Who Will Win the Game of Thrones?<|ARGUMENT|>Littlefinger has Robin and the Erie under his thumb which could prove vital if he is able to mop up the end of a large battle.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Who Will Win the Game of Thrones?<|ARGUMENT|>Littlefinger has Robin and the Erie under his thumb which could prove vital if he is able to mop up the end of a large battle.<|TARGETS|>Littlefinger<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Who Will Win the Game of Thrones?<|ARGUMENT|>Littlefinger has Robin and the Erie under his thumb which could prove vital if he is able to mop up the end of a large battle.<|ASPECTS|>mop, vital, battle<|CONCLUSION|>",Littlefinger has Robin and the Erie under his thumb which could prove vital if he is able to mop up the end of a large battle.,Littlefinger has a lot of power as he has a lot of information about everyone.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the use of 'chosen' or gender-neutral pronouns be mandatory?<|ARGUMENT|>Mandating use of chosen or gender-neutral pronouns compels individuals to adopt a particular view about what gender is, which is a complex issue on which reasonable people can disagree. This stifles dialogue and fruitful enquiry on the nature of gender.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the use of 'chosen' or gender-neutral pronouns be mandatory?<|ARGUMENT|>Mandating use of chosen or gender-neutral pronouns compels individuals to adopt a particular view about what gender is, which is a complex issue on which reasonable people can disagree. This stifles dialogue and fruitful enquiry on the nature of gender.<|TARGETS|>Mandating use of chosen or gender-neutral pronouns<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the use of 'chosen' or gender-neutral pronouns be mandatory?<|ARGUMENT|>Mandating use of chosen or gender-neutral pronouns compels individuals to adopt a particular view about what gender is, which is a complex issue on which reasonable people can disagree. This stifles dialogue and fruitful enquiry on the nature of gender.<|ASPECTS|>gender, dialogue<|CONCLUSION|>","Mandating use of chosen or gender-neutral pronouns compels individuals to adopt a particular view about what gender is, which is a complex issue on which reasonable people can disagree. This stifles dialogue and fruitful enquiry on the nature of gender.",It would be preferable but should not be legally enforced.
"<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Saying that a practice also causes a negative is not a counter argument. Everything effectively can be shown to create negatives. The issue is not if the practice is pristine and only creates positive outcomes, but the degree to which it creates less negatives. Animal agriculture creates more harm for animals. Animal agriculture includes all the harm of plant based agriculture plus the direct harm of farm animals. Farm animals are fed the plants, and much more than it would take to feed humans.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Saying that a practice also causes a negative is not a counter argument. Everything effectively can be shown to create negatives. The issue is not if the practice is pristine and only creates positive outcomes, but the degree to which it creates less negatives. Animal agriculture creates more harm for animals. Animal agriculture includes all the harm of plant based agriculture plus the direct harm of farm animals. Farm animals are fed the plants, and much more than it would take to feed humans.<|TARGETS|>Animal agriculture, Farm animals<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Saying that a practice also causes a negative is not a counter argument. Everything effectively can be shown to create negatives. The issue is not if the practice is pristine and only creates positive outcomes, but the degree to which it creates less negatives. Animal agriculture creates more harm for animals. Animal agriculture includes all the harm of plant based agriculture plus the direct harm of farm animals. Farm animals are fed the plants, and much more than it would take to feed humans.<|ASPECTS|>decisive, innovation, dietary culture, cultural norm, central<|CONCLUSION|>","Saying that a practice also causes a negative is not a counter argument. Everything effectively can be shown to create negatives. The issue is not if the practice is pristine and only creates positive outcomes, but the degree to which it creates less negatives. Animal agriculture creates more harm for animals. Animal agriculture includes all the harm of plant based agriculture plus the direct harm of farm animals. Farm animals are fed the plants, and much more than it would take to feed humans.",The argument is an example of Whataboutism aka Tu quoque logical fallacy and therefore does not directly refute the argument that eating meat is wrong.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Infant Circumcision Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>A [study]( of 506 young adult males in Taiwan found that sexual performance after adult circumcision seems to be improved among the patients, especially in sexual drive and confidence of erection.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Infant Circumcision Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>A [study]( of 506 young adult males in Taiwan found that sexual performance after adult circumcision seems to be improved among the patients, especially in sexual drive and confidence of erection.<|TARGETS|>A study of 506 young adult males in Taiwan found that sexual performance after adult circumcision<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Infant Circumcision Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>A [study]( of 506 young adult males in Taiwan found that sexual performance after adult circumcision seems to be improved among the patients, especially in sexual drive and confidence of erection.<|ASPECTS|>protects, violation, rights of its people, peoples ' rights, overreach of power, government<|CONCLUSION|>","A study of 506 young adult males in Taiwan found that sexual performance after adult circumcision seems to be improved among the patients, especially in sexual drive and confidence of erection.","A number of studies have indicated that circumcision has either no effect, or a positive one on sexual activity."
"<|TOPIC|>Are Purity Pledges Harmful?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no distinction between the sin of violence and the sin of desire. Victims of abuse are encouraged to forgive their abusers in language that equates the assault to consensual sex within the interactive sections of True Love Waits \([Fahs, 122](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are Purity Pledges Harmful?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no distinction between the sin of violence and the sin of desire. Victims of abuse are encouraged to forgive their abusers in language that equates the assault to consensual sex within the interactive sections of True Love Waits \([Fahs, 122](<|TARGETS|>to forgive their abusers in language, the sin of violence and the sin of desire .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are Purity Pledges Harmful?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no distinction between the sin of violence and the sin of desire. Victims of abuse are encouraged to forgive their abusers in language that equates the assault to consensual sex within the interactive sections of True Love Waits \([Fahs, 122](<|ASPECTS|>forgive, consensual sex, abuse, sin of desire, sin of violence<|CONCLUSION|>","There is no distinction between the sin of violence and the sin of desire. Victims of abuse are encouraged to forgive their abusers in language that equates the assault to consensual sex within the interactive sections of True Love Waits Fahs, 122",Purity pledges can place a double burden on victims of sexual harassment and violence.
"<|TOPIC|>Does Hell Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>[Psalm 86:13]( KJV - For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell \[Hebrew: ""sheol""\].<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does Hell Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>[Psalm 86:13]( KJV - For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell \[Hebrew: ""sheol""\].<|TARGETS|>86:13, Psalm<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does Hell Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>[Psalm 86:13]( KJV - For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell \[Hebrew: ""sheol""\].<|ASPECTS|>sin, god could, 's, god<|CONCLUSION|>","Psalm 86:13 KJV - For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell Hebrew: ""sheol"".","The Hebrew word translated as Hell is ""Sheol and does not denote an endless punishment."
"<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Lessons from religion are also used in marketing so that businesses can fair better on the battlefield of commerce. Storytelling is one of the core techniques when doing anything religious like bible lessons, wisdom sharing and ceremony alike, storytelling also happens to be one of the basic techniques in marketing business to business and in business to client communication.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Lessons from religion are also used in marketing so that businesses can fair better on the battlefield of commerce. Storytelling is one of the core techniques when doing anything religious like bible lessons, wisdom sharing and ceremony alike, storytelling also happens to be one of the basic techniques in marketing business to business and in business to client communication.<|TARGETS|>Storytelling<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Lessons from religion are also used in marketing so that businesses can fair better on the battlefield of commerce. Storytelling is one of the core techniques when doing anything religious like bible lessons, wisdom sharing and ceremony alike, storytelling also happens to be one of the basic techniques in marketing business to business and in business to client communication.<|ASPECTS|>competent, beneficial, righteousness, faith, inspired of god<|CONCLUSION|>","Lessons from religion are also used in marketing so that businesses can fair better on the battlefield of commerce. Storytelling is one of the core techniques when doing anything religious like bible lessons, wisdom sharing and ceremony alike, storytelling also happens to be one of the basic techniques in marketing business to business and in business to client communication.",Religion led people to do things correctly before science and technology caught up.
"<|TOPIC|>Capitalism vs socialism<|ARGUMENT|>The first assumption is that socialism is a statist society. This is completely false: as socialism (at its core) is a classless society where workers own the means of production it is very rare (if impossible) that socialism could be a state society - there are exceptions (such as Kerala, Bolivia, etc.) but that is because they are transitioning towards socialism, and in doing so are gradually taking away state power and putting it in the hands of the people. The second assumption is that stateless socialism can only exist in pre-industrial societies, a lá the ideas of Zerzan and other primitives. This blatantly false: the largest and best example of a socialist society was the spanish revolution, which was an industrial society, and most ideas for socialist societies (such as Prouhon's Mutualism; Bakunin's Collectivism; Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism; Bertrand Russell's Guild Socialism; Pannekoek's Council Communism; Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism; Albert's and Hahnel's Parecon; Shalom's Parpolity; and others') have been for industrial societies. So both assumptions that the argument that socialism could harm the environmnt are erroneous.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Capitalism vs socialism<|ARGUMENT|>The first assumption is that socialism is a statist society. This is completely false: as socialism (at its core) is a classless society where workers own the means of production it is very rare (if impossible) that socialism could be a state society - there are exceptions (such as Kerala, Bolivia, etc.) but that is because they are transitioning towards socialism, and in doing so are gradually taking away state power and putting it in the hands of the people. The second assumption is that stateless socialism can only exist in pre-industrial societies, a lá the ideas of Zerzan and other primitives. This blatantly false: the largest and best example of a socialist society was the spanish revolution, which was an industrial society, and most ideas for socialist societies (such as Prouhon's Mutualism; Bakunin's Collectivism; Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism; Bertrand Russell's Guild Socialism; Pannekoek's Council Communism; Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism; Albert's and Hahnel's Parecon; Shalom's Parpolity; and others') have been for industrial societies. So both assumptions that the argument that socialism could harm the environmnt are erroneous.<|TARGETS|>stateless socialism, a classless society where workers own the means of production<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Capitalism vs socialism<|ARGUMENT|>The first assumption is that socialism is a statist society. This is completely false: as socialism (at its core) is a classless society where workers own the means of production it is very rare (if impossible) that socialism could be a state society - there are exceptions (such as Kerala, Bolivia, etc.) but that is because they are transitioning towards socialism, and in doing so are gradually taking away state power and putting it in the hands of the people. The second assumption is that stateless socialism can only exist in pre-industrial societies, a lá the ideas of Zerzan and other primitives. This blatantly false: the largest and best example of a socialist society was the spanish revolution, which was an industrial society, and most ideas for socialist societies (such as Prouhon's Mutualism; Bakunin's Collectivism; Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism; Bertrand Russell's Guild Socialism; Pannekoek's Council Communism; Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism; Albert's and Hahnel's Parecon; Shalom's Parpolity; and others') have been for industrial societies. So both assumptions that the argument that socialism could harm the environmnt are erroneous.<|ASPECTS|>state society, revolution, classless society, socialism, harm the environmnt, industrial societies, state power, stateless socialism, statist society<|CONCLUSION|>","The first assumption is that socialism is a statist society. This is completely false: as socialism at its core is a classless society where workers own the means of production it is very rare if impossible that socialism could be a state society - there are exceptions such as Kerala, Bolivia, etc. but that is because they are transitioning towards socialism, and in doing so are gradually taking away state power and putting it in the hands of the people. The second assumption is that stateless socialism can only exist in pre-industrial societies, a lá the ideas of Zerzan and other primitives. This blatantly false: the largest and best example of a socialist society was the spanish revolution, which was an industrial society, and most ideas for socialist societies such as Prouhon's Mutualism; Bakunin's Collectivism; Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism; Bertrand Russell's Guild Socialism; Pannekoek's Council Communism; Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism; Albert's and Hahnel's Parecon; Shalom's Parpolity; and others' have been for industrial societies. So both assumptions that the argument that socialism could harm the environmnt are erroneous.",The argument that socialism could do damage to the ecosystem rests on two erroneous assumptions.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Feminism a Force For Good?<|ARGUMENT|>Feminists support the idea of gender non-binary identities. Gender non-binary isn't a real thing, there is only biologically male and female.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Feminism a Force For Good?<|ARGUMENT|>Feminists support the idea of gender non-binary identities. Gender non-binary isn't a real thing, there is only biologically male and female.<|TARGETS|>Gender non-binary, Feminists<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Feminism a Force For Good?<|ARGUMENT|>Feminists support the idea of gender non-binary identities. Gender non-binary isn't a real thing, there is only biologically male and female.<|ASPECTS|>clouds, gender equality, non-binary, opposite goals, public debate, gender-related rights, clarity, gender-neutrality, social and political goals, universal definition<|CONCLUSION|>","Feminists support the idea of gender non-binary identities. Gender non-binary isn't a real thing, there is only biologically male and female.",Feminism promotes scientifically incorrect or psuedoscientific ideas about gender and sexual difference.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Society Treat Obesity as an Acceptable Lifestyle Choice?<|ARGUMENT|>Many scientific fields are assumed to face a [replication crisis]( as large swathes of scientific studies can not be replicated and are thus highly questionable. Among researchers in the medical field, [more than half]( have failed to reproduce experiments.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Society Treat Obesity as an Acceptable Lifestyle Choice?<|ARGUMENT|>Many scientific fields are assumed to face a [replication crisis]( as large swathes of scientific studies can not be replicated and are thus highly questionable. Among researchers in the medical field, [more than half]( have failed to reproduce experiments.<|TARGETS|>Many scientific fields<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Society Treat Obesity as an Acceptable Lifestyle Choice?<|ARGUMENT|>Many scientific fields are assumed to face a [replication crisis]( as large swathes of scientific studies can not be replicated and are thus highly questionable. Among researchers in the medical field, [more than half]( have failed to reproduce experiments.<|ASPECTS|>failed, replication crisis, reproduce<|CONCLUSION|>","Many scientific fields are assumed to face a replication crisis as large swathes of scientific studies can not be replicated and are thus highly questionable. Among researchers in the medical field, more than half have failed to reproduce experiments.","What we consider scientific evidence today might be seen as bogus tomorrow, just as many other supposedly scientific insights from the past were ultimately abandoned."
"<|TOPIC|>It's Dangerous to Teach History in Schools<|ARGUMENT|>Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of History (e.g. Jenkins – see book suggestions below) suggest all History teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that History taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of “Britishness” by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage. Even if no historical events are invented, this will lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information can be taught to children is dangerous.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>It's Dangerous to Teach History in Schools<|ARGUMENT|>Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of History (e.g. Jenkins – see book suggestions below) suggest all History teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that History taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of “Britishness” by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage. Even if no historical events are invented, this will lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information can be taught to children is dangerous.<|TARGETS|>an unbalanced account in which events that support modern political / social ends, The British government announced in early 2006 that History taught in schools, The principle that such tainted information, Jenkins – see book suggestions below suggest all History teaching<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>It's Dangerous to Teach History in Schools<|ARGUMENT|>Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of History (e.g. Jenkins – see book suggestions below) suggest all History teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that History taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of “Britishness” by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage. Even if no historical events are invented, this will lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information can be taught to children is dangerous.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, historical events, deceive, political and cultural heritage, shared, preconceptions and aims, unbalanced account, “ britishness, political/social ends, postmodernist critiques, tainted information<|CONCLUSION|>","Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of History e.g. Jenkins – see book suggestions below suggest all History teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that History taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of “Britishness” by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage. Even if no historical events are invented, this will lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information can be taught to children is dangerous.","Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of History e.g. Jen..."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>Opposition parties are important to holding the government accountable as they can criticise the government's budget, offer policy alternatives and improve parliamentary decision-making. [\(European Conference of Presidents of Parliament pg 2\).](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>Opposition parties are important to holding the government accountable as they can criticise the government's budget, offer policy alternatives and improve parliamentary decision-making. [\(European Conference of Presidents of Parliament pg 2\).](<|TARGETS|>Opposition parties<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>Opposition parties are important to holding the government accountable as they can criticise the government's budget, offer policy alternatives and improve parliamentary decision-making. [\(European Conference of Presidents of Parliament pg 2\).](<|ASPECTS|>limitations, influence over politicians, disproportionate, donate<|CONCLUSION|>","Opposition parties are important to holding the government accountable as they can criticise the government's budget, offer policy alternatives and improve parliamentary decision-making. European Conference of Presidents of Parliament pg 2.",Citizens have a right to hold governments accountable. Private funding strengthens the ability of opposition parties to hold the government to account.
"<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>The Book of Mormon uses [Hellenized]( versions of Hebrew names, even though the cultures described in the Book of Mormon would have had no reason to Hellenize them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>The Book of Mormon uses [Hellenized]( versions of Hebrew names, even though the cultures described in the Book of Mormon would have had no reason to Hellenize them.<|TARGETS|>The Book of Mormon, the cultures described in the Book of Mormon<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>The Book of Mormon uses [Hellenized]( versions of Hebrew names, even though the cultures described in the Book of Mormon would have had no reason to Hellenize them.<|ASPECTS|>names<|CONCLUSION|>","The Book of Mormon uses Hellenized versions of Hebrew names, even though the cultures described in the Book of Mormon would have had no reason to Hellenize them.","The Book of Mormon uses Greek names, even though by the book's own terms, the people described in the book would not have known Greek."
"<|TOPIC|>Mike Pence Would Make a Better President than Donald Trump<|ARGUMENT|>Special Counsel Robert Mueller is [reported to have evidence]( that Donald Trump ordered his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about Trump's business dealings with Russia. If proven, Trump's actions would constitute subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mike Pence Would Make a Better President than Donald Trump<|ARGUMENT|>Special Counsel Robert Mueller is [reported to have evidence]( that Donald Trump ordered his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about Trump's business dealings with Russia. If proven, Trump's actions would constitute subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.<|TARGETS|>Trump 's actions, Donald Trump ordered his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about Trump 's business dealings with Russia, Special Counsel Robert Mueller<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mike Pence Would Make a Better President than Donald Trump<|ARGUMENT|>Special Counsel Robert Mueller is [reported to have evidence]( that Donald Trump ordered his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about Trump's business dealings with Russia. If proven, Trump's actions would constitute subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.<|ASPECTS|>obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, business dealings<|CONCLUSION|>","Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reported to have evidence that Donald Trump ordered his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about Trump's business dealings with Russia. If proven, Trump's actions would constitute subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.","Donald Trump is currently under investigation for committing obstruction of justice If the President has interfered with criminal investigations, and has attempted to cover up crimes, that is a fundamental threat to the rule of law in the United States."
"<|TOPIC|>FairTax would improve the current US taxation system.<|ARGUMENT|>Being taxed on purchases would encourage people to spend less, which would lead to more savings and less dependence on government handouts.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>FairTax would improve the current US taxation system.<|ARGUMENT|>Being taxed on purchases would encourage people to spend less, which would lead to more savings and less dependence on government handouts.<|TARGETS|>Being taxed on purchases<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>FairTax would improve the current US taxation system.<|ARGUMENT|>Being taxed on purchases would encourage people to spend less, which would lead to more savings and less dependence on government handouts.<|ASPECTS|>inequality, terrible<|CONCLUSION|>","Being taxed on purchases would encourage people to spend less, which would lead to more savings and less dependence on government handouts.",A tax on expenditures is simple for the public to understand and reduces tax compliance costs.
<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>One of the main reasons cited by the Leave Campaign - that of £350 million per day being saved which could be used to fund the NHS - is unlikely to have actually been spent on the NHS at all. It is much more likely that it will be spent on giving tax breaks to [corporations](<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>One of the main reasons cited by the Leave Campaign - that of £350 million per day being saved which could be used to fund the NHS - is unlikely to have actually been spent on the NHS at all. It is much more likely that it will be spent on giving tax breaks to [corporations](<|TARGETS|>giving tax breaks to corporations, the Leave Campaign - that of £ 350 million per day being saved<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>One of the main reasons cited by the Leave Campaign - that of £350 million per day being saved which could be used to fund the NHS - is unlikely to have actually been spent on the NHS at all. It is much more likely that it will be spent on giving tax breaks to [corporations](<|ASPECTS|>media propaganda, remain messaging, leave campaigning, fair, remain campaigning, consistent<|CONCLUSION|>",One of the main reasons cited by the Leave Campaign - that of £350 million per day being saved which could be used to fund the NHS - is unlikely to have actually been spent on the NHS at all. It is much more likely that it will be spent on giving tax breaks to corporations,"That is no reason to excuse lies such as £350,000,000 a week for the NHS or the advertising campaigns which suggested Leaving would actually improve the NHS and save huge sums of money claimed to be hemorrhaging to the EU, falsely claiming no returned benefits to the UK from the EU."
"<|TOPIC|>Should people have the right and means to end their lives?<|ARGUMENT|>Someone could take advantage of a person not fit enough to make the decision that they want to die, and claim that this was their choice.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should people have the right and means to end their lives?<|ARGUMENT|>Someone could take advantage of a person not fit enough to make the decision that they want to die, and claim that this was their choice.<|TARGETS|>to make the decision that they want to die and claim that this was their choice .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should people have the right and means to end their lives?<|ARGUMENT|>Someone could take advantage of a person not fit enough to make the decision that they want to die, and claim that this was their choice.<|ASPECTS|>happiness, mental illnesses, suffering, suffering-inducing, terminal diseases<|CONCLUSION|>","Someone could take advantage of a person not fit enough to make the decision that they want to die, and claim that this was their choice.","People without caring families or friends could be encouraged to choose death, whether because of malicious intentions or just neglect and callousness."
"<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>Despite what they might hope, refugees have no entitlement to citizenship even if a country takes them in, as this is done for temporary protection and as a waypoint for relocation. Anyone seeking permanent residency should be expected to go through the same immigration process as any other foreign national.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>Despite what they might hope, refugees have no entitlement to citizenship even if a country takes them in, as this is done for temporary protection and as a waypoint for relocation. Anyone seeking permanent residency should be expected to go through the same immigration process as any other foreign national.<|TARGETS|>the same immigration process, Anyone seeking permanent residency<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>Despite what they might hope, refugees have no entitlement to citizenship even if a country takes them in, as this is done for temporary protection and as a waypoint for relocation. Anyone seeking permanent residency should be expected to go through the same immigration process as any other foreign national.<|ASPECTS|>populist parties, backlash, refugees, advance<|CONCLUSION|>","Despite what they might hope, refugees have no entitlement to citizenship even if a country takes them in, as this is done for temporary protection and as a waypoint for relocation. Anyone seeking permanent residency should be expected to go through the same immigration process as any other foreign national.",A country has no positive moral obligations to offer aid to non-citizens.
<|TOPIC|>Should the NHS be privatised?<|ARGUMENT|>Satisfaction levels of the UK public with GP services fell to 65% in [2017]( – a 7 percentage point drop from the previous year. This was the lowest level of satisfaction with GP services recorded since 1983.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the NHS be privatised?<|ARGUMENT|>Satisfaction levels of the UK public with GP services fell to 65% in [2017]( – a 7 percentage point drop from the previous year. This was the lowest level of satisfaction with GP services recorded since 1983.<|TARGETS|>Satisfaction levels of the UK public with GP services<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the NHS be privatised?<|ARGUMENT|>Satisfaction levels of the UK public with GP services fell to 65% in [2017]( – a 7 percentage point drop from the previous year. This was the lowest level of satisfaction with GP services recorded since 1983.<|ASPECTS|>prescription deductibles, avail healthcare services<|CONCLUSION|>",Satisfaction levels of the UK public with GP services fell to 65% in 2017 – a 7 percentage point drop from the previous year. This was the lowest level of satisfaction with GP services recorded since 1983.,A study in the UK found that patients were less satisfied with existing private GP services.
"<|TOPIC|>Do all or most White Americans experience privilege?<|ARGUMENT|>Any police interactions can escalate into a situation deemed to be criminal, and impromptu ""stop and frisk"" and ""driving while black"" police interactions have shown a double standardblack non-criminals are punished more harshly than white non-criminals.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do all or most White Americans experience privilege?<|ARGUMENT|>Any police interactions can escalate into a situation deemed to be criminal, and impromptu ""stop and frisk"" and ""driving while black"" police interactions have shown a double standardblack non-criminals are punished more harshly than white non-criminals.<|TARGETS|>Any police interactions<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Do all or most White Americans experience privilege?<|ARGUMENT|>Any police interactions can escalate into a situation deemed to be criminal, and impromptu ""stop and frisk"" and ""driving while black"" police interactions have shown a double standardblack non-criminals are punished more harshly than white non-criminals.<|ASPECTS|>punished, criminal<|CONCLUSION|>","Any police interactions can escalate into a situation deemed to be criminal, and impromptu ""stop and frisk"" and ""driving while black"" police interactions have shown a double standardblack non-criminals are punished more harshly than white non-criminals.","It also represents a decision for the police to investigate, or to be there in the first place. Double standards are rampant in the policing of predominantly black and predominantly white neighborhoods"
"<|TOPIC|>The Correct Donation: Gorillas or Starving Children?<|ARGUMENT|>A head of state is not a natural person but a representative, an institution, which has to do what is necessary to enforce the national interests, or to protect the citizens. Individual moral codes like the Golden Rule cannot be taken into consideration, as the act does not aim at what is the best for the individual, but what is the best for the collective.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Correct Donation: Gorillas or Starving Children?<|ARGUMENT|>A head of state is not a natural person but a representative, an institution, which has to do what is necessary to enforce the national interests, or to protect the citizens. Individual moral codes like the Golden Rule cannot be taken into consideration, as the act does not aim at what is the best for the individual, but what is the best for the collective.<|TARGETS|>Individual moral codes like the Golden Rule, A head of state<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Correct Donation: Gorillas or Starving Children?<|ARGUMENT|>A head of state is not a natural person but a representative, an institution, which has to do what is necessary to enforce the national interests, or to protect the citizens. Individual moral codes like the Golden Rule cannot be taken into consideration, as the act does not aim at what is the best for the individual, but what is the best for the collective.<|ASPECTS|>high mental abilities, human survival, animal survival<|CONCLUSION|>","A head of state is not a natural person but a representative, an institution, which has to do what is necessary to enforce the national interests, or to protect the citizens. Individual moral codes like the Golden Rule cannot be taken into consideration, as the act does not aim at what is the best for the individual, but what is the best for the collective.","The Golden Rule is not an economical or political guide, but a moral rule for individual behavior."
<|TOPIC|>Should everyone's wealth and income information be publicly available?<|ARGUMENT|>Knowing how much money fellow workers make would make it easier for employees to demand pay raises from employers.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should everyone's wealth and income information be publicly available?<|ARGUMENT|>Knowing how much money fellow workers make would make it easier for employees to demand pay raises from employers.<|TARGETS|>Knowing how much money fellow workers make<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should everyone's wealth and income information be publicly available?<|ARGUMENT|>Knowing how much money fellow workers make would make it easier for employees to demand pay raises from employers.<|ASPECTS|>financial interests, policy decisions<|CONCLUSION|>",Knowing how much money fellow workers make would make it easier for employees to demand pay raises from employers.,Public information about wages would prevent companies from pay discrimination
"<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>The story is meant to depict life as it was in the story's timeframe. If the author's intention was to paint an accurate picture, the author's word should not be changed. If the book is being read for school, it's the teacher's job to encourage/manage the discussion about the context. If the book is being read outside of school, it's the reader's ""job"" to consider the context. A story sometimes is more than the just a story.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>The story is meant to depict life as it was in the story's timeframe. If the author's intention was to paint an accurate picture, the author's word should not be changed. If the book is being read for school, it's the teacher's job to encourage/manage the discussion about the context. If the book is being read outside of school, it's the reader's ""job"" to consider the context. A story sometimes is more than the just a story.<|TARGETS|>If the book is being read for school, If the author 's intention was to paint an accurate picture the author 's word, The story, to encourage / manage the discussion about the context ., If the book is being read outside of school<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>The story is meant to depict life as it was in the story's timeframe. If the author's intention was to paint an accurate picture, the author's word should not be changed. If the book is being read for school, it's the teacher's job to encourage/manage the discussion about the context. If the book is being read outside of school, it's the reader's ""job"" to consider the context. A story sometimes is more than the just a story.<|ASPECTS|>present, moral center<|CONCLUSION|>","The story is meant to depict life as it was in the story's timeframe. If the author's intention was to paint an accurate picture, the author's word should not be changed. If the book is being read for school, it's the teacher's job to encourage/manage the discussion about the context. If the book is being read outside of school, it's the reader's ""job"" to consider the context. A story sometimes is more than the just a story.","Changing these words insulates students from the context of the time, preventing them from fully understanding the work."
"<|TOPIC|>Can Religious Faith and Science Co-exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Scientists can be and often are wrong, but this says nothing about whether the scientific method is compatible with religion, religious faith, or the supernatural.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Can Religious Faith and Science Co-exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Scientists can be and often are wrong, but this says nothing about whether the scientific method is compatible with religion, religious faith, or the supernatural.<|TARGETS|>whether the scientific method is compatible with religion religious faith or the supernatural .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Can Religious Faith and Science Co-exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Scientists can be and often are wrong, but this says nothing about whether the scientific method is compatible with religion, religious faith, or the supernatural.<|ASPECTS|>religion, compatible, religious faith<|CONCLUSION|>","Scientists can be and often are wrong, but this says nothing about whether the scientific method is compatible with religion, religious faith, or the supernatural.","People generally, including scientists, tend to hold views that are not comprehensively logical, or internally consistent across the board."
"<|TOPIC|>hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.<|ARGUMENT|>Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible. A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.<|ARGUMENT|>Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible. A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.<|TARGETS|>The role of attack campaigning, To give these practical benefits some context, Each stage of the process, the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State, the campaign, the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.<|ARGUMENT|>Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible. A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.<|ASPECTS|>practical benefits, involvement in issues, international crisis, pressure, poor showing, compel, effectively, raised, costs, undermining opponents, party, national campaign, positive policy statements, funded, national unity, democratic party nomination, repeat performances, attack campaigning-, differing perspectives, debate, cost, reduce, decisive lead, clearer result, treated-, blunder<|CONCLUSION|>","Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible. A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.",The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns
"<|TOPIC|>Should single sex schools be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>A ban does restrict parental freedoms to choose which school to send their child, but children often have little say in the matter, yet the decision of parents will impact the life of the child for several years, whether they like it or not.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should single sex schools be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>A ban does restrict parental freedoms to choose which school to send their child, but children often have little say in the matter, yet the decision of parents will impact the life of the child for several years, whether they like it or not.<|TARGETS|>A ban<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should single sex schools be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>A ban does restrict parental freedoms to choose which school to send their child, but children often have little say in the matter, yet the decision of parents will impact the life of the child for several years, whether they like it or not.<|ASPECTS|>take, easier to focus, risks<|CONCLUSION|>","A ban does restrict parental freedoms to choose which school to send their child, but children often have little say in the matter, yet the decision of parents will impact the life of the child for several years, whether they like it or not.","Parental authority is not absolute, and is overridden where parents are liable to make decisions that endanger the health and/or wellbeing of their children."
<|TOPIC|>Does Tarot Have A Place in Modern Society?<|ARGUMENT|>Believing in Tarot is a personal choice. In a modern society we don't meddle in people's beliefs unless they're hurting them. Unless Tarot is being used to scam people there is no reason why we shouldn't accept it as one belief of many that we tolerate or celebrate.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does Tarot Have A Place in Modern Society?<|ARGUMENT|>Believing in Tarot is a personal choice. In a modern society we don't meddle in people's beliefs unless they're hurting them. Unless Tarot is being used to scam people there is no reason why we shouldn't accept it as one belief of many that we tolerate or celebrate.<|TARGETS|>Unless Tarot is being used to scam people there, Believing in Tarot, it as one belief of many that we tolerate or celebrate .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does Tarot Have A Place in Modern Society?<|ARGUMENT|>Believing in Tarot is a personal choice. In a modern society we don't meddle in people's beliefs unless they're hurting them. Unless Tarot is being used to scam people there is no reason why we shouldn't accept it as one belief of many that we tolerate or celebrate.<|ASPECTS|>meddle, personal choice, scam people, 's beliefs, hurting, tolerate<|CONCLUSION|>",Believing in Tarot is a personal choice. In a modern society we don't meddle in people's beliefs unless they're hurting them. Unless Tarot is being used to scam people there is no reason why we shouldn't accept it as one belief of many that we tolerate or celebrate.,"It's like anything spiritual/religious/superstitious/etc. As long as people aren't forcing it on others it's fine. Doesn't matter if it's tarot, christianity, star signs, atheism etc."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) technology the solution to fossil fuel burning?<|ARGUMENT|>Using a lease to own model, consumers could purchase all the power they need for their homes/cars/etc. For less than they currently spend on traditional power services.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) technology the solution to fossil fuel burning?<|ARGUMENT|>Using a lease to own model, consumers could purchase all the power they need for their homes/cars/etc. For less than they currently spend on traditional power services.<|TARGETS|>Using a lease to own model<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) technology the solution to fossil fuel burning?<|ARGUMENT|>Using a lease to own model, consumers could purchase all the power they need for their homes/cars/etc. For less than they currently spend on traditional power services.<|ASPECTS|>power, purchase, spend<|CONCLUSION|>","Using a lease to own model, consumers could purchase all the power they need for their homes/cars/etc. For less than they currently spend on traditional power services.",Is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction LENR technology the solution to fossil fuel burning?
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Human-operated weapon system, will for sure have an AI that is capable of acting completely autonomously. The only difference is that the human will have to confirm the firing.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Human-operated weapon system, will for sure have an AI that is capable of acting completely autonomously. The only difference is that the human will have to confirm the firing.<|TARGETS|>Human-operated weapon system<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Human-operated weapon system, will for sure have an AI that is capable of acting completely autonomously. The only difference is that the human will have to confirm the firing.<|ASPECTS|>better neighborhoods, upward mobility, housing voucher, schooling, resources, safer neighborhoods\<|CONCLUSION|>","Human-operated weapon system, will for sure have an AI that is capable of acting completely autonomously. The only difference is that the human will have to confirm the firing.",Human-operated drones would have the same resource requirements as AKMs.
"<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>"" when Eichmann entered upon his apprenticeship in Jewish affairs, on which, four years later, he was to be the recognized ""expert,"" and when he made his first contacts with Jewish functionaries, both Zionists and Assimilationists talked in terms of a great ""Jewish revival,"" a ""great constructive movement of German Jewry,"" and they still quarreled among themselves in ideological terms about the desirability of Jewish emigration, as though this depended upon their own decisions.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>"" when Eichmann entered upon his apprenticeship in Jewish affairs, on which, four years later, he was to be the recognized ""expert,"" and when he made his first contacts with Jewish functionaries, both Zionists and Assimilationists talked in terms of a great ""Jewish revival,"" a ""great constructive movement of German Jewry,"" and they still quarreled among themselves in ideological terms about the desirability of Jewish emigration, as though this depended upon their own decisions.""<|TARGETS|>movement of German Jewry "" and they still quarreled among themselves in ideological terms about the desirability of Jewish emigration, when Eichmann entered upon his apprenticeship in Jewish affairs<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>"" when Eichmann entered upon his apprenticeship in Jewish affairs, on which, four years later, he was to be the recognized ""expert,"" and when he made his first contacts with Jewish functionaries, both Zionists and Assimilationists talked in terms of a great ""Jewish revival,"" a ""great constructive movement of German Jewry,"" and they still quarreled among themselves in ideological terms about the desirability of Jewish emigration, as though this depended upon their own decisions.""<|ASPECTS|>competent, beneficial, righteousness, faith, inspired of god<|CONCLUSION|>",""" when Eichmann entered upon his apprenticeship in Jewish affairs, on which, four years later, he was to be the recognized ""expert,"" and when he made his first contacts with Jewish functionaries, both Zionists and Assimilationists talked in terms of a great ""Jewish revival,"" a ""great constructive movement of German Jewry,"" and they still quarreled among themselves in ideological terms about the desirability of Jewish emigration, as though this depended upon their own decisions.""","Hannah Arendt describes Eichmann as a Zionist who spoke yiddish Arendt, p. 23"
<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>A key component of Alcoholics Anonymous is the focus on abstinence which has been shown [not]( to be the only option for overcoming alcoholism.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>A key component of Alcoholics Anonymous is the focus on abstinence which has been shown [not]( to be the only option for overcoming alcoholism.<|TARGETS|>Alcoholics Anonymous<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>A key component of Alcoholics Anonymous is the focus on abstinence which has been shown [not]( to be the only option for overcoming alcoholism.<|ASPECTS|>community, addict, belonging<|CONCLUSION|>",A key component of Alcoholics Anonymous is the focus on abstinence which has been shown not to be the only option for overcoming alcoholism.,Comparatively lower abstinence levels are not necessarily a bad thing because abstinence is not the only way of battling addiction.
"<|TOPIC|>Obama, meeting with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions, Debate on whether Obama should meet hostile foreign leaders without preconditions<|ARGUMENT|>Hilary Clinton referred to Obama as ""irresponsible and, frankly, naive"", referring to his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile nations without preconditions.[7]<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Obama, meeting with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions, Debate on whether Obama should meet hostile foreign leaders without preconditions<|ARGUMENT|>Hilary Clinton referred to Obama as ""irresponsible and, frankly, naive"", referring to his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile nations without preconditions.[7]<|TARGETS|>to meet with leaders of hostile nations without preconditions ., Hilary Clinton<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Obama, meeting with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions, Debate on whether Obama should meet hostile foreign leaders without preconditions<|ARGUMENT|>Hilary Clinton referred to Obama as ""irresponsible and, frankly, naive"", referring to his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile nations without preconditions.[7]<|ASPECTS|>naive, hostile, irresponsible<|CONCLUSION|>","Hilary Clinton referred to Obama as ""irresponsible and, frankly, naive"", referring to his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile nations without preconditions.7",Obama's position on meeting hostile leaders is naive; poor judgement.
"<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>""Political correctness"" implies that the purpose for modifying one's speech is to comply with public or popular opinions. This entirely misses the point. Opponents of sexist, racist, xenophobic and derogatory speech are very intentionally trying to promote a society that is built for everyone, not just those in control.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>""Political correctness"" implies that the purpose for modifying one's speech is to comply with public or popular opinions. This entirely misses the point. Opponents of sexist, racist, xenophobic and derogatory speech are very intentionally trying to promote a society that is built for everyone, not just those in control.<|TARGETS|>Opponents of sexist racist xenophobic and derogatory speech, modifying one 's speech<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>""Political correctness"" implies that the purpose for modifying one's speech is to comply with public or popular opinions. This entirely misses the point. Opponents of sexist, racist, xenophobic and derogatory speech are very intentionally trying to promote a society that is built for everyone, not just those in control.<|ASPECTS|>public, popular opinions, built for everyone, political correctness<|CONCLUSION|>","""Political correctness"" implies that the purpose for modifying one's speech is to comply with public or popular opinions. This entirely misses the point. Opponents of sexist, racist, xenophobic and derogatory speech are very intentionally trying to promote a society that is built for everyone, not just those in control.","'Political correctness' has become a catch-all phrase used an as ad hominem to avoid a meaningful argument. PC can be used as a pejorative term, along with words like 'snowflake'."
<|TOPIC|>Is ecotourism sustainable?<|ARGUMENT|>Increased awareness of ecosystems diversity and global environmental issues [will cause]( ecotourists to be more environmentally conscious in their daily lives. It may encourage them to change their lifestyle and live in a more eco-friendly manner.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is ecotourism sustainable?<|ARGUMENT|>Increased awareness of ecosystems diversity and global environmental issues [will cause]( ecotourists to be more environmentally conscious in their daily lives. It may encourage them to change their lifestyle and live in a more eco-friendly manner.<|TARGETS|>to change their lifestyle and live in a more eco-friendly manner<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is ecotourism sustainable?<|ARGUMENT|>Increased awareness of ecosystems diversity and global environmental issues [will cause]( ecotourists to be more environmentally conscious in their daily lives. It may encourage them to change their lifestyle and live in a more eco-friendly manner.<|ASPECTS|>eco-friendly manner, change their lifestyle, ecosystems diversity, environmental issues, global, environmentally conscious<|CONCLUSION|>",Increased awareness of ecosystems diversity and global environmental issues will cause ecotourists to be more environmentally conscious in their daily lives. It may encourage them to change their lifestyle and live in a more eco-friendly manner.,"Ecotourism gives people an opportunity to have a new experience with nature and learn more about environmental issues, fostering respect for the environment."
"<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Black American issues are prevalent in college courses such as economics, American history, psychology, and literature. More than any other race, the mention of black American issues in these topics are likely to be negative in comparison to other races.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Black American issues are prevalent in college courses such as economics, American history, psychology, and literature. More than any other race, the mention of black American issues in these topics are likely to be negative in comparison to other races.<|TARGETS|>the mention of black American issues in these topics<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Black American issues are prevalent in college courses such as economics, American history, psychology, and literature. More than any other race, the mention of black American issues in these topics are likely to be negative in comparison to other races.<|ASPECTS|>black american issues, negative<|CONCLUSION|>","Black American issues are prevalent in college courses such as economics, American history, psychology, and literature. More than any other race, the mention of black American issues in these topics are likely to be negative in comparison to other races.","These two things aren't comparable because Black issues are far more prevalent in a wide range of college courses, making the emotional labour requirement on a black student higher, and their ability to opt out lower."
"<|TOPIC|>FairTax would improve the current US taxation system.<|ARGUMENT|>While quotas have been proven to be unhelpful, these protectionist measures continue to be the [default solution]( for policy makers to remedy the US trade deficit. Another approach would be to compare the tax rates South Korea applies to Samsung \(20%\) verse the whopping 39.5% corporate rate applied to American manufacturers.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>FairTax would improve the current US taxation system.<|ARGUMENT|>While quotas have been proven to be unhelpful, these protectionist measures continue to be the [default solution]( for policy makers to remedy the US trade deficit. Another approach would be to compare the tax rates South Korea applies to Samsung \(20%\) verse the whopping 39.5% corporate rate applied to American manufacturers.<|TARGETS|>Another approach, these protectionist measures, the whopping 39.5 corporate rate applied to American manufacturers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>FairTax would improve the current US taxation system.<|ARGUMENT|>While quotas have been proven to be unhelpful, these protectionist measures continue to be the [default solution]( for policy makers to remedy the US trade deficit. Another approach would be to compare the tax rates South Korea applies to Samsung \(20%\) verse the whopping 39.5% corporate rate applied to American manufacturers.<|ASPECTS|>inequality, terrible<|CONCLUSION|>","While quotas have been proven to be unhelpful, these protectionist measures continue to be the default solution for policy makers to remedy the US trade deficit. Another approach would be to compare the tax rates South Korea applies to Samsung 20% verse the whopping 39.5% corporate rate applied to American manufacturers.",Our existing tariffs and quotas are self-inflicted trade barriers limiting US exports. Boundless Economics
"<|TOPIC|>Should Referendums Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>The rise of [right wing parties]( in Europe indicates that parts of the population strictly think in national perspectives. If asked, those citizens would hinder the process of further international integration.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Referendums Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>The rise of [right wing parties]( in Europe indicates that parts of the population strictly think in national perspectives. If asked, those citizens would hinder the process of further international integration.<|TARGETS|>The rise of right wing parties in Europe<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Referendums Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>The rise of [right wing parties]( in Europe indicates that parts of the population strictly think in national perspectives. If asked, those citizens would hinder the process of further international integration.<|ASPECTS|>international integration, parties, national perspectives<|CONCLUSION|>","The rise of right wing parties in Europe indicates that parts of the population strictly think in national perspectives. If asked, those citizens would hinder the process of further international integration.","Compared to large parts of the political elite, citizens are too narrow-minded to look beyond the domestic level and end up neglecting the international perspective. This can harm international relations."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Democrats Cooperate with Donald Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>Marginal voters pay little or no attention to politics, so they [won’t]( give Democrats credit for being bipartisan. They will simply give credit to the President for getting anything done. An attempt to cooperate will backfire on the Democrats by raising Trump's popularity.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Democrats Cooperate with Donald Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>Marginal voters pay little or no attention to politics, so they [won’t]( give Democrats credit for being bipartisan. They will simply give credit to the President for getting anything done. An attempt to cooperate will backfire on the Democrats by raising Trump's popularity.<|TARGETS|>An attempt to cooperate, Marginal voters<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Democrats Cooperate with Donald Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>Marginal voters pay little or no attention to politics, so they [won’t]( give Democrats credit for being bipartisan. They will simply give credit to the President for getting anything done. An attempt to cooperate will backfire on the Democrats by raising Trump's popularity.<|ASPECTS|>trump 's, bipartisan, backfire, attention to politics, popularity, credit to the president, cooperate, marginal voters<|CONCLUSION|>","Marginal voters pay little or no attention to politics, so they won’t give Democrats credit for being bipartisan. They will simply give credit to the President for getting anything done. An attempt to cooperate will backfire on the Democrats by raising Trump's popularity.",Allowing Trump to claim to be a bipartisan President strengthens his political stature.
<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>It is required in order to prevent the abuse of the rights of humans under the pretext that the perpetrator was unable to distinguish themselves from an AGI.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>It is required in order to prevent the abuse of the rights of humans under the pretext that the perpetrator was unable to distinguish themselves from an AGI.<|TARGETS|>to prevent the abuse of the rights of humans under the pretext that the perpetrator was unable to distinguish themselves from an AGI .<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>It is required in order to prevent the abuse of the rights of humans under the pretext that the perpetrator was unable to distinguish themselves from an AGI.<|ASPECTS|>ai, rights, enhanced<|CONCLUSION|>",It is required in order to prevent the abuse of the rights of humans under the pretext that the perpetrator was unable to distinguish themselves from an AGI.,In a future where distinguishing between an AI and a human might be difficult approaching or past The Singularity granting protection to AI entities is necessary.
"<|TOPIC|>Capital Punishment in the US: Inhumane or Just?<|ARGUMENT|>Appeals procedures and additional, often complicated, requirements for death penalty cases clog the court system.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Capital Punishment in the US: Inhumane or Just?<|ARGUMENT|>Appeals procedures and additional, often complicated, requirements for death penalty cases clog the court system.<|TARGETS|>Appeals procedures<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Capital Punishment in the US: Inhumane or Just?<|ARGUMENT|>Appeals procedures and additional, often complicated, requirements for death penalty cases clog the court system.<|ASPECTS|>death penalty, appeals procedures<|CONCLUSION|>","Appeals procedures and additional, often complicated, requirements for death penalty cases clog the court system.",The death penalty is not efficient in terms of costs and procedure.
<|TOPIC|>2020 Predictions: Who Has The Best Shot at Winning 2020?<|ARGUMENT|>[The stereotype content model]( theory suggests that a female candidate running for Presidency will be judged by voters as either lacking warmth or competency. These stereotypes may create a backlash to female candidates.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>2020 Predictions: Who Has The Best Shot at Winning 2020?<|ARGUMENT|>[The stereotype content model]( theory suggests that a female candidate running for Presidency will be judged by voters as either lacking warmth or competency. These stereotypes may create a backlash to female candidates.<|TARGETS|>These stereotypes<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>2020 Predictions: Who Has The Best Shot at Winning 2020?<|ARGUMENT|>[The stereotype content model]( theory suggests that a female candidate running for Presidency will be judged by voters as either lacking warmth or competency. These stereotypes may create a backlash to female candidates.<|ASPECTS|>stereotypes, stereotype content, backlash to female candidates, competency, warmth, lacking<|CONCLUSION|>",The stereotype content model theory suggests that a female candidate running for Presidency will be judged by voters as either lacking warmth or competency. These stereotypes may create a backlash to female candidates.,Research indicates that biases and stereotypes based on gender suggests that America is not ready for a female President.
"<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>The democratization process of the EU must include stronger federalization, which in conclusion would be a better \(and most of all easier to realize\) option than the USE.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>The democratization process of the EU must include stronger federalization, which in conclusion would be a better \(and most of all easier to realize\) option than the USE.<|TARGETS|>The democratization process of the EU<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>The democratization process of the EU must include stronger federalization, which in conclusion would be a better \(and most of all easier to realize\) option than the USE.<|ASPECTS|>risk of conflict, eu, russian identity, peace, german identity, british identity<|CONCLUSION|>","The democratization process of the EU must include stronger federalization, which in conclusion would be a better and most of all easier to realize option than the USE.",The USE won't be a better democracy than the EU; the EU has a democratic deficit which the USE would likely inherit.
<|TOPIC|>Tax Payers Money Should Be Used To Fund Top Sportsmen and Women<|ARGUMENT|>Using state funding to produce top athletes is the only way to produce sporting success today. Other nations will put money into sport anyway - we have to do so too to keep up with them or our athletes will be at a disadvantage.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Tax Payers Money Should Be Used To Fund Top Sportsmen and Women<|ARGUMENT|>Using state funding to produce top athletes is the only way to produce sporting success today. Other nations will put money into sport anyway - we have to do so too to keep up with them or our athletes will be at a disadvantage.<|TARGETS|>Using state funding to produce top athletes, to keep up with them or our athletes<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Tax Payers Money Should Be Used To Fund Top Sportsmen and Women<|ARGUMENT|>Using state funding to produce top athletes is the only way to produce sporting success today. Other nations will put money into sport anyway - we have to do so too to keep up with them or our athletes will be at a disadvantage.<|ASPECTS|>sporting success, produce, money, sport, disadvantage, athletes<|CONCLUSION|>",Using state funding to produce top athletes is the only way to produce sporting success today. Other nations will put money into sport anyway - we have to do so too to keep up with them or our athletes will be at a disadvantage.,Using state funding to produce top athletes is the only way to produce sporting success today. Othe...
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A Palestine that opposes Israel's right to exist puts Germany in a problematic position vis-à-vis its support for Palestine. In the word's of [Angela Merkel]( her country has a ""special historical responsibility for Israel's security"" which ""will never be open to negotiation"".<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A Palestine that opposes Israel's right to exist puts Germany in a problematic position vis-à-vis its support for Palestine. In the word's of [Angela Merkel]( her country has a ""special historical responsibility for Israel's security"" which ""will never be open to negotiation"".<|TARGETS|>A Palestine that opposes Israel 's right to exist<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A Palestine that opposes Israel's right to exist puts Germany in a problematic position vis-à-vis its support for Palestine. In the word's of [Angela Merkel]( her country has a ""special historical responsibility for Israel's security"" which ""will never be open to negotiation"".<|ASPECTS|>land, endangers, israeli presence<|CONCLUSION|>","A Palestine that opposes Israel's right to exist puts Germany in a problematic position vis-à-vis its support for Palestine. In the word's of Angela Merkel her country has a ""special historical responsibility for Israel's security"" which ""will never be open to negotiation"".","By refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist, Palestine positions itself in opposition to many of its international supporters. This is inappropriate and egregious as the Palestinian economy and society are highly dependent on international support."
"<|TOPIC|>Should we create and adopt a universal currency?<|ARGUMENT|>With cryptocurrencies, there's ""no government to issue it and no banks needed to manage accounts and verify transactions"",\([1]( as everyone keeps their own ledger. If we were to build a universal currency to be a cryptocurrency, it'll allow us to not require those in the infrastructure for less known worries than we already have \(like trusting others with money\), making it a worthwhile risk.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we create and adopt a universal currency?<|ARGUMENT|>With cryptocurrencies, there's ""no government to issue it and no banks needed to manage accounts and verify transactions"",\([1]( as everyone keeps their own ledger. If we were to build a universal currency to be a cryptocurrency, it'll allow us to not require those in the infrastructure for less known worries than we already have \(like trusting others with money\), making it a worthwhile risk.<|TARGETS|>to build a universal currency to be a cryptocurrency<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should we create and adopt a universal currency?<|ARGUMENT|>With cryptocurrencies, there's ""no government to issue it and no banks needed to manage accounts and verify transactions"",\([1]( as everyone keeps their own ledger. If we were to build a universal currency to be a cryptocurrency, it'll allow us to not require those in the infrastructure for less known worries than we already have \(like trusting others with money\), making it a worthwhile risk.<|ASPECTS|>, verify transactions, risk, known worries, accounts, government<|CONCLUSION|>","With cryptocurrencies, there's ""no government to issue it and no banks needed to manage accounts and verify transactions"",1 as everyone keeps their own ledger. If we were to build a universal currency to be a cryptocurrency, it'll allow us to not require those in the infrastructure for less known worries than we already have like trusting others with money, making it a worthwhile risk.","A universal currency would be trusted on a universal scale, as it's a larger level than any current currency and be adapted out of feeling it's better, or at least equal to, its current currency. By this default, it'll work better and be less risky at that point compared to what we currently have."
"<|TOPIC|>Is Attachment Parenting the Best Way to Raise a Child?<|ARGUMENT|>Childhood learning is also often [motivated]( by close relationships. The more the child values the relationship with the parent, the more the child is likely to want to please their parent by working harder and trying to learn more.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Attachment Parenting the Best Way to Raise a Child?<|ARGUMENT|>Childhood learning is also often [motivated]( by close relationships. The more the child values the relationship with the parent, the more the child is likely to want to please their parent by working harder and trying to learn more.<|TARGETS|>Childhood learning, to please their parent by working harder and trying to learn more .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Attachment Parenting the Best Way to Raise a Child?<|ARGUMENT|>Childhood learning is also often [motivated]( by close relationships. The more the child values the relationship with the parent, the more the child is likely to want to please their parent by working harder and trying to learn more.<|ASPECTS|>working harder, childhood learning, close relationships<|CONCLUSION|>","Childhood learning is also often motivated by close relationships. The more the child values the relationship with the parent, the more the child is likely to want to please their parent by working harder and trying to learn more.","Attachment parenting leads to more intelligent children, due to practices such as breastfeeding."
"<|TOPIC|>Should sperm donors have the same legal rights, responsibilities and limitations as other biological fathers?<|ARGUMENT|>It can help a child develop their sense of identity if they have regular contact with their biological father so donors should recognise their responsibility in assisting a child with this in the same way other biological fathers should.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should sperm donors have the same legal rights, responsibilities and limitations as other biological fathers?<|ARGUMENT|>It can help a child develop their sense of identity if they have regular contact with their biological father so donors should recognise their responsibility in assisting a child with this in the same way other biological fathers should.<|TARGETS|>regular contact with their biological father so donors should recognise their responsibility in assisting a child with this in the same way other biological fathers<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should sperm donors have the same legal rights, responsibilities and limitations as other biological fathers?<|ARGUMENT|>It can help a child develop their sense of identity if they have regular contact with their biological father so donors should recognise their responsibility in assisting a child with this in the same way other biological fathers should.<|ASPECTS|>responsibility, sense of identity<|CONCLUSION|>",It can help a child develop their sense of identity if they have regular contact with their biological father so donors should recognise their responsibility in assisting a child with this in the same way other biological fathers should.,It is in the best interests of children if sperm donors have the same legal rights and responsibilities as other biological parents.
"<|TOPIC|>Lootboxes in Videogames<|ARGUMENT|>Lootboxes should be forbidden in all games, as they just serve to make games even more addictive by giving an extra random variable reward. Monetisation could be implemented just as well by straight-forward selling of loot without abusing this human weakness.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Lootboxes in Videogames<|ARGUMENT|>Lootboxes should be forbidden in all games, as they just serve to make games even more addictive by giving an extra random variable reward. Monetisation could be implemented just as well by straight-forward selling of loot without abusing this human weakness.<|TARGETS|>Lootboxes, Monetisation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Lootboxes in Videogames<|ARGUMENT|>Lootboxes should be forbidden in all games, as they just serve to make games even more addictive by giving an extra random variable reward. Monetisation could be implemented just as well by straight-forward selling of loot without abusing this human weakness.<|ASPECTS|>random variable reward, monetisation, addictive, straight-forward selling of loot, human weakness<|CONCLUSION|>","Lootboxes should be forbidden in all games, as they just serve to make games even more addictive by giving an extra random variable reward. Monetisation could be implemented just as well by straight-forward selling of loot without abusing this human weakness.",The implementation of lootboxes available for real money - even where they only give cosmetic benefits - into video games should be rejected.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Similarly, watching videos or documentaries in which animals are ill-treated, or on the contrary having a pet \(or other forms of living with animals, e.g. volunteer at an animal shelter\) may help some to ""make the connection"".<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Similarly, watching videos or documentaries in which animals are ill-treated, or on the contrary having a pet \(or other forms of living with animals, e.g. volunteer at an animal shelter\) may help some to ""make the connection"".<|TARGETS|>watching videos or documentaries in which animals are ill-treated, volunteer at an animal shelter<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Similarly, watching videos or documentaries in which animals are ill-treated, or on the contrary having a pet \(or other forms of living with animals, e.g. volunteer at an animal shelter\) may help some to ""make the connection"".<|ASPECTS|>functional society, refugees, separation of borders, equal rights, arbitrary<|CONCLUSION|>","Similarly, watching videos or documentaries in which animals are ill-treated, or on the contrary having a pet or other forms of living with animals, e.g. volunteer at an animal shelter may help some to ""make the connection"".","The exhibition of such violence against an animal has turned some into animal activism, vegetarianism or other forms of compassion towards animals."
"<|TOPIC|>Should the Subminimum Wage be abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>No worker's contribution across an hour is only worth 4¢. If the company is making any profit/ revenue based on the product or services the disabled employee is contributing to, it is exploitative to use their disability status as a loophole to pay them for their work.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the Subminimum Wage be abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>No worker's contribution across an hour is only worth 4¢. If the company is making any profit/ revenue based on the product or services the disabled employee is contributing to, it is exploitative to use their disability status as a loophole to pay them for their work.<|TARGETS|>No worker 's contribution across an hour, to use their disability status<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the Subminimum Wage be abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>No worker's contribution across an hour is only worth 4¢. If the company is making any profit/ revenue based on the product or services the disabled employee is contributing to, it is exploitative to use their disability status as a loophole to pay them for their work.<|ASPECTS|>profit/ revenue, exploitative, disability status, worker 's contribution, loophole<|CONCLUSION|>","No worker's contribution across an hour is only worth 4¢. If the company is making any profit/ revenue based on the product or services the disabled employee is contributing to, it is exploitative to use their disability status as a loophole to pay them for their work.","Some employers pay disabled workers 4¢ an hour, legally under the subminimum wage. This is exploitative."
"<|TOPIC|>Tidal energy<|ARGUMENT|>Tidal energy does not require any fuel. Tides rise and fall naturally every day, and so supply a free source of energy. Therefore, once a tidal energy plant is built, the energy extracted from it is virtually free. This compares favorably to coal, petroleum, or nuclear power generation, in which fuel must be drilled for or mined (which takes energy and money), filtered or refined (which takes energy and money), transported (which takes energy and money), and burnt for energy (which has environmental and subsequent economic costs). This means that fossil fuels have a price while tidal energy is a free energy source.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Tidal energy<|ARGUMENT|>Tidal energy does not require any fuel. Tides rise and fall naturally every day, and so supply a free source of energy. Therefore, once a tidal energy plant is built, the energy extracted from it is virtually free. This compares favorably to coal, petroleum, or nuclear power generation, in which fuel must be drilled for or mined (which takes energy and money), filtered or refined (which takes energy and money), transported (which takes energy and money), and burnt for energy (which has environmental and subsequent economic costs). This means that fossil fuels have a price while tidal energy is a free energy source.<|TARGETS|>that fossil fuels, a tidal energy plant, Tidal energy<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Tidal energy<|ARGUMENT|>Tidal energy does not require any fuel. Tides rise and fall naturally every day, and so supply a free source of energy. Therefore, once a tidal energy plant is built, the energy extracted from it is virtually free. This compares favorably to coal, petroleum, or nuclear power generation, in which fuel must be drilled for or mined (which takes energy and money), filtered or refined (which takes energy and money), transported (which takes energy and money), and burnt for energy (which has environmental and subsequent economic costs). This means that fossil fuels have a price while tidal energy is a free energy source.<|ASPECTS|>tides, price, require, fall naturally, environmental, energy, fuel, virtually free, free source of energy, economic costs, free energy source<|CONCLUSION|>","Tidal energy does not require any fuel. Tides rise and fall naturally every day, and so supply a free source of energy. Therefore, once a tidal energy plant is built, the energy extracted from it is virtually free. This compares favorably to coal, petroleum, or nuclear power generation, in which fuel must be drilled for or mined which takes energy and money, filtered or refined which takes energy and money, transported which takes energy and money, and burnt for energy which has environmental and subsequent economic costs. This means that fossil fuels have a price while tidal energy is a free energy source.",Tidal power requires no fuel; free energy of the tides.
"<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Instances of violence for which religion has been blamed cannot be separated from just as likely secular causes of the same violence. As was outlined in William T Cavanaugh's 2009 book ""[The Myth of Religious Violence]( published by Oxford University Press.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Instances of violence for which religion has been blamed cannot be separated from just as likely secular causes of the same violence. As was outlined in William T Cavanaugh's 2009 book ""[The Myth of Religious Violence]( published by Oxford University Press.<|TARGETS|>Instances of violence for which religion<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Instances of violence for which religion has been blamed cannot be separated from just as likely secular causes of the same violence. As was outlined in William T Cavanaugh's 2009 book ""[The Myth of Religious Violence]( published by Oxford University Press.<|ASPECTS|>supernatural forces, religious ideas<|CONCLUSION|>","Instances of violence for which religion has been blamed cannot be separated from just as likely secular causes of the same violence. As was outlined in William T Cavanaugh's 2009 book ""The Myth of Religious Violence published by Oxford University Press.","While religion is often blamed as the primary source of most historical conflicts, research shows that there are multiple factors in play, more often than not, secular and political."
"<|TOPIC|>wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.<|ARGUMENT|>Wind will only ever be a useful additional technology to provide extra capacity at time of high demand. We know it to be both unreliable and unpredictable. We know that unreliable technologies are fraught with expensive difficulties. As a result relying on such a technology would be reckless. To take one example, the only way of building in a capacity for wind into a regular energy network would require the construction of ‘battery capacity’ such as hydro-power. Developing such a capacity would be both hugely expensive and unreliable – it’s useful if the wind fails to blow for a few hours, if the doldrums last for a few days, then everything grinds to a halt.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.<|ARGUMENT|>Wind will only ever be a useful additional technology to provide extra capacity at time of high demand. We know it to be both unreliable and unpredictable. We know that unreliable technologies are fraught with expensive difficulties. As a result relying on such a technology would be reckless. To take one example, the only way of building in a capacity for wind into a regular energy network would require the construction of ‘battery capacity’ such as hydro-power. Developing such a capacity would be both hugely expensive and unreliable – it’s useful if the wind fails to blow for a few hours, if the doldrums last for a few days, then everything grinds to a halt.<|TARGETS|>relying on such a technology, Wind, a regular energy network, To take one example, that unreliable technologies, Developing such a capacity<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.<|ARGUMENT|>Wind will only ever be a useful additional technology to provide extra capacity at time of high demand. We know it to be both unreliable and unpredictable. We know that unreliable technologies are fraught with expensive difficulties. As a result relying on such a technology would be reckless. To take one example, the only way of building in a capacity for wind into a regular energy network would require the construction of ‘battery capacity’ such as hydro-power. Developing such a capacity would be both hugely expensive and unreliable – it’s useful if the wind fails to blow for a few hours, if the doldrums last for a few days, then everything grinds to a halt.<|ASPECTS|>useful additional technology, unreliable technologies, expensive difficulties, demand, extra capacity, unreliable, unpredictable, expensive, battery capacity, reckless<|CONCLUSION|>","Wind will only ever be a useful additional technology to provide extra capacity at time of high demand. We know it to be both unreliable and unpredictable. We know that unreliable technologies are fraught with expensive difficulties. As a result relying on such a technology would be reckless. To take one example, the only way of building in a capacity for wind into a regular energy network would require the construction of ‘battery capacity’ such as hydro-power. Developing such a capacity would be both hugely expensive and unreliable – it’s useful if the wind fails to blow for a few hours, if the doldrums last for a few days, then everything grinds to a halt.",Wind energy is unreliable and provides only an irregular source of supply – and even then only in some countries
<|TOPIC|>Should Election Day be a National Holiday in the U.S?<|ARGUMENT|>Increased productivity comes with a number of benefits that will be lost if election day is made a national holiday.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Election Day be a National Holiday in the U.S?<|ARGUMENT|>Increased productivity comes with a number of benefits that will be lost if election day is made a national holiday.<|TARGETS|>Increased productivity<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Election Day be a National Holiday in the U.S?<|ARGUMENT|>Increased productivity comes with a number of benefits that will be lost if election day is made a national holiday.<|ASPECTS|>benefits, increased, productivity<|CONCLUSION|>",Increased productivity comes with a number of benefits that will be lost if election day is made a national holiday.,Instituting a national holiday will cost the country significantly in terms of lost productivity.
<|TOPIC|>Sled dog racing should be banned.<|ARGUMENT|>In [2014]( the owner of a dog sledding business in Colorado was charged with 8 counts of dog abuse.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Sled dog racing should be banned.<|ARGUMENT|>In [2014]( the owner of a dog sledding business in Colorado was charged with 8 counts of dog abuse.<|TARGETS|>the owner of a dog sledding business in Colorado<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Sled dog racing should be banned.<|ARGUMENT|>In [2014]( the owner of a dog sledding business in Colorado was charged with 8 counts of dog abuse.<|ASPECTS|>dog abuse<|CONCLUSION|>,In 2014 the owner of a dog sledding business in Colorado was charged with 8 counts of dog abuse.,There are accounts of sled dogs suffering neglect and starvation.
<|TOPIC|>Artificial Intelligence (AI): Should an artificial general intelligence be created?<|ARGUMENT|>We can't tell the future; we have no idea what changes to society might result from the emergence of AGI. It is likely that major changes will result from the birth of AGI that would never result from the birth of any human.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Artificial Intelligence (AI): Should an artificial general intelligence be created?<|ARGUMENT|>We can't tell the future; we have no idea what changes to society might result from the emergence of AGI. It is likely that major changes will result from the birth of AGI that would never result from the birth of any human.<|TARGETS|>the birth of AGI<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Artificial Intelligence (AI): Should an artificial general intelligence be created?<|ARGUMENT|>We can't tell the future; we have no idea what changes to society might result from the emergence of AGI. It is likely that major changes will result from the birth of AGI that would never result from the birth of any human.<|ASPECTS|>, major, changes to society, changes, future<|CONCLUSION|>",We can't tell the future; we have no idea what changes to society might result from the emergence of AGI. It is likely that major changes will result from the birth of AGI that would never result from the birth of any human.,Creating an AI that might be very different to a human could lead to major changes for society that creating a new human wouldn't lead to.
"<|TOPIC|>Free Julian Assange<|ARGUMENT|>Wikileaks [released emails]( hacked from the Democratic Party and the personal email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign chairman, which significantly harmed her campaign.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Julian Assange<|ARGUMENT|>Wikileaks [released emails]( hacked from the Democratic Party and the personal email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign chairman, which significantly harmed her campaign.<|TARGETS|>Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton 's 2016 presidential campaign chairman<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Free Julian Assange<|ARGUMENT|>Wikileaks [released emails]( hacked from the Democratic Party and the personal email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign chairman, which significantly harmed her campaign.<|ASPECTS|>die, health<|CONCLUSION|>","Wikileaks released emails hacked from the Democratic Party and the personal email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign chairman, which significantly harmed her campaign.",Julian Assange has contributed significantly to our body of knowledge about political events.
<|TOPIC|>It is essential that humans become a multi-planetary species<|ARGUMENT|>Becoming a multi-planetary species is an essential part of [our evolution and the proliferation of intelligence in the universe](<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>It is essential that humans become a multi-planetary species<|ARGUMENT|>Becoming a multi-planetary species is an essential part of [our evolution and the proliferation of intelligence in the universe](<|TARGETS|>Becoming a multi-planetary species<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>It is essential that humans become a multi-planetary species<|ARGUMENT|>Becoming a multi-planetary species is an essential part of [our evolution and the proliferation of intelligence in the universe](<|ASPECTS|>proliferation of intelligence, multi-planetary species<|CONCLUSION|>",Becoming a multi-planetary species is an essential part of our evolution and the proliferation of intelligence in the universe,It is essential that humans become a multi-planetary species
"<|TOPIC|>Can Climate Change Be Reversed?<|ARGUMENT|>The supply and demand system makes suppliers guess at what people want instead of actually making what they want. Products get made that should not and products that should be made do not exist, leading to waste and inabilities for people to combat their personal effects on the environment.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Can Climate Change Be Reversed?<|ARGUMENT|>The supply and demand system makes suppliers guess at what people want instead of actually making what they want. Products get made that should not and products that should be made do not exist, leading to waste and inabilities for people to combat their personal effects on the environment.<|TARGETS|>The supply and demand system<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Can Climate Change Be Reversed?<|ARGUMENT|>The supply and demand system makes suppliers guess at what people want instead of actually making what they want. Products get made that should not and products that should be made do not exist, leading to waste and inabilities for people to combat their personal effects on the environment.<|ASPECTS|>guess, suppliers, personal effects, waste and inabilities, supply and demand system<|CONCLUSION|>","The supply and demand system makes suppliers guess at what people want instead of actually making what they want. Products get made that should not and products that should be made do not exist, leading to waste and inabilities for people to combat their personal effects on the environment.","The capitalistic system creates inefficiencies. Negative effects occur due to this, such as unnecessary: resource use, waste, and pollution."
<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Sex tourism to distant countries often operates as objectification and purchase of racialized others. This shows how women's bodies become commodified and detached from their intrinsic value for these customers.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Sex tourism to distant countries often operates as objectification and purchase of racialized others. This shows how women's bodies become commodified and detached from their intrinsic value for these customers.<|TARGETS|>Sex tourism to distant countries<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Sex tourism to distant countries often operates as objectification and purchase of racialized others. This shows how women's bodies become commodified and detached from their intrinsic value for these customers.<|ASPECTS|>stereotype, sexual, disabled people, paying<|CONCLUSION|>",Sex tourism to distant countries often operates as objectification and purchase of racialized others. This shows how women's bodies become commodified and detached from their intrinsic value for these customers.,Many sex workers are women. Sex work reinforces a patriarchal society where they are commodified and objectified by male desire.
"<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>Disenfranchisement of the smaller cultural minorities would cause a rift either between the minority and the majority, or between the children of that minority and the culture they are growing up in, when they notice the irrelevance and powerlessness of their culture.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>Disenfranchisement of the smaller cultural minorities would cause a rift either between the minority and the majority, or between the children of that minority and the culture they are growing up in, when they notice the irrelevance and powerlessness of their culture.<|TARGETS|>Disenfranchisement of the smaller cultural minorities<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>Disenfranchisement of the smaller cultural minorities would cause a rift either between the minority and the majority, or between the children of that minority and the culture they are growing up in, when they notice the irrelevance and powerlessness of their culture.<|ASPECTS|>risk of conflict, eu, russian identity, peace, german identity, british identity<|CONCLUSION|>","Disenfranchisement of the smaller cultural minorities would cause a rift either between the minority and the majority, or between the children of that minority and the culture they are growing up in, when they notice the irrelevance and powerlessness of their culture.","The USE will cause a sense of oppression within former nations-turned-minorities whose culture, habits and values will be marginalized."
"<|TOPIC|>The US should adopt a better voting system (for single-winner elections)<|ARGUMENT|>The more complex an idea, the less likely it is to receive informal implementation, which boosts support in and of itself, and gives users an even deeper understanding of the method without having to research it.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The US should adopt a better voting system (for single-winner elections)<|ARGUMENT|>The more complex an idea, the less likely it is to receive informal implementation, which boosts support in and of itself, and gives users an even deeper understanding of the method without having to research it.<|TARGETS|>to receive informal implementation<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The US should adopt a better voting system (for single-winner elections)<|ARGUMENT|>The more complex an idea, the less likely it is to receive informal implementation, which boosts support in and of itself, and gives users an even deeper understanding of the method without having to research it.<|ASPECTS|>boosts support, informal implementation<|CONCLUSION|>","The more complex an idea, the less likely it is to receive informal implementation, which boosts support in and of itself, and gives users an even deeper understanding of the method without having to research it.","The more complex and different from the status quo something is, the less likely it is to get support."
<|TOPIC|>US 2020 Presidential Election: Who should the Democratic nominee be?<|ARGUMENT|>Candidates which appeal to their bases [receive higher voter turn out generally]( Bernie would thus be predicted to recieve a higher voter turnout from democrats than a more centrist candidate.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>US 2020 Presidential Election: Who should the Democratic nominee be?<|ARGUMENT|>Candidates which appeal to their bases [receive higher voter turn out generally]( Bernie would thus be predicted to recieve a higher voter turnout from democrats than a more centrist candidate.<|TARGETS|>to recieve a higher voter turnout from democrats than a more centrist candidate ., Candidates which appeal to their bases receive higher voter turn out generally Bernie<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>US 2020 Presidential Election: Who should the Democratic nominee be?<|ARGUMENT|>Candidates which appeal to their bases [receive higher voter turn out generally]( Bernie would thus be predicted to recieve a higher voter turnout from democrats than a more centrist candidate.<|ASPECTS|>voter turn, democrats, higher, voter turnout<|CONCLUSION|>",Candidates which appeal to their bases receive higher voter turn out generally Bernie would thus be predicted to recieve a higher voter turnout from democrats than a more centrist candidate.,This is an oversimplification which neglects the impact of voter turnout.
"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>If sustainable, a UBI helps keep people invested in the society that is supporting them, leading to less likely chance of revolutionary action.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>If sustainable, a UBI helps keep people invested in the society that is supporting them, leading to less likely chance of revolutionary action.<|TARGETS|>a UBI<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>If sustainable, a UBI helps keep people invested in the society that is supporting them, leading to less likely chance of revolutionary action.<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>","If sustainable, a UBI helps keep people invested in the society that is supporting them, leading to less likely chance of revolutionary action.",Many pilot schemes have found that UBI increases social cohesion through community empowerment and mobilisation.
<|TOPIC|>Should Zoos Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>[Harambe]( was shot to safe the life of a child. This case clearly shows the actual value hierarchy.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Zoos Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>[Harambe]( was shot to safe the life of a child. This case clearly shows the actual value hierarchy.<|TARGETS|>Harambe<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Zoos Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>[Harambe]( was shot to safe the life of a child. This case clearly shows the actual value hierarchy.<|ASPECTS|>value hierarchy<|CONCLUSION|>,Harambe was shot to safe the life of a child. This case clearly shows the actual value hierarchy.,Taking the life of an animal has fewer consequences than taking the life of a human.
"<|TOPIC|>Scientific articles should be published before peer review, not after.<|ARGUMENT|>Post-publication reviews could, for example, be presented similar to how platforms like Amazon present reviews.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Scientific articles should be published before peer review, not after.<|ARGUMENT|>Post-publication reviews could, for example, be presented similar to how platforms like Amazon present reviews.<|TARGETS|>Post-publication reviews<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Scientific articles should be published before peer review, not after.<|ARGUMENT|>Post-publication reviews could, for example, be presented similar to how platforms like Amazon present reviews.<|ASPECTS|>reviews<|CONCLUSION|>","Post-publication reviews could, for example, be presented similar to how platforms like Amazon present reviews.",This problem could be solved through publishing platforms that draw attention to post-publication reviews.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>When stolen weapons are used in crimes, it can take [months]( to trace them to their origins, because of the lack of a searchable database - or even centralised record-keeping. Cutting this time to hours or even minutes would make it significantly easier to link together information about where weapons came from, and who might have trafficked them.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>When stolen weapons are used in crimes, it can take [months]( to trace them to their origins, because of the lack of a searchable database - or even centralised record-keeping. Cutting this time to hours or even minutes would make it significantly easier to link together information about where weapons came from, and who might have trafficked them.<|TARGETS|>When stolen weapons are used in crimes, to trace them to their origins because of the lack of a searchable database, Cutting this time to hours or even minutes<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>When stolen weapons are used in crimes, it can take [months]( to trace them to their origins, because of the lack of a searchable database - or even centralised record-keeping. Cutting this time to hours or even minutes would make it significantly easier to link together information about where weapons came from, and who might have trafficked them.<|ASPECTS|>political and social lobbying, political discussion<|CONCLUSION|>","When stolen weapons are used in crimes, it can take months to trace them to their origins, because of the lack of a searchable database - or even centralised record-keeping. Cutting this time to hours or even minutes would make it significantly easier to link together information about where weapons came from, and who might have trafficked them.","A sufficient registry system would either serve as a deterrent to, or aid in any investigation of, a gun related crime."
"<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>""[Pocho]( is a [negative]( term used to shame Mexican Americans for not being [Mexican enough]( and having lost their culture.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>""[Pocho]( is a [negative]( term used to shame Mexican Americans for not being [Mexican enough]( and having lost their culture.<|TARGETS|>to shame Mexican Americans for not being Mexican enough and having lost their culture ., "", Pocho<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>""[Pocho]( is a [negative]( term used to shame Mexican Americans for not being [Mexican enough]( and having lost their culture.<|ASPECTS|>immutable characteristic<|CONCLUSION|>","""Pocho is a negative term used to shame Mexican Americans for not being Mexican enough and having lost their culture.",Many DREAMers face exclusion from culture or condescension by people from their native country once they move back.
<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>The European Commission was frequently criticized by its own [watchdog]( for maladministration in 2018. This problem will be exacerbated in a USE because a USE government will have more powers.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>The European Commission was frequently criticized by its own [watchdog]( for maladministration in 2018. This problem will be exacerbated in a USE because a USE government will have more powers.<|TARGETS|>The European Commission<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>The European Commission was frequently criticized by its own [watchdog]( for maladministration in 2018. This problem will be exacerbated in a USE because a USE government will have more powers.<|ASPECTS|>risk of conflict, eu, russian identity, peace, german identity, british identity<|CONCLUSION|>",The European Commission was frequently criticized by its own watchdog for maladministration in 2018. This problem will be exacerbated in a USE because a USE government will have more powers.,The temptation of corruption for politicians and civil servants will be higher than it is today in the EU.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Trump be impeached?<|ARGUMENT|>Asked in a [June 13, 2019 interview on ABC]( whether he’d accept information on political opponents from foreign countries, Trump said “I think I’d want to hear it”.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Trump be impeached?<|ARGUMENT|>Asked in a [June 13, 2019 interview on ABC]( whether he’d accept information on political opponents from foreign countries, Trump said “I think I’d want to hear it”.<|TARGETS|>to hear it ” ., Asked in a June 13 2019 interview on ABC whether he ’d accept information on political opponents from foreign countries Trump<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Trump be impeached?<|ARGUMENT|>Asked in a [June 13, 2019 interview on ABC]( whether he’d accept information on political opponents from foreign countries, Trump said “I think I’d want to hear it”.<|ASPECTS|>political opponents<|CONCLUSION|>","Asked in a June 13, 2019 interview on ABC whether he’d accept information on political opponents from foreign countries, Trump said “I think I’d want to hear it”.",Trump has violated federal law by soliciting foreign interference in US elections.
"<|TOPIC|>American Football Should Be Banned.<|ARGUMENT|>There are reports of [paralysis]( and [other severe injuries]( arising from the play of rugby, but there's no call to ban rugby as a sport.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>American Football Should Be Banned.<|ARGUMENT|>There are reports of [paralysis]( and [other severe injuries]( arising from the play of rugby, but there's no call to ban rugby as a sport.<|TARGETS|>to ban rugby as a sport .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>American Football Should Be Banned.<|ARGUMENT|>There are reports of [paralysis]( and [other severe injuries]( arising from the play of rugby, but there's no call to ban rugby as a sport.<|ASPECTS|>severe injuries, paralysis<|CONCLUSION|>","There are reports of paralysis and other severe injuries arising from the play of rugby, but there's no call to ban rugby as a sport.","There is a certain amount of risk associated with all college sports, which athletes receive fair warnings of beforehand."
"<|TOPIC|>Should You Confess to Cheating After a One Night Stand?<|ARGUMENT|>A review of the literature found that there is generally no effect on the relationship if the one-night stand is not disclosed \([Allen et al., p. 119](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should You Confess to Cheating After a One Night Stand?<|ARGUMENT|>A review of the literature found that there is generally no effect on the relationship if the one-night stand is not disclosed \([Allen et al., p. 119](<|TARGETS|>the one-night stand, A review of the literature<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should You Confess to Cheating After a One Night Stand?<|ARGUMENT|>A review of the literature found that there is generally no effect on the relationship if the one-night stand is not disclosed \([Allen et al., p. 119](<|ASPECTS|>effect on the relationship<|CONCLUSION|>","A review of the literature found that there is generally no effect on the relationship if the one-night stand is not disclosed Allen et al., p. 119",Not revealing it has no negative effects on the relationship.
"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Under a UBI, there is no guarantee that anyone would engage in meaningful tasks or even intellectual or artistic endeavors. Some might use the UBI to focus on inventions or the improvement of self or society, but others might equally use the UBI to complacently consume.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Under a UBI, there is no guarantee that anyone would engage in meaningful tasks or even intellectual or artistic endeavors. Some might use the UBI to focus on inventions or the improvement of self or society, but others might equally use the UBI to complacently consume.<|TARGETS|>a UBI, the UBI to complacently consume .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Under a UBI, there is no guarantee that anyone would engage in meaningful tasks or even intellectual or artistic endeavors. Some might use the UBI to focus on inventions or the improvement of self or society, but others might equally use the UBI to complacently consume.<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>","Under a UBI, there is no guarantee that anyone would engage in meaningful tasks or even intellectual or artistic endeavors. Some might use the UBI to focus on inventions or the improvement of self or society, but others might equally use the UBI to complacently consume.","Since UBI is by definition unconditional, it cannot reward anything other than mere existence."
"<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>According to [Democratic Peace Theory]( democracies develop a ""mutual democratic pacifism"" towards each other and do not engage in armed conflicts against each other.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>According to [Democratic Peace Theory]( democracies develop a ""mutual democratic pacifism"" towards each other and do not engage in armed conflicts against each other.<|TARGETS|>Democratic Peace Theory democracies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>According to [Democratic Peace Theory]( democracies develop a ""mutual democratic pacifism"" towards each other and do not engage in armed conflicts against each other.<|ASPECTS|>, positive, growth impact of aid, democratic, political and civil liberties, governmental power, aid, impact, personal goals, growth<|CONCLUSION|>","According to Democratic Peace Theory democracies develop a ""mutual democratic pacifism"" towards each other and do not engage in armed conflicts against each other.",Supporting non-democratic regimes potentially jeopardizes the donors' security and consequently the donors' interests.
"<|TOPIC|>Space agencies should first undertake Human mission to Mars's little moons before attempting Mars's surface<|ARGUMENT|>Future funding and exploration is contingent on public support, if a mission does not drive public interest as well as science, it is a waste of resources.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Space agencies should first undertake Human mission to Mars's little moons before attempting Mars's surface<|ARGUMENT|>Future funding and exploration is contingent on public support, if a mission does not drive public interest as well as science, it is a waste of resources.<|TARGETS|>Future funding and exploration<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Space agencies should first undertake Human mission to Mars's little moons before attempting Mars's surface<|ARGUMENT|>Future funding and exploration is contingent on public support, if a mission does not drive public interest as well as science, it is a waste of resources.<|ASPECTS|>drive, public support, waste of resources, public interest<|CONCLUSION|>","Future funding and exploration is contingent on public support, if a mission does not drive public interest as well as science, it is a waste of resources.",A successful human mission to the surface of Mars would be more historic and awe-inspiring than a human mission to the surface of it's moon Phobos.
"<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Unbaptized babies might very well not go to [heaven]( ""The Catholic Catechism says infants might be saved without baptism, but stops short of affirming that all will be—though John Paul II, in his EvangeliumVitae, implies that unborn children would be.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Unbaptized babies might very well not go to [heaven]( ""The Catholic Catechism says infants might be saved without baptism, but stops short of affirming that all will be—though John Paul II, in his EvangeliumVitae, implies that unborn children would be.""<|TARGETS|>Unbaptized babies<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Unbaptized babies might very well not go to [heaven]( ""The Catholic Catechism says infants might be saved without baptism, but stops short of affirming that all will be—though John Paul II, in his EvangeliumVitae, implies that unborn children would be.""<|ASPECTS|>source of value<|CONCLUSION|>","Unbaptized babies might very well not go to heaven ""The Catholic Catechism says infants might be saved without baptism, but stops short of affirming that all will be—though John Paul II, in his EvangeliumVitae, implies that unborn children would be.""","An omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God would never have created a world where 30 of all fertilized soul-imbued eggs are being miscarried."
"<|TOPIC|>Artificial life<|ARGUMENT|>""And man made life."" The Economist. May 20th 2010: ""That ability would prove mankind’s mastery over nature in a way more profound than even the detonation of the first atomic bomb. The bomb, however justified in the context of the second world war, was purely destructive. Biology is about nurturing and growth.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Artificial life<|ARGUMENT|>""And man made life."" The Economist. May 20th 2010: ""That ability would prove mankind’s mastery over nature in a way more profound than even the detonation of the first atomic bomb. The bomb, however justified in the context of the second world war, was purely destructive. Biology is about nurturing and growth.""<|TARGETS|>The bomb, Biology<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Artificial life<|ARGUMENT|>""And man made life."" The Economist. May 20th 2010: ""That ability would prove mankind’s mastery over nature in a way more profound than even the detonation of the first atomic bomb. The bomb, however justified in the context of the second world war, was purely destructive. Biology is about nurturing and growth.""<|ASPECTS|>man made life, destructive, nurturing, mastery over nature, purely, growth<|CONCLUSION|>","""And man made life."" The Economist. May 20th 2010: ""That ability would prove mankind’s mastery over nature in a way more profound than even the detonation of the first atomic bomb. The bomb, however justified in the context of the second world war, was purely destructive. Biology is about nurturing and growth.""",Artificial life is a profound symbol of man's mastery over nature
"<|TOPIC|>Boarding Schools Are Beneficial To Children<|ARGUMENT|>As well as allowing for flexibility in curriculum choice, boarding schools can also accommodate a variety of specific family or lifestyle considerations. Children with specific learning or emotional needs can also benefit from specialised help as noted above. Particularly important is the way a boarding school may provide relief for parents from the day to day strains of dealing with a child’s problems, making time spent together more pleasant. Sometimes time away from the home benefits the child whose problems may be caused or exacerbated by troubles at home, for example divorce, bereavement or illness of a parent. On a merely practical level, parents whose work requires them to travel extensively, live in remote areas or abroad may find boarding school a useful way to provide stability and continuity in their child’s education.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Boarding Schools Are Beneficial To Children<|ARGUMENT|>As well as allowing for flexibility in curriculum choice, boarding schools can also accommodate a variety of specific family or lifestyle considerations. Children with specific learning or emotional needs can also benefit from specialised help as noted above. Particularly important is the way a boarding school may provide relief for parents from the day to day strains of dealing with a child’s problems, making time spent together more pleasant. Sometimes time away from the home benefits the child whose problems may be caused or exacerbated by troubles at home, for example divorce, bereavement or illness of a parent. On a merely practical level, parents whose work requires them to travel extensively, live in remote areas or abroad may find boarding school a useful way to provide stability and continuity in their child’s education.<|TARGETS|>a boarding school, Children with specific learning or emotional needs, allowing for flexibility in curriculum choice, boarding schools, to travel extensively live in remote areas or abroad<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Boarding Schools Are Beneficial To Children<|ARGUMENT|>As well as allowing for flexibility in curriculum choice, boarding schools can also accommodate a variety of specific family or lifestyle considerations. Children with specific learning or emotional needs can also benefit from specialised help as noted above. Particularly important is the way a boarding school may provide relief for parents from the day to day strains of dealing with a child’s problems, making time spent together more pleasant. Sometimes time away from the home benefits the child whose problems may be caused or exacerbated by troubles at home, for example divorce, bereavement or illness of a parent. On a merely practical level, parents whose work requires them to travel extensively, live in remote areas or abroad may find boarding school a useful way to provide stability and continuity in their child’s education.<|ASPECTS|>emotional needs, curriculum choice, specialised help, illness, troubles at home, pleasant, flexibility, stability, divorce, continuity, bereavement, learning, problems, specific, spent, family or lifestyle considerations, relief for parents<|CONCLUSION|>","As well as allowing for flexibility in curriculum choice, boarding schools can also accommodate a variety of specific family or lifestyle considerations. Children with specific learning or emotional needs can also benefit from specialised help as noted above. Particularly important is the way a boarding school may provide relief for parents from the day to day strains of dealing with a child’s problems, making time spent together more pleasant. Sometimes time away from the home benefits the child whose problems may be caused or exacerbated by troubles at home, for example divorce, bereavement or illness of a parent. On a merely practical level, parents whose work requires them to travel extensively, live in remote areas or abroad may find boarding school a useful way to provide stability and continuity in their child’s education.","As well as allowing for flexibility in curriculum choice, boarding schools can also accommodate a va..."
"<|TOPIC|>George Orwell's 1984 is over-rated<|ARGUMENT|>In the US [it is legal]( for the government to collect its citizens' emails and online documents without informing them, suggesting it could do the same with data from smart home devices.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>George Orwell's 1984 is over-rated<|ARGUMENT|>In the US [it is legal]( for the government to collect its citizens' emails and online documents without informing them, suggesting it could do the same with data from smart home devices.<|TARGETS|>the government to collect its citizens' emails and online documents<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>George Orwell's 1984 is over-rated<|ARGUMENT|>In the US [it is legal]( for the government to collect its citizens' emails and online documents without informing them, suggesting it could do the same with data from smart home devices.<|ASPECTS|>data, documents<|CONCLUSION|>","In the US it is legal for the government to collect its citizens' emails and online documents without informing them, suggesting it could do the same with data from smart home devices.","Smart home devices are being used, possibly even by the government, to spy on people inside their homes. While not everyone possesses smart home devices, they are becoming increasingly common."
"<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>PC is psychologically [traumatizing]( to those who want to freely think and collaborate with people benevolently \(they worry about accidentally offending and distressing the ones they're with\); they become [afraid to do anything]( causing them to ""freeze up"" \(which leads to self-censorship\) instead of having positive thought and action.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>PC is psychologically [traumatizing]( to those who want to freely think and collaborate with people benevolently \(they worry about accidentally offending and distressing the ones they're with\); they become [afraid to do anything]( causing them to ""freeze up"" \(which leads to self-censorship\) instead of having positive thought and action.<|TARGETS|>to freely think and collaborate with people benevolently they worry about accidentally offending and distressing the ones they 're with ; they become afraid to do anything causing them to "" freeze up "" which leads to self-censorship instead of having positive thought and action ., PC<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>PC is psychologically [traumatizing]( to those who want to freely think and collaborate with people benevolently \(they worry about accidentally offending and distressing the ones they're with\); they become [afraid to do anything]( causing them to ""freeze up"" \(which leads to self-censorship\) instead of having positive thought and action.<|ASPECTS|>public, popular opinions, built for everyone, political correctness<|CONCLUSION|>","PC is psychologically traumatizing to those who want to freely think and collaborate with people benevolently they worry about accidentally offending and distressing the ones they're with; they become afraid to do anything causing them to ""freeze up"" which leads to self-censorship instead of having positive thought and action.",Political correctness masks the fact that good intentions are more important than proper words.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Commercial Surrogacy be Legal in Liberal Democracies?<|ARGUMENT|>If women’s bodies have been traditionally controlled and used by patriarchy through different systems, and only women are able to be surrogates, it is arguable that commercial surrogacy is a modern form of control and use of women’s bodies.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Commercial Surrogacy be Legal in Liberal Democracies?<|ARGUMENT|>If women’s bodies have been traditionally controlled and used by patriarchy through different systems, and only women are able to be surrogates, it is arguable that commercial surrogacy is a modern form of control and use of women’s bodies.<|TARGETS|>commercial surrogacy, If women ’s bodies have been traditionally controlled and used by patriarchy through different systems<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Commercial Surrogacy be Legal in Liberal Democracies?<|ARGUMENT|>If women’s bodies have been traditionally controlled and used by patriarchy through different systems, and only women are able to be surrogates, it is arguable that commercial surrogacy is a modern form of control and use of women’s bodies.<|ASPECTS|>human happiness, long-term happiness<|CONCLUSION|>","If women’s bodies have been traditionally controlled and used by patriarchy through different systems, and only women are able to be surrogates, it is arguable that commercial surrogacy is a modern form of control and use of women’s bodies.",Unlike other forms of labour traditionally dominated by women including sex work surrogacy is the only one that can be performed exclusively by women or individuals with a uterus.
<|TOPIC|>Does mainstream feminism exploit women of colour?<|ARGUMENT|>A recent study on [African American women]( who graduated from Harvard Business School found they were only one-third as likely as non–African Americans to attain senior executive status in corporations.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Does mainstream feminism exploit women of colour?<|ARGUMENT|>A recent study on [African American women]( who graduated from Harvard Business School found they were only one-third as likely as non–African Americans to attain senior executive status in corporations.<|TARGETS|>A recent study on African American women who graduated from Harvard Business School<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Does mainstream feminism exploit women of colour?<|ARGUMENT|>A recent study on [African American women]( who graduated from Harvard Business School found they were only one-third as likely as non–African Americans to attain senior executive status in corporations.<|ASPECTS|>senior executive status<|CONCLUSION|>,A recent study on African American women who graduated from Harvard Business School found they were only one-third as likely as non–African Americans to attain senior executive status in corporations.,"Mainstream feminism has been criticized as being non-inclusive and insufficient in terms of its economic understanding of problems of women of colour, unlike intersectional feminism."
"<|TOPIC|>Banning cell phones in cars<|ARGUMENT|>Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. ""Ban Cell Phones In Cars?"". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - ""Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Banning cell phones in cars<|ARGUMENT|>Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. ""Ban Cell Phones In Cars?"". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - ""Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume.""<|TARGETS|>If the cell phone problem, Cato.org, car insurance companies, reimbursing injured parties for their losses, Paul Tetlock, the market<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Banning cell phones in cars<|ARGUMENT|>Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. ""Ban Cell Phones In Cars?"". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - ""Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume.""<|ASPECTS|>cell phone risks, risk, losses, ban cell phones, injured parties, government, premiums, higher premiums, higher-risk, problem<|CONCLUSION|>","Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. ""Ban Cell Phones In Cars?"". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - ""Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume.""",Markets are better at regulating cell phone use in cars
<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>The daily cost to sustain some peers in the Lords is [25 times higher]( than most members of the House of Commons.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>The daily cost to sustain some peers in the Lords is [25 times higher]( than most members of the House of Commons.<|TARGETS|>The daily cost to sustain some peers in the Lords<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>The daily cost to sustain some peers in the Lords is [25 times higher]( than most members of the House of Commons.<|ASPECTS|>customs checks<|CONCLUSION|>,The daily cost to sustain some peers in the Lords is 25 times higher than most members of the House of Commons.,The House of Lords is hugely wasteful as an institution. Its reform should be easy for the Government to achieve.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Whaling Still be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Large ships and boats cause tremendous [underwater noise pollution]( that falls into the same frequency range as cetaceans, which causes enormous stress for the animals. This results in flight out of their natural habitats and beaching.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Whaling Still be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Large ships and boats cause tremendous [underwater noise pollution]( that falls into the same frequency range as cetaceans, which causes enormous stress for the animals. This results in flight out of their natural habitats and beaching.<|TARGETS|>Large ships and boats<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Whaling Still be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Large ships and boats cause tremendous [underwater noise pollution]( that falls into the same frequency range as cetaceans, which causes enormous stress for the animals. This results in flight out of their natural habitats and beaching.<|ASPECTS|>natural habitats, beaching, noise pollution, stress, flight, underwater<|CONCLUSION|>","Large ships and boats cause tremendous underwater noise pollution that falls into the same frequency range as cetaceans, which causes enormous stress for the animals. This results in flight out of their natural habitats and beaching.",A variety of human-caused threats additionally intensifies the risk of extinction.
"<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Unicorns, elves, ninja turtles, Harry Potter, etc. do not exist, but are merely a story told without the need of evidence or facts. Any beliefs in a god can be held to the same standards. Hence, we do not need a god to imagine the idea of a god.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Unicorns, elves, ninja turtles, Harry Potter, etc. do not exist, but are merely a story told without the need of evidence or facts. Any beliefs in a god can be held to the same standards. Hence, we do not need a god to imagine the idea of a god.<|TARGETS|>Any beliefs in a god, a story told without the need of evidence or facts ., to imagine the idea of a god .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Unicorns, elves, ninja turtles, Harry Potter, etc. do not exist, but are merely a story told without the need of evidence or facts. Any beliefs in a god can be held to the same standards. Hence, we do not need a god to imagine the idea of a god.<|ASPECTS|>production, factory, efficient large<|CONCLUSION|>","Unicorns, elves, ninja turtles, Harry Potter, etc. do not exist, but are merely a story told without the need of evidence or facts. Any beliefs in a god can be held to the same standards. Hence, we do not need a god to imagine the idea of a god.",There does not need to be a God for humans to have conceived of God.
"<|TOPIC|>the ICC is not an effective deterrent<|ARGUMENT|>By prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the crimes in question, the ICC is effectively allowing lower-ranked perpetrators to commit crimes with impunity. These rank and file troops generally have little awareness or understanding of international criminal laws. Furthermore, just as local domestic laws fail to deter offenders who often commit crimes with little thought of being punished, distant ICC threats are even less likely to deter those whose actions are easily manipulated and controlled by militia leaders. Child soldiers, in particular, have often been drugged before going into combat.[1] [1] Mullins & Rothe, pp.782-4<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>the ICC is not an effective deterrent<|ARGUMENT|>By prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the crimes in question, the ICC is effectively allowing lower-ranked perpetrators to commit crimes with impunity. These rank and file troops generally have little awareness or understanding of international criminal laws. Furthermore, just as local domestic laws fail to deter offenders who often commit crimes with little thought of being punished, distant ICC threats are even less likely to deter those whose actions are easily manipulated and controlled by militia leaders. Child soldiers, in particular, have often been drugged before going into combat.[1] [1] Mullins & Rothe, pp.782-4<|TARGETS|>These rank and file troops, prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘ most responsible’ for the crimes in question, local domestic laws, ICC threats<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>the ICC is not an effective deterrent<|ARGUMENT|>By prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the crimes in question, the ICC is effectively allowing lower-ranked perpetrators to commit crimes with impunity. These rank and file troops generally have little awareness or understanding of international criminal laws. Furthermore, just as local domestic laws fail to deter offenders who often commit crimes with little thought of being punished, distant ICC threats are even less likely to deter those whose actions are easily manipulated and controlled by militia leaders. Child soldiers, in particular, have often been drugged before going into combat.[1] [1] Mullins & Rothe, pp.782-4<|ASPECTS|>lower-ranked, icc threats, awareness, understanding, responsible, drugged, controlled, deter, impunity, child soldiers, commit crimes, international criminal laws, easily, militia, manipulated<|CONCLUSION|>","By prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the crimes in question, the ICC is effectively allowing lower-ranked perpetrators to commit crimes with impunity. These rank and file troops generally have little awareness or understanding of international criminal laws. Furthermore, just as local domestic laws fail to deter offenders who often commit crimes with little thought of being punished, distant ICC threats are even less likely to deter those whose actions are easily manipulated and controlled by militia leaders. Child soldiers, in particular, have often been drugged before going into combat.1 1 Mullins & Rothe, pp.782-4","As the ICC intentionally limits its prosecutions to group leaders, many of those who actually commit atrocities need have no fear of prosecution"
"<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Much time is spent praying. Though many say their prayers are answered, evidence of a causal link between their prayers and the outcome that occurred is lacking.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Much time is spent praying. Though many say their prayers are answered, evidence of a causal link between their prayers and the outcome that occurred is lacking.<|TARGETS|>evidence of a causal link between their prayers and the outcome that occurred<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Much time is spent praying. Though many say their prayers are answered, evidence of a causal link between their prayers and the outcome that occurred is lacking.<|ASPECTS|>competent, beneficial, righteousness, faith, inspired of god<|CONCLUSION|>","Much time is spent praying. Though many say their prayers are answered, evidence of a causal link between their prayers and the outcome that occurred is lacking.","Most religions use the you-have-nothing-to-lose-by-believing argument. Of course you do: There's your time, your independence, your objectivity, and your cash."
"<|TOPIC|>Law school<|ARGUMENT|>""In Defense of Lawyers"" By Michael Lee Hanks of Law Office of Michael L. Hanks: ""Our legal system was designed as an advocacy system for a simple reason: No other system of law delivers true justice on a consistent basis. An advocacy system requires, by definition, advocates. The only things that prevent a party in a legal dispute from being an effective advocate for his or her position are greed, self interest, lack of objectivity, and ignorance of the law. Thus, lawyers were born.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Law school<|ARGUMENT|>""In Defense of Lawyers"" By Michael Lee Hanks of Law Office of Michael L. Hanks: ""Our legal system was designed as an advocacy system for a simple reason: No other system of law delivers true justice on a consistent basis. An advocacy system requires, by definition, advocates. The only things that prevent a party in a legal dispute from being an effective advocate for his or her position are greed, self interest, lack of objectivity, and ignorance of the law. Thus, lawyers were born.""<|TARGETS|>An advocacy system, The only things that prevent a party in a legal dispute from being an effective advocate for his or her position are greed self interest lack of objectivity and ignorance of the law ., Defense of Lawyers "" By Michael Lee Hanks of Law Office of Michael L. Hanks<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Law school<|ARGUMENT|>""In Defense of Lawyers"" By Michael Lee Hanks of Law Office of Michael L. Hanks: ""Our legal system was designed as an advocacy system for a simple reason: No other system of law delivers true justice on a consistent basis. An advocacy system requires, by definition, advocates. The only things that prevent a party in a legal dispute from being an effective advocate for his or her position are greed, self interest, lack of objectivity, and ignorance of the law. Thus, lawyers were born.""<|ASPECTS|>, legal skills, business, corporate in-house<|CONCLUSION|>","""In Defense of Lawyers"" By Michael Lee Hanks of Law Office of Michael L. Hanks: ""Our legal system was designed as an advocacy system for a simple reason: No other system of law delivers true justice on a consistent basis. An advocacy system requires, by definition, advocates. The only things that prevent a party in a legal dispute from being an effective advocate for his or her position are greed, self interest, lack of objectivity, and ignorance of the law. Thus, lawyers were born.""","Lawyers are part of important advocacy system, rule of law"
"<|TOPIC|>Should animals be banned in circuses?<|ARGUMENT|>Animals in circus are bred in captivity and will spend their entire lives in close contact with humans in an unnatural, stressful environment.[peta.org](<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should animals be banned in circuses?<|ARGUMENT|>Animals in circus are bred in captivity and will spend their entire lives in close contact with humans in an unnatural, stressful environment.[peta.org](<|TARGETS|>Animals in circus<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should animals be banned in circuses?<|ARGUMENT|>Animals in circus are bred in captivity and will spend their entire lives in close contact with humans in an unnatural, stressful environment.[peta.org](<|ASPECTS|>contact, stressful environment, unnatural<|CONCLUSION|>","Animals in circus are bred in captivity and will spend their entire lives in close contact with humans in an unnatural, stressful environment.peta.org","Circuses contribute to unnecessary animal suffering, for the sake of human entertainment."
<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Studies have proven that the poorest households spend a [greater percentage]( of their income than the rich ones \(who lock away large amounts in illiquid investments\).<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Studies have proven that the poorest households spend a [greater percentage]( of their income than the rich ones \(who lock away large amounts in illiquid investments\).<|TARGETS|>lock away large amounts in illiquid investments<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?<|ARGUMENT|>Studies have proven that the poorest households spend a [greater percentage]( of their income than the rich ones \(who lock away large amounts in illiquid investments\).<|ASPECTS|>natural right, every, individual ownership<|CONCLUSION|>",Studies have proven that the poorest households spend a greater percentage of their income than the rich ones who lock away large amounts in illiquid investments.,"A UBI gives everyone money to spend on goods and services, thus driving demand and therefore aggregate output."
"<|TOPIC|>The Trolley Problem: What's the Right Solution?<|ARGUMENT|>It is illegal in almost all legal systems to actively take the life of an individual without proving necessary justification. Such justification could not be assured if the bystander himself is unsure. This does not prove morality, but it does show that all choices being equal, doing nothing would have an advantage over involving oneself.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Trolley Problem: What's the Right Solution?<|ARGUMENT|>It is illegal in almost all legal systems to actively take the life of an individual without proving necessary justification. Such justification could not be assured if the bystander himself is unsure. This does not prove morality, but it does show that all choices being equal, doing nothing would have an advantage over involving oneself.<|TARGETS|>all legal systems to actively take the life of an individual without proving necessary justification ., Such justification<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>The Trolley Problem: What's the Right Solution?<|ARGUMENT|>It is illegal in almost all legal systems to actively take the life of an individual without proving necessary justification. Such justification could not be assured if the bystander himself is unsure. This does not prove morality, but it does show that all choices being equal, doing nothing would have an advantage over involving oneself.<|ASPECTS|>protect human members of society, war situations, expendable, human life<|CONCLUSION|>","It is illegal in almost all legal systems to actively take the life of an individual without proving necessary justification. Such justification could not be assured if the bystander himself is unsure. This does not prove morality, but it does show that all choices being equal, doing nothing would have an advantage over involving oneself.","If the bystander is unsure of what to do, they should not pull the lever."
"<|TOPIC|>Are Humans Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>""When viewing the pictures of pain, the sadists showed greater activation in their amygdala — a brain area associated with strong emotion — compared with the other sexual offenders. Moreover, the sadists rated the pain experienced by the victim as more intense than the nonsadists did. And the more intense the sadists thought the pain was, the greater their activation in another brain region called the insula, which is involved with monitoring one’s own feelings and body states.""<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are Humans Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>""When viewing the pictures of pain, the sadists showed greater activation in their amygdala — a brain area associated with strong emotion — compared with the other sexual offenders. Moreover, the sadists rated the pain experienced by the victim as more intense than the nonsadists did. And the more intense the sadists thought the pain was, the greater their activation in another brain region called the insula, which is involved with monitoring one’s own feelings and body states.""<|TARGETS|>viewing the pictures of pain<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Are Humans Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>""When viewing the pictures of pain, the sadists showed greater activation in their amygdala — a brain area associated with strong emotion — compared with the other sexual offenders. Moreover, the sadists rated the pain experienced by the victim as more intense than the nonsadists did. And the more intense the sadists thought the pain was, the greater their activation in another brain region called the insula, which is involved with monitoring one’s own feelings and body states.""<|ASPECTS|>activation, pain, feelings, pain experienced, body states, strong emotion<|CONCLUSION|>","""When viewing the pictures of pain, the sadists showed greater activation in their amygdala — a brain area associated with strong emotion — compared with the other sexual offenders. Moreover, the sadists rated the pain experienced by the victim as more intense than the nonsadists did. And the more intense the sadists thought the pain was, the greater their activation in another brain region called the insula, which is involved with monitoring one’s own feelings and body states.""",Sadists actually have more empathy that the average person which makes them more effective.healthland.time.com
<|TOPIC|>Should Kashmir Be An Independent State?<|ARGUMENT|>The Accords recognise Kashmir's [different historical path to form part of India]( and preserve a measure of the states former independence.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Kashmir Be An Independent State?<|ARGUMENT|>The Accords recognise Kashmir's [different historical path to form part of India]( and preserve a measure of the states former independence.<|TARGETS|>The Accords<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Kashmir Be An Independent State?<|ARGUMENT|>The Accords recognise Kashmir's [different historical path to form part of India]( and preserve a measure of the states former independence.<|ASPECTS|>kashmir, different historical path<|CONCLUSION|>",The Accords recognise Kashmir's different historical path to form part of India and preserve a measure of the states former independence.,Kashmir already has a degree of independence granted by the Indira-Sheikh Accords which grants Kashmir special status.
"<|TOPIC|>use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted material<|ARGUMENT|>Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement. Moreover, most graduated response policies proposed require no judicial intervention at all for the sanction to be invoked. This means private organisations get to decide who has committed a crime and deserves the punishment. The ISPs and copyright holders therefore act as accuser, prosecution, judge and executioner. On top of this if a consumer would go to court, he would also face a reversal of the burden of proof: since he is suing against being fined, he has to prove that he is not guilty, a reversal of the presumption of innocence.[1] [1] Peter K. Yu, ‘The Graduated Response’. 2010. Florida Law Review, Volume 62. Available for download (PDF) at: <|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted material<|ARGUMENT|>Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement. Moreover, most graduated response policies proposed require no judicial intervention at all for the sanction to be invoked. This means private organisations get to decide who has committed a crime and deserves the punishment. The ISPs and copyright holders therefore act as accuser, prosecution, judge and executioner. On top of this if a consumer would go to court, he would also face a reversal of the burden of proof: since he is suing against being fined, he has to prove that he is not guilty, a reversal of the presumption of innocence.[1] [1] Peter K. Yu, ‘The Graduated Response’. 2010. Florida Law Review, Volume 62. Available for download (PDF) at: <|TARGETS|>Detection of copyright infringement, This software, Florida Law Review, The ISPs and copyright holders, most graduated response policies proposed<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted material<|ARGUMENT|>Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement. Moreover, most graduated response policies proposed require no judicial intervention at all for the sanction to be invoked. This means private organisations get to decide who has committed a crime and deserves the punishment. The ISPs and copyright holders therefore act as accuser, prosecution, judge and executioner. On top of this if a consumer would go to court, he would also face a reversal of the burden of proof: since he is suing against being fined, he has to prove that he is not guilty, a reversal of the presumption of innocence.[1] [1] Peter K. Yu, ‘The Graduated Response’. 2010. Florida Law Review, Volume 62. Available for download (PDF) at: <|ASPECTS|>detected infringements, deserves, detection, punishment, graduated response, judicial intervention, unjustly accused, copyright infringement, burden of proof, innocence<|CONCLUSION|>","Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement. Moreover, most graduated response policies proposed require no judicial intervention at all for the sanction to be invoked. This means private organisations get to decide who has committed a crime and deserves the punishment. The ISPs and copyright holders therefore act as accuser, prosecution, judge and executioner. On top of this if a consumer would go to court, he would also face a reversal of the burden of proof: since he is suing against being fined, he has to prove that he is not guilty, a reversal of the presumption of innocence.1 1 Peter K. Yu, ‘The Graduated Response’. 2010. Florida Law Review, Volume 62. Available for download PDF at:",The graduated response is a violation of the basic right to due process
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A recognition of Palestine as a state will lead to increased demands by Palestinians that Israeli settlers be expelled from their state. This will likely lead to increased violence.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A recognition of Palestine as a state will lead to increased demands by Palestinians that Israeli settlers be expelled from their state. This will likely lead to increased violence.<|TARGETS|>A recognition of Palestine as a state<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>A recognition of Palestine as a state will lead to increased demands by Palestinians that Israeli settlers be expelled from their state. This will likely lead to increased violence.<|ASPECTS|>land, endangers, israeli presence<|CONCLUSION|>",A recognition of Palestine as a state will lead to increased demands by Palestinians that Israeli settlers be expelled from their state. This will likely lead to increased violence.,Recognizing Palestine will jeopardize the security of Jewish settlers in Palestine because protection by Israel becomes more difficult.
"<|TOPIC|>We should not consume the works of artists who have been accused or convicted of serious crimes<|ARGUMENT|>If an author produces bad quality art but he's a really good human being, should we be forced to consume his works? No, of course. The opposite is also true.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>We should not consume the works of artists who have been accused or convicted of serious crimes<|ARGUMENT|>If an author produces bad quality art but he's a really good human being, should we be forced to consume his works? No, of course. The opposite is also true.<|TARGETS|>If an author, forced to consume his works<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>We should not consume the works of artists who have been accused or convicted of serious crimes<|ARGUMENT|>If an author produces bad quality art but he's a really good human being, should we be forced to consume his works? No, of course. The opposite is also true.<|ASPECTS|>good human, consume, bad quality art<|CONCLUSION|>","If an author produces bad quality art but he's a really good human being, should we be forced to consume his works? No, of course. The opposite is also true.",The quality of art should not dependent on the artist's actions.
<|TOPIC|>Is the Rapture Pre-tribulation or other?<|ARGUMENT|>John 14 Jesus told his disciples that he was going to heaven to prepare a place for them and that he would return to get them and take the to heaven.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is the Rapture Pre-tribulation or other?<|ARGUMENT|>John 14 Jesus told his disciples that he was going to heaven to prepare a place for them and that he would return to get them and take the to heaven.<|TARGETS|>to prepare a place for them and that he would return to get them and take the to heaven .<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is the Rapture Pre-tribulation or other?<|ARGUMENT|>John 14 Jesus told his disciples that he was going to heaven to prepare a place for them and that he would return to get them and take the to heaven.<|ASPECTS|>prepare<|CONCLUSION|>,John 14 Jesus told his disciples that he was going to heaven to prepare a place for them and that he would return to get them and take the to heaven.,Is the Rapture Pre-tribulation or as some believe mid-tribulation or post-tribulation
"<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>The rise of [Islam]( saw the rise of support for [science]( the wider adoption of [Algebra]( and numerous other technological innovations, as well as an increase in general prosperity.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>The rise of [Islam]( saw the rise of support for [science]( the wider adoption of [Algebra]( and numerous other technological innovations, as well as an increase in general prosperity.<|TARGETS|>the wider adoption of Algebra and numerous other technological innovations<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>The rise of [Islam]( saw the rise of support for [science]( the wider adoption of [Algebra]( and numerous other technological innovations, as well as an increase in general prosperity.<|ASPECTS|>competent, beneficial, righteousness, faith, inspired of god<|CONCLUSION|>","The rise of Islam saw the rise of support for science the wider adoption of Algebra and numerous other technological innovations, as well as an increase in general prosperity.","During the golden age of Islam, the faith was a major source of support for the advancement of science."
<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>There is a stark correlation between the 10 [most religious]( states and the 10 [worst states]( in quality of life \(9 out of 10 coincidence\) and between the 10 [less religious]( states and the [10 best one]( \(7 out of 10 coincidence\).<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>There is a stark correlation between the 10 [most religious]( states and the 10 [worst states]( in quality of life \(9 out of 10 coincidence\) and between the 10 [less religious]( states and the [10 best one]( \(7 out of 10 coincidence\).<|TARGETS|>the 10 most religious states and the 10 worst states in quality of life 9 out of 10 coincidence and between the 10 less religious states and the 10 best one 7 out of 10 coincidence .<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>There is a stark correlation between the 10 [most religious]( states and the 10 [worst states]( in quality of life \(9 out of 10 coincidence\) and between the 10 [less religious]( states and the [10 best one]( \(7 out of 10 coincidence\).<|ASPECTS|>competent, beneficial, righteousness, faith, inspired of god<|CONCLUSION|>",There is a stark correlation between the 10 most religious states and the 10 worst states in quality of life 9 out of 10 coincidence and between the 10 less religious states and the 10 best one 7 out of 10 coincidence.,"Research in the US, shows that in most sociological measures of well-being, states with less levels or religion fare better than more religious states."
"<|TOPIC|>Water Resources, a Commodity<|ARGUMENT|>Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams, reservoirs, flood defences and irrigation systems – costs billions of dollars and is a burden on upstream states’ budgets. All of these expenses, including the opportunity costs of fertile lands allocated for reservoirs and dams, should be covered by downstream states, which are usually the primary consumers of water. For example, it is unfair if an upstream state cannot use the water flowing through it to produce electricity to offset the costs of water management.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Water Resources, a Commodity<|ARGUMENT|>Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams, reservoirs, flood defences and irrigation systems – costs billions of dollars and is a burden on upstream states’ budgets. All of these expenses, including the opportunity costs of fertile lands allocated for reservoirs and dams, should be covered by downstream states, which are usually the primary consumers of water. For example, it is unfair if an upstream state cannot use the water flowing through it to produce electricity to offset the costs of water management.<|TARGETS|>Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams reservoirs flood defences and irrigation systems, the opportunity costs of fertile lands allocated for reservoirs and dams<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Water Resources, a Commodity<|ARGUMENT|>Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams, reservoirs, flood defences and irrigation systems – costs billions of dollars and is a burden on upstream states’ budgets. All of these expenses, including the opportunity costs of fertile lands allocated for reservoirs and dams, should be covered by downstream states, which are usually the primary consumers of water. For example, it is unfair if an upstream state cannot use the water flowing through it to produce electricity to offset the costs of water management.<|ASPECTS|>expenses, lands, costs, burden, control, opportunity costs, budgets, water management, water<|CONCLUSION|>","Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams, reservoirs, flood defences and irrigation systems – costs billions of dollars and is a burden on upstream states’ budgets. All of these expenses, including the opportunity costs of fertile lands allocated for reservoirs and dams, should be covered by downstream states, which are usually the primary consumers of water. For example, it is unfair if an upstream state cannot use the water flowing through it to produce electricity to offset the costs of water management.","Control and management of water – the maintenance of dams, reservoirs, flood defences and irrigation..."
<|TOPIC|>Is Attachment Parenting the Best Way to Raise a Child?<|ARGUMENT|>Safe sleep guidelines [recommend]( that infants sleep near the breastfeeding parent and not between the two parents.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Is Attachment Parenting the Best Way to Raise a Child?<|ARGUMENT|>Safe sleep guidelines [recommend]( that infants sleep near the breastfeeding parent and not between the two parents.<|TARGETS|>that infants sleep near the breastfeeding parent and not between the two parents ., Safe sleep guidelines<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Is Attachment Parenting the Best Way to Raise a Child?<|ARGUMENT|>Safe sleep guidelines [recommend]( that infants sleep near the breastfeeding parent and not between the two parents.<|ASPECTS|>working harder, childhood learning, close relationships<|CONCLUSION|>",Safe sleep guidelines recommend that infants sleep near the breastfeeding parent and not between the two parents.,"Most co-sleeping beds attach to the parental bed, rather than the child sleeping between the parents."
<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Evolution by natural selection is a process that entails the continual and indiscriminate suffering of conscious creatures locked in competition for finite resources. This mechanism does not suggest the design of an all powerful god.<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Evolution by natural selection is a process that entails the continual and indiscriminate suffering of conscious creatures locked in competition for finite resources. This mechanism does not suggest the design of an all powerful god.<|TARGETS|>This mechanism, Evolution by natural selection<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Evolution by natural selection is a process that entails the continual and indiscriminate suffering of conscious creatures locked in competition for finite resources. This mechanism does not suggest the design of an all powerful god.<|ASPECTS|>production, factory, efficient large<|CONCLUSION|>",Evolution by natural selection is a process that entails the continual and indiscriminate suffering of conscious creatures locked in competition for finite resources. This mechanism does not suggest the design of an all powerful god.,Living beings currently are subject to needless pain and suffering that arises due to natural causes. This suggests that these natural causes were not created by a omnibenevolent being.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>The fact there are no customs checks on the border [is reliant on]( Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland having the same food, animal welfare, environmental, and other standards. Without these, customs checks would be needed.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>The fact there are no customs checks on the border [is reliant on]( Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland having the same food, animal welfare, environmental, and other standards. Without these, customs checks would be needed.<|TARGETS|>customs checks<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>The fact there are no customs checks on the border [is reliant on]( Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland having the same food, animal welfare, environmental, and other standards. Without these, customs checks would be needed.<|ASPECTS|>customs checks<|CONCLUSION|>","The fact there are no customs checks on the border is reliant on Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland having the same food, animal welfare, environmental, and other standards. Without these, customs checks would be needed.",A hard Brexit would lead to the return of an enforced border between Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland.
"<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>An Airbnb host is not legally considered self-employed or a business owner if their net earnings from their rental do not exceed $400, so can be [exempt]( from the federal income and self-employment taxes that independent hotel or B&B owners must pay.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>An Airbnb host is not legally considered self-employed or a business owner if their net earnings from their rental do not exceed $400, so can be [exempt]( from the federal income and self-employment taxes that independent hotel or B&B owners must pay.<|TARGETS|>the federal income and self-employment taxes that independent hotel or B B owners, An Airbnb host<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>An Airbnb host is not legally considered self-employed or a business owner if their net earnings from their rental do not exceed $400, so can be [exempt]( from the federal income and self-employment taxes that independent hotel or B&B owners must pay.<|ASPECTS|>government interference, internet communication, robust nature, defamatory posts<|CONCLUSION|>","An Airbnb host is not legally considered self-employed or a business owner if their net earnings from their rental do not exceed $400, so can be exempt from the federal income and self-employment taxes that independent hotel or B&B owners must pay.","All hotel and lodging businesses are legally required to pay various taxes, whereas certain Airbnb hosts are not."
"<|TOPIC|>Does professional sport provide a framework that assists social change, and therefore is sport a social movement?<|ARGUMENT|>The Olympics have [a history]( of discriminating against trans athletes and women by forcing sex-testing female athletes.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does professional sport provide a framework that assists social change, and therefore is sport a social movement?<|ARGUMENT|>The Olympics have [a history]( of discriminating against trans athletes and women by forcing sex-testing female athletes.<|TARGETS|>The Olympics<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does professional sport provide a framework that assists social change, and therefore is sport a social movement?<|ARGUMENT|>The Olympics have [a history]( of discriminating against trans athletes and women by forcing sex-testing female athletes.<|ASPECTS|>police brutality<|CONCLUSION|>",The Olympics have a history of discriminating against trans athletes and women by forcing sex-testing female athletes.,The rules of a sport often propagate social norms and entrench them.
"<|TOPIC|>Should The Catholic Church Publicly Elect Its Leaders?<|ARGUMENT|>In fact, it was not until 1917 that the [Code of Canon Law]( was drawn up and the Pope was officially given the authority to appoint all bishops of the Catholic Church.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should The Catholic Church Publicly Elect Its Leaders?<|ARGUMENT|>In fact, it was not until 1917 that the [Code of Canon Law]( was drawn up and the Pope was officially given the authority to appoint all bishops of the Catholic Church.<|TARGETS|>the authority to appoint all bishops of the Catholic Church .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should The Catholic Church Publicly Elect Its Leaders?<|ARGUMENT|>In fact, it was not until 1917 that the [Code of Canon Law]( was drawn up and the Pope was officially given the authority to appoint all bishops of the Catholic Church.<|ASPECTS|>compassionate, welcoming, open<|CONCLUSION|>","In fact, it was not until 1917 that the Code of Canon Law was drawn up and the Pope was officially given the authority to appoint all bishops of the Catholic Church.","Until the Middle Ages Church leaders were elected by popular vote Sociocultural reasons, not religious reasons, are why public elections are not used to determine the leaders of the Church today."
"<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [a stigma]( around men using sex toys - a category sex robots fall into, and so potentially something that will affect them becoming mainstream.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [a stigma]( around men using sex toys - a category sex robots fall into, and so potentially something that will affect them becoming mainstream.<|TARGETS|>a stigma around men using sex toys<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>There is [a stigma]( around men using sex toys - a category sex robots fall into, and so potentially something that will affect them becoming mainstream.<|ASPECTS|>data, outrage, class action<|CONCLUSION|>","There is a stigma around men using sex toys - a category sex robots fall into, and so potentially something that will affect them becoming mainstream.",Sex robots are unlikely to ever be a mainstream technology.
"<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, some people are attracted to older people; a niche market that could support some sex workers as they age.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, some people are attracted to older people; a niche market that could support some sex workers as they age.<|TARGETS|>a niche market<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, some people are attracted to older people; a niche market that could support some sex workers as they age.<|ASPECTS|>stereotype, sexual, disabled people, paying<|CONCLUSION|>","For example, some people are attracted to older people; a niche market that could support some sex workers as they age.",Many people have unique sexual desires that older sex workers could effectively target.
"<|TOPIC|>EU constitution reform treaty (Lisbon Treaty)<|ARGUMENT|>- ""Treaty of Lisbon. Questions and Answers"". Europea.eu - ""Does the Treaty of Lisbon weaken the social achievements of the EU?<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>EU constitution reform treaty (Lisbon Treaty)<|ARGUMENT|>- ""Treaty of Lisbon. Questions and Answers"". Europea.eu - ""Does the Treaty of Lisbon weaken the social achievements of the EU?<|TARGETS|>Europea.eu<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>EU constitution reform treaty (Lisbon Treaty)<|ARGUMENT|>- ""Treaty of Lisbon. Questions and Answers"". Europea.eu - ""Does the Treaty of Lisbon weaken the social achievements of the EU?<|ASPECTS|>social achievements<|CONCLUSION|>","- ""Treaty of Lisbon. Questions and Answers"". Europea.eu - ""Does the Treaty of Lisbon weaken the social achievements of the EU?",The Treaty of Lisbon upholds the social achievements of the EU
"<|TOPIC|>blasphemy has no place on the statute books<|ARGUMENT|>Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state proves to be impotent in addressing it, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands. Surely it is preferable to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law. Proposition gave the example of the Salman Rushdie affair, where Ayatollah Khomeni issued a global fatwah on the author following the publication of the Satanic Verses. How much more preferable would it have been for that process to have been handled by means of diplomacy[i], extradition and trial than a decade’s worth of civil and international discourse. The Arab league and others have called for an international treaty to this effect, as the issue of blasphemy committed in one nation causing offence in another comes increasingly to the fore in an internet age, it seems an effective approach. In an increasingly Global world with the possibility for inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds, leaving only their context behind, it is time for governments to have a serious conversation about an international framework - to make sure that justice stays in the courts rather than the streets. [i] Globalpost. Daniel DeFraia. Muslim nations push for international blasphemy law. 25 September 2012.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>blasphemy has no place on the statute books<|ARGUMENT|>Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state proves to be impotent in addressing it, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands. Surely it is preferable to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law. Proposition gave the example of the Salman Rushdie affair, where Ayatollah Khomeni issued a global fatwah on the author following the publication of the Satanic Verses. How much more preferable would it have been for that process to have been handled by means of diplomacy[i], extradition and trial than a decade’s worth of civil and international discourse. The Arab league and others have called for an international treaty to this effect, as the issue of blasphemy committed in one nation causing offence in another comes increasingly to the fore in an internet age, it seems an effective approach. In an increasingly Global world with the possibility for inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds, leaving only their context behind, it is time for governments to have a serious conversation about an international framework - to make sure that justice stays in the courts rather than the streets. [i] Globalpost. Daniel DeFraia. Muslim nations push for international blasphemy law. 25 September 2012.<|TARGETS|>to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law ., the Salman Rushdie affair, Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state, Daniel DeFraia, for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands ., inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>blasphemy has no place on the statute books<|ARGUMENT|>Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state proves to be impotent in addressing it, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands. Surely it is preferable to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law. Proposition gave the example of the Salman Rushdie affair, where Ayatollah Khomeni issued a global fatwah on the author following the publication of the Satanic Verses. How much more preferable would it have been for that process to have been handled by means of diplomacy[i], extradition and trial than a decade’s worth of civil and international discourse. The Arab league and others have called for an international treaty to this effect, as the issue of blasphemy committed in one nation causing offence in another comes increasingly to the fore in an internet age, it seems an effective approach. In an increasingly Global world with the possibility for inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds, leaving only their context behind, it is time for governments to have a serious conversation about an international framework - to make sure that justice stays in the courts rather than the streets. [i] Globalpost. Daniel DeFraia. Muslim nations push for international blasphemy law. 25 September 2012.<|ASPECTS|>, grave offence, inflammatory remarks, international framework, blasphemy, globalpost, justice stays, fatwah, blasphemy law, civil and international discourse, offence, global, international, impotent<|CONCLUSION|>","Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state proves to be impotent in addressing it, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands. Surely it is preferable to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law. Proposition gave the example of the Salman Rushdie affair, where Ayatollah Khomeni issued a global fatwah on the author following the publication of the Satanic Verses. How much more preferable would it have been for that process to have been handled by means of diplomacyi, extradition and trial than a decade’s worth of civil and international discourse. The Arab league and others have called for an international treaty to this effect, as the issue of blasphemy committed in one nation causing offence in another comes increasingly to the fore in an internet age, it seems an effective approach. In an increasingly Global world with the possibility for inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds, leaving only their context behind, it is time for governments to have a serious conversation about an international framework - to make sure that justice stays in the courts rather than the streets. i Globalpost. Daniel DeFraia. Muslim nations push for international blasphemy law. 25 September 2012.","If the courts did not handle these issues, the mob likely would."
<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no alternative source of value that has absolutely nothing to do with the \(actual or potential\) experience of conscious beings.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no alternative source of value that has absolutely nothing to do with the \(actual or potential\) experience of conscious beings.<|TARGETS|>the actual or potential experience of conscious beings .<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no alternative source of value that has absolutely nothing to do with the \(actual or potential\) experience of conscious beings.<|ASPECTS|>source of value<|CONCLUSION|>,There is no alternative source of value that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual or potential experience of conscious beings.,All notions of value will bear some relationship to the actual or potential experience of conscious beings.
"<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>After disillusionment with Israel's refusal to negotiate and arrive at a peace treaty, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, sought to [bypass the peace process]( with Israel, showing that he believed it to be beyond recovery.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>After disillusionment with Israel's refusal to negotiate and arrive at a peace treaty, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, sought to [bypass the peace process]( with Israel, showing that he believed it to be beyond recovery.<|TARGETS|>Israel 's refusal to negotiate and arrive at a peace treaty, Mahmoud Abbas<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>After disillusionment with Israel's refusal to negotiate and arrive at a peace treaty, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, sought to [bypass the peace process]( with Israel, showing that he believed it to be beyond recovery.<|ASPECTS|>land, endangers, israeli presence<|CONCLUSION|>","After disillusionment with Israel's refusal to negotiate and arrive at a peace treaty, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, sought to bypass the peace process with Israel, showing that he believed it to be beyond recovery.",Israel has all but given up on the two state solution. The US must take this step to bring Israel back to the negotiating table.
"<|TOPIC|>Australian republic vs. monarchy<|ARGUMENT|>Australia no longer is dependent on England and there is no need to be part of the Commonwealth. Europeans from Engaland may have been the first white people in Australia but Aborigines have been there for over 40,000 years.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Australian republic vs. monarchy<|ARGUMENT|>Australia no longer is dependent on England and there is no need to be part of the Commonwealth. Europeans from Engaland may have been the first white people in Australia but Aborigines have been there for over 40,000 years.<|TARGETS|>Europeans from Engaland, Australia<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Australian republic vs. monarchy<|ARGUMENT|>Australia no longer is dependent on England and there is no need to be part of the Commonwealth. Europeans from Engaland may have been the first white people in Australia but Aborigines have been there for over 40,000 years.<|ASPECTS|>dependent on england, white people, commonwealth<|CONCLUSION|>","Australia no longer is dependent on England and there is no need to be part of the Commonwealth. Europeans from Engaland may have been the first white people in Australia but Aborigines have been there for over 40,000 years.","Australia's history on Britain is irrelevant, Australia has a unique identity."
"<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Without significant stakes, our choices lack the seriousness necessary to develop virtues. For example, we could not develop courage without facing serious danger, or we could not develop compassion without suffering people to have compassion on.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Without significant stakes, our choices lack the seriousness necessary to develop virtues. For example, we could not develop courage without facing serious danger, or we could not develop compassion without suffering people to have compassion on.<|TARGETS|>not develop compassion without suffering people to have compassion on .<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Without significant stakes, our choices lack the seriousness necessary to develop virtues. For example, we could not develop courage without facing serious danger, or we could not develop compassion without suffering people to have compassion on.<|ASPECTS|>production, factory, efficient large<|CONCLUSION|>","Without significant stakes, our choices lack the seriousness necessary to develop virtues. For example, we could not develop courage without facing serious danger, or we could not develop compassion without suffering people to have compassion on.",According to the character-building defenses some virtues may be contingent on evil.
<|TOPIC|>Has Xi Jinping been good for China?<|ARGUMENT|>In [February 2016]( Xi announced new media policies that mandated all party media to reflect the party’s will and to safeguard the party's unity and authority.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Has Xi Jinping been good for China?<|ARGUMENT|>In [February 2016]( Xi announced new media policies that mandated all party media to reflect the party’s will and to safeguard the party's unity and authority.<|TARGETS|>new media policies<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Has Xi Jinping been good for China?<|ARGUMENT|>In [February 2016]( Xi announced new media policies that mandated all party media to reflect the party’s will and to safeguard the party's unity and authority.<|ASPECTS|>unity and authority, safeguard, policies<|CONCLUSION|>",In February 2016 Xi announced new media policies that mandated all party media to reflect the party’s will and to safeguard the party's unity and authority.,Xi has created a sophisticated and successful propaganda campaign in China.
<|TOPIC|>Can God's existence be understood by rationality?<|ARGUMENT|>There have been an uncountable amount of rulers who were deemed holy by their citizens or their state religion.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Can God's existence be understood by rationality?<|ARGUMENT|>There have been an uncountable amount of rulers who were deemed holy by their citizens or their state religion.<|TARGETS|>an uncountable amount of rulers who were deemed holy by their citizens or their state religion<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Can God's existence be understood by rationality?<|ARGUMENT|>There have been an uncountable amount of rulers who were deemed holy by their citizens or their state religion.<|ASPECTS|>uncountable, holy<|CONCLUSION|>",There have been an uncountable amount of rulers who were deemed holy by their citizens or their state religion.,"Throughout history, people who have been deemed as ""holy"" have broken these rules."
<|TOPIC|>Should Japan apologise for the Nanking Massacre?<|ARGUMENT|>According to the Japanese [Constitution]( the Emperor is the symbol of the state and the unity of the people. An official apology would reflect badly on the honor of the Imperial family and by extension all the Japanese people.<|CONCLUSION|>,<|TOPIC|>Should Japan apologise for the Nanking Massacre?<|ARGUMENT|>According to the Japanese [Constitution]( the Emperor is the symbol of the state and the unity of the people. An official apology would reflect badly on the honor of the Imperial family and by extension all the Japanese people.<|TARGETS|>An official apology<|CONCLUSION|>,"<|TOPIC|>Should Japan apologise for the Nanking Massacre?<|ARGUMENT|>According to the Japanese [Constitution]( the Emperor is the symbol of the state and the unity of the people. An official apology would reflect badly on the honor of the Imperial family and by extension all the Japanese people.<|ASPECTS|>threat of its neighbor, struggling, friendly relationship, china, growing<|CONCLUSION|>",According to the Japanese Constitution the Emperor is the symbol of the state and the unity of the people. An official apology would reflect badly on the honor of the Imperial family and by extension all the Japanese people.,Honor is very important in Japanese culture. An apology might be seen to impinge on the honor of the imperial family.
"<|TOPIC|>We should dramatically increase the rate of income tax paid by the rich<|ARGUMENT|>A tax on the value of land is extremely progressive but does not suffer the drawbacks of high income tax. Because land can not be hidden a tax on it can not be evaded. Because land is fixed in place it can not leave the country to base itself in a low-tax nation the way money and people can. Because the tax is paid out of Rental income rather than Capital or Labor income (I use these 3 terms as Adam Smith did) it does not discourage work or investment (the ""Laffer curve"" issue). Land tax also has firmer ethical foundations than income tax, eg: Land rents can only be collected by individuals because the state records and enforces land titles. Land values go up with population growth and government expenditure on infrastructure such as roads, not anything to do with the efforts of the landlord (which are capital improvements, not extra Land). Ownership of goods is founded on the idea that a thing belongs initially to its maker and may then be traded freely, but Land was not made by anyone. Many philosophers and economists have said the same: Locke, Paine, and Mill for a start. Since a land tax can achieve all that a high income tax can without the negative effects, a high income tax can not be the best option.<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>We should dramatically increase the rate of income tax paid by the rich<|ARGUMENT|>A tax on the value of land is extremely progressive but does not suffer the drawbacks of high income tax. Because land can not be hidden a tax on it can not be evaded. Because land is fixed in place it can not leave the country to base itself in a low-tax nation the way money and people can. Because the tax is paid out of Rental income rather than Capital or Labor income (I use these 3 terms as Adam Smith did) it does not discourage work or investment (the ""Laffer curve"" issue). Land tax also has firmer ethical foundations than income tax, eg: Land rents can only be collected by individuals because the state records and enforces land titles. Land values go up with population growth and government expenditure on infrastructure such as roads, not anything to do with the efforts of the landlord (which are capital improvements, not extra Land). Ownership of goods is founded on the idea that a thing belongs initially to its maker and may then be traded freely, but Land was not made by anyone. Many philosophers and economists have said the same: Locke, Paine, and Mill for a start. Since a land tax can achieve all that a high income tax can without the negative effects, a high income tax can not be the best option.<|TARGETS|>A tax on the value of land, Land tax, a land tax, a high income tax, Land rents, Ownership of goods<|CONCLUSION|>","<|TOPIC|>We should dramatically increase the rate of income tax paid by the rich<|ARGUMENT|>A tax on the value of land is extremely progressive but does not suffer the drawbacks of high income tax. Because land can not be hidden a tax on it can not be evaded. Because land is fixed in place it can not leave the country to base itself in a low-tax nation the way money and people can. Because the tax is paid out of Rental income rather than Capital or Labor income (I use these 3 terms as Adam Smith did) it does not discourage work or investment (the ""Laffer curve"" issue). Land tax also has firmer ethical foundations than income tax, eg: Land rents can only be collected by individuals because the state records and enforces land titles. Land values go up with population growth and government expenditure on infrastructure such as roads, not anything to do with the efforts of the landlord (which are capital improvements, not extra Land). Ownership of goods is founded on the idea that a thing belongs initially to its maker and may then be traded freely, but Land was not made by anyone. Many philosophers and economists have said the same: Locke, Paine, and Mill for a start. Since a land tax can achieve all that a high income tax can without the negative effects, a high income tax can not be the best option.<|ASPECTS|>discourage, ethical foundations, values, land, population growth, income tax, evaded, work or investment, progressive, negative effects, goods, traded freely, low-tax, tax, government expenditure, land rents, high income tax<|CONCLUSION|>","A tax on the value of land is extremely progressive but does not suffer the drawbacks of high income tax. Because land can not be hidden a tax on it can not be evaded. Because land is fixed in place it can not leave the country to base itself in a low-tax nation the way money and people can. Because the tax is paid out of Rental income rather than Capital or Labor income I use these 3 terms as Adam Smith did it does not discourage work or investment the ""Laffer curve"" issue. Land tax also has firmer ethical foundations than income tax, eg: Land rents can only be collected by individuals because the state records and enforces land titles. Land values go up with population growth and government expenditure on infrastructure such as roads, not anything to do with the efforts of the landlord which are capital improvements, not extra Land. Ownership of goods is founded on the idea that a thing belongs initially to its maker and may then be traded freely, but Land was not made by anyone. Many philosophers and economists have said the same: Locke, Paine, and Mill for a start. Since a land tax can achieve all that a high income tax can without the negative effects, a high income tax can not be the best option.",Income tax is not the best way to redistribute wealth or pay for public goods.