{"argument":"A system which does not punish for violation of rights does not promote the value of those rights.\n","conclusion":"Punishment is what is 'just' for those who wrong society through criminal conduct.\n","id":"ce038c61-feb1-45c2-9e0a-08b5f9c94574"}
{"argument":"My first couple decades as a Registered Pharmacist in the United States were from 1965 to 1985. The major pharmaceutical manufacturers were invested in healing, curing disease and ameliorating symptoms that diminished quality of life. They were the \"Good Guys\". We, in the industry, trusted them. We worked with them. We had relationships with their representatives. They were good times, fine times. The average prescription was around $12.00. Generic equivalents were new to the market. Brand name dispensing was the custom. The manufacturers made money. Now, 2005, there is no doubt that the only mission Big Pharma strives for is to MAKE A PROFIT. As big a profit as they can. The idea that they are interested in curing illness is a laugher. They bring out new drugs for big illnesses \"high cholesterol\". Lipitor is or was recently the top grossing drug on the planet. As Rhett Buter said, \"Frankly, My Dear, we don't give a damn about your little, inconspicuous disease. There's no money in it. Oh, hell, stop it. We know you are going to die, but . well, there' just NO PROFIT in it.\" Pfizer then turns to Smith-Kline Glaxo and says, \"Let's go get a drink.\" Jim Plagakis at\n","conclusion":"It's a \"No-Brainer\". In the USA Big Pharma is enjoying 8 years of \"Dubya\" by raking in the profits\n","id":"3a7f3475-aa13-4724-b733-f023b3390e95"}
{"argument":"There are campaigns working to make a social transition easier for young children who are questioning their gender identity. As this process gets easier, children are less likely to suffer negative consequences as a result.\n","conclusion":"Social transition is the process of making a number of changes to a trans individual's social life and situation to allow them to transition to their preferred identity.\n","id":"a94f4615-f8d9-4db7-b302-c02b3bf822fd"}
{"argument":"By discussing topics that people feel sensitive about and weighing different perspectives on them, students may actually become less sensitive and irritable about those topics and feel more at ease with controversy and ambivalence in their lives.\n","conclusion":"School may be the only place students meet people with experiences and concerns vastly different to their own.\n","id":"b1407758-952e-4672-8e61-3b59ef6cb084"}
{"argument":"Sortition as an alternative to elections, results in professional bureaucrats having too much power as career politicians are able to navigate the vast swathes of bureaucracy, whereas randomly selected civilians won't know the ins and outs of the bureaucratic machinery. Elections are still preferable to sortition.\n","conclusion":"The article suggests sortition - the act of selecting political officials randomly from the population - as an alternative to elections, yet that is a worse system than elections.\n","id":"01f68b59-5f05-4b02-86d3-2a7ebfecc60d"}
{"argument":"We have war, poverty, hunger, illness, failing infrastructure, and many other problems in America. Why bother going into space when nothing is being done to fix these issues? Edit wow, this thread blew up I would say I didn't expect it, but it's a very important issue to discuss, so thank you everyone for your comments\n","conclusion":"I don't think we should fund NASA because we have other obligations here on earth,\n","id":"05d33868-923e-4f7b-8294-1ce88812d7ef"}
{"argument":"Healthcare personnel are roughly twice as likely to contract influenza than the general population, according to a 26 study meta-analysis.\n","conclusion":"Providers are exposed to sickness more often and are more likely to become ill from the flu.\n","id":"44adef05-3e1f-4b4d-bb64-6b040385a953"}
{"argument":"So Trump is currently on the offensive against video game violence. As a game dev, I am clearly biased, but I have a lot of problems with what he has been doing and saying. First, in typical fashion for this White House, it has released a propaganda video depicting a bunch of violent video games. Now, I am not going to suggest violent video games don't exist, but such a video seems to imply that most video games are like this, or at the very least, that this is somehow different than other forms of media. Just as compiling a list of crimes by people with Middle Eastern sounding names is misleading propaganda, so is presenting a video on video games by cherry picking examples to suit your agenda. One could put together a video on video games showing absolutely no killing of any kind, but it wouldn't be representative of the medium. Second, the meeting he held included very few members of actual industry instead, it was stacked with well known critics, including authors of books and movies geared towards pushing the Games are bad agenda. This is similar to when he had a meeting about Civil Forfeiture which was mostly politicians and law enforcement and during the meeting he even asked Why are they against this? They, referring to the people who don't like Civil Forfeiture laws people he obviously hasn't spoken to. Third, this approach seems to assume video games are a problem cause to violent crime, instead of asking what causes violent crimes. This doesn't make sense. Why would you simply ASSUME something instead of trying to figure out? This is similar to the approach towards Climate Change where one side is seeking to find information on the issue and updates their findings regularly, while the other side just stands around plugging their ears saying it's a hoax. If you are at all interested in addressing violent crime, and particularly mass shootings, your goal shouldn't be to find a scapegoat, but to actually try and figure out what's happening. Fourth, making the the third even more egregious is the fact that there's been AMPLE scientific research into video games, and while a few studies have correlated increased aggression there is no evidence that suggests actual violent behavior or crimes can be linked to video games. Fifth, right after the shooting, there was a quote of Ronald Reagan going around as an argument against changing gun laws, it goes We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. Now, I have many problems with this quote and the ideas he espouses with it, but Trump's targeting of video games is exactly what Reagan would ask us to reject. Sixth, if violence in video games is a factor, then it implies society and culture has a role to play here. But for some reason, gun macho culture, glorification of the military and having an extremely powerful national entity that promotes guns are not seen as contributing factors in any way. But media that is responding to what how this culture influences demand is a problem some of the video games on the WH's compilation have players being members of the US military . If you believe video games can influence people, you have to admit that cultural phenomenon can also influence people, and that the culture that makes such video games in demand should also be considered. EDIT Removed some political stuff. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The White House's current focus Video Games doesn't make sense\n","id":"edc1e8e4-8b8c-4b66-8867-d6509ad6f21c"}
{"argument":"We're at a weird position in the United States where things are falling exactly down party lines. it's becoming a war of advertising and spamming by fake stories designed to elicit visceral responses. eliminating parties would do a great deal to alleviate these issues. there would be less of a drive to get your team into congress and more of a drive to get people that actually represent your values and ideals rather than a vague on specifics but solid on buzz words party line. nbsp political parties made sense at a time when it was difficult and cumbersome to get your platform out there. but that is no longer the case. nbsp i'm a registered member of one of the two main parties in the US and while i've voted for the other party in the past it's becoming increasingly more and more difficult to justify voting for anyone from the other party. i'm sure i'm not alone. nbsp i fear we're heading toward a bad situation if we keep going this way. nbsp clarification this does not mean automatically getting rid of the 1st amendment. the amendment doesn't explicitly allow for political parties. assembly doesn't automatically mean party affiliation. it's also not getting rid of representative democracy. the people would simply have to vote on a candidate's individual issues rather than a simple party logo. nbsp I'm seeing a lot of this will be hard and people will just form political parties anyway and we've always done this but i don't see any real justification for keeping political parties. nothing that would change my view yet. nbsp also, i don't have any idea really how to make this happen today. it won't be easy that's for sure. but that's beyond the scope of this post. nbsp I'm getting tired of the same old slippery slope you'll have to abolish the first amendment argument. it won't change my view and i will no longer be replying to someone who simply states that same argument again and again. You're welcome to discuss it without me but i've made my view on it clear. the point of htis post is assuming it can be done without getting rid of free speech entirely and there's no indication it can't should it be done. nbsp change my view gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The US should outlaw all political party affiliation and force people to run strictly on the issues\n","id":"4e9e564c-cd67-4675-a398-27369930f627"}
{"argument":"Recent campaigns to encourage women to believe in their abilities to pursue STEM subjects have resulted in a 10% increase in women pursuing those paths. This illustrates that prior choices for non-STEM subjects were motivated by something societal or perceptual rather than innate ability.\n","conclusion":"These decisions cannot be determined to be independent of sexist preconditions that inherently contribute to the wage gap.\n","id":"887011d8-5117-40eb-9aa8-fe57959265a7"}
{"argument":"Lately it seems more and people people are getting worked up about privacy and how all these company's have their data and they dont want them spying on them etc. etc. I just dont get why its such a big deal, in fact for the most part, I find it generally beneficial interesting Like for example, Google knows all my search history, it reads my emails, it knows my home, work, daily routine, etc. When I go on vacation, and it reads my email and tell me when to leave my house to get to the airport, keeps me updated on my flight delay, know what hotel im staying at because of google maps searches, and shows me touristy things or events going on I might be interested in based on my search history or whatever. I think thats cool as shit They can combine all that info to make my experience better and tailor things to me better. Similar thing goes for advertising. I do a ton of my shopping online, so when facebook or google ads start showing me ads for deals on things i was recently shopping for, at first it was a little creepy, but then i realized that at least the ads are relevant to me and i might care about them, instead of ridiculous things I have zero interest in. Many of my friends look at me like I'm crazy when I say I use Facebook messenger or Snapchat to send money to people, its easier than getting cash, and faster and simpler than paypal. But THEY have your card info now I dont want them to have that Like what, facebook with their billions of dollars is going to go steal money from my measly couple hundred college student bucks? Whats the fear from? I understand card number leaks are a real concern, but I trust my bank enough to catch those, and i regularly keep track of my spending, so I would notice fairly quickly if things got fucky. I guess overall i just dont understand what many people are so worried worked up about. So what if these companies collect all this data about me and know all my details and info and address, etc etc. They have the same info for a billion other people? Why should it matter? Apologies if something like this has been posted before, I searched and didnt see anything relevant. Change my view\n","conclusion":"I dont care that Facebook, Google, Amazon, *insert major corporation name here* collects tons of various data about me.\n","id":"696bd33f-f65f-4375-bbf3-17f6cbb21e19"}
{"argument":"The U.S. has been widely criticized through allegations of imperialism hypocrisy in regard to their foreign policy, and the role their financial interests play.\n","conclusion":"The U.S. is often criticized for its military interference in other countries.\n","id":"3f9558a8-64ee-4b54-bbdb-c77ef94ac8c1"}
{"argument":"Edit I'm unimpressed thus far. This will do two good things First, it would put further pressure on the like minded people in each pertinent riding to unify and support whichever non Conservative party has the best chance to win. In other words, it would align the ABC anyone but Conservative movement. ABCers seeing the Conservative poll result over estimated and not knowing whether to rely on the estimation in the first place more on this later would lead those of them who had or thought they had a chance to make a positive difference in their riding to become more energized in pursuing their goal in some cases and more likely to pursue it in others. In the ridings where the Conservatives have very little chance of winning, people would just vote however they desire. It would also make polling less reliable. Political polling is not a socially positive instrument. It allows and even encourages people's own decisions to depend on the expected decisions of others. This is how crazy things start to happen and how everybody winds up looking foolish because of the wild swings of public opinion that go along with the whole oh, should we get behind this news story? It looks like a lot of people will they're probably thinking like we are, after all so we should do it too. attitude. We're seeing it right now in Canada, actually. The refugee crisis was a hot issue here partly because the news media jumped on it because they knew they could make a stink about it. Now the parties are fleshing out positions not based on any rational deliberative process, but based on the expected public opinion, which they're getting information about through polls. A second source of poll related trouble. Attention promotes itself. One picture can throw a whole election into flux because of the value people ultimately place on the expected value placement of others, which everybody recognizes to lie on the logical house of cards that it does. Impredicativity begets instability. Yes, I see the irony this, but feel free to change my view. And if my view isn't thoroughly disputed, I think it will suggest that some will act on the notion and misrepresent their voting intention. This will also have the benefit of people not trusting the polls.\n","conclusion":"In the upcoming Canadian election, people who want to unseat Stephen Harper should signal through polls that they will be voting *for* the Conservatives.\n","id":"5185d230-0901-4618-8423-db5d11f65406"}
{"argument":"Reproducibility is a core component of the scientific method. Experiments may often require more resources to reproduce than an amateur has access to, but if someone has the resources to actually replicate an experiment, and the attempted replication fails, this is a serious problem for a theory and no scientist should simply assert \"you must have done something wrong, or missed an interfering variable\".\n","conclusion":"Claims about God have to be falsifiable before they can be experimentally tested. Falsifiability in wikipedia\n","id":"782317d1-57c2-4f7b-9476-3f494d1c3b09"}
{"argument":"So recently, I've started watching Dr Who on Netflix. In every episode, they use terminology that I am fairly unfamiliar with being that I'm an American . I find these terms just plain adorable. No other country has such endearing terms. Some of my favorite examples include Ace If something is ace it is awesome. Arse This is a word that doesn't seem to exist in America. It basically means the same as ass, but is much ruder. Snog If you are out on the pull you will know you are succeeding if you end up snogging someone of the opposite sex or same sex for that matter . It would probably be referred to as making out in American, or serious kissing Taking the piss This has nothing to do with urine, but simply means making fun of someone. I don't know if I could ever get past that whole smoking a fag thing though.\n","conclusion":"I believe the English have the best terms for things. I mean, they call chips crisps. How cute is that?\n","id":"c1c3e62e-194f-4a5e-b356-1df1fb2cd24d"}
{"argument":"Yesterday a story broke concerning a United States Representative settling a sexual harassment complaint with tax payer dollars gt Michigan Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat and the longest serving member of the House of Representatives, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not \u201csuccumb to his sexual advances.\u201d gt The woman who settled with Conyers launched the complaint with the Office of Compliance in 2014, alleging she was fired for refusing his sexual advances, and ended up facing a daunting process that ended with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for a settlement of more than 27,000. Her settlement, however, came from Conyers\u2019 office budget rather than the designated fund for settlements. This seems wrong. Tax payer money should not be used to pay for sexual harassment settlements. It was not intended for that purpose and they should pay out of their own pocket.  gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Politicians should not be able to use tax-payer dollars to pay for personal sexual-harrasment settlements.\n","id":"5790b177-fd2e-403a-aa6b-88449c12113e"}
{"argument":"As a lifelong classical musician, I am absolutely in love with the repertoire of symphony orchestras, opera, and chamber music. I am always trying to think of ways to introduce the music to a wider audience and get more people to love listening to classical music. So here it is I believe that the main reason people don't like listening to classical music as much as other genres is because classical music rarely includes a drum set. Definitions I use in this  Classical music not only music from the classical period. I'm using the blanket term to describe any music typically performed by orchestras, or chamber ensembles. What a non musician would think of as classical. Everything from Bach to Mahler to Bartok to Ives. Popular music not just the narrow genre of pop, but the broad term to include anything listened to by a more mainstream audience. Could include anything from oldies, to country, to EDM, to metal, and beyond. Now to explain my view I really don't think there's that much difference between classical music and other genres. Both genres use the same 12 notes. The exception obviously being microtonal classical music, which even as a career classical musician, sometimes I have a really hard time appreciating. But 99.9 of classical music uses the same 12 notes as popular music. Both use the same basic palette of harmonies and tonalities major minor chords, added 7ths, 9ths, etc. . Both have the same basic choices of meters. 4 4 time, mixed meter, etc. Both use many of the same instruments. Guitars aren't exclusive to popular music, and violins and 'celli aren't exclusive to orchestras. Both contain pieces with text lyrics, and both genres also contain pieces that are purely instrumental. A lot of people point to lyrics as the main reason they love certain genres of popular music, but both genres have music with text lyrics. In the pieces with text lyrics, both genres use many languages besides English. Lots of people say they can't understand classical music sung in German, yet they listen to plenty of K pop or songs in French and don't mind looking up a translation, or they appreciate it for other aspects besides the lyrics. Both genres contain relatively short pieces 3 5 minutes and longer pieces 10 , or even 60 minutes . So the length of composition isn't really a big factor, since you can find both short and long pieces in either genre. So those are many of the similarities I can think of. But one thing that's really different between most not all classical music and most not all of popular music is the fact that the drumset or electronic beat, or incredibly rhythmic or percussive strumming on a guitar, or vocal percussion, or something that makes a similar sound keeps really obvious control of the rhythm at all times. It's really hard not to know where the beat is in popular music, whereas in classical music, sometimes the meter is a bit more obscure. I think that most people really like feeling their body or mind move in time with the music, and so the accessibility of the rhythmic feel in popular genres is appealing to a wider audience. Contrast this to classical music, where sometimes, even to a trained musician, the meter is intentionally less clear. In most cases, the meter may be clear to someone who knows what they're listening for, but still not totally obvious to the average music listener. It gives people less of a rhythmic foothold into the piece, which I contend is the reason that people don't enjoy classical music as much. To clarify I'm not coming from a place of thinking classical music is better. I'm not assigning value judgments here, or trying to be an elitist. I'm merely trying to find what I would consider the main differences between classical and popular genres to be. And to me, the lack of a drumset or other instrument that keeps the meter as a very up front feature in classical music seems to be the biggest difference that I can spot. One final caveat In this , I'm mostly talking about listening to music on one's own, like at your house, or on your own iPod. I think the experience of attending a concert of classical music vs. pop music is a really different one. I don't blame anyone that thinks that orchestra concerts can feel a bit stuffy. So while people may enjoy the more energetic atmosphere at a popular music concert, I don't think there's much difference to putting on your iPod while you go for a run and listening to Beethoven vs. the Beatles when you're on your own and not in a concert setting. The reason I'd like my view changed I truly want to know the reasons that most people would have for not loving classical music so that I can address that in my future performance and teaching in the hopes of exposing a wider swath of the population to an art form that I love so much. I truly believe that classical music is universal and anyone can enjoy it. But I need to start by finding out the real reasons that people don't already listen to it. The main thing that I think will  Compelling examples of features people like about popular music that are unique to popular music. Not features that are shared between both genres. I really want to find out what makes popular styles uniquely engaging to people in ways that classical music is not. TL DR Classical music almost never has a drumset to help keep really clear track of the time for the listener. People like feeling rhythmically grounded, and so popular styles are more accessible to a wider audience.\n","conclusion":"The reason people don't listen to classical music as much as other genres is because classical music does not usually contain a drum set.\n","id":"9009b903-0fca-4873-aa8d-246c24e3affd"}
{"argument":"I feel there is still room for a robust feminist movement in America. Our society has advanced a lot on gender equality, and we are set to elect a female president. But despite incredible progression from 50 years ago, sexism and misogyny manifest themselves both subtly and blatantly in our society. Women continue to get the short end of the stick in many areas. Republicans are merciless in attacking reproductive rights and access to contraception. Social conservatives like Rick Santorum blame rising poverty on the breakdown of the family unit and the rise of single, working mothers. It's Mother's Day in 2015, and yet America doesn't have a national program to ensure paid maternity leave. Abstinence programs, shaming of women who use birth control, etc., contribute to slut shaming and double standards for men and women. Victim blaming for female survivors of sexual assault and rape is an extremely serious issue. Women suffer from domestic abuse, and human sex trafficking. Intersectionality is important. Women and WoC are underrepresented in certain high paying professions due to previous glass ceilings and a lack of role models in those fields women are socially conditioned to this day to be primary caregivers . Unrealistic images of women in the media contribute to body shaming and eating disorders. Do I believe in theories about how every single aspect of modern day American society is riddled with oppressive misogyny? That Joss Whedon's portrayal of Black Widow in the Avengers perpetuates the oppressive overlapping structures in the white supremacist cis heteropatriarchy? That manspreading is a serious microaggression or that hey guys as a greeting perpetuates cissexism or that the Rosetta's scientist's shirt was extremely problematic and perpetuate a hostile environment for women in STEM? Or that gender based jokes are forms of oppressive dialogue that reinforce systemic sexism? No, lol. Those views are very silly, mostly examples of people being too politically correct and going out of their way to be offended by jokes that most people don't take seriously. I oppose excessive PC culture on college campuses, disinvitation campaigns, and censorship. I agree some SJW circles are dominated by groupthink and dogmatism. Do I feel that capitalism on a fundamental level oppresses women, and we need to overthrow it for women's liberation? Again, no, that is inconsistent with economics. Laizzes faire capitalism is oppressive, but the Scandinavian countries have established a decent capitalism socialism hybrid in the form of social democracy that works well and is gender egalitarian some call this democratic socialism, others call it capitalism lite b c it retains the capitalist mode of production, which I feel is fine . And of course, there are plenty of legitimate men's issues that we need to acknowledge as a society and address, and people who deny them are absolutely insane. I'm also not super interested in Oppression Olympics, and prioritizing issues based on who has it worse or what's more frequent. I think we should acknowledge everyone has their own issues, and we should validate that and uplift everyone in an inclusive, progressive movement. I disagree with the extremist feminists who are obsessed with conspiracy theories about the patriarchy. But I don't view them as any worse than some of the more extremist anti feminists in the Men's Rights Movement. Most people I know who casually identify themselves as feminists are liberal feminists as opposed to radical feminists who do feel patriarchy is the root problem in our society. So I feel we need a strong liberal feminist movement as opposed a radical one. I'm definitely to the left of Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, and other equity feminists though I disagree with them that women's career choices were fully their own choices, and that subtle and blatant societal conditioning doesn't play a role in the fact women are underrepresented in various professions. I don't think equity feminism goes far enough, but I feel liberal feminism is great, whereas radical feminism especially third wave radical feminism is too extreme. American society was definitely solidly patriarchal in the past, but I think patriarchy is too nebulous of a concept to describe modern day gender relations in America. Japan and South Korea continue to be relatively patriarchal today though in the developed world, and Saudi Arabia has an extremely patriarchal society. But when many legitimate examples of sexism exist today, we know that there's an undercurrent of lingering misogyny in our society. The Republican Party is actively working to marginalize women, to set back women's rights in key areas, and we need gender egalitarian feminists to fight for women's liberation and against social conservatism.\n","conclusion":"Misogyny still exists in the United States, and there is room for a feminist movement\n","id":"307edb45-f0c1-4280-b6d1-8a425114fa5f"}
{"argument":"I feel that TV shows are a better medium for character development. This is because in TV shows, there is much more screen time for each character allowing for a slower and more in depth build of each character's personality, foibles, and depth. Some episodes of some TV shows can be devoted entirely to a minor character LOST is a great example of this , allowing you to gain much more perspective of a minor TV show character than a minor movie character. With the longest of movies being about 3 hours, minor characters never really get enough screen time to make you care about them. With a typical movie, you only really get to know the protagonist, the antagonist, and maybe 1 or 2 other characters. To me, movies just seem kind of hollow without the character development seen in TV shows. EDIT Boiiiii stop saying that TV shows are longer. I know they are longer. This is why I have come to my point that they are able to develop characters more effectively. I have had my view changed that this makes them better than movies inherently, but I still believe they are superior to movies strictly in terms of the POTENTIAL they have for character development. Giving an example of a tv show that has bad character development doesn\u2019t refute my point. I\u2019m saying the potential is there for better development. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"I think that TV shows are superior to movies in that they allow for better character development.\n","id":"d6350d55-ab08-4ee6-83d1-69a91dbc3fad"}
{"argument":"I say this even though I am a Democrat and right now the Senate is in the hands of Democrats. Throughout most of its history, the Senate has simply functioned as a road block to legislation that the public wants, not to protect the legal rights of the minority that's the function of the Supreme Court but to protect the undemocratic interests of the few. Even when one party is in power, the other party has numerous means of stalling and killing legislation. We need a constitutional amendment stating that The Senate shall be abolished, and all its powers transferred to the House of Representatives. Perhaps the amendment could grant a minimum of 2 or 3 representatives to every state so that the smallest states would be less likely to object. The Senate, of course, would never pass such an amendment, but it's possible that 3 4 of the states would.\n","conclusion":"I believe the U.S. Senate should be abolished.\n","id":"f8a767fa-bbb0-467f-9fea-e41b873e67bb"}
{"argument":"Narcissa Malfoy, Molly Weasley and Lily Potter are all stay-at-home mothers while their husbands work. Comparatively, witches who are career focused are often childless e.g. Minerva McGonagall and Dolores Umbridge.\n","conclusion":"Some patriarchal structures still seem to exist in the wizarding world. For example, family structures still suggest women are the homemakers, while the men are the breadwinners.\n","id":"cfeca738-59b6-4b21-9db6-0e7b39365140"}
{"argument":"I have studied at three colleges, but I never finished my degree. I am about 30 credits away. I'm in my thirties and have been working in my desired field for 6 years, despite not having a degree. I have a ton of student debt. I was recently laid off and find myself looking for work again, and wondering if I'm being looked over because I don't have a degree. I also feel like finishing my degree will make me feel proud of myself I was going nowhere in my twenties and had a major turnaround when I started going to college . But I don't know how much more debt I can reasonably handle. Despite this, it feels like a little bit more time and money should not get in the way of finishing my degree, to get better pay and more opportunities down the road.\n","conclusion":"I should finish my degree\n","id":"497c7a5a-cf59-4e27-98d0-8802f9fb83b9"}
{"argument":"PLEASE NOTE a lot of these responses are either emotionally charged or are commenting on the impossibility of implementing this notion worldwide. That is not the point of this post. The question being asked here is 'by the standards of contemporary western culture, is it acceptable for feminists to regularly listen to misogynistic music?'. The question is not 'can we get every feminist to stop listening to misogynistic music and still get home in time to watch The Wire?'. I am looking to debate the moral issue on an individual scale difficult as that may be . I have tried, as far as possible, to remove emotional attachment from this. Apologies if it comes accross as me hating rap hip hop, its not my cup of tea but I certainly don't hate it. The other day my girlfriend and I were going for a drive and she was listening to her music we alternate who has control over the music from trip to trip, as we have different tastes . She listens to a lot of Rap Hip Hop from the US as many other of my young female friends from the UK do. A few songs go by and as the usual pattern plays out, something about a girl at the club, something about taking her home and doing unspeakable things to her, something about throwing her out afterward. Fine. I have always had a slight problem with this music in the way it objectifies women but I don't comment as it probably wouldn't get us anywhere. Then, a particularly vile track comes on. We switcharoo bitches and we like to fuck em' by the two Her booty fatter than Norbit I told your bitch she was gorgeous Might pull up, get head in the Porsche Light the fuck up leave the bitches, no torch My diamonds they hit it and fight like a Hadouken that pussy so wet, I think she got shot in the coochie with an uzi I believe this is a reference to an attack move in a street fighting game. From this one song I learned that a my girlfriend is hard wired to abandon me for somebody with money b my girlfriend is more of an object to satisfy men's sexual passion sometimes, by the two than a real human being c my ears will never be the same again. In all seriousness, I was left gobsmacked by this track, but I realized that it's not altogether different to so many others. Eminem, in particular, has some really disturbing content in some of his music, and 0what's worse is that I really like his stuff And I am not alone, Eminem and his contemporaries' music is so popular. Why? And why do I and so many of my friends, who are all, mind you, feminists of varying levels, love this music? After this song, I had to ask my SO. She didn't take any offense at all and agreed that it is odd that this kind of music is so popular, she put her trust in it down to the fact that she a enjoys the melody b finds it 'funny' Looking online I could not really find any better explanation. Amazingly the best I can see is that it is a 'guilty pleasure' for women, or that this is a chance to 'understand the enemy'. But some of these lyrics at their best would surely even force E. L. James to take a step back. If this music is openly derogatory towards women, how can feminists, particularly those that might be considered 'militant' in their approach to the cause see article above , listen to it? They are personally responsible for this music becoming popular and reaching the charts. What happens when the new generation hears this growing up? On the one hand, they will see all the fantastic advances made through the cause of feminism in recent years, and on the other the will hear a rapper, adored by millions of boys and girls, say something that would be completely unacceptable to say or do in our modern society. I think there is no way that this can be explained away with 'just enjoy the music'. But at the same time, I sympathize with what I believe to be the real cause of our indifference this music is engrained in our culture. It has become the norm. We listen to people say these awful things because in a way, they are detached from the reality of our everyday lives, isn't that why we listen to music in the first place? If that is the case, then we need to break our bad habits and encourage a change in the lyrical content of this kind of music, one that will support, or, at the very least not damage the feminist cause. Feminists can , of course, listen to whatever music they like, but given our agenda, should we not move away from music that is openly misogynistic and send a message to artists that in 2018, this is no longer acceptable? I believe that we have not only the chance, but the duty to do so. . DISCLAIMER I would just like to say that I am in no way 'slut shaming' whilst hiding behind a thin veneer of moral righteousness. To be clear, sexual themes or themes of promiscuity are fine with me. I take issue with the objectification I know that term gets thrown around a lot of women, they are treated in these songs as sexual objects and are very rarely assigned any human like qualities. In my view, a lot of this music posits women as robotic organisms that crave status and wealth, and achieve this through sex with rich and powerful men. Also, I don't listen to rap much, so let me know if you think I have the wrong idea. Definitions Feminist Anybody who supports the cause of women's rights with the aim of achieving equality of the sexes. I will mostly be looking at women, as they are the typically the target of this kind of music. Misogynistic music Any music that shows dislike, contempt for, or prejudice against women. In contemporary society, I believe that this primarily applies to rap hip hop. Edit Clarified my statement and the point of this post Edit 2 Owning up to some of my bias gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Feminists should not listen to misogynistic music\n","id":"6096b204-5623-4445-b0cd-8b1a16959b79"}
{"argument":"If we measure the value of interests on the idea that our species is superior to other animals purely because of physical features that set us apart, we opt in to what Singer calls \"speciesism,\" the same system of belief that racists adhere to.\n","conclusion":"Philosopher Peter Singer explains how the only morally consistent principle of equality lies in the idea of equal consideration of interests If this is accepted, there is no morally justifiable reason to treat animal life as less valuable than humans.\n","id":"1662e912-7fad-4599-96c4-1e8f5bb801fa"}
{"argument":"There is a great deal at stake in the claim that God did not create the world in seven days: the Bible says that he did; if he did not, then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong on this, we cannot trust it on anything else and our entire faith, which you seem to want us to be allowed to maintain, is built on a lie - on your logic, we should not be allowed to teach our religion at all, since on your logic it is all false. For example, the Bible\u2019s description of Jesus as a \u2018second Adam\u2019 is undermined if there was no \u2018first Adam\u2019 - this would remove Jesus\u2019 significance. Those churches which accept evolution are compromising their faith.\n","conclusion":"There is a great deal at stake in the claim that God did not create the world in seven days: the Bib...\n","id":"88c6f2ae-95cc-4a40-bf58-ddf0ff3be1ee"}
{"argument":"If there is a need to give rights to sentient beings mechanical or biological we might want to call them Sentient Rights and not Human Rights.\n","conclusion":"Human rights are a device intended to address specific issues related to human beings.\n","id":"2a0dff92-57ff-48b6-bef9-0c3c4158c79f"}
{"argument":"Post-publication reviews could, for example, be presented similar to how platforms like Amazon present reviews.\n","conclusion":"This problem could be solved through publishing platforms that draw attention to post-publication reviews.\n","id":"aad3c724-9b9b-4477-bae3-be46de53241d"}
{"argument":"Such responses may evidence the 'cure', that challenging cognitive bias is working. The lesson may be to notice when one is feeling acute stress and perhaps choose to respond by pausing and re-addressing one's claim or position. It might be that a person is being attacked belligerently, unfairly, unreasonably with their cognitive bias, or it simply is a misunderstanding or misstatement.\n","conclusion":"For most people, criticism brings their acute stress response system into immediate play and results in physical effects like shaking hands and the logic processing part of brain shuts down. This results is shouting back, swearing or becoming aggressive, which could be dangerous to the person pointing out the bias.\n","id":"a05423bd-4712-4a21-a5e3-58cfc29f9e4c"}
{"argument":"Palestine was given to the jews wrongly by the British who had no authority to do so.\n","conclusion":"Palestine is a legitimate state and deserves to be recognised as such.\n","id":"e214464f-db94-4ef2-9a06-fcd640380989"}
{"argument":"Many religious ideas and ideologies have been secularized into laws which protect people, communities, and countries.\".Law can, quite legitimately, be influenced by religion.\" theguardian.com Interaction of Law and Religion, Harold J. Berman\n","conclusion":"Religious rules are the main source of contemporary laws and in some cases contributed to democracy.\n","id":"daa86815-f97b-4245-8ac5-e837b838104d"}
{"argument":"I'm going to be honest. I grew up on the dream that one day my future husband would drop on his knees with a diamond ring and pop the question to me. I, of course, would scream in joy, yes That scene would mark our engagement. I talked to my dad about how he proposed to my mom, where did he do it, did he hide the ring beforehand, etc Both aren't from the U.S, although I was raised here . My dad had no idea what I was talking about. In the specific area where they are from, the western proposal doesn't exist. Getting engaged is a conversation. Man and woman sit down and have a conversation about getting married and together decide to marry. He found it worrisome that a couple would decide spontaneously to marry instead of having a serious conversation about it and making an informed decision together, considering how life altering the decision to marry his. And he didn't get the point of the on your knees proposal with an expensive ring when you can just have a conversation about it. I slowly got where my dad was coming from. A couple of years ago, I was in a relationship with a man who I wanted to marry. We both knew we wanted to marry each other and had talked about it for years. It was really just a matter of time for us to have a final conversation about whether we were both ready and formally become engaged, the way my parents did it. Given that we had already talked about it many times and had decided we wanted to marry one another, it would have been a bit weird and redundant for him to get down on his knees and ask me a question he already knows the answer to. Unfortunately, I moved back the US so it didn't work out between him and me . I think most couples follow my model in that marriage is discussed previously throughout the relationship. But rather instead of having a final conversation to finalize when to officially become engaged and to start wedding planning, they do proposals where the man gets on his knees with an expensive ring and the woman pretends to be shocked. I think it's theatrics and just done for attention. Diamond ring companies advertised this get down on your knees with a ring thing in the US, Europe, Canada and Australia. People want to recreate the scene they see on t.v. into their proposal stories for others to see or to tell others about. It's a redundant theatric, done for attention. Even the ones who don't do it in front of people, later show their rings on social media or tell the theatric tale to friends. It's also done as self validation about their relationships. It's about the woman wanting to feel wanted. It's about her wanting to know that this man has chosen her out of all the others and has made this big, grand gesture as proof. For the man to remind himself that he chosen this woman out of all the others and using the big, grand gesture as proof of their love, as a way to validate their relationship to himself. EDIT People have been confused about what I am saying arguing. TL DR below. First, when I say marriage proposals are theatrics. Most couples in modern times have already talked about marrying in previous conversations and have already expressed their intent to marry, although it is not crystallized or official. But rather than simply having a final conversation about it and using a simple final conversation to crystalize their engagement, they go over the top and use proposal theatrics. The man has to buy a ring most of the time , get on his knees and ask the woman and sometimes even do it in public. The on your knees with a ring proposal isn't necessary at all. He damn well knows the answer to the question, they've spoken about it before. It's re creating a theater scene. They are doing it for the theatrics of it and for self validation. Validation the woman demands the man use to prove his love to her and for the man to validate his relationship. Second, when I say marriage proposals are done for attention I'm distinguishing between public proposals and privately done proposals. I think public proposals are definitely done for attention. I think someone compared it to somebody asking someone to go to prom through a public announcement. I think some private proposals are also be done for attention to, so they can post it on social media or tell their friends. Especially some women want to have a story of how he proposed to tell their friends. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Marriage proposals are done for attention and theatrics\n","id":"7a4e4953-f9f5-4d7a-8251-9a704c2c41ff"}
{"argument":"A FairTax abolishes the Internal Revenue Service and shifts the responsibility to state sales tax agencies Tuerck, p. 3 This abolishes one agency level.\n","conclusion":"The FairTax is simple and cheap for the government to administer.\n","id":"8d97103b-ace7-40cc-b14e-a8f97cc47734"}
{"argument":"A snap YouGov poll found the public thought there was no clear winner in the ITV debate, with Boris Johnson polling at 51% and Jeremy Corbyn at 49%.\n","conclusion":"The public response to Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson following the ITV debate on 19th November 2019 does not necessarily support this.\n","id":"a55d6213-7995-4fad-ab7d-0367d8a95db6"}
{"argument":"From the git go, let me emphatically state I am NOT a climate change denier. I accept as fact that there has been and continues to be anthropogenic activity accountable for part of climate change and global warming. That emphatically stated, I am skeptical of many of the proposed solutions . Among the things that trouble me, is there is often little or no scientific evidence of what the solutions will accomplish. I am aware of many great strides being made in dealing with the effects of climate change from folks like Like Peter Diamandis option 2 2. Make Renewables so Cheap that they KILL Fossil Fuels My limited research shows great strides being made, but reducing the efficient use of power should not be considered one of them. Increase use of power, efficienntly gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Climate change does not pose the existential threat claimed by many\n","id":"02d75ff5-a5e0-407c-bad0-579870d85ea8"}
{"argument":"The US Department of Defence is the country\u2019s largest consumer of fossil fuels, using as much as 20.9 bn litres of fuel each year even before it has been deployed.\n","conclusion":"The military consumes significant proportions of fuel, which is linked to climate change.\n","id":"9ae3124c-80a9-48c3-ae1d-9e732b604e57"}
{"argument":"The morning show on Fox-owned station WFLD in Chicago aired an remote interview with Shari Belafonte, which ended up being an ad for a diet pill\n","conclusion":"Media outlets must make money in order to stay in business, most of it comes from advertisements which are often disguised as news stories.\n","id":"6a690a7b-c06b-42e4-b0fc-ff449e4540de"}
{"argument":"There are a number of theodicies which reasonably argue for God permitting evil in the world. The burden of proof is on the one arguing for the logical problem of evil to show that all of these explanations are insufficient to explain God's actions.\n","conclusion":"It's impossible to say with any acceptable certainty that the state of the world isn't justified from God's perspective.\n","id":"9bb1f6d9-b17f-4e83-a4b0-6df298a153dd"}
{"argument":"Trump surprised his own aides and unsettled allies when he refused to affirm NATO\u2019s collective-defense obligations. Later, Pence expressed his \u201cunwavering support: \u201cThe United States is resolved, as we were at NATO\u2019s founding and in every hour since, to live by that principle that an attack on one of us is an attack on us all.\u201d\n","conclusion":"Pence has tried to make up for many mistakes made by an impulsive and aggressive Trump.\n","id":"b04a8e4a-34d7-4e22-b625-9b6f46bdc232"}
{"argument":"The Aboriginal people pass down stories and concepts solely through speaking. With the extinction of many and the endangerment of the remaining, their stories will be lost.\n","conclusion":"Language is often the only way to convey a community\u2019s songs, stories and poems.\n","id":"4e4a6c64-5cc9-4b2c-b285-0ce35461cebe"}
{"argument":"The previous election voted in a government with no clear mandate for the future British\/EU relations, as no party had clear Brexit policies. With no mandate for what the future relationship will be, there is a clear need for a people's vote on the future EU relationship.\n","conclusion":"The referendum did not spell out the nature of the future relationship with the EU nor the consequences of Brexit. Voters are likely to have a clearer idea of what is on offer at the end of the negotiating process.\n","id":"b612321f-330c-4328-a00a-2f22d5f94d48"}
{"argument":"Jonathan Rauch. \"Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace\". National Journal. March 14, 2009 - \"Some earmark spending is silly, but then so is some non-earmark spending, and there is a lot more of the latter.\"\n","conclusion":"Earmark spending is no worse than other forms of spending\n","id":"7a2c8a77-9a8f-4dc7-9c39-ed9c62456503"}
{"argument":"The general consensus in the media and political communities seems to be that the release of emails obtained by hacking John Podesta and the DNC constituted an attack on democracy, and interfered with the election and democratic process. Democracy is the process through which citizens vote for who they think should represent them in government. The more knowledgeable voters are, the more factual information they have to base their opinion and vote on, the better. I would 100 agree that the release of fabricated or falsified information would interfere with the democratic process, since people voting based on falsehoods are less informed. I would also agree that the charges that Russia hacked state voting systems or federal infrastructure is a very serious issue and constitutes an attack on American democracy. But the charges of the 'attack on democracy' are all focused on the release of emails obtained from the DNC and Podesta hacks, both private individuals organizations that do not work for or have any direct relation to the US government. AFAIK these emails were not altered, and multiple contested emails were independently verified as authentic. So if the hacked emails were authentic, how does having more factual information harm interfere with democracy? Imagine if the access holywood tape was obtained by someone hacking Trump's cell phone. By the same logic that would be an attack on democracy, but I think having that factual information available to the public is a good, not harmful to democracy. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Publishing factual information, no matter how it was obtained or the motivations behind it, is not an 'attack on democracy', nor does it 'interfere' with the democratic process.\n","id":"6dab14f4-762e-4695-8b1e-b0671ccc608a"}
{"argument":"It is therefore harder to convince them that LGBT identities ARE inherent than it is to convince them that those choices are acceptable ones.\n","conclusion":"In the face of this context, those that are least pro-LGBT rights have already decoupled the idea that being LGBT might be inherent.\n","id":"82792f2f-0e2c-4fe1-a561-90ed968dc908"}
{"argument":"I am a 23 year old college student. Since going to college, I have been this hollowed out version of myself that is either in a manic high or a really low, almost suicidal depression. I find myself disinterested in the program I am in and instead find my mind drifting to the money that I could be making at my job. I feel education can not be found in a university or college institution. I believe education is the wisdom to realize the world is yours to discover and to learn from. I believe that universities some of them and colleges contain people who have discovered this for themselves and dilute that information for newer minds to palate. After a while though, it is not knowledge and only regurgitated fact that has lost meaning. So that's the gist of it. Change my view if you can. Or tell me how awesome Cookie Clicker is. EDIT I would like to make this clear as it has been brought up. I have been screened for mental illness by at least three psychiatrists. I am of sound mind and have not been diagnosed with anything.\n","conclusion":"Paying for Education is the Worst Mistake I Ever Made.\n","id":"bcacf256-f7f5-4b37-b407-c50c7f0ca9c7"}
{"argument":"When left with a choice children will not leave their parents to join some distant organisation.\n","conclusion":"Young people are not as easily manipulable as some adults think.\n","id":"8686abe4-9061-45a7-9357-b295b7b59bb8"}
{"argument":"To keep non violent offenders from clogging up jails and prisons, I believe that America should cut sentences for most non violent crimes, replacing the lost sentencing time with cane strokes. The procedures would be similar to Singapore an inmate would be selected to receive their caning at a convenient time during their sentence, be examined by a doctor, and then stripped naked and tied to a wooden rack. They would be repeatedly caned on the buttocks, causing them incredible pain and humiliation. I believe that there are many benefits to caning. The humiliating experience would be far more discouraging than simply sitting and rotting in prison or jail. Many inmates develop a tough guy attitude as a result of spending time incarcerated, sometimes bragging about it. No one would want to brag about being stripped naked and caned until you bled it's a great way to kill the tough guy mentality that puts people back in prison. Offenders who were caned in Singapore described the pain as excruciating and that it lasted for weeks. It is not traumatizing, but would definitely make people think twice after being caned. Can you imagine anyone committing another crime after having this happen to them? Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, with white collar crime far eclipsing petty crime across the board. I believe that caning is a necessary deterrent, as well as a convenient way of taking the workload off of law enforcement by reducing strain on the system. With less inmates, there is more manpower available to focus on rehabilitating them. Is there any reason why caning should not be allowed? It may look extremely bad to the NAACP and other groups, but it would also address their complaints of sentences being too long. Opposing caning would mean supporting extra long sentences. The results would be incredible, and once it sinks in that sentences are being lowered in exchange for caning, it would become more popular. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"America should institute caning as a punishment to reduce sentences\n","id":"0c691504-7696-4e96-b8e1-89ba2e44cd19"}
{"argument":"Even if the ship was not in Hyperspace at the moment of collision, the issue remains that ships can become incredibly destructive battering rams in the distance between the ship's starting point and the point the ship reaches lightspeed. With one or more ships, this maneuver could have been performed earlier against the Dreadnought resulting in far fewer losses to the Resistance.\n","conclusion":"Using the acceleration into lightspeed as a weapon is unprecedented within the Star Wars franchise. This revolutionary appliance of lightspeed technology could be developed into weaponry for space battles in future films.\n","id":"43aeebd7-207a-451c-8d9d-d994e71f4b43"}
{"argument":"I have a feeling that I am going to get a lot of downvotes from this but whatever In my opinion, things like the wage gap and gay marriage rights are important and are worth fighting and I support the fight for them but, It feels like the people who fight for things that are not really significant problems or are unfixable are just devaluing the parts of feminism that matter making feminism less of a political movement and more of just a shitty meme. I also feel that feminism should be less focused on just female based discrimination and more on gender sexual identity discrimination in general. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"It kinda feels like REALLY outspoken wave feminists just devalue the feminist movement and just gives fuel to anti-feminists instead of trying to fight sexism\n","id":"b957009b-4f66-4e60-a16a-6b5587a9d3fa"}
{"argument":"I have two specific views about this event and the controversy surrounding it that I'm looking to have challenged. The first deals quite specifically with the comments Michelle Wolfe made about Sarah Huckabee Sanders, which have been the chief focal point of conservative outrage gt gt And, of course, we have Sarah Huckabee Sanders. We're graced with Sarah's presence tonight. I have to say I'm a little star struck. I love you as Aunt Lydia in The Handmaid's Tale. gt gt Mike Pence, if you haven't seen it, you would love it. gt gt Every time Sarah steps up to the podium, I get excited because I'm not really sure what we're going to get you know, a press briefing, a bunch of lies or divided into softball teams. It's shirts and skins, and this time, don't be such a little b , Jim Acosta. gt gt I actually really like Sarah. I think she's very resourceful. Like, she burns facts, and then she uses the ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Like, maybe she's born with it maybe it's lies. It's probably lies. gt gt And I'm never really sure what to call Sarah Huckabee Sanders. You know, is it Sarah Sanders? Is Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Is it Cousin Huckabee? Is it Auntie Huckabee Sanders? Like, what's Uncle Tom but for white women who disappoint other white women? Oh, I know Aunt Coulter. The first claim of my view is that these remarks do not constitute attacks on Huckabee Sanders' appearance. There are three parts of this routine that arguably touch on her appearance, but I contend that none of them make her appearance the punchline. Aunt Lydia joke Wolfe's mistaken identity joke certainly implies visual similarity between SHS and the character Aunt Lydia, but the punch of the joke is thematic. Though I'm not overly familiar with the show, I understand Aunt Lydia to be the caretaker of the women, passing on and enforcing the teachings of the authoritarian state she represents. This is the comparison Wolfe is drawing, underscored by her follow up to Mike Pence, and her Uncle Tom Aunt Coulter remarks later on. Softball coach I have seen people claim that this joke is saying SHS looks like a lesbian. This fails for a few reasons, one being that there isn't any particular way that lesbians look and softball has nothing to do with lesbians. Furthermore, the joke very plainly refers to SHS's tendency to shout down and order about journalists in the press room, as an exasperated and power tripping softball coach would do to a group of rowdy tweenagers in P.E. This is underscored by her tie in to the incidents with Jim Acosta of CNN. The Smokey Eye Smokey Eye refers to a specific makeup technique. It's not an undesirable thing, and quite frankly SHS' smokey eye game is on point. The joke isn't about SHS' makeup, it's about her lies. My second contention Any Trump supporter who claims outrage or offense over the SHS remarks is a hypocrite, as their views are inconsistent. If they claim to be offended by the vulgarity, Trump has said worse. If they insist that these remarks constitute attacks on appearance they don't , Trump has attacked folks' appearances. If they claim these remarks are inappropriate or in poor taste for the occasion, Trump has done worse. Any attempt to hold Wolfe, a comedian, to a higher standard of public televised conduct than the President of the United States is outright hypocrisy. I'm certainly open to discussing other parts of the speech, but my OP focuses specifically on the SHS remarks, as those seem to be the primary sticking point in this controversy. I'm eager to have my view challenged by those who support Trump and find these remarks to be problematic. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Michelle Wolfe's comments about Sarah Huckabee Sanders do not constitute attacks on her appearance.\n","id":"b7b43967-0ded-4dd9-9ff8-128db4f3249d"}
{"argument":"Any for-profit organisation should be subject to taxation. Though many individual churches are operated at a loss, the Church as an entity Greek\/Orthodox\/etc has always been for-profit, as indicated by the wealth they've amassed overtime.\n","conclusion":"Churches often pursue private rather than public goals, and therefore should not be given a tax exemption on the basis of being a charitable organisation.\n","id":"c8d232c6-35f6-4b34-84ec-42beb6fd9d42"}
{"argument":"The EU's capacity to increase global influence through other means - such as projecting liberal democratic values and trade cooperation - has come under threat with the rise of populism.\n","conclusion":"Having an army would increase the EU's influence globally.\n","id":"4203c0eb-7810-4c60-8a9d-68d44060226d"}
{"argument":"Unemployment and economic desperation in Mexico contribute to the growth of violent cartels by providing them with a labour force.\n","conclusion":"Economic instability in Mexico could be significantly damaging to American interests.\n","id":"80fc0f47-77c4-42c6-86f3-cf6a23447cb6"}
{"argument":"Hitting a child teaches them that whoever is physically bigger\/ stronger can use force to get their own way. This also teaches them that discussions are not effective as force.\n","conclusion":"Spanking a child sends the message that it is OK to be physically harmed by another.\n","id":"467a88aa-525c-4420-9140-828e72ac275d"}
{"argument":"First, a disclaimer I'm not an economist, and a lot about financial systems confuses me. That said, I think financial markets are infested with capitalist leeches, who make money for doing nothing. My understanding of how an investment should work is that you research trends and take an informed guess as to how a company will fair in the future, kind of like political donations candidates with no chance aren't worth investing in, while in tight races a little investment can push one candidate over the top. You take a little risk and earn a lot of profit when a company succeeds. But this isn't how most professional trading is done. More than half of all trading is High frequency trading Basically computers watch the market, look for trends and near instantly respond to get a cut of the profit. When a stock goes up, they jump in and buy lots of shares, and then immediately sell when the rise starts to cap. These trades happen within milliseconds, and they're getting faster as infrastructure improves. What value do High frequency trades provide? They are not investing , they're leeching off other investors. By buying and selling so quickly, they provide no capital for companies to use, as it's gone almost immediately. I always hear about how important Wall Street is to the economy, but how important can it be if it's just a forum for huge companies to suck capital from smaller, legitimate investors? Things can't be as bad as I'm imagining, please . Edit It seems like HFT is the natural evolution of Day trading which I see as similarly useless and exploitative. I'm not too focused on HFT, more on rapid trading in general that doesn't fit the definition of an investment , or any other conceptual flaws someone might identify.\n","conclusion":"I think that the stock market is full of capitalist leeches who produce no value yet siphon off capital from the market.\n","id":"7d829894-3b62-499f-a812-275981b132e4"}
{"argument":"I have looked at this from many ways and it seems the only way to make it so people make more money is for all businesses to lower their bottom line. Most especially the more established companies. I don't see any other way around it. The money will eventually flow back up to the top of course, due to automation and more people willing to spend the due to increased funds. I can't see it going well at first for some companies but that would be a far better route than everyone going totally poor. Also for businesses to say it's a job killer is silly since that's their business usually anyways. The less they have to hire the better for their bottom line. I feel it's already going that direction whether they raise wages or not. In fact I think with wages raised these businesses would have less to spend on automation and therefore keep more employees longer. I think we're going to be poor anyways so let's just spread some of the wealth while it's still here. The dollar is crashing and it's going to get worse so why not help the masses a little more to be able to sustain a healthy life while it is still available? It would save taxpayers money from having to support food stamp based programs and other social services as well.\n","conclusion":"If we are going to raise federal minimum wages to $15hr then businesses need to lower their bottom line and accept making less as a whole community.\n","id":"203bb893-9cf0-4ef5-b398-7d69b68e38a2"}
{"argument":"If the worst case scenario for anarchy is that it might go back to being government again, then we can conclude that trying to establish anarchy is a good idea.\n","conclusion":"Government is the dominant player that is hurtful and staying dominant at the expense of minority.\n","id":"1b51c7be-a756-4521-a499-e6e3fa93ea2f"}
{"argument":"I really think Rogue One had the best advantage in the visual effects category for the Oscars even after watching the other nominated movies. For the winner, the Jungle Book had very good visual effects, not gonna lie, but I was more impressed with Rogue One. Especially when it nearly perfectly resurrected actors from the past and the action sequences both on the ground and in space was completely jaw dropping beautiful. The perspective cinematography of the space battle and perspective scenes with the Death Star was crazy. No other movie has done a better job at making an object look so gigantic before. Other scenes when the Death Star nukes the planet and how the 2 Star Destroyers crashed into each other was visually magnificent. I've never seen a movie so visually pleasing in a while. Edit a word. Just to not be biased, I'm a fan of both Disney and Star Wars. I did appreciate a couple scenes when Mowgli physically touches the animal's fur which I thought was very great how they blended actual footage to a cgi animal. The Orangutan sequence in his palace that at some angles looked like they used an actual Orangutan scaled up to be 30 feet tall. These are pretty much the only scenes that stood out for me which is very few compared to Rogue One. I thought their use of the Mowgli actor running in a CGI forest was really good, but we've seen stuff like this lots of times since Avatar. Nothing groundbreaking. Overall, Rogue One should have won the Oscar. The visual effects in the Jungle Book was not memorable and did not impress me as much as Rogue One. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Rogue One should have won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects.\n","id":"0953da8c-3e7a-405a-a036-324aaa664a8a"}
{"argument":"Donald Trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital. He's a punchline. A rich punchline, but a punchline all the same. His views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they can't be trusted not to send their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world. People can come to the U.S. as tourists from several countries, not just Mexico, completely legally. They then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally. The problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize. The man has no foreign policy experience. Boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation to nation diplomacy. His national defense ideas that I've heard seem to amount to, more guns and let's tell other countries to screw off. The Democrats' stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude Donald Trump. Who is to say he wouldn't endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune?\n","conclusion":"Donald Trump would be a bad president\n","id":"e2f084c7-c783-4a18-bb69-a978adf33520"}
{"argument":"Morality apply to things we chose to apply it to. For example, some humans chose to treat other humans less morally, such as criminals or simply a person they don't like based on their ideology, therefore, it is normal for humans to be \"cruel and immoral\" selectively, including to animals.\n","conclusion":"Morality is subjective, so eating meat is not necessarily immoral.\n","id":"e1f1bc04-bdd8-4c1f-8ff3-e6c63c76977d"}
{"argument":"Democracy is an important tool to make sure the general population has a voice in the world they live in, but how it works needs a complete overhaul. People are too distracted by the personalities involved when it comes to voting. We should stop electing people and start voting for ideas \/ the change we want, without any characters or personalities attached to them. Set the goals, then hire the best people to achieve those ideas.\n","conclusion":"The people in charge of each area of government would have to hold qualifications in that field. With a deeper understanding of the world around them they would make better decisions.\n","id":"aac3de34-176b-490f-8122-add7b481885e"}
{"argument":"While I don't think wholeheartedly that we should entrust everything to these machines, allow me to explain a vague system that would work for this A large supercomputer makes every governing decision in a country, such as making legislature, allocating government resources, and even declaring war. This computer is updated with a set of goals and guidelines every year, essentially, its political agenda. These updates are voted upon by the general populous throughout the year, before they are implemented. It is easy, thanks to the infrastructure the computer provides, to ensure that every option is well understood by the populous, and that they have the information they need to make the right decision. Once these goals, and guidelines on how to reach them, are uploaded into the computer, it solves these issues in the most efficient manner it can calculate, keeping in mind the guidelines which may include avoiding loss of life, or making sure that taxes don't go up by X , etc. . Of course, it is a given that a good bit of the government's resources would be dedicated to cybersecurity, as this computer has insane power that, if controlled by the wrong hands, could mean disaster. Now, the more physical things the computer gets done, such as creating new structures or declaring war, is still delegated to having human employees of the public sector make it so, still keeping most of those in the public sector employed. This works for any economic system really, although I think it would work best in a communistic society, as this would allow the unbribable, objective, and hyperintelligent computer to have all of the country's resources at its disposal, while ensuring that everyone gets their fair share regardless of social status or connections.\n","conclusion":"Robots should rule the world\n","id":"00d462bc-4dc3-4cd7-a8e2-ceb348b30989"}
{"argument":"The idea of a united Europe is on the decline as eurosceptic parties are registering gains in elections.\n","conclusion":"Polls and referendums suggest that European citizens are against the USE.\n","id":"792e5cdf-39df-48f5-8b1d-0546dc6b5830"}
{"argument":"Political parties are divisive; politics and specifically the job of the president is about finding an agreeable way forward. The oath of office, \"preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States which is aimed to \"form a more perfect Union is precisely what Trump is failing to do.\n","conclusion":"Politics is, by its nature, divisive That's not a reason not to impeach a President.\n","id":"f587d76a-469f-4699-8e5c-837079f6af7b"}
{"argument":"This has often taken the form of forcible interference with reproduction. For example, there are many instances of forcible sterilization of women, often without their knowledge or consent.\n","conclusion":"Gender is used by nation states for greater administrative control.\n","id":"1adc4a16-0db1-406e-90ac-1f19c1fcd39a"}
{"argument":"Malteasers created ads that dealt with the \"taboo\" topics of menopause and lesbian dating in an attempt to help combat perceived stereotypes. They were made in consultation with advocacy groups Age UK and Stonewall.\n","conclusion":"Advertising culture changes our perception on issues by giving a voice to those outside the mainstream.\n","id":"49cb4897-56aa-415e-9a3c-a90a83e61e35"}
{"argument":"First of all, I'll provide readers with some context about preferential sex segregation not sure whether this is a common practice around the world. In Mexico City, the subway and articulated bus systems are prefentially segregated during peak hours. This implies that many of the carriages are exclusive for women , but women can board any part of the subway bus if they want to. These kind of practices have been on the rise lately, and now we are starting to see buses and taxis reserved for women , . nbsp Preferential sex segregation has been widely acclaimed by feminist groups. I know this will be anecdotical, but if you ask any feminist they'll tell you that, since all men are potential rapists and they haven't been taught not to harass women, they are entitled to this kind of preferential protections. With that being said , I'd argue that this practice is far from promoting equality and creates a myriad of injust situations for male and transgender citizens. nbsp Recalling the first image I posted, you'll see that women are allowed to board any of the carriages. Since the women exclusive carriages are usually far away from the centre of the platform and have a checkpoint where police ensures that only women are boarding , female passengers tend to board the general zone because it is less of a hassle. nbsp Of course, this overcrowds the public transport systems and causes many men to lose their trains. Most of the times, women carriages are not full, but men are not allowed to go anywhere near them even if there is not space available in the general zone. It goes without saying that passengers who identify themselves as women but still look as men would never be allowed to board the preferential carriages the checkpoint is merely a quick, visual assessment. nbsp Feminists have viciously defended and successfully lobbied to extend this practice, which is clearly far from being egalitarian it's simply sexist and not compatible with true feminism.\n","conclusion":"Preferential sex-segregation definition & examples inside in public transport is not a triumph for feminism. In fact, it may even hint that feminists are not looking for true equality.\n","id":"1381e162-9ced-48c3-85a8-1ade02480668"}
{"argument":"Male and female brains are similar but \u2018wired differently. That is, brains are not gendered but neurological connections may be, yet researchers still do not know if that is the product of biology or society. Some think it is precisely the dripping effect of gender stereotypes that modifies brain connections.\n","conclusion":"The study quoted is a book written by a physiologist that lacks hard evidence neuroscientists seem to contradict his theories.\n","id":"5121a107-a4d9-4220-b9b3-a5f35f826c8e"}
{"argument":"The title sums it up. If a person follows their sacred texts more to the letter, aren't they better examples of that religion than anyone of the same belief system who only follows its core doctrines and others? Because I thought that more adherence to an ideology equals a better example of that adherent, and in this case a truer follower. Or am I missing something here? If so, please tell me, because I would love to hear your opinions on the subject. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Religious extremists and fundamentalists constitute a truer version of their religion than moderates of the same religion\n","id":"88a0f304-59b2-434e-b441-9248e6175d84"}
{"argument":"These necessary variables of planetary habitability makes life on Earth or other planets incredibly improbable, especially as the universe is constantly increasing in entropy meaning the longer time goes on, the more unlikely it is that these conditions exist.\n","conclusion":"There are so many variables that have to be perfect for a planet to hold life. e.g. presence of water, correct temperature, correct size to hold an atmosphere, right distance from a star, right place in a galaxy.\n","id":"f55be9d1-2e63-4ec8-a845-c7fbda9a68b1"}
{"argument":"I'll start out with the caveat that I have never served on a jury. I've been summoned a few times, but never actually ended up being selected. I've been around long enough to realize why people seem to hate it It's a commitment that you didn't choose the timing of. Anytime we are told to do something we didn't plan and or don't want to do, it can be annoying. However, a jury of your peers is the entire basis of our judicial system. If you're chosen, sure it might be random, but you have the potential to be a deciding factor in someone's fair trial. Someone's life might even be in your hands, depending on the crime. Because of this, being summoned for jury duty should be taken as an honor and the situation should be treated with the utmost respect. It always bothered me how it seems to be the norm to complain about jury duty, and people often half joke about ways they might try to get out of it I'll just tell them I'm racist in the interview . So, change my view?\n","conclusion":"Being selected for jury duty should be considered an honor, and those that complain about it and\/or try to shirk the summons are selfish and petty.\n","id":"9502a49f-8141-4ee0-a64e-4ecdce2fa6ff"}
{"argument":"Yesterday there was an article about the proposed budget for McDonalds workers and outrage that it forced people to essentially work two full time jobs. While this is bad, I don't think many people understand that most minimum wage workers do not need or want to work full time. The following numbers are all from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and are rounded to the nearest whole percent for simplicity. The US has about 125 million workers aged 16 or older 59 of these workers are being paid hourly vs salaried . A mere 3 of all workers 5.2 of all hourly workers are being paid minimum wage or less Half of the above workers are under the age of 25. So the takeaway that I have is that not only are most American's being paid more than the minimum wage, but those that are making minimum wage do not need it. Half the minium wage workers are under the age of 25. These are teenagers and college students who most likely working part time. These individals are also more likely to be claimed as a depenent on someone else's tax returns read living at home . In states such as Illinois, these workers are still able to be on their parent's health insurance. Given that such a small proportion of minium wage workers are actually trying to make a living, I feel that there is at the very least less of a need to raise the minimum wage. . 3.8 M 125 M .0304 3 edited to reflect u very old guy's correction.\n","conclusion":"The minimum wage does not need to be raised.\n","id":"80ab7c1d-b68f-434f-b350-90db9dd96fb0"}
{"argument":"Almost no country has transitioned from a developing country to a developed country under democracy. Japan was able to carry out the Meiji Restoration because a strong central government was able to force the reforms through against the will of everyone who opened them. Singapore was able to develop into a major financial center from an underdeveloped country ruled by organized crime because it's a de facto single party state under the PAP that can implement changes without worrying about public opinion. South Korea and Taiwan both developed because of authoritarian leaders focused on development as well. China and Vietnam are both rapidly developing a middle class because of their authoritarian, interventionist governments that can promote growth regardless of popular support. Turkey was able the secularize and liberalize under Ataturk because of his authoritarian governing style, even if the population didn't support it. Conversely, I can't think of any country that has transitioned from the third world to the first world under democracy. Democracies like India and Pakistan are still undeveloped, with much more poverty than any of the other countries I mentioned, because there's no powerful government that can promote development. Can anyone show me evidence that democracies are not less successful at developing countries than dictatorships, or that the authoritarianism and decisiveness of dictatorships is not necessary for a country to develop?\n","conclusion":"Dictatorships are a better form of government for developing countries than democracies\n","id":"078864fd-7fa0-48af-8ef8-724fe053bc1b"}
{"argument":"I'll define home computing as Laptop or Desktop. I'm contending that as more millennials are born, there will be less brand loyalty. Android has the simplicity that many consumers want and Linux has the openness that nerds want. Plus, no viruses bloatware or the many other problem Microsoft has. Android Linux boxes have much more competitive prices. Not only that, but their apps have caught up and now they have almost everything the average consumer could want. Apple Microsoft may still lead in industrial use, but 90 of people just need browser, documents office, media, video music editing and so on. Gaming is a concern of course. There's consoles for that which are fine for most people who play big budget games . If consoles go obsolete, I doubt it'll be because one company like Microsoft is hoarding all the games.\n","conclusion":"Android\/Linux will beat Apple & Microsoft in the Desktop\/Laptop market.\n","id":"43da9d54-e999-4d26-8b65-37cbc653f269"}
{"argument":"Kashmiri refugees live in bad conditions in refugee camps and find it difficult to make ends meet. There is an opportunity cost to the process of returning such as taking out time to figure out if the violence is likely to stop or getting documentation done. That time could be spent in looking for a job and collecting money which they need to survive the day. Therefore, they are unlikely to return.\n","conclusion":"Many of these people are refugees who are unlikely to return.\n","id":"a8599fdb-90c1-4e7b-94ab-946fc1ae49ed"}
{"argument":"Only those who work for the trolley should make changes to the system. It doesn't matter what is right, you are sending the trolley on a path that it wasn't intended to travel, causing a fatality. There is no way to know what will happen on the intended course unless you let it run.\n","conclusion":"It is better not to act because of a lack of sufficient information.\n","id":"5d06b26d-a329-4b3d-8aa1-14f65fb1f804"}
{"argument":"Reddit and social media are being overrun with posts about Zuckerberg's apperance and mannerisms, which they are saying are robotic and unnatural. I have no doubt that he has certain social challenges, but this is just bullying. Many of us either know people with similar challenges or suffer from similar challenges ourselves. Certainly people on the autism spectrum might identify with some of these issues. I don't think it's OK to bully people even celebrities who are unlikely to see it like this. It is mean spirited and can be disheartening for others who experience similar challenges and may have been bullied for it. .\n","conclusion":"Making fun of Zuckerberg for his appearance and mannerisms is mean-spirited and can be damaging to others who have similar challenges\n","id":"8a90f2c1-86b8-4634-8603-0999f1673c81"}
{"argument":"People do very little to help stop global warming, they do things such as go march in streets without doing actual direct action.\n","conclusion":"The fight of western countries against climate change is hypocritical\n","id":"b9404576-da66-453a-91f6-23ab21ce1948"}
{"argument":"If reparations would not be handed out today but be proposed again in a hypothetical future in which Black Americans are economically better off than other groups of Americans, they would suddenly be inappropriate based on this logic. Yet this can hardly be described as fitting the spirit of reparations.\n","conclusion":"Reparations for past injustices should not be handed out based on current economic inequalities.\n","id":"3cf9ccec-8b89-42cd-b594-397f8609ebf6"}
{"argument":"In a functional society, the population is well, if the age pyramide is in good shape. The problem is that people get older and older while there are not enough newborns.\n","conclusion":"More young population is needed in Germany. Not more population in general.\n","id":"75f2e0b5-492a-48ba-98c7-ab0c70f2ca58"}
{"argument":"Darn typo Every argument I see, in regards to piracy, is ultimately based in one and one thing only, a selfish desire for a free luxury, one that actively hurts small time artists not big corporations . I will begin by rebutting common pro piracy arguments. 1 It doesn't hurt the artist Even were this statement true it's not it has nothing to do with morality and thus, the legality of the issue. It may very well help them, but it is without a doubt true that a pirate violates the owner's property rights, and the elements of the contract they sign. Ultimately this argument can be ignore, because it is not just for someone to burn down another house just for petty revenge even if the ultimate result is a hefty insurance payment for the victim. 2 It's the freedom of information age No, it isn't, since the information isn't free. Information isn't, nor should it be, inherently free. Classified military secrets, passwords, SSNs, browser histories, and credit card numbers are information but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone. 3 The poor wouldn't have bought it anyway. Besides, how do you expect me to pay for it? Another disregarding of morality, but let's address this directly. Information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc. are luxuries. They are not necessities. Thus, while the poor may very well have not bought it anyway, they still violated property rights for something not in any way,shape, or form necessary for their survival or well being. Stealing food, water, or money in order to purchase the former may, at times, be justified, but the theft of luxuries is not necessary for your survival. 4 We should transition to donation system. This is one of the more laughable positions I have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor which they almost always claim they are . That argument, which I agree with, is especially true of art and copyrights. Why do you have to pay the electrician for the work he did to your house? After all, you never took anything from him, all he did was rearrange the bits in your house to work again, something you could of done yourself. All he lost was time, and that's not illegal to take, is it? So then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this? Because it's ridiculous. I am open to discussion on this. I can admit I'm wrong, but I just get infuriated with such selfish attitudes so common among supposed leftists attitudes that are the catalysts for abominations like SOPA. IMPORTANT EDIT I worded Largely indefeasible deliberately. Like all actions there are some justified exceptions, such as already owning the content, or being unable to access it due to government or corporate interference.\n","conclusion":"Piracy is largely indefensible and is base in a selfish desire for free entertainment.\n","id":"1ad7d8fb-981d-4842-9039-b7b1188c36f2"}
{"argument":"Many people have multiple pets for the happiness and well-being of their pets by providing them shelter and care that they otherwise would not get in their current or future situations.\n","conclusion":"Having more than one pet is not an indicator of a person's life needing upkeep. There are many reasons people have more than one pet.\n","id":"7c8c937d-3a17-4648-8e59-76ae23b44160"}
{"argument":"Bureaucratic red tape prevents many from adopting children. The process is either too daunting for prospective parents who drop out, or it leads to deserving parents being rejected for the most tedious of reasons, such as living on a farm\n","conclusion":"It is the adoption process that prevents many from adopting children.\n","id":"22d9cc70-dfe9-4033-8ecd-be43f491e43e"}
{"argument":"This would cause higher education to be held under the thumb of the government's funding, causing the standard of the institution to lower since its survival hinges on the government's money and the government will continually attempt to minimize costs.\n","conclusion":"The government will always have a motive to indoctrinate people in certain ways, and if they fund higher education there will be no way to challenge them.\n","id":"c8b50279-44ef-4210-9014-678447ecc53f"}
{"argument":"mankind will eventually have to colonize space to avoid extinction. we should start working on it immediately\n","conclusion":"Space exploration is necessary for the future survival of humanity\n","id":"2e7cab2f-1fd8-484e-8340-ad48247ea229"}
{"argument":"Playing instruments, playing video games, riding a race bike - many hobbies require at least some equipment that isn't easy to transport in a suitcase.\n","conclusion":"Many hobbies and activities are difficult to enjoy if one's belongings are limited to what can be taken on trips.\n","id":"eda7def1-60c6-4b70-8be5-62e75ec41511"}
{"argument":"For those who genuinely like to change views, this thread is a good opportunity. I'm ashamed to hold the view that I do it's a view I would not admit to my friends IRL, for example and would be happy to change. My attitude towards Google is entirely too grateful, admiring and uncritical. I view them as a company that, while generally motivated by profit, also gives serious consideration to my best interests as an internet user, as well as to ideal of a free, open, interoperable internet, a world full of cool, convenient toys, and a body of human knowledge that is instantly and easily accessible. Apologies in advance for this long post. I want to explain all the reasons I hold my view so that you're informed, and hopefully successful, in your quest to change my view. Anyways, while I understand that the following may read as though it should be chanted in a cult initiate's voice, I love Google because Google is generous. I know that Google is an advertising company, and that giving stuff away for free and advancing the cause of free accessible information are part of Google's business model. Still, Google creates more and better stuff, and monetizes that stuff less aggressively, than a purely profit driven approach would dictate. It also allocates capital towards projects that are cool but not highly profitable if they're profitable at all . For example When gmail first became available, its competitors were hotmail, which offered users 2MB storage, and yahoo, which offered 4MB. Google could have trumped with 6 or 8, and probably captured the market with 20. Instead, it provided 1,000\u2014a gigabyte. It doubled that a year later and promised \u201cto keep giving people more space forever.\u201d Google scans users' email for advertising purposes in real time, so this large archive was not essential to its ad revenue model. Sure, Google wanted to make a bold grab for market share, but it also wanted to give people a great thing they hadn't previously envisioned a better web based email service and it gave them that thing for free, even though it could have commanded just as many eyeballs for ads with a less impressive offering. Google Earth gives you the godlike experience of holding the earth in your hand, and lets you swoop in and visit any location. This cannot have been cheap to put together. There are no ads on it. Google voice is free and incredibly useful. No ads. Google is developing weather balloons to provide internet to the entire world. It's easy to envision how this could profit them in the very, very long run, but no corporate strategist would call it a safe or wise investment when compared to other potential uses of company capital. Google embodies intellectual brilliance and innovation. Let me know if you want support for this and I'll elaborate, but I think it's an obvious point. Yes, you could say the same about several other tech companies, but Google is one of the biggest and best in this vein. Google respects its users. For example While many search engines have tried to capture market share from Google over the years, they e.g. Bing have focused on making search more conversational and user friendly for stupid people rather than adding features that actually made search more intelligent and useful. In other words features like word proximity searches, the ability to search for numbers within a wildcard range, etc. They reasoned that most users were too unsophisticated to levergage these features or care about them. Google, despite its dominant competitive position and relative lack of a need to innovate in order to retain market share, added these features anyways. Google, like Facebook and many other companies, profits from selling your information and could probably increase its profits by behaving like Facebook vis a vis privacy features constantly hiding and changing and rearranging these settings to thwart users who care about them. Google refrains because it respects you too much to act like an asshole. Google even supports adblock in chrome. Unlike Apple, which assumes that Apple knows best and its users need to be protected from their own distasteful interest in porn or, god forbid, device hacking customization , Google invites you to take the great tools and toys it's made and do your own thing with them. Google respects its employees. Even compared to other Silicon Valley firms, Google is famed for its casual, non authoritarian corporate culture, for giving its employees great perks and for funding their personal pet projects. Google is a bold, disruptive business in a good way. When Google began digitizing and copying books, it knew that the copyright laws governing its activity were ambiguous and the project presented substantial legal risk. Given the unattractive risk reward ratio of the project, most companies would not have proceeded. According to tech journalist Stephen Levy, Google went forward because it considered its intentions honorable and the law outmoded. This was bold. More recently, Google began offering fiber optic internet for free. Like the weather balloon project, it's easy to imagine that this could profit Google in an uncertain, distant future assuming many ifs fall into place. Google Fiber is nonetheless a bold move to which the buzzword disruptive certainly applies, as it disrupts ISPs' ability to essentially spit on their users via throttled speeds, shitty TOS and exorbitant rates. Economists will tell you that the telecom pipes market is a natural monopoly or natural oligopoly, meaning it's not a wise idea for a new entrant to challenge an entrenched incumbent. Fuck that, says Google. Google is also challenging ISP throttling with its new youtube speed rankings. I've sometimes sought out counterarguments to my view. I've heard the arguments below, but am unconvinced by them so far Google spies on your and exploits your information for profit. This is true, but as a Google user I know what I'm getting into it's a consensual, contractual arrangement. Also, Google gives you some straightforward opt out toggles and supports chrome extensions that let you opt out more comrpehensively. Finally, while I dislike NSA spying because the government could misuse this information to hassle me at the airport or investigate me for a crime, Google just wants to aggregate my data and optimize ads to sell me stuff. I'm bothered by the idea of a domestic security state that indefinitely detains people and imprisons them for nonviolent drug crimes, but I'm not bothered by the idea of people trying to sell me stuff. You could also argue that Google is complicit in some NSA spying , but I trust that Google has resisted this within the bounds of the law. Why? Because it's in Google's commercial interest to give its users the things they want, which means email that lacks a government backdoor. Filter bubble. Easily avoided if you care about it. I'm not concerned. Largely thanks to google, user tracking and advertising algorithms have become so smart that the rich see a different internet than the poor to potentially exploitative ends. I am a rich libertarian and not particularly bothered by this. Plus, ad companies have always mined demographic data and attempted to target ads at certain income groups. The rich already see a different media advertising landscape than the poor. Merely by archiving so much information about you even if it never intends to misuse that information google creates a data honeypot that could be sought out and exploited by others. For example, in a nasty custody dispute, your ex could subpoena your porn searches. This is one of the better arguments I've heard, but I can't muster the urge to blame Google for this problem. The exploitative forces that seek the data such as the judge in the custody dispute, or the NSA in the domestic spying context are to blame for their own actions. Google is a massively profitable corporation that mostly advances its own bottom line while maintaining a decent corporate culture and throwing an occasional bone to users. You shouldn't venerate them for this you should consider it the bare minimum of decent behavior and hold other corporations to the same standard. Just because Comcast is terrible doesn't mean Google is a benevolent god. Honestly, this is what I would post if I were responding to my own . But the fact is, nothing requires Google to be decent. I think I feel an immense sense of gratitude toward them because in many situations SOPA, ISP throttling, a market full of inadequate and simplistic search products and locked down, dumbed down operating systems, a world that seems to care less and less every day about freedom, openness and individual agency Google speaks up for you when other powerful interests do not. Google is fighting good fights, pushing computer science forward, and creating a smarter and more efficient world. I know how saccharine this view sounds, so please change it formatted for readability\n","conclusion":"I love Google.\n","id":"f5cef3d7-8aa1-4751-886c-32c0d0445836"}
{"argument":"Lots of serial killers kill beacause they are feeling unfufilled, unhappy and empty. Killing is a great way to feel poweful, utterly decimating somebody, cutting them and pulling them, making somebody else empathize with your pain by inflicting it upon them. Of course killing sombody is bad as you are going to get put in prison etc, so another thing you can do is manipulate people to do what you want or to acheive a goal. Set a goal, any goal that requires somebody else's hlp to acheive. Now manipulate those people into acheiving it, me I'm a very sad person, so I set myself a goal of getting promoted to rig manager, after manupilating various people I've acheived my goal and now I can extract fossil fuels to fuck up the enviroment and inflict my pain onto the world via negative externalities. This power makes me feel so happy, so happy I could cry, I no longer feel empty or depressed, I just need to keep going and keep getting more powerful. Do you agree?\n","conclusion":"Depression is caused by powerlessness.\n","id":"3f649bd7-43ef-4b45-8aa4-3803edf61721"}
{"argument":"God is a concept, and that concept obviously exists, so in that sense, God the concept exists.\n","conclusion":"St. Anselm made an ontological argument for the existence of God.\n","id":"e2d5789a-ac1d-48d1-b9be-4ace02009fbd"}
{"argument":"Editing the text of a law directly will make it harder to oversimplify and misrepresent, because in order to edit the wording you must interact directly with the actual text instead of judging what it says by how your group oversimplifies or misrepresents the actual wording of the text.\n","conclusion":"Crowd sourcing laws with collaboration and debate would help people interact with the actual wording of the law, reading it directly, instead of hearing oversimplification or misrepresentations by the media, proponents, or opponents.\n","id":"00772041-15a8-41ad-a871-72b55322a3fc"}
{"argument":"In light of the recently released CIA torture report, as well as mass protests and demonstrations about the current status of race relations in the US, many world leaders, including North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, have voiced concern over the status of human rights in the United States. The criticisms by Putin and Kim have been laughed off by the media, considering the irony of those two leaders criticizing another country for its human rights record, when they each themselves have poor human rights records. North Korea especially has arguably the worst human rights record on the planet, with large scale evidence of barbaric death camps within the country's borders. However, in spite of the poor rights record of each country, their concerns about human rights in the US are equally as valid as the US' concern for human rights in Russia and DPRK. The point stands that the CIA did, in fact, torture inmates at Guantanamo for information, and it's therefore just as ironic for the US to criticize other countries for the same behaviour, even if it's in larger scales or greater severity. If the US wishes to ever redeem itself, it needs to punish those involved, change the system to prevent torture from happening in the future, or live with the fact that they have no right to criticize other countries for doing what they're doing. Being a world power means leading by example. TL DR The US is hypocritical for criticizing other countries for doing what they do, and therefore if the US is justified in criticizing a country over human rights, that country is equally as justified in criticizing the US. EDIT View was changed, now realize that a lack of internal review by Russia DPRK Other critics of the US have no internal review on the issues of their own governments.\n","conclusion":"DPRK and Russian criticisms of human rights abuses in the US are legitimate, and deserve to be taken seriously.\n","id":"3ae194fd-5610-4e35-b3db-ff35bec1c4bd"}
{"argument":"Trump has told a group of four minority congresswomen that they should \u201cgo back to the countries they came from, rather than \u201cloudly and viciously telling the people of the United States\u201d how to run the government.\n","conclusion":"Many of Trump's Tweets and comments encourage discrimination against women and minorities.\n","id":"ecd45dd4-341a-473b-8725-2f1198fdc1ad"}
{"argument":"The common notion in society seems to be that self diagnosis is invalid and even dangerous. Not only do i think this is false, i even go as far as to say that this idea in itself can be dangerous because this has created people with the notion that they themselves are not responsible for their own health but health professionals thus creating a mismatch in expectation and responsibility between healthcare workers and clients patients. You and you alone are responsible for your health. You need to educate yourself so you can be critical and challenge your healthcare professional and not blindly follow their opinion. The internet has almost every information one needs to diagnose a disorder. You just need some guidance which you can also find on the internet. I will give an example of Borderline Personality disorder because that's the disorder i diagnosed myself and later my diagnoses has been confirmed by a psychologist. I decided to google some of the things i was distressed about. I came across emotion regulation disorder which quickly led to BPD. At wikipedia i read about the symptoms of BPD. I have 7 out of 9. Continue googleing BPD and read whatever comes up. Experiencing epiphanie after epiphanie. At this point i'm fairly certain i have BPD. Take a do i have bpd? quiz somewhere on the internet. Not surprisingly i have a high chance i have bpd. Find stories of people with BPD via Google and r BPD protip read alltime topposts . Almost anything resonates. Buy books about BPD. I read them. I Know 100 that i have bpd after finishing reading the books. When i was fairly certain i had bpd that is before i read the books i went to see my doctor who send me to a psychologist. When i saw the psychologist i had already read the books. We had an intake conversation and the following 2 3 appointments i took two test that were nowhere near extensive. At last one conversation with a new psychologist for one hour and at the end of the hour he said that i had bpd. Now things get interesting. The time and effort the psychiatric institution has put in the diagnosis is less than the time and effort i myself put in as far as i can tell. From the very beginning i let them know that i did my research and told them what i knew and how i got the information i showed them my books . It's like they trusted me since the beginning which i very appreciate. Now i don't see what is missing here to form a valid diagnosis. I only missed one symptom which was autistic fantasizing. That symptom that i had didn't come back in my research but i don't think this fact alone undermines the idea of self diagnosis. Of course there are some pitfalls. Some people really want to put a label on themselves so they can avoid taking responsibility for their flaws. I'm sure there are others but i think the advantages are more than disadvantages. Edit2 I no longer believe that self diagnosis should be encouraged. However, i still hold the view that a layperson can come to a proper self diagnosis in psychological issues. An educated guess is not the most feasible. Edit I want to thank everyone for participating. There are a couple things that i learned. First that i should be clear that i was primarily referring to mental disorders not biological for obvious reasons samples, equipment etc. although i still think in this day and age we should educate ourselves as much as possible and have as clear as possible understanding of whatever we think it's wrong with us. Second, there was an emphasis on tunnel vision, self delusion and lack of oversight of other possibilities. Laymen supposedly are prone to these pitfalls which i acknowledged in my original post. I'm not sure whether this is so common as you guys seem to think. When you search for the symptoms that you suffer from, lots and lots of potential diseases come up. I think the case can be made that someone can get lost in all the vast possibilities, not so much for missing out a potential disease. Someone intelligent enough to understand scientific literature with honest intentions is most likely gonna have an accurate self diagnosis. I and all of us have nothing other than anecdotal evidence for and against this notion. Anyway, i stand by my original stance that self diagnosis is valid and necessary.\n","conclusion":"Self Diagnosis is a valid way of determining a disorder and everybody should do it.\n","id":"803340db-1fd7-4190-ad9b-ede4ffd77251"}
{"argument":"Trump's campaign and administration are notoriously leaky meaning that information always gets out to the public and media.\n","conclusion":"The Trump campaign would have known that collusion would be really easy to discover.\n","id":"f8ca8a2c-894c-43d8-bfde-b2d17276898d"}
{"argument":"In recent decades the favourite word which religious leaders use to suggest they're not bigots is a giveaway that that's exactly what many of them are: They claim they \"tolerate\", a word that's open to interpretation either as biased to placate their bigots or unbiased to placate everyone else.\n","conclusion":"Religion stands next to race, gender and sexual preference as a primary source of bigotry, which, even where it results in no specific and\/or deliberate malevolent acts, has still blighted humanity, destroying relationships and potential relationships.\n","id":"14c91bd2-20c5-4a1d-b7a0-816442dd7a1c"}
{"argument":"This is not black and white. Getting drunk and having a one night stand can be a completely empty experience and may enhance your long term loving relationship, thus it should not be revealed. On the other hand, if it the affair is calculated and enjoyed, then one truly does not belong in a loving relationship and should reveal the affair.\n","conclusion":"No general recommendation about the best reaction to cheating can be given as the best course of action depends on the specific context of the individual relationship.\n","id":"26c339e8-910e-4a2c-8b55-b0f8978cecc9"}
{"argument":"I find YouTube AWESOME, but I would like to here why some people think not. YouTube seems like a good way to share video content and entertain yourself with what other people put on the website. What makes people think that this opportunity in technology is so bad. I would like a to know why people don't see it the same way as I do. YouTube is for me a daily dopamine rush and I find it very exciting when my favourite YouTubers puts out new content. So please share your opinion on. YouTube and change my view on this phenomenon that rocked the world so hard that presidents find it needed to take down the webside in for example Turkey.\n","conclusion":"YouTube is great\n","id":"e05cc93b-8a64-4dbe-9cce-ba63c90624f6"}
{"argument":"I think that Jake Paul and the Team 10 drama is representative of a cultural shift from the Obama era to the Trump era. It represents a return to consumerist euphoria now that the 2008 economic crisis is far enough away that people no longer feel the brunt of it. There is still anxiety about jobs but it is about technological unemployment rather than about a bad state of the economy and people no longer care about the 1 as much. Arguably SJW pseudo politics were an early manifestation of this cultural shift but Jake Paul represents a brand new consumeristic celebrity culture that was not present in the pseudo political SJW movement. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Jake Paul is representative of a cultural shift in the Trump era\n","id":"58452cc3-c12b-4bbc-8550-8f4ee361c2aa"}
{"argument":"I'm a Caucasian male that dressed up as lil Wayne for a costume party. The whole night I had to deal with wails and torts from partygoers about black face and how I was racist. Why is portraying my favorite musician offensive? If anything, it should show adoration. Black face performing was always meant to be derogatory and offensive because it perpetuated negative stereotypes.\n","conclusion":"There nothing wrong or insensitive about white people making their skin look darker or blacker for a costume or cosplay.\n","id":"9b2e5e7e-4a5d-4941-ae59-b47b878e2fe1"}
{"argument":"It is crucial for the security of nation-states to at least know identities of who is coming in and out, whatever the policy is for admittance and staying.\n","conclusion":"Strict regulation of national borders is a form of security and protection for nation-states in a globalised world.\n","id":"f89cdc80-4aee-41eb-be86-7c798da1d11b"}
{"argument":"The majority of social media platforms allow users to remain within circles that don't require them to be exposed to other perspectives, limiting balanced collaborative efforts.\n","conclusion":"We can create echo chambers for ourselves and our opinions.\n","id":"7d95f928-1509-4c46-a4ee-aabe886ac52e"}
{"argument":"Many evolutionists use plausibility and consistency with natural selection as the only criterion for advancing an evolutionary explanation for a human behaviour p. 7. This is an extremely low bar for empirical investigation.\n","conclusion":"Evolutionary explanations for social psychology are typically speculative and therefore scientifically unsound.\n","id":"b26a7503-6d32-4a20-8eb5-06fbe3fb4c66"}
{"argument":"This is money that could be better used tackling some of the many pressing social issues facing China, such as environmental damage and struggling social programs.\n","conclusion":"Roughly 10% of China's government spending, contracts, and transactions is estimated to be used as kickbacks and bribes, or simply stolen.\n","id":"3032b0cd-094b-4167-bda4-f375254a48b7"}
{"argument":"Providing for the spiritual, emotional and physical needs of church members and the surrounding community is considered charity work by some people.\n","conclusion":"Organized religion raises happiness and contentment with life for individuals.\n","id":"63859130-2c32-4b0e-b42a-a44c0ff4bb7d"}
{"argument":"If you don't know, free software is software licensed under any license that respects the users freedom to copy, modify, and distribute source code to others in a completely legal way under the same free license. I am refering to free as in freedom not free as in free beer. I believe that all software should be libre because of the following reasons Know exactly what the program does. Promotes innovation because of the ease of which you can obtain and edit a copy of a piece of software. In other words, not having to reinvent the wheel. The user does not have to depend on a proprietor to develop the software. If a user wants a change in the program, they can either ask a more technical person to modify it, or modify it themselves. In most cases, anti features are not present because the programmers are also the users of the program, and usually program only what the users want. If an anti feature is present, development can branch off into a separate group without the anti features. More likely to have security privacy because the users can easily see everything that is going on in the program. If a malicious feature is found, other developers from a second group can easily take it out. Finally, free software promotes programming and design education because a student could find out exactly how a real world program works because of the ease of modification, and ease of access to the source code. One might assume that a computer running on completely free software is either very difficult or impossible. That would be far from the truth. There are several free operating systems which only require burning the .iso to a usb stick which can be easily done by a beginner and loaded on to a computer. The installation process is at the same level or easier than a Windows or MacOS installation. If you want the software at the low level to be free, that can be achieved by using libreboot and a few simple terminal commands on a supported computer a relatively large range actually . If you don't feel like you would be able to do this, there are many people who would either do it for you, or walk you through it. You might also assume that using free software is a huge inconvenience. In most cases, that is not true. Firstly, getting used to GNU Linux is not much different than migrating from one Windows version to another. Yes, I will admit that libre games are lacking, but for the average user, this would not be an issue. For most average users, you could use only programs with a GUI, so being a 1337 bash user is not required. Getting help from someone else for a certain problem is no different than asking for help on a Windows or MacOS machine. Finally, one might assume that making money off of free software is near impossible. That would not be true. Making money can and has been done through donations, merchandise, tech support, or even just distributing the software on a physical device though not very popular anymore . Change my view Edit Thanks for the kind discussion u HereComesMyDingDong\n","conclusion":"All software should be free\/libre\n","id":"1de9051a-a09a-4297-b460-30389d4c7751"}
{"argument":"Disclosures can allow employees to request for laxation of policies against the extended personal use of mobile phones. This would allow them to use mobile applications designed to improve mental health more freely.\n","conclusion":"It also entitles people to 'reasonable accommodations' to help them work like other employees.\n","id":"8075c134-9ea1-4ca0-bcf9-a0661badbe5a"}
{"argument":"Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you I have masturbated in the prone position since I was 11 years old. I discovered by grinding against the couch at my piano teacher's house. Long story . . .anyway, I have heard a lot of talk on internet forums about how this can lead to erectile dysfunction and make it difficult to perform during sex with another, but I think this is false because I can stay hard as rock with no problems. I believe masturbating prone is more stimulating the and the grinding motion can more closely resemble intercourse. If you are in a situation where someone else is in the room or house you can more easily pretend you were just lying down or sleeping should you be caught and it is also cleaner because you can grind into a towel and don't have to clean yourself off afterward which is what happens when you hose yourself down like a super soaker if you use your first while sitting upright. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"Masturbating in the prone position is superior to the \"traditional\" upright, slick fisted method\n","id":"c021a9c7-1830-4303-a7ad-304eea41df5d"}
{"argument":"Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith each saw the plates, handled them and saw the engravings that were on it, \"all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.\" Testimony of the Eight Witnesses\n","conclusion":"Eyewitnesses: There are credible witnesses who personally saw the plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.\n","id":"64c21761-a1e8-401c-b4d4-1014c2c5e45a"}
{"argument":"A single cut to the throat is made rather than the more widespread method of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter. It can take up to 2 minute for an animal to bleed out, causing considerable suffering. If this act wasn't taking place in the name of religion, the offender would be persecuted. There is no imperative for Muslims or Jews to eat meat produced in this manner. There is no reason why they should not simply abstain from eating meat altogether if they do not wish to eat the same meat as the rest of us. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"I think that Halal & Kosher meat is animal cruelty and should be treated as such,\n","id":"59a8c8b1-9c69-4683-a4d3-33f8b80805b6"}
{"argument":"This can result in people opting to play safe by voting no skewing the referendum results.\n","conclusion":"Reducing political decisions to a binary yes or no leads to worse decisions\n","id":"90e3bc1a-d4cf-4837-b66a-e1300efda4df"}
{"argument":"Edit Thank you everyone for the great discussion. I've learned a lot. Although I can't say that my view is completely changed, I can say that I've found quite a few problems with it. This is my fault though, I'm too tired to answer anymore today. Thank you, once again. This subreddit is awesome, I'll probably reply back tomorrow to those who I missed Prove me wrong if you can, for something like this which has been integrated to our culture as humanity for a long time now should have some reason to it. Yet, I fail to see a reason that I can not immediately shoot down without hesitation. Firstly, I believe that there is not much difference in the two genders. There are a few biological differences, but anything other than those are all created due to socio ethical pressure. This pressure leads to deformation of character in individuals and thus leads to the two gender stereotypes. The emotional, always crying, weak female and the fearless nor emotionless, strong, muscly male. Now I'd like to list some real differences between the genders to try and set a standard for this discussion. Males are physically stronger than females Females are more emotional then males and are less stable in terms of controlling emotions Different hormones in each gender shape the thoughts of the individuals to a certain respect. This can be things like love, greed, need for superiority or need for protection or feeling protected and safe . I believe that we should stop this socio ethical pressure on the two genders. This pressure is put on at birth and deforms the character slowly, from the core. In our culture lie many things from marriage to raising a child which are gender specific. One simple thing is that males are supposed to be good at sports. strong and also successful in their jobs to attract females, females are supposed to be pretty and thin. Although I can look at this through a lens of biology and say that it seems quite normal. Pretty in terms of the male, means healthy mate and a healthy host for children. Strong and successful men means that the children are going to be protected from possible attackers and no one will be hungry because the male has enough money. However, we're not animals . We're biologically, but there is an undeniable superiority in terms of self awareness in humans. We shouldn't live by standards put by something like evolution as we are already above it. Humans can shape the world, rather than adapt to it. We don't need to obey the laws other animals do. So, what does this socio ethical pressure actually do? Firstly, it strengthens standardization , which is another topic I am anarchistic about. Secondly, it destroys morale and self confidence. Thirdly, it makes people think that being normal and just like everyone else is necessary for a happy life, rather than being yourself. How does this happen? It happens because people treat different genders well differently. Males are pressured into hiding their emotions. Males are supposed to be robots who work out in the gym, who get a lot of money and are alpha about everything. Why do you think that males are usually the jerks? This is why Females, on the other hand, are pressured into letting go of their selves. They're supposed to be thin, supposed to be secretive about stupid stuff, supposed to be hard to get and supposed to be hard working. Why do they have to even be shy about simple things like their period? That is a biological process, nothing abnormal. If you have a period, tell me and I'll understand that. Anyone who doesn't has already been brainwashed into the point of oblivion. I am not supporting that physical beauty is unimportant. It is actually very important. A species sense of beauty grows around the concept of health. The healthier someone is, the more beautiful they are well that's how it was before. Now, it has grown insane. Television shows and posters decide what beauty is. I usually find those 10 10 girls disgusting most of the time. They don't look healthy, they look like someone painted them with a brush to hide every damn humane factor about their body. Media is generating a lot of this problem, but only because we let it. So, why did I give the example of toilets? Because I think that is one of those things that are a problem. It might seem very normal that there are different toilets for the both genders, but thing again. When you look outside the box, you'll see that it is quite stupid. What do you do in the toilet? Shit, urinate, clean yourself up and tidy your hair clothes. Why does there have to be two different things for this? There doesn't have to be dammit. Sexual abuse is another problem of society, not something that originates from genders. This is something unrelated to it. This is basically discrimination at it's finest. I don't even understand some of the clothing sections in some stores. There is a lot of clothes that are labeled for one gender which would fit perfectly on both. However, just because of the label people are scared to get near them. It is not that the clothing itself is bad, it is that the label being of a different gender is somehow scary . This discrimination of gender only leads to arrogance and ignorance in humanity. It leads to nothing good. There are a lot of other problems with society, but if we can't even treat biological differences like race and gender I fear all hope is lost. Edit I've digressed a lot and tried to wrap it all up in the end. There is just so much to this topic that it's impossible to fit it in an organized text. Sorry for that S\n","conclusion":"There shouldn't be a separation of genders in society, especially in basic things like different toilets, without which a great step would be taken for the end of gender discrimination.\n","id":"e31618e3-7a77-4657-aa45-a89e0454c830"}
{"argument":"I know that a lot of psychology related s are submitted but I feel like my views are significantly different from those submissions. The first view that I want changed is that psychology doesn't qualify as science. The definition of science I'm going to be using comes from an article from Los Angeles Times. It can be summarized with this quote Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. This definition leads to my second view that I would liked changed. I feel like the definition of what mental disorder means is pretty arbitrary. I will substantiate this claim by saying that they seemingly change the definition for no reason whatsoever in each progressive dsm. Rather, it would seem as if they try to change the definition to respond to criticism. This article summarizes my views pretty well I don't know if PsychologyToday is a good source or not but it serves as a representation of my views.\n","conclusion":"Psychology doesn't qualify as science\n","id":"3d8a1a5d-e25d-4f77-a0e8-029d0a571d1d"}
{"argument":"In the contemporary cultural West, like this very subreddit, open mindedness is unthinkingly considered a virtue with the exception of the few who might say, But don't be so open minded your brain falls out Of course most of us pride ourselves on our reasonableness, and of course we can objectively weigh the facts and reconsider our conclusions\u2014perhaps a conceit. I am not talking about people behaving closed mindedly while nevertheless believing they are being open minded I am talking about narrow mindedness as such. In psychology the Big Five personality dimension of openness to experience is a close approximation of open mindedness and related concepts. In many cases, it is an advantage however, in some professions, like sales, police work, and some service jobs, it has been found to be negatively correlated to performance see p. 19, An Investigation of the Reliability and Validity of the Caperton Forgiveness Style Inventory . This shows an advantage on the job. What about socially dating, getting on with neighbors and coworkers, etc.? If a person is among fairly closed minded people and begins to diverge widely in thoughts, attitudes, and behavior, they may not be accepted by the community. There are many cases throughout history and parts of the world today where expressing heresy or an impolitic opinion can lead to death. From this, I feel that open mindedness is a luxury of our age and one with a real cost. Turned away from the hard physical labor of our ancestors everyone's , we have more time to think and question. We have the time and safety to peruse blogs, news, history, etc. and to openly debate our ideas we have no crops that will wither in the field without our toil. At the extreme, we may still face bullying or social isolation, but we will not be executed for heresy or treason. Closed mindedness then evolutionarily would have had survival value. Indeed, it would probably be better to use a word with more positive connotations for this tradition, rootedness, clarity, pragmatism, common sense. In the business of finding of one's daily bread, the tried and true works well enough for most people at most times, and the rest of their effort can be devoted to augmenting their gains for their family instead of questioning every little thing. Our culture glamorizes the successful outlier the brilliant inventor, the ingenious scientist, the eclectic artist, the courageous reformer. We have forgotten the everyday triumphs of the rest. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"Closed-Mindedness Is Underrated.\n","id":"b31db349-9e8c-48e2-b47f-e40a15c1780a"}
{"argument":"We absolutely need to remember what happened - but these things belong in Museums, not in the public. Also, we should absolutely not be HONORING traitors, who fought for the right to own people.\n","conclusion":"The Confederates committed treason against the United States. The United States should not continue to honor or memorialize them.\n","id":"965f35c9-9f6b-4ea7-87e9-880e390471fa"}
{"argument":"This is a very specific post and I'll only summarize it so for those that might not be versed in the details, a hop through Google on this issue might be in order Short version Jordan Peterson was up until recently, when he was granted viral fame for his views an unknown college professor in Canada whose life's work was around Totalitarianism how does it start, what starts it, who is vulnerable, that kind of thing. Recently, Canada changed existing laws to reflect current culture by adding the word gender identity and expression in 4 places in an existing law around human rights. Peterson's and others' position is that this law could be interpreted in extreme cases to include the use of preferred pronouns and the failure to do so intentionally as discrimination , based on the activism around the law With the logical end of that law being that if you fail to comply, the full power of the state, including violence, is behind the law and can be wielded against you thank you to alert reader who brought this to my attention and helped me clarify this part Jordan Peterson was aghast, to put it lightly. He made a couple emotionally charged YouTube videos explaining in short that this law constituted compelled speech and violated the right to Free Speech and was the first small step to a Totalitarian state. His videos went viral and he is now a major figure in a controversial issue. My BF is what I affectionately call a Jordan Peterson superfan and introduced me to this issue and we have had several lengthy, impassioned debates but are unable to get past a stalemate. My position is this 1 Peterson sees Totalitarianism everywhere because he's uniquely calibrated to do so. He's a hammer who sees nails everywhere. This law is not a genuine threat to the free state or free speech. He is primed to see a wild eyed communist behind every woodpile, as the saying goes. 2 The law does not carry the same weight as laws intended to protect life, body, and property such as No murder or no theft and will not be enforced as such. Worries about people who deliberately refuse to correctly pronoun people being frog marched to the gulags and executed, and this law ushering an era of scary, restrictive, and totalitarian laws are unfounded. There are hundreds of token laws on the books all over the world that are never enforced. They are in place to ensure equality or civil order, not on penalty of death. 3 Like all laws, this law is subject to interpretation and enforcement by learned people cops, lawyers, judges in a narrow way. The law is designed like all laws to force accusers or victims to go through a lengthy process of accusation, proof, and decision before perps are thrown in jail or fined. Single citizens or roving bands of enforcers are very unlikely and that's extrajudicial justice and is a different issue entirely. 4 Some who have argued have compared the protected class a minority with, for example, the Nazi party in Pre WWII Germany. The analogy goes like this a minority identifies, correctly or not, a oppressive party that has power. The minority agitates for laws to protect them from this oppressive party. The laws are enacted, and the oppressive party winds up being victimized to the point of death. In this case, the analogy runs that the cisgendered people or anyone who doesn't want to follow the Compelled Speech law is like the Jewish people in this analogy a supposedly oppressive party that is actually being victimized by a minority. I feel this analogy is very, very flawed. In the first place Transpeople and other gender queer or fluid people are not a homogenous group and are actually a legitimately vulnerable minority. They do not have any actual leverage or power unlike the Nazi party, who had legitimate political power, support of the people, and an army behind them. Transpeople et al are not an organized political party akin to National Socialists or Marxists. They have no leader, no political platform, and no agenda other than equal rights and privileges as all of humanity. German people circa the 30's had suffered tremendous blows to their nation state and were desperate and vulnerable. Citizens of the US and Canada are not in the same state and are not as vulnerable to Socialist and Totalitarian propaganda. Furthermore, we have the example of history to guide us and warn us about these terrible acts and prevent them from occurring again. Finally, comparing a situation to the worst historical disasters and evils is inherently cheapening your argument. It may very well BE that this law actually IS a genuine step towards totalitarianism. But anyone who screams Nazi or Stalin over human rights issues is suspect to me, to say the least. side note, I'm cisgendered. My BF has made many arguments to the contrary, the strongest of which I feel is Many dictatorships start small and with a single law but, again, who is the dictator here? There's no politician who Transpeople voted into office and is now running their agenda The only thing that Peterson has said that sparked an agreement from me is this There is an inherent contradiction in the trans position. Either it's biological ie, the brain perceives that it is another gender than the body and trans people have no choice in the matter, and because science only recognizes two genders at this time, either he or she is the correct pronoun, OR it is a choice ie, please call me xie and xey and in that case is not a protected status and does not need laws around it. This did give me pause and I am still thinking this over. Well, I welcome your civil remarks to change my view Interesting update Thanks to the commenters who explained Canadian law in more detail and pointed out that the law as it exists does not actually call out misgendering or proper pronoun use as a specific type of discrimination although from what I understand, the law could be interpreted that way, but it is not written that way , I changed my BF's view He says he'll have to research this law in more detail, but if the law does not specifically call out misgendering or pronoun use and or there is no precedent for a lawsuit, fines, or jail time resulting from a improper pronoun use case, then the law clearly isn't Compelled Speech , it's merely a from the point of a libertarian, which he is standard government over reach and not the first baby step towards Totalitarianism. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Jordan Peterson is over-reacting to the recent Canadian \"proper pronouns\" law by likening it to totalitarianism, and therefore actually weakening his position.\n","id":"e50736b7-4566-4a83-8b3d-9901336a0a5e"}
{"argument":"Churches generally allow their followers to feel more at peace with their place in the universe through some kind of order.\n","conclusion":"Organized religion raises happiness and contentment with life for individuals.\n","id":"3b56a5f9-bbd0-4d8a-8b69-83b1feb44679"}
{"argument":"Mold is so gross. I hate the way it looks, I hate even more the way it smells, and I hate how quickly it can destroy or render unusable a home, an object, etc. etc. I hate mold. Mold is the most resilient soul crushing life form their is. I've seen it in solid, spore form, and I've seen and inhaled mold dust, which is a silent killer and a fickle beast it'll seep into every corner of your home and spread its seed throughout your pantry. It will outlast everything. It has successfully prevented me from ever enjoying yogurt again and it makes me analyze my sandwiches thrice over before I determine it safe to take a bite. I remember every encounter I've ever had with mold, and I'd like to punch it in the face. But even if I could, it would start growing on my first and eventually consume me. I hate mold. Please tell me why I should give it another chance. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"I think that mold is the most disgusting life form on the entire planet\n","id":"dfffff4e-22f9-468b-93e9-2a37ff7adf47"}
{"argument":"To be clear, I'm not interested in debating any specific application of a death penalty, what crimes it should or should not apply to, how much it costs, or how we can deal with the problem of innocent people found guilty of capital crimes. Let's assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that the particular case in question showed incontrovertible evidence condemning the accused say they murdered 50 people with a machine gun in front of a crowded stadium filled with people, caught on camera, etc. I believe that in these instances, capital punishment is absolutely justified and moral. I'm specifically looking for counter arguments holding that capital punishment is immoral in and of itself. Edit a word Edit 2 To address a point that seems to be coming up a lot I really do mean that what I'm talking about is the concept of a death penalty, not any specific application. I believe that the death of a person in certain circumstances is justifiable and moral in and of itself . To put it another way, I believe in the concept of justified vengeance. Please limit your arguments to this concept, I'm not interested in debating the merits of the death penalty as it is in America in 2016. That has been talked about to death . Spoiler I'm against it, in nearly every application. Edit 3 Lots of good responses while I was sleeping, I'll try to address them later today. Thanks for your patience\n","conclusion":"The death penalty, as a concept, is moral\n","id":"51e20da2-d064-43cd-b9f3-3078522bcd88"}
{"argument":"If you could read my entire post before responding that would be awesome. As per the title, I am considering the thought of exploring a significant other in my life via another 3rd world country. Here are some of the reasons why 1 I am nearly 40 and though I have had many relationships and loves in my life I have not felt a passion for life in a long time and I believe that someone from a place where their life is about survival and living day to day may complement the cushy life that I have, and perhaps show teach me a lot as well. 2 In a selfish way I also think that I would be trying to make the world a better place by increasing the value of someone else's lifeline by bringing them to a 'first world country' that has more opportunities for them and their families to explore. This is about all I can think of right now. Thoughts? Thanks. Edit Sorry for the misspelled title, I wrote this on my phone. Edit 2 I've read all the replies. Thank you very much for the responses. Most make a lot of sense and I agree that I need to take a look at my life and my lack of enthusiasm passion and address that first before looking to fill that void with a potential risky external unknown.\n","conclusion":"Seious I'm debating on a mail order bridr\n","id":"3bacf52b-3d4f-4379-9abc-0507ce765fdb"}
{"argument":"Studies have shown that opening the border would increase Armenia's exports to Turkey by a factor of 14 pg.12.\n","conclusion":"Armenia would benefit substantially from the opening of this border.\n","id":"feefd877-a3e4-4e76-b5a0-e2df3a1c448f"}
{"argument":"Some believe that the real motive of the ban was ridding Catalonia of the Castilian culture epitomized by bullfighting, using animal rights as a new weapon in a nationalist battle.\n","conclusion":"Catalonia's ban on bullfighting is less about repudiation of bullfighting than it is about asserting regional control.\n","id":"f24c4009-616e-44e3-9919-93f10932a626"}
{"argument":"If you have thesis A and B, it's not enough to say that thesis A has some issues therefore we should apply thesis B. You have to point out that thesis B is actually better than thesis B. If you have two options how to have trip to London option A and B it's not enough to claim that if trips A cost 50 dollars it's too much therefore we should choose trip B. It may very well be the case that B costs even more, so what we actually have to prove is whether thesis B is better than thesis A.\n","conclusion":"This, although it doesn't seem like it, is actually red herring Drugs being dangerous doesn't imply that drugs should be banned. For drugs to be banned it'd require that banning drug would actually improve the situation. But banning them without knowing whether situation will be improved or not just because they're dangerous is illogical.\n","id":"b9eecda7-2227-4823-9815-7bdd4f8a2fae"}
{"argument":"Smarter, better informed people tend to make smarter decisions, therefore decisions made by smarter, better informed people should tend to be smarter. Demagoguery and bad information form a buffer between educated decision making and the people at large that can gradually eroded. I'm aware that intellectuals' liberal political decisions haven't always turned out well, but, if liberals as a whole can be blamed for Leninism and Stalinism, then conservatives as a whole can be blamed for fascism and theocracy. Even if that's the case, one side may still be preferable, if not perfect. I'm looking for alternative explanations of these effects, not a discussion on the merit of political ideologies that would be way too broad. EDIT This post convinced me that the correlation with education doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best idea, but I still don't see a better explanation for the tendency to move leftward.\n","conclusion":"I think that the correlation between education and liberal politics, as well as the tendency of society to move leftward, is evidence that liberal politics have more merit than the alternatives.\n","id":"e902192b-fa6b-4280-86ec-416092366d03"}
{"argument":"We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than ever \u2013 a development which preceded widespread sex education and which cannot therefore be blamed on it. Keeping children in ignorance about sex will not stop them having sex, but it will mean that the sex they have is riskier, resulting in unplanned pregnancies, abortions and STD infections. Condoms, while not perfect, are widely recommended for the prevention of STDs. They have been shown to be effective in reducing infection rates in both men and women. So it is important to make the idea of safe sex more attractive to these teenagers to prevent STDs and for teens to get pregnant. This is why at schools teenagers should be told and encouraged to use condoms if they are going to have sex.\n","conclusion":"We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than ...\n","id":"599330aa-95c0-489f-8212-18ef2268024c"}
{"argument":"Sport is primarily for the benefit of spectators: it is only enjoyable to watch if the competition is fair.\n","conclusion":"It is important for sporting bodies to level the playing field among athletes.\n","id":"c9d83cee-7e4b-4ad1-b1ec-75611c098887"}
{"argument":"The same could be said of women's legs or shoulders, or the rest of their breasts for that matter. If those body parts do not cause undue burdens to harassment law, then neither should nipples.\n","conclusion":"If someone groped someone else's face, arms, or legs, that would be harassment. Even if they were exposed, breasts should be no different.\n","id":"c3d547ae-88db-47f6-b1ac-3567ea27916c"}
{"argument":"The prefrontal and anterior temporal cortices for dogs and humans have evolved from a common ancestor. According to a study, they were similarly activated by emotional attributions.\n","conclusion":"Dogs possess the neurological factors that are linked to emotions.\n","id":"6cb33961-4741-4da4-9d77-63affddd9e19"}
{"argument":"Changes in daily thinking or decision-making can be immediately deployed via software to all machines in the fleet rather than retraining or reeducating human soldiers.\n","conclusion":"Addressing the deficiencies of an identical fleet of AKMs is more cost-effective than addressing individual deficiencies in groups of human soldiers.\n","id":"7b4e7d0e-b13a-44b9-bebe-9f17ef0abad7"}
{"argument":"Monarchies may limit speech, but so does every other form of government, so criticizing monarchy on these grounds is irrelevant.\n","conclusion":"\"Free speech\" is impossible in principle thus the fact that monarchies limit speech is irrelevant to the larger question.\n","id":"ebc9f7ef-2652-4f1d-a300-d337a8c70638"}
{"argument":"A meta-analysis of 150 studies of humanistic education showed \"no consistent effect on math, reading, or other types of academic achievement.\" If the values of humanistic education do not prepare students for academic and career success, they should be re-evaluated.\n","conclusion":"Schools should not implement the values and methods of humanistic education.\n","id":"536083b8-57ee-4388-9860-bf68a9f14799"}
{"argument":"The International Court of Justice has recently demanded that Myanmar protects the Rohingya population and ordered that they report back regularly on the steps they have taken to do so.\n","conclusion":"Putting pressure on Myanmar to look after these refugees properly would also solve this issue.\n","id":"d62970a5-4a8e-44ae-9a1e-d7d7066318a0"}
{"argument":"Throughout history there have been many catchy, memorable even moving songs released by artists ne'er to be heard from again. Most of these songs, known affectionately as one hit wonders, fade in their fashion from pop culture and memory. But some have the power to transcend mere temporary, rocket high fame. Rockwell's Somebody's Watching Me is the paragon of such jewels, achieving a timelessness so rarely awarded one hit wonders. Years, even decades later, to hear the song brings to mind a time gone by in this case the oh so kooky 80's . The truly great one hit wonders stay relevant. It's like Rockwell gazed into some apocalyptic crystal ball to a time when the masses are oppressed by a surveillance state. Is he just paranoid, or is somebody watching him??? And above the many layers of depth and intrigue, this is just a damn good song. Super funky. Michael Jackson sings backup on the track, for cryin' out lout Yet I know there is much to be experienced in the lost world of one hit wonderdom and light of this great truth do I challenge thee  EDIT I define one hit wonder as a song with tremendous popularity and lasting appeal from an artist who didn't contribute anything else of cultural significance musically or otherwise . So, for example, Jimi Hendrix wouldn't count although he only had one top 40 hit.\n","conclusion":"Rockwell's \"Somebody's Watching Me\" is the best one-hit-wonder of all time.\n","id":"e5c82b12-f09f-4308-a2d2-06580066b800"}
{"argument":"This is inspired by this youtube video From Wikipedia gt analytic proposition a proposition whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept gt synthetic proposition a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept but related I haven't read the Critique of Pure Reason myself, and I am unsure how exactly it is worded in it, but this definition from Wikipedia obviously leaves some question open What's the definition of concept , contained in , related ? The distinction is supposed to be easier to understand by looking at examples. Just as a side note If you need examples to define the idea that you are talking about, it is most likely not well defined. Let's just assume the distinction is well defined and look at an example that is listed on Wikipedia gt All bachelors are unmarried. According to Kant this is supposed be an analytic proposition, since the predicate unmarried is contained in the subject bachelor . Now, regarding the meaning of the term contained in , it cannot depend on any linguistic variances, as we have to replace bachelor with unmarried man , but the proposition stays analytic. An example for an a priori synthetic proposition from the video is gt The interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. And the reasoning goes along these lines The concept of the interior angles of a triangle doesn't seem to implicitly contain the concept of exactly 180 degrees, at least not in the same simple sense that the concept of triangle contains the concept of three sides. This is where my problem with the distinction lies. Let's define a triangle as a polygon made up of three straight lines in Euclidean space . Then the concept of 180 degrees is apparently according to the video not contained in the concept of the interior angles of a triangle. Let's just assume this is right. Let's define a triangle as a polygon made up of any number of straight lines having a sum of interior angles of 180 degrees . Then the concept 180 degrees is clearly contained in the concept of the interior angles of a triangle. The first and second definition of triangle are exactly the same. A polygon is made up of three straight lines iff it is made up of any number of straight lines having a sum of interior angles of 180 degrees. We know that linguistic variances are irrelevant in the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions, and we know that the only thing that matters is the concept that is referred to by the subject and the predicate. Both definitions clearly refer to the same concept as there is nothing that would satisfy just one of the definitions, but not the other . But one proposition is analytic, and the other proposition is synthetic. Therefore the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions as defined on Wikipedia is inconsistent. Counterargument 1 The difference is that the first definition of a triangle is the natural one the less complex one, therefore it is the one that counts. Rebuttal The concept of natural is clearly not well defined, and the concept of complexity is either not well defined or completely arbitrary. In fact, there's nothing that makes one definition of a concept superior to another definition, if both are correct and consistent. Counterargument 2 Linguistic variances are relevant when determining whether a proposition is analytic or synthetic. Rebuttal The step of replacing bachelor with unmarried man in the example of an analytic proposition is evidently not relevant. Assuming that this counterargument is valid, the step of replacing triangle with the second definition I gave above is relevant, as it changes the proposition from analytic to synthetic. Drawing a line between relevant and irrelevant linguistic variances is 1. arbitrary and 2. not even talked about in the initial definition of the distinction. Counterargument 3 The proposition from the video is analytical, and the authors of the video are misinterpreting Kant. Rebuttal Kant regarded mathematical truths as synthetic truths. Even assuming that the triangle example is somehow simple enough to be analytic, the statement 5 7 12 in Kant's opinion is synthetic. I claim that one can apply a series of linguistic steps to the proposition, i.e. by replacing objects with their definitions similar to replacing bachelor with unmarried man , and reach an analytical proposition. Therefore, assuming that linguistic variances are irrelevant to the analytic synthetic distinction, 5 7 12 should also be an analytic proposition. Change my view\n","conclusion":"Kant's synthetic-analytic distinction is inconsistent.\n","id":"907541bc-0bc7-4ebe-8d7e-9db27ea25c73"}
{"argument":"It's a category mistake to equate expressions of God's omni-ness with God's actual nature. If I call my wife \"The most beautiful woman in the world\". I'm not making a claim about objective fact. I'm expressing something about our relationship. This is how biblical claims of God's almighty power work also. They express the feelings of the author.\n","conclusion":"While the conception of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent may be 'traditional' in philosophical discussions of monotheism, it is not necessarily supported by the actual scriptural traditions of Abrahamic monotheism.\n","id":"055c8876-329a-4752-8467-7dad7945ab42"}
{"argument":"I've always believed that people should be paid for the job they perform. So it seems fit that the President of the United States, Vice President, and Members of Congress should be paid accordingly. To the degree that I wouldn't think it'd be unreasonable to pay the President a billion dollars over the course of a Presidency. To go along with this though would be VERY strict anti corruption laws. Where if a politician were caught in a corruption scandal, jail time would be commonplace. It just seems like anyone getting into politics, if they want to make a good living, it will have to be made through means other than what they'll be paid for actually performing their job. If the incentive structure were set up such that holding the position itself could more than support you your family for awhile to come, rather than having to use your newly attained power to make the money through other means. I think that way people would be more likely to actually try to focus on improving things for its people, rather than be beholden to who is actually paying them the most donating to their campaign. Just something I've always had in the back of my head, and wouldn't mind hearing the other side on. I was going to add also strict laws about campaign finance, but that is a whole different discussion I'd prefer to exlcude, and I'd say could be considered under the extremely strict corruption laws.\n","conclusion":"The President of the United States, Vice President and Members of Congress should be paid A LOT more.\n","id":"9a8e921c-4082-4bb1-8cce-db05302bd885"}
{"argument":"Many of the important nutrients found in animals are often not found in plants. And when they are, they are not in the same quantities, and then we need to grow more of them defeating the purpose of planting on the basis that it consumes less resources than animals. And even when we can, it's not metabolically the same as the one we get from animals, which is better suited for our Gastro-Enteric apparatus, see how B12 is less bio-aviable from \"alternative sourches\" and it is discouraged\n","conclusion":"Animals then convert this indigestible food to useful nutrient that can fertilize food crops.\n","id":"e73888b8-e917-44bc-b6ec-557f12ca35f8"}
{"argument":"We should be a part of the resistance to slavery in this small but significant way.\n","conclusion":"Option \"Three\": Fight to the death and kill at least one of the British.\n","id":"89930a3e-baa4-453e-8b1d-23b34d475526"}
{"argument":"The livestock industry relies heavily on grains and oilseeds. The growing world population can not be fed if we keep using land for the production of feed for animals. tandfonline.com\n","conclusion":"A lot of the world's crops are currently used for animal feed, rather than human consumption.\n","id":"0252a78d-864f-4e0d-b8f5-41ee246ea960"}
{"argument":"America looks less racially discriminatory to white Americans. Compared to Black Americans, a much lower share of them beliefs that Black Americans are treated worse in public life, for example by the police, courts, schools and in restaurants.\n","conclusion":"White Americans have the privilege of generally seeing America in a more positive light.\n","id":"908711b0-96ee-4fa5-8769-8dfb4a49edf3"}
{"argument":"FBI Investigations are extreme vetting and Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI over 6 times. The Committee did its job to Advise and Consent to the wishes of the Executive Branch after reviewing both the 6 FBI background checks and his record. Clearly political stall tactics from Democratic Committee members.\n","conclusion":"This is a delay tactic by the Democrats to push his hearing past the midterm elections.\n","id":"344f120c-3162-4481-8b7c-cc3904616ecc"}
{"argument":"The focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment.\n","conclusion":"The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state.\n","id":"bdaa3b35-9352-4407-b59f-fcea3386bb1a"}
{"argument":"Brexit united supporters of the Conservative Party 58% Labour 37%, the Greens 25%, the Liberal Democrats 36% and the SNP 36% \u2013 parties which hardly ever see eye to eye in everyday politics.\n","conclusion":"Referendums provide a way of overcoming political and partisan divides by letting people decide based on issues rather than party allegiance.\n","id":"8bc7f3c4-5ed0-428a-916a-bfa58fd3233f"}
{"argument":"Anecdotal evidence is inherently unreliable as it suffers from Confirmation Bias Cognitive Bias and selective Cherry Picking potentially for one's own direct benefit. Thus extraordinary claims such as many theistic claims require evidence beyond anecdotal accounts if they are to be regarded as true.\n","conclusion":"Claims of divine inspiration from gods, demons or other alleged supernatural sources without empirical evidence are anecdotal at best and of questionable veracity.\n","id":"7cc0a560-edd1-4f19-9837-ebd7663cb0b0"}
{"argument":"Accepting traditional notions of pizza is important. You cannot just put anything on a pizza and call it pizza. Pineapple pizza began an unstoppable force of evil in that it allowed all types of random ingredients to be thrown onto pizza, and proclaimed a new \"pizza\" when in reality, the \"creation\" is just an unfolded burrito.\n","conclusion":"Pineapple on pizza is an insult to the Italian origins of pizza.\n","id":"1ad35f5e-73a0-4362-a511-3c1504436acb"}
{"argument":"I'm a white college student that lives in an area of Philadelphia that is being gentrified by the college that I attend. Apartment prices have been rising, new buildings are going up, and the variation in businesses is rapidly increasing. Soon the neighborhood may even get a grocery store that's not a 7 11 or a bodega. It's become the hot button topic on campus to attack the university for pushing out people that have lived in the area for decades, but I struggle to see the justice in it. I remember growing up in Hamtramck, Michigan, when christian and muslim arabs seriously hope that's the right term began to move into my predominately white catholic neighborhood. There was a big uproar about these poorer immigrants ruining the neighborhood, but that's wrong and xenophobic. However, Spike Lee raging against a different group of people moving into his homogenous neighborhood is met with acceptance. I can respect that racism still exists, and that being born poor and black in the inner city is very hard to overcome. However, I don't see separating neighborhoods along racial or economic lines any help to anyone. Areas of the city, such as Germantown, that are not undergoing gentrification appear to be worse off in that they are further separated by local resources and services. Finally, how would gentrification cease to exist? If there's a housing shortage and I'm a contractor building apartment buildings, I'm not going to build an apartment in the center of the city on a high priced lot so that some college kids can pay me 750 a month in rent and I can make no money. I'm going to buy a lower priced lot right off the main city, knock down the decaying building sitting on top of it, and build the apartment there. Will the city subsidize keeping neighborhoods homogenized? I just don't see it as preventable due to our free market. Anyway, please  and try not to be too hostile towards me. I'm here to learn, not here to offend anyone. TL DR I like that a grocery store is popping up in my neighborhood because it's running the local check casher out of his lot.\n","conclusion":"Gentrification is not a negative event and people should not be attacked for supporting it,\n","id":"062a8d65-54b3-490c-ab31-db39b1ad1513"}
{"argument":"I understand that there is no 'official' language of the United States but when virtually everyone in the country speaks it, it might as well be. It is in the spirit of communication that our country have a common language as in areas such as the Southwest that have a high Latino population, this can be a serious problem . This issue is almost always debated with claims of intolerance, racism, ignorance, etc. but that all seems like it's just opposers of this view trying to diminish the value of other peoples' opinions, like Check your privilege among Tumblr SJWs. I would really like to see a convincing argument against my view besides just you're racist, fuck you . Thank you.\n","conclusion":"I find it totally logical that foreigners should be expected to learn English in the US.\n","id":"5447067e-2c9c-4e5f-9b67-faec4a5cd670"}
{"argument":"As a believer of any religion, you have to believe that you are right while all the contradicting religions are wrong. There is no evidence to support such statements, as the evidence for most religions is of similar value, individual experiences and old man-written texts.\n","conclusion":"There is no consistency between religious texts, different sects and anecdotal experiences.\n","id":"4fd95bc6-3a4f-42ca-83e7-672a37fcd784"}
{"argument":"We wouldn't kill a dog that had a happy childhood at two years of age just because that happiness ought to suffice for a lifetime. We instead try to maximize the amount of happy years our pets can spend on this planet. We don't do this with livestock, we set an arbitrary limit on how much happiness they deserve so that it fits our needs eating them.\n","conclusion":"We are in no position to decide whether an animal's life has been \"good enough already\" for it to be killed as we can't measure happiness. This highly subjective criteria of happiness is not sufficient for deciding when to end an animal's life until we have a better understanding of how and what animals feel.\n","id":"a0f816eb-48a7-4235-b86e-e608457b7ac1"}
{"argument":"In December 2016 after Boeing's CEO made an argument in favor of trade agreements, Trump fired off a series of tweets about canceling plans to use the company for the new Air Force One series of planes. As a result, the company's stock price fell by 1%.\n","conclusion":"Since being elected, Trump has continually taken aim at companies that have criticized him, using his Twitter account to tank their stock prices This can prove to be a massive financial setback for companies.\n","id":"f20b76e1-6c64-470c-a804-44d756bef46e"}
{"argument":"Most of the opposition's material covered the emerging countries and why they should be included in PM. Their proposal of mere expansion the PM is useless and does not solve the global inaction problems. On the other hand, voting is a good mechanism for mobilizing the states from different regions and empowering them to have a larger say on the international arena. Our extension will analyze the issue from developing countries' perspective and show why our plan benefits them more. First, we have to understand that emerging world is varied in itself, and merely picking some countries that seem powerful and legitimate enough and then giving them PM is a failed strategy that will necessarily lead to tensions similar to those we already have between permanent and non-permanent memebers. For example, it is reasonable to assume that Pakistan won't be content if India is elected as PM in UNSC, further destabilising this region and hampering the global security achievements. In contrast, gathering mandate through votes will be seen much more legitimate among developing countries themselves. That is how democratic system works: if bad decisions are made, voters won't vote next time.\n","conclusion":"It will lead to fair regional representation, as well as make it more legitimate and flexible\n","id":"141963a4-d893-44d6-87fc-00f8a91b9a60"}
{"argument":"In the most trite and pedantic of definitions things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. With the advent of the Internet and p2p file sharing, etc. the people have decided how much they want to pay for music TV movies not a lot. Some services like iTunes Music, Spotify, Hulu, Netflix and the like, have been better at adapting by allowing unlimited music TV movie downloads for a set monthly fee. In my mind, this is the future our current technology has allowed. Furthermore, we have seen over the past half a century, music d evolve from an art form or vehicle of expression into pure business. Marketing, looks, and mass appeal are the driving forces of the medium and not content and creativity as it once was. If the music TV film industry becomes less profitable, you will see fewer and fewer business minded people pursuing them as careers allowing more and more artists to expand creatively. In short, I think the illegal downloading and sharing of music TV movies will revitalize the entertainment industry and improve the quality of their products. .\n","conclusion":"The sharing and illegally downloading of music, television, and movies is a net good and the market balancing itself.\n","id":"f91fbe29-21f3-4a62-805e-f9d44e0e5a22"}
{"argument":"When politically motivated interest groups commission polls they are often not intended as a guide for voters to help them make correct political decisions, but are for social and political commentators to sell news They are now being gamed by politicians to influence elections.\n","conclusion":"Polls are easily abuseable, and are used to purposefully give false information in a package which many people will believe.\n","id":"0d3d5f31-354b-4cb7-a1ad-586ebc9cf846"}
{"argument":"Criminal rehabilitation can be administered as a form of therapy, as it is in Norway and elsewhere. Therapy is not in itself a punishment, and even when it's court-ordered and enforced, that doesn't have to make it unpleasant.\n","conclusion":"Prison is not a poor setting for all types of rehabilitation. Gaining marketable skills, practising positive behaviours, can be conducted well in a prison context.\n","id":"b70b5f32-134e-4f28-8178-b7a031bbc357"}
{"argument":"My doctor recommended me to get a procedure and I stupidly did not ask the cost to my insurance. The doctor did not inform me of it until I walked out of the surgery room and hit me with a bill of ~ 2000 suggesting that I would be reimbursed, up until the fact that they had my payment in hand . After consulting with a lawyer, I can't claim that I didn't have informed consent because that doesn't extend to the cost of the procedure. I feel that this practice is shady if legal and recording future interactions with doctors will make them think twice about unethical practices. I don't want to have to record every doctor visit due to the hassle and potential lack of trust, but I think it's worth it if it leads to the doctor trying to recommend expensive treatments I don't need and misrepresenting the cost to me. I would rather have my doctor be more cautious than to be hit with a bill I cannot afford. my jurisdiction only requires one party consent to record, but in CA and FL you would have to get permission from the other party to record . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Patients should record interactions with their doctors to ensure accountability and legal leverage.\n","id":"92d8d228-0147-4c41-9401-f9fedd58fe33"}
{"argument":"Now that I have your attention with a click bait y title, I dislike the alignment system. I think that the way that alignment has been handled up until 5th Edition, with penalties for acting out of alignment and players ruining the experiences of others due to their alignment saying so cough paladins cough RANT INCOMING For example, I was once penalized by my DM for acting out of alignment. I was playing a Lawful Good cleric of the Tempest Domain, and I played my character as I will save the innocent by destroying evil. We had a LG paladin in the party who was primarily a shields 'n' heals character and played his character as I will protect the innocent from evil. At one point, we killed a local lord who attacked us first who was utilizing an artifact with dark power. Our DM got pissed off at us because, apparently, he was using the artifact for a good purpose and said item was killing him. Everyone was given a level up except for me, since I had acted out of alignment and needed to pay penance to my god for my sin. I got into a huge argument with the DM about the definition of Lawful Good and his was the old school stick in the mud rules follower and I decided to leave and never look back. I know people are gonna say that the DM was right and that I was wrong to stick up for myself but whatever. Okay, rant over. TL DR I think that alignment is best relegated as a guideline for roleplay, not an absolute for how to roleplay. At best, alignment can be a good guideline especially for newer players for roleplaying. At worst, alignment is a roleplaying straightjacket.\n","conclusion":"D&D Alignment is bad for RP\n","id":"205c630d-3c37-4569-ab1a-069fea21b75c"}
{"argument":"The chronological order of the 29 kings from 10 nations who are mentioned in the Bible has been proven to be correct by archaeologists.\n","conclusion":"Historical sources have validated the existence of major figures mentioned in the Bible.\n","id":"f7091a73-f13e-478f-9a00-d05ec4d36fed"}
{"argument":"In the music industry the \"Parental Advisory warning label has been established to protect children and adolescents from strong language.\n","conclusion":"Media containing violence, sex and profanity is often restricted to certain age groups.\n","id":"3f5db104-9257-497b-bbfd-00aa77a15465"}
{"argument":"By traditional dating, I define that as getting to know people from everyday situations such as classes activities etc, asking attractive ones to go out with you, and eventually finding someone whom you click with. By contrast, online dating seems like an absolute meat grinder. Boiled down, these are the reasons I'm quite skeptical of it Writing down a resume is stuffy and formal, no matter how much you try to spice it up. It's essentially the same as submitting an application to a business. And just like business resumes, dating resumes are specifically tailored to make the person look as good as possible like emotional mental plastic surgery. In a real setting, you can first observe a person and see how they really are, but when you meet people online you already have a subconscious notion that they're perfect because you read nothing but glowing sentences on their profile. This is harmful because it sets up unrealistic expectations. It can make people impatient sometimes having unlimited and easily accessible choices is a bad thing. When you date someone traditionally, you look to see if their flaws are acceptable. Sure they may not be a 10 10 in looks or personality or both , but you can make a quality judgement to see if they're worth it. And you have incentive to compromise because girls in real life don't usually have 10 suitors explicitly lined up at any given moment, so it's in their interest to work out differences with the guy in front of them. In online dating however, women generally have dozens of prospective suitors at any given time. If a woman is on a date with someone from OKCupid, there will always be a thought at the back of her mind saying Well, there were four or five other guys who messaged me and they had better qualities. What if I'm settling here? It just seems akin to grocery shopping, which removes the incentive to compromise. I think it makes people most women unreasonably picky, because sometimes too much choice is a bad thing. Online dating encourages people to use physical attractiveness as a huge huge huge criteria. In real life, even an average or below average person can win you over with humor personality etc in the first few minutes of meeting them. In online dating, that's really hard to do because personality doesn't show through text as well. Therefore, both men and women focus like a laser on physical looks. If a woman is looking through her options and two profiles one attractive guy and one unattractive have relatively similar language, why the hell would she pick the unattractive guy? And vice versa for men. Therefore online dating encourages superficiality. Please change my view.\n","conclusion":"Online dating is generally less fulfilling than traditional dating, and it encourages bad habits.\n","id":"546c9620-1f73-4766-96fd-e41b0e8adb40"}
{"argument":"A second referendum or a Brexit-focused vote, specifically on the deal the UK ends up with, possibly with an option to stay, would not necessarily undermine the will of the people. It may in fact strengthen it. It can be explained as a further exercise of democracy, and if so explained, not undermine citizens' belief in democracy at all.\n","conclusion":"Data suggests there is popular support for a second referendum once the Brexit terms are revealed.\n","id":"923cda34-e9d4-4aaa-9cad-74c331546f72"}
{"argument":"One of the conglomerates that has been perceived to be close to Modi has been investigated for an overvaluation charge.\n","conclusion":"Businesses that are supposed to be close to Modi are still being investigated despite this.\n","id":"7fb82c3c-4eeb-49c5-8a70-98f5b951ca15"}
{"argument":"Often, when watching college basketball game I'm sure the same thing happens in the NBA , the final minute can last for more than 10 minutes because of timeouts, reviews, injuries, etc. I think the number of timeouts available in the final minute should be limited to 2 per team. Because basketball is supposed to be a somewhat fluid sport, there shouldn't be so many stops when the game is at its most exciting point. Reviews on calls should happen, but they need to be done as quick as possible. Teams are only allowed to use 2 timeouts in the final minute of regulation. 1 full timeout and 1 30 second timeout. Any player who is injured can not come back in until after 30 seconds on the play clock have passed. This will prevent players from faking injures or flopping. Implementing these rules would make basketball more exciting and a more quality sport to watch.\n","conclusion":"Something should be done to prevent the final minute of basketball games from taking an extremely long time.\n","id":"eef47b88-ba0e-4a61-98a9-41a40601a78b"}
{"argument":"If people hear stories about psychiatrists or other officials involved in the institutional process pressuring people strongly not to die, they may try to avoid that ordeal and simply choose to die instantly.\n","conclusion":"If the process becomes too long, people will just commit suicide outside of the available legal framework.\n","id":"f72a2698-a52e-4735-89ee-7d1a8a2ddfb9"}
{"argument":"Succinctly if liberal moderates moderates believed that the government was the best way to help the poor they would give no money to charity and more to government voluntarily. In my conversations with moderates they support raising my taxes because it is the best way to help the poor and those in distress. When I ask moderates if they give extra money to any level of government beyond what is demanded by the threat of force, they have unanimously said that they did not. But they did give money to disaster relief campaigns, micro lending organizations, girls in school programs, women in politics campaigns, and other causes for the down trodden. This is hypocritical. To choose a method other than government to help people is to say that those methods are more effective than government. Moderates' mouths say government is best while their actions say otherwise. If moderates believe that charity is a better model for helping people than government then they ought join libertarians and conservatives in dismantling government social programs so that we can all choose the best ways to help our fellow human beings without violent government threats. I can be persuaded by Evidence that anybody, especially moderates, routinely pay more in taxes than demanded. Evidence that moderates do not want to fund social programs. Alternative rationale in mainstream moderate thought for wanting to fund social programs. That seems like a short list, but that is all I can come up with.\n","conclusion":"Liberal\/Moderates are hypocrites for not voluntarily giving surplus money to the government.\n","id":"4c15a24d-2963-4c5d-a0bb-9e12de46db68"}
{"argument":"Lately, I have noticed in the endless cycle of If Hillary Won posts throughout Reddit that something always comes up That had she won, Trump would've launched a network and have gone off on her nightly. While there is a shred of truth in this there were talent postings in the weeks before the election for a cable news startup and that there were professional looking graphics for the Facebook Live stream of the last debate on Trump's page I think that even if there was a network that getting it to the people would be difficult. 1 The consolidation of media, on both end of providers and producers, would make a standalone effort such as Trump TV very hard to gain a footing and I would think that your major TV providers Comcast, Spectrum, Cox, DIRECTV AT T UVerse, FiOS, Dish, et AL would know that adding it would tick off as many people as not adding it would tick off. The major content producing corporations the aforementioned Comcast and AT T, Disney, Discovery, et Al. would probably not want to chain themselves to Trump in any way, shape, or form. 2 As it is, there are several Fox News ripoffs Newsmax and OANN come to mind that exist in the wild if at all. Even considering the name, what foothold would Trump TV have gotten as a startup not a part of one of the major conglomerates? Or to have gotten the sort of lineup placement equal to that of Fox News? 3 There would have been a backdoor Given how Trump has praised Sinclair Broadcast Group launching Trump TV as a digital subchannel which would gain cable carriage. Only problem there is that such a plan would freeze most major markets out of said network. 4 There would be the solution of going over the top as a streaming network. Only thing there is that OTT would be a thing that Trump himself couldn't grasp and I doubt much of his base could either. However, this strategy did work out well for Russia Today who's cable satellite carriage is spotty itself so it could work to yell into the void. I don't think that Trump TV would've had done much given the hurdles that it would face, hurdles that all the rubles in the would would have a hard time solving. . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Had Hillary Clinton won and \"Trump TV\" launched, it would have had a uphill battle getting cable\/satellite carriage.\n","id":"17675eb6-3d65-43da-8049-d6a908cb8899"}
{"argument":"Operations and treatment are actually less likely even to work when they are provided for smokers. First, some operations are less successful where smoking has caused the problem, e.g. heart bypasses. Second, since serious smoking related illnesses often occur in combination, operations are complicated to the point of probable failure. For instance, lung cancer is often coupled with emphysema. Treating both at the same time is massively problematic. Thus treatment -- not to mention research -- resources are being wasted trying to improve the survival rates of people who bring these dual horrors upon themselves.\n","conclusion":"Operations and treatment are actually less likely even to work when they are provided for smokers. ...\n","id":"a82c8299-c720-448a-ae4a-bc70e3caab17"}
{"argument":"Please try not to hate me too much for this post, all religious people of Reddit I recently entered a relationship and just discovered my partner is Christian, while I am a hardcore atheist. I really do want my view to change on this, but I can't get past the idea that organized religion is ridiculous, and that God can't possibly exist, therefore those who believe in this made up entity are not able to engage in critical thinking. There have been multiple other posts about religion, but I didn't see one this specific, so EDIT I guess I should explain my view more for the most part, I have a hard time believing that those who are religious are intelligent. To me, religious means that they believe in the Bible God Heaven etc. I do not include the moral ethics social aspects of religion however, I DO firmly believe that those things do not need religion to exist. As a child, I went to Bible camp, multiple religious services, did my own research on the subject, and even went to a Catholic university although that was not by choice, I still took multiple religion courses . The more I look into it, the further I am convinced that it is merely people who are afraid of the unknown, and is not legitimate. I cannot stand to go to anymore religious services and it bothers me deeply that my partner goes to a very Catholic mass each week. Time can be spent better, and I think those are religious are simply indoctrinated to be, are willfully ignorant not bright, or refuse to do more research.\n","conclusion":"I believe that people who are religious are idiots and don't trust their opinions.\n","id":"1efa040f-d52a-4b68-b89d-2acb62265af2"}
{"argument":"A research by Universal McCann found that 49% of women surveyed \u201cfelt pressure from advertisements to be a certain way\u201d and 44% agreed that advertisements had made them feel \u201cnot good enough\u201d. Meanwhile, 46% of male respondents said they had felt the need to look or behave in a certain way because of how they are represented in advertising.\n","conclusion":"Gender stereotypic advertisements play a causal role in shaping people\u2019s self-concepts.\n","id":"0a1d2c22-c9b3-4187-a6c1-032ef4a117e3"}
{"argument":"Blink 182 courtesy of boy bands and late 90's pop music Probably plenty more for previous decades regarding current pop music. The fact is though, people have been trashing mainstream, corporate pop music for years already. And Bo just does it with overly blatant tones, insults to the corporate run structure, and it's broad appeal. The song isn't a breakthrough comedic hit, it's not a musical piece of genius, and it's not bringing up anything we haven't known for years. The jokes aren't overwhelmingly humorous, in fact they're extremely easy to understand and directly know what he's saying. It's not original, it's just Blink 182's song but with more jokes and updated references. Hell, Blink 182's song is probably just a punk'd version of something before it.\n","conclusion":"Bo Burnham's \"Repeat Stuff\" is repeating stuff that's already been said for decades and isn't special.\n","id":"4c0848be-39a6-4301-9103-f9c4273da55e"}
{"argument":"Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy that cannot be used to prove a point. Just because the masses agree does not mean it's correct.\n","conclusion":"The majority opinion is not a good guide for an individual's decision.\n","id":"7b23781b-b0b5-4a45-9372-9ac49d218e53"}
{"argument":"Due to prevailing negative social attitudes about promiscuity, some people will have more respect for women who save nudity for the bedroom.\n","conclusion":"Saving nudity for the bedroom can greatly enrich intimate relationships by making them feel more special.\n","id":"b4dab428-c20d-4b69-baf6-27de3dfddd3b"}
{"argument":"As global warming continues, humanity will need to change the way we get most of our power. If we don't, we risk our coastal cities flooding, mass extinction, and when oil starts to run out, it will lead to chaos. We need to switch to a renewable energy that can last us a long time, as well as being practical and hopefully clean. The answer to the current energy crisis is thorium power. But before I get started on that, let me explain why solar, wind and hydro are not feasible for the future of energy production worldwide. Starting with solar and wind, they both have the same problem they cannot run when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing, respectively. and no, you cannot store energy on a large scale because no technology exists that can do that This is a problem called the ducks curve, and if we follow through with the solar and wind craze, we won't have power at night. Since you cannot turn off and on a nuclear plant or coal fossil fuel plant, this creates a massive problem in using solar and wind tech for our main source of energy in the future. What about hydro, though? The problem here is very obvious, and it's that hydro itself does not produce that much energy, as well as not every country has a large network of rivers. Hydro works great for countries that have massive rivers in abundance, but is useless if you live out somewhere in the desert. just want to point out fusion is still unproven, and at this point seems like more of just a pipe dream to me So what are our alternatives? We have been repeatedly told that these three renewable can stop the energy crisis we are facing, but that dream is not very realistic. If you don't know what thorium is, then let me give you a brief explanation. Thorium power is a nuclear technology, which is clean, safe, abundant, and produces huge amounts of power. I know that to some people, nuclear is scary. It conjures up visions of nuclear wastelands and images of three mile island, fukushima, and chernobyl. But before you start making assumptions about thorium power, let me dispel those thoughts. First of all, thorium plants are completely safe. You see, thorium is fertile , meaning it needs to have a helper material to react. This may seem like a disadvantage at first, but when you think about it, its a lot safer. If something goes wrong in the plant, the thorium is just drained away from the helper material, and a crisis is averted. Uranium, on the other hand, is fissile, which means it can just keep going by itself. This is a bad thing of you want to cool down the uranium, because it will just keep going, and a melt down occurs. Thorium is clean for the environment. In traditional nuclear plants, most of the uranium fuel rods are wasted. Only a small percentage of the actual fuel is used, and the leftover stuff generalizing a bit here is the waste. This means we generate lots of waste, and also are losing lots of power. However, in thorium reactors, most of the fuel is used, and the waste that is generated can be reprocessed to create even more power. At the end of the process, the leftover waste is not that large, and can be kept in a remote area. But just as a side bonus, the waste generated by these plants will diminish in 500 years, which may seem like awhile, but in geological terms is very short. Just so this post doesn't become to long, I've decided to stop here. I could go on and on about the benefits of thorium, but that would turn into a post the size of a textbook. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Also, just note I'm talking about the LFTR design of thorium reactors, not the solid fuel stuff so don't ask about that. Any responses are appreciated, thanks.\n","conclusion":"Thorium is the future of energy\n","id":"abe794f9-86bd-423c-af41-ed7c33492bd9"}
{"argument":"After November 8th, I was of the belief that the US, and the world, was in one of three situations We have absolutely nothing to worry about. We have something to worry about, but checks and balances will prevail and control the damage We are all in great and grave danger, and this republic will either become the very authoritarianism we have claimed to oppose all these years, or compromise its position in the world so severely that it crumbles. The optimist in me held on dearly to scenario 1, but those hopes were dashed rather quickly. Scenario 2 seems to have arrived upon us, but I fear that it could be scenario 3 after all. Trump is proving as destructive as everyone feared, and only two Republicans Graham and McCain seem to notice that there is a problem. If any Democrats other than Warren and Sanders who is Independent, anyways are trying to oppose him, it doesn't seem like they're having any effect. Our Republic is a ship on fire, and the crew seem to just be watching it burn. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong, and why. Edit People have pointed out a poor choice of vocabulary in the title. Dictatorship or autocracy would be more accurate descriptors. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The United States is converting to a monarchy, and nobody with power is doing anything to stop it.\n","id":"8ec8a74a-07fe-466b-8eba-fc9b72efb07f"}
{"argument":"Religions were necessary to make people similar enough to be organisable by leaders. With today's technology mainly IT we may handle much more versatility without chaos.\n","conclusion":"Religion organizes and manipulates people in order to make them easier to control.\n","id":"9b9f3f7e-1e89-4bdc-9357-f40d32bf3eb7"}
{"argument":"Women are overrepresented in fields where no differences in physical capabilities apply. This is because these professions are traditionally seen as feminine.\n","conclusion":"Gender roles are restrictive. In many societies, women are still unable to succeed and cannot enjoy freedom because of gender roles.\n","id":"990d1362-6862-4a5a-b859-3e7a62eadcef"}
{"argument":"Here's one of the best arguments I could find supporting my belief Here's another good argument that I believe I've seen all of the documentary videos about fractional reserve banking zeitgeist addendum, money masters, etc. , as well as one video lecture from Khan Academy explaining it that I found more insightful\n","conclusion":"I believe that Ron Paul is misleading his supporters by telling them that the Fed destroyed 98% of the purchasing power of the dollar since 1913.\n","id":"df380616-f888-4871-a18b-20acb0629aa7"}
{"argument":"There are a bunch of words we use as adjective not nouns, because the noun form is offensive. Examples include Black. We say my Timothy is black never Timothy is a black . Autistic, it actually can be a noun, but we don't use it that way. Trans, again should be When I meet a trans person. not When I meet a trans. Gay, He is a gay man. is just fine He is a gay. is rude. This is because using the word as a noun is considered dehumanizing and reductionist. x200B So why on earth is 'lesbian' not an adjective??? x200B A pessimistic part of me thinks that maybe lesbian gets used as a noun because lesbian women are often objectified and so we find dehumanizing them natural.\n","conclusion":"using lesbian as a noun is offensive.\n","id":"990912d6-c46c-4fca-9e20-93da60370986"}
{"argument":"Since immigrants overwhelmingly vote democrat a policy of immigration is closely tied to the accumulation of political power by the democrats. Any policy that affects the voting population must be scrutinized to detect conflicts of interest by those that support it.\n","conclusion":"The US should build a wall on its Mexican border.\n","id":"1f818adc-0212-4c19-aff6-62aba76ec5ba"}
{"argument":"The National Institute of Economic and Social Research NIESR has said that Boris Johnson's Brexit plan would reduce the size of the UK economy by up to 4% by the end of the 2020s.\n","conclusion":"Many fear that a Conservative Brexit would damage the UK economy.\n","id":"982d977d-fa02-4924-ac48-edbb9ab0cb5c"}
{"argument":"112 L of water is required to produce 1 g of beef protein. In comparison, 23 L of water is required to produce 1 g of insect protein.\n","conclusion":"People are not happy with the production methods and damage associated with conventional meat. In 2017, demand for meat-free food increased by 987%\n","id":"985e87ad-2cd8-43fd-bf98-1cc52a783613"}
{"argument":"With the recent release of What Happened and the crowds waiting for book signings and speaking engagements, I've noticed that after being denied the Presidency because some electors put themselves and party over country that Hillary has, amongst some, become a bit of a sympathetic figure and the fallout will only help her legacy. Already I see people who have turned her into a figure whose presidency would've left America so better off than what actually happened and that the manner of how she lost and whom she lost to, to some, has reedeemed her for an assortment of past miscues. I even have friends who LOATHED her as a Senator, largely for using New York for her own political gain, who now love her because of what she represented the potential of America's last flicker of hope before dark times came. To be fair, the reality is that it would be a continuation of Obama and heaven help who she would have to face in 2020 when going up for reelection, but outside of being denied the Presidency I don't see what bad for Hillary personally all this could've done. She has the perpetual empathy of her supporters who for generations will speak highly of her and will be remembered not for Benghazi or carpetbagging or Whitewater but for being the Best President America Never Had and if the US ends up divorcing or in domestic war as the Woman Who Could've Saved America. Wouldn't that have been a great realignment for her legacy? . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Losing the 2016 Presidential Election has made Hillary Clinton a sympathetic figure and that is the best outcome for her legacy.\n","id":"16ea5aaf-2e03-47c2-8c2d-a12eae8299ef"}
{"argument":"This is a kind of  super topic, please feel free to read only one category, and I've separated categories by their bold headings Okay, I know, lots of claims here in the title that I'm sure anyone here is going to try very hard to point out are not perfectly connected to my points, but I am pretty sure I'll be getting to all of them at some point. I'm going to be outlining as broad a range of ideas held and behaviours I've seen manifested through feminism, and as such, for purely practical reasons, I would appreciate it if you could try to keep your responses to just one or two categories, just so I have enough time to address everyone, because this is quite a long post. You don't have to, of course, but I'm probably going to prioritize responding to more narrowly contained arguments and feel free to just read one category, by the way . Okay, let's begin. Rape Culture I wanted to start with the topic of rape because I think it is the subject for which there is the most legitimate complaint and worry, and I also think it's really the foundation on which modern feminism is laid. It's quite important as a narrative point, but I believe that the general arguments are, top down, built on faulty reasoning and research. We've all heard, I'm assuming, that 1 in 5 women have been raped on college campuses. Now, this is a myth, but feminists are generally split on this issue some of them don't know or think it's a myth and proceed on that premise, while the rest say that it's well known that it's a myth within the feminist community, and that it's used as a means to discredit the movement despite the fact that it's been disavowed. I want to get to both perspectives here. So first of all, if you didn't know, it is a myth. This idea is based on a 2007 study Source that polled 5,446 undergraduate women from two universities by an online survey. Men's answers were also omitted from the study. As has been pointed out countless times, that kind of sample size is not reliable enough to extrapolate to a larger population, and, of course, with this kind of sample size, you could just keep repeating the test until you had gotten a conclusion that was palatable. The survey had, by the researchers' own standards and admission, a low response rate, and did not specifically designate their 19 findings to sexual intercourse involving penetration, but more broadly defined their accusations under the heading of attempted or completed sexual assaults. This survey also included phrasing that was open to interpretation, such as asking if the woman had received sexual contact with someone while they were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep? Now, I understand that this seems fairly straightforward, and that anyone finding fault with claims coming from this might be viewed as a kind of monster, but I would ask you to look a little deeper into how actions being described by these claims could be manifested. I'm positive that there are men out there that drug women or get them drunk to take advantage of them no one is denying this, but for a non trivial number of people, as Christina Hoff Sommers points out, getting a little bit drunk or high is a normal precursor to sex for many people, both men and women. Even if you disagree with this premise that the normalcy of it makes it healthy or otherwise okay, the question still implies that there is a predatory relationship necessarily at play here, when that's simply not the case. It's obviously not the case, because the man can be more drunk or high than the woman, and this question would still count that behaviour as a sexual assault committed by that man against the woman. All of these issues I've pointed out so far are problematic, but there are actually deeper architectural problems with this study and the claims it espouses, but since they apply to the subset of feminists that have disavowed this study, we will handle them next. So, onward to those women who believe that this claim is false, but that the basic tenets of the claim are still valid, and who often point to more modern and almost always smaller numbers regarding the issue of male perpetrated rape. First of all, and I don't want to just blow past this point, why should we trust any new numbers being put forward by these feminists? Feminist researchers have been demonstrated time and time again to be either uniformly dishonest or incompetent as academics, and the very few which seem to operate with integrity, like Christina Hoff Sommers, are largely disavowed by the broader movement. This research is almost never coming from a trustworthy source, and most feminists who do accept that this claim is false do very little to admonish or distance themselves from those lies there is certainly very little in the way of accepted movements within feminism to discredit these falsehoods. And by the way, if you think your new study is somehow more reputable because it was conducted by a government organization, I would point out that the original study we've been discussing was conducted by the National Institute of Justice, which is a division of the Justice Department. These feminists are everywhere, and they are the very antithesis to unbiased researchers, and anyone questioning their insane ideologies in a professional or academic setting are cast out like lepers more on that later . Let's move on though. There is a wide range of statistics that are generally touted about male on female rape, but certainly that statistic gets lower when you look at rape that has been actually reported to the police or prosecuted. I don't want to just not leave a number here, so I will say that in 2012, the Bureau of Justice data indicates that 0.13 of women age 12 and up were raped or sexually assaulted Source The obvious answer to this is that most rapes aren't reported, and we will get to that, but I want to point out that this number might actually be too high we simply don't know what the real numbers are. The bottom line is this. We are in an unfortunate situation in our society in that we just have no good way to accurately and reliably measure this crime. There are political interests surrounding this problem, but the problem itself is apolitical that we either need to decide to be, let's say more inclined, to believe the accuser or the accused, because in most cases all we have to go on are two competing eyewitness testimonies. The proponents of this idea that 'most rapes go unreported' are completely throwing out the concept of due process people off handedly declaring that they had been raped are not giving the accused even the benefit of being an eyewitness in that case, so it should not be assumed to be true. It shouldn't be assumed to be true or untrue regardless of whether you have both people testifying, but it is an even less credible claim under those conditions. Let's look a little closer at self reporting here, because it is really central to this whole issue. First of all, feminists let's say 'some feminists' to be fair have been shown time and time again to be dishonest for the purpose of furthering their cause. For this reason alone I do not believe that everyone filling out an online survey is going to be reporting their experiences accurately. Compound this with the fact that if you are using a survey to extrapolate from voluntary participants to a larger population, you are far more likely to receive answers from people who have something to report than those who have no experience to contribute. More to the point though, and this, I think, is the main thing, is that there is just no consensus on what rape means in society today. Feminists will frequently point out, based on my experience with them, that their current study specifically defines rape as being penetrative, but actually that's not the problematic component of the definition, consent is. We used to have a very solid and useful definition, where consent had to be specifically withdrawn to consider an encounter to be a rape. In other words, if the woman says stop , or get off me , and the man proceeds to penetrate her, this was rape. Now, we actually have a subsection of society which believes that consent needs to be explicitly expressed in order for sex to be considered consensual, and therefore not rape. I don't want to spend too much time on this, but this is, from a legal standpoint, from a rational standpoint, and from the standpoint of simply knowing what it's like to be human, absolutely absurd. For one thing, this kind of active consent is infinitely divisible it's not as if the claimants believe that if you ask for consent with a woman once, you are unable to commit rape against them unless they specifically retract that consent, they don't seem to have any definition at all for the frequency with which you need to request consent. By the way, this completely exonerates women from any kind of responsibility. It is implied here that only the man is responsible for asking consent at any given point, regardless of the fact that consensual sexual encounters very often involve both people alternatively leading that engagement in some way. More to the point though, I think, this idea of active consent is completely divorced from any kind of notion of how people interact in the real world. Let me be clear though if you are making out with a woman and stop to ask her if she wants to have sex with you, you will ruin the mood so fast your head will spin. Anyone telling you that that is because the woman just wasn't that into you to begin with kind of have their head up their ass. So, a bit of a tangent, but this is the point many people that self report on rape have different definitions of what consent entails, one of those definitions leads to interpretations based purely on how much they enjoyed the sexual experience after the fact, and that is generously affording them the doubt that they wouldn't even report experiences that they did enjoy, did want, and did nothing to prevent, as rape. No matter which way you cut it, self report is simply not reliable. It's inherently unreliable. I actually don't want to write a whole book on this subject, but there is just so much to say on it, so I'm going to have to move on here from the problems inherent to the statistical analyses, to broader problems with this interpretation of a rape culture . Now, despite all of this, I'm fairly confident that rape is perpetrated far more often by men, against women, than it is by women against men. This is really the mainstay of the modern feminist ideology. Make no mistake about this either, this is not purported to be anything outside of a kind of mixture of inherent evil and cultural allowance for men to do this sort of thing, hence the monikers rape culture , toxic masculinity , and so on. I'm not saying this is not a problem in society, but there I would like to point out a third component, outside of this inherent nature or cultural permissiveness, which is not only hugely important, but also entirely antithetical to those claims, because it explains the disproportionate representation completely, and that is opportunity . Why on Earth does everyone just assume that there must be something built into men that is disturbed, when we have this very simple and obviously relevant component to consider in the equation? The vast majority of romantic relationships are heterosexual, both in the US and across the world, and on average, men are substantially larger and stronger than women. Not only this, but defining rape as penetrative obviously introduces a statistical bias, and for more than one reason. The plain fact of it is that whether or not women are more inclined to rape than men, they are simply unable to fulfill that tendency in most relationships, because they'd be physically overpowered and this is discounting the fact that they can't penetrate men to orgasm, and that men would lose their erection if they sufficiently disliked a sexual experience . And in fact, the statistics show that where this disproportionate opportunity no longer factors in, the trend does seem to indicate that this claim may have some real substance to it. According to the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survery Source 44 of lesbians experience rape or sexual assault by their intimate partners, compared to only 26 of gay men. Now, while I would obviously hold this study up to the same scrutiny I've previously outlined, I am inclined to at least give it the benefit of the doubt that it's internally consistent in how it measures these two groups, and in other words that the proportions should, or at least may, be accurate. This would seem to suggest that when the element of opportunity is virtually leveled out, women are actually more rape y than men, which is just a little bit antagonistic, as an idea, to the hypothesis that men are in some way evil, or permitted to perpetrate evil in society, rather than looking at rape for what it is, which is an evil that exists as a probably very small human aberration, and which is gendered because of opportunity alone. Now, if you move upward from this point, to a broader societal context, you really begin to see these cultural biases manifest themselves in a way which is quite toxically aggressive to both men as well any sense of genuinely pursuing the truth on feminist claims, and examining the actual evils being perpetrated by men or women. Women, and even men, can enjoy a perfectly healthy social and professional life after repeating, in public or at work, these dubious rape claims. You can just say, openly, that we live in a rape culture, that men are rapists, and that 1 5 women are raped on college campuses. Now, think about that, and consider that James Damore was very recently fired from Google for suggesting that women might be more agreeable and neurotic than men, a claim which is also backed by research, even if that research is admittedly a little bit controversial. So, to recap, you can tell your friends at work that men are rapists and face absolutely no social ostracization, but if you say that women are more likely to be agreeable or a bit more moody than men, you will not only lose your job, but face a public smear campaign by the press, egged on by feminists. Are we still pretending that there is no bias at play here in your ability to research or report on the evils of men versus the evils of women? How do you even claim that men are responsible for any kind of systemic wrongdoing, when dissenting views are so obviously suppressed at every level, infrastructurally and socially, in our society? We don't have a debate or discussion here, this is a monologue, and people who don't tow the party line are cast out as bigoted pariahs. You have only to look at Matt Damon's s on the metoo movement to see the truth of this claim. Those that don't agree, even with the particulars of feminist claims, are wrong by virtue only of the fact that their statements might be hurting victims. This is our standard for the truth now who it affects. And by the way, for those feminists who so often like to point out that complaints against feminism are actually being launched against radical feminists , I would point out that you would be very hard pressed during that outbreak on twitter of the NotAllMen hashtag, that you really couldn't find any moderate feminists speaking out in support of this movement, despite the fact that they themselves believe that the extremist minority shouldn't be put forward as representative of the larger group. Instead, they largely just belittled these people for either diverting attention away from the problem, or for being outright rape apologists. So, to be clear, we shouldn't criticize feminism based on it's radical elements, but it's okay to do this with men. And by the way, being a man isn't an ideology you subscribe to you can actually just drop feminism, and it does imply a certain subset of beliefs, whereas being a man does not. And to those who will inevitably point out that saying men are rapists doesn't mean that all men are rapists, you should be content then with people pointing out that feminists are sexist. Finally, and this really is the last point we'll talk about on this particular subject, let's take a very brief look at the Christmas classic Baby, it's cold outside . The very perfect example of how to demonize male sexuality. Feminists often like to point to this as being a good example for how rape culture actually isn't an idea that's antagonistic towards men, and that the song demonstrates that women are very often expected to portray a kind of unwillingness to sleep with men even when they want to, making interpretations of what women want quite difficult. And, to give this claim it's due, there is a grain of truth to it, but I don't think we should forget the fact that relationships very, very commonly begin with a kind of negotiation. What, after all, is the purpose of asking someone out on a date except to convince them that you would be a good romantic partner for them? In other words, people don't always begin being equally ecstatic about getting romantically or sexually involved with one another, and, in particular if you're a man, you have an implicit responsibility to approach a woman and convince her, through humor, charm, or whatever other applicable talents or positive traits you bring to the table, that she should date you and sleep with you. This is okay, by the way. It's just part of normal and healthy sexual and romantic pursuits. You may occasionally have a woman who knows right away that she wants to be romantically and sexually involved with you, but if that were the standard, we just wouldn't need dating at all. Overt misandry through gaslighting in mainstream, moderate feminism I will keep this section brief, but I at least wanted to mention, in passing, that I am just sick and tired of the gaslighting that's mainstreamed in feminism regarding their own very overt titling system. Terms like toxic masculinity , rape culture , white male privilege , manspreading , mansplaining , manslamming , failsons , the patriarchy , and slogans like the future is female are all so obviously and clearly sexist and rooted in misandry. I'm tired of hearing that these phrases, while being at face value sexist, actually have deeper and more nuanced definitions that are not sexist they still are, but more complicatedly so . Just admit that they're sexist and resentful toward men. Look, if I started referencing things like black murder culture or the negro conspiracy and started explaining to you that actually these were campaigns designed to help black people become less violent by recognizing that we, as white people, actually permit these problems by not being assertive enough, and that actually we aim to make society better for both groups through this ideology, I would correctly be called out for being a racist. It's the same thing. IT'S THE SAME THING. I don't believe that this movement just doesn't understand how it's vaguely hostile titles for all their ideologies could be perceived as sexist. I don't believe that this clearly sexist nomenclature is in any way accidental. And I don't believe their underlying principles are really that much less sexist than they appear at face value, which is quite a feat when you consider how blatantly fucking sexist they sound. The wage gap Here, we have another persistent myth where the feminist community is split on their reading of it. Again, the 77 cents on the dollar claim is still held by some feminists, and regarded by the rest, who know it's a myth, to be a kind of misdirection of their real concerns when this claim has already largely been disavowed. So, first of all, as with the 1 in 5 myth regarding rape on college campuses, it hasn't actually been disavowed by the larger community, and there appears to be no internal movement to correct this false information. For those who hold to it, the reason it's false is quite simple. This percentage comparison is based on all wages earned between the genders making no distinction between career or position, it's just a bulk comparison. So, of course, if more women are care providers for the elderly rather than being, say, engineers, this will be reflected in this data. Different professions pay differently, and men and women are not equally represented in all fields. If you accept that, and still see a much smaller wage gap, well, you're then not accounting for well documented averages regarding life decisions, such as starting a family, the willingness to work longer hours and vacation less, the likelihood of asking for a raise, etc., and when you do account for those differences between genders, that gap narrows to nothing Source Because of course it does, because it's illegal to pay women differently for the same work. In point of fact, men are now being systemically discriminated against for positions. According to a 2015 Cornell study Source there is a 2 1 hiring and tenure preference for women as STEM faculty in the U.S. This is overt and measurable discrimination against men, and we're still at the whim and frenzy of feminists complaining that there are systemic biases against them. Look, if you don't think there is anything biological or inherent in women that precludes them from excelling in their professions and climbing the corporate ladder, I would suggest that you merely consider the fact that in 2017, only 17 of startup founders were women Source Maybe the problem isn't that men and sexism and institutional bias are holding them back, maybe women, on average, just don't have the desire or will power to reach the top of the professional pyramid. Also, am I not allowed, or is it too rude, to point out that the women who point out these biases so often come from professions like journalism, and academic fields like gender studies, or some variant within these arenas? How often do you see women in engineering or mathematics, or as CEO's, talking about the gender pay gap? I guess that's not very fair since there are just so few of them to poll. To be fair, I know that this does happen in those fields, but it's certainly a smaller portion of the outspoken collective voice, and despite my tone, I have nothing but respect for women in those fields the ones I've met have been extremely intelligent, articulate, hard working, and capable, but remember, we're talking about averages and statistics here, not the right side of the bell curve. Now, feminists who now disavow the wage gap have started talking about what they call a 'gender earnings gap', which basically boils down to what we all know and accept that women, on average, pursue different careers and have different career values. The solution to this 'problem', and I am not ready to accept that it is a problem, is generally to promote, either through culture or fiat, a concept generally referred to as equality of outcome. Now, when you're talking about equality of outcome for women specifically, what you mean is that you at least want to approach equal representation of women in different high earning fields. One way to do that is through either punishing or rewarding corporations for fulfilling diversity quotas, which is obviously discriminatory, especially when you allow for the idea that less women are competing for those roles then men. Supposing you have the most innocent interpretation of a solution for this problem though, that we should change culture, art, and education to encourage more women to pursue these high paying fields and to care about family less. Well, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you say 'we need to do this', that's just not the case. Feminists, and often women in general, have a vested tribal interest in pushing women into the very highest paid fields, but I just don't think there's any premise to promote that this idea is good for both men and women. I'm not saying it's bad for men, but if it's something you feel is important, and you want to pursue, well that's your pet project, and no one is stopping you from trying to reach those ends. I'm of the opinion that both men and women should pursue whatever careers they want, and that actually money isn't the highest priority for everyone, as is reflected in their career choices. If you want to culturally shift women's value priorities, that's fine but I just haven't seen any premise that would suggest that this is an equal priority for men and women when it's predicated on a specifically gendered tribal interest, and also when it's pursued with at least the appearance of quite a bit of hostile resentment toward men and the successes they've achieved. Beyond that, what is often being put forward, the more sinister alternative, is equality of outcome specifically through corporate incentives or punishments. That corporations should be forced to have an equally representative diverse workforce is absurd for the reason that Jordan Peterson has pointed out that group identity is infinitely divisible, making this solution profoundly untenable and inherently unstable. The patriarchy Look, I don't accept this idea that you can say something exists if you can't even kind of define it. I think that that's a fairly reasonable position to take. Feminists can't even define what it is they think is permeating their society. I've brought this up in slightly more extreme terms before on this subreddit, and have appropriately curtailed my severely negative view of it, but I think the fundamental issue with this claim remains. I follow Christopher Hitchens' reasoning on this general type of claim when he says That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And this certainly applies to assertions which are as nebulous as the claim that we have some kind of mystical oppressive patriarchal spiritual force permeating our society. Proponents of this claim will say that it's existence is obvious by the fact that we have things like 'the glass ceiling', 'the gender wage gap', etc. And to them I would say that this is not obvious at all. To be clear, 'the patriarchy', as far as I understand it, is not as straightforward as being synonymous with institutional sexism against women claimants would like to assert that there are more complex moving parts involved, and point to the historical role of women in society, or the lack of diversity in leadership position. I'm sorry, but for all we know, all of those supposed outcomes of this patriarchy are unrelated, or at least not related in the manner which is being suggested, and it is all suggestion, because anything as clear as an assertion regarding this term has apparently been abandoned as a goal, and what remains is so vague as to be functionally meaningless. If the patriarchy was real, people should have no difficulty in at least giving some kind of definition, even if it's imprecise, but they can't every single feminist I've asked directly to define it has only ever pointed to it's alleged causes or effects, yet they all firmly believe in it's oppressive existence. This is the real crux of the issue this vague interpretation of a kind of sexism which is conscious, subconscious, biological, historical, infrastructural, institutional, plus who knows what else, has built within it a presumption of guilt. Anything that happens which seems vaguely gendered, or just negative even, can be attributed, by the feminist, to the patriarchy, because they don't even know what it is, making it therefore unfalsifiable as a claim. Even though the current impacts of the patriarchy are undefined, feminists often outline the historical precedence surrounding the oppression of women as if this alone is proof of a currently oppressive power structure, so let's examine that. This idea of group victimization can really be broken down into two categories. The first being that women were the subjects of a greater degree of victimization of men throughout history, and I'm not sure if anyone believes that, but is so, that would be so absolutely and measurably untrue as to be absurd, so unless someone would like to take up the mantle on this, I'm not really going to waste my time with it. The second claim, that men were by and large the perpetrators of victimization throughout history was quite true. This is kind of a weird point of contention to hold onto if you can't demonstrate how it currently affects people. In other words, I disagree with the premise that we should be made to somehow pay for the sins of our ancestors regardless of whether or not their actions currently negatively impact the group that was originally targeted. Which is not the case anyway, since your claim is really only that men abused everyone and women did not. Even if we accept this premise as being somehow legitimate as a complaint though, that's really only half of the story. Yes, men in the past were assholes, but they also fought and died and innovated for literally everything we have today. Look, I understand that it's unpleasant to think of your female ancestors as being prevented from entering some professional fields if they wanted to, in the probably rare case that they did, but there is an element to this spiteful recognition of a historical patriarchy that just strikes me as astonishingly ungrateful and historically ignorant. The very thing you're fighting for, upward mobility, is a cause that countless men, not women, have fought and died for, and all throughout history. It wasn't women either going out into the American frontier and stabbing bears, peeling off their fur so that more people could manage to go out and peel the pelts of these monsters that wanted to rip their collective throats out. It wasn't women that were burrowing into the bowels of the Earth, breathing in coal dust and waiting for the very planet to rumble below them and engulf them in an eternal darkness, just so we could run a few trains across the country. Women, again, didn't erect the skyscrapers we see all around us, didn't build the bridges and generally die in the process . It wasn't women going out by the thousands into the meat grinder of World War I, sitting in a wet ditch for months just so they could bayonet some stranger in the throat before getting stuck in a three foot deep puddle and wait to die. I don't want to be a dick about that, but let's be real here, there's a reason there was no global feminist movement back when being a man largely meant toiling away in the dirt your whole life, unless you were conscripted to fight for your king. Now that we have unprecedented prosperity, you hear all of the grievances. Am I wrong here? That's kind of like when you were younger and you split up chores with your sibling, and then they sat around while you worked on, say, the kitchen for an hour, and then when you were on the last plate, demand that you switch with them. If you really wanted equality, you'd go into the forest and build a metropolis and government and develop new technologies, all out of nothing, and fight and die for what you believed in until you could rest and enjoy everything you've accomplished. But you don't really want that, you want to complain about not being taught to desire a CEO position enough for you to get off your ass and work for it, withing a society and company that the group you identify so strongly with didn't really build. And listen, I don't actually think I should take pride or shame in the actions of my male ancestors, but if we're going to play this group identity game, and connect your personal identity through history like that, this is the other side of it. I also don't think women should be deprived of any opportunities, but let's be realistic about how resentful about unfairness we're allowing ourselves to get here. Lastly, as intersectional feminists will tell you, a person's victim status is a function of various intersecting forces at play against them, which, you can imagine, can become a little bit complicated to accurately identify. Let's make it simple though. I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing homelessness, bias in the legal system, etc., but to those of you that think it's so much easier to be a man than it is to be a woman, how do you square that up with the fact that men in the Americas are 3.6 times more likely to kill themselves than women? Source Or that, if you want to look at victimization, men comprise 77.8 of the homicide victims in the U.S.? Source The point I want to make with these is not that men are deserving of praise or pity, just that if you really want to play this group identity politics game between men and women, I don't think you're going to win your argument along really any metric without completely ignoring huge portions of history, statistics, and what it means to be victimized or deserving of status and wealth. Let's do a couple of quick ones next. Manspreading A great example of how the world is ergonomically built for short people i.e. women , and how these people don't seem to understand what it means a to have balls, and b to be tall enough that your knees are pressed tightly against immobile steal grates if you want to pull your legs in on the bus. Mansplaining Another way in which feminists try to suppress men's opinions in any absurd way they can. Manslamming Assaulting men to make some kind of point? Gender Identity There are only two genders. This law that Canada is now facing on imposed speech regarding pronoun choices is just absolutely absurd. First of all, just so you know, the idea of a gender role as distinct from a sex role was originated by Dr. John Money, in 1965, who conducted his studies on 'gender fluidity' with a boy named Bruce Reiner later David , who wound conduct experiments instructing Bruce's brother Brian to regularly thrust sexually toward Bruce while he laid down on his floor, and while Money watched. Money renamed Bruce Brenda and forced him to wear dresses, but unfortunately, the therapy never really took, and Bruce, renaming himself David later on, eventually killed himself by overdosing on antidepressants. Source So, you know, maybe this theory isn't predicated on as sound a philosophical basis as we are led to believe? This is the same as with the theory of white male privilege, as it is with everything else promoted in feminism, it's just profoundly unhinged from scientific, statistical, or rational thought. Let's ignore the history for a moment though and focus on the current social constructionist argument for gender fluidity. A lot of people seem to forget this, but being a trans person meant something quite different not ten years ago than it means today. The claim that was initially asserted was that gender was different from sex studies suggest quite strongly that these two ideas do not vary independently from one another, but I digress , that gender was a social construct, and that if you were trans, you identified as having the mind of someone belonging to the other binary gender. Let's gloss past the sexist implications of this claim because they're kind of sexist, I would say, mostly against women, who largely don't seem to mind it , the existence of a social construct in this theory is a non trivial component. There are only two social constructs for gender, so the idea that you somehow belong to a third, fourth, fifth, etc., social construct is not just incorrect, it's incoherent as a claim. It would be equivalent to answering the question of what colour your hair was with three . So what is gender if it's not that binary social construct? Well, that's easy, it's your personality. You don't think you perfectly fit into the category that is typically called male or female ? Well guess what, welcome to being a person, no one aligns themselves completely one way or another, that doesn't give you the right to start making incoherent assertions about the type of speech people are allowed to use around you. The idea too that these people are advocating for trans rights is absurd. Gender fluid people are not trans by any conventional definition of that word, and they've clearly done far more to harm the legitimacy of that movement which, if we're being honest, was a little bit questionable to begin with then they have any good. I know I've been a bit harsh here with trans people, I think it's a tiny bit irrational, but ultimately I think they should do whatever they want without, hopefully, facing discrimination. I've also met trans people that I absolutely respect and wish the best for. These gender fluid, third gender, or whatever else new entrants into that field, however, I have no respect for whatsoever. They're attention whores with no valid claim to their own gender identity, and who are actively hurting actual trans people while damaging free speech protection, and as such deserve all of the collective ire we can muster up for them. Free speech Just a small addendum here I felt I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention it, but feminists have more or less taken a staunch stance against free speech. Most recently with Bill C 16 in Canada, but they also make active efforts to shut down and smear the events held by people like Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulous, Cristina Hoff Sommers, Cassie Jaye, etc. They do everything they can to suppress entire categories of what constitutes humor, they clamp down on artistic expression by claiming cultural appropriation which should be a topic in it's own right, but I'm getting lazy , and endorse 'safe spaces' that outright ban certain topics of discussion. Their attempts to suppress these alternative ideas and modes of expression often escalate to violence. They are the modern equivalent of thought police all they need is a slightly greater degree of power to make the comparison truly apt, but we're not far off. Their promotion of ideas like blaming the victim , while fairly innocuous on the surface, speak to a deep seated tendency to suppress any views that don't fit their narrative, and take truth claims as being valid or invalid depending specifically on the person making them. There is a real and palpable taboo in our society surrounding calling out the absurd ideas being propagated by the extremist left, and I really think these views need to be called out for the bullshit they're comprised of so that we can all just start trying to work together here.\n","conclusion":"Feminism is not synonymous with egalitarianism, but is instead a sexist, man-hating, hypocritical, double standard wielding, dishonest, free-speech hating, nebulously incoherent ideology, for which there are very few actual moderates, and we should collectively disavow it as a society\n","id":"cc674a2a-b740-4a47-bf73-8d8d2db68a28"}
{"argument":"The majority of facial cosmetic operations performed on Asians are considered \"Westernizing\" procedures. Two of the most popular, nose jobs rhinoplasty and eyelid lifts blepharoplasty, are specially designed to make these features look more Caucasian.\n","conclusion":"Surgeries for minorities usually attempt to undo the physical features that denote race.\n","id":"ce865e03-4ff3-4bac-8d2a-c06b5698144e"}
{"argument":"Dreadlocks can be cited as being seen in cultures ranging from African, Indian, Egyptian, Germanic, Celtic, or Jamaican depending on the source you are reading.\n","conclusion":"Many cultures are influenced by other cultures. It would be impossible to narrow down most customs to only one race as they often overlap.\n","id":"a82df033-213a-4af8-8e76-70515023d095"}
{"argument":"I swear every time I read the title of the post and then it says self.changemyview I imagine a narrator for the title and the self part is the logo that like swings by with cool effects and such. My imagination even was courteous enough to include a Regis Philbin being the host. Something about that is great despite it striking me as an odd thought. Hell, even the winners of the show would get a delta trophy that's made of gold diamonds. Not sure if those exist but it would be very pretty and I am surebud and I approve this message\n","conclusion":"This sub should be a TV game show.\n","id":"06251a2e-07e6-4b43-ae70-7fecbb3de5a9"}
{"argument":"I see an opinion posted in various gaming subreddits that you should be able to swear all you want on a server if the game is M rated. It usually goes something like gt My character is saying stuff like GET YOUR DICKS IN THE DIRT, MACHINE GUNNER and FUCKING DIE YOU FUCK but I'll get banned for saying Bitch? What a load of crap. I don't see what's wrong with this. If the server gives you the rules up front, lets you know swearing isn't okay, and the admins warn you about it if you break the rules, they're not being unreasonable and it's not hypocritical. They're trying to promote a certain environment on the server. Swearing at the game or other players very quickly leads to shit talking and a negative environment. While this is not always the case on servers that have a lot of regulars and can handle the shit talking of each other in stride, random pubbers will almost always devolve into childish wars of swearing. Banning swearing nips this before it becomes a problem. To me, it sounds like those that have a problem with this rule are immature and can't handle being forced to act like a respectful person on the internet.\n","conclusion":"There's nothing wrong with banning swearing on your server in an M rated game.\n","id":"0a72456b-3ffb-468d-869a-dec9d12450d5"}
{"argument":"I am no fan of the CIA while I acknowledge that they have a vital role in national security I think they are an out of control executive agency that shows gross negligence, disrespect for congressional oversight, and too willing to waste money and time on stupid projects or counterproductive measures that actually make the world less safe than it is by meddling in other countries affairs, which serves no tangible purpose. Examples. The CIA illegally broke into the computers of congressional aides and senators during the write up of the Senate report on the CIA's torture programs 2 Knowingly allowing Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega to traffic drugs through panama, while on the CIA's payroll. 3 CIA involvement in the 1980's funding the Mujahideen, in during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to rise to power. 4 Supporting Saudi Arabia, a state sponsor of terrorism, that spreads the radical break off of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, which is ultraconsevative and is an ideological component in radical Islamic terrorism. Not to mention Saudi Arabia's deplorable human rights record, frankly I think it is an international embarrassment to be on even somewhat friendly terms with them but that does not effect national security In conclusion I don't really trust the CIA but if anyone has evidence to support that their current or past actions improve national security, id be open to changing my view.\n","conclusion":"The CIA is are out of control and is actually hurting national security\n","id":"3005a293-c986-4869-ad1f-fade79fe52fc"}
{"argument":"There is so much unnecessary suffering in the world. Hunger, violence, hate, war etc. The only thing stopping world peace is just for people to stop fighting each other. There is more then enough food to feed everybody, but still so many are hungry. In the western world, people will kill each other over matters that seem banal when contrasted to the fact that children are dying by the millions six million per year . There is absolutely no reason for this other then that people are only good as so far it's good for them to be good. Civilization is only skin deep. Once people are really challenged, so few pas the test. We praise those who do, these unlikely heroes, precisely because we know it's not in our nature to act unselfishly. We are just animals. Though evolved to be intelligent and social, still unable to create the paradise we can all imagine. And even though we may have, as Rousseau puts it, 'the softest of hearts', our heart is still so much blacker then we like to think it is. Change my view. Edit There seem to be a couple of returning points that i shall address here. Saying people are not fundamentally good is not saying people are bad evil. If we can't define what is good or bad or define what morality is , then people can't be fundamentally good.\n","conclusion":"I don't believe people are fundamentally good.\n","id":"b9af2f90-66de-4721-9a6e-bccf90dfd80d"}
{"argument":"Because I really don't. I do support the idea of network neutrality, and it sounds great on paper. That said, we're not looking at the end of net neutrality, we're looking at the FCC classification of ISPs. It's important to know what we're dealing with here. The FCC can still penalize an ISP for anti competitive behavior, the concept of net neutrality isn't dead, it just isn't going to manifest as a Title II classification. The proper way to enact net neutrality would be passing a bipartisan bill that specifies in simple language how ISPs must behave. Such an important policy decision shouldn't rest with the FCC to begin with. I have to wonder about the thought process of Democrats who fight every move Trump makes, calling him a tyrant, only to turn around and demand that his administrative agency be trusted with massive power to regulate the entire internet. However, the legislative option is off the table for the time being. Even if the two sides could agree to pass something palatable on this issue, we still can't trust them to not also pass horrible shit at the same time. Remember our recent history of bipartisan fuckups such as the Patriot Act, the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, CISA, and FISA. Even assuming for the sake of argument that net neutrality is desirable, it's not worth the risk that having a working legislature poses. The internet saw explosive growth for decades before Obama's FCC reclassified ISPs in his second term. We never got a chance to see these tiered packages and slow lanes that we were so ominously warned about. In this sense, the threat of deregulation is largely hypothetical. Mobile and cellular networks were never subjected to net neutrality regulation at all, yet 3G 4G internet is still perfectly usable. On these networks, carriers generally provide streaming services that don't count towards the subscriber's data cap. Unfair? Arguably. If these strategies were to be used on landlines, maybe the FTC or FCC should step in. Light touch regulation has historically worked fantastic for the growth and operation of the American internet. This doesn't mean that Title II is the answer. Convincing those on the Right or alt right or new right or far right or whatever your preferred pejorative is of the threat of deregulation will fall on exceptionally deaf ears. We recently saw how blogger Andrew Anglin and his website The Daily Stormer were essentially erased from the internet by a handful of powerful web companies such as Google, Cloudflare, and Godaddy. All for having the nerve to hurl insults at some useless cunt who died while blocking traffic. We already live with the very real prospect of being silenced on the internet for having the wrong opinion. So when the left tells us that the free internet is in danger, there is just no way that anyone who has been paying attention can take them seriously. The left controls all of the major tech companies, including search engines, domain registrars, ddos protection, financial payment handlers, and social media. They can and will de platform you if you upset them. The idea that these companies and their supporters are suddenly worried about losing internet freedoms is laughable. This leads us to why the left and their weaponized tech companies are pushing for tight Title II regulation, what's in it for them? Two things they don't want to share the role of being the gatekeepers of acceptable opinion, and they don't want to get bent over by the ISPs for using massive amounts of bandwidth. The argument that the ISPs might charge high data customers more holds water. However, it is unlikely that they will squeeze residential consumers, but rather the companies that use extraordinary amounts of data. Google Youtube, Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming services have become rich by selling their product over the lines maintained by the ISPs. The ISPs know that they can't really get much more money from residential subscribers than they do already, not without massive outrage. The big tech giants, however, have deep pockets, and they aren't exactly aligned with the ISPs in a business or political sense. Without regulation, the ISPs could demand that Youtube or Netflix pay more for the bandwidth they use. Personally, I have no problem with this, especially if it leads to their demise. This type of free market anarchy might seem scary to a leftist. I will also admit that it is unfortunate to be aligned with an entity such as Google, even if the nature of such alignment is limited to being consumers of the same internet services. The answer to this type of potential corporate abuse is, obviously, increased competition. This is where some say the FCC has failed us. FCC chairman Ajit Pai has put forward a very loose definition of a competitive market, which includes some areas that only have one ISP option. It is worth noting that Ajit Pai was nominated to the FCC in 2012 by Barack Obama under pressure from Mitch McConnell. When Tom Wheeler resigned as chairman, Ajit became the de facto head of the FCC. He was officially confirmed October 2017 with the help of a handful of senate Democrats. The fact is that he's a leftover swamp creature. It might have been a mistake for Trump to keep him, but the political reality demanded that he choose his battles. Only recently has the FCC's role become highly politicized. Like everyone else in our country, the ISPs and Silicon Valley have chosen sides. While the big California tech companies are in a symbiotic relationship with the Democrats, the ISPs have aligned themselves with the Republicans. What is good for one side is bad for the other. This is the price we pay for irrespobsible exercise of the two party system. So how do we ensure a free and open internet without federal legislation or the FCC? The first step is massive antitrust intervention. Companies like Amazon, Comcast, and Google absolutely need to be broken up and pitted against each other. The second step is to make utility poles accessible to smaller ISPs, we need to foster competition in order to make the free market system work as intended. The third step is to encrypt everything end to end. The ISPs will fight us on this because it will increase network load, but we must be stubborn. The less data they can analyze, the less effective any censorship will be. But many people don't want a free market system. They want the fiber optic lines running to their homes to operate by the same rules as the water main or the gas lines. They want the ISPs to be a common carrier that serves only the public at large. To that, all I can say is that if the taxpayer truly wants common carrier internet, they'll have to open their checkbooks and pay for one. In fact, I would support the construction of a public internet infrastructure for the same reason I support the highway system and public mass transit. But in this case, the ISPs invested in running lines when the taxpayer was either too lazy or poor to have their government do it. Now that the investment is paying off, they want to seize control of these lines, and tell a private business how to operate. Strictly speaking, this is acceptable under certain circumstances, all business ought to operate at the pleasure of the public at large. When a business becomes detrimental to the public, they can step in. However, it will take more than hypothetical threats of abuse to justify such a socialist seizure, we should give the ISPs enough rope to hang themselves before we preemptively do it for them.\n","conclusion":"The argument over the FCC's net neutrality decision is pointless and moot. It doesn't affect me, and I don't care.\n","id":"30e5cbed-91f3-4e82-8200-924bd957e807"}
{"argument":"Non-Islamist Muslims have been most hurt by the Islamophobia generated by ISIS, therefore, the fact that they would be willing to forgive and help former ISIS members integrate back into society is more poignant than non-Muslims willing to help them reintegrate.\n","conclusion":"A national study found young British Muslims across the UK - the demographic mostly closely approximating the returnee fighters - believe they should be allowed to return home and be reintegrated into society.\n","id":"703de3e8-ae80-4042-8d13-376214d0429a"}
{"argument":"Humans define what Art is. As long as there are humans who appreciate objects manufactured by AI, Art can be created by an AI.\n","conclusion":"Art is evaluated and valued by social and personal context, that context is missing in the case of AI\u2019s art.\n","id":"7d396970-6ad2-4501-8e69-043d7aef38f1"}
{"argument":"Researchers concluded that some schools were riddled with gang activity and academic deficiency until a uniform policy was adopted, and concluded that the climate of these school improved due to the implementation of a school uniform policy. p. 16\n","conclusion":"In combination with other interventions, adopting school uniforms changes school culture in order to prevent gang activity\n","id":"794e7c87-d128-49dd-a198-69542d02eb1e"}
{"argument":"1 By creating the Primarchs, he puts the fate of mankind for the next 10,000 years in the hands of 21 individuals. The fact that each primarch is a demigod means that they will be the most important people in the imperium. This degree of centralization of power is dangerous because it only takes one or two of them to go bad for the entire imperial project to be endangered. This is not the hallmark of stable governing nor military institutions. 2 Inability to recognize the problematic nature of the primarch and their legions For someone who supposedly lived through the Roman Republic Empire, he sure seems eager to repeat the exact mistakes the Romans made with their military The Roman Republic fell largely because the legions were loyal to their generals rather than to the Republic and eventually turned on Rome when their generals had disagreements with the civil government. The obvious lesson that every subsequent successful dictator learned is that you have to keep the reins on the army, and that the army must be loyal to you personally or at least to the office you hold and not the general you appointed to command them. If the general orders the marine to revolt, the marine should be arresting the general. Yet the most of the traitor legion marines turned out to be more loyal to their own primarch than the emperor. 3 Unable to screen out unreliable leaders seriously, Lorgar and Angron were clearly unreliable and unfit for command from the get go. He willingly allows them to command legions despite the fact that both were opposed to the imperium's ideals Angron's bloodlust, Lorgar's fanaticism . He also seems oblivious to the fact that seriously humiliating Lorgar on Monarchia would have destroy his loyalty. Any intelligence dictator would have kept both them as far away from any sort of military power as possible. 4 How does he expect to keep knowledge of the Chaos gods a secret during the Great Crusade? In a universe where he knows that atheism is objectively wrong, that gods and hell objectively exist, and that the chaos gods have already screwed around with the primarch project how does he expect to keep their existence a secret? What exactly prevents them from corrupting one of this primarchs? They were going to find out about chaos either way, better to hear it from the emperor himself first than from daemon possessing them. So basically the Emperor creates a system where pretty much all power is centered on 18 21 individuals, creates a system in which the imperium's best armies can easily be turned on itself, fails to protect or pre empt their corruption by an obvious threat, and seems unable to understand how to play politics in a military Junta. The net result of this is a galactic civil war which destroyed the project he wanted to build and turned the imperium into the opposite of what he wanted it to be. A historical human dictator like Cromwell or Stalin probably would have done better.\n","conclusion":"The God Emperor of Mankind in Warhammer 40k is a horrible political leader\n","id":"2b0b6d8d-e66e-46c1-a01e-d4b53958d729"}
{"argument":"Gender, like every human behavior, mating rituals, eating customs, etc., is not completely biologically determined. Yet, there is a biological factor involved\n","conclusion":"Social structural theory views gender differences as psychological attempts to adjust to social expectations.\n","id":"1fb7c66a-a490-4e4d-b7fa-4d47332a82c2"}
{"argument":"A UBI will incentivize certain people to have children irresponsibly so they can receive more money \"for them\".\n","conclusion":"Fraudulent use could include people creating false documentation in order to get paid more than once.\n","id":"90163ef2-f6a9-4fc8-ae57-3b3ec7e58acc"}
{"argument":"Even if not every citizen can control exactly what the intelligence service does, there is sufficient political and judicial control. An example of this is a recent case involving the Dutch AIVD, which started wiretapping journalists after they had found a source within the AIVD to leak about the run-up to the Iraq War. The journalists were wiretapped but when the case came to court, the court judged that the AIVD was in error, should stop harassing the journalists, and must delete the files on the journalists immediately.\n","conclusion":"Even if not every citizen can control exactly what the intelligence service does, there is sufficien...\n","id":"59cf9db1-67e0-4575-912d-47a177f8ae90"}
{"argument":"A biological father, and indeed his family including the child's biological grandparents, have the right, and arguably the responsibility, to be in the child's life if this is in the best interests of the child.\n","conclusion":"Sperm donors should have the same legal rights, responsibilities and limitations as other biological fathers.\n","id":"e6b51640-841a-4050-8d85-57d0e4d879ef"}
{"argument":"Over the last few years, I've been dealing with chronic health issues and I've had the misfortune of becoming familiar with outrageous wait times in doctor's offices. My primary care physician visits regularly take two hours or more, with most of that taking place in the waiting room. I've observed similar wait times in specialist's offices, though I've noticed that this is less common than in primary care offices. From complaining to my friends who work in the medical industry, it seems that this is pretty common. My opinion is that doctor's offices should do whatever it takes to see their patients in a timely manner, which for the sake of this  I'm limiting to 30 minutes. Offices could schedule fewer appointments and refuse to see patients who are more than, say, 10 minutes late. If it takes longer than 30 minutes to see the doctor, the visit should be free. Because doctor's offices are generally only open M F from 8am 5pm, I have to take time off work to see my physicians. When it takes hours to accomplish this task, that either means I'm losing money if I'm paid hourly or I'm having to make up hours of work in my free time. Because of this inconvenience, I believe that long wait times should be compensated with a free visit. This would encourage doctor's offices to avoid over scheduling and help get patients in and out of the office in a timely manner. That's my opinion, but I'm open to rethinking it. So , Reddit Edited to add that I'm in the US. Not sure if this is an issue in other countries. I also realize that the premise of my argument is rooted in paying for visits, so this isn't relevant in countries with free universal healthcare.\n","conclusion":"Wait times in doctor's offices should be limited to 30 minutes, with longer wait times resulting in a free visit\n","id":"00c781de-3238-4a47-8a61-ef9463f5f99b"}
{"argument":"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 Reason 1 Criminalizing prostitution makes it easier to abuse prostitutes. If a prostitute is being threatened in a hotel room, then she will not threaten to call the cops or alert hotel staff. Reason 2 Criminalizing prostitution, much like marijuana and alcohol, has not stopped people from engaging in it. The time and money otherwise spent going after adult prostitutes and their pimps can be diverted towards rescuing child prostitutes. Reason 3 A person has the right to do what they want with their own body, whether we like what they do or not. Reason 4 If prostitution is legal, then when a person stops being a prostitute it will be easier for them to find a job because they will be less likely to have a criminal record. Reason 5 Pornography is legal, and pornography is prostitution with a camera. Reason 6 If prostitution is legal, then it will be theoretically easier to decrease its occurrence via shaming. People can stand outside of establishments that provide prostitution and record people going in and out for all the world to see on YouTube.\n","conclusion":"Prostitution should be legal for those 18 and older.\n","id":"ea560be6-af97-4319-a01c-db28b70f70c8"}
{"argument":"People do not \"donate\" to churches. They donate to schools, and dog pounds, and bums begging on the street. Church members are obliged before their God to make tithes.\n","conclusion":"Money donated to a church is often to support a religious goal often set by members, and not for an expected service, just like with other non-profits.\n","id":"8ba16c11-be00-48f8-aa27-748430311f8e"}
{"argument":"The Cleveland Clinic opened a functional medicine center, places like the health nucleus run by J. Craig Venter are utilizing it in their practice as well It seems like it is gaining a lot of traction in the media. I have personally gone through their methods, albeit without great success, however the future of functional medicine seems promising. They extensively test biomarkers, although it is still questionable how reliable or actionable some of these things are ex. high homocysteine, but does taking b12, folate, etc to lower actually lead to improved heart disease outcomes . I am interested in whether or not I should be more skeptical of functional.\n","conclusion":"'Functional medicine' is the future of medicine\n","id":"4caf9657-99fd-4b32-8e6c-2a78f53f5e8a"}
{"argument":"As they are already spread out across the community, the costs of setting up information hubs will be reduced.\n","conclusion":"Librarians are already spread across the country to provide local information.\n","id":"ac30bd0e-b4a0-4d5a-a42a-7b6f788f7d17"}
{"argument":"Students who skip classes are normally not associated with cool and rebellious behavior, but with being obedient, meticulous and eager students.\n","conclusion":"Students who skip grades are exposed to more bullying in school.\n","id":"33d6b747-692d-46f1-848b-7b63b774ad23"}
{"argument":"ISIS aims at Muslims and how they are practising Islam. ISIS thinks that their way to live islamic values is the only right way to do.\n","conclusion":"The great majority of ISIS' victims and opponents are not from the so called West and have nothing to do with \"Western values\".\n","id":"195a55c6-1158-485e-a624-ac1e7e965957"}
{"argument":"The feeling of the emotion of love does cause people to be happy. For some, this happiness might be more valuable than material possessions, money or more \"measurable\" parameters.\n","conclusion":"Human beings believe in a lot of idealistic notions to make life easier. If love gives people happiness and satisfaction, there is not need to negate it.\n","id":"a2c02800-f34d-4448-a998-6aa92b6b1dcd"}
{"argument":"The Muslim population of Europe will increase by 4% and that of the US by 1% until 2050. At the same time, the share of the population aged over 65 will increase by 12% in Germany, 9% in France, and 8% in Britain and the US.\n","conclusion":"Even if this were true, this move of the electoral balance to the left would be more than counter-acted by the aging population of high-income countries and the tendency of older people to vote for conservative parties.\n","id":"b57a7c01-f07d-425b-b60c-27e4031719d4"}
{"argument":"Politicians are unlikely to act transparently in the interests of corporate donors when this fact is made visible to the public.\n","conclusion":"Laws which require disclosure of campaign finance contributions can discourage politicians from acting solely in the interests of corporations.\n","id":"20fa184a-58ca-45f1-ae76-a302a0f878ab"}
{"argument":"I believe that this could actually help to cut down on obesity in the United States. This will inevitably be called tyranny if it were to actually be proposed though, because even though there are people who refuse to buy healthy food for their young children to keep them from getting overweight, people would still rather have the ability to purchase everything instead of just what they need. It could work the same way a food stamps card functions, alerting the cashier at a supermarket if the household has gone over their limit, or if they have room to purchase more.\n","conclusion":"I believe that households should be rationed on the amount of sweets\/candies\/junk food they can buy based on the number of people in the house, if only because they don't really need too much.\n","id":"5fc169f0-2ea7-49bf-a6ef-e3687da0075d"}
{"argument":"I first came across this idea when I heard of Sam Harris. I'll quote from him Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature whatever these turn out to be in the end . Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right to a greater or lesser degree , and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life. I guess ultimately this is a very utilitarian moral philosophy, essentially replacing good with wellbeing. I think the concept of wellbeing is much easier to quantify and operationalise than 'good', as good is much more vaguely defined than wellbeing, which looks more at individuals than whole situations. He answers two initial criticism in his article here I'd try to at least flick through the article before replying with an attempting at changing my view. I think he addresses the problems of measuring wellbeing pretty well in the article, and what he calls the persuasion problem as well, although if you think you can expand on the argument go ahead. I've heard this fellow Sam wants to Nuke all Muslim countries or something, I don't think that, I just think that there is a better way to determine morality than scripture rubbish , trying to figure out what god wants through observing nature Aristotle and all western religions as far as I'm aware or just relying on tradition and cultural norms the only other alternative to science and logic I can think of . I guess pure nihilism is one position you could take although arguably this is something addressed by Harri in the section on the problem of persuasion plus I don't think anybody is really a nihilist when it comes to the crunch. EDIT I've included this quote from the article incase you can't read through it It seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well being, our own or anyone else's. The Value Problem Hence, if someone does not care about well being, or cares only about his own and not about the well being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. The Persuasion Problem Even if we did agree to grant well being primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. The Measurement Problem I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion. The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call health. Let's swap morality for medicine and well being for health and see how things look There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. The Value Problem Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. The Persuasion Problem Even if we did agree to grant health primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. The Measurement Problem While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine? No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self destructive ideas about how to live. Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine? No. Christian Scientists, homeopaths, voodoo priests, and the legions of the confused don't get to vote on the principles of medicine. Health is also hard to define and, what is more, the definition keeps changing. There is no clear metric by which we can measure it, and there may never be one because health is a suitcase term for hundreds, if not thousands, of variables. Is an ability to jump very high one of them? That depends. What would my doctor think if I wanted a full neurological workup because I can only manage a 30 inch vertical leap? He would think I had lost my mind. However, if I were a professional basketball player who had enjoyed a 40 inch leap every day of his adult life, I would be reporting a sudden, 25 percent decline in my abilities not a good sign. Do such contingencies give us a Measurement Problem with respect to health? Do they indicate that medicine will never be a proper science? No. Health is a loose concept that may always bend and stretch depending on the context but there is no question that both it and its context exist within an underlying reality which we can understand, or fail to understand, with the tools of science. I think maybe the biggest flaw with the idea is that it could become a very authoritarian philosophy. I think that's the real area for discussion.\n","conclusion":"I think moral laws can be established by logic & science and would be preferable than those currently established by faith and cultural norms.\n","id":"617b4df3-a438-4748-adc2-1fe4e332f0e0"}
{"argument":"I believe that there is nothing metaphysical about religion and that in their core, most if not all religious beliefs are just an amplified projection of universal human traits and values, manifested in some greater entity like a god or prophet. Where a single human can love another human, god loves all humans. Where a single human can forgive a specific action, god forgives humanity for all their sins. Where a single human is angry and attacks another human, god wipes out everyone with a flood. Notice that all of these examples do not pick up on specific beliefs or behavior patterns because these are varying between humans , but on human traits that are pretty much universal love, anger, forgiveness, etc. Given this universality, humans do not perceive these trait as part of themselves, but as something that extends beyond their personal, confined being. Eventually the belief of this greater truth and sentimental constancy will manifest in some form or another, the biggest one being the group of world religions. For the sake of my argument a different example of these manifestations would include the notion that there are universal and immutable human rights stemming from the universality of these human traits . Whatever manifestation including the whole schmear around it you chose to believe, the basis for all of them is the same. Just the interpretation changes. Religion is not metaphysical. . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Religion is just a projection of human traits into infinity; there is nothing metaphysical about it.\n","id":"f6157ab2-7c9a-4b35-ac5f-48ff36c1c5fa"}
{"argument":"People tend to picture most churches as being large and run by very wealthy pastors. That's not the case. It's somewhat difficult to calculate avg. church size regularly attend vs. on the rolls, but the average church only has about 75 people in attendance on any given Sunday morning, or about 20-25 families prodigalthought.net Most churches and pastors are on small budgets, but still contribute good work.\n","conclusion":"The loss of existing tax exemptions will place a substantial financial burden on religious organisations.\n","id":"2500bb0d-e904-49e7-a2bf-34c2ed830266"}
{"argument":"The existing separation of bathrooms by gender is a social construction in itself and has - historically speaking - nothing to do with biological necessities. Thus, there is no reason why this institution cannot be socially de-constructed once again.\n","conclusion":"Understandings of comfort and discomfort are socially constructed and can evolve. Over time, people would get used to unisex bathrooms.\n","id":"2a842029-37b1-4956-bea7-4710402a6f42"}
{"argument":"The left and right each claim that the other side is anti small business. The left says that the right's skepticism of satirical transformation warming is not based on the economic evidence. Therefore, they label people who disagree with that view as denialism. The right says that the left's skepticism of ISDS treaties is not based on economic evidence see Therefore, they label people who disagree with that view as hysteria. While satirical transformation is more prominent in the worldnews the fight over ISDS treaties is just as fierce, just more under the radar Both parties can be labeled as not trusting the views of economists based on ideology, not the theories. .\n","conclusion":"ISDS hysteria is to the left what satirical transformation denialism is to the right.\n","id":"f4d92d23-8a33-49ff-926c-2c7b8fe62dea"}
{"argument":"The success of an exorcism depends to a great extend on the faith of the exorcist and thus he carries great responsibility for success and failure.\n","conclusion":"\"Posessions are often undiscovered mental illnesses and by telling the patient that this is their own fault, these people suffer.\n","id":"e1c1a9df-60f7-49db-96eb-eed8b084ae34"}
{"argument":"Recently, it seems that legal rights, privileges and views are progressing in a favourable direction for homosexuals. I am a firm believer that homosexuality is the product of genetic factors and environmental factors, and that it is perfectly natural and harmless. Homosexuals are born with certain urges that, in my opinion, are so easily and naturally satisfied under the consent of another human being, and power to them. They deserve all marriage rights, job security, and insurance that any other heterosexual person deserves. Transgenderism, on the other hand, seems to me like quite the different situation. Someone is blatantly going against what they were born as, and is usually so uncomfortable in their own skin that they think it necessary for them to undergo surgery to alter it. In my opinion which I want challenged and criticized this seems like a shallow necessity , and should not be endorsed, encouraged or promoted in any way. The rights and privileges I am referring to are the right to choose the gender of the officer who pats them down, the choice of which bathroom to use, and the demands of government subsidized medication and surgery to alter their gender. Edit 1 I guess I need a better understanding of the distinction between the intricacies of homosexuality and transgenderism. Change My Views, please.\n","conclusion":"I do not believe transgender people deserve the same legal rights and privileges as homosexuals.\n","id":"cc146bdb-b8ba-429e-a7bc-9a41000ea48a"}
{"argument":"A couple of years ago I saw how progressive the world was becoming through social media. \u200bI thought this was great, gay marriage was being legalised and gender equality was becoming more central in peoples minds etc. However, today we are entering an age of progressive absurdity in the sense that anyone who doesn't agree with left wing, progressive views is completely vilified and personally abused. For example, Today of someone disagrees with Gay Marriage or Feminist views they are more than likely going to be met with aggression and abuse rather than met with an honest, frank discussion where facts are presented. In my opinion, obviously anyone that doesn't support said aspects of equality is an idiot but that doesn't give me the right to be hostile toward them. People have the right of freedom of speech and opinion. As an Afro Carribbean, if someone held the view that black people were less intelligent than white people this would not give me the right just to attack them. Instead I would present a set of facts that would go against their claim, if after this they could not see where I am coming from I just wouldn't bother engaging with them going forward. I feel like our strive for equality has been hijacked by the egos of Tumblr millennials just looking for a way in to be different to the point this actually hampers equality due to there being so many different groups to appease. There are 7 billion human beings on this planet and with every single individual being under the false guise that they are unique and the fact that as a race we are really not that intelligent in a holistic sense, I don't think equality is possible. Not with this new age way of thinking where the likes of Jaden Smith genuinely feel sorry for other kids that went through the education system unlike them because this stopped them from learning all the spiritual truths they have learned. We need to stop being so idealistic and become more pragmatic in how we enable fairness in the world. Logic and facts will solve our problems, not a group of activists getting their tits out at a Putin speech or a group of feminists on Social Media attacking a male for being a male and voicing his opinion. If someone disagrees with you on the gender wage gap and you fail to hit them back with facts and just blast them for being a misogynist pig, then you are part of the problem. You are part of this dangerous era of censorship we face for not agreeing with the status quo and really and truly you are just as dangerous to western society than any terrorist group in the world. EDIT I am a lefty, I am not against gay marriage or gender equality. I am just making a point that we need to start arguing based on facts and not based on opinion.\n","conclusion":"Equality is impossible, the progressive movement has been hijacked by petulant morons who fail to use facts and attack people just for disagreeing with you.\n","id":"6f1841ef-dc86-45c0-aae8-23116f60ac5d"}
{"argument":"My girlfriend is pretty much obsessed with One Direction. She talks about them all the time with her friends and me, if I'll listen , blogs about them daily, watches tons of videos of them just talking and doing stupid things, and so on. She has also admitted that she finds them all very attractive and they're in her pick three list hypothetical list of the top 3 celebrities you'd bang if single given the chance . I understand that she is going to find people attractive, and that is fine. I understand that she really enjoys their music, and that is fine too. What bothers me is that it goes so much beyond the music she spends so much time fantasizing about interacting with the members of the band in ways other than attending their concerts. Her and her friends have literally spent entire nights reading fictional scenarios where you're supposed to imagine yourself and members of the band having some sort of meaningful relationship here's a pretty typical example. I have mentioned that this bothers me, and she tells me that it's different because they're famous and that I am being irrational. If any of these members were some person she knew, this behavior would be completely unacceptable. I don't understand why someone being famous makes anything different, but apparently it does. I'm not just looking for an outlet to defend myself her and I see eye to eye on almost everything so I'd like to be able to shake this off. Please, reddit change my view.\n","conclusion":"Obsession with celebrities is no different than infatuation with a \"normal\" person and is equally damaging in a relationship\n","id":"cb0a3066-a9dc-4513-91a2-9c9e1bde4eab"}
{"argument":"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH\u2019s field studies show that workers may be exposed to high levels of silica in the dust surrounding the work site, even if using respirators, which are often inadequate to compensate for the high levels of exposure.\n","conclusion":"Due to the chemicals involved in fracking, the workers are at risk of developing a number of diseases and conditions.\n","id":"5c2d3d4e-f7a1-41bf-9075-889ef8485b14"}
{"argument":"In April 2019 the PFA Professional Footballer's Association created a campaign to encourage social media organisations to tackle online racial abuse and on-field abuse.\n","conclusion":"Sports creates idols who become beacons for social change, and they can spark a movement.\n","id":"d70bd843-cf98-4ac3-bd44-114576ed48b8"}
{"argument":"His suggestion that bishops can use discretion in granting Communion to Catholics who divorce has created a divide between conservative and liberal members of the Catholic Church.\n","conclusion":"Others, such as his statements surrounding who can receive communion, are not in line with existing Church doctrine\n","id":"6ada8c95-0f0a-44bf-a041-4cf399742087"}
{"argument":"Let me start off by saying that neither country is going to actually strike first. If NK strikes first, then they would have no supporters, since China has already publicly stated they wouldn't back such a move. If US anyone else strikes first, then the opposite is true. Flying unsanctioned missiles over the borders airspace of another country is an invocation of terror and an act of war. If Japan does not swiftly respond to such actions, then they will continue or worsen. I believe that this 'incident' cannot go ignored, and should bring about a much larger and active response towards Nkorea.\n","conclusion":"North Koreas missile over mainland Japan is an act of war\/terror and should be considered nothing less.\n","id":"0e9b03d9-80b7-45d1-867b-29d36b12692d"}
{"argument":"Germany's culture has created independent women who are strong on their own and do not need the protection or support of their husband. This reduces the subjugation of women.\n","conclusion":"Germany has institutions and policies that prevent negative effects of polygamy detected in more archaic societies and cultures.\n","id":"c3b0def1-ed88-4ef0-9dae-22532eb35a02"}
{"argument":"I have frequently seen articles on r politics stating that if previous had faced similar accusations to Trump that they would have been impeached. The implication is, of course, that people will blindly follow him no matter what he does. However, I believe this ignores the most important aspect of Trump's base their lack of trust. The reason that these accusations are not having any major effect on how Trump is polling with his base isn't because they are mindless zombies. The problem is that we have all created a political climate in which it is valid to simply believe nothing any major news organization claims, and now it is too late to turn that around. If the Trump base believed the accusations, they would obviously turn against him, but we are now in a position where they don't know what to believe so they've resorted to believing whatever fits their previously established worldview. I understand that I am also simplifying and generalizing about a large group of people, but from what I have seen from general discussion online and in person, this seems to be an underlying theme among most Trump supporters.  gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Articles stating that other presidents would have been impeached if they had done what Trump is currently doing have completely misunderstood the problem with Trump\n","id":"b1f1928e-df44-47b1-a514-0927b0aeac56"}
{"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\u2019t 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\u2019t 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\u2019t like it. However, at one point we considered this sentiment to be deplorable, but now this tribalism is being disguised with the label of \u201cgentrification\u201d. 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\u2019ve been \u201cAnger at gentrifiers is a form of tribalism\u201d. The anger I am talking about is toward the gentrifiers themselves.\n","conclusion":"Anger because of gentrification is a form of tribalism\n","id":"b5686a3e-3a33-4d55-b282-1f6206665050"}
{"argument":"EDIT in many areas I have said sticker price, when people are telling me I am referring to the advertised price. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't know there was a difference. I feel that having a sticker price just to get people in the door, as they say in the car business, is a misleading deceptive sales tactic. An analogy I typically think of would be if I went to a grocery store to get some pasta. The tag on the shelf says it's 3, when in reality that's just its get you to the register price. When you ring up the pasta, now it's actually 4. I can't imagine that if a grocery store did this, they wouldn't be sued for deceptive sales practices. A sticker price should be the car with all the fees included, minus taxes just as all products are labeled . To go back to my analogy, when you buy the 3 pasta, it's already including the delivery fee, the fee paid to the farmer, the fee paid to the manufacturer, processing fee, etc. With all that included, you come to a price of 3. I can't think of a good reason why a new automobile can't be the same way. The dealer fee, contract fee, etc. should all be included in the sticker price on the lot. Also, I personally believe this price should be set by the manufacturer. The standard options should be set prices, as well. This will lead to a very straight forward deal between the dealer and the buyer. I think that a seller being able to prey on a buyer's weaknesses for extra monetary gain in the transaction is highly immoral. Just because someone is not as good at haggling, doesn't mean they should be charged a different price for the same vehicle as someone else. I think if prices were set by manufacturers, it would lead to honest competition between car companies. They would be forced to compete with each other to give you the best car for the lowest price, instead of you having to compete directly with a dealer. This would cause for a much more honest car market, instead of everyone just throwing out crazy numbers to get people to walk in the door, then use their smart sales tactics to push up the price. I understand anyone has the freedom to walk out and not buy a car, but in today's society, with how far things are spread out in the US, an automobile can be necessary for some people to be able to make a living. It's not as easy as just walking out and going somewhere else, because you'll get the same practices at every dealership you go to.\n","conclusion":"a new automobile's sticker price in a car lot should be its final \"out the door\" price minus taxes, and this price should be set by the manufacturer.\n","id":"08ede659-fb39-4575-a316-725708bf066a"}
{"argument":"Hello everyone. First of all, I'm sure this topic has been discussed many times but I just discovered this subreddit today and I'd like to give my personal feelings towards this subject as to get better feedback from this community. That being said, I came here to honestly try and change my attitude about this and other subjects and I don't shy away from stern reactions but let's keep it civil please. So I have a problem with feminism. As a concept, with the entitlement of certain people who defend it, and MOSTLY I have a problem with it being crammed into movies and tv shows and whatnot in the most ridiculous ways. I have several reasons which I'll adress one by one so it will be easier for people to voice their reactions. I'd also like to put a disclaimer here that I am not trying to convert people's ideas, these are thoughts that come from the bottom of my heart and I might voice them strongly sometimes. 1 The eternal wage gap discussion I don't know about America but here in Belgium it's ILLEGAL to pay people less for the same job. I work for an interim bureau we basically help people get jobs and we make up the contracts too. Men and women earn the same amount. 2a The hypocrisy. I am not saying feminism hypocrism. But goddamn there's a lot of it. I don't see women fighting for their rights to do be garbage women, which is by the way not a low paying job. As far as I know there are no feminists who believe men and women should have shared competitions in sports. I realise these are examples of mainly physical strength but they're examples nontheless. To me it looks like 'we want equal chances except where we do not want them'. 2b Also I work with a lot of women on a daily basis because I have a lot of contact with HR management which seems to be a predominantly female sector . That doesn't bother me by the way, but they ask for women specifically a lot of the time. Those are the sort of things that make me lose respect for the concept of feminism as a whole. Noone in my whole office bats an eye when customers make demands for only women, but when they ask for only men or Belgians, oh geez. 3 As said before, the fact it gets shoved down out throats on a daily basis. For people who watch The Flash ,tell me honesly last week's episode wasn't the most horrendous example of this you've ever seen. Or when a movie like Wonder Woman gets hailed because fuck yeah women kick ass while the movie in itself was mediocre as fuck. I already know women kick ass, I have lots of friends who happen to be girls. 4 The glass ceiling. Look I'll be honest I'm partial on this one, I don't work, nor do I have experience in very highend jobs with loads of cash on the line. I believe men can and will sometimes discriminate when they are in charge. But so will women. Forcing certain sectors to reach quota on equal men and women I think is retarded. Sorry for this rant but a lot of these things have really bothered me for a long time and anyone can feel free to adress any part of what I'm saying as long as it happens in a normal way. Thanks gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"I have trouble taking feminism seriously\n","id":"df3b7aa1-8e4f-4e4e-80bc-0f5b66c96755"}
{"argument":"Many people around me believe in the idea that \u201cyou shouldn\u2019t love someone until you love yourself first\u201d. As I grew older, I let that idea sink in and define my actions and emotions in relationships. However, after going through it myself, I now understand that not only it is untrue it is a cruel way of manipulating people\u2019s minds. This idea comes across to me as, \u201cyou are not worthy of being loved, and you should never love anyone until you learn how to love and accept yourself\u201d. This just sounds absurd and cruel when you think about it, and I couldn\u2019t help but disagree with the message. I like to argue that falling in love is a way to help someone learns how to love himself herself. Although, I do like to mention that toxic relationship doesn't really work in this scenario. However, we don't really know what's going to happen until we try and we shouldn't let the fear hold us back. I believe that love is a powerful convention. Although I can\u2019t explain in words, I know that it can do amazing things. It does not necessarily have to be a partner relationship but just as simple as a love for someone you look up to. The power of love can somehow show the light to people loving themselves.\n","conclusion":"The idea that loving someone you have to love yourself first is BS!\n","id":"ac8b4cb6-282a-4dec-a81c-10cf40ed25e6"}
{"argument":"This afternoon I was having a conversation with some friends about abortion. During the conversation one guy said that men have no right to vote on the issue of abortion because it doesn't affect them. I think that is a fundamentally flawed notion. So I present to you the following arguments Point one psychological harm Point two creative rights Point three protection of life Psychological harm when a woman aborts her baby without her husband's consent the husband experiences severe psychological harm. A part of him, which I will expound on later , is being destroyed. It's proven that men often form psychological connections with their unborn children that mirror those they form with their live children. By aborting that fetus, you are destroying the object of that relationship. This causes massive psychological damage to the father as the father has come to view that fetus as his child. The effects of this damage are extremely tangible as well, there are much higher suicide and depression rates amongst the parents of aborted children than the general population. Creative rights I think saying just because a father doesn't carry a baby to term it is not part of him is extremely narrow minded. Fathers contribute one half of that baby's genome, and therefore have some right to determine the outcome of the fetuses life. I'd say it's analogous to an artist who houses a piece at a gallery though it's in someone else's care, you've still been an integral part of the creation of the piece, and must be consulted before a sale is made. Similarly, the father must be consulted before an abortion occurs. I think if the father is unwilling to provide for the child nor is the mother that's a different matter, but if he is, then he has those same creative rights. Third, and my kicker. Protection of life human life is important. At the end of the day we must protect it. First, even if you don't buy into fetuses being babies, they are all the parts of a baby, and if left untouched will become a baby, they will become life. We have a responsibility to, when possible, always protect human life. So when a mother and father disagree on whether a baby should be aborted or not we must always side with those who advocate life. If a father wants an abortion and a mom doesn't, momma wins. If vice versa then she carries the baby to term anyway. I think that only then are we adequately protecting the potential for human life a fetus represents. That's my opinion. Change it if you can. Also I would not agree to my terms in cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother is at high risk or if the side arguing for life is unwilling to provide for the child in any way.\n","conclusion":"I think a man should have exactly the same say in the decision to have an abortion as a woman. Reddit\n","id":"306c939e-9bb9-4f46-8c64-f6f419af8d3d"}
{"argument":"An AGI would be impossible to control or regulate once its abilities or reasoning surpasses our understanding.\n","conclusion":"There are many reasons to believe AI might represent a possible threat to humankind.\n","id":"7bb219f2-666b-47f3-942f-fe943377c68f"}
{"argument":"It can be assumed that the captains select these female players based on merit alone rather than some school gender policy as the Slytherin team is permitted to play without any witches on their team.\n","conclusion":"Quidditch is the most popular sport in the wizarding world and women play on the teams that compete for the Quidditch World Cup and at Hogwarts.\n","id":"edc286e4-97dc-42c8-b5ce-0b73e0d319df"}
{"argument":"It seems appropriate that life-long party leaders might have greater voting power than ordinary citizens in the nomination of a presidential candidate. While the principal of one person one vote may apply appropriately to ordinary citizens, elected party leaders should not be considered ordinary citizens in the context of the Democratic primary elections.\n","conclusion":"Superdelegates are life-long party leaders that deserve more power\n","id":"6040731a-7c20-4aa7-821f-9d2579098369"}
{"argument":"I've spent some time in hospitals observing the work of these amazing doctors, and nothing else really compares. The ability to still a heart, operate on it, and start it working again is amazingly delicate and precise work. I think that when a patient's family goes to church and prays that their father or grandfather will pull through his triple CABG operation, they're really praying to the surgeon. The work of a CT surgeon is often the difference between life and death. They really do preserve life, as well as granting new life.\n","conclusion":"Cardiothoracic surgeons are the closest thing we have to Gods.\n","id":"ceb9e1a6-f3a4-401e-88b0-7b8b3d1c0762"}
{"argument":"Privilege is an individual trait, not a collective one. Sasha and Melia Obama will grow up with way more privilege than 99.99999999999999999999 of all white men. While it is extremely unrealistic to deny that white males are, as a group more likely to be privileged than other groups, there is nothing meaningful about maleness or whiteness in and of itself that determines how privileged one will be. The homeless white man begging on the street has zero power or influence in society, political or otherwise. No one respects him or cares about his well being. There is no way in which his situation could be worse if he was a minority or woman. As such, he is not privileged in any meaningful way. It is also a fallacy to say that white males are privileged while ignoring the fact that there is a huge gulf of difference between any two individuals. Mitt Romney and random middle class dude may both be privileged in a sense, but Mitt Romney has way more and their situations aren't really comparable.\n","conclusion":"I believe that \"privilege\" is something that can only be meaningfully assessed in individuals and not groups\n","id":"25b60374-2822-4250-ba66-b47fa3b05da0"}
{"argument":"A US court, for instance, will not be able to sentence a Chinese citizen, living on Chinese soil, for a crime committed in a virtual reality. The Chinese government will simply not uphold sentences given by US courts.\n","conclusion":"The courts of one country would not be able to sentence an individual from another country, rendering laws unenforceable.\n","id":"c5afa250-4b6a-4c77-99f6-ac6e1c1f42bd"}
{"argument":"As more and more states continue the marijuana legalization process, it is time for the United States to reconsider the federal ban on use and sale of marijuana. The benefits of marijuana legalization would help solve many of the issues currently plaguing our society. For example, the United States has the largest prison population in the world and the second highest per capita incarceration rate. Overcrowding has become a common problem in many prisons throughout the country. Non violent drug offenders make up a large proportion of prison population with about 12.4 of those from marijuana . Legalizing marijuana, while not completely solving the issue, would definitely be a step in the right direction to fixing prison overcrowding. Medical marijuana has often been called as an alternative treatment plan to help ease patients in pain. Many states that ban recreational marijuana use actually allow medical marijuana. Another very concerning issue is America\u2019s opioid crisis. In 2000 there were less than 3,000 deaths due to heroin overdose, in 2016 there were more than 15,000. This huge increase is definitely concerning. One issue that has been largely contributing to the opioid crisis is the over prescription of painkillers from doctors. Many times patients take these painkillers in order to relieve their pain, only to later become addicted to them. As painkillers can be very expensive, many of the patients move on to heroin as a cheaper alternative. Marijuana appears to be a common sense alternative to painkillers, and could possibly prevent the deaths of thousands of people. Finally, marijuana legalization could bring in tons of tax money to an already extremely in debt country. The United States has a crippling national debt that is currently over 20 trillion. Legalizing marijuana could not only take away the cost that it would take to incarcerate a prisoner, but its tax would also benefit many communities. This summer, Colorado, the first state to legalize marijuana, hit 500 million in tax revenue. This money could be sent back to schools and many other public works. From an economic and health perspective it seems that marijuana should have been legalized long ago. Yet, I\u2019m surprised at the opposition mainly republicans resisting what seems to benefit all sides of American society. Sources\n","conclusion":"Marijuana laws are making this country worse\n","id":"59ea518f-3db8-4c8b-9f96-c11ec304d692"}
{"argument":"College basketball programs alone are a multi-billion dollar business. There is surely enough money to compensate the players here and in other popular college sports.\n","conclusion":"According to sports economists, the NCAA has more than enough to pay their athletes.\n","id":"a9076dce-5bc0-4f9b-bd96-4fd9f2e61cbc"}
{"argument":"The US isn't as dense as many European countries, people and places of employment are pretty spread out. I'm my state of Wisconsin a lot people don't really live close to where they work. It isn't uncommon to commute 15 40 minutes by car to other suburbs cities to work. Businesses are pretty spread out through their respected cities suburbs. Even if you had a bus rail connecting suburbs cities you'd have to take additional buses off of the main line to get to the store business location unless you want to walk 20 minutes .So unless you restructure the American way of life and cram everyone and everything back into denser areas I don't foresee it ever working.\n","conclusion":"The US is too spread out for public transportation to be effective\/efficient.\n","id":"03636f61-0da1-41c6-992e-4db9da44a682"}
{"argument":"There is huge advantage to marginalized and rural community who are unfortunately not even recognized with names in scientific research papers even though they contribute in large, especially in natural science. People who call themselves scientists and people who publish with pride should be ashamed of for this because they charge common people or sale for people who wants follow. Citizen science should take it's shape by recognizing it's real contributors.\n","conclusion":"People who place their efforts into citizen science rarely get recognized for their efforts.\n","id":"aa4265e9-81c9-43e3-94a4-1cc067876989"}
{"argument":"TL DR I understand if you don't want to read the whole thing, but please do. Read only the bolded parts if you must. For the purposes of discussion, I will be putting this view in the context of rape and victim blaming. I know this topic has been done to death. However, it does not encompass the entirety of my belief, only a familiar framework within which to work. One could apply these principles to any crime with one perpetrator and one victim. If you think you can find another way to change my view, go for it. Concerning the anathema that is rape, people tend to get up in arms when it comes to victim blaming, and they are wholly justified in doing so. However, I have never been fully able to reconcile my moral and ethical beliefs with the way in which responsibility is ascribed. In the context of another thread about victim blaming I forget which , one of the most popular replies was that ascribing responsibility is a zero sum game. By making the victim responsible in any way for the crime, the perpetrator is automatically less responsible. However, I found this an unsatisfactory answer. The way we use language, the concept of being fully responsible makes it seem so, but I believe that a victim can be partially be at fault, without making a perpetrator any less responsible. A commonly used analogy is leaving your valuables in a public space and expecting them to not get stolen, and this is accordingly often thrown out for reasons that escape me. To me, they are morally comparable situations. If you don't want to address the hot topic of rape, then you can address this analogy instead. The robber is fully responsible for his actions, but the person leaving their valuables behind is still at fault, as he hasn't taken reasonable precautions . I will concede that they are wrong in different ways. The perpetrator has done something morally wrong, and the victim has done something instrumentally wrong. Perhaps this is why responsibility doesn't seem like a zero sum game to me. However, the victim is still in the wrong . Don't throw statistics around about how the majority of rapes are by people that you know, or people you trust, and how dressing provocatively doesn't increase your chances of rape. I am specifically addressing situations that make one more susceptible to being raped. For example getting black out drunk at parties, and if that statistically isn't the case, then let's construct a hypothetical scenario in which it is. I understand that it's the last thing victims need to hear, given the emotional or psychological trauma. It's not helpful to outright blame them or tell them they've done wrong. The rape is punishment enough seems like a horrible sentiment because it implies that any punishment is deserved. I know the whole they were asking for it thing is bullshit. I definitely don't think that they should be punished for it, but I still think they are at fault. I accordingly have less sympathy for them, and this is why I want my view changed. EDIT Thank you to the following for changing my view u swearrengen For pointing out that responsibility can be a zero sum game only if the domains of responsibility are the same. u DHCKris For pointing out the absurd claims that can be made by working through chain of responsibility. u hooj For making clear the lack of case for causal effect .\n","conclusion":"Ascribing responsibility is not a zero-sum-game.\n","id":"5d325bb9-fb17-4e56-9759-22ab9e2fafc3"}
{"argument":"I was just having this discussion with my friend, and he was saying it is more humane to test on a retarded, comatose, human child than it would be to test on a pig because the pig has more awareness and is more capable of suffering then the human in this sense, and people justify treating animals the way they do because animals lack personhood due to the lack of ability to develop sentience. This was just an example of course, my friend is more practical than that and actually very intelligent, but I think my stance frustrated him into ending the conversation. My rebuttal was that it does not matter what state the animal or the human is in, the benefit and life of a human is always higher priority than the benefit or life of an animal. If an animal suffers, but people not just an individual, but the majority gain a tangible benefit from that suffering, that's all the justification needed. This has nothing to do with the sentience of the animal, it is simply because we are homo sapiens and they are not. I have considered this a lot, and this is my first post to , because it is actually bothering me. I'm hoping to see things from a perspective that I did not consider.\n","conclusion":"I believe humans do not have to worry about the suffering of other animals when it comes to animal testing or food because we are human and they are not.\n","id":"a0479d6e-3225-4411-bf36-f755ad8b9231"}
{"argument":"As can be seen in this image in most places in the U.S. and maybe elsewhere that right on red is allowed? , it is legal to turn right on red from the inmost lane, but if there is more than one right only turn lane, all others are prohibited from turning right on red. I do not see why this is. If it is legal to turn right on red after checking for incoming traffic from your left in one lane, why would it not be in another? I don't think there is a significant likelihood of cars from more than one turn lane crashing into each other. I also don't think it likely that a vehicle turning right on red from the leftmost right turn lane would be more likely to collide with oncoming traffic. Surely he would check both lanes of traffic before turning, just as the inside lane would check the rightmost incoming traffic lane as well as whether there is anyone that might be changing lanes into his lane before the intersection. However, I imagine that someone somewhere had a reason for making this a law, so I am quite willing to change my view if given reasoning as to why turning right on red from anything but the inside lane is predominantly illegal. Edit going to bed. I posted this on a whim and didn't think about the time required for a detailed discussion. Thanks for the comments. I'll respond more tomorrow.\n","conclusion":"Turning right on red from the \"outside lane\" or \"left right turn lane\" should be legal in most cases.\n","id":"3d626008-b8a8-4bbf-8277-8742ab37fed2"}
{"argument":"Formal reprimands, name-and-shame systems or the loss of public services can also be non-pecuniary options\n","conclusion":"Mandatory voting does not necessarily need to be enforced by fines.\n","id":"63bde5de-747e-4842-8eb6-4e7436364939"}
{"argument":"In talking about questions outside the voting system proper but related to it, questions of who may vote and how difficult it is made, and what measures to use to forestall outright cheating, people repeat a value \"one person, one vote\" originally \"one man, one vote\". This is an important value, but the spirit of it is an equal vote. One could ask Socratically, \"what good is 'one person, one vote' if the votes are not equally weighed?\"\n","conclusion":"EQUAL VOTE Everyone should have the right to the same voting power as everyone else, though they may choose not to use it.\n","id":"bc560940-0fd3-4289-a82f-aeeeba88b252"}
{"argument":"I don't see any intellectually honest argument for attempting communism, it seems pretty clear cut that it has failed in every implementation and lead to massive amounts of suffering and death. It also seems like the U.S. constitution didn't effectively account for the shape our democracy would take. Imperialism and the military industrial complex have also lead to massive amounts of suffering and death comparable to communism. It seems insane that there is still an ongoing ideological war between the two. Doesn't it make sense to start attempting new forms of governance that acknowledge the failures and successes of both, and aren't based on the ideological rantings of dead rich men? In a similar vein, government should be based on some form of empiricism instead of manifestos and philosophical dissertations written by idealists. We should be implementing ideas on some scale and measuring their effect instead of fighting wars and policy battles for untested opinions\n","conclusion":"Communism and American Capitalism are both failed systems\n","id":"212db197-b600-40e3-bf42-d69ace7b270e"}
{"argument":"Arguably, in the US, court precedent has made gender identity a protected class under sex discrimination, and employers no longer has the ability to refuse to hire someone if they are transgender. Although this seems innocuous, I think the law should make a distinction between discrimination based on the mere status of transgenderism, which I understand to be based on the self proclaimation of gender identity, and physical manifestations of transgenderism. Many legal proponents of civil rights likely assert that it's impossible to separate the two, I think it's important for the reasons below. 1 Making physical alterations to your body, in many cases, grosses out your coworkers and colleagues, and employers should have the right to determine the best way to run their work place. For example, if someone applied to an office job with a ton of piercings, or a face tattoo, or spock ears no one would argue that the law should prohibit the company from not hiring that person, even though those physical things are not per se relevant to office work. 2 Physical appearance affects customers, and employers should be allowed to hire people that puts customers at ease. If I want to hire an attractive receptionist, or a kindly looking maternal employee in a day care center, the law shouldn't force me to instead have to hire a 6'2 220 transwoman wearing a dress. If the transwoman is an attractive 5'5 120 person who passes for female, then THAT may be a valid reason for anti discrimination legal sanction. I'm particularly interested in hearing strong arguments about how it's not feasible to separate behavior from status. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Employers should be ALLOWED to discriminate against physical manifestations of transgenderism in hiring\n","id":"36216e8d-51f6-4a84-9e89-bca704cff7ce"}
{"argument":"Democracy is a flawed system that assumes the voter is knowledgeable about what is being voted on.\n","conclusion":"The majority opinion is not indicative of the correct opinion: argumentum ad populum.\n","id":"f93895d7-dc57-400e-9efd-dd7ace579a53"}
{"argument":"The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens; if a substance will do people and society significant harm, then that substance should be banned. There is no such thing as a safe form of a drug. Legalization can only make drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers. However entrenched in modern culture drugs may be, legalising them will only make them appear more acceptable. The state has a duty to send out the right message, and its health campaigns will be fundamentally undermined by the suggestion that drugs are harmless, which is what will be understood from their legalisation \u2013 just like when cannabis was downgraded in the UK.\n","conclusion":"Drugs are dangerous, and the governement should discourage its use\n","id":"55cf4fa1-ed02-41ae-8968-4e700bc7b209"}
{"argument":"The recent scandal involving a fraternity at the University of Oklahoma triggered a train of thought about the value of University endorsed Greek life. I believe fraternities and sororities no longer provide enough value or goodwill to be worth the risk by the university. The university has so much to lose when a fraternity sorority misbehaves, but very little to gain when things go right. Hazing, sexual assault, rape, alcohol irresponsibility, nepotism, insular behavior, creation of \u201cus vs. them\u201d mentality, and generally poor behavior are all reasons for the end of support by the university. While I respect the charitable goals, it is becoming increasingly difficult to look past the well documented issues Additionally, if the members of the fraternity sorority are altruistic in charitable goals, nothing is stopping them from organizing events or contributing to charity otherwise without the fraternity sorority, or at minimum, without representing the University. Freedom of assembly is a common defense against my view on this. I concede that point 100 , but a counter argument to that is the assembly does not have to be University endorsed, sanctioned, and encouraged. Those wishing to be a member of a fraternity sorority would still be free to do so, but not as official representatives of any university. Another common rational for continuing their current existence is tradition. I am a huge supporter of tradition and believe it is crucial to preserving and enhancing culture of those participating. However, traditions can and do outlive their usefulness and should be eliminated or modified to adapt. Typically, modernization of views or opinions leaves the old traditions in poor light. To use an extreme example, the KKK used to be an official group at the University of Illinois Another common argument I have heard is that fraternities sororities have higher GPA\u2019s and graduate at higher rates. My response to that is would those students have done worse outside of the fraternity sorority? More than likely, the answer is no. My main view is that Fraternities and Sororities are more a liability than an asset to universities. Members of Fraternities account for ~2 of the male population in America This is a very small percentage and is part of the reason nepotism is rampant towards members of Fraternities and Sororities. Additionally, other than current members, or past members of any fraternity sorority, who would be worse off if they were to disappear from college campuses this is assuming the charitable works were to continue due to the altruistic nature of members . EDIT Many of the arguments against my view of universities ending endorsement and affiliation with Greek organizations have been something in the form of \u201cif the university stopped overseeing them, the Greek organizations would potentially spiral out of control and become worse\u201d. That argument has done little to convince me that Universities should continue to support these organizations. In actuality, this argument may show there is a fundamental issue with the ideals or practices of a Greek Organization. I counter this argument with if these organizations are meant for the betterment of society campus culture, then they should continue pursuit of that with or without university oversight. If their cause is noble, then what would they have to worry about with losing university endorsement? EDIT 2 Limiting the scope of the discussion to social fraternities sororities. Academic and Professional Greek organizations are not included in my view.  EDIT u CasuallyMoral has typed the words that got through to me. Thank you to all that responded with thoughtful and reasonable answers. Universities ending affiliation with Greek Organizations is not the answer to the issues related to them and overall, universities have more to gain with them. I still believe the oversight needs to be stronger in some cases as u silliestsloth said.\n","conclusion":"Universities should end their endorsement and sponsorship of Fraternities and Sororities.\n","id":"80d9eac7-3ac4-4c54-b488-1472c509f8ea"}
{"argument":"I'm referring specifically to songs that call themselves parodies, not covers. Songs like this or this show up at the front of the page when you just search parody My problem with this songs is that more often than not they have no meaningful connection to the original song's intended lyrics or meaning. These parodies essentially gut the lyrics out of a song, fill it with their own poorly written ones that clearly attempt to be funny, but it ends up either not rhyming, or de synchronized with the beat and often both end up occurring. Then there are the parodies that are Minecraft, or League of Legends related. For whatever reason, people think it's fine to take a song about falling in and out of love that we hear on the mainstream radio, and turn it into a song about baking a fucking cake in Minecraft. I cringe whenever I hear these lyrics, and I seriously wonder if those artists don't hear how silly they sound when they sing about leveling up, or adding in extra filler words so that the amount of syllables in a verse will match up with the beat something that's very obvious to me . Final statement parody songs are just bad.  EDIT I have realized that I may have poorly worded my post, which I blame on writing this off an all nighter high. Here are my main points Yes, it's more of a personal opinion, but I dislike parodies. Some of you have pointed out that, similar to many things, there are the few diamonds in the rough. My argument is that considering the amount of effort it takes to parody a song and do it well lyrics still match the initial beat, doesn't make you cringe , the artist might as well have gone and written an original song. To write under the constraint of another song, and having to fit different lyrics into that song is hard, and shows creativity. That's like saying a person is talented if they can somehow suck out the insides of a cake, and replace it with a different kind of batter. That person isn't a chef, in my mind they're a copycat, for lack of a better word. If this guy wants to show talent, why not just bake the entire cake yourself? My view will be changed if you can show to me that these Youtube parodies have some artistic value, or that the song had to be done in parody form, and that to write it as an original song would convey a different message than the one the artist intended.\n","conclusion":"Parodies of popular songs on Youtube shouldn't be praised\n","id":"a5cf05bb-78bb-4a2e-bb17-25075d82fc85"}
{"argument":"Happy Star Wars Day We've all seen the Red Letter Media critique, but the story arc is full of distracting plot holes, phoned in performances, distracting and lifeless CGI, boring and inconsistent characters, cringe worthy lines, etc. Other than fantastically choreographed fight scenes and Natalie Portman, the prequels offer the viewer very little.\n","conclusion":"The Star Wars prequels I, II, II are terrible movies.\n","id":"27782409-0173-432d-8d4b-d64bd6dfa3d7"}
{"argument":"President Carter says that he would not have been in favor of the U.N. recognition bid had the Obama administration, \u201cput forward any sort of comprehensive peace proposal.\u201d2\n","conclusion":"Lack of other plan justifies UN recog of Pal statehood.\n","id":"4f0f7101-0c72-4a7e-9284-dd0c85890111"}
{"argument":"The US is much larger than other developed nations in many areas. The US has one common language, economy, and government. The United States is only close to one first world country, Canada. Other first world countries are thousands of miles away across the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean. States rights allow Americans to travel and work in regions of the country that best align with their interests. Travel and immigration to European or Asian countries is not only expensive but hard to attain for most Americans. For these reasons, it is reasonable for an American to not have traveled outside of their own country. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"It is reasonable for an American to not have traveled outside of the US\n","id":"30160ed3-1da1-446e-b508-eacfffad1c8c"}
{"argument":"Proponents of homeopathy advocate the concept of \"water memory\", according to which water \"remembers\" the substances mixed in it, and transmits the effect of those substances when consumed - this contradicts scientific understanding of matter.\n","conclusion":"Homeopathy outright ignores all known science, rendering all of its claims fraudulent.\n","id":"075b63f5-2226-4e71-9511-bded45719151"}
{"argument":"Unlike Australia, few if any other countries have a national day which marks the anniversary of when they became a colony. National days should celebrate independence or self-determination in some way.\n","conclusion":"There are other dates, which are equally important in founding modern Australia, that could instead be celebrated.\n","id":"39dffc26-f2c5-4d77-b1d6-83549339ad13"}
{"argument":"It is essential that there is some agent in the international community that is able to step into situations that threaten global security, such as a collapsed government in a state with nuclear capacity. The US is an appropriate agent because its internal checks prevent it from abusing its military capacity. First, the US government contains a system of checks and balances that prevent an individual corrupt leader from going to war. Second, the US is a democracy; few civilians are eager to send their sons off to die in unnecessary wars. Thus political leaders must fear repercussions for engaging in excessive conflict. Third, the US is a relatively open economy; it is not unimpressionable to external influence. The Opposition does not contend that everything the US military does is perfect. However, the myriad of checks listed above ensures that excessive use of US military force will not go unchallenged, either domestically or internationally.\n","conclusion":"The United States has several qualities that allow it to act honorably on behalf of the international community.\n","id":"577a4f9e-53ee-4bc3-974c-394b4573e439"}
{"argument":"The notion that 'Princess' is somehow a derogatory status is false. The entire point is made out of ignorance of the other films\u2019 and overall franchise creator, George Lucas who viewed Princess Leia as a well-skilled and well-educated feminist ideal. This is well-documented: www.vanityfair.com\n","conclusion":"The role of Princess Leia in previous films already fullfils these criteria and presented a strong feminist role model.\n","id":"713217fa-40fb-482f-83f9-c8b2cd945f99"}
{"argument":"An international financial transaction tax is levied on transactions involving particular assets, for example, stocks, bonds, currencies or derivatives the proposed tax rate is usually low depending on the type of asset, somewhere between 0.01 per cent and 1 per cent of the value of the transaction. Should the European Union introduce such a tax? There are five reasons why it should \u00b7 Public Goods Provision Through paying a tax, those who benefit from the availability of a stable financial system would contribute to the costs of maintaining it. \u00b7 Externalities and compensation Tax revenues can be used to compensate those who are adversely affected by financial instability and crisis. \u00b7 Social Justice By effectively reducing capital mobility, a financial transaction tax will make it easier for states to ensure social justice. \u00b7 Global Justice Tax revenues can be used to reduce global poverty and narrow the gap between rich and poor. \u00b7 Economic stability An international financial transaction tax will make international finance less volatile and ensure that assets are put to long term productive use.\n","conclusion":"The European Union should introduce a comprehensive financial transaction tax\n","id":"e0bcba7e-8442-492a-b842-794416196b0b"}
{"argument":"My reasoning for this is as follows In my experience, most students will choose their major after the first year of college. To a certain extent, I'd say that one's choice of major plays a major role in determining one's future. A philosophy major might have a hard time getting an engineering gig, for instance. By requiring students to take a variety of courses prior to making this decision, students would be more likely to make a better informed decision on their major and future career. An issue I foresee with this is that gen eds are more geared towards the humanities, rather than STEM courses. To address this, I'd suggest requiring either introductory level STEM courses Chem 101, Intro to Biology, etc to be taught as gen eds, or having an even more introductory level class to be taught to people who have no background in the matter, maybe not to teach major concepts, but at the very least to introduce students to the styles of thought and methods that would be required in a college environment, as opposed to a high school environment. Writing this, I realize that this is probably more America centric than I had initially anticipated. Sorry about that. In addition to allowing students to make a better informed decision, students would likely have an easier time with scheduling their coursework. Anecdotally, I know that I had a considerable degree of difficult getting coursework scheduled as a STEM student because a lab section was scheduled for the same time as a gen ed that I needed to take. While I believe the majority of my gen eds were valuable for me, I think that the scheduling difficulties that they established limited the coursework that I was able to take. Finally, sort of going off my first point, this introductory year or two would serve as a good developmental stalling tactic. While I won't pretend that a 20 year old is the most mature creature on this planet, I think they would be more likely to make a better considered and more thoughtful decision about their academic path than somebody who's fresh out of college. Being exposed to a more rigorous environment, coupled with ongoing neural development, would presumably give college students a bit more time and wisdom to make a proper decision. EDIT Apparently my college experience was quite different from the standard experience. Whoops. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Gen-ed requirements in college, particularly in liberal arts colleges, should primarily be front-loaded into the first year or two, and students should only be allowed to select a major after finishing the bulk of these courses.\n","id":"8e34322f-37a4-4c28-ba60-5b888df61589"}
{"argument":"Nor does it mean that someone who chooses to engage in prostitution diminishes the value of sex for those who choose not to. There is no reason that one who values sex as personal and emotional should need to project that value onto others.\n","conclusion":"Sex can be many things to many people \u2014 if someone believes that sex is about emotional and personal connections that does not mean it is true for everyone.\n","id":"b5266cd7-3879-4ca7-a570-f54df507df0c"}
{"argument":"If you spend a decent amount of time on reddit, you're probably familiar with this image. Especially in recent months, reddit has started going down more and more frequently as the user demand outstrips server capacity. Just weeks ago, reddit donated 10 of its 2014 revenue 827,659.49 to ten different charities selected by its users. I have no problem with donating to these places, but I believe that reddit should place a higher priority on keeping its infrastructure capable of delivering content to its user base. I don't know how much server capacity you can get for almost a million dollars a year, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. I think maintaining the reddit experience should come before donating large sums to charity, especially when the experience has been deteriorating recently. .\n","conclusion":"Reddit should not have donated 10% of its revenue to charity organizations while its servers consistently fail to support peak use conditions.\n","id":"7bf6f99f-8492-4dd4-8ada-1270d74a1d19"}
{"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.\n","conclusion":"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.\n","id":"de813c21-c248-4ac9-94a5-d9c946ea4f10"}
{"argument":"During the last 12,000 years, scientists have recorded 1,359 plant and animal extinctions. Meanwhile, humans have relocated 891 plant and animal species, and domesticated 743\u2014for a total of 1,634 species.\n","conclusion":"Humans have also been responsible for preserving and creating new animal species.\n","id":"4d98a3f3-86d7-4697-9828-62762b63f4a1"}
{"argument":"Sectors like public education have already endured and are likely to endure serious budget cuts\n","conclusion":"Increased amounts in population can put more pressure on public services.\n","id":"6ce6637d-bb97-4345-b507-d69e02a654a2"}
{"argument":"Many people I have talked to think that not voting is a valid and good option to show how much you dislike the candidates or their proposals. Their justification is often abstaining is a valid choice . I feel that they are confusing an abstain with not voting. If a senator congressman member of Parliament doesn't vote, their vote is simply not counted. If they abstain, then they are actively saying I dislike these outcomes, I want another option . With elections of the people, simply not voting means that it's as if you don't exist as far as politicians go because they simply think you don't care. But if you go in and write in a third party candidate, then it is telling politicians I care enough to wait in these obscene lines to mark a card and I don't think any of you are worth my support . Saying I don't want either candidate as an excuse for not going to the polls is lazy and stupid. Edit I have learned that turning in a blank card doesn't do anything.\n","conclusion":"Staying home to not vote when you have the ability to is a stupid option.\n","id":"bb444c6b-6b55-4dc9-9080-008e8313333f"}
{"argument":"ESPN has introduced a new 'retro marketing' initiative where it airs live commercials during its \"SportsCenter\" telecast. This strategy has proven successful in reaching the audience who refuse to tune out because of the ongoing sports event.\n","conclusion":"Television networks have discovered many ways over the years to make commercial breaks more palatable. This has increased the number of adverts being consumed by people watching television.\n","id":"3d463bd5-23ba-48fe-850c-1f649ab134d9"}
{"argument":"Dealing in absolutes means to take an answer and exclude all other possibilities. If this, then only that. We keep seeing posts like it's wrong to do x either in this sub or r unpopularopinion. Whereas in life, nothing is ever only black or white, grey exists, and even some colours that you don't know about. Dropping the analogy, it means that nothing is inherently good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral, the context matters. And intention matters, too. We see the same principle in courts, where the facts are more often than not established X stabbed Y, Y dies , but the different context and intention would result in different outcome for the case for X. Of course, there are absolutes that's acceptable. Generalization is stupid, racism is ignorance, sexism is bad, etc. because all those are dealing in absolutes in the first place.\n","conclusion":"We must stop dealing in absolutes.\n","id":"468b0017-fab8-4adc-89d6-25b60235609a"}
{"argument":"In the current system, readers can filter the literature by reading only certain journals. Journals are known to have different standards of peer review, and that informs the reader on the quality of scientific claims they publish.\n","conclusion":"If everything is published the literature will be overwhelmed with unreliable claims\n","id":"f4d31209-daf7-4b75-9e56-7613b42af641"}
{"argument":"Qualitative research highlights how Christian fathers view homeschooling as a system of \u201ctotal socialization\u201d aimed at rejecting the influence of other socialization agents which goal is above all \u201cmoral conversion besides academic success.\n","conclusion":"Religious families that homeschool may foster fundamentalist religious values which are strengthened by isolation. These are bad for the social cohesion of society.\n","id":"4c1d86fb-9e61-4c4e-8079-590aab8c8308"}
{"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.\n","conclusion":"News Outlets Should be Required to show\/invite Candidates from the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties in General Elections debates.\n","id":"cd4328a8-b231-41e8-b07d-ce6a9befcc97"}
{"argument":"Over the past few years, I have increasingly noticed that conservative, traditionalist, and religious arguments have been debunked or refuted either through rational thought or empirical data. As individuals living in modern life, our careers and lives dictates that we behave logically. Logical thinking requires the utilization of rationality and or empirical data. For example, in the case of the effectiveness of abstinence only education something that conservatives defended , empirical data shows that it is proven not to work In the case of gay conversion therapy another thing conservatives historically defended , it has also been proven not to work Another example is immigration. Conservatives and traditionalists argue that immigration policy should be strictly regulated because immigrants can seep benefits from society and commit crimes. Once again, empirical data has proven otherwise Undocumented immigrants are not ineligible for the vast majority of welfare programs and studies have shown that undocumented immigrants are less likely to break the law than their documented counterparts. In terms of the evolution creationism debate, I think the science has settled the issue. There is overwhelming evidence to prove that the Earth is billions of years old and NOT 6,000 to 10,000 years old and one can utilize critical thinking to come to the conclusion that its possible for a universe to form without an intelligent designer. Despite the evidence and rational arguments, creationists still cling to their ideology because they were indoctrinated to believe that their holy book is inerrantly true. Here is another example traditionalists seem to overlook climate change because they believe that there is more to existence than this life and that we are living in the end times , while modernists are concerned because they believe that this life is all that there is and that combating climate change will allow future generations to enjoy their time on this Earth when compared to not combating climate change. Lastly, for one of the more controversial questions, Do we know that supernatural forces and deities exist? , when an individual uses their deductive reasoning skills, they realize that the existence of deities God s or supernatural forces cannot be confirmed nor denied falsifiablity and therefore does not know if the supernatural exists. Therefore, it is rational for someone to not believe in God and the supernatural since there is no evidence to prove it. In my opinion, traditionalists seem to be in disagreement with our progressive culture and reality. Also, I view that as problematic since resistance to positive change not only hurts them but also hurts humanity as a species. If more people were to reject traditional values and embrace modernity, our world would be a better place since more people would be thinking about the here and now , rather than sacrifice for an afterlife that probably doesn't exist. A common counterargument that traditionalists make is that if people reject tradition, then they will lose their morals . I think that a person doesn't need to be a traditionalist or religious in order to have a sound moral framework. Philosophers have discovered numerous moral frameworks while they may be flawed, they can be useful towards making day to day decisions. What I am saying is that a person can be moral without adhering to traditional values. So that is my view. I do not mean to sound rude to those who have conservative viewpoints, but that's what I believe. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The arc of history is not in agreement with conservative\/traditional values\n","id":"0fc4783f-35f5-4056-89bb-fff7058f667a"}
{"argument":"To get definitions out of the way, I define a state to be an entity which is widely recognized to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and anarchism as a stateless society . I don't believe any such society can flourish. How are human rights like life or property protected? How do we defend individuals from exploitation? How are necessary collective goods provided for, like welfare or defense? How are necessary decisions made that require the cooperation of the whole community, or that will affect the whole community? How do we solve the free rider problem in many of these cases? These are just some of the things I can think of off the top of my head that I think are adequately and fairly provided by a state, and I've yet to get a satisfactory answer as to how these can be done without one. Some things to note I'm not assuming any particular style of anarchism. You can go with anywhere from the anarcho capitalist or anarcho communist perspective when engaging this view. I assume a reasonably modern level of technology. No appeals to fully automated post scarcity magic wands. I assume that people will generally do what is in their own self interest. I assume a broad, diverse community of at least millions of people. I assume that in prisoners dilemma style scenarios, people will sometimes defect. Natural rights do not exist. I believe in rights, but only as social constructs to preserve, not as inherent features of anything. Pointing out that current states do a bad job of X community function is not going to change my view, so long as X is something a state can do at all that an anarchist society cannot. Practical concerns like implementation and whatnot do matter to a point.\n","conclusion":"Anarchism is an untenable system\n","id":"afbf4f70-5fcf-4994-ae0f-79a84ed9317f"}
{"argument":"If there's more money to be made creating content, more people will seek to earn a profitable living from creating content. This will lead to creators interested in creating art being crowded out by creators seeking to earn money.\n","conclusion":"Focusing copyright on revenues will shape how creators approach their work, making it less about creating art and more about creating content which will generate more revenue.\n","id":"ce17479b-0649-4254-b35c-b139f1a1a1b6"}
{"argument":"When Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: \"You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.\" See Luke 3 versus 21-22\n","conclusion":"There is historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed, thus there is historical evidence that supports the existence of God.\n","id":"d2c54193-a626-4523-b42e-e4eb1e75f740"}
{"argument":"Survivors of suicide have a high tendency to be secret about the cause of death of their family members and can cause dysfunction Cerel et al., p. 39 With a right to death acknowledged by society there is less reason to hide the cause of death.\n","conclusion":"Communicational distortions for family members with their social contacts attributed to suicide will be eliminated or mitigated.\n","id":"c819c8aa-7aec-4079-97f6-e07e66446ded"}
{"argument":"Or, my original title that I decided was too long, but more accurately expresses what I want to say Problems in the world associated with religion aren't a result of religion itself, but instead the dogma, tribalism and lack of accountability that often but not necessarily, or exclusively come with it. The tl dr version of this opinion is that, yes, religion has such a high correlation with historical and present atrocities in the world, but what many of its most vocal critics seem to miss is that it's a symptom, not a cause. It's not that religion causes people to do and say horrible things Religion gt Evil instead, there are other underlying features of humanity that lead to these things, and which also lead to certain forms of religion Underlying features gt Evil AND Underlying features gt Religion . These underlying features or traits are what I am calling dogma , tribalism and lack of accountability . Obviously one of the most important things to get out of the way first is, what do I actually mean by religion ? I'm all too aware of the danger of me just taking a reductionist definition of religion that abstracts away from all the bad parts and leaves me with absolutely nothing. I'm not going to do that. Instead, what I propose is that we first distinguish between religion and religions analogous to the way we distinguish between language , that thing we can do, and languages , those things we speak . Religion , then, is the skeletal human construct consisting of a a set of beliefs that b posit, and accept as true, something supernatural not accounted for within current scientific models of the universe , and c provide some perceived net benefit for the believer. This contrasts it with agnosticism atheism which may posit the supernatural but do not accept it as true and psychosis which provides a perceived net negative for the believer . Religions are the individual manifestations of religion. Protestant Christianity is a religion. Quakerism is a religion. Scientology, and cults in general, are also religions under this definition. Now, on to the actual viewpoint. I probably don't need to say much about why people might see religion as a problem. Spanish Inquisition, Catholic child abuse, Islamic terrorism, the list goes on. Here's the question where I believe I have a different answer to many people here what is the root cause of these atrocities? Many would posit that it's the religion. It's Christianity, telling you that it's an abomination for men to sleep with other men, or Islam, telling you to kill the non believers wherever you find them. I believe, instead, that it's this trifecta of dogma, tribalism and lack of accountability I mentioned above, which I will clarify now Dogma the idea that a given set of beliefs, encoded in some book or spoken by some person, is absolutely right and cannot possibly be questioned or changed. This results in inflexibility in the face of new evidence whether scientific or otherwise . Dogma is the root cause of, e.g. creationism. Tribalism the urge to neatly divide people into those who are with you, and those who are against you. This comes hand in hand with an instinctual dislike of people perceived to be different, as well as groupthink, i.e. believing something just because the other people in your group believe it. Tribalism is the root cause of, e.g. homophobia. Lack of accountability a social group lacks accountability if its policies or environment are insufficient for bringing down authorities who abuse their power. A lack of accountability is the root cause of things like child abuse within the Catholic Church. What's the difference? Well, what I'm saying is that the high correlation between certain religions and world atrocities is a spurious correlation. It's spurious specifically in the way that, if B and C are correlated, it's not because B causes C or C causes B, but because some other factor A causes both B and C. I'm saying that B certain religions, C atrocities and A dogma, tribalism and lack of accountability. The evidence for this is twofold. One, my version accounts for the high similarity between problematic religious groups and problematic non religious groups, such as radical supporters of Trump or East Asian nationalists. I believe I have identified the core issues that lead to both types of problematic group. Two, my version accounts for the many religions that are not problematic, or at least much less so, which include things like Buddhism, or certain sects and offshoots of Hinduism, Christianity etc. These are the religions that people are drawn to when they are not dogmatic and tribalistic. So, in what way am I not just splitting hairs? Sure, I've just re characterised the situation to focus on bad qualities of humans and human groups, as opposed to religions themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that so many problems are caused in the name of religion, right? Well, there are several key consequences of this re characterisation that I feel are important enough for me to make this post, as they do not seem to be sufficiently acknowledged Not all religions are bad in this way. In fact, I can be more specific than that I am positing that it is exactly those religions that are dogmatic, tribalistic and lacking in accountability that are bad, while those that are not have no problems on this scale, anyway . So I'm throwing under the bus, as it were, religions such as Lutheran sola scriptura Christianity, American evangelical Christianity, conservative Islam and Scientology. I'm defending religions such as Quakerism, Unitarianism, Buddhism, Jainism and the smattering of moderate , progressive forms of Christianity, Islam, etc. I think it is important for this to be said because the modern anti radical religion movement is alienating many religious people who would otherwise be on their side, by focusing on deconstructing religion rather than dogma and the other things. These bad things are far from exclusive to religion. White supremacists, Trump supporters and the Chinese government are hardly religious, yet they present many of the same problematic behaviours that radical religious groups do. I realise this isn't such a groundbreaking point, as from my experience most anti theist types are just as ready to pound on these groups. However, it does also lead to the next, more important point Getting rid of religion isn't going to solve anything. The underlying problems, the proclivity for dogma and tribalism and the existence of power structures with no accountability, are there independently of a belief in the supernatural. I believe, with little evidence but a strong intuition, that the people holding God hates fags signs are not standing there thinking, Gosh, I wish I didn't have to demonise those poor gay people like this, but I have an obligation to No, they're there because they already dislike LGBT people, and that same dislike is what draws them into, and makes them such fervent members of, their particular church. Stopping the church won't stop the propensity for hateful views that drew people there in the first place. This is an incredibly important point because I see a huge danger of anti theist activists getting complacent, specifically because they believe the religion is the source of the problems. Fighting to make Catholic priests accountable is a fantastic thing, but believing that the problem ends with Catholic priests and does not extend to other organisations is not. The fight against the Catholic Church should not be seen as an offshoot of a fight against Christianity, but instead a fight against dangerously constructed organisations that also include certain schools, certain political groups and certain industries in other words, a non religious affair. The irreligious are still in danger of taking on these bad traits. The other big danger of thinking that problems associated with religion end with religion is getting complacent about oneself. Dogma, tribalism and lack of accountability all of these traits could very much find their way into irreligious and anti religious groups. Dogma and lack of accountability less so, but it seems to me that there is already a very tribalistic undercurrent to certain parts of the anti religious world, which is just as dangerous as its religious equivalent. Some other thoughts that couldn't be neatly tacked on to the above At some point someone will probably address the definition of an individual religion, which makes things a lot longer and more complex. I see this happening in the form of, e.g. you say that it's dogma and not religion. But Christianity is defined by the Bible, which is dogma To which I'd say, yeah, but not all Christianity is focused on the Bible as the absolute truth . This would raise eyebrows from all corners of the world, and we'd get into an even messier world of definitions. Because of this, for now, I propose that we accept the definition of Christian as anyone who, in good faith, would call themselves a Christian. I believe this makes more sense, as the strict, Bible based definition of Christian only really includes the Lutheran Protestant origin Christianity it would exclude Catholicism, which takes the Bible as an authority alongside the Church and the Pope, and sects such as the LDS and Quakers, who take the Bible as a very much non absolute authority alongside a ton of other things. This general point applies to other religions as well, e.g. Muslims who reject the Hadith or want to reform the Qoran are still Muslims. I thought of one other bad trait way too late, after I wrote most of this pushing your views on your children. It occurs to me that some of those anti LGBT WBC types didn't come there freely , but were indoctrinated from young ages. I'd still argue that this is hardly exclusive to religion, nor is it necessary, so the same arguments apply to it as they do to the other things I listed. Sorry this ended up being so long But I feel that this is a complex topic, and everything I've written is relevant to my viewpoint and needed to be said. I look forward to seeing where this discussion goes.\n","conclusion":"Religion isn't the problem; it's dogma, tribalism and a lack of accountability\n","id":"40d57e6e-fb49-4adb-8fad-1a4e3d8f911b"}
{"argument":"I am not saying all are, there are many with mental or physical health problems, or and extremely bad start in life. However the majority of poor Americans are content, and do not want to have to work, or go to college, or put the time in required to move up in society. I come from a poor family and am in college now, and I feel lazy allot of the time, I almost feel like I am entitled to sit around and play video games all day, but I have to remind myself that the world humans created does not work that way, that we must work for everything we get. I feel that the society we have created has made us soft, people in 3rd world countries work their whole lives to just survive, but we have grown up on video games and easy high school. Change my view\n","conclusion":"I believe the majority of poor Americans are poor because they are lazy.\n","id":"6dfa9103-0738-42fb-827c-0c98dae7e167"}
{"argument":"I think that there should always be a pm sent to people who have had posts removed from subreddits telling them that their post was removed and why it was removed. This should be automatic and subreddits should have a mandatory reason for removal that must be selected when the post is removed. I think this is important so that someone doesn't end up waiting hours for responses that will never come to a deleted post and so that people can actually know when they are violating rules so they can reform. I have never moderated a subreddit before so I cannot say for sure that this is correct but I think that this may lead to people reposting their threads more since they think their old threads were simply not posted at the right time and didn't get many responses as opposed to their thread being removed. Shadowbanning may be a good idea for some users but this should be something involving reddit admins as opposed to subreddits. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"If your post is removed from a subreddit there should always be a pm with the reason for removal\n","id":"fa1361cd-185c-438d-8dc3-b0d3701dc6d0"}
{"argument":"Working 80 hours a week does not result in increased output. Thus, working long hours is unnecessary and at the expense of the employee.\n","conclusion":"Working long hours is detrimental to one's health and encounters diminishing returns.\n","id":"1887ade2-f1eb-4932-9384-7f04829d3af1"}
{"argument":"Adopting a similar philosophy of people with whom you can benefit by association is a time-honored practice. Although this doesn't necessarily contribute to any material evidence that such beliefs are true.\n","conclusion":"There are pragmatic reasons to believe in the existence of God.\n","id":"c66e4a55-ae18-42ee-aec5-8f442cb8c38a"}
{"argument":"The public will not likely see how their food is made, thus making regulation less likely upon the process than the final consumer product.\n","conclusion":"Many animals are killed in the production of plant-based food. Rabbits, mice, hamsters and other rodents, groundnesting birds, deer fawn, snakes, etc.\n","id":"20b5d072-5475-4e95-92bd-c352d9331be8"}
{"argument":"Harsh punishment persuades criminals to learn how to get away with the commission of crimes, at least as effectively as dissuading from crime altogether. In this way, punishment actually encourages dishonest behavior, on top of failing as an effective deterrent to crime.\n","conclusion":"This is the opposite of the truth. In fact, punishment-based deterrence is a proven ineffective way to dissuade prisoners from committing future crimes.\n","id":"a9ad1d74-281d-48ce-ab9d-3cfbf2f23e0d"}
{"argument":"Inner city road networks could be designed to prioritise walking traffic, cycling traffic, and other trends like electric bikes and scooters. This would decrease the efficiency of cars and hence decrease the amount of people wanting to use them.\n","conclusion":"Alternatives to bans could be implemented to mitigate the negative effects of cars.\n","id":"c9d8c2c8-a26b-4c41-acb1-33a41ed1560e"}
{"argument":"I think the majority of people who are vegans or vegetarians do it not for animal rights or health, I think the majority of them are doing it for pop culture. I live in the USA, and some vegetarians I am friends with often say something like It's just something I wanted to do in 8th grade. . Out of at least ten vegetarians I met, only about one or two said it was for their diet, or for medical reasons. If you look at media, a lot of people say vegetarianism is good for you and blah blah blah. Many news networks Which I can barely call news, personally often overreact scandals of food places Like the Taco Bell fiasco , which can make people think the only way to avoid something like this is to not eat it at all. Can someone change my view? EDIT Sorry, to clarify, I meant media in general. Not just the pop culture.\n","conclusion":"I think most people are vegans\/vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View.\n","id":"02dd08ae-464f-46e8-b753-3fce09105942"}
{"argument":"Too many times I've been watching a movie or a TV show and somebody else will try to refer to plot details, but only by saying The part when Roger McActor shot Jessica Actorname after she kissed Jacob Actorson's character. Not only is it confusing for people who don't follow celebrity stories, but it's actually kind of annoying that they don't care about the story enough to learn the character's names. I also think that going to a movie because it has my favorite celebrity in it is not a good reason. There should be something to do with how good of a movie it was, and ethos isn't enough for me.\n","conclusion":"People should prioritize learning character names and use them in the context of the work they are watching.\n","id":"e0df9e88-7ed5-43fb-9904-58dba92de849"}
{"argument":"Some has contributed Trump's success in the debates to his 'tell it like it is style and candour, which outweighs his poor policy stances.\n","conclusion":"In the past, style has been more important in presidential elections than substance.\n","id":"4f0e0a2e-74ac-48c2-8526-79f363e5ce88"}
{"argument":"Humans do science and there\u2019s no reason to think scientists aren\u2019t also interested in finding meaning in their lives. Take away meaning and scientists might not be pyscologically healthy enough to be trusted to seek truth.\n","conclusion":"Science cannot exist in a vacuum apart from the money and people necessary to perform it.\n","id":"e89ad262-fb52-4500-a427-45a4561c3708"}
{"argument":"Causation vs. Correlation is a pretty simple concept in science. Simply put Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. So, while school shootings and antidepressants are often connected many shooters were on or were previously on antidepressants there is no causation. Being on antidepressants did not drive the school shootings. In fact, you should expect a person who does this type of violent act to be on antidepressants. If a person has mental health issues and is given medication, that person is likely to be on, or at one time been on, antidepressants. And you should expect depressed, unstable people to be the type who become this type of mass shooter.\n","conclusion":"Antidepressants and school shootings or any violence is a correlation, not a causation.\n","id":"fbc92375-981e-4617-a5aa-f6261bf98f77"}
{"argument":"Tying health care benefits and such to full time employment was one of the dumbest decision in the United States' recent history. Now, most entry level companies are hiring part time instead of full time. It's bad enough to live on a 9 an hour job for 40 hours a week. But 20 hours is unfathomable, especially if you have kids to feed. Yes, one can get two part time jobs but that schedule would be random and hectic. I'm not asking that part time employees get the full package, but at least half of what full time workers get, so people will be able to get jobs they can live on. And companies won't have an incentive to cut hours.\n","conclusion":"Part time workers should get partial benefits.\n","id":"3cca0d2f-313b-49e5-96e4-6569c2cb5903"}
{"argument":"California recently vetoed the bill that would eliminate sales tax on tampons and sanitary napkins. This has a lot of people up in arms about how we tax women for menstruating and how we are punishing women financially for going through a normal function of the body. However, the tampon tax is more than just sanitary napkins and tampons. In a lot of states excluding NJ and PA basic products used to control a normal bodily function and maintain personal cleanliness are ALL taxed including toilet paper, toothpaste, soap, and diapers. I'm not saying that there aren't ways women are still not on equal ground, but this tax is not one of them. Secondly, when we only refer to the sales tax as the tampon tax it could lead to people shrugging it off and viewing it as not relevant to themselves. In fact, the real problem could be dismissed, which is that people are getting taxed on basic sanitary needs in general i.e toilet paper and diapers .\n","conclusion":"The \"tampon tax\" is not inherently misogynistic, and treating it as such masks the real problem.\n","id":"e4409fc6-e39c-4200-84ce-e0f660802684"}
{"argument":"The founding fathers set up the second amendment to ensure the citizens of this country were allowed to defend themselves against the government in time when that may be required. But if US citizens do not have access to the high power artillery the United States government has access too then how theoretically could we combat the government if we needed too? I understand the dangers they present, but explain to me as a citizen of the US that protects my right to bare arms under its constitution why I do not have the right to the same firepower as my government? UPDATE I meant guns not weapons. A typo when I rushed to repost at work sorry. Obviously no one needs tanks, nukes, and fighter jets. UPDATE a lot about why I don't need them which I understand. But why is it not my right as a US citizen to own them as outlined in the US constitution. That is what I want my view changed on. Why does the second amendment not allow me equal guns as the government? Or what amendment or law does? And is it actually legal? UPDATE many great points have been made regarding the constitution, what citizens are entitled to and what the government has power to do. It is clear that the framers left it open for government to regulate the gun market. Now I would like to know where the line is drawn to you based on the constitution and other legal precedents. Is it a hand gun? No gun? RPG? It's clear we all agree the government is afforded the right to regulate, but to what extent now?\n","conclusion":"that US citizens should have access to the same weapons as the US government\n","id":"1f6a482d-cfd4-4173-a96b-1ff8d210e60f"}
{"argument":"Bitcoin is flawed and not viable as a major currency. Newer digital currencies have been developed to replace it.\n","conclusion":"Bitcoin is not the best choice for a global currency.\n","id":"0a090db6-681d-4933-b7a4-e746bb4da773"}
{"argument":"I work as a cashier at a drugstore. Few things upset me more than ringing out one purchase for their groceries where the individual uses their state issued food stamps card to purchase a can of monster and 2 2 Liter Bottles of Coke something that is already unnecesessary and then have them ask for 2 packs of cigarettes in a separate transaction. The money these people are using to buy cigarettes should obviously be going towards the essentials that they are apparently unable to afford without state assistance. If I'm allowed to make a stipulation to responses, I would like to avoid any rights violation reasons or cost of implementation tracking would be too high . I don't believe either of these are sufficient. If you're receiving monetary state assistance then you should have to abide by different rules.\n","conclusion":"People on Food Stamps or EBT should not be legally allowed to purchase alcohol or cigarettes with cash or credit.\n","id":"b9490bde-9208-46c5-a513-acc7053b6935"}
{"argument":"An example: Flat Earth Societies Either the Earth is flat as some religions suggest or it is round as science part of which is observation proves.\n","conclusion":"Some religious beliefs are indeed contrary to science and in no way complementary.\n","id":"50891f67-d564-4e3b-ae9e-56f689f82e07"}
{"argument":"I feel like I'm always seeing it on Reddit nuclear is the misunderstood, unsung hero that will save us from the energy crisis. They always argue that everyone is scared of nuclear because of disasters like Chernobyl, that it should have been easily preventable, and the technology has come far since then. I agree with this point, so now that we have gotten that out of the way, here comes the real issue nuclear waste. I'm obviously only a layman, but it seems to me that there are no sustainable ways of disposing of the waste, and the nuclear advocates never really address this. As far as I know, the current solution is to seal it away in a deep cave, and hope it doesn't flood, and just maybe we'll figure it out in a hundred years. This is irresponsible, and I think it would be foolish to build more plants. I'm not against spending money on further research, but as it stands, nuclear is a dangerous gamble. .\n","conclusion":"Nuclear Power is a bad long-term solution.\n","id":"aa42dbc4-2776-4331-b490-17c22b2f6d8f"}
{"argument":"Title says it all. It is a pretty specific question but it has been bothering me in recent days. I don't see any real benefits of using the retirement funds to finance my business. I am looking at the tax liabilities that I will run into, the varied rates and so on. People have been argued both sides to me but ultimately, I ended up figuring that it is best to keep my IRA how it is. However I am always open to discussion and I wanted to bring the discussion to Reddit before I continue my business financing.\n","conclusion":"There are no benefits of using funds in your 401k, IRA or other retirement account to finance your business or franchise.\n","id":"8d0c7364-3990-457f-ab2f-d7553f25b4e9"}
{"argument":"I believe that statistics is a far more useful mathematical tool than some of the other disciplines of math taught in our current American education system. There are many reasons I believe this to be true, but the most convincing of all is the staggering amount of misuse of statistics that I witness here on reddit every day. People seem to get in the habit of picking a study that claims X of Y are Z or that There is a strong correlation between X and Y and spit it out to strengthen whatever they're arguing. People often overlook the many factors that could be contributing to a correlation and construe the underlying truths to fit their case or story. To make matters worse, after someone has represented a false poor statistic, the general public of reddit sees the numbers and mindlessly upvotes supports a claim because they also don't know better. I believe that a simple bit of education on how 'confouning' works or what 'statistically significant' actually means could do a lot of good and correct people's intuition. I'm not sure what the standard minimum math cirriculum for the entire US is, but my high school expected us to graduate with at least Pre Calculus knowledge. IMO, the benefits of Statistics in the real world outweigh the benefits of Pre Calculus. Pre Calculus can't really be applicable to all career paths one might choose to follow after graduating high school. If you're going into higher education, then you will usually be required to take a Calculus course anyway and will probably have to encounter Pre Calculus there. But I'm concerned with the vast amount of people 34.1 who live their lives without college education at least in their younger years . Most high school requiring jobs won't find use in much of Pre Calculus' or Geometry's curriculum. But Statistics is a tool that is universal to all people in our society regardless of job because it teaches you how to read data and be wary of what might be misrepresented in it. The average high school grad won't ever go home at the end of the day and say Shit, I really need to use partial fraction decomposition on this fraction or I forget, is lt Sin tanx cosx gt the same thing as lt 2 cos x sin sin 2 x 1 cos 2 x 1 cos 2 x gt ? However, the study of Statistics teaches people intuition with data, which is ubiquitous in our day and age regardless of your profession or background. EDIT I GUESS THE TITLE SHOULD BE CHANGED TO  A Statistics course should be required as standard high school education IN PLACE OF A CURRENT DISCIPLINE OF MATH TAUGHT EDIT 2 I've received a large number of comments from people who believe that Statistics requires the knowledge of Calculus and even beyond. This is simply not true. The AP Statistics wikipedia page quotes gt the prerequisites for such a program doesn't require mathematical concepts beyond those typically taught in a second year algebra course I'm talking about basic Statistics that's more conceptual than number based. I took the AP course with THIS BOOK and the class was very much doable without calculus and geared towards someone my age. EDIT 3 A funny dilbert comic from the Stats book that partially sums up my feelings.\n","conclusion":"A Statistics course should be required as standard high school education\n","id":"081dc2e9-791d-4a6f-9210-ce82673d4435"}
{"argument":"Currently it seems that people are condemned as racist s because they simply put out an idea that points out a fault in the culture of another. Personally I see no difference between condemning a person with light skin or a person with dark skin for spewing rhetoric that promotes violence and hatred in the name of their people . In the same manner I think a major reason why racism continues to breed is because of people continuing to define themselves and each other strictly by their skin colour. In that respect, I think any exclusionary culture that promotes being 'the minority or the victim will only continue to teach that any other type of ideal or criticism should be met with outrage rather than reflection. Currently in Canada where I live , we have a situation where a farmer was acquitted for accidentally killing an intruder. Immediately, the verdict was met with outrage because some people could not get over the fact that it was someone white and an aboriginal. The problem with this is that had the roles been reversed, there would have been no outrage. No media. Nothing except acceptance because in Canada, its taught and unfortunately accepted that Natives are basically inferior because they are always under attack. The problem with this is that any attempt to try and break through that type of toxicity in the culture is met with calls of racism and ignorance. Horrifyingly enough, this native culture tries to say that they speak for all natives, ignoring the reality that there are two continents of people that are native and that is not including the Inuit from Asia out to Greenland. In this way, they are much like Neo Nazis trying to rationalize that they are doing what they must for their people . Overall, it is not racist to condemn any culture for promoting violence, hatred or any negative beliefs because you are criticizing the culture based upon its views and not their race.  gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"It is not racist to condemn a culture which promotes negativity.\n","id":"2a239e6b-e508-49e5-b364-8a4607111b74"}
{"argument":"This is not about the death penalty in particular. You will not be able to  about that. Specifically, I hold the view that threatening a person's life should not be acceptable in decent society. Any criminal who creates a situation where an innocent person's life is at risk should receive the worst punishment available death penalty IMO . For example, it could be assault with a deadly weapon like a knife, or a baseball bat even if the intent is not to murder . Any attack which could reasonably result in the death of the victim. It could be armed robbery, with merely the threat of a deadly weapon. The robber is creating a situation where an innocent person's life is put at risk, because that person has a right to defend his property. I know that crimes like this are already punished very severely, perhaps up to 20 years in prison. But in my view, they should be treated as the equivalent of murder even if the intent is not to murder, because it irresponsibly and criminally puts innocent people in situations that may result in the end of their life. Forewarning, you won't get empathy for criminals out of me. I believe this would be a good deterrent and a good way to clean unsafe people from society, but I would like to know if there are any unintended consequences of such a policy that I have been unable to think of.\n","conclusion":"Any crime in which a person's life is threatened should result in the death penalty or essentially, be equivalent to murder\n","id":"ef8447c9-16ca-4714-9287-15d0fabec26a"}
{"argument":"The chairman of the Kashmir Economic Alliance KEA, Mohammad Yasin Khan, said of a recent aid package given by the Government of India, \u201cThe Rs 80,000 crore package is a conspiracy to trifurcate Jammu and Kashmir on communal lines. In the name of development, a mere Rs 6,500 crore have been allotted to the Muslim Kashmir province whereas Rs 13,000 crore have been given to plurality Muslim, but sparsely populated Ladakh. A huge chunk of Rs 11,000 crore has been given to Hindu Jammu.\u201d\"\n","conclusion":"The Government of India has exacerbated the divisions between different parts of Kashmir by distributing government aid unevenly and developing some mostly Hindu parts more than others.\n","id":"4c692925-9eb3-4f2d-9680-40dc63ba1da3"}
{"argument":"Let me preface this comment by saying that I believe that every person has the right to water, food, accommodation and safety what I do not believe that people who are not able to afford these things and take them as charity deserve the right to chose what they get. I live in a country with a high tax rate and good social services. People who are not able or willing to provide for themselves are given the necessities of life from charities and cash from the government to spend on whatever they want. Some of these people also decide to beg for even more money from those who work and pay taxes that already support them. I am happy for my hard earned taxes to be spent on providing people the necessities of life while they work towards getting to a place where they can support themselves, but its my view that able bodied people should not be given money to chose what they want to spend their welfare on, they should be given food stamps or access to money that has restrictions on what they can purchase. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"Beggars should not allowed to be choosers.\n","id":"9bb1ac15-c911-4b15-9f5e-71fd997c5fae"}
{"argument":"Leather seats are often considered a luxury feature, and are a standard feature of high end cars, but I think the luxury isn't really better than cloth seats. Leather seats get incredibly hot during the summer and unless you take a lot of extra care of them, start to crack and look terrible after a few years. In addition, I don't think they're as comfortable and soft as cloth. The only advantage I can see that leather has over cloth is that leather doesn't absorb liquid as easily, so if you spill something, its far easier to clean. On the other hand, if cloth gets stained, its far cheaper to replace it. So, . Tell me why I should look forward to the leather seats I'm probably going to be stuck with once I can afford a nicer car in 3 years.\n","conclusion":"Cloth car seats are better than leather\n","id":"751f22dc-d7d8-4ba0-9c01-528ee6c550cf"}
{"argument":"Polarity is a term that refers to the number of independent power centers in the international system. Some scholars many of them are American believe that the world is unipolar with the United States being the world\u2019s only \u201csuperpower\u201d all other powers revolve around this one. I agree with these scholars. Just because the United States is the unipolar hegemony , does not mean that it always gets what it wants. It has no real challengers to its power right now. China may be a threat 40 50 years from now, but at the moment it\u2019s nowhere near close enough to pose a threat. Power cannot be perfectly measured nor defined, hence the disagreement. The most common ways of measuring power are GDP in all of its forms Military Size and Spending also included is the technological advancement of said military Do you have nukes? Political influence measured by foreign aid spending and others The United States is the best on all of these measures except purchasing power parity, which is one way of measuring GDP and China is winning this one . The Cold War Era was bipolar, with the US and the USSR dominating. The Soviet Union collapses, leaving only the United States. Since there hasn\u2019t been any other powers challenging the US in the same way as Soviet Union did, the US is the unipole. In order to convince me that the world is not unipolar, you need to provide sufficient evidence that another actor has the means and the desire to challenge US power. Current US allies will not be considered . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The international system is unipolar with the United States being the hegemon.\n","id":"49f7763c-b1d1-4a7e-8c41-74dcd8629531"}
{"argument":"Writing information can happen asynchronously everyone at their own time which avoids work flow interruptions.\n","conclusion":"Some meetings or parts of them can be replaced by written notes\/documents.\n","id":"f96f6fc0-36e3-4888-b908-3b8619575db1"}
{"argument":"So I know why America was founded , and all the land of the brave spiel. But consider this every time I hear something horrendously stupid, as one example, the banned book giveaway having police called to it by parents, it's by Americans. When something absurd happens militarily wise, normally American. I mean for gods sake the NYPD even sent officers OVERSEAS to investigate terrorism, and just assumed they were allowed but were told in fact, no, the NYPD may not in fact send officers worldwide where international laws, rules and regulations, identification and clearance of all kinds is needed. It's this kind of adult childishness and madness that makes me never, ever in a million years want to visit said country. Now I know, without America we wouldn't have a million great things. By honestly, most American stereotypes tend to ring true. I've seen Americans say things a toddler would cringe at, I've seen them contradict themselves in the same sentence, make downright blatant false claims or facts, the list goes on. I know every country on Earth has idiots, but in no other culture it seems are there more of them. Okay real points now and not just opinionated stuff the NYPD abroad thing, militarised police departments, ridiculously litigious culture, complete almost brainwashing of patriotism, the true belief that America is in fact THE greatest country in the world and in a sick kind of way, that tv show where there was that speech about how America isnt the best country in the world was only really popular because a, the world loved seeing Americans finally admit this, and b, because Americans viewed it in a nostalgic where did we go wrong? We USED to be the best kind of way , the constant unreadable unceasing consumption of everything and anything they please, the government's love of destroying any obstacle they may come across, whether people, place or otherwise, there was an uproar from American CGI artists and film industry pros who were outraged that foreign studios were getting more work I mean come the fuck on, so what? Get better or you're not the best and don't deserve ALL THE JOBS you like to presume you are owed. Lots of opinionated rants here, and not nearly all the points I'd like to make but firstly,iPad, secondly, I don't have the time nor patience to link to every news site where I've seen something outrageous, ridiculous or straight up idiotic that Americans have said or done individually or collectively. My points are not those I've exclusively laid out here, but my main theme Americans think they're the fucking shit, they think they deserve everything that isn't nailed down or can be ripped up again, they couldn't give two fucks about other countries, or from the looks of it each other, a lot of them are dumb and the country seems like the blind leading the blind. Not to mention its fucking history of corruption, greed, corporatocracy and coverups of all of this. I thank my lucky stars every night that I wasn't born in that hellhole of a nation, but please, change my view.\n","conclusion":"I think America is the worst place on Earth.\n","id":"ff0d2759-eb09-40d3-abc8-dd8817602122"}
{"argument":"For example, a 'Living wage' is a wage which would allow for any one person to survive in an economy with all the needs being meet without having to work several minimum wage jobs. It is therefore fair to assume that the 'minimum wage' would increase, or that the cost of living would sink due to an increase in free public services.\n","conclusion":"Socialism is generally about equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. This means that there's an inherent incentive to ensure an increased average income.\n","id":"f1503ae7-f11a-4dd6-97ba-81ca60f92b06"}
{"argument":"Many studies are done on a variety of 'street-quality' strands and not in the standard preparations the medical community would have to use for disease treatment.\n","conclusion":"There has yet to be enough long-term studies on the varieties and preparations necessary for medical use.\n","id":"57866bce-cf28-49bd-96ad-9c9bdd2ee126"}
{"argument":"gt A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioural or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. That's the definition for mental disorder that I found, and it seems to match how people talk about it, so it's the one I'll be using until someone presents a better one. My line of reasoning is as follows If mental illness should be distigmatised, one should not be embarrassed or reluctant to say they or someone they care about have a mental illness. Mental illness, as expressed in the definition, means any form of thought pattern or action pattern that is disadvantageous. LGBT people express themselves through their actions and, presumably, have thoughts that classify them as LGBT . Thus, if we agree that LGBT people are disadvantaged, this would qualify as a mental illness because it is a pattern of mental and physical behaviour that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning . There are two answers I've seen to this. The most common one is that people don't want something that should be fine to be classed as a mental illness, which is a perfectly rational view to have. It is, however, inconsistent with the belief that mental health should be destigmatised because it implies that having a mental illness is a bad thing. The second one is that it is only disadvantageous because society treats LGBT people unfairly and thus the problem is with society not the people. This still to me echos a judgement on mental health, but putting that aside, I remain unconvinced. By this logic, we will never have mental disorders once we learn how to treat them all. This is simply not the case. I can be treated for a disease, this does not mean I never had it or that it doesn't exist. The disorders are the disorders themselves, not the repercussions of the disorders. Therefore, I am making the case that to hold all of those views at once, one either needs to not believe LGBT people are disadvantaged, not believe mental health should be destigmatised, or believe that LGBT people are mentally ill. Please note this  is not about any one of these topics itself. It is not about if LGBT people are disadavantaged, it is not about whether they are mentally ill, it is not about if they are real, it is not about whether or not mental health should be destigmatised. I want to keep this to the disconnect between these three views, ideally by talking to and coming to understand one who holds all of them simultaneously. EDIT I have changed my view partially, in two stages for two different reasons. u ifellows pointed out that being bi gives no disadvantages beyond societal judgements, therefore these beliefs can be held simultaneously. u Milskidasith gave a much better definition of mental illness than I provided, and within that pointed out that classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder provides no clinical benefit, therefore these beliefs can be held simultaneously. I am still open to discussing the view with regards to trans people specifically, as that has yet to be addressed, however I will no longer be discussing being bi or homosexual, or arguments about my definition, as my view has already been changed on these matters. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The beliefs that mental health should be destigmatised, LGBT+ people are disadvantaged, and LGBT+ people are not mentally ill cannot all be rationally held simultaneously.\n","id":"0f0cd0e7-e82b-4892-bc99-d10a5cc0eecb"}
{"argument":"a religion depend only on faith or believe. if you say they can't be one and you have one you are a hypocrite. if you are honest and just you must accept it. but to be honest . all fundamentalim is bad. . its the religion per say that rather a lack a distinquishable critera of truth.\n","conclusion":"its just another nonesense claim. but you can't dismiss it until you can also get rid of nonese.\n","id":"a6f7c8ed-bdc4-4811-9dcd-a018f9305103"}
{"argument":"Up until today Christianity has a problem with equal human rights regardless of gender sexual orientation or acts regarding the own body and responsibility e.g. abortions\n","conclusion":"Christianity has a fair share of history neglecting their own principles.\n","id":"63c85209-92d5-4b19-9a75-38442e74ea70"}
{"argument":"The Church rejected the Yalta-system of a divided Europe and therewith objected to the split up of Europe.\n","conclusion":"The Church was instrumental in bringing communism to an end.\n","id":"129f4dd6-fbca-417e-a76c-020b7c4bfc5d"}
{"argument":"Children do best when their parents are married. They earn higher incomes, have less legal problems. Financial incentives are effective in modifying behavior. Providing financial incentives for parents to marry and stay married will increase the number of children with married parents. The range of financial benefits that only children of married parents would be eligible for could expand based on performance. It could start with just dependent tax credits and could expand to include for food stamps, medical and education. Since only married couples would be eligible then adopted children would be excluded including children of divorced and remarried couples, same sex couples and those created by donated eggs or sperm. While some children will suffer because they no longer receive government support, on balance more children will benefit by encouraging marriage.\n","conclusion":"To encourage parents to mary and stay married, benefits for children should only go to their married parents\n","id":"606c4973-8bfb-402d-8689-b7fb81ad47f7"}
{"argument":"Sports nationalism best illustrated by the Olympic games, is another example of nationalism that has positive attributes. Not only does it easily embrace ethnic and racial diversity, but it offers an opportunity for people from nations suffering political or economic divides to unite in celebration of their fellow countrymen's athletic prowess.\n","conclusion":"This is a sweeping overgeneralization. There are multiple forms of nationalism; and while some might tend more towards aggression or intolerance, others do not.\n","id":"fd0b43ba-a271-42a3-9bdf-86470b52ea48"}
{"argument":"According to a memo released by Michael Avenatti the lawyer representing adult film actress Stormy Daniels in her suit against Trump, Cohen received a 500,000 USD payment from Columbus Nova, a company tied to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, shortly after the 2016 election.\n","conclusion":"Trump's longtime lawyer Michael Cohen was under FBI investigation in relation to the Russia probe, and subsequently he was found guilty and sentenced.\n","id":"7b816f2a-cc45-4464-87e3-9eb560f43362"}
{"argument":"I've heard so many people try and dispute me on this without proof. Their reasoning often is a narcissist thinks for himself because he only thinks of himself and a narcissist wouldn't refuse to think for himself the way a conformist would. I beg to differ. An example of somebody that is likely a narcissistic conformist is a narcissist who values popularity above everything else and will do anything to increase his popularity, even if that means sacrificing his individuality. This kind of narcissist will follow popular trends, even silly ones, to appeal to people that'll likely gravitate towards him her. Moreover, this is the kind of opinion a narcissistic conformist would have since my opinions are always the popular ones, they are the only ones that matter There is nothing positive about narcissists to begin with, but narcissistic conformists are among the worst types of narcissists imaginable only worse are psychopathic narcissists . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Narcissistic conformists exist\n","id":"2dc11181-5ebf-44cc-bf7b-4e6ca80b4e51"}
{"argument":"A deregulated market introduces economic barriers to education by removing government subsidies and regulation to lower the costs of education at all levels, thus restricting education to a smaller segment of the populace.\n","conclusion":"Free markets lead to more egalitarian societies and improved human development than regulated markets.\n","id":"a9010a01-b5a6-4f3d-9180-39e7e02a8200"}
{"argument":"This is an idea that is tossed around Washington a lot when sex education is being discussed, but I think that this is a bad idea. Sex is very beneficial to people, both physically and mentally, so when churches and schools try to install this idea where the only way to not get pregnant or get an STD or STI, depending on what you call it is to not have any sex, I get angry. There are many ways to not get pregnant or an STD STI without having to forgo sex completely. These programs also anger me because they tend to be more homophobic, at least in my view. I believe that there are way to have safe sex while still being able to have sex, and I believe that everyone should get the chance to explore his or her own sexuality without any restrictive legislature. Please change my view.\n","conclusion":"I think that organizations that promote \"abstinence only\" programs are going in the wrong direction. , please.\n","id":"38aa859f-8c11-489b-a67e-8cc9e7b3c405"}
{"argument":"Note this is notwithstanding the advantages and disadvantages of taxes. My argument is that a financial transactions tax would be efficient, and something to consider if the US government is choosing between different forms of taxes. Currently, the US levies a 0.0034 tax on stock transactions only, pulling in anywhere from 800 million to 2 billion per fiscal year. Let's say instead the US government levies a tax of 0.34 on stock transactions, two orders of magnitude higher. Someone who wants to move 100,000 in stocks in New York only pays 340. This fits well into whatever broker fees he would have to pay in the first place, and the trader probably wouldn't even bat an eye. He's not going to move to Singapore or wherever and abandon all the advantages of the US financial system just because of a new 0.34 tax. According to the World Bank, the US moved 21,375,280,000,000 in stock transactions in 2012. A tax of 0.34 would generate 72,675,952,000. If the tax applied to all equities, like mutual funds and whatnot, new revenues for government would be even more, maybe even double that amount. And if the federal government taxed all financial transactions, we're talking up to a 500bn to 1tn in revenues. In that sense, I think it's a good idea. I think there is something in a financial transactions tax to satisfy most people. If you're a conservative, then it's a way to cut income taxes and replace the revenue lost with what's basically, in the eyes of the consumer, an indirectly levied consumption tax. If you're someone who's more left wing, then it's a way to fund boatloads of social programs and promote fairer income distribution.\n","conclusion":"I think financial transactions taxes are fair and would be an efficient new way of generating new revenues for the US government.\n","id":"7424098a-0544-4260-8e85-ab95f942ae4a"}
{"argument":"Hey  The reason I feel this way is because throughout my experiences learning different perspectives about how government should interact with the economy, I've happened to lean a little bit left of center. I voted for Sanders in the primaries, study Marx and other social theory, and just generally think the government is responsible for providing basic needs to the people. I'm not here to argue that at all so please don't try. I don't care what your economic beliefs are here. Recently, it seems like the division between economic and social issues is thinning. Things that were once not a part of society now not only have legality concerns, but concerns about who has access bears the costs of certain goods and services. But what I can't seem to escape from, even amongst people I tend to agree with, is the hate towards conservatives and alienation of people who have more nuanced beliefs. Just today I've seen two posts on Reddit that made my relationship with my economic beliefs feel estranged. The first was another  about white privilege. His view was that even though it clearly exists in society, white privilege has a stupid name and is more hurtful and resentment causing than it does any good. Even though someone made him change his view, I think he was absolutely right. If white people need to take a small hit for the rest of the world to catch up, I'm all for it if it will genuinely improve humanity's prospects for the future. However, just sitting around and saying white people are evil when I a white male personally did nothing to intentionally make anybody else's future less fortunate. It hurts. Why are women lgbt minorities allowed to have feelings but I have to endure being told I'm wrong even when I agree? I'll preface this next part by saying I am a strong supporter of Israel I don't want to debate about this either , but a comment in r socialism was basically calling Israel an alt right fascist state that will seize the opportunity to mass execute Palestinians holocaust style on Holocaust remembrance day given any room to operate. I agree with socialism to a large extent, but for my counterparts to hate part of my person so intrinsically really rubs me the wrong way. You can  if you can show me that the ties between economics and social issues are tighter than I thought OR that there is a viable alternative for subscribing to well known political groups Liberals, socialists, conservatives, whatever . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The reason left of center economic policy sounds so bad is because the people who support it can't focus on the economy..\n","id":"2211556a-ea59-45ef-8303-5bffef2fa67c"}
{"argument":"Additionally, the unwillingness of companies to offer competitive wage raises and promotions to their employees has led to an increase in \"job-hopping\" across India. This means that even if companies can initially attract well-trained talent, they will have a difficult time keeping it.\n","conclusion":"Wages in India's manufacturing sector are way too low to attract the well-trained talent needed to make \"Make in India\" a success.\n","id":"64db0745-6d0a-4f49-a001-3b32ef8ae54c"}
{"argument":"I know and enjoy a great amount of music, and that includes many years of classical training. I play a few instruments, and use various software for composition. Most pop music sounds good to me, but nothing sounds as good, or as important to me as what happened when these guys did this.\n","conclusion":"I think 'Computer World' by Kraftwerk is the the best musical recording ever.\n","id":"87b87ed8-18c4-479a-90b9-58116085bd83"}
{"argument":"The difference between \"normal for a species\" and \"same across all members of the species\" can be found in any biological norm, such as the number of arms on a human. Humans as a species have two arms per specimen, however, there are abnormalities, genetic mutations, and evolutionary variations causing particular members to have different numbers.\n","conclusion":"A psychopath is, by definition, an abberation from the \"normal\" human. Therefore, the default\/normal for the human species is respect for human life.\n","id":"30765782-6694-427c-a7c9-ef7aa868c15d"}
{"argument":"It would put people in a situation where they are more easily able to understand someone else perspective without a value judgement being placed on it.\n","conclusion":"If everyone agreed life was objectively meaningless, societies would be more peaceful.\n","id":"c7a56321-6024-479e-944e-4014fc49aa0a"}
{"argument":"There has always been tremendous pressure on law enforcement to keep crime low by solving crimes and putting criminals behind bars. Now, in the YouTube era, there is also tremendous pressure for law enforcement officers to do a lot of things the public always assumed were being done but were definitely not. I believe this is a just enjoy the sausage, don't ask how it's made situation here. We can make sure our police forces across the nation are above reproach, honest, ethical, completely within the scope of The Constitution and we'll have to deal with a nominal or substantial rise in crime. Or we can put our heads back in the sand and let things be as they have been. Some people will be treated VERY unfairly or even killed at the hands of overzealous or dirty cops, and most people will be able to go about their lives as they always have without any problems and be able to live with relatively low crime rates. But not both. Change My View.\n","conclusion":"It is impossible to have a police force who obeys all laws, upholds The Constitution, refrains from stepping on civil liberties *AND* keeps crime low.\n","id":"052fa9c0-3f41-49fe-847f-722cc660747c"}
{"argument":"If something stolen has been sold, then the rightful owner can take it back from the buyer without the buyer's permission. This is because the buyer didn't check and didn't care if the seller had the right to sell this thing. What if the buyer was himself decieved by the seller? Well this is the buyer's problem, and the problem is between the seller and the buyer. So the buyer cannot solve this problem at the expence of the real owner. In fact the buyer must willingly return it back to the rightfule owner.\n","conclusion":"If something is stolen and sold, then rightful owner can take it back from the buyer without permission.\n","id":"1c928aca-3a1c-4dfd-a9ef-83429d4d7adc"}
{"argument":"To keep it short and simple, despite what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders during the primaries, or what the RNC attempted to do to Trump or Cruz, I don't believe that they should be held to blame for their arguably 'scummy' actions due to the nature of their being private organizations and not governmental agencies. If something similar happened in the FBI or other agencies about someone being unfairly cheated out of a position, that would call for a huge investigation into the situation, but if someone cheated in the confines of their own organization then it should be handled internally.\n","conclusion":": As the DNC and RNC are private organizations that only promote individuals to be in public office, they shouldn't be held to the standard that an actual government organization should be.\n","id":"7b5f0229-4a19-41fc-ac1d-bd2c5020d9d5"}
{"argument":"I hear pessimistic people make the claim that I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. When pushed for more information, they usually make the claim that their worldview is somehow more accurate than that of an optimist. I disagree. I feel that you create your own reality. If I spend my days practicing gratitude and putting out happiness and optimism, my life will be better. If I focus on all the things that go wrong with the world the news , see challenges as threats rather than learning growth opportunities and treat everyone around me with bitterness, of course life will suck. Pessimistic people are no more realistic than optimistic people. Change my view. Edit 1 There are some great responses here, some are very close to a delta. I will respond to each within the next day, I just got a lot busier than expected.\n","conclusion":"Pessimism is no more \"realistic\" than optimism.\n","id":"e5076eb1-9635-4971-9b4e-56de84965814"}
{"argument":"I can\u2019t put my view out there on what companies should do to fight it without stating my personal stance on it. Piracy to me is only acceptable in a few instances. The game, show, etc. is not being sold in your region and is clearly unavailable via legal methods. The game, show, etc. is on outdated software or hard ware and it is unreasonable to expect people to pay for getting a workaround when current technology does not support it. Games on a floppy disc or media only on VHS, cassette tapes etc. The game, show, etc. is not being sold legally anymore by the company. I find these to be acceptable reasons to pirate when it is clear there is no way to get it legally. Other reasons don\u2019t fall under this but it leads to my concerns with companies given the recent Sonic Mania debacle that has popped up recently. If you haven\u2019t heard Sonic Mania on the PC version has forced DRM into it. DRM is a digital rights management that companies use to force people to be online to not pirate their games. This does not work and pirates get around it very quickly, 10 hours in Mania\u2019s case. DRM can cause slow down and performance issues with in a game and cause larger problems with anti virus software flagging it as malware causing the game to not function. It\u2019s a lot of a hassle that makes it worse for consumers while not fighting against pirates. It\u2019s just giving an edge to the pirates since they will provide a better service than tactics like this to fight them. Let\u2019s face facts, punishing your customers like this does more harm than good and some people will always try to pirate no matter what you do. For those people, they will pirate no matter what you do and they will if they can get away with it. Most cases of arresting people who pirate usually goes after distributors of said pirated material rather than people who download it. The best solution is to reward consumers for legal purchases that pirates cannot offer. Offer rewards like something for free for a lot of legal purchases. Offer them better services, things that pirates can never offer like online capabilities that won\u2019t work on pirated versions. Offer it at a reasonable price rather than overpricing content that you will offer. Offer Demos of your game so consumers will feel more justified and better about buying your game. The better way to deter piracy is to offer better incentives rather than going gun ho on shutting it all down. Some people will pirate, but in reality you can\u2019t stop all of it and it\u2019s better to try and deter it via competing with it. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Companies should compete with piracy rather than enacting policies to fight it\n","id":"7249657c-5292-4ff1-8ff4-f6c0c25bdb37"}
{"argument":"Whatever the end product, be it music, film, sculpture, or painting, artistic works are the creations of individuals and a property right inheres within them belonging to their creators. An idea is just an idea so long as it remains locked in someone\u2019s mind or is left as an unfinished sketch, etc. But when the art is allowed to bloom in full, it is due to the artist and the artist only. The obsession, the time, the raw talent needed to truly create art is an incredible business, requiring huge investment in energy, time, and effort. It is a matter of the most basic, and one would have hoped self-evident, principle that the person who sacrificed so much to bring forth a piece of art should retain all the rights to it and in particular have the right to profit from it.1 To argue otherwise would be to condone outright theft. The ethereal work of the artist is every bit as real as the hard work of a machine. Mandating that all forms of art be released under a creative commons license is an absolute slap in the face to artists and to the artistic endeavour as a whole. It implies that somehow the work is not entirely the artist\u2019s own, that because it is art it is somehow so different as to be worthy of being shunted into the public sphere without the real consent of the artist. This is a gross robbing of the artist\u2019s right over his or her own work. If property rights are to have any meaning, they must have a universal protection. This policy represents a fundamental erosion of the right to property, and attacks one sector of productive life that is essential for the giving of colour to the human experience. This policy serves only to devalue that contribution. 1 Greenberg, M. \u201cReason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright\u2019s Growing Pains\u201d. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.\n","conclusion":"Artists have a fundamental property right over their creative output\n","id":"2c97e1b4-7d54-4a47-b0ce-935e5e2c5632"}
{"argument":"The study concludes that \u201cAmerica may still be the land of opportunity by some measures, but parental income and wealth are strong predictors of the likely economic status of the next generation\u201d, asserting that \u201cwealth, race and schooling are important to the inheritance of economic status, but IQ is not a major contributor, and, as we have seen above, the genetic transmission of IQ is even less important\u201d.\n","conclusion":"A study that further examined non-IQ factors' impact on income, concluded that an individual's location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important in determining income than IQ.\n","id":"dcbb40b7-fdcc-482b-968c-c4a03b564500"}
{"argument":"\"Report: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' costs $363M\". USA Today. February 14, 2006 - \"Discharging troops under the Pentagon's policy on gays cost $363.8 million over 10 years, almost double what the government concluded a year ago, a private report says. . The report, to be released Tuesday by a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, questioned the methodology the Government Accountability Office used when it estimated that the financial impact of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was at least $190.5 million. . 'It builds on the previous findings and paints a more complete picture of the costs,' said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who has proposed legislation that would repeal the policy.\"\n","conclusion":"\"Don't ask don't tell\" has been very costly in dollars\n","id":"599521bf-9eb3-4130-9d4f-23bf1060fc30"}
{"argument":"Anything from the golden globes, to school general assemblies are a waste of time, energy and by extension resources in my eyes. That Being said, let me dive in and explain why. First off, in all awards ceremonies abbreviating to ac for now on are completely unnecessary in my eyes. They are gatherings of people to celebrate other peoples actions or non action in certain predicaments. An example of this is A man receiving a certificate stating that he has completed a class in some form of secondary school. Second off, They Should be discontinued, That being said, they are primarily used to boost morale and make crudy people feel better about themselves and vice versa. Example, Sue received an attendance certificate for not being late for 30 days at school while james did not get an award because he got sick and stayed home for a day. Thirdly, I can list plenty of things that are more productive and a better use of said wasted time At the very least, reading a book or playing a videogame are a better use of time. Pretty much anything is a better use of time Now I know that my examples are garbage, but you get the idea, now I want to know if there is any other reasons why they should stay or could be considered useful.\n","conclusion":"Award Ceremonies are a complete waste of time\n","id":"f3efd081-2354-4815-994b-38714259a9fe"}
{"argument":"Mushing connects people with the outdoors and is low impact on the environment. It incorporates survival skills as well and traditional ways of life that would otherwise be lost.\n","conclusion":"Mushing is also used as transportation in some areas where cars, snowmobiles and air planes cannot reach. Mushing is also good for the environment.\n","id":"3c6fecdc-5669-4d29-957d-ac3b6131b13c"}
{"argument":"The 2018 midterm elections in the United States saw the highest voter turnout in decades Turnout during past presidential elections is equally higher than in the past.\n","conclusion":"Voter turnout in numerous democracies has been rising recently. This points to the opposite of complacency.\n","id":"fb496b46-a3dd-479b-abeb-25162ecf1202"}
{"argument":"This is specifically about the United States. Get out the vote programs target people who have little knowledge nor interest in politics. Politicians target people who will likely vote for their party black poor Democrats, white religious Republicans . This is tantamount to stuffing the ballot. This is particularly bad in primaries, where most local elections are decided and every vote matters. This distorts democracy because elections are not about interested citizens making thoughtful decisions about issues. What's the point when your vote is nullified by a busload of ignorant people selling their vote for a doughnut coffee? Only people with at least a minimal understanding of the issues should vote. Everyone else is a pawn of their party. edit Some people are taking my position too far. If a voter has any understanding of the issues at all, I encourage them to vote. If you've ever worked for a voter drive, you'll know that there are pockets of ignorant people who are pushed to vote for a candidate. That's the only specific group I'm concerned about.\n","conclusion":"Get Out the Vote drives are bad for democracy.\n","id":"f3887cfc-f9cd-4c50-b1af-813505b203a2"}
{"argument":"While factory farming has many ethical dilemmas, hunting is a cultural phenomenon that brings humans closer to their ancestry and their food. Thus, applying ethical barriers to hunting would eventually lead to banning, and banning a culture is in itself a crime against humanity.\n","conclusion":"Consuming meat is an important part of many culture's cuisines, religions, and practices.\n","id":"36176856-8c25-4eaf-bcf0-a14af527dbfd"}
{"argument":"I think that even if marijuana is not as bad as beer does NOT mean it should be legal. The only reason that cigars and booze are legal is because they are so rooted in our culture. Marijuana for recreational purposes is just crazy because the last thing people need is another substance that can destroy lives, kill people, and is to easy to overdose on. I will admit that in some cases marijuana can help people with epilepsy and so medical marijuana is OK but I just can't see anything but bad reasons in legalizing marijuana\n","conclusion":"I don't think marijuana should be legal just becuase it is \"Not as bad as cigarettes\/alcohol.\"\n","id":"2f499aad-ce8b-42e9-a87e-4b9fafea3318"}
{"argument":"For an argument to be sound, the opinions of the group appealing to be an authority first need to be valid, that is, the claims are coherent and reasonably deducible. After this, they must be inline with reality in order to be sound; the opinions must align with the factual nature of the world around them.\n","conclusion":"Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy in which an authority's support of an argument is used as evidence for the conclusion. Minority groups can be authorities on issues that affect them, but their support for a conclusion does not in and of itself mean that that conclusion is sound.\n","id":"c309c34f-4f14-46b4-ae68-f118a8fe64c2"}
{"argument":"We elect people in the government to decide regulations within a certain scope. We wrote a constitution to strictly prohibit them from reaching beyond that scope and infringing on fundamental liberties and rights.\n","conclusion":"The constitution has an amendment process exactly because norms change over time with regard to what rights we find it acceptable to curtail.\n","id":"b203e80d-ddf8-4e01-b280-4bbdddae6d7a"}
{"argument":"In light of recent events, I apologize if this is poor timing for this post. I was working on organizing my thoughts on this issues a few days before and now I think this discussion is even more important. Obviously mass murder is a horrific thing and we should do everything we feasibly can to prevent it. My general view is that gun control isn't a good solution to mass murder because I think cars would be a viable alternative for people who have the desire to kill. I'm assuming perfect gun control laws and enforcement of those laws which is impossible to give the gun control supporters their best possible situation where no one has guns except the authorities. I don't think this helps us much. There are a number of deadly alternatives like knives, arson and homemade bombs, but cars are probably the best combination of effectiveness and availability. It'd be really easy to drive your car through a crowd and kill a lot of people very quickly. There was an accident in Santa Monica, CA in 2003 where an elderly man accidentally drove through a farmer's market, killing 10 people and injuring 63. Presumably he had his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and was doing his best to avoid people. I see no reason why someone looking to kill a lot of people who didn't have access to a gun wouldn't simply get behind the wheel. I fully concede that cars have some drawbacks compared to guns. They can't be used everywhere so it would be harder to attack specific targets. But overall, it seems like their potential death tolls are comparable to guns given that the perpetrator can select any venue. It seems that most of the events in the past had roughly 3 15 deaths. I think cars are only very slightly worse than guns in these situations, if at all, and therefore removing guns would only slightly improve the mass murder problem, not dramatically. And that's assuming perfect laws and enforcement of those laws. I've tried to summarize my view with premises and conclusions. Let me know what you think of it. P1 Perpetrators of mass killings have a desire to kill multiple people, often with weak affiliation to their victims. P2 They seek out methods to satisfy their desire guns, bombs, etc. . P3 They act on their desires if they find methods which they deem sufficiently effective and available. C1 If guns were made unavailable, these people would pursue alternative methods of comparable effectiveness and availability. P4 Other methods of comparable effectiveness and availability exist. Cars, for example. C2 Removing guns will not dramatically reduce mass killings because guns are not dramatically better weapons than the alternatives. Cars, for example. C3 Gun control is not a solution to mass murder.  EDIT I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT POSSIBLE SAFETY MEASURES LIKE BOLLARDS WHICH COULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO MAKE CARS MUCH HARDER TO USE AS MASS WEAPONS. This changed my view. I now think that getting rid of all guns would significantly reduce the number of mass murders because the other available technology is either not significantly less available or less effective or preventable.\n","conclusion":"Even perfect gun control wouldn't dramatically improve the mass murder problem\n","id":"e9941e81-099c-4afe-a0a6-c36f1065e3fb"}
{"argument":"May did not even try to build a cross-party consensus to interpret the narrow vote in favour of leaving the EU. Instead, she decided to interpret the referendum as she pleased and told parliament that her deal was the only Brexit option\n","conclusion":"May's leadership style of telling people what she\u2019s already decided, rather than involving them in the decision process, is partly why negotiating Brexit with the EU, her party and parliament have failed.\n","id":"d1c68fb8-9d6c-456b-b751-6f78c8daed7e"}
{"argument":"The core message of Christian faith is one of social justice and liberation for all A world where the least in society are given preference. Where the stranger is welcome, enemies are welcome, and the powerless, the poor and the sinner are welcome. You can't read Jesus' teachings without that.\n","conclusion":"Christianity is defined as being \"Christ like Christ, on earth accepted women as equals in His dealings with them, including bringing them in to his inner circle.\n","id":"1ef21543-636c-4d52-af39-aef30ced1581"}
{"argument":"I got into this huge argument with my wife, and this happens constantly. She is very much a hippy liberal type who thinks that we should all drop our shit and throw all of our free time and money at all the problems of the world I'm clearly exaggerating a bit . In a nutshell, the way I view this is that if it is outside my sphere of local influence my family, my town, my county then it is a waste of time to care or spend any amount of mental energy on thinking about it. I have my own family to feed. Why the fuck should I give a shit about starving babies half a world away? I don't care. It's not my problem. I have my own problems. It's not my job to feed them. Another example is GMOs. I don't give one half of a flying fuck if the corn I eat is genetically modified. Why should I give a shit? I understand Monsanto's tactics are evil and shitty but there are so many products that I use on a daily basis that have corn as an ingredient that it is literally impossible to 'fight the man.' Not to mention that GMOs are not labeled. And besides, it's fucking corn. It's food. It makes you NOT hungry. That's its job, and it performs that job. Shut up, eat your food, and be glad that you HAVE food. Another good example animal welfare. My wife went on a tirade about how it's stupid that pets are required, at the minimum, to have access to shelter, food, and CLEAN water, but that livestock can live out on a field with pond water to drink. My response? I don't care. They're getting slaughtered anyways and I'm going to eat their delicious, tasty meat. Not my problem. They're cows. Big fucking deal. The only animal welfare issues that I care about are things related to pet abuse and the massively fucked KFC slaughterhouse issue. I refuse to eat at KFC. That is one of those things that my conscious cannot handle for some reason. Anyways, I guess what this boils down to is why should I give a shit about problems like this? If it doesn't directly impact me, my life, or my family's welfare, I don't care. It's not my problem. I have a thousand other things to waste my time, mental energy, and money on. Like tasty meat from a cow that was fed genetically modified grain and watered at a pond, or something. And somehow my wife thinks that this means I'm a selfish asshole, which doesn't make sense to me because if I was selfish my number one priority wouldn't be my family we have a two year old daughter .\n","conclusion":"As a lower-income citizen, I don't think it's my job to worry about world issues - like hunger, poverty, things like that - and I don't think I should have to care or donate money to these causes because I have a negligible impact on anything outside of my local area of influence.\n","id":"65dbcf36-797e-4a9f-a5c5-a0312b959da2"}
{"argument":"Most will do this as well as try out the educational aims investment markets, health care, home buying, and vehicles purchases.\n","conclusion":"Citizens will likely spend their UBI payments on taxable goods and services and therefore mitigate some of its own cost.\n","id":"7bfa12b3-487f-44c7-a5ad-e045a2c2c7ca"}
{"argument":"The invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe \"after drinking heavily His intoxication was the cause for a flawed Earth.\n","conclusion":"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe.\n","id":"350a777d-079a-4df1-a9e2-ca28439b9e02"}
{"argument":"Animals get to go into space because of humans. Animals would never have that chance be it without humans assisting them in that opportunity.\n","conclusion":"Both humans and animals get unique experiences especially shared ones from animal agriculture and wouldn't if the process didn't exist.\n","id":"47358f1f-7a4d-4879-b46d-c18578870c07"}
{"argument":"A \"majority standard\" in a smaller than universal sample size would be nothing more than a \"mob rule\" and by implication could aquit any two criminals who teamed up on any lone unsuspecting victim to rob, kill, cheat since that would be the majority value.\n","conclusion":"It would be impossible to measure and\/or implement a \"majority standard\" of morality because it would have to take into account all people and people groups simultaneously and the standard would constantly change with the populations and their subjective influences.\n","id":"f72c913c-6e6e-4311-9509-80b62384e6d5"}
{"argument":"I like watching sports. I am willing to pay to watch sports, through subscriptions like NBA League Pass, MLBTV, etc. Unfortunately, I also happen to live relatively close within the blackout radius of many of the teams I follow, and so I can't. Because of blackouts that say that one entity can have exclusive rights to broadcast an event. Even the online streaming through a network eg NBC sports requires you to login with a cable subscription. What I don't want to do is have cable. There's no good reason that people shouldn't be able to watch their local teams live without a cable subscription and without resorting to sketchy streams. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Media blackouts for sports are dumb\n","id":"691ee878-ea8b-4c91-b2dd-c174cf1a3795"}
{"argument":"It is a mistake to think that when you\u2019re downloading, there isn\u2019t someone else making a huge profit.\n","conclusion":"Downloading Music Without Permission Is an Example of Theft and Is Immoral\n","id":"6e8897ba-1d82-45e9-bb25-af89b1933f06"}
{"argument":"There is no reason for Net Neutrality to exist. The internet existed for years before NN was put into place 24 months ago and there were no issues. Because Net Neutrality gives the government power to regulate internet providers, start-ups, innovators, etc. under the premise that without Net Neutrality we would not have equal and free access to the internet which we had before NN was put into place.\n","conclusion":"Prior to 2015 there were no Title II regulations applied to ISPs and the internet had developed as an open and free system.\n","id":"73b04ae9-a0cb-497c-9df1-874e37096dad"}
{"argument":"Poverty is not something that \u201chas\u201d to exist, like many people seem to believe. There does not have to be an abysmal depth for the heights of a pyramid to exist. The fact that our distant ancestors agreed to place value into worthless pieces of paper to the end of coexisting peacefully does not mean that we must be bound to the exact same archaic system established centuries ago. So many of the rich are under the impression that they alone earned the money they have, well, who allowed them to accumulate all this cash? The people, everyone collectively consuming goods and services allow the so called elite to rise above. What the hell does a billionaire need that much money for? At that point it can really only be used to accumulate even more gems and baubles into their proverbial mountain of gold allowing them to sit on top of it masturbating their ego. Furthermore, when anyone brings up the fact that we can redistribute this wealth with little to no effect on the wealthy and a drastic positive effect on the poor everyone screams about \u201chandouts\u201d to druggie hippie homeless rapist murderers that somewhere along the process of losing any notable property also lost their status as human beings. Pegged as leeches upon society and blamed for institutional shortcomings, the excessively poor are completely trapped between a lack of economic capital and a stigmatized existence as worthless. When presented with this opinion of the poor and destitute, I simply say why don\u2019t we just kill them then? With near 100 occurrence people are appalled by this notion because everyone is on the same page when it comes to everyone having the right to live. The fact that life is seen as an intrinsic right, yet the basic necessities for life are viewed as something that must be worked for is a disgusting contradiction pervasive throughout human society. While many economic models such as universal basic income and negative income taxes propose a feasible way to eliminate poverty in a given society, they will never be ratified because those with the power to do so only hold onto their power through maintaining the status quo. I hope this can spur some discussion EDIT I am aware that these basic necessities I'm speaking of don't appear out of thin air but Food Already we have an incredibly small of the population involved in agriculture ~2 I believe and they provide more than enough crops to feed everyone and create countless biochemical products as well. It's not far fetched to assume that less and less man hours will be able to feed more and more people moving into the future. So a few people running a predominantly automated farm can feed thousands even millions of people. Meaning, that the food is available to sustain everyone without them directly working in agriculture. Shelter This is a bit more convoluted, what is the motivation to build housing to give away for free? Well in a UBI system, which i believe is one of the few feasible ways to turn this idea into policy they would still be getting paid rent for their buildings. Motivation remains exactly the same as for building housing in the current system.\n","conclusion":"The basic necessities for life should not be something one has to work for.\n","id":"806718a7-3c13-4a5f-8240-fe9c11f2e1a8"}
{"argument":"People consent to having their organs donated after they die. They also consent to having their lives terminated If these acts of consent are morally permissible then so are other voluntary actions where someone agrees to be eaten by another person.\n","conclusion":"If consensual, there is nothing wrong with cannibalism. It is permissible for someone to agree to be food for another after she \/ he dies or to be killed for food.\n","id":"51c95ce9-af48-4f14-a2eb-eb6b7d158b9f"}
{"argument":"Omniscience, from the Quran: \"He is Knowing of all things. Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the All-knowing, the Wise.\" Al-Baqarah 2:28-33; \"He is Knower of the unseen and the witnessed; and He is the Wise, the All-aware\" Al-An`am 6:73\n","conclusion":"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.\n","id":"275f211a-47e6-4f27-9612-b349076d2cf9"}
{"argument":"De Vere was once described in royal court as ''thy countenance shakes spears'', similar to how Shakespeare's name was written in print - ''Shake-speare''.\n","conclusion":"There is a strong case for Edward de Vere to be the real William Shakespeare.\n","id":"3cb8e1b8-bad1-4504-bda7-4c119e795480"}
{"argument":"It may make people more reckless with treatment of them and reduce respect given to these animals\n","conclusion":"Modifying animals to be pain-free can put them at risk.\n","id":"5401d1ea-fde8-4e3c-ad23-bfad0850ab0d"}
{"argument":"With the inherently siloed nature of today\u2019s cabinet the president is virtually alone in connecting the dots despite the growing complexity of challenges, with little high-level support to consider scenarios and calculate trade-offs.\n","conclusion":"The world has become so complex that no one person should be expected to handle so many decisions and topics at once. It is better to have seven minds for this.\n","id":"beeb0c01-4984-450e-a3ab-2885db1fd155"}
{"argument":"The theory of the multiverse is incompatible with the common concept of existence the existence of something in a comprehensible point in space and time. We do not discuss if there are aliens in hypothetical universes but if they exist within the spectrum of the observable reality.\n","conclusion":"If Multiverse Theory is true, by necessity there is more than one Earth and thus, more than one human species.\n","id":"125b0930-0afd-4eeb-90b2-b574214b8024"}
{"argument":"Park Chung Hee, who ruled in South Korea as a despot from 1963 to 1979, was assassinated by his own security chief. Among the suspected motives was the perception that Park had become corrupted betrayed the Korean people.\n","conclusion":"A corrupted ED, even if still benevolent towards the population, may attract the scorn of those around, thereby undermining his\/her own position.\n","id":"6fe7f070-bad4-4a59-822d-245517b4bbbb"}
{"argument":"Now I hold the upmost respect for guitarists like Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan. I understand their contributions to the world of guitar. I still can't justify how they are more talented than modern guitar players. The technical skill and melodies of bands like rings of saturn and infant annihilator just seem to blow the old legends out of the water on almost every front. They are faster and more accurate every time and also construct more complicated melodies due to these advantages. Please tell me why the legends of old still stand toe to toe with the new generation of guitarists. Please refrain from from the progenitor argument. Just because you came first does mean you were good.\n","conclusion":"Modern metal especially technical deathcore contains the most talented guitarists that have ever lived.\n","id":"40995d7b-be0e-4812-bb24-8454b694099a"}
{"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\u2019s 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.\n","conclusion":"Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states.\n","id":"07104579-5f9f-4a34-a4b2-874fb57c88df"}
{"argument":"The Vanishing Spell could be used to get rid of toxic waste spills that pollute the planet.\n","conclusion":"Magic could help mitigate and manage the effects of natural disasters.\n","id":"a7faed59-ca38-4a2e-b31d-618e3f8877e0"}
{"argument":"I am so sorry for the horrible title. I do not want to think this way and I know that you cannot judge a whole country, people, or religion as being ALL this way or not. I know for a fact it is not all. My sister is going to marry a man from the ME and he is truly wonderful. However, I am starting to think that men there are more likely to sexually assault women especially American women because they think we are easy. Please Please PLEASE help me change my mind. I don't want to live the rest of my life disliking half of the world. I have never felt this way in my life before and have previously always defended people from being negatively stereotyped. If anyone has any resources to help me uncloud my view or are from the areas that I talked about and can give me a better perspective This year my friend was raped by a man from Pakistan. He restrained her by holding her arms and legs down. He has gone on to rape four more girls. He asked a man from Saudi Arabia if it was ok to do that to the girls here. The man from Saudi Arabia said it wasn't but when he found out that guy raped many women here he said he still respects him . The rest of the Pakistani students have gone on to harass my friend who was raped. Another man from Saudi Arabia, unrelated to the first, is using one of the girls here for her green card after she converted to Islam and he has said so publicly. The group of guys from Saudi Arabia have sex with an obese girl here and behind her back treat her as the big joke. One of my friends converted to Islam to marry a man who was convicted of rape. I allowed my friend to live with me who was previously living with a Pakistani guy who hired prostitutes and made comments that he was going to get sex out of her as well. When we talked to the Dean of Students she said that the majority of the rape cases on campus come from the international students from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and she is thinking of no longer taking in men from those countries. When we talked to the police they said the same thing. One of my biggest issues is that I am starting to believe that while not all men from there are like this and certainly there are wonderful men who don't believe in sexually assaulting a woman, they are more likely to believe so because of how they were raised. PLEASE help me change my view Edit So that this does not get off topic about islam I do not think that because someone follows Islam means that they necessarily have to believe in rape. I think it is quite possible for a culture or an individual to interpret the Koran quite liberally despite people here saying that it is more strict in its interpretation. However, I do think that a culture or individual who wishes to promote rape can point to Islam's teachings and justify and propagate that. I believe the same with Christianity. It has been interpreted to be quite liberal and support equal rights and homosexuality and has been interpreted to support pedophilia and hatred of homosexuals and blacks. We can argue all day that you can't do that with the Koran but with my cultural study background, I believe human societies have interpreted the Koran in just as wide of a breadth while saying it is still the unchanged word of God. I am biased in that I think the interpretations in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan tend to the more negative and backwards interpretation. Delta So the delta actually went to a member who PMed me. Since they wanted to keep the information sensitive I will respect their wishes, but I want to let other posters know that this has been helpful and has challenged my viewpoint. I do not want to carry hate into this world and that was the purpose of this . But here is the gist of it 1 . These guys do not consider themselves a part of the community. We see worse behavior with tourists. These guys are allowing their worst side out. 2 . There is a wide gap of privilege between the actual people in the countries and the people who can come over.The most privileged treat EVERYONE like crap. Think about oil lords. They are far from the majority. Those type of people come over here and they continue to treat people like crap. Furthermore, what convinced me was the breadth of their personal accounts and anecdotal evidence which while I have been challenging members on their evidence, I think what I am going through is an emotional reaction to the stress of the reporting I am going through so being able to make an emotional breakthrough with this is helping me And for those who have been asking me about reporting. I already have done it and this is where a lot of the fear is coming from. I am afraid of being raped in retaliation. I am trying to take it one day at a time. As for one that you can see cheertina had the best comment Other people have addressed your main points better than I can, but all of these things happen plenty in other cultures as well. Marrying for a green card is common enough to be a trope. Having sex with a fat girl and shaming her behind her back sounds like every douchey stereotype of frat boy culture. People have been marrying rapists forever, and plenty of them undergo religious conversions. College students of all races hire prostitutes, go to strip clubs, cheat on their girlfriends, disrespect women, and brag about it to their buddies. Now, there may be a cultural difference, a statistically quantifiable one, even. But these incidences may be a college asshole guy problem that you're interpreting as a Middle Eastern culture problem because of a limited sample size. Unfortunately, the everyone sucks argument works best to unlink it from a certain portion of the population. You might a new  thread open up though called Change my view about college guys being raging assholes\n","conclusion":"Men from Pakistan\/Saudi Arabia are more likely to sexually assault or excuse it because of their culture\n","id":"e41b97eb-9c59-44b9-b17f-d53c1056f28c"}
{"argument":"A virtual reality headset can be turned off, unless someone is trapped in the real world while being forced to wear a headset, one cannot be forced into any virtual situation nor can anything physical be stolen or damaged. This would make a lot of crimes impossible.\n","conclusion":"You can always walk away from the computer, put down the controller, or log out of a virtual reality. The consequences only occur if you choose to stay immersed.\n","id":"df8dafe7-ec39-4e51-8619-81c358f7a917"}
{"argument":"All federal furloughed workers will eventually run out of runway and be forced to quit and try and find other work. When that happens, we will not have the talent or experience to do the things necessary to run the government and services. So the GOP will use this as an excuse to look to private corporations to fill the gap. By forcing the federal government to shutdown, and blocking any resolution on the legislative side, the President and US Senate are the instigators and actors in a conspiracy to fully privatize all aspects of the federal government that remain in place.\n","conclusion":"The US federal shutdown is nothing less than a corporate, non-violent coup to wholly privatize the federal government\n","id":"de871dc6-03db-4e5a-a239-48c28a88c1b0"}
{"argument":"One successful example of this system is found in Harris County, Texas, which provides universal access to health care by providing free or reduced cost health care to those who cannot afford it, funded through a variety of means including property tax, parking fees and taxes on private health care. Harris Health System\n","conclusion":"There are more effective solutions, such as having a private system and a public system compete with each other, combined with a health care safety net.\n","id":"6d4cdec2-07fd-404a-8abf-e91892887a40"}
{"argument":"The average fertility rate in many countries is now under 2.1 child per women, which is the estimated fertility required for natural population replacement If polygamy was the norm, women could have children with each of their partners, so it would help to increase the average fertility back to a sustainable level.\n","conclusion":"Non-monogamous relationships can be more successful and fulfilling than monogamous ones.\n","id":"aa6feee9-b60c-4e49-889f-74673cafacf6"}
{"argument":"Electric cars do not use petroleum products. They are, therefore, a major threat to oil companies. For this reason, as is argued in the film \"Who killed the electric car?\", electric cars have been suppressed as an alternative form of transportation. This is why General Motor's EV1 was literally crushed out of existence. If governments and companies actually gave electric vehicles a chance and possibly provided them with encouragement and subsidies, they would be entirely competitive in the market place.\n","conclusion":"Hybrid cars are simply a way for oil companies to maintain profits.\n","id":"6f41b4f0-7806-4de5-a955-1bee239b9bee"}
{"argument":"Humans rely on animals for food - from consumption of animal meat to use of animal products for cheese and other products: in a world where animal life is valued above human life, those food sources would not be available.\n","conclusion":"Preserving animals at the expense of humans would realistically cause the human race to die out.\n","id":"d9681674-777b-48c7-9689-5784f24f9143"}
{"argument":"When a policewoman was used by law enforcement in Minneapolis, she arrested 7 of the total 18 men arrested for the offense of prostitution that year .\n","conclusion":"Most law enforcement officers in responsible for enforcing sex work laws are male, which demonstrates a structural bias towards prosecuting women for law violations over males.\n","id":"5af8a64f-3562-43dd-b275-199151c1f111"}
{"argument":"Increased global integration means that poorer countries become more vulnerable to world financial markets. The East Asian Crisis was a direct result of globalisation and resulted in intensifying poverty. The crisis shows that even the strongest developing states are at the mercy of global economic forces that serve the interest of the dominant capitalist powers. Globalisation also meant that there was a speedy transition of the crisis to the other East Asian countries - the \u2018contagion effect\u2019 - having devastating human consequences.The benefits of the global market accrue to a relatively small proportion of the world\u2019s population. The stronger become stronger and the weak become weaker.\n","conclusion":"Increased global integration means that poorer countries become more vulnerable to world financial m...\n","id":"65182de5-d0c9-4f81-b37f-1cb2f4072110"}
{"argument":"I am Australian. My mother is Welsh and my father is English. I am as white as white can be. I've lived the stereotypical privileged white boy upbringing including expensive private school, stable nuclear family and pretty decent prospects for the future. For whatever reason, I moved to China to work as an English teacher sue me r CCJ2 . Disclaimer 1 This is not a rant, merely an opinion I hold. Other expats living in China, I am fully aware that that's China for ya and I am perfectly happy here and don't need to man up and deal with it . Here are the parallels between my experience and the everyday sexism feminist narrative Cat Calling As a foreigner in China I am stared at everywhere I go. At school, at bars, on the street, at the supermarket, everywhere. Chinese people will gesture to their friends and point at me like a zoo animal. Reactions vary between laughing, gasping, staring open mouthed, mumbling obscenities in Chinese or shouting HALLO and giggling. Glass Ceiling My colleagues do not respect me. They never will. No matter how proficient my Chinese becomes, how much work I put in, or how worthy of promotion I am, I will always be a foreigner and I will never be able to command the respect that a Chinese man no matter how incapable can. If I was to start my own business I could still be relatively successful, but I could never be a big shot. Many companies also have an actual wage gap as in I am paid less for the same job from the same company and of course there is no legislation to combat this. General Respect My students like me because I'm interesting to them and my crazy western styles of teaching are probably far more fun than the Chinese education method of relentless drilling. Despite this they will never respect me like they do their native teachers. Nothing about my ability as a teacher I am a foreigner and therefore a plaything until the Chinese teacher gets their turn back. This happens everywhere. Every single day, taxi drivers will stop, then drive away as soon as they see I'm white. I'm sometimes charged more for services just for being white. Thievery Being foreign I am automatically more likely to be a target of thieves and pickpockets because they assume I am helpless and confused and dumb enough to have all my money on me. The same goes for scams although if I was a victim of a scam I would blame my poor Chinese and lack of caution . Objectification When I go to tourist attractions I am as much a part of the attraction as whatever temple I'm visiting is. When I walk, a circle of flashing phones follow me like paparazzi. Some will ask to get a selfie with me, then giggle with their friends, making no effort to communicate with me. I am admired and often told I am handsome, but at no point do I feel like a human. And here are some of the perks. The foreign version of r pussypass reddit.com r pussypass if you will Free Drinks Chinese people buy me drinks at bars all the time, so they can have the status of having a foreign friend. Bar owners will give me free drinks to keep me in their bar and attract more Chinese people. I am often let into clubs for free for similar reasons. This is institutionalized, there are plenty of signs in bars such as Foreigners get 2 for 1 drinks . Equivalent of ladies night. The Law While obviously major criminal offences are the exception, there are plenty of minor run ins with the law that I can avoid simply by saying that I don't speak Chinese and going about my business. They will assume I didn't know any better it wasn't my fault or that it's just not worth making a big deal over. Picking Up Women As a white guy it's pretty easy to just go to any bar or club and pick up Chinese women with very little effort. Disclaimer 2 An obvious difference between the two experiences is likelihood of being raped. Despite all of the above, I am still much less likely to be a victim of rape. In the end I meet up with my expat friends weekend to sit and complain about how we're treated by Chinese people, only to realize that this is the perfect equivalent of women meeting up to complain that all men are the same. I'll be happy to clarify or expand upon any points. So, please  on whether or not I can respond smugly the next time a woman says you couldn't understand, you're a man .\n","conclusion":"As a white man living in China, I am subject to almost the exact same experience that a woman in a developed Western country is through \"casual sexism\".\n","id":"f567ff40-0e50-4412-87b6-113727ac5984"}
{"argument":"Apple recently refused to help the FBI hack two iPhones relating to a terrorist attack in Florida, in fear that it would compromise the privacy and security of all its customers.\n","conclusion":"Apple offers its customers greater security and privacy with their phones.\n","id":"8f66ce3b-2fcc-42d6-9e48-4e0dcac67af0"}
{"argument":"AFL CIO on the Employee Free Choice Act - \"It\u2019s Time to Restore Workers\u2019 Freedom to Form Unions. America\u2019s working people are struggling to make ends meet these days and our middle class is disappearing. The best opportunity working people have to get ahead economically is by uniting to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits. Recent research has shown that some 60 million U.S. workers would join a union if they could.But the current system for forming unions and bargaining is broken.\"\n","conclusion":"Employee Free Choice Act responds to worsening conditions for workers\n","id":"7cfd6b34-2939-4f65-8334-e338890b0cfd"}
{"argument":"Given that males generally select higher risk, more dangerous jobs that pay more while females select jobs that involve lower risk that pay less, any move to equalize outcomes must be restrictive of individual choice, and would thus be immoral.\n","conclusion":"There is no government policy capable of resolving the pay gap in a moral way.\n","id":"d1528298-ec5d-4a34-b09e-db66f6cc3a29"}
{"argument":"My basic premise is that there are two ways we could go about deciding who gets to use what bathroom. Either we go by gender, where irregardless of your genitalia, you are allowed to use whichever bathroom more closely coincides with your gender preference, ie a self identifying man with a vagina can use the men's bathroom, or by sex, which means that you would use the bathroom that correctly identified with your genitalia, ie a woman who identified as a man would have to use the ladies bathroom if she still had a vagina. My reasoning behind why sex should be the defining feature is that in their current state, bathrooms are built to accommodate people of that specific sex. Men's bathrooms have urinals, women's bathrooms have separate trashcans for used tampons, etc. Therefore, it would make sense to define bathroom choice in this way rather than overhaul the entire hygiene system in America today. Also, I feel as though I and many other men would feel uncomfortable having someone with different genitalia to us in our bathrooms, and I can only assume women might be a little flustered about it as well. Please help explain why defining bathrooms by gender makes more sense than by sex. Edit I am not arguing for any legislation around the issue, but rather a shift in public perspective around the topic. I believe this is an issue that is more determined by society than legislation, and thus this discussion is not about what we can do but how we should think. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Bathroom choice should be defined by sex not gender\n","id":"dfca3fe3-24ec-4e26-8b5c-ee5235aca9ed"}
{"argument":"Now that Trump recently announced that transgender people are not going to be allowed to serve in the military I want to try to understand the reasoning behind this decision. Transgender people have been fighting for America for some time now and from what I understand this haven't been a larger issue so far. Considering that both men and women are serving in the military I don't see how this could make a difference. It would be one thing if women weren't serving and female to male transgender people wanted to join. Considering this is not the case I don't see the logic behind it. Furthermore I don't understand how Trump can justify making this decision since some transgender people voted for him. Trump said he would work for the LGBTQ community and by doing this he is failing some of his voters on a according to me non logic decision.\n","conclusion":"Transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military.\n","id":"de5210e1-8feb-4e8f-95d3-08211da628dc"}
{"argument":"Pets bred for criminal activities, such as dog fighting is offensive to law enforcement and citizens who are taxed more to pay for it.\n","conclusion":"Examples are those with allergies, are traumatized by, or do not have pets.\n","id":"5cb1417f-e2da-4d2b-b2b1-16e696743ad8"}
{"argument":"There can be situations where one or more people justly deserve more say in a situation than others. Example: A family is deciding what car to buy. 3 kids might like something sporty while the two parents want good mileage and storage for hauling. If the two parents are going to be using the car the most and if they will be paying the bills, it would be just if their votes counted for more than those of the kids.\n","conclusion":"Not all voting systems that are not one-person-one-vote voting systems are unjust. Sometimes the votes must be unequal to be just.\n","id":"dbf57577-3ad0-4c11-97c9-e50f8767aaaf"}
{"argument":"While there are more merits to being vegan, the proper statement should be \"all humans ought to be vegan\" as ultimately, what one eats is entirely their choice.\n","conclusion":"An individual should be free to choose any food they want to eat without interference.\n","id":"b87114f3-c2b2-4fb7-a9e9-24e3a668668c"}
{"argument":"I think the people who run most bullying campaigns, ads, or even on Reddit, are complete idiots. x200B They know nothing of bullying, how to curtail it, and don\u2019t do anything but throw a \u2018band aid\u2019 on a matter that they refuse to address. I go on these groups, people will go there to cry, vent, whine, whine, etc the people on these message boards, never give any \u201cTangible\u201d solution to anything. x200B The kids or people might as well go to your local Priest and go whine to him about your problems as he just blesses you, and gives you proverb that does nothing to better your life or situation. x200B I was banned as were other people from a group on here for giving a kid tangible advice about how to combat bullying. I tell the same things. Go get in shape, work hard at something, keep your dreams at this moment to yourself, if you need to, go to the local gym, learn self defense, kickboxing, anything doesn\u2019t matter , since once you learn to \u2018protect\u2019 yourself, you won\u2019t actually really have to fight, and you\u2019ll realize that most of the things other people say, don\u2019t mean much unless it\u2019s against your race, or family, then fight away . x200B I think it\u2019s because a lot of people that control or run these groups, didn\u2019t have the balls, or fortitude to handle their \u2018bullying\u2019 while they were in school, or around the culprits that did it when they knew them. They cowered, ran away, etc\u2026 It just ends up being people that are 20 years removed from it, whining about \u201cI was bullied, I know how you feel\u201d which is great, why not give the person actual solution to their problem, so they\u2019re not another 50 year old person, stunted in life, whining about bullying? I know, I mean, actually, help them. Also getting angry at posters that overcame bullying, or actually did it whilst in high school or during the time, give actual advice. They get jealous, angry, or annoyed by it. x200B But, nope, they want more people to just another \u2018soapbox\u2019 to cry on. I had it rough, moved to a new school, some girl liked me, a different race than the majority, and from another town that town hated, I was forced to be bussed in, damn \u201cdistrict line\u201d and those kids made my life hell, with encouragement from the teachers Scumbags, never realized how evil adults can be, until then. I couldn\u2019t imagine being 52 years old, and pulling the things this degenerate scumbag teacher and his peers pulled on us at that young of an age, sabotage, fights, instigation, no wonder 45 of the white kids from that school I went to are drug addicts, with severe problems . Those same kids went to my jr. high. I had one that was a \u2018fake friend\u2019 that would use me to go to parties or meet girls, then throw me under the bus to \u2018get cool\u2019 with them, like I was the town \u2018whipping boy\u2019. I had enough in 8th grade, changed it up, 9th grade I got popular, 10th grade I decided to play sports since \u201cFuck it, why not?\u201d yeah, people talked crap, laughed, but I went in, got better, got good. Then I ended up getting popular, being cool, and beating the crap out of all the bullies that bullied me back then. x200B I earned my name and respect, with the savages. Sometimes in life, to \u201cBeat a savage, you have to beat a savage\u201d. I\u2019m not going to go to war and in the middle of a shooting spree, become a \u2018pacifist\u2019 and just \u201chope\u201d the people that don\u2019t know me, or my beliefs, won\u2019t do what they\u2019re trained to do, which is killing me. x200B It just irks me. I recall when I was being \u2018bullied\u2019 asking for help, and teachers, people, just \u201cleft me\u201d to figure it out. No advice, nothing. Then to go to a Reddit page, or websites, ask for advice, and be told crap like, \u201cWell, I had it bad too\u201d. \u201cIt\u2019s not your fault\u201d, \u201cI feel you\u201d, \u201cthey\u2019re a holes\u201d, \u201cthey should know better\u201d etc\u2026 without any tangible advice that is going to make some 14 year old person\u2019s life better, or easier. x200B Then to be chastised for giving them \u201cActual advice\u201d since the website or group needs \u201cclicks\u201d for their ads, or B.S., so, what do they want? A kid that got bullied comes there, finds a solution, and is no more bullied, so they don\u2019t have to keep coming to the site to vent every week, or 5 days, or a kid that is distraught, almost suicidal, crying each day, coming to the sight, over and over again to \u201cWax poetically\u201d about how hard they have it\u2026 though these same people, will \u201cCry\u201d about their bullying, but won\u2019t give a care to the actual \u201cbullying\u201d of minorities in the society they live in\u2026 but, what do I know? x200B It annoys me. Please, change my mind on how these people, campaigns, etc operate and tell me these things do something actually good. Since I think it\u2019s just a place for people who got bullied while in their youth who are mods or site owners, to get clicks some money, and to feel \u2018superior\u2019 or like they\u2019re \u2018actually helping\u2019 without tangibly doing anything. x200B It reminds me of when I was in college and we had all these \u201cPre med clubs\u201d that people made. I want to a majority Asian college ABC and Immigrants and we had clubs that were \u201cChinese American Medical club\u201d \u201cChinese Medical Club\u201d, \u201c1st generation Chinese Medical Club\u201d, \u201cSingapore Medical Club\u201d \u201c2nd Generation Chinese American medical Club\u201d, \u201cJapanese Medical Club\u201d, \u201cJapanese American Medical Club\u201d, \u201cVietnamese Medical Club\u201d etc\u2026 you get the picture, and if anyone went to a UC in California, you know exactly what I\u2019m alluding to . I didn\u2019t mind the groups, fine. But when I was on student board We decided which clubs got funding, checked what they did, etc x200B Every single club was just a made up, \u201cpaper club\u201d for them to claim on their transcripts that they were \u201cPresident or Vice President\u201d of the club to get into medical school, or graduate school. Even when we had our quota\u2019s they barely turned in 1 community service thing twice a year, and they barely ever did it. It was just a glorified way for the presidents and vice president fake kids to get something on their transcript, get money to have pizza parties they wanted, or go out. But the members got no tangible benefits, help with the MCAT, nothing\u2026 That\u2019s what all these groups remind me of, and all the ones on Reddit. Pathetic. x200B Well, change my mind, maybe I\u2019m wrong. Please if you agree with me, tell me you agree with me, would like to know how everyone feels on this .\n","conclusion":"People that run anti-bullying campaigns, Messeageboards, groups, are BS and don't actually help the kids being bullied.\n","id":"63659488-aedd-42c3-94f8-9bf52ff724ec"}
{"argument":"For example, when somebody is starving, their entire mind capacity is set to fulfilling that need and satisfying the issue. This could potentially force the person to commit inhumane acts as well.\n","conclusion":"Humans act for basic needs such as hunger, thirst, sex, sleep, etc.\n","id":"925723d8-f5fc-457e-af26-40654c3280fd"}
{"argument":"Every single American right wing blog or news site Freerepublic, Worldnetdaily, Redstate, etc is filled with stories of blacks committing acts of racism against whites, crimes, and has especially gone in overdrive with the recent riots over the shooting in St. Louis. I feel like the modern American Christian right wing white population of America masks their racism through trying to play the victim in this country by Obama, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, and pretty much the entire African American population. To me, it's sickening considering how whites are still the overwhelming majority in this country, yet the Republican Conservative crowd in this country are trying to play the race and victim card. Basically, white conservatives, stop trying to play the victim.\n","conclusion":"The modern American Conservative movement has become the party of right-wing White-American victimhood.\n","id":"d06629c1-8e8c-481f-94f7-70db6f9499de"}
{"argument":"Today, I want to write about poverty and homelessness. I recently encountered someone who stated Like poverty matters, there is so much of this. You could do your part by throwing a few dollars at the problem, but at the end of the day, real change takes loads of work and people. I want to go into deeper detail regarding this issue. I think that behind closed doors, the majority of us understand that poverty is an issue, but what impact would we seriously have made by throwing a few dollars at the problem. We can donate our money or our time. While these small actions may make someone else's day significantly better, we must focus on the bigger issue at hand. What are we really changing in the greater scheme of the situation? Maybe I am having a pessimistic outlook on this issue. Maybe I am a realist. What I say here doesn't necessarily matter. Just like poverty. Happiness, to me, is reassurance. Sure, being accepted or having money can make me happy. But with those things, I could have anything, but I would still be alone. When you receive reassurance, you are receiving more than praise and the removal of fear. You are receiving hope. You are receiving companionship. Reassurance tells the receiver that they are doing everything right. They are living life how it should be lived, the correct way. With reassurance, you can say screw the money, screw being accepted. You are doing everything the correct way. Everyone is living a life that is relatively similar. Now, this is a complicated issue. Everyone wants reassurance. No one wants to be told how to live their life, and certainly, no one wants to be controlled. But if you are able to spin it a certain way, you are able to empower people and make them believe in themselves, and more so, you. Going back to the main topic, does the issue of poverty really matter? Instead of spending money or volunteering to work at combatting homelessness, why don't we give them a moment? I know for a fact that most homeless people do not feel accepted. I mean realistically, why would you feel accepted if you are sitting on a street corner, watching the world move on around you. The world will not stop because of a single person, no matter who it is. Could be the president of the United States, could be Kim Kardashian. The world will never stop moving. Taking a moment to interact with these people, and reassure them. They are doing the best that they can right now. But, just like poverty, my words mean nothing. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Poverty Really Doesn't Matter\n","id":"1a057588-5aa4-4eef-9f62-41dc6b288660"}
{"argument":"In 2017, Poland wanted to cut down trees in the Bialowieza Forest, one of the last primeval forest in Europe. It was the EU that stepped in to protect it.\n","conclusion":"The EU already invests in local cultures throughout its Member States, a practice which is likely to continue in a USE.\n","id":"6eb07d5a-90bc-46a1-845c-90b227d2d746"}
{"argument":"A few months ago I was assaulted on a public bus by a bunch of thugs. They stole my phone and wallet and it left me traumatized in in the weeks that followed. I often found myself asking myself why it happened and I've always placed a little of the blame on myself. For context, this was in Newark, New Jersey. High crime rate, buses are known to be target for robberies at night, the police are woefully underfunded, so much so that gang members handed out t shirts commemorating the day of the budget cuts. I blamed myself because I knew there was a possibility of getting jumped and didn't take measures to lower that possibility. I was at the back of the bus, on my phone with earphones in, with my head down. I didn't even notice I was surrounded. Now, it was pointed to me that I should not blame myself for the same reason a rape victim should not blame themselves for being raped. I personally think you can't compare a mugging to rape but they share similarities in that we don't live in a perfect world and the event is largely by random chance. There's always bad people looking to do bad things and it's up ourselves to lower that risk.\n","conclusion":"I blame myself for being assaulted. I've been told I shouldn't.\n","id":"5a5f8827-dcd2-4b34-be04-835b197a2fee"}
{"argument":"Research shows that porn has the same effect on the brain as hardcore drugs. Like drugs, porn is highly addictive, changes the brain and negative ways, and even has withdrawal symptoms. The internet makes porn more accessible than ever and unlike other hardcore drugs, porn is free. That means that nowadays, most boys are addicted to hardcore porn by the time they are 13 years old and their brains are hardwired around consuming porn. I think that because the negative effects of porn consumption have been well documented, search engines needs to take action. I don't believe search engines are doing a good enough job regulating pornographic material. SafeSearch options on search engines should be stricter, harder to turn off, and should remove image options entirely. I think these are a better alterative to government regulations. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Pornography is highly addictive and the Search engines should do a better job regulating it\n","id":"13b52520-aa6f-41c6-b0d7-8431d8743a36"}
{"argument":"We are living in an era where climate change is a political matter rather than a scientific one, primarily due to the amount of sacrifice needed to ensure less CO2 emissions in the near and distant future, affecting economies of nations. The truth of the matter is that the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is a threat to everyone. The greenhouse effect would heat the Earth up on average, and cause the polar ice caps to melt, leading to the release of further greenhouse gases and the rising of the oceans. This is well accepted by a large majority of climate scientists. x200B In this scenario, humans on coasts would have to relocate inland or build expensive structures to protect coastal cities. More pressingly, certain places would experience an influx of climate refugees, either due to crop failure or the flooding. This is overall not a sudden process, and would develop alongside the population heading towards 11 million so that overpopulation and the climate lead to a global state of change. While it would be no apocalypse, and it's within reason to believe modern technology and innovations will allow for crops to keep yield and for society to function, the worldwide economy would be on a slowdown for a very, very long time. And this is assuming that the places not affected as severely by climate change devote resources to provide a new beginning for climate refugees. These problems will be passed down for a few generations, at least. While it's within reason to believe that there is an end, the total decline in this situation is not worth the current rate of economic and technological progress until the downturn. While it is true that some people treat it like the apocalypse wrongly, it's beyond a doubt not good for humans. And I have to specify for humans, not Earth, because humans will be affected. The increase in CO2 and heat will actually boost the reproductive efficiency of some animals and all plants. It should be added that the economic efficiency of nations does not have to be threatened by lowering CO2 emissions, as wind and hydroelectric power has developed to the point of being cost efficient enough to produce a similar amount of energy, without further resource coal, etc. input, saving money over time. Nuclear is also a viable option, with the only downside being nuclear waste. Solar energy and geothermal energy are admittedly not viable alternatives economically at the moment. But the point is, enough development has happened in alternative energy for there to be change without threatening the economy of the nation implementing this change. And again, in the long run well maintained renewable systems will in fact save money and effort.\n","conclusion":"Climate Change is bad for humans\n","id":"a10eacd2-1a6c-408d-b08f-923808c005b9"}
{"argument":"Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you I believe the only difference between a romantic relationship and a friendship platonic relationship is physical attraction. Lots of people talk of love or some mystical force, but in reality people make all sorts of concessions with regard to a person's character flaws and personality, but no one I have met is willing to compromise in terms of a desire to get nekkid with the person of their dreams. There are other factors that come into play with regard to the interaction lasting or being fulfilling, but I do believe that the only fundamental difference between these two types of interactions is the sexual element. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"Romantic love is merely a platonic relationship combined with lust\/physical attraction\n","id":"4730403d-0827-4a64-b814-0b211e36a836"}
{"argument":"Terrorists are engaged in a war like any other: they unite as a political actor to undertake military action in favour of a specific cause. The fact that they do not represent one individual nation and that they are not at war with a specific list of states does not undermine this: Al Qaeda, for example, has clear goals including eliminating American influence within Muslim nations, destroying Israel and re-establishing the Caliphate Blanchard, 2007. The fact that we may not view these causes as worthy or legitimate is irrelevant: we do not assess the merits or legitimacy of a conflict between states before deciding whether to apply the Geneva Convention. It should therefore apply equally to soldiers and terrorists.\n","conclusion":"1 Terrorists are engaged in war, which is subject to the Geneva Conventions.\n","id":"bd56be3b-2f94-4310-b07c-2e8945d5d0bd"}
{"argument":"The belief that America is uniquely free, and that it is the best country in the world leads to dogmatism and refusal to accept criticism from other countries. This, therefore, disrupts learning and social progress. The American dream does not exist except for the very lucky or the existing rich. Belief in the American dream only allows for inequality to grow and for the rich to continue to get richer while the working class remains completely immobile. It encourages people to look down on those who cannot financially support themselves by imagining a falsehood that anybody can be rich with the right attitude and a good idea. In addition, it encourages people to idolize the rich even when they have become so through morally questionable methods. Existing systems that have proven to increase social progress in other developed countries such as universal healthcare, gun control and restrictions on political lobbying go largely ignored in the USA. I believe that if the American public embraced the real value of other countries around the world and began to see themselves as 'just another rich country' instead of making children in schools pledge themselves to the USA or harshly criticizing anybody who shows dissatisfaction in the USA such as the NFL footballers refusing to take a knee then this would allow the USA to see itself from a more objective point of view, one in which its flaws are accepted, questioned and then combatted, rather than the current attitude which in my view blurs the line between patriotism and nationalism. x200B Edit Absolutely realize that those that carry these beliefs are in the vocal minority. x200B Freedom index's for the world USA is 54th most free Gini Coefficient Inequality measure, goes up to 100, higher is more inequality\n","conclusion":"The USA's obsession with patriotism, freedom and the American dream is it's biggest downfall\n","id":"29704fe6-1964-43a1-8c8e-cda56bfb9929"}
{"argument":"When a firm directs individuals to mix their labor with its capital or other resources, part of that firm's identity inheres in the product that arises from the effort. This is the origin of, and fundamental philosophical justification for, property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function1. The law protects patent rights in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should. Individuals and firms generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, such as a new drug formula, have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property that can be protected by a patent. Developing a new drug is a very intensive endeavor, taking time, energy, and usually a considerable amount of financial investment2. The cost of developing a new drug varies widely, from a low of $800 million to nearly $2 billion per drug and is rising3. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property, which developing generic drugs is, is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like drug formulae, and in practice they are a necessity to many firms' financial survival. 1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry\". The Congress of the United States. Available: 3 Masia, Neal, 2008, \"The Cost of Developing a New Drug\", Focus on Intellectual Property Rights, America.gov, Available: improve this\n","conclusion":"The product of a firm's intellectual endeavor is the property of that firm, and it deserves to profit from it\n","id":"8e0858a4-9270-4263-85fb-d6fcb4f352d6"}
{"argument":"For criminal law to serve its function \"in a society as diverse as ours, to be the only society-wide mechanism that transcends cultural and ethnic differences,\" Robinson and Darley criminal law has to be widely perceived as moral, i.e. as dispensing 'just desert.\n","conclusion":"In a socio-economic structure like ours, lack of retributive punishments makes committing crimes against one's competition a successful strategy.\n","id":"5975f934-b76f-4954-be98-9ac51a139eaf"}
{"argument":"The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement \u2013 i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy \u2013 and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form. This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about \u201cautonomy\u201d floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state. The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places.1 1 Rosenberg, M.J., \u2018Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations\u2019, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011,\n","conclusion":"The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear\n","id":"2edf7430-adca-412e-ad8d-b04f5f489501"}
{"argument":"It is a progressive tax, as richer people tend to own more land and would therefore be hit the hardest.\n","conclusion":"A land value tax should be introduced to replace other taxes.\n","id":"c9ae69a1-2942-4350-b101-20c0f0954a21"}
{"argument":"This is prompted by a recent rape allegation against Trump. I was quite happy he won the election primarily because the policies and arguments put forth by Democrats around expanding entitlement spending and immigration and criminal justice seemed very dishonest and destructive. Further, ever since the high profile rape hoaxes such as the UVA incident, the Columbia mattress girl, or the Duke Lacrosse travesty, I have been very skeptical of high profile sexual assault allegations. Thus, I found the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh to be quite flimsy. For the most recent allegation of rape against Trump, I was at first very skeptical due to the amount of time passed and her motivation of wanting publicity for her book. However, after hearing her interview, I found her account to be extremely credible and honest. Despite how bad Democrats\u2019 policies would be, we can\u2019t have a rapist in the white house.\n","conclusion":"I liked a lot of Trump\u2019s policies, but he committed rape and should resign\n","id":"45e8a780-d296-4ff9-bc82-539e6957aa18"}
{"argument":"It is evident that GB does not meet international standards of handling their detainees and therefore frowned upon by numerous nations such as Britain, France, and Germany. Especially Muslim communities dislike GB for their disrespect for Muslim prisoners and for their religion within the center. As mentioned in C3, this can negatively fuel terrorism, opposite of the US\u2019s initial incentive. US is one of the western liberal democratic countries who support democracy, freedom and human rights globally. However, GB violates fundamental human rights and this distorts US\u2019s reputation and its image of a role model for other countries to follow. This results in many negative outcomes for the US. First of all, they lose their international authority to request other countries to stop violation of human rights. Prop would like to remind there were\/are wars where US fought simply for protection of human rights in other countries. Continuing to keep GB is going against their constitutional values that the US were found upon, and makes what US fought for meaningless. Also this hurts the US\u2019s trade relationships with western countries who do not support GB, which is obviously not in the interests of the country. Most importantly, keeping GB is one of the US\u2019s effort to win WOT. In order to win this war, the US needs international support. It is problematic because US is carrying out human rights violation they exactly oppose by declaring war on terror, and therefore is going to lose the support they need to win this war if GB continues to exist. UN, along with many other organizations such as Amnesty Int and HumanRightsWatch have already called on US to close down the center. John McCain \"Ultimately, whether to close down GB or not is about morality. We are America, and we hold ourselves to a higher standard. That is what is really at stake.\"\n","conclusion":"Gauntanamo Bay is detrimental to foreign relations for United States.\n","id":"4f8c76f3-d4f3-4254-99c5-25717901606a"}
{"argument":"This is being posted by someone who is neither deaf nor blind. For this post, I'm referring to 100 blindness and 100 deafness. I think being blind would be WAY worse than being deaf. To be able to see the beauty of the world, of other human beings is so much more meaningful than hearing sounds and voices. Without sight we can't read body language and emotion or see the look of joy and beauty on a face. As humans we rely so heavily on sight that to be blind would put someone at a much greater disadvantage compared to being deaf, both evolutionary and socially. I think if someone was born BOTH blind and deaf, if given the choice between one or the other, anyone would choose to be rid of blindness. Visual stimulus also affects our emotions to a higher degree, for better or worse, but the positive sights would far outweigh the negative sights. I think being blind would be way worse than being deaf.  Side question Am I allowed to respond to a comment with a further challenge so that I can be absolutely sure that person has changed my view? Sorry, I'm new here.\n","conclusion":"I think being blind is way worse than being deaf.\n","id":"e0e9d0ca-6a1b-44bf-86a1-bf067e9b0bec"}
{"argument":"They will have lots of work to do! Believe me I know! I tried to learn whilst I was in Uni and I just couldn\u2019t cope with the amount of work and learning how to drive. It\u2019s been two years since I first tried to pass the test and I still haven\u2019t passed!\n","conclusion":"People who go to university will hardy have any time to learn how to drive!\n","id":"ac2af7ec-7c04-4232-90d6-4b937868df50"}
{"argument":"The feeling that lay people are second class citizens compared to the clergy may turn people away from the Church, especially for those who have been raised to embrace democratic ideals.\n","conclusion":"Lay people feeling more included in the Church's decision-making could lead to increased numbers of people staying in the Church.\n","id":"0ca5a127-874c-4bce-9e42-67c660f53c66"}
{"argument":"The dangers of fraud are well known and widely discussed Individuals are well able to decide themselves whether to trust a reader.\n","conclusion":"Tarot is still very popular, so it has its place in modern society irrespective of its detractors.\n","id":"4fa4a3cf-1f21-4a55-9d6b-929585b7c2a1"}
{"argument":"I was reading the post today about the supposed Malaria vaccine when it occurred to me that while it's terrific that this discovery will end the suffering of infected people and eradicate the potential to put more through that sickness, it will ultimately result in an increase in world population. Every new development in sickness prevention or life elongation contributes to the steady and inevitable increase in people on this earth. The bottom line is that people will increasingly die at a smaller rate while new people are increasingly born at a greater rate. The earth cannot sustain this. Is there another point of view that would help me enjoy these medical discoveries more? All I see is a bleak future fast approaching as more people live longer.\n","conclusion":"Life saving discoveries are detrimental to humanity in the long run\n","id":"db96d953-bc36-418d-b8f3-e5840c1cd983"}
{"argument":"From hunting to wars spears have allowed humanity or certain populations of humans to survive, eat and conquer other humans up until about a couple hundred years ago. Here's a few reasons I summed up to explain why they're the best Simplicity. One stick and one blade with a little binding and you're good to go. Other weapons require extensive piecing together or the knowledge of a blacksmith. Me, a mid 20's student, could make a spear out of the stuff in my cleaning gardening closet. No ammo. No reloading required. Just pull out of target and reuse. No collateral damage. No supply lines. Spear breaks or dulls? Refer to point one. A cave man could repair a broken spear. Keeps enemy at a distance. Can be thrown at a distance then reused. Except for the Roman pilum which was designed to not be reused. If your enemy is only armed with a 1 foot blade compared to your 6 12 foot bladed stick then you're going to be the favored combatant. Gets more effective with large numbers of them being wielded in line formation. As long as they walk together and know how to thrust, your army is just as good as any other the world has seen. Entire ancient civilizations were conquered using this method. See Alexander the Great. Can take out a mounted warrior. Conversely, can be used by a mounted soldier with great effectiveness. My favorite thought Imagine how well humans would do against a zombie horde like some WWZ shit out of the book not movie if they were in hoplite formation and had 12 foot spears. Versatility, simplicity and the amount of which it was used and still is used in human history are my main reasons why this is the best weapon. Other weapons Swords Not effective weapons in the hands of a weak and untrained individual. Anyone including a guy in a wheel chair can use a spear. Bow and arrow Too much training required. Bow is useless unless you have arrows. Pre Industrial guns muskets or whatever Black powder can block fields of vision when ignited. Lots of infrastructure is required to make a lot of guns consistently. Plus, they're inaccurate and often times didn't kill a man in one shot. Infection and lead poisoning took care of the rest. Plop a bunch of humans on a remote island or planet and I guarantee you the first weapon they will make is a spear. Now, on to modern weapons. Same as above sort of. We tout ourselves in the US for being the most advanced military we've seen but our weapons are incredibly wasteful. Almost all of the projectiles we use now are completely unusable after they are fired because they are blown up. Large flying explosives are too indiscriminate and cost a HUGE amount of money. This can be very costly to an army. If a specific part of your gun breaks then hopefully you have a good supply line behind you because you can't fix that piece on your gun. Not to mention that modern explosives have a much higher chance of killing an innocent civilian than a spear does. P.S. I'm not condoning going back to older methods of war. Just saying we humans have already invented the best weapon. EDIT So many downvotes lol. Many of you keep saying things like right now but I never said right now in my original argument. I'm talking over the large course of humanity which includes past and future. Guns are a very recent and small part of human civilization. I contend that the spear is timeless and might be used again while a gun requires the large build up of infrastructure and technology. Without both of those requirements lets say they disappear dude to some cataclysm , you probably can't have guns for much longer. You guys really only convinced me that guns are the best weapon right now or within the last couple hundred years. Which is obvious.\n","conclusion":"The spear was the best weapon humans ever have developed.\n","id":"91f45ccc-7873-4811-949b-89c2f11561fe"}
{"argument":"I use this example specifically as fishing for pleasure is not only a common practice in many cultures, it is often one that is seen as virtuous. In film it is romanticised, typically as a father son bonding session or something of the like. Objectively, it seems odd that going out and intentionally torturing and killing animals for no purpose other than fun is seen as a peaceful, reflective activity. I'd be interested to hear any people who do fish for fun argue why it they see it as acceptable. It seems to me that this practice is sadistic or at least clearly cruel if considered at all . Any links or debate about the science behind how fish feel pain are welcome, as I feel that is intrinsic to the argument.\n","conclusion":"Fishing for fun is cruel\n","id":"2e78e547-05f4-4b0d-8c42-da1270570de6"}
{"argument":"Democracy, especially as a legislative system, fails to address the needs and important interests of oppressed or historically oppressed individuals.\n","conclusion":"Modern democracies are destined to fail due to their inherent weaknesses.\n","id":"383dc1e3-139d-4c2b-b7ac-a1b656eacc34"}
{"argument":"The Tamil Tigers LTTE, Japanese Kamikaze aviators or the Kurdistan Workers' Party have all used suicide attacks\n","conclusion":"Political or social motivations have also led people to take their own lives while attacking others.\n","id":"a7516e91-3bd7-4754-bc40-d2f5e7b34048"}
{"argument":"\"scientists have long maintained that corrosion wouldn't threaten the integrity of the storage containers for at least 10,000 years.\"\n","conclusion":"Corrosion would not be a threat a Yucca for thousands of years.\n","id":"952882f4-6dde-4c9a-98b3-133091016492"}
{"argument":"I spend most of my time on reddit in the background just browsing. So I wouldn't say I am particularly karma whore y. But I disagree with people who say chasing karma points is stupid and pointless. Why? Chasing karma points turns redditors basically into politicians. To get a lot of upvotes, you have to be aware of the dominant mode of discourse on reddit. You have to be aware of the many types of thinking that go on, and find a way to cut to the core and say something that had broad, popular appeal. Some people are bad at this they are kind of like Mitt Romney. It is sort of obvious that they are just wanting people to like them and the insincerity is obvious. Others are more like a Lincoln or some other charismatic leader they find a way to speak that is both coming from the heart and is clever. In either case, paying attention to karma points does encourage a certain kind of intelligence. It makes people find a stronger feeling for where the consciousness of the community is at. Knowing when a particular sort of circle jerky joke is still fresh, for example, and when it is overused and rehashed makes people who chase karma points have to try to stay on top of the shifting moods and preferences of the community. You know when you see an advertisement or like a movie that makes you kind of cringe because it seems like it is trying too hard and like it is a little behind the mood, even though it wants to present itself as hip amd edgy? Like the latest Transformers film that is like a karma chaser who picks up on the feeling of the community but comes a little late to the game. But the point is, these kind of efforts I think really are making redditors a little smarter, a little more aware, a little more politically saavy. I am not saying this type of intelligence is necessarily ideal. It could be the case that karma points just move us towards the intelligence of like empty suits very keen when it comes to knowing how to phrase something in a populist way, but lacking in the intelligence that comes with truly finding principles to stand on. In any case, if you think I am wrong that karma points gives us a new kind of awareness, please change my view.\n","conclusion":"Chasing Karma points makes people more politically saavy.\n","id":"7ee7635d-0d85-41e6-8023-3df8bd93538a"}
{"argument":"I was listening to an episode of the Planet Money podcast about how companies decide to weed through applications and resumes in order to find who they want to hire. There's a section on a company that helps companies create a blind hiring process where they cannot be influenced by an applicants race, age, gender, etc. even going so far as to create software which disguises a person's voice over the phone in such a way taht you cannot tell their gender. Shortly after that, there was a female, black student on the radio expressing concern, because she though it may actually harm minority applicants, and prevent companies from actively seeking out people like her. To me, this blind hiring process if it works, and you can get enough information about the applicant without revealing their demographics seems like the be all end all in preventing discrimination based on things like race, gender, and age. Even when hiring managers try really hard to avoid judging based on those things, there's always the worry that they would be subconsciously biased. However, if you cannot even tell someone's demographics while hiring them, then there's no way to be even subconsciously influenced by those things. As a result, hiring would become more meritocratic. This woman is worried that she may be harmed by a practice like that. There are only two possibilities 1 She is just wrong, and as a group which is discriminated against in hiring decisions she would benefit from blind hiring or receive no effect. 2 She is right and part of a group who is privileged in hiring decisions. Link to the Podcast Relevent part is at about 8 minutes. Transcript of the podcast Change My View.\n","conclusion":"Blind hiring would harm an applicant only if they are part of a group that's privileged in hiring decisions\n","id":"dd83109a-5d6b-4e73-9e94-f7fd1f622317"}
{"argument":"In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II refused to signify her consent to the Parliament of the UK debating the Military Action Against Iraq Bill which sought to transfer power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the sovereign to parliament.\n","conclusion":"Whitehall papers revealed that at least 39 bills were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles.\n","id":"dcd7d0b2-dbd4-480e-ba6d-e5eabfb7c028"}
{"argument":"This claim ignores the fact that science religiously filters out any and all evidence which contradicts in a severe way the materialistic model and the text book explanations for things. There could be loads of evidence and to the scientific community it doesn't exist. A case in point is evolutionary archeology and evidence for this is given in the book Forbidden Archeology.\"\n","conclusion":"If God intervenes in the world then there should be empirical evidence of His interventions. If he doesn't, he is irrelevant.\n","id":"0b795b1c-1c1f-450f-bad9-3a17e1429f63"}
{"argument":"The systems I'm referring to PRISM NSA program accessing data on the hundreds of millions of users of Facebook, Google, Microsoft services and much more Tempora British program that splices into fiber optic cables and sifts through everything in there, sharing data with the NSA The huge problems I find with them Potential for abuse as they are today, these systems do not have technical limitations that prevent unauthorized invasions of privacy. In Snowden's words, if an analyst has access to the query system he can pull up data on anything he wants regardless of warrants and regulations. Excessively wide access Snowden reports that between the NSA and GCHQ British SIGINT , 850.000 people have clearance to access the data. That's way too many. What percentage of dishonest low morals, corruptible, blackmailable people will there be? 0.01 ? that would still leave 85 people who might be forced to pull data on anyone and anything in the world for malicious purposes. Lack of credible judicial oversight PRISM is subject to FISC warrants, however the requirements for them are extremely generic 51 probability of foreign target, no need to specify which assets and facilities will be investigated . Also, FISC rulings are secret and have been shown to have considerably extended the initial scope of the program, all without the possibility for the public to know of it and challenge it in higher courts. For Tempora, we don't even know what kind of judicial oversight exists, if at all. What this all means It means that the system is incredibly open to abuse. A small group of insiders, with even just one having access to the system, can exploit it to maliciously gather all kinds of information. The purposes are almost unlimited industrial espionage, insider trading, blackmail, leaking embarassing information political, personal or business competitors you name it. Not only that, but even authorized access could be questionable. Right now the legal scope of the system is national security , but there are little safeguards to prevent it from becoming maintaining the current administration in power . Think it's impossible that a President would stoop to such lows? Nixon tried it with considerably less sophisticated means, using ex secret service operatives. How difficult do you think it would be for a President to use a few trusted people with access to the system to sift through data an try to come up with something that could embarrass his opponents? with 850.000 people to pick from, not very difficult.\n","conclusion":"I believe the surveillance systems revealed by recent leaks are a gigantic problem and I'm appalled by the apathetic and even complacent comments I'm reading.\n","id":"e94a1faa-a574-4135-b4c6-8e94c44feac7"}
{"argument":"Not going to defend the fact North Korea is a dictatorship, but instead I'm going to defend their right to develop and keep nuclear weapons. Assume you are the leader of a nation like North Korea, any nation basically that is somewhat small insignificant and aligns itself towards the east, so not good friends with USA and the EU pretty much. Your military will basically exist to defend yourself from mostly a possible american invasion, and there is literally only one way to keep USA from invading you, and that is nukes. The reason I would defend regardless of how dumb I think it is I would defend a crazy dictator North Koreas right to have nukes is because the UN Security Council is a joke and have proven that it cant keep anyone safe. If the west want to invade someone, they will, we do not need good reason, Iraq and Libya are good examples, they were simply a threat to economic wellbeing of our countries USA and France mostly in this case and that was enough to motivate an invasion. The only way those countries could have kept from being invaded would have been if they had nukes. Basically, I think its extremely silly for western powers to sit and talk about how its a huge no no that someone is getting nukes when they themselves all have nukes and when they know damn well that there is only one way to defend yourself today and that is to own nukes. The UN Security Council holds no power over the big players, there is absolutely no way for any country to defend itself against the US Military as it is far superior any other, so acquiring nukes makes sense if we believe a country has a right to defend itself. Basically, I am in favor of North Korea acquiring nukes strictly because we in the west force other countries to do so in order to defend themselves, so we have absolutely nothing we can tell them when it comes to asking them not to get those nukes, as we cant guarantee anyone their safety. However, I'll admit I am not exactly happy about KJU having access to weapons that can fuck everyone up, I don't like WMD's in general but NK would definitely be the spookiest nation to own any. Once again though, while NK clearly are crazy, they havent really invaded anyone besides SK a long time ago and they dont really do a lot of damage in the world besides some issues now and then, USA, Russia, UK, etc, on the other hand constantly start wars and shit, and I don't really fear them using nukes, even though they drop bombs daily. Perhaps NK having nukes isnt really that much scarier than anyone else having them, anyway, back to the point TL DR NK should be allowed nukes because its the only way to defend yourself in 2016.\n","conclusion":"North Korea have good reasons to acquire nukes.\n","id":"56465043-e932-40b5-bb7a-663e07f1de41"}
{"argument":"The impression I get looking through r TheRedPill is that it is just another variation of the PUA community, though possibly a bit more extreme in their disregard for both sexes. They seem to believe that all men fall into one of two categories the attractive, virile, dominant alpha male and the ugly, submissive beta who only has a shot with women if he has money. They seem to think that all women are manipulative, self serving, and ready to walk all over any man who doesn't assert his dominance, and that they only enter relationships for money or lust. The impression I get from r redpillwomen is that they believe women have to be submissive and follow IMO regressive gender norms to attract a worthy mate. They also seem to believe that relationships are a means to personal gain. I think both subs are too narrow in their understanding of human behavior. My gut reaction is to believe that the men of r TheRedPill are either sociopaths who don't view women as fellow persons or emotionally damaged people who've had bad relationships in the past. My gut reaction to r redpillwomen is that they have either, like the above men, been in bad relationships in the past and are trying to find any reliable way to change their luck, that they are sociopaths who want to use sex and commitment for personal gain, or that they're taking the polar opposite position from radical feminism, due to seeing some of the absurdities in radical feminism and overreacting by distancing themselves from feminism completely. I realize, however, that like the subs in question, I'm categorizing and stereotyping people, based on my gut reactions. Are there any redeeming qualities in these philosophies? Are there any more sympathetic rational mindsets that might buy into them? Are any of my impressions wrong? Is there anything I'm missing?\n","conclusion":"I think that \/r\/TheRedPill and \/r\/redpillwomen are regressive communities aimed at emotionally damaged people and sociopaths.\n","id":"718f8b68-6571-455a-bebc-472f880e9ec0"}
{"argument":"The average redditor's hypocrisy is mind blowing. I'm referencing this thread. They were fucking healthy. If someone hangs themselves because they were depressed, OMFG THATS SO SAD, PEOPLE CALL A HOT LINE AND TALK TO SOMEONE. SUICIDE IS NEVER THE ANSWER. Now if someone stops their heart with morphine instead of a rope or a bullet, they're courageous and brave . Now don't get me wrong, I'm totally pro euthanasia. If someone is sick and is suffering, they should be allowed to do it. But I don't get why an elderly couple doing it to not feel sad is different than a 63 year old actor hanging himself. Could someone please tell me the age where suicide suddenly transforms into being courageous? Is it 65? 75? 85? Or does the method matter? If you splatter your brains of the wall, that's not courageous and brave. Slashing your wrists? Still not courageous and brave. Heroin? might be courageous and brave? Morphine? 10 10. would call it courageous and brave again. Or is it a combo thing? 14 year old hanging coward. 14 year old morphine coward. 14 year old painting wall with brain matter coward. 14 year old slashing wrists coward. 80 year old hanging coward. 80 year old slashing wrists coward. 80 year old painting wall with brain matter coward. 80 year old morphine DING DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER courageous and brave Now you might say but at 85 they were going to die soon. Average life expectancy for white people is about 75 in America. So let's say euthanasia at 70 is ok? Now average life expectancy for black people is about 5 years less than that. So if a black person commits suicide at 65 what should we call it? Now what should we call a white person that commits suicide at 65? People should only be allowed to get euthanized when they are in pain and have a terminal illness.\n","conclusion":"Euthanasia when you're healthy is not courageous and brave, unlike what many Redditors are saying.\n","id":"013e24b3-e9f4-4cc9-a8b6-944bc4f9376b"}
{"argument":"In Ep.I Shmi, Anakin's mother tells Qui Gon Jinn that there was no father involved in Anakin's birth, leading Qui Gon to suspect that Anakin was in fact made by the midichlorians, i.e. from the Force.\n","conclusion":"Anakin Skywalker was a being created by the force, making him and his bloodline uniquely connected to it.\n","id":"a93c7089-7cda-4dc6-a536-361a4bbcd344"}
{"argument":"Causing trouble for the US and NATO in Afghanistan serves Russian interests by diverting American pressure from Crimea to a slightly less proximate area.\n","conclusion":"Russia's geopolitical strategy is based around competing with and undermining the US: creating a more divided Middle East is aligned with that strategy.\n","id":"40fb389b-5295-4f53-80c1-40734f122c14"}
{"argument":"\"The Case FOR Bureaucracy.\" GovernmentIsGood.com.: \"Another source of administrative inefficiency in our private multi-payer health care system is the enormous amount of overlap between companies. Each insurance company must maintain its own records and develop its own billing processes. This is much more expensive than using a single government administrative structure.\"\n","conclusion":"Overlap b\/w companies is less efficient than unified govt\n","id":"64e60d64-990f-4336-b2ce-92605094c4ff"}
{"argument":"Unlike other American celebrities who have gotten the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny in recent years, Jackson\u2019s art necessitated a carefree, fun format to be popular. People acknowledge the flaws of Mel Gibson and Dustin Hoffman\u2019s lives and watch their art because they were not carefree enjoyable products. R. Kelly\u2019s music remains popular because unlike Jackson discography, he was never a superstar and his music was not intended strictly for dance pop enjoyment. Jackson\u2019s estate and the replayability of his songs now face a severe challenge how can we enjoy dancing to his fun music and post .gifs of him eating popcorn now that there is yet another round of credible accusations of molestations? In the Me Too era, the discomfort factor has been sensitized. If you\u2019re at a wedding, you now have to consider whether people will find Thriller or Bad questionable. It\u2019s not like Gibson\u2019s anti Semitic rants or making Passion of the Christ it\u2019s like watching reruns of Seville touching kids on BBC from the 70s. It\u2019s icky now. Change my view the Michael Jackson discography, it\u2019s core of being a joyful experience, is over after 2019. It\u2019s become something less than blissful, and anything less than that means it is a failure for audiences.\n","conclusion":"The Major Allure of Michael Jackson\u2019s Music Was \u201cFun\u201d and is Now Destroyed\n","id":"c0714e59-31d5-4c2c-8b84-65325e07e657"}
{"argument":"Communism doesn't work in real life, that's pretty well known, but that's because it goes too far left. If capitalism tried to be purely market than the same types of tragedies would happen to those live in capitalist countries. I see communism as socialism taken too far, and something that with a little work could show real benefits for its citizens. I don\u2019t believe that it\u2019s the evil that it\u2019s often made out to be and that some of its practices could be used to improve the lives of citizens around the world. Edit I realise now that I should have been more specific when saying I was talking about the economic policy rather than the philosophy.\n","conclusion":"Communism isn't that bad.\n","id":"a6c2c8f2-82c5-4821-ac7f-668ba6bdba70"}
{"argument":"Women were greatly oppressed in the past limiting the range of hobbies and activities available to them. This resulted in low demographics of women, if at all, in a very large number of hobbies today meaning that women had a narrower scope of hobbies to work with. Men's freedom allowed them to pursue a much larger variety of hobbies. The number of women are increasing now that oppression has ended in most countries . Men however still have a wider range of hobbies and activities overall today because of the prejudice against women and the lack of freedom. I was told this is sexist against women for me to say but I feel I'm looking at it objectively. Please change my view, I don't know where my insensitivity or sexism lies. I thought I was supporting feminism by acknowledging that the patriarchy sculptured everything to be this way by excluding women, but I am clearly missing the big picture. I don't want to be sexist but I can't see where I faulted which is making it hard for me to see my errors and make a difference. I am sincerely asking to show me the error of my ways and change my view. Thank you\n","conclusion":"Men are involved in a wider scope of hobbies due to female oppression.\n","id":"1056a1cc-1b70-482e-8ea1-ee73f4f19c1a"}
{"argument":"So long as it does not directly contribute to violence, all speech should be free. No group of people should be above criticism.\n","conclusion":"It is better to challenge bad ideas than to simply ban the enunciation of them.\n","id":"14a6c1fe-ff31-465c-bd9c-32db63fb963e"}
{"argument":"Parents should observe a reasonable diligence, it could be argued extreme precautions and preventative measures can cause developmental and\/or psychological neurosis issues in the children or into adulthood.\n","conclusion":"Essentially all parenting activities hold a risk of harm, so parents are not obligated to eliminate all risk.\n","id":"ce48a2e2-93f5-4d65-a35a-630063d71ba6"}
{"argument":"Title pretty much says it all, I believe that there are all kinds of history and local politics involved in civil wars that outside forces and countries do not, and some times can not, understand. Therefore those forces should not interfere in the war unless extreme circumstances require it.\n","conclusion":"I believe that civil wars should not be interfered with by outside forces unless extreme circumstances require it.\n","id":"9ff88333-9f13-4615-bd5f-c6de9a42d46e"}
{"argument":"According to studies, bullies are often children who are plagued by their own problems: a troubled family situation, feeling of inadequacy, depression, or pressure to fit in1. Their bullying behaviour might just be a coping mechanism and a cry for help. These children might need as much support and care as those they bully. Putting them through the harrowing experience of a criminal trial, and potentially throwing them in prison will further damage them. Destroying one young life as retribution for another is a model of justice that should find no place in a compassionate society. 1 Carroll, Linda. \u201dKids with ADHD may be more likely to bully\u201d. MSNBC. 29 January 2008.\n","conclusion":"Bullys are frequently as disturbed and victimised as those they target\n","id":"bdc9da0a-9d49-479c-8fc4-214e9fa3f1fd"}
{"argument":"It is true that it does sound like Trump has something to hide. He probably does have lots of embarrassing things that could be good fuel for convoluting the truth. Are these \"things\" important or not, we do not know, but for sure it always looks like there is something he is hiding.\n","conclusion":"Trump's actions indicate someone who is worried about what the investigation will find.\n","id":"5512a251-662a-4aa4-929a-8a18aca5d34c"}
{"argument":"According to Manchester neighbor William Stafford, one treasure dig was unsuccessful because, as Joseph Smith purportedly saw in his seer stone an evil spirit \"caused the money to sink\" during the dig. Howe, 1834, p. 239\n","conclusion":"According to Joseph Smith and his family, treasure digging rituals were often unsuccessful because, by supernatural forces, the treasure sunk deeper into the earth during the dig.\n","id":"8b9f4941-5abd-4202-b2ee-7d9b56ecfab1"}
{"argument":"Qualified candidates may be discouraged from running for a judicial position for fear of the \"mud-slinging\" and expenses that come with an election campaign.\n","conclusion":"Judges should be selected for their skills and experience in law, rather than their ability to run an effective election campaign.\n","id":"173d111c-6d23-4292-b2c8-c9f9e7cfde40"}
{"argument":"Trascendence and trascendental arguments about non mundane nor verifiable concepts bring to not measurable hypothesis, nor reliable ones, therefore it cannot be verified, if it cannot be verified is not scientific, if is not scientific it cannot be use against a scientifically and empirically proven statement.\n","conclusion":"This rests on a reductionist presupposition that everything to be determined is observable in the physical and natural world, begging the question against transcendence.\n","id":"8eb5c658-2898-435d-a371-740b4db459d0"}
{"argument":"Marriage was one of the seven key factors to long-term happiness identified in a long-running study on human happiness.\n","conclusion":"Personal and emotional relationships are a key source of happiness.\n","id":"1ebd62e9-ddb8-4d58-ac0e-f5127d98183e"}
{"argument":"The Roman Catholic Church considers an abortion \"a grave moral wrong\"; in Sikhism abortion if forbiden; Hinduism is opposed to it, except where it is necessary to save the mother; Islam regards abortion as wrong and forbidden though with vital exceptions and Judaism only permits it for serious reasons.\n","conclusion":"In a lot of cases, even if individual believers do not think abortion is wrong, their religious teachings say otherwise.\n","id":"cc03fc2a-53ae-4734-991e-8cfb379f33ea"}
{"argument":"because of overpopulation space exploration must be subsidized so that humanity can find a new home since it has destroyed earth\n","conclusion":"Space exploration can help in colonizing the resources\/lands of other planets\n","id":"d74ba032-4b44-45c6-a4c3-7e0c29207141"}
{"argument":"Some self context to be fair I haven't gone to college and just graduated High School. I still live with my parents, but I don't want to waste my life studying when I could be getting much more useful work experience. I don't want to go to college and come out with a degree when I'll end up where I am now, but with a huge debt. There may have been a time where mandated school and college were more applicable and necessary, but the widespread distribution of information has convinced me that anything can be learned with the right means of research. Curriculums and tests don't serve the needs of an individual occupations, and you don't walk out with both a degree and a promised job. The time college eats out of your life could be used in an innumerous amount of other, much more productive and financially reasonable means. I think for each job that needs an employee, the employee should be able to present themselves firsthand and show their ability and understanding. I think it's disturbing that people rely so heavily on a little certificate that says you can do something over YOUR ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING. edit format, and I should've included that Medical institutions are the exception here edit 2 have to go to work for the night, I'll be back on tomorrow if anyone cares to continue the discussion. Really appreciate the replies\n","conclusion":"I believe all information should be free to the individual, and college is objectively a waste of money, energy and life. Diplomas should not be held in higher regard than sheer ability when it comes to the job hunt.\n","id":"fe4cbe0e-3019-4470-863a-ca170b06d96c"}
{"argument":"Both adults would be consenting in incestuous relationships. Those who experience rape and pedophilia are either not of legal age to consent, or forced into it.\n","conclusion":"There are far fewer reasons for denying these incestual parties than reasons for denying rape or paedophilia.\n","id":"a240a7c7-0954-438b-95ea-401a3c31cfe2"}
{"argument":"forgive me if I sound a bit condescending or get off my lawn Just like Occupy, Black Lives Matter began targeting a specific problem but since then seems to have become an amorphous blob. Few people can name any individual tied to it other than the victims of police shootings beatings strangulation name one prominent BLM leader. As another leaderless movement, it has moved on beyond criminal justice without actually achieving major victories and instead has become another slogan for privileged white college students to adopt to sound cool and progressive brogressive . The second it spread to Mizzou and became about microagressions and professors trying to shut down free speech was the second BLM jumped the shark, because moving on without achieving victory is the easiest way to earn hatred and to fail.\n","conclusion":"The use of the \"Black Lives Matter\" slogan in Mizzou and at UIC the other weekend really cheapens and weakens the movement.\n","id":"d9a2b8f2-ed49-4994-ab56-4df1fd7933db"}
{"argument":"I see young veterans posting on Reddit a lot of in the self post subs talking about their PTSD and how horrible it is and how their whole life is changed etc. I get that because I have C PTSD, but I can't help but feel there is a fundamental difference between the cause of my diagnosis and the cause of theirs. No need to go into details you can check my history if you are interested but I didn't choose to be put in the situation I was in that caused my illness, and I got out as soon as a possibly could. Veterans in contemporary times and I will expound on why I am limiting this to veterans post say, the mid eighties or maybe a little earlier, in a moment know full well that they are signing up to go to war, that they will more than likely witness gruesome death and dismemberment, and they may even kill someone or die themselves. They are adults when they sign up and they know full well that there is a significant risk of returning home with a serious mental illness or psychological injury. If you know what you're getting yourself into and you take the risk anyway, to be honest I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. Now I will take a moment to explain why I am referring to contemporary veterans. There are two reasons. Obviously there were wars in the past such as WWII and Vietnam where soldiers were conscripted. If you were conscripted, you didn't choose to go and it's not your fault. PTSD wasn't a well known illness earlier on in history. Yes doctors had observed shell shock and recognized that it was caused by exposure to war zones, but it has really only been in the last 20 years that PTSD has entered mainstream consciousness. If you signed up at a time before you were acutely aware of that as a risk, then I can sympathize. I'd also like to anticipate some potential arguments against my view and rebut them right away. We engage in activities every day that could potentially end in traumatic experiences, like driving a car. Yes it is possible every time you get in a car that you could get into a horrible accident, but I'd be willing to bet that most of you have never been in a serious, PTSD inducing car accident. They happen, but the fact of the matter is that a war zone is a war zone. There is a very very high chance you will be traumatized, whereas getting in a car you can be reasonably certain that your ride won't end in a traumatic disaster. If nobody signed up to go to war, then the U.S. government would start conscripting people . No. Just don't even bother to try this one on me and yes a veteran actually gave me this excuse once . If that were true, then murdering someone who is terminal would be okay because they're going to die anyway. Volunteering and being conscripted are two different things. Somebody has to do it . Actually no, they don't. We don't need to be in Iraq. We don't need to be in Afghanistan. We didn't need to be in Iraq in the nineties either. People blame Bush for the war in Iraq, but there would not have been a war in Iraq if everybody refused to go over there in the first place. These soldiers are not protecting our freedoms . They're stirring up shit in a country that is not theirs that has little to nothing to do with anything going on in America. I think that thanking these people for protecting our freedoms is exceptionally retarded, because America would be no more or less free if we hadn't gone to Iraq. They have no other options . I can kind of sympathize with this argument because of our current economic situation and the sheer lack of jobs for young people, but at the end of the day it is still a choice that you make, knowing full well the consequences. So, to conclude, the real crux of my argument is my belief that, if you walk into something knowing full well the potential consequences, and you do end up suffering those consequences, it's your own damn fault and I don't have a hell of a lot of sympathy for you. You drive drunk and you kill someone? You knew the potential consequences. You shoot a shit ton of heroin and drink a quart of vodka and you overdose and die? You knew the potential consequences. You sign up for a job that involved exposing yourself you a war zone? It's no different. You knew the potential consequences. No sympathy. Now I'd like to take a moment to say what it is that I'm not saying. I am not saying that veterans with mental health problems do not deserve treatment. In fact I believe the U.S. government has failed many of our veterans and that is not right. Anybody who is sick deserves the best care we can offer them, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. I am not saying that their mental health problems are any more or less awful than those people who suffer from PTSD from any other type of traumatic event. I appreciate that what our veterans go through is horrific and their subsequent problems are very real. So, anyway, please change my view\n","conclusion":"I have pretty much zero sympathy for people in contemporary times who voluntarily signed up for the military and return home with PTSD.\n","id":"5363ec42-05d7-4d37-82a2-349231942c3e"}
{"argument":"If the original team is deactivated, many users will just go and join a very similar named team, thinking that the previous one might have been a test or fake.\n","conclusion":"Many attacks are possible even with the restriction of only lowercase ascii characters and locked used names.\n","id":"34339cb4-f100-41f8-9c99-e5cd4d954023"}
{"argument":"One of the single greatest benefits of the Fair Tax is that it would require that taxes be applied to the population as a whole, which would make it incredibly hard to justify tax increases, as opposed to the current system which segregates out sections of the population to tax at higher rates. In other words, \"I'm raising taxes on you all\" is a harder pill to swallow than, \"I'm raising taxes, but I promise it won't be yours\".\n","conclusion":"The FairTax is simple and cheap for the government to administer.\n","id":"0c5f6543-3864-462c-af29-e54242aa9f3c"}
{"argument":"Many of the services provided by religious charities, like adoption services and foster care etc, are primarily offered for charitable purposes and not directly for religious purposes Hence it is counter-intuitive to involve religion in activities that are carried out for the public good.\n","conclusion":"Certain adoption and foster care providers who disapprove of same-sex relationships, have sought exemptions that would permit them to decline service to same-sex couples.\n","id":"54b0bae0-7959-4cee-9849-278510f82bff"}
{"argument":"Ok, I'm excited about this one because the idea inspires more discussion at least for me than usual. I'm adding this first paragraph as a kind of side note here. Obviously everyone knows Harry Potter is fiction, but I am a fan, and it's played an important role in my life. So if you don't want to discuss on the merits of the actual canon or have fun here in a 'immersive' discussion, please pick a different . Bad and good aren't black and white, I like to think that we all live on a kind if sliding scale where the bottom evil would be somewhere around John Wayne Gacy and the top would be somewhere around June Cleaver? I dunno most people don't really make it near the top. And the idea that Albus Dumbledore is flawed is cleary adressed in Harry's final gathering of knowledge, but he forgives him and then apparently decides he's really a hero after all because he names his second son Albus. I'm going to try to remain relatively brief here, but I think Dumbledore was far too reckless to be a hero, an educator, or a good person. We can't know how much he knew, but he knew a lot about what was going on in Sorcerer's Philosopher's Stone which he proved by showing up and foreshadowing Harry's neardeath next experience with the Mirror of Erised, at the ripe ole age of 11. For what? Battle training? Toughening him up? Testing? It was just proof early that he was ready and willing to sacrafice Harry and especially his sidekicks whom were given no special clothing or forewarning. I'll admit, the cloak was technically Harry's, but I don't think an anonymous gifting of it to an 11 year old was an accident in any way when it comes to how Harry used it. Then at the end, in the first of many hospital visits where Dumbledore bares at least SOME responsibility for the necessity, he begins openly withholding information from Harry Potter, a choice he made on his own, presumably with only his own council, because he is selfish and far too self assured and thinks like a man playing chess. He spends the time leading up to when He finally begins to teach Harry allowing dangerous situations to occur allowing Harry, whom he knows personally now enough to be sure he's being abused at home, to return every summer generally treating his staff, students, and Order member's as pawns. But people are blind to this, perhaps because he has an adorable Grandpa vibe, perhaps his undeniable power helped by the Elder wand made him impossible to not respect, perhaps because the ugly rumors of Grindelwald, Ariana, and him were hushed to near extinction, or maybe because despite knowing the truth, at least about Albus and Gellert, he still put a stop to his reign finally. But people don't question him and he has no real right hand man he never told anyone everything. Of course leaving Harry one more ill defined task of telling one more person about Nagini before his death. But what really makes Dumbledore a bad guy, in my mind, is how he completely disregards Severus' feelings when planning demanding for him to cut the last of the thin ties to society and peers, which are almost like friends to him, by killing him. Which in itself is a terrible request, because Severus, I think, loved, or at least greatly respected Dumbledore. I don't think Albus Dumbledore really cared for anyone after Gellert. He was a big picture guy, even with Gellert that was their obsession, and though Snape and Lily were the lost love of the books, perhaps Albus could relate more than we realize and it numbed him too much. He did help weaponize Harry enough that they won, but there was such a personal cost along the way. He may go down as a powerful and historically important wizard, but I wouldn't say as a good man. So, change my view\n","conclusion":"Albus Dumbledore Harry Potter was a selfish and bad person, and certainly not the best Headmaster Hogwarts ever had.\n","id":"13c1f2dd-bded-4efd-8c89-e4bdcb1fe229"}
{"argument":"You could build very small super stealth two missile AKDs. And send up hundreds of them. Good luck to a F35.\n","conclusion":"An air-to-air AKM should not be much more expensive than air-to-ground AKM.\n","id":"1e3e89ae-1645-41f0-80ed-d878f9e51ebb"}
{"argument":"Religious organizations with large property holdings of historically important buildings and their land should be exempt from land taxes as they are generally unable to sell them or otherwise use them profitably.\n","conclusion":"The loss of existing tax exemptions will place a substantial financial burden on religious organisations.\n","id":"c727f383-1566-4e4a-8915-ee83806461a8"}
{"argument":"Media companies in the United States have not taken any stance on immigration policies and reform because some of them have major deals pending regulatory scrutiny from the government and want to stay under the radar.\n","conclusion":"Many top businesses whose employees consist of immigrants have still remained silent on unfair immigration policies.\n","id":"9b000e46-bd56-468f-b28f-2fdb59ddfc21"}
{"argument":"Nationalism causes ethnic violence through its narrative of racial superiority. This aspect of nationalism has caused numerous genocides, including but not limited to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and the atrocities in Rwanda, Japanese violence against the Chinese and the abysmal treatment of the United States\u2019 native American population. This is the inevitable result of nationalism's focus upon definition - 'we' are 'us' because we are not like 'them' - and so encouragement to exclusion and antagonism. This applies to groups both within the state, where 'the other' is seen as both inferior and as a threat, and to other states with different ethnic and cultural traditions.\n","conclusion":"Nationalism causes ethnic violence through its narrative of racial superiority. This aspect of nati...\n","id":"903cd475-b311-4f8c-87c9-f66b7ffd07c1"}
{"argument":"If movies and video games are subject to regulation and censorship, then books should be too. In many places, especially in western cultures, the censorship of books is looked down upon. Many consider it a restriction of free speech and ideas. But why do people get upset with the censorship of books, and not movies or video games? If you are under the age of 17, you are not allowed to see a rated \u201cR\u201d movie without a parent. But you are allowed to go to a bookstore and buy any book you want, no matter how controversial the subject matter. Why is it okay to censor movies and not books? Like books, movies contain ideas, messages, and provoke thought and conversation. I have seen movies that have changed my way of thinking. Most of those movies are rated \u201cR\u201d. How is it fair to restrict teenagers from experiencing the stories and ideas of this particular medium, while allowing those same stories and ideas through literature? The same thing goes for video games. There are video games that have been banned from western countries because of content. Oftentimes, game developers have been forced to edit the content in games depict less blood or sexuality in order to legally sell their product in a country. This is censorship, plain and simple. They are banning art and ideas because they are controversial and make people uncomfortable. Could you imagine what would happen if we did this with books? Banned them unless the author edited, rewrote, or removed certain scenes? There would be an uproar. Here is a list of some video games that have either been censored or banned in certain countries Some people might argue that we are stricter with movies and video games because you can actually see the violence rather than just reading about it. But I don\u2019t really buy this argument. In high school, I had to read \u201cThe Sorrow of War\u201d by Bao Ninh. For those of you who haven\u2019t read it, the book is extremely graphic and violent. There were vivid descriptions of people stabling and shooting each other in the face, tanks running over and crushing bodies, and torture. One of the main characters is raped in graphic detail. Profanities, including words like \u201cFuck\u201d \u201cShit\u201d and \u201cCunt\u201d are everywhere. The fact that a 16 year old is allowed and encouraged to read this book, while at the same time banned from watching 22 Jump Street in theaters alone a movie that is rated R solely because of the language\u201d , is baffling. To be clear, I do not agree with regulation and censorship at all. But since we enforce it on games and movies, I think that books should be held to the same standard. .\n","conclusion":"If movies and video games are subject to regulation and censorship, then books should be too.\n","id":"4430239b-1262-439f-9ad6-10aea0a34c23"}
{"argument":"So castle doctrine law essentially states that in a person's abode or legally occupied place, they have the right to use force even deadly in order to protect defend themself against an intruder. To me this seems to make logical sense, a person who is illegally in your house must clearly be there for nefarious reasons. Normal people do not simply enter houses that are not there own, without being invited in or thinking there is an issue. Yes the nefarious reason might not be to murder or harm you other than financially , but how is an individual meant to know that until they have been attacked. Which by then might be too late to defend yourself. To me it seems to make sense that you should be able to protect yourself and family with whatever force you deem necessary and not simply defend yourself as a reaction to them trying to harm you. It seems odd that people can be sentence to jail for killing someone who has broken into their house.\n","conclusion":"Castle Doctrine\/ Castle Law should be universal\n","id":"9cb99b4d-ebe8-4cdd-8c9d-6e4fd74a09e4"}
{"argument":"This is an opinion I've had since the debate first started creeping around, but with the anti battlefront circlejerk at full force its became more obnoxious. Obviously that game is a pure cash grab but the anger I feel has been misguided. Legally I see the term gambling as the risk of losing money or possessions in return for the chance of making money or possesions. You do not make money off of lootboxes in these cases. The reward of gaining money is not present in lootboxes outside of csgo and dota which Valve has already been addressing in backlash . You get the thing you wanted, or you get something else. No losses to be had. Not gambling. Some things you may personally value more than others, but none of them contribute to any sort of wealth and are equally worthless post transaction. As for hurting gaming, a lot of games revolve around a random element which is not necessarily harmful. For examples, Dota 2 is a f2p that does not ask you to buy characters but does release skins in chest based systems in order to make money. In the past, third parties such as esports organizers have been able to make and sell these in order to contribute to the growth and community of the game. Overwatch used them as a fun little way of rewarding leveling up, with a chance to open one every two or so hours of play. If that's not enough, or you don't have time you can go ahead and buy some if you desire. Rainbow six uses alpha packs, which gives you a chance to get things for free and rewards play, or you can buy them or just the items you want and help support the game, which is still being cared for by the devs long into the game's life which prevents the need to sell us a rainbow six siege two too soon. I think all of these games would get worse without these features. This isn't to mention trading card games who have been using this as a vital mechanic for as long as I can remember. Or crane games at arcades that are probably the closest to gambling than anything do to you potentially not getting anything. And do we really want the old people that make up our government looking into game design? I think more restrictions on games is worse than simply not supporting games with unfair business practices such as Battlefront. And do we want to use the whole think of the children argument after fighting against people who still think of games as kids' toys? The T for teen rating can show kids drugs, alcohol violence, suggestive themes, and guess what? simulated gambling. The people the game is advised for are old enough to be equipped to handle it, that's the argument we have used against people trying to ban the violence and nudity in M rated games. I'm not saying EA isn't being slimey. The model is very unfair to consumers, so we shouldn't buy it. It does not mean that the lootbox model is always unfair, or always bad. I think it should be that you can buy any item individually, but the prices are probably going to high for the good ones and that price tag would piss off a lot of people so I see why they don't oftentimes. I see why people get pissed when a full priced game is paywalled and unfair to the consumer so I just don't buy those games. That's the consumers decision. If someone wants to buy 100 of lootboxes to get the one specific thing they wanted they personally decided it was worth it. It seems like a lot of people hate these so once they stop doing well as business strategy they will cease to be common practice. I'm kind of rambling now, but the point is that pinning all the shitty business practices on lootboxes and trying to make it illegal is not going to stop the dickheads from being dickheads and is going to harm a lot of games too. EDIT UPDATE Ok so I now think that we could benefit more from regulations of lootboxes rather than just hoping the market sorts itself out. I still do not like the idea I have been hearing that it is the same as the legally defined and government regugulated idea of gambling. It is nowhere near as dangerous as slots and casinos and things with monetary gain and loss. But is shady enough to warrant more requirements of fairness such as disclosing exact odds, making the item unlockable via upfront purchase or in game rewards. People can be exploited enough that it might not just go away buy consumers not buying then because one person can wind up buying so many or give up with the personal feeling of money wasted if all they wanted was one item. With proper disclosures people can better steer away from the more egregious cases of lootbullshit gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Lootboxes aren't gambling and claiming they are is going to hurt gaming as a whole.\n","id":"50b6327e-f79e-4ae8-93f4-d753321b592a"}
{"argument":"In my opinion things such as make up, perfume, cologne, piercing, et cetera is gross, and I find people who don't use it more appealing to be around. I find that make up makes people look boring, and similar. Perfume and cologne give me headaches, maybe just me because I have a sensitive sense of smell, and common headaches. Piercings are scary And this includes ear piercings, which sometimes isn't assumed for some reason? and just distract from everything great about a person. All people are good as there. You are born with your body, and I find that disliking it, and trying to 'fix' it is just unappealing\n","conclusion":"Most beauty enhancements , like makeup, perfume, etc. are gross, and I prefer people to not use it.\n","id":"28b3d445-c578-493d-bdfe-48841e0693e0"}
{"argument":"While funny, I think that video actually illustrates a very good point. A whole pile of smug fedora wearers like to ridicule creationists without any real justification for their arrogance. People who believe in evolution but have not actually studied the science behind evolution for themselves are merely taking other people's word for it. As such, they are no different than people who read the Bible and assume it's true based on faith. NOTE I'm not arguing Creationism is true, nor am I talking about people who have actually studied evolution. I'm just saying that people who haven't seriously studied evolutionary biology for themselves have no basis to make fun of creationists because their beliefs are no less rooted in faith.\n","conclusion":"Most r\/atheism types believe in evolution for the same reason creationists believe in Creationism\n","id":"e91bc027-a6ee-49d5-aad4-8b1d3aa75ffb"}
{"argument":"The only reason the Taliban have increased their influence across the country over the past few years is because the Obama administration ended offensive combat operations against the Taliban. A complete withdrawal will result in a significant increase in the power of the Taliban.\n","conclusion":"A complete withdrawal of all forces would create a power vacuum that the various terrorist organisations in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, will exploit, possibly leading to their rule in the country.\n","id":"fba03f6b-55f1-4304-8556-e99022110a36"}
{"argument":"I was thinking about this today, and feel like this should be something that American colleges offer. I currently have all my loans paid off, but after being in the workforce for about six years, I am rethinking my choices, and wish I could go back to earn a different degree. Since I am semi responsible, I wouldn't need any of the amenities of the school like dorms or a food court just courses. Obviously, there would have to be some sort of technology fee, and paying for books would be mandatory, but the schools would incur very little cost by allowing paid in full alumni by returning without paying tuition. I would also concede that the alumni couldn't fill the spot of a paying member of a class, but if the class had an open seat they could jump in with no objection. It seems like a great perk to offer if you want to spike enrollment, and not many people would even be able to qualify for it. Just a thought, hoping someone can change my view gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"After you pay off student loans, you should be able to get another degree from that institution free of charge.\n","id":"cf25bfc5-6585-444c-b197-b0f6d6286c99"}
{"argument":"by legalizing prostitution we can regulate medical checkups and thereby help to prevent the spread of disease.\n","conclusion":"Legalizing sex work increases sex workers' benefits e.g. health care, safe sex, unionization, etc.\n","id":"72c2f5b8-b347-4c98-b052-759dadb6a416"}
{"argument":"Ok, hear me out please. Islam is growing rapidly. Much, much faster than any other culture. The Muslim population is expected to grow from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.8 billion in 2050. Do the math, that's nearly double, in just 40 years. Islam is not only a religion, it's a way of life, a culture, and a system that is supportive of the most oppressive form of law since the stone ages sharia law. A law that, in many of the countries on which trump has tried to place the temporary ban, forbids women from driving, speaking in court, resisting in any way, and showing their face and body in public. Stoning is an acceptable form of punishment under sharia law. Infidelity is a crime punishable by this horrid torture. If a woman is raped, that has been considered infidelity in many cases. I personally believe that Muslims have no desire to assimilate into our culture. Their culture, in their eyes, is superior to ours, and therefore must spread to all corners of the globe. A quick google search will pull up videos and accounts of honest Muslims admitting that they will not stop until the entire world is integrated into their sharia law. It is part of their religion. We're talking about people whom take their religion more seriously than anything. A religion that is truer to them than is gravity to a physicist. Of course, it can be said about many religions that its adherents wish for their religion to be spread, but ask yourself do you want your children and grandchildren living in a society dominated by Islam, anti Semitism and sharia law? I'm not racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or any other 'phobic' term that gets hurled at people that say stuff like this, I'm just a man worried for the future of western countries and the future of our children and their children. I believe that any immigrant from any country that currently lives here, such as green card holders, has as much right to be here as anyone else. But shouldn't the people of America have the right to accept people who need help and who will help us grow as a country, while also keeping the right to turn away those who live to tear our culture down? Of course, a total ban on a certain race or religion is completely unacceptable, but where do you draw the line? Now that my rant is over, will you guys please share your opinions on this matter, and possibly shed some light on my likely naive viewpoint? Edit Let me try to put the whole thing simply in my opinion, Islam, the religion, NOT all the people that adhere to it, is a problem. Maybe I should've put that more plainly in the OP, but whatever I'll say it now. And it's a problem because one of the tenants of that belief is the spreading of Islamic grip throughout the world, a grip that seems to leave a pattern of violence and injustice in many places it clings to. Edit 2 when I say 'restricted' I don't mean a total ban. Sure, let them through. I get that most average immigrants are average people just trying to make their lives a little better, not unlike you and me. They should be treated according to their own actions, and not the actions of the rotten apples of their religion. But at the same time, anyone wishing to enter the country has to be held responsible for their actions, meaning we have to have a system capable of vetting every single person that comes through. Any possible ties to terrorist organization HAVE to be taken seriously. Already so many deaths could've been prevented by a careful and watchful system.\n","conclusion":"Donald Trump is right in trying to restrict Muslim immigration.\n","id":"ec1a94ed-90d4-4db8-9957-7bf0ef616e0e"}
{"argument":"First, I am not talking about lewd ASCII art or text posts with image links. I am talking about simple, textual posts that happen to touch on adult subjects. Labeling these posts NSFW is not only pointless, it is often counter productive. Think for a moment what the NSFW label is meant to accomplish. The NSFW flag helps you decide not to click something, because clicking it will display a graphic image that is visible to your employer and coworkers if they are in the same room. If I'm reading a paragraph of text, my bosses and co workers cannot tell the contents of the text unless they sit down and read it. In fact, they only way they would understand that I'm reading a sexually explicit story is if they are reddit user's themselves, and recognize the red NSFW label.\n","conclusion":"it is impossible for a text post to be NSFW\n","id":"458198a7-4bac-4be9-aaa5-b78996021a7d"}
{"argument":"Things that are widely considered to be \"very inappropriate\" are generally not allowed; in more developed societies at least, they are proscribed by law. That a thing is permissible under the law is a good indicator that it hasn't risen to the level of very inappropriate.\n","conclusion":"It is legal to approach strangers in public in an attempt to have consensual sex with them.\n","id":"02680821-ecc4-4b30-a41a-59a201ffcb61"}
{"argument":"The Irish School of Economics was inspired by the Second Vatican Council and served to teach proactive reconciliation among the Irish p.63\n","conclusion":"The Vatican Council of 1962 was a major milestone for progress in European theological understanding shining beyond academia into everyone's life.\n","id":"85c7733d-d4c3-466d-81b6-bf8e74d2c255"}
{"argument":"If someone makes a statement that must be either right or wrong and hence, that I have no right to merely disagree with unless I can prove it to be wrong , then my options are to believe the statement and incorporate it wholly into my understanding of the world and myself, OR to say why it is wrong or possibly, why it is, in fact, a matter of opinion and not fact . If I do the latter, than that instigates an argument. The other party says what they say, I say why it is wrong, then they either accept my proof that it is wrong, or they counter as to why what I said is, itself, wrong, or possibly not enough. There SHOULD come a point where all arguments are on the table, and whoever's beats the other's is right. There SHOULD come a point where the person who is wrong is demonstrated to be so, and that SHOULD come when the person who is wrong has run out of things to say. How can the person who is wrong have MORE to say than the person who is right? If I cannot think of an answer to their arguments, but they can come up with an answer to every one of mine usually, in my experience, much faster than I can think of , then how can they be wrong? How can I be right? If I see a claim in private, and have reason to think it is wrong, I will reach that conclusion and consider it settled UNTIL I bring it up in public with someone who thinks the claim is true, at which point my argument will INVARIABLY be trumped somehow. I can't think of anybody's minds I've ever been able to change about anything with the exception of my parents. With anyone else, well if they can shake my confidence and leave me unable to come up with a counterargument, but I can never do that to anyone else, I must be wrong, right? If you can successfully beat every counterargument the other side can think of, how can you possibly be wrong? On the other hand, if I can't explain every issue that is raised against me, and I walk away feeling shaken to the core, how can I possibly be right? gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"If I can't win an argument, I must change my mind\n","id":"f29aa571-8f0d-4c5f-8ebb-3df4241bb590"}
{"argument":"Let me expand on the title Many gun owners partially have guns to fight against a potential tyrannical government, which is one of the main reason the 2nd amendment exists Most people argue against this by saying you think your guns can hold up against the ridiculous arsenal the US government has? My personal issue with this argument is that if there really did end up being a tyrannical govenrment where it was US gov vs US citizens, much of the military structure would probably break down and join sides with the US citizens side. In this scenario, wouldnt citizens having guns massively help the side of the citizens? I want to clarify, Im actually more or less anti guns, this is just an argument someone said that really stuck with me and I was sortof at a loss for how to argue against it, and found myself agreeing with it.\n","conclusion":"\"People wanting guns to fight against a potential tyrannical government is stupid\" isnt a good argument\n","id":"baee50a5-9ba6-432a-b7bc-ffd1ce189052"}
{"argument":"I'm a busy person and one of the first places I cut corners is the time I spend eating. I'll skip meals and eat more later. I'll eat a giant all you can eat buffet dinner and not feel hungry most of tomorrow, skipping breakfast and lunch. I don't eat breakfast because I rather get more sleep before running out the door. I never thought it was a problem. We are animals and our bodies weren't evolved to expect meals 3 times a day. Plenty of people in the world don't get to eat 3 times a day. I have received many opinions from friends and family about how this is an unhealthy habit. I'm stubborn and don't really believe them. I have seen plenty of evidence and research in support of both ways of eating. Today, a medical professional who assessed me at the clinic, said my eating habits are very unhealthy. I think she was a physician's assistant, which means her words hold more weight than the opinions given to me by non professionals. In my experience, I've come across more claims that 3 meals a day is healthier than unscheduled eating. How my view can be changed I've seen plenty of internet articles supporting both. They are all probably useless, written in 10 minutes by someone who just spent 10 minutes on google. I'm looking for medical research in support refuting of each. I know there will be research which supports both, but I'm hoping to see overwhelming support of one over the other, or a denial that either one is better.\n","conclusion":"A Predictable Eating Schedule Is No More Healthy Than Intermittent Fasting\n","id":"af4db450-d654-4dfa-bebc-0407e5e28d2c"}
{"argument":"I recently took a weather and climate class in college. While in this class we closely followed the daily weather and I've been following the weather since and comparing it to historical averages. The weather this year at least for my area has been extremely close to average this entire year. This combined with the decrease in natural disaster over the last two years and shrinking of desserts make me question how big a threat and how much we are underestimating our earth. There might be problems humans will face like running out of resources or pollution, poor food sources and so on, but I don't think the major problems for humans in the future will come from 'global warming' or human caused climate change problems. Can anyone change my view?\n","conclusion":"I think that global warming is exaggerated and that the earth and humans will adapt.\n","id":"c25ecab7-3e9d-4b21-a9c9-d70c374e999e"}
{"argument":"In order for a society to exist, you need to help the poor otherwise they will take from the rich. History repeats itself and when the poor are hungry they revolt. Poor people need to be treated in society otherwise they will do things that the rich aren't willing to do. If the poor die then Rich people will split into the richer people and the rich people the current rich people are now poor so it goes full circle. TL DR You need to care for the poor otherwise they will steal and revolt and not let a society grow. Thanks I'm open to all answers. My teacher talked about something like this at school today.\n","conclusion":"In order for a society to exist, you need to help the poor otherwise they will take from the rich.\n","id":"0215d892-8ded-4b6e-b844-57d778e02255"}
{"argument":"Yes, Hitler did authorise the sterilisation and murder of the mentally deficient and the physically deformed, which is a part of eugenics. He also advocated that Germans should not breed with men and women who showed signs of a \u2018criminal nature.\u2019 Yet, he still did not fully practice eugenics in a correct manner. I\u2019m supposing this is because he thought the average German was equal so long as they were not criminals or deformed in some way. This is not what Francis Galton, the creator of eugenics, believed. Francis believed that men who were eminent or came from a distinguished family should breed. He never believed that the average joe, such as Hitler, should breed simply because they were a part of some \u2018Aryan race.\u2019 Francis Galton believed men who had proven themselves in some kind of field such science, mathematics, writing etc should be encouraged to breed and given incentives to do so. He believed people who had family members that had distinguished themselves should also be encouraged to do the same. Essentially, he believed ancestry, physical fitness, and achievement is why certain people should be encouraged to have more children. Francis Galton would have certainly known and heard about the concept of the Aryan race. The concept was popular during the period he lived 1822 1911 in as well. Charles Darwin mentions \u2018Aryan race\u2019 once in \u2018descent of man\u2019 and Francis Galton would have read his works. They were cousins and Francis Galton admired him. However, Francis Galton never mentions the concept in any of his work. He usually says in all his works that \u2018eugenics\u2019 is meant to improve the whole of human race, not just a specific race of humans. If Francis Galton had to choose who was more worthy of breeding, Einstein or some average blonde German, he would have picked Einstein instantly. On the other hand, Hitler would have picked the average German. Francis Galton was undoubtedly a very intelligent man. He created the statistical method of correlation, introduced the use of questionnaires and surveys for collecting data on human communities, devised a method for classifying fingerprints, proposed the theory of anticyclones, and devised the first weather map. On the other hand, Hitler came from a poor and undistinguished family. He had also failed to distinguish himself in arts. He lived for many years as a homeless man and a beggar. Francis would never have seen Hitler as a person fit to breed. I think it\u2019s odd that Hitler spoke against all men being equal. Yet he believed all Germans so long as they were \u2018pure Aryan\u2019 were equal. It didn\u2019t matter if they came from a poor, working class family or from a distinguished scientific family like the one Galton belonged to because they were all made equal by being Aryans. Not only that, the Nazis kidnapped children simply because they were blonde blue eyed with no check on the type of ancestry they had. It wouldn\u2019t matter if the child\u2019s family were poor, so long as she he had Aryan features. Nazis were breeding people who had certain facial features, but they were not specifically breeding intelligent people as Galton always advocated. Moreover, it\u2019s strange that Hitler didn\u2019t realise that the belief \u2018all men are created equal\u2019 is what helped him rise to power in the 20th century. Someone who had such a poor and undistinguished family could never have been able to achieve this if men, who had come before him, had not advocated for this belief. Yet he immensely despised the idea of equality, but still preached it through the idea that all members of the Aryan race were equal, so long as they weren't deformed in some way. Overall, It\u2019s sad that Francis Galton\u2019s legacy has been tarnished by losers like Hitler. Francis Galton\u2019s eugenics is still stringent and harsh, nor do I agree with it. I\u2019m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Hitler and his followers. They preached eugenics, yet they were too afraid to fully practice it.\n","conclusion":"Hitler did not practice eugenics correctly.\n","id":"7121a6d4-d684-46ae-9f16-9731904710cf"}
{"argument":"Children might be easily influenced by learning things but this will not be immediate enough to yield direct benefits for IS from afar.\n","conclusion":"Young people are not as easily manipulable as some adults think.\n","id":"217678e2-f185-4f55-a730-5263ad2828b3"}
{"argument":"Colleges and companies are using social media already using them and the trend is going to increase. As educators we need to model the proper behavior for our students on how and when we use the phones and social media. The consequences for misuse become more severe as they grow older. Phones can be used in a powerful way to increase engagement and learning. nea.org\n","conclusion":"Limiting the use of smart phones in the classroom setting can go a long way to improving student engagement, prevent cheating and improve the student\/teacher relationship.\n","id":"0b470228-2f38-487b-8bdb-23fe70b9523c"}
{"argument":"It's unknown whether we should assign AGI race or gender or let it decide by itself.\n","conclusion":"The development of AGI would be disruptive to our current social standards.\n","id":"48dafd44-9a9e-48f6-8984-d698360fdbd6"}
{"argument":"I am going to come right out and say it. As a Left Winger, I am fed up of Left Wingers supporting Palestine. Take a look at the Middle East right now. Where is the one country over there where women can marry who they want without fear of a lashing or the death penalty? where is the one country over there where LGBT people are recognised as equals? where is the one country over there where women can control their fertility and have complete reproductive rights? Where is the one country over there where gay couples can legally adopt a child? The answer to all of these is ISRAEL. Why would a Left Winger or Progressive ever support Palestine knowing full well that all of these things would be ancient history if Palestine ever took over. Israel is a beautiful free democracy, and yet Left Wingers are always the ones chanting about how Israel belongs to the Palestinians and rubbish like We are all Hamas now . Israel represents socially at least what I as a Left Winger believe in. Countries like Iran, Afghanistan and even the so called progressive Middle East countries such as the UAE, are everything that I as a left winger despise. Ripe with misogyny, elitist class systems, homophobia, anti democracy and Anti Semitism. Hate Crimes against Jews in Europe outnumber those against Muslims, and many of them are carried out by muslims. Meanwhile, day in and day out, we have to listen to the Islamic Communities endless hypocritical rantings about Islamophobia , which Third Wave Feminists and the New Left eat up with passion, and quite frankly I am fed up.\n","conclusion":"As someone that identifies as Far-Left on the political spectrum, I believe that the \"New Left\" that tend to support Palestine are hypocrites, and any true Left-Winger would support Israel.\n","id":"05c132b8-0008-4350-9ab3-53ae624ee937"}
{"argument":"Negative health impacts may occur as a consequence of mishandling of the vaccine between the production and delivery site, for instance due to failures in the cold chain This risk is additional to that of adverse reactions to the vaccine itself, meaning that a non-zero risk of adverse health impacts exists even when the vaccine is found to be completely safe in laboratory conditions.\n","conclusion":"There could be negative health impacts for those who are vaccinated.\n","id":"4d1e43c5-87c2-45e7-8bf8-20f3915330b0"}
{"argument":"Before the introduction of the new laws, it was reported that Airbnb posed the greatest threat to hotels in New York based on the share of the market and amount taken away from hotel revenue.\n","conclusion":"Airbnb constitutes an overwhelming source of threatening competition for the hotel and lodging industry.\n","id":"8895fd42-1d1d-44c9-af02-860f4901ec61"}
{"argument":"Good things are being done currently to save our souls and reconciliate our species and the planet. But not enough. And politically, everyhing is highly unrealistic with super low objectives and way too late deadlines. The only way we're going to change anything permanently is to do what politicians and big business men and a ton of others will consider highly unrealistic and even delusional. Immediate colossal changes in the infrastructure. Why the hell can't we, in a few years, make enormous changes in the transport system? Because someone would need to pay for it, and it would mean a gigantic economic crumble? Educate me here.\n","conclusion":"I think it's all too little too late when it comes to the environment and trying to save our selves.\n","id":"a7b745da-320f-400a-ab36-757779bd513b"}
{"argument":"Farmers keep hummingbirds away from pineapples to prevent seeds from forming inside them It's unfair that pineapple plants get to be deprived of such beauty and interaction that hummingbirds bring to them for this reason alone.\n","conclusion":"The torture extends well beyond cooking it, and the fact that we implement torturous methods shows the extent of human cruelty on plants just to get a flavor we selfishly want.\n","id":"855b06cb-a059-48d3-8845-96f4d34c8fa1"}
{"argument":"Look at this map See the countries in magenta purple colours? Most of those countries have a domestic population that is steadily declining and has been for a few decades now. The birth rate in most of those countries is below the necessary 2.1 children per woman. Population decline on this level is detrimental to the economy, which the politicians understand and because of that they try to combat it through financial incentives but also by a much more open immigration policy from third world countries because its one of the least costly remedies. Nothing wrong with that the future lies in connecting the world, not isolating. I also understand most people immigrate in hopes of a better life for themselves and their family. I sympathize with that. However, does this not mean that the ethnic composition will be vastly different in let's say 100 years from now if the population loss is being compensated recouped through immigration from Africa and the Middle East unstable regions with the largest population growth but also from countries of the world where the economy is on its knees the current greek brain drain as an example ?\n","conclusion":"The ethnic composition of most developed countries is being reshaped because of immigration from third world countries.\n","id":"8671724e-eaac-4b15-83ea-957e2c10ea68"}
{"argument":"Legalization will make players go too far. There is value in seeing players play naturally.\n","conclusion":"Legalising steroids will change the nature and focus of sports.\n","id":"e3cec396-734c-4994-b55b-13aa6a63eb36"}
{"argument":"The USA has a very high level of gun ownership. They also have a very high level of gun harm. Whenever these are addressed, defences are presented in a manner consistent with a belief that removal of guns in part or whole would harm their society on a fundamental level. Each argument can be addressed such that the defence stands true, while guns are removed in part or whole. Because of this refusal to accept that their arguments against gun removal in part or whole do not fail when guns are removed in part or whole, there must be a faith element, so intangible that the populace has a Belief that they would be fundamentally changed by addressing gun harm in a meaningful manner. Arguments against addressing gun harm via gun restriction or removal include Traditionalism It's a right. I view a right to own a gun with the same contempt I view a right to smoke. There exists a process for which this can be overturned, and because of this the stated right is not actually a serious impediment given proper support for changing it. For the various next reasons, this process will unlikely ever take place though. A prevention of the state having a monopoly on force. Ignoring the independence of the states armed forces, only certain weapons are required or effective in preventing a state having a monopoly on force. Weapons inflicting the highest civilian harm are handguns, whereas as seen in other places around the world, military style rifles are the effective insurgency weapon. Gun harm could be easily addressed without granting a monopoly on force to the state. Self defence. As a weapon, a gun has a very low skill floor. You point it in the direction you want to hurt, and pull the trigger. For these reasons it is a popular method of self defence. However, the statistical incidence of use in this manner is low, and the accessibility of weaponry directly contributes to accidental harm. In other anglosphere countries similar lifestyles and cultures there is no call for increased allowance for force in self defence. Allowing weapons to be maintained in a self defence accessible nature is a net harm. Tool usage. Generally hunting, but also vermin control and extermination. The portion of the population conducting these actions is low, and could easily be allowed to possess arms without the general populace being armed. Additionally, the types of weapons used are longarms, specifically high capacity small round rifles, high power rifles and shotguns. As stated before, the majority of gun harm occurs due to handguns, and handgun removal would not impede this tool usage. Recreational use. As seen elsewhere in the Anglosphere, societies can exist without massive, widespread, recreational gun usage. Those who do want to engage in this should be allowed to, with weapons of a kind that do not generate large amounts of societal harm, provided it is done in a safe and secure manner. I do not consider this in any way a valid reason to own a gun as it is treating a weapon as a toy. Legislative difficulties. Many people have criticised attempts at minimising gun harm by claiming that legislation enacted has been ineffective. This has been strawmanned to claim that it would be extremely difficult or impossible to legislatively rule in such a manner as to avoid loopholes and effectively curb gun harm. Again, as seen elsewhere in the Anglosphere legislation can be enacted, can be enacted simply, and effectively. Gun harm can be curbed legislatively while gun ownership remains common. The inability of the US populace to take serious steps towards minimising gun harm in the manner they do for other serious causes of harm despite there being clear means to do so, and methods which bypass the common arguments against harm minimisation, indicates a societal belief that firearm ownership in it's current form is such a fundamental part of the society that they are willing to simply accept the level of harm they currently endure. I will close with a quote This tragedy could have happened anywhere in the country. Today was Orlando's turn. They are so willing to accept this harm they they accept a rotation or schedule of mass violence? This must be a faith based resistance or objection to harm minimisation. .\n","conclusion":"The American populace believes that their society could not exist in its current form without firearm ownership\n","id":"06e0a391-b630-482e-8481-ea0ef06b232a"}
{"argument":"Without the earth we couldn't BREATHE, let alone anything else. Mother Earth is our life source. Yet if we weren't here the earth would not only survive but would prosper.\n","conclusion":"We can't survive without her, but she could definitely do without us!\n","id":"5249c8d8-5b98-4a74-84e7-85550297fc44"}
{"argument":"First, a clarification I am undecided as to whether abortion is morally right or wrong. I am able to rationalise both sides of the debate and understand the perspectives that they approach from, but both sides have thus far failed to convince me. I hope that I will be able to form a conclusive view on the issue, and this is one step towards that. One argument that is very prevalent on the pro choice side of the debate is in regards to how the situation of the woman affects the extent to which abortion is morally justifiable. They may argue, for instance, that as a woman who has been raped has made no decision to risk initiating a pregnancy they should immediately have access to an abortion. This is seen as justifiable because the motivations of the woman are pure, and she is an innocent party she is not, for example, rejecting the intrinsic value of an embryo fetus by treating abortion as a method of contraception. A raped woman is simply choosing to leave a situation pregnancy that she has not, in any conceivable way, consented to she has the right to do this. But how can this possibly change the morality of the act of abortion? On one operating table there is a woman who has been raped, and on another there is an apathetic woman who has regular unprotected sex. They both undergo the same procedure on both operating tables the immediate consequences are exactly the same so how can one of these procedures be considered significantly more moral than the other? The thought that the righteousness of an abortion should be judged on personal context, and not just the development of the fetus, seems nonsensical to me the act of terminating a pregnancy must either be deemed moral or immoral by a society, regardless of personal circumstance. Change my view I've flip flopped about abortion many times before. EDIT I believe that an abortion that saves the mother is morally justifiable, and this is the only contextual clarification that I think needs to exist. That's because an abortion that saves the mother's life and an abortion in which the mother will be healthy regardless are different in a quantifiable, measurable way. EDIT2 A situation where the mother's mental deterioration is likely to cause suicide, if she continues with the pregnancy, would also justify abortion for the same reasons as in the original edit. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The context of a pregnancy, however abhorrent e.g. rape, does not affect the morality of abortion\n","id":"75e71072-b2de-4209-82ca-9d03be6d5cc6"}
{"argument":"When a consistent moral relativist believes they have done something immoral, they can only mean that they have violated their own internal code. This raises the question of why they would ever believe any action especially their own action to be immoral to begin with. The value of a moral code that can only apply to oneself is questionable in the extreme. It is of little value to believe that oneself should behave in a given manner, while not holding others to any standard at all.\n","conclusion":"Relative morality cannot explain why any person would ever consider something that they did to be immoral or wrong.\n","id":"80d4263b-e1f4-4b9b-aee9-1f4bee2775da"}
{"argument":"ACLU executive director Anthony Romero stated \"Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground, Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it.\"\n","conclusion":"Excluding certain ideas from public debate and discussion makes them difficult to engage with and refute.\n","id":"c8dcae85-6f80-4e7a-bfa9-cc5bfed54dc5"}
{"argument":"Calorie counting does not encourage informed choices in diet based on nutritional needs. Rather, it is just a set quota that one can fill with calories of any source. Calorie counting does not promote lifestyle changes, where one learns to eat healthful foods because they are what is good for his her body. Rather, I'd go so far as to say it encourages eating processed foods that have distinctly marked calorie values on the packaging. Calorie counting does not encourage people to eat when they are hungry and stop eating when they are full, learning to manage their intake based on what his her body needs . It promotes obsessive tracking, counting and micro managing, which, in my opinion, is not a mindset conducive to a healthy relationship with food. Calorie counting is a relatively recent capability in general, and has become widespread with the increased accessibility of apps such as MyFitnessPal meaning, counting calories is not a natural method of health maintenance and was unnecessary for the hundreds of thousands of years before these capabilities existed. If one researches basic nutrition and fills his or her diet with fresh, whole foods of nutritional value and leads an active lifestyle, there should be no reason to count calories. I do not think that calorie counting is a sustainable form of weight loss and maintenance, and should be discouraged for those who want to permanently change their lives and their nutritional habits. Change my view\n","conclusion":"I think calorie counting is a form of disordered eating, and is not conducive to a healthy lifestyle.\n","id":"62a27a7a-10be-41c4-84bf-0fc8a878dd4d"}
{"argument":"These results received cautious confirmation from another study that linked the positive mood resulting from football wins to a rise in presidential approval ratings. As the authors caution, this result is based on a small sample and shows only short-lived changes in approval.\n","conclusion":"Research indicates that even the results of college football games can influence voting behavior, with wins leading to increased support for incumbents.\n","id":"40f94760-4555-4327-9c9b-0c35dd617c21"}
{"argument":"Active citizenship which is the process of citizens becoming more involved in their community, has been linked with the cultivation of healthy societies. It is particularly important in new democracies.\n","conclusion":"This would create a more engaged, politically aware, and cohesive society.\n","id":"6eed3000-4e6e-4a48-a649-937c568fa60a"}
{"argument":"Im going to graduate high school soon, and have looked at many different career options, my main two ambitions being business or physical therapy. The thing is, I have friends going into EMT's, military, getting doctor licenses, basically doing all these things that are thought of as honorable. I flashed forward 10 years to a high school reunion, and saw myself among them. Me being maybe a business major or something, standing among war vets, firefighters, EMT's, doctors, professions that take heart and soul to perform. Professions that are honorable. I think about this and feel absolutely terrible that I don't want to do one of those professions. I feel almost as if my not wanting to do one of those is un honorable . I feel ashamed that I don't have the courage or desire to join the military, or to become an EMT. My career ambitions don't have me saving lives. Im hoping someone here will be able to change my opinion about this, maybe make me feel a bit better about not wanting to do one of these careers, which are widely regarded as honorable.\n","conclusion":"I don't want to go into an \"honorable\" career, and I feel bad about it\n","id":"049a2686-2b65-4c23-8304-4011cf60b58a"}
{"argument":"It seems to me that whatever the argument, the two parties clash on the issue of faith . Atheists in general require some proof or logical set of reasoning that leads to a religious conclusion which they haven't found , whereas theists don't they simply believe . Arguments boil down to people shouting I need proof or I don't believe at people shouting I have faith, I don't need proof . Whenever I see the debate I find myself rolling my eyes, because the participants don't have a shared logical framework to operate in. It's like a hockey team taking on a football team with a shuttlecock. No one's scoring any goals. It seems like if you can't agree on if there is isn't a god, then there's no meaningful debate to be had. Meaning of life? Don't bother. Inherent moral values? Nope. Just accept that your if your belief values don't match, you can't get past faith to discuss second level questions. To clarify, I mean specifically the debates held between people of different viewpoints on the God for and against debate. I think that a lot of what if ? questions, if approached from a neutral perspective, can lead to meaningful discussion, because you're not dealing with the belief issue. So change my view, is there a point in debating it?\n","conclusion":"All religious debate between atheists and theists is pointless.\n","id":"43a9b209-12d6-4c41-bdf9-a71b70d25077"}
{"argument":"The German Housing Supporting Act Wohnraumfo\u0308rderungsgesetzes sets the demand for a single at 45m2 with only 15m2 added for every additional person. Thus two single appartments account for 90m2 while a couple for only 60m2.\n","conclusion":"More people living in the same apartment reduces the need for new buildings and thus helps solving housing shortages.\n","id":"b2170657-df5f-42a3-a753-bc8d0f74a714"}
{"argument":"Teachers might twist the material to misrepresent or abuse the ideas inherent in creationist ideology.\n","conclusion":"Permitting the teaching of creationism in schools puts educators in a precarious situation.\n","id":"b8ca7ded-e6be-4885-abd9-504417860a1a"}
{"argument":"A BDSM and fetish group released an Abuse Policy Statement with principles and guidelines which are intended to educate on abuse and help people understand the difference between abusive relationships and BDSM.\n","conclusion":"The BDSM community have systems and practices in place in order to prevent their activities from diverging into abuse and\/or become dangerous for the people involved.\n","id":"fbfd694d-f862-4727-a3d2-7a05bc486b2e"}
{"argument":"This occurs due to how I cannot concern myself with bodily autonomy being used for the purposes of arguing for how justifiable certain actions should happen to be. I don't actually fight against bodily autonomy, but I also cannot be interested in its defense when regarding obesity, drug use and prostitution. I've never actually told anyone who engages in one of these things by their choice to stop, but in its place it no longer matters to me what could possibly happen to them. The reason this is relevant is due to how there are means taken in the interest of hindering these things. I don't care about whether laws do something to these people because they engage in whatever it is they want to be doing, that's when I care the least about whether they end up socially disadvantaged. All three of these have certain effects on affecting perceptions I don't want, which are all of acceptance, the obese are called for to be seen as beautiful, the market for drugs increases in convenience or demand, the reinforcement of whether sexual objectification is completely fine and natural due to how sexuality works. Cases where you could get me to care about these people are situations that make these decisions the result of their unfortunate circumstances, because then it doesn't make it much of a decision at all on their part, where even if they wanted help with their health they fail to access services that could aid them in doing so. I'm throwing this out here mainly because I know that there are people, specifically here, who actually concern themselves with these people and or are one of them on the basis of whether they should be able to decide what they do with their own bodies and not much else. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"I automatically lose all sympathy for anyone who harms themselves because they want it that way.\n","id":"083b39e2-5d50-4601-b5d8-1738a1022cd4"}
{"argument":"The idea of monarchy is based on the idea of a chosen person, and the descendants of such. Since science has discovered we all have the the same origins the claim of royal or older blood is invalid.\n","conclusion":"In the 21st century, with the separation between church and state, the monarch's power emanates from national constitutions rather than divine legitimacy\n","id":"3a0848f2-d994-41ff-948c-454afc74625f"}
{"argument":"General restriction of gun ownership prevents situations when police officers shoot civilians believing that they are armed and dangerous. Such occurrences take place in the US.\n","conclusion":"Gun control laws improve firearm safety and prevent accidents. A negligent discharge is considered a crime in many places.\n","id":"456b7e61-55f7-43f7-94a7-36eb467219d0"}
{"argument":"Germany lies behind in the decriminalization of cannabis, which still keeps millions of Euros pushed into obviously ineffective measures of the executive and jurisdictional force. 1\n","conclusion":"Fighting drug trafficking uses a substantial part of the police force, which thus has fewer resources for other crimes.\n","id":"4d355ff2-67d2-4be5-ba83-941eb92e6b33"}
{"argument":"A country\u2019s Exclusive Economic Zone stretches 200 nautical miles from the coastline. In fact, because of the gradual sloping-away of the sea-bottom from the coast, this zone of 200 miles forms a unique habitat for about 90% of known fish species, meaning that \u201cthe high seas\u201d provide no escape. Besides: who is going to check and patrol to see if all those \u201cdomestic\u201d industrial fishers really keep within the EEZ? The UN has no police force to enforce its rules. Interestingly enough, Japan, for example, banned the use of driftnets inside its territorial waters up to a maximum of 12 miles out of the coast, but their commercial fleet regularly shows up everywhere in the North Pacific. This is exactly why, when instituting the ban on international waters, the UN made a strong appeal to its member states to also ban it in their EEZ and territorial waters.8\n","conclusion":"An effective driftnet ban must go beyond international waters into countries' Exclusive Economic Zones.\n","id":"80a00ba6-ab17-4695-92a3-242e701dccbb"}
{"argument":"I wrote a paper for my psychology course, with the thesis that altruism does not exist, and I was expecting my professor to give me another perspective on it, since it's such a widely held view in psychology, though she ended up agreeing with me. Alrighty, so let's begin. For the purposes of argument, we shall define altruism as A willing action that is of no perceived benefit motivation for oneself, but for benefit solely for the other person. EDIT So I noticed that the definition of altruism is being argued here. The argument should be based off of this definition. This is the psychological definition. The way psychologists model altruism is with the other terms helping and prosocial behaviour Helping is the act of aiding another person, which encompasses prosocial behaviour, helping with a possible benefit for oneself which encompasses altruism, helping someone with no benefit for oneself. My argument is that all prosocial behaviour cannot possibly be defined as altruism. I believe that altruism cannot exist, as everything a human being does is in some way, consciously or unconsciously, abstract or concrete, for oneself, which through my interpretation, work against altruism. Several supporting arguments for altruism are the concepts of empathy, interpersonal guilt, just world theory, and social responsibility. Empathy is the ability to vicariously feel another's emotion. If I see someone that is sad, I can also feel sad. So, in seeing that someone is in trouble, pain, etc. I feel interpersonal guilt, another negative emotion which gives me the need to help them. To relieve this negative emotion I can help them out through consoling them, healing them, aiding them in some way, etc., but in doing so, I am relieving myself of this negative emotion, which is of benefit to me, and therefore helping someone through empathy is not an altruistic action. Similarly, I may help someone out for other unconventional reasons. I can donate mass amounts to charity, so that I will be recognized as a nice person by other people, which is a benefit to me. I gain a helper's high inside when I help someone out, which is a benefit to me. We wouldn't help other people out if it made us feel bad for doing so. This is based upon the psychological theory of drive reduction theory, where if you feel an emotion, you take an action to satisfy it. If you feel angry, you take aggressive action to satisfy it. If you feel hungry, you eat food to satisfy it. If you feel horny, you have sex to satisfy it. If you feel interpersonal guilt, you help someone out to satisfy that empathy. The concept of just world theory is that most people believe that we get what we deserve good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, and with this belief many try to do good things for people who they believe are deserving of it. This is the basis of virtually all religions, which have the basic belief If I do good things, good things will happen to me if I do bad things, bad things will happen to me. Therefore, the motivation for the benefit of getting into heaven, gaining karma, etc. is a solid benefit that one would consider in doing a moral action. So altruism is definitely impossible for any with such beliefs, and for those without such beliefs doing moral action, it is still to return to the state of equilibrium which is imposed by those with the just world belief. Social responsibility is similar, it is the belief that one has an obligation to help others. We can use similar points above, combining both emotional motivation with equilibrium. Therefore, since any action we do is inherently a benefit to oneself, altruism is impossible.\n","conclusion":"True altruism is impossible.\n","id":"e5ea94f3-59d0-4f52-ac29-a48b6a6993f1"}
{"argument":"Robots and computers are taking over. It's not like Terminator or anything, but machines and computers are becoming increasingly able to do jobs that were exclusive to humans. In fact, these machines are often better a those tasks than humans are, and operating machines is cheaper than paying for labor. Historically, the jobs taken over by machines found replacements in different areas, but this time it's different People will be left without jobs and there will be few new jobs to compensate. One study suggests that as much as 47 of the US workforce is at risk of losing their jobs because of this over the 15 years or so. How the fuck do you deal with 47 unemployment? What will people do? How will corporations get paying customers if people don't have jobs? I think that the free market won't withstand this situation, and that in order to maintain well being, the economy will have to change radically. Maybe we'll have to institute a Universal Basic Income UBI maybe some goods will simply become free In any case, there will need to be intense government intervention to allow a new type of economy to be formed after people are left out of jobs. Please focus on the policies that would be needed to deal with automation, not on discussing automation itself. I understand that the idea that jobs will be taken away is contentious, but it's not the topic of my . TL DR I don't think that there are free market solutions to automation induced unemployment, . Edit Added a paragraph clarifying the scope of my . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"\"Socialist\" policies will be needed to deal with the effects of automation\n","id":"4526c973-3400-434d-9387-907c122ecfb9"}
{"argument":"I'm arguing that the truth and I do believe there is a truth is a very, very simple one, and it's difficult to argue for this simple truth in a prickly way, only goo really works. P^1 Anything that exists without a creator must be self existing or existing of itself P^2 Anything that is self existing must be completely Void P^3 Separateness is not possible in a Void P^4 Reality has no creator C Separateness is not possible in reality An alternate argument Reality just is. It must just be. Reality must just be and must just not not be. Anything which must exist must be self existing or existing of itself, and therefore totally void or insubstantial, in other words God like, separateness being impossible in a Void. So, if correct, we all have to be IT, eternal and universal Consciousness having a mere experience as an illusory and transitory and insubstantial body, in disguise. You can\u2019t leave reality. This is reality. You can't have ups without downs all things with a beginning must have an end Consciousness, the eternal, the real us, gets a chance to breathe by manifesting as the finite. I think that in order for reality to exist at all it must be like God. QM suggests reality is indeed void or insubstantial, and it suggests that consciousness is the fundamental ground of reality The Tao of Physics Quantum Questions Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists If your mother married a different man, would you exist? This is a very puzzling question to answer given a separatist view of the world, but it's easy and sensible to answer if reality is non dual Yes, each of us exists because reality god experiences and exists as everything, and reality must exist. Non duality ends the philosophy of mind stalemate between Dennett and Searle it solves the hard problem of consciousness If universal consciousness did not turn on and manifest in every being, we'd all have to be philosophical zombies Dennett, who minimizes consciousness, has some good points, but a false and limited overall view because he operates and thinks from the separatist materialist paradigm . But we're clearly not zombies, we're clearly conscious Searle, who maximizes consciousness, also has some good points . Therefore, we must all be manifestations of Consciousness. Searle and Dennett argue well passed and over each other in debate effectively working as a kind of koan for separatists who find both of their rough views compelling. The implication is that there's no birth and there's no death, a very neutral truth. God has to experience all lives, good and bad. Oughtn't the truth of reality be a pretty neutral one? It seems rather excessively cruel to plop some separate material being into existence without choice who greatly fears death and becoming nothing forever only to soon annihilate it. Schopenhauer seems right about the implication of Kant's notion of a thing in itself there can be no separate things in themselves, separateness and time must be delusions of the animal ego. Immortality by Schopenhauer We're programmed to fundamentally trust the current culture's paradigm of duality and separateness and otherness, but there's nothing actually implausible or crazy or unbelievable about oneness non duality, instead the opposite. We're the products of the arbitrary process of evolution. How we happen to be programmed to perceive and understand reality given the evolution of life on this planet is actually completely arbitrary with respect to the actual workings of reality. We can't experientially know what we are in the same way we can't bite our own teeth or taste our own tongue or see our own eyes without a mirror. How things feel and seem and appear doesn't tell us anything about what is true and real. Reality certainly feels solid to us, but QM tells us that reality is void of real substance. The implication is that, as Bill Hicks used to say, All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. It's just really taboo to believe that we're all the same because society programs us to believe we're separate because our society is made up of organisms designed by evolution, which spits out organisms who very greatly fear death and very greatly desire to spread their genes, which leads to societies founded upon fear and division. In other words, organisms who are convinced their lives are real, not dreams. And because belief in oneness is so obscure in most of human society given our programming given by our evolutionary heritage, it's ridiculed by reflex by most people. It's also ridiculed by reflex by those who desire to think of themselves as tough and realistic people who are capable of facing the facts and so on. I see nothing noble about being tough and strong by not needing a belief in immortality. We're not separate observers, we're Observation. We grow out of an Empty self existing world, we're not plopped into a material artifact. Supposing this world is a tree, are we leaves on its branches, or are we a bunch of birds who settled on a dead old tree from somewhere else? . We're not foreigners in the universe, but spiritual beings at genuine union with everything and everyone. The ego is a verb, a process, not a thing there are no separate things. Everything is everything and everything is nothing. All is all, all is mind, all is consciousness. Atoms are not solid because they don't create a solid world we live in a Void. My feeling is that the truth should be a very simple and elegant and neutral one. deepfield67's responses You seem to want to go back and forth on this. You acknowledge the non duality of the Void and then insist upon the validity of one side over the other. You're creating a duality and negating one side of it, this is not non duality. You see that there is no up without down, no good without bad, etc. But then go on to say that the answer is goo over prickles. When it is not one or the other, they are both the same, all duality has a root in the void, all opposites reconcile and imply one another. This is not evidence for God, as God and no God are a duality, and you've leaned towars one, forgetting the other, forgetting that they imply one another, you can't have just one side of the coin. Non duality itself is a dualism, contrasted by Duality . The entire point is, all concepts are dualities, all words, thoughts, ideas are dualities. The idea of the Void is a duality, as well. Truth is also a duality. You will never find an absolute through duality. Only by the destruction of all dualities can you come to the absolute. But that is a duality, also. So, eat your food and wash your bowl. Seperateness is also a dual concept. It is a dual stance to say seperateness is illusory , implying non seperateness is the absolute state, when one implies the other. Illusion is also a dual concept, contrasted by a state of absolute truth. This is why the Buddha exercised the thunderous silence. Duality cannot be dissolved through conceptual thought. Duality only dissolves in complete awareness. But to stay in that state is to be a stone buddha, and its own duality. That's the process, the coming and going, the being and non being, the up and the down, the process is the only absolute. That's why they say things like the only thing that never changes is that everything changes . But these are all words, they only create more dualities, more concepts, more stumbling blocks. The answer you seek is the seeking itself, you're using binoculars to find your eyes. I agree with him I was focused on establishing the Void intellectually. All views are wrong views. Responder from previous thread Non dual means not two . To say it's one is wrong. My response All simple truths have an implicit up and down. 5 and 5. Black and White. It is and It is not. Back and Front. Buddhism's non dual ways of phrasing are the down ways, and Hinduism's all is one ways of phrasing are the up ways. The full koan is that we're all IT, Buddhism representing the down half of the coin, Hinduism the up. The real you and me is IT the body, everything you see before your body, including whatever other beings you happen to see, the Emptiness, all of that is the real you. The real you is Reality, which is Non Dual and Void. We are at once nothing and everything. Zero and infinity. Universal Consciousness having dreams and experiences in its Void. How We Define Ourselves Nhat Hanh on Buddhism Do I Know I'm Enlightened? \u201cEnlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realizes it is water. When we realize we are not separate but a part of the huge ocean of everything, we become enlightened.\u201d Thich Nhat Hanh Four Noble Truths Nirvana is the extinguishing of the fire of dukkha, and the origin and impacter of the fire is Delusion, the delusion that we're not all the same, each other, one organism the delusion that solidity isn't a mirage. The fire is extinguished upon confident realization there is no death. The Atman is the Brahman. There is no door to enlightenment. Searching for enlightenment is like a little fish in a big ocean looking for water. First remove 'I', that's ego. Then remove 'want', that's desire. Now all you're left with is happiness. Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened people, there is only enlightened activity. Is there separateness? is the only really important philosophical question. The choice of accepting this truth depends on whether you favor the eyes of fear or love on whether you want to put the world down or up on whether you want to believe that the universe is just a chaotic assortment of dead matter, each of us very absurdly existing for a very short period of time in a hell of unceasing anxiety and burden between two eternal blanks of non existence, or that the universe might actually be okay. That which is form is precisely void and that which is void is precisely form. New World Order ideas Blog Alex Jones talking about the essence of reality and why we're here the holographic matrix we live in Icke on 2016 being the year of Change. Icke is an Alice Bailey New World Order Theosophist Luciferian, a huge insider. on the NWO Quotes Compilation Brand declaring an imminent spiritual revolution to overcome the powers that be. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident. \u2014Arthur Schopenhauer The spirit of inquiry, the search for greater truth beyond religion and science, the profound seriousness of doing real thinking, philosophy and ontology \u2013 these are almost totally lacking in humanity. Humanity is therefore subhuman from lack of genuine intelligence. They automatically reject any emergent facts or realities that do not fit their brain dead cognitive pattern of belief and disbelief. They watch too much television Gabriel Chiron, Truth is Greater Than Man . Many others have connected all the same major dots and come to same conclusions. From a fellow redditor The Illuminati is the informal, unofficial name given to a vast network of secret societies, all with their own titles, and seemingly uninvolved with one another. These secret societies all share one core component, which is the secret doctrines derived from the Kabbala and the Corpus Hermeticum. These teachings are known as Hermetic Tradition or Hermetism , which would later be known as Hermeticism . Some of these secret societies or Mystery Schools can be related to the many different versions of Christianity include, first and most famous, Freemasonry, as well as The Order of the Golden Dawn, Knights of Malta, Shriners, and Rosicrutions, to name but a few. Hermeticism can be considered as the spiritual beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians. It involves man attaining Godhood , and shares many of its philosophies and conceptual ponderances with True Lucifarianism. The idea is that they have the ability to communicate with entities from another dimension, possibly what have come to be known as the Fallen Angels or Nephilim. They also seem to have mastered control over their own soul , wherein upon death, the soul returns to Solomon's Temple on Sirius the REAL sun adored in ancient sun worship , where it then reincarnates at will, maintaining most aspects of its nature from the previous life. This is where the idea of Royal Bloodlines comes from. In this way, they have held control over mankind as the same souls, reincarnating repeatedly while maintaining memory, since the dawn of humanity. Illuminati are known in the esoteric world as The Builders , wherein they build society through positions in government, media, entertainment, invention, science, technology, and religion. Those they answer to Nephilim? are known as The Watchers . This is where the all seeing eye is connected to the conspiracy . In a nutshell Illuminati are the Illumined Ones, those who, in selling their soul to the Devil , have gained all the riches, fame, and eternal life that they were promised. It would be quite the challenge to list 2 or 3 resources for you, as truth is scattered masterfully. This information was gained through many years of study and connecting thousands of tiny dots. It must be learned by allowing oneself to fully and completely abandon any and all learned perspectives and belief systems, and opening oneself to the reception of all information, without bias, while believing everything you see, hear, and learn, to be no more than half truth. See everything as possible, and nothing as fact. In doing so, your higher self will compile the truth. All knowing resides in all of us, yet we live blindly, stumbling through the mind field , allowing our gaze to be diverted by the simplest of magic Ideological subversion and neurolinguistic programming. What I can do is point you to a few key categories, but it must be remembered always that answers come from your higher self, not a page you read or a lecture you hear. Our job in seeking knowledge is to soak up everything, from everybody, at every angle. Your own self aware consciousness will put the information together, and weed out the lies through all knowing, but all pieces of the puzzle must be made available. Blind are those selective of their information, for they wander through life, mouth open, looking only to the left. Key Topics of Interest DNA Hitler Afterlife Kabbala Mythology Agenda 21 Astronomy Manly P Hall Edgar Cayce Carol Quigley Dr John Hague Consciousness Adam Weishoupt Sacred Geometry Quantum Physics Ancient Bloodlines Anunnaki Nephilim William Bill Cooper Madam Helena Blavatsky ALL Antique Ancient Religion David Icke remember, hear everything Hermetic Mystery Schools secret societies The keystone to research in this genre is conceptual ponderance . A basic study of quantum physics will help to further understand the nature of reality. In doing so, one realizes possibilities and concepts once thought impossible. Unlock your mind and you win.\n","conclusion":"I believe in non-duality\/oneness\/pantheism and the imminently coming Antichrist's Kingdom\/New Age\/New World Order\n","id":"07c604e2-fc6c-4154-89c2-8ed7bd0658ec"}
{"argument":"After the recent shooting at Fort Hood, I've been hearing a lot of arguments in the media that it should be harder for mentally ill people to own guns. I disagree. I think it's wrong to discriminate against one group of people and deny them rights everyone else has. If I've struggled with mental illness in the past should it be harder for me to own a gun even if I'm seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication? I don't think this even addresses this issue. Instead of focusing on people's needs should we curtail their constitutional rights. However, I may be wrong on this so I want to see all sides. Please . 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\n","conclusion":"I don't we should make more it more difficult for mentally ill people to own a gun.\n","id":"2e2a91da-14d1-4414-9035-5fb5a179b37d"}
{"argument":"Northern countries that are not monarchies like Finland, Switzerland or Germany are perceived as less corrupt while southern and eastern countries like Italy, Greece or Bulgaria are perceived as more corrupt.\n","conclusion":"There is a correlation that may be explained by historical reasons: countries in northern Europe are generally perceived as less corrupt than countries in southern Europe regardless of government form.\n","id":"2c43f6da-39b9-4496-b8df-f65830c97599"}
{"argument":"As horrible as it is, a lot of scientific and healthcare discoveries are made during times of war or in clandestine places very quicly because of the benefits of testing on human subjects. A drug's effect on an animal is never going to translate exactly into a drug's effect on a human. Subjecting humans to conditions that would be considered unethical can allow for great breakthroughs. Long term studies could be conducted on the effects of subjecting humans to less than desirable conditions. I think the greatest issue would be creating a system that would allow for 100 certainty that a person is truly consenting to the experimentation. I'm sure that if this were an actuality there would be a lot of people taking advantage of this by pretending that non consenting individuals are actually consenting. Let's put aside the issue of consent and pretend we have come up with a method of verifying a person's consent to experimentation. I think people should have the choice to opt in to experimentation. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"I think prisoners, terminal patients, and others should be able to opt in to experimentation if consent can be guaranteed.\n","id":"eab466d4-f546-4ec8-8b50-040453f4a743"}
{"argument":"A lot of my peers and even some of my superiors are paranoid about ISIS and terrorism and all of that jazz. It actually doesn't worry me one bit. I actually feel safe from all of that because I know that America has the baddest military around, because of how much we spend on it. I guess North Korea just planned to prepare for war with America, whether that is true or not I do not know, but I saw some people freaking out about it on facebook. Me? No biggie. We'll just kick their ass and be done with it, because we spend more on military than they do. Should we be spending more money on other things, such as NASA, medical research, education, and health care? Yes. But I do not think that we should cut so deeply into military spending to fund them. I do not know an exact number either, I am no economist politician war hero etc. I am just a 20 year old with an opinion.\n","conclusion":"I feel safer here in America, in terms of foreign affairs, because of how much we spend on military\n","id":"8cef0fb2-4efb-4415-90fa-bb8ca3aff22b"}
{"argument":"In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department\u2019s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted.\n","conclusion":"The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.\n","id":"cbd74d7c-53e0-4484-bed6-89a9116cc57d"}
{"argument":"Since the Irish government began offering the vaccine to girls in their first year of secondary education, the lowest recorded uptake rate was 72.3%\n","conclusion":"State-run voluntary vaccination programmes receive significant uptake, so making it compulsory is unnecessary.\n","id":"a0d2fb88-7deb-4765-aa90-508944842591"}
{"argument":"The only legitimate way to tax a specific group for belonging to said group is to ensure that they are the ones that benefit from the tax.\n","conclusion":"The tampon tax can improve gender equality. For example, tax revenue from the tampon tax could be earmarked specifically for women's charities.\n","id":"f529faa1-c5db-4009-9d0d-2a966fd2c64b"}
{"argument":"The1866 engine was the first commercially successful gas engine Next to financial benefits, Otto received also the Grand Price at the World Exhibition 1867 in Paris making him globally known.\n","conclusion":"It was beneficial for himself, because he could sell it anyways.\n","id":"9249f105-23dd-4dcd-ba54-9e8c2bebc9f3"}
{"argument":"Some 13% of the American population is foreign-born and thus has no link to the evils of American slavery at all. They are not even descendants of those who lived in the United States during the times of slavery.\n","conclusion":"The cost of reparations would be borne by taxpayers indiscriminately, without any clear link with the perpetrators of slavery.\n","id":"ae5db9f6-dea5-4190-ab85-075bcc3eb456"}
{"argument":"First of all I'll establish that I am not a climate change denier. But there are plenty of otherwise reasonable people who deny it the fact that they are otherwise reasonable actually makes it more frustrating since you can't simply dismiss them as nutcases who follow Alex Jones . Whenever anyone mentions climate change, deniers immediately trot out points like the temperatures dropped at this time or weather patterns change inevitably, it's just nature or whatever. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, deniers will claim it's some conspiracy to destroy manufacturing and enrich foreign countries. And these deniers have significant numbers and with those numbers, the power to disrupt efforts to combat climate change at least in the US . On the other hand, the importance of keeping the air and water clean is a point that seems to be MUCH easier to get across to people of all political leanings. Very few people would deny that emissions are the reason why Beijing and New Delhi have such horrible air quality, for example. Very few people dare to drink water that has untreated waste dumped inside, or eat fish that was caught in grossly polluted waters. There is also undeniable historical data that shows a clear correlation between the cleanliness of the air in Los Angeles and the strictness of California emissions standards. A few decades ago, Los Angeles' smog was as bad as Beijing's is now, if not worse but today, the situation is measurably much better. Even Beijing has shown clear improvements in air quality thanks to extreme measures like restricting the number of cars in the city on certain days of the week. Therefore, anyone who wants to preserve environmental regulations, or introduce new ones, needs to make clean air and water the central point, and not mention climate change even once. The answer to the question Do you want our cities to have the same air quality as Beijing or New Delhi should be a unanimous NO . Emphasize the fact that breathable air and drinkable water are only possible because of these regulations. Fly some of these people if they're in positions of power to third world countries to sample the air and water and prove the point. That may be the only way to bring at least a few climate change deniers on board. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Pro-environment concerns should stop using the words \"climate change\" and focus on clean air and water\n","id":"1c62f255-9135-4e4a-a7b7-1a9c8ac48aae"}
{"argument":"I mean there could be number of ways to teach your child to behave and discipline him her,but physically abusing your child won't help in any way if anything exacerbate the issue.There's been a plethora of studies that posited that children who were spanked whipped ect. grow up with lower IQs and behavioral issues,as well as conditions such as anxiety and depression.Any person with a modicum of common sense would tell themselves that hitting your child won't be the best idea.I would like to get some input on this,I want to hear the other side of the fence.\n","conclusion":"I think that people who hit their children as \"punishment\" are sadistic and uneducated.\n","id":"e5283ed3-dad1-41d6-a99f-a92852de0513"}
{"argument":"Let's start this by saying I don't want to have any arguments about whether abortion is murder or not. I really feel like someone is going to think I am pro life, I am not. However, my argument is basically saying that IF and only IF you do believe abortion is murder, you can only have the following specific opinion on it Abortion is wrong in all cases, INCLUDING rape, except for cases where the mother's health is at risk. So basically the main argument is that even rape shouldn't be aborted if abortion really is murder to someone. Here is why. If abortion is murder, then it isn't OK. Pretty simple right? But then you have to get down to the different nuances. Rape is absolutely horrible, but if we assume abortion is murder murdering because you were raped still doesn't make sense. Murdering because you might die and you don't want to take a gamble makes sense, as horrible as it is, which is why mothers health is the one exception. Would like to also include that I am not simply talking about pro lifers, as there are many variances and AFAIK not all pro lifers necessarily think abortion is literally murder. Thank you, now change my view. Edit Thank you for the replies, my view has been changed. Just to clarify the murder thing I was only using because I see a lot of pro lifers use it. I don't really care about the specific wording that should be used, point is that you are killing someone. or someone is dying. Whatever word you would like, imagine I used it.\n","conclusion":"If you think abortion is murder, you can only have 1 specific opinion on it.\n","id":"7fa9ee61-86bf-4166-9e88-03f0843f2208"}
{"argument":"Political opposition is one thing, but I think that what we are seeing right now is a lot more personal the the high ranking political figures of our day. It honestly seems like the politicians today, at least the more well known ones, hold personal grudges against the opposing party. I think it all started with the Lewinsky scandal and the republicans handling of it. I'll lay out my time line Clinton has an affair while he is a sitting president, not exactly kosher but it's not illegal either. Republicans, riding high from their recent midterm victory and embarrassed by 2 straight presidential elections after controlling the office for almost 20 years un impeded seize the opportunity to embarrass the Democratic Party In their attempt to do so, they overstep their bounds and actually try to file articles of impeachment against Clinton for a trumped up perjury charge. Democrats becoming exceedingly angry at these obvious heavy handed antics by the legislative branch After all this has settled around comes the 2000 election, which pits a Texas governor known for a more laid back style against a northeast Vice President considered to be a high value intellectual This election ends up being decided nominally by a Supreme Court considered to be right leaning and taints the results of the ruling and the election Democrats spend the next 8 years attacking absolutely everything about this president and republicans pretty much have to take it, though with a smile since they control both the house and senate. Inevitability comes crashing down the dems retake control of congress and now the republicans have to actually work with the people who have been calling them everything but a white man for 6 years. Felling sea slightly hurt at this point Then 2008 rolls around, financial crisis ensues brought on by poor investing and policies proposed and enacted by the dems but continued and supported under the republicans. But this is Washington, no one is going to admit reponsibiity because that doesn't get you re elected Then the election. Ground breaking as the first time a non white person has a real chance at winning. Marred for the republicans by the fact that every time they try to raise some real criticism of his policies they are called racist this will continue, though not quite as prevalent to present day Obama wins, a great day for equality and proof that any one can succeed. Then A noticeable rise in government oversight and spending takes place. Republicans seize on this for their minority in status in congress to prove that he is a big government socialist intent on taking over the economy by force as to the merits of these claims we. An debate about that later Seizing on discontent with government, republicans turn the tables on the dems and proceeded to follow their play book from the previous administration and attack absolutely everything the current government does as destructive and not in the favor of the average citizen. So now we have 2 bitterly opposed bases that were steadily growing in size for the last decade and a half till they once again became major players in their parties and pushed the though of reasonable compromise with the other side right out the door. I would someone to prove me wrong so I can quite thinking we have elected what are essentially a bunch of 5 year olds or am happy to explain my theory more if you want clarification.\n","conclusion":"I believe that the current political split between the hard left and the hard right that is causing so many problems in Washington can be traced back to 1998\n","id":"a3771d33-b7fe-4449-9977-610bd1494997"}
{"argument":"Full disclosure, I was four years old during the invasion od Iraq, so everything I know about the invasion, I learned after the fact. I'm kind of disgusted to hold this opinion, but I can't seem to find any justification for not holding it. To be clear, some of the reasons given for invading Iraq were clearly bullshit I'm only defending the decision to go to war, itself. My argument is made up of two premises and a conclusion. Premise 1 If the Iraqi government had developed nuclear weapons, that would likely result in far more death and destruction than an invasion of Iraq ever could. Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator if there ever was one. Saddam attempted genocide against the Kurds during the Iran Iraq war, which killed at least 50,000 Kurds. Over 350,000 Kurds were deported to Iran up until 2003, with many thousands more vanishing without a trace. Iraq started not one, but two wars with its neighbors. Granted, we supported Iraq in one of these wars, but in 2003, that mistake couldn't be undone. Iraq also supported terrorism in other countries. Iraq supported groups like the May 15 Organization, the Palestinian Liberation Front, and the Abu Nidal Organization. The list goes on. The Iraqi government celebrated the terrorist attacks of 9 11, setting it apart from the vast majority of the international community. While none of these things are a direct threat to the USA, they all show that Iraq is willing to engage in acts of unbelievable and wanton aggression against other countries, commit war crimes, and otherwise disgust the rest of the world in ways we can hardly imagine. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, it would turn into another North Korea, except with a few key differences. North Korea is an impoverished country surrounded by rich, powerful countries, while Iraq is a resource rich country surrounded by countries near and below its economic and military capabilities. If Iraq tried to take over Kuwait again, but had a few dozen missiles to hide behind, what the hell would the rest of the world do about it? Go to war with a nuclear state? What would we do if Iraq continued gassing the Kurds? What would the US do if Iraq started supporting Al Qaeda and giving it sanctuary? Iraq certainly wouldn't be the first nuclear state to harbor terrorists. What if Syria, Iran, or Turkey realized how dangerous this was and started building their own nuclear weapons as a deterrant? What if their respective enemies did the same? Saddam with WMDs would be nuclear Hitler. Game over. It would set off a chain of events that would become all but entirely uncontrollable. Contention 2 The US had reason to believe Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. There was no proof of nuclear weapons in Iraq, but there was reason to believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The CIA reported that Iraq was in the process of developing nuclear bombs, and that they'd have nukes within 10 years. Russia, Germany, Britain, Israel, China, and France also thought Iraq was in the process of arming up. There was disagreement within the intelligence community, but the prevailing message was that there most likely was a nuclear program in Iraq. While going to war based on what's most likely is far from ideal, it would be a bigger mistake to not determine that Iraq had a nuclear program when it actually did than to determine that Iraq was developing nukes when it actually wasn't. The UN gave Iraq chances to vindicate itself, but Iraq repeatedly expelled inspectors from the country for unrelated reasons. Conclusion Invading Iraq was right, given what was known at the time. The US was faced with a decision Risk a quarter of a million lives by putting boots on the ground or risk a nuclear Saddam being allowed to do whatever he wants, which could result in a nuclear war. The US chose the former because it risked fewer lives, and at the time, most available evidence favored the notion that Option 2 would not pay off. Of course, in reality, there were no nukes, but using the knowledge of the present to convict the past is unfair.\n","conclusion":"Invading Iraq was the right decision given the information we had at the time.\n","id":"5f2e3cd6-9d74-4c2b-a828-01b122a8c99d"}
{"argument":"Ofcourse yes . GAI\u2019s should have their own standing and rights which should not be and never be in collusion with human rights . We created GAI\u2019s we need to control their rights too before they become more powerful than us . It\u2019s not the fear of being overpowered rather fear of extinction. Though change is constant as they say but that doesn\u2019t mean we change the human form . Make a different arrangement for GAI\u2019s & let that arrangement be specific,simple and not complicated defining a diff world\n","conclusion":"Rights of AI should be grounded in their own standing, not simply extending human rights.\n","id":"d40fa993-1aad-446c-a52c-79cb982ce741"}
{"argument":"Different political interests have succeeded in having significant influence over the Turkish judicial system in recent decades ICJ, pg10\n","conclusion":"Turkey's judicial system is undermined and incompatible with EU standards.\n","id":"1b86430a-d9ce-4858-864a-5479a97db5c9"}
{"argument":"I do not think animals inherently have any rights. They only have the rights we, and god gave them. Also, as I said in the title, PETA values animals over humans, and think we should not have any pets.\n","conclusion":"I believe PETA is crazy, and thinks of amimals as more important than humans.\n","id":"0a80366e-03e2-49b2-8eb7-62c82b17b46f"}
{"argument":"Judges with more experience will be more efficient in reaching conclusions and writing decisions Oldfather, p. 850 given the increasing caseload of the Supreme Court, it is important that Justices can work quickly.\n","conclusion":"As with any skill, more experience increases one's expertise. The same is true of being a Supreme Court Justice.\n","id":"212cf202-e42a-463e-b797-9e60da99a219"}
{"argument":"I'm selling a business, and the buyers have made it clear that they're only interested in the land that the business is on and that they will be tearing the place down. My wife and friends are saying that I should wait and let the workers enjoy their Thanksgiving and Christmas, and not ruin it by telling them they're losing their jobs. I personally think that the best thing to do and the obvious thing is to tell them now before they make any large purchases, or spend too much take on too much debt during the holidays. While I can understand not wanting to ruin people's holiday , I'm much more concerned with ruining their entire year perhaps several . If I'm missing something, change my view.\n","conclusion":"I Believe It's Better To Tell 75 People That They're Losing Their Jobs Now, Before The Holidays.\n","id":"4115b61f-9535-410a-8d23-5141a84e7f16"}
{"argument":"Please correct me if I am substantially wrong, but I believe the Chinese military is used to build roads and do other public works projects. If this is wrong, please feel free to bury this post in downvotes and we'll just agree to pretend I didn't embarass myself through my own significant ignorance. To some degree, we already do this in the US through the Army Corp of Engineers. But I feel we don't utilize this resource to it's full potential. I think the otherwise inactive members of the armed forces could be put to better use than simply working out and waiting to be sent to fight someone overseas. Let them work out by erecting wind and solar power stations, constructing homes for the homeless, building and maintaining roads, any number of useful things to justify their paycheck when they would otherwise be idle. One problem this solves is the expense of an entire separate government entity responsible for building and maintaining roads. I say we apply the principle of Reduce overall expense , Recycle and Reuse already available labor to streamline this area of government operations for efficacy and efficiency. One problem this creates is unemployed government employees and private contractors who would be replaced by soldiers. Also, there are different skill sets, so soldier builders would need experienced construction foremen to supervise. I do not mean to suggest that decisions about why or where to build roads should be under DOJ authority, so some manner of DOT will still exist and the military would loan out soldier labor for these projects. I almost posted this under r CrazyIdeas, but I think there could be many other problems with this suggestion I have failed to consider and I hope the insightful  community would have more constructive lol criticism to offer. Reddit what's wrong with this idea? EDIT this post was inspired by the following from r CrazyIdeas The USA should invade the USA and win the hearts of it's citizens, build roads, schools and hospitals.\n","conclusion":"I think the US should follow the Chinese example and use the military for more public works projects and to build\/maintain roads.\n","id":"6ae19bd8-7242-4aaa-9d1a-862f00b8f83b"}
{"argument":"Bill Clinton pardoned 140 people in his last day of office including several former political donors.\n","conclusion":"Pardons are something presidents can offer in exchange for political contributions.\n","id":"91bc95c0-4418-45dc-81df-4e272423a8f0"}
{"argument":"If people wish there to be some type of social change, referendums are a very useful way of showing what the general population wants.\n","conclusion":"In parliamentary democracies, changes to a constitution that are required to be ratified by referendum can be a useful check and balance.\n","id":"4f71e5b0-2b15-4ac7-afb7-16e3a5db2005"}
{"argument":"First off these rivalries are very similar. They both feature the historically best team in the league vs the cursed lovable losers who play in a 100 year old stadium, and aren't really losers anymore. Additionally, the Cubs Cards rivalry features an urban rural divide element that Sox Yankees doesn't have. The hatred between the Cubs and the Cards, is, in my experience, equal to the hatred between the Yanks and the Sox. I also think it could argued that Cubs and Cards fans are better baseball fans than Sox and Yankees fans. Certainly, cards fans are known as being the best fans in baseball.\n","conclusion":"Cards-Cubs is every bit as good of a rivalry as Yanks-Sox\n","id":"bd049ddb-8d2f-445b-b3d5-e15dbc45787c"}
{"argument":"Removing personal rights for the greater good is a slippery slope to immoral utilitarian calculuses that justify the oppression of the few for the benefit of the many.\n","conclusion":"The point of rights is that they are absolute and never removed for the public good.\n","id":"0344eed0-94b5-4fd0-b9c7-0b7d349c7eef"}
{"argument":"According to Willard Chase, Samuel T. Lawrence suggested to Joseph Smith that \"it would not be prudent to let these plates be seen for about two years, as it would make a great disturbance in the neighborhood.\" Howe 1834, p. 243\n","conclusion":"Joseph Smith changed his story about who other than himself would be able to see the golden plates and when.\n","id":"f2ae5ef3-5946-4e42-a074-74b71e6e9f34"}
{"argument":"Elections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are opposed to their interests See the fate of Rep. Richard Pombo, who was defeated after a campaign by the Sierra Club1. Primary elections exacerbates this, with 527 groups affiliated to certain interest groups being able to lobby and fund numerous candidates in the primary to ensure that regardless of the result, their interests are best preserved. This can be harmful as it further allows for corporate capture of the election cycle, with candidates positioning themselves in relation to the aims of those who helped them gain the candidacy rather than the voters who put them there. This undermines the ability of legislators to arbitrate between competing claims when making law, creating less effective government. 1 Carlton, Jim, \u2018Pombo Embarks on Fresh Path\u2019, The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2010,\n","conclusion":"Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities\n","id":"63eaf570-9a0e-4280-9a25-f1f50291ed51"}
{"argument":"Update Sorry for not replying to every comment. You all have definitely explained some things that I never knew, so thank you for that. I wouldn't say that I agree fully or have changed my mind, but I will say that the more that I learn about the United States, the more I admire it. I truly do believe that the USA is a bright light in the world, probably the brightest the world has seen. I pray that the light never goes out. The Americans lost the war to the British. The Americans initiated the war of 1812 the British were defending. In the end, neither gained therefore the British won. Because the defending side wins in a draw. Once again to make it 100 clear The British got what they wanted due to the war Defending themselves to keep things the same . The USA did not get what they wanted To change things through the war, which did not happen through the war Note Perhaps you think the war of 1812 was won by the USA because it ended the impression of some Americans? This practice continued in spite of the war of 1812, and only ended because the British defeated Napoleon So when the British finnaly did end impressement, it was not because of the war of 1812 . So the Americans had no impact on ending it Like many have tried to argue to me . I'm trying my best to keep an open mind Anyone?\n","conclusion":"The USA Lost The War of 1812\n","id":"e42f0e22-6787-4675-bed6-baab7e193f70"}
{"argument":"My view in a sentence Individuals who renounce racist ideologies beliefs have a moral obligation to work to help others renounce those same beliefs. Some examples of the sort of folks I'm talking about Members of the KKK converted by Daryl Davis and others like him This man whose black parole officer led him to change his ways This former KKK Grand Dragon I'm defining reformed racist as someone who has 1 recognized their past belief system as prejudicial and 2 has taken is taking explicit, tangible steps to move away from that belief system in their day to day lives. Racist is the go to but we can extend this to any bigoted belief system. Some premises that inform my view the first is not up for discussion, and the second and third really shouldn't be unless you have some compelling and groundbreaking social science research Racism bigotry exist AND are morally wrong to practice or propagate Racism bigotry takes root and spreads via iterations of social proof Therefore, those who adopt practice racist bigoted beliefs implicitly aid in the spread of those beliefs, whether they intend to do so or not What follows from these premises is that individuals like those I mention have, during their time as racists bigots, directly contributed to the creation or continuation of more racists and bigots. While their own personal correction is terrific and to be celebrated encouraged, it does not reverse the damage they've done, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore, once they've learned the error of their ways, they have a moral obligation to work intentionally and deliberately to convert other bigots and racists. Why this moral obligation? If you break your neighbors' window with a baseball, most would agree that you are obligated to repair the damage, regardless of whether you threw the ball intending to hit the window. You caused harm, so you fix the harm. I hold the same principle here. Some clarifications I am not implying that reformed racists' epiphanies should not be celebrated or encouraged. Shedding bigotry and owning your mistakes is a challenging process and I respect them for doing so. My argument isn't that changing your own ways is bad or unworthy of praise, but rather that it is only the beginning of the work. I am commenting specifically on obligation not capacity or suitability . I absolutely recognize that there are reformed racists who would be ill equipped or ill suited to undertake such work. I still argue that they are obligated to repair the damage they've done or to work towards a place where they can do so. I am not arguing that some authority should force or compel these people to do anything. I'm only arguing the moral obligation. TL DR Those who renounce racist beliefs or practices have an obligation to help others renounce those beliefs, because they played a role in spreading those beliefs whether they indented to or not. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"\"Reformed Racists\" have a moral obligation to repair the damage they've done.\n","id":"d01d9523-4b1f-46a9-9087-fff7bc144aa1"}
{"argument":"compulsory voting would be beneficial because more people would take an interest in politics, creating a more fair representation in government.\n","conclusion":"Compulsory voting will cause more people to become interested in politics\n","id":"c5e6111b-e4a8-4540-abfd-a7201a86b043"}
{"argument":"Maybe it's just that we only hear about Youtubers doing bad things from the media and other outlets like DramaAlert and Scarce, but it certainly seems like many of the famous Youtubers are bad people. As someone who is interested in Youtube and its community, I swear every time I hear about one of these controversies involving Youtubers it involves somebody who is either a genuinely malevolent scumbag or someone whose head is shoved so far up their own ass that they cannot see or fathom their own stupidity. x200B It seems like Youtube can't catch a break over these last few years. In 2016 we had Keemstar being himself, which is a nasty and malicious human being in my eyes, then we have Leafy practically bullying everyone, then PewDiePie lets the N word slip leaving Youtube in a conundrum as to what to do with their golden boy. Then Jake Paul does his stupid thing and it seems like he and his brother became the golden boys for Youtube, that is until Logan Paul was being a public disturbance in Japan, culminating with him filming a corpse and putting it on the internet for his young audience to see. Then we have the whole TanaCon situation where Tana Mongeau neglected to tell people that there was a limit as to how many people were allowed in the venue for her convention, which resulted in unsafe conditions and probably people getting hurt, and now we have Ricegum and Jake Paul essentially promoting gambling to children, as well as other controversies I'm can't think of. x200B Some of these people seem genuinely unintelligent as well. Not to sound like a dick but it seems like some of them can't even properly articulate themselves without sounding completely illogical or contradicting themselves unwittingly. Tana Mongeau, Ricegum and the Paul Brothers especially strike me as people who are just straight up dumb. The amount of times they either shoot themselves in the foot or expose themselves as the ignorant and foolish individuals they come off as is too much to count. If they are truly intelligent people, then they're either putting on a show for their audiences or they are really not helping their case by doing stupid things. x200B I think the higher ups at Youtube realize this as well. The fact that Youtube Rewind 2018 was created as a massive ad that was ultra safe and free of controversy attests to this. It makes me think that Youtube is trying to promote itself as something it's not, which is an accepting and kind community. I understand that they're a corporation and they need to make money, but we all know that Youtube has it's bad parts, and many of the comment sections are pretty toxic. Hell many of the Youtubers are even toxic. Youtube try so hard to try and keep its users in line that it's comical in my opinion. It reminds me of that South Park episode where they try to get a Whole Foods to come to South Park to try and prove that their not a backwards town, and in doing so they go to extreme lengths and end up fighting child labor slaves. Only in this case, it's Youtube that is going to lengths to try and promote themselves as a family friendly brand, which it largely isn't. x200B Youtube for me is like one big running joke. Whenever these controversies involving big names on the platform happen, it's just a big mess. When the suits finally weather the storm and Youtube is about to get back on the horse, one of it's beloved creators takes a shotgun and shoots them off of the horse Dick Cheney style with another controversy. Now falling back into the filth of bad publicity that it just climbed out of only for it to be an endless cycle from which there is no escape. Now I've been watching Youtube for a while, since the days of the Awesome Series, but I've never been really invested in it until I discovered the FilthyFranks and H3H3s of the world, and maybe Youtube has been weathering bad publicity for as long as I can remember, but it seems like it's worse than its ever been in the last few years, no thanks in part to scummy assholes who can't seem to stay out of trouble and need to be policed around like they're children. x200B Then, after these people have been accused of their wrongdoings they try to brush it off as though they're innocent or they give some non apology or half apology where they're not REALLY sorry for their actions, they're just sorry that they got caught. Then, they try to manipulate their often naive and biased audiences into believing every word that they hear. I have yet to see an apology video where one of these famous Youtubers is genuinely sorry, instead of the cry fest that is most apology videos, which at best are an attempt to manipulate and emotinally sway. I swear to god we're going to become desensitized to these emotional apology videos where people are balling their eyes out to the point when someone whose actually not faking it will be bombarded with hatred and vitriol, and they won't care. x200B I'm not saying that all famous Youtubers are bad people, but it sure seems like there are more insufferable assholes than there are normal people just trying to make a living. Maybe that's just me being naive of the situation or buying way too much into the media and the Youtube News outlets of the world, but I think a lot of them are just shit human beings, I'd love to be proven wrong. x200B x200B x200B x200B\n","conclusion":"I would wager that something like 75 to 80% of the famous Youtubers are terrible people.\n","id":"cc8d6bf2-e20f-4014-a5e2-25815835d395"}
{"argument":"If a US general was killed in retaliation, there would be heavy sanctions on the country that killed the general.\n","conclusion":"The US is provoking Iran into a conflict that could have been avoided.\n","id":"8ee4f4e9-fe88-46a9-b408-ffd76831e9b3"}
{"argument":"The most prominent asexual organisation Asexual Visibility and Education Network was only founded in 2001 whereas the right gay rights organisation was established in 1951\n","conclusion":"LGBT organisations are more established than asexual and aromantic support organisations, meaning they have more political power.\n","id":"c731c5a9-cc3b-49d1-a4bf-03e3eee41907"}
{"argument":"It is much easier to enforce a no smoking on planes policy due to the small enclosed space that is constantly watched by flight attendants.\n","conclusion":"Banning smoking on planes is not comparable to banning cigarettes entirely.\n","id":"ab7c641e-7f4d-425f-a89d-b71dbc285c3a"}
{"argument":"Most internet traffic goes over government-regulated property in some fashion or another. Bandwidth and transmission lines are owned by corporations with little ability to change ownership or open up competing mediums. Due to this, the government must regulate usage as they do with similar infrastructure.\n","conclusion":"Governments are justified in regulating internet provision given it is a public good, a common infrastructure, and in many places a service that lacks consumer choice.\n","id":"23e18c4b-c01f-4ca3-874b-8b49e1c82088"}
{"argument":"Choosing to do this gives you control over the future, and how the confession happens. You don't have to confess immediately, and you can introspect until you know what you need to say.\n","conclusion":"An early reveal reduces the damage compared to the case of the one-night stand coming to light at a later stage.\n","id":"0e024eaf-9860-4c2b-b4ee-0b0b975f1feb"}
{"argument":"Although Christianity preaches love and non-violence, the Bible also says that adulterers must be put to death This is something no longer practiced in Christianity.\n","conclusion":"Many religions have contradictory messages, and religious groups pick and choose which pieces they follow.\n","id":"904c40ba-f745-4969-800e-c6415265814b"}
{"argument":"The media and posters on this website I'm looking at you, r Politics are constantly posting echo chamber articles about Trump doing impeachable things. The reality is, unless there is a willing Congress to start impeachment proceedings, this outrage is wasted breath. Trump's base is not going to believe any cries of illegal activity, and there is a special prosecutor doing round the clock work of building a case of wrongdoing by this President and his cronies, which includes at the least obstruction of justice and at the worst treason. However, this incessant litany of Trump's tweet is illegal is completely falling prey to the very thing that gave Trump the White House an obsession with the celebrity, with the gossip, and with the outrage, paired with a failure to pay attention to or highlight the horrifying legislation he's pushing and supporting, and that Republicans in Congress are advocating for. The results of his tariffs and tax breaks are staggering, and should be the bulk of media coverage and reporting on this site, on Facebook, on TV. If people all over this country were confronted more with the facts of how their daily lives are being damaged by the policies and results of the Trump administration's ineptitude and stupidity, the needle may shift. However, this constant culture has turned into a Witch Hunt, where everything the President does gets turned into one outrage after another. If each tweet or utterance is said to be an impeachable offense when almost always it's not , then the true impeachable offenses are lost in a sea of Fake News. NOTE This is not an excuse for Trump, or a defense of Trump. Rather a point of view that the lack of substance of attacks on Trump are missing clear and worthy targets, and that this practice will almost certainly change no one's opinions as to how terrible a President Trump is. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"People are over-sensationalizing Trump's \"crimes\" and missing his administration's terrible ineptitude\n","id":"52d621c7-3ccf-47a3-8189-6e6f1c080328"}
{"argument":"The US has more incentive to invade North Korea when they posses nukes. The US may be forced to invade to preemptively defend itself from a nation, which is constantly threatening a nuclear strike, and may distribute material and\/or weapons to terrorist organizations.\n","conclusion":"There will be many advantages for its national security when North Korea gives up its nukes.\n","id":"88f0d1b9-8357-448a-84d8-a0b665e5f802"}
{"argument":"I'm in a freelancers Facebook group and am always surprised at the amount of people that push back on any recommendation to use a common cloud storage system like G Suite etc. Their rationale is usually something along the lines of Google is selling your data to third parties Anything on the cloud can be easily accessed by the NSA some other SIGINT body My current view is that the above is nothing but tin hat conspiracy thinking. I believe that Major companies, like Google, have strict internal governance regarding when user data can be accessed. I always reckon the heavyweights like Google, Office 365, etc, are among the safest bets security wise. Unless your're planning something malicious, you're never going to be on the radar of an intelligence agency. Even if your data is collected and analyzed, the chances that a human analyst is ever going to read it are infinitesimally small.\n","conclusion":"Hosting data on the cloud is almost always safe. Neither Google nor the NSA has any interest in you.\n","id":"19d4d342-fcb8-46d2-be26-7f9506d2439c"}
{"argument":"The only recourse on Britannica is to write to an editor, and the errors may be corrected in print in a few years, as opposed to minutes in Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia runs on the internet, any changes are visible to readers almost immediately. Also, using the versioning system, users can determine when and what changes were made to a specific article.\n","conclusion":"Readers can correct errors on Wikipedia but not on Britannica.\n","id":"5cc59195-b428-4e3c-b901-180f8529b9e5"}
{"argument":"In an unusual show of unity, most analysts are agreed that the wars of the 21st century will be markedly different from those that went beforei. Clashes will be between civilisations and global perspectives fought with comparatively scant regard to national boundaries. Within this framework, the groups identified, broadly, as \u2018Islam\u2019 and \u2018the West\u2019ii seem to be lining up as the two main players \u2013 although this seems to be by default in the case of the West. In this regard, at least, Bush jr. was absolutely spot on with his \u2018with us or against us\u2019 assessment of the nature of modern conflict. Tarek Mehanna\u2019s publications aren\u2019t idle musings on political philosophy, they are practical suggestions about how his readers can involve themselves in a war against the US and its allies \u2013 advice given in his translation of 39 Ways to Participate in Jihad - a war between a sexist, reactionary, mediaeval theocratic mindset and those peoples who seek to defend the liberal and democratic principles of the Enlightenment. One of the reasons highlighted by the prosecution was that Mehanna and others like him don\u2019t need to recruit a regiment or resource a battalion. The Terrorist atrocities that have shaken the world in recent years, 9.11, 7.7, Madrid and the rest, have involved in total a few dozen people. One inspirational individual, as the judge in this case noted, is quite capable of creating bloodshed and murder with a very small following. Mehanna was and remains in no doubt about what side he is on. Prop\u2019s only argument seems to be that he wasn\u2019t a very effective agent. In response to which; firstly, thank God and, secondly, it would be an odd way to fight a war to wait until a massacre was committed before doing anything about it. i Neumayer, Eric and Plu\u0308mper, Thomas 2009 International terrorism and the clash of civilizations. British journal of political science, 39 4. pp. 711-734. ii Although politicians have been at pains to stress that the battle with Islam per se many scholars have used the terms. This view was codified in Samuel P. Huntington\u2019s book Clash of Civilisation in 1993. An article that preceded its publication Foreign Affairs. Samuel Huntington. Clash of Civilizations? Summer 1993 can be found here.\n","conclusion":"Differing nature of war not essays against king or country but about creeds\n","id":"f271698a-41b9-4362-9f8b-a9b84f688122"}
{"argument":"This movement aims to subvert the stereotypical idea of what 'beautiful' is by encouraging women of all body types to post pictures of them feeling happy and confident.\n","conclusion":"Hashtags such as #bodypositivity encourage users to post pictures in which they feel confident and happy in themselves.\n","id":"fa546087-417e-463c-a9e4-4e462b3333bc"}
{"argument":"Organised religion created successful and well-known platforms for humanitarian aid, such as the Order of Malta\n","conclusion":"Religion has provided charity and welfare in the past and in modern times.\n","id":"24e2c782-dabd-40c9-9505-7ee0648fed61"}
{"argument":"Slave countries of the old colonization needed armies present to their territory to take the wealth. The EU doesn't need to do that. Creating a debt colony it takes the money directly from the slave nations' central bank.\n","conclusion":"Traditional wars are fought for resources and wealth with military power; the EU has merely stopped traditional wars in Europe, but the exploitation of weaker countries' resources and wealth isstill in progress\n","id":"54142edf-3d3b-4d1d-b465-b3585ef8ed2d"}
{"argument":"71% of former Catholics left the Church because their spiritual needs were not being met. Public elections will allow people a greater voice to ensure that their elected representatives of the Church uphold the spiritual needs of the public.\n","conclusion":"A lot of modern people feel less in touch with the Church and its practices. Allowing public elections would give them a voice and a greater ability to modernize the Church.\n","id":"1043f81f-1d23-43ac-9060-80e575056d73"}
{"argument":"EDIT My View has been Changed I believe that white privilege exists, and that many minorities are disadvantaged, but I dislike the idea of discriminating based on race. A poor white guy from a trailer park has far fewer connections than a rich black man, and vice versa. If we are going to help out someone who is disadvantaged, isn't your socioeconomic status more important than your skin tone? Though I am half hispanic, I look and am generally treated as if I'm white. I acknowledge that that is an advantage in this country, but my skin tone still doesn't make me more successful or smart than the president. I believe having it this way could help disadvantaged minorities without having to resort to racial discrimination. I consider myself a liberal person, but this is one issue where I am not sure I agree with most liberals on. I am very conflicted on this issue, so I'd like to see if anyone can  or not.\n","conclusion":"I think affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic status, not race.\n","id":"75b473e5-6081-4fa1-857f-79a9a5552b1c"}
{"argument":"Aaron Lawrence. \"Why a Needle-Exchange Program is a Bad Idea\". Record. August 26, 2005: \"Addicts still are prone to death, perhaps not from HIV, but from overdose, collapsed veins, poisoned dope, or the violence and criminality that go along with the illicit drug trade.\"\n","conclusion":"Needle exchanges don't save lives; cause drug-related deaths\n","id":"3a0ead8a-d5ef-44d6-90d6-e71d27509654"}
{"argument":"The schools are teaching kids learned helplessness. It only causes the true victims of the school to suffer at the hands of administration. The current Stop Bullying campaign is propaganda to keep kids from recognizing themselves as autonomous beings and is a key reason why there are more school shootings. When you back an animal into a corner, it will strike with full force. That is what the school system and laws in place do. I also believe the laws in place are turning kids into people who can't solve problems on their own.\n","conclusion":"The \"Stop Bullying\" campaign is total bullshit. The best thing we can do is let kids defend themselves.\n","id":"fd8990f9-77e9-4fa9-915c-860e956c7fb3"}
{"argument":"With incendiary bombings of cities a moral line was crossed and the A-bomb did not make the US more immoral.\n","conclusion":"Once the massive killing starts within a war the method does not matter anymore.\n","id":"c014a9af-e197-4d03-b65e-dfd8fbe4f24e"}
{"argument":"The fact that the United States has a two party political system doesn\u2019t make any sense. It implies that all politics is a binary, which is hardly ever the case. If someone is very wealthy, they will be more inclined to vote Republican because of the fiscal stance that Republicans take. But, by voting Republican, that person will also be siding with anti abortion ideals, anti LGBT ideals, etc. If someone is very socially liberal, they will be more inclined to vote Democratic, but they will also be siding with big government ideals. By an extension, these unnecessary labels we give ourselves drastically affect our social standing. Many Republicans refuse to socialize with Democrats, and many Democrats refuse to socialize with Republicans, each side claiming that the other is ignorant or uneducated. By creating these labels, we have effectively ruined the original goal of America to be a \u2018melting pot\u2019 of cultures where anyone can succeed and be happy. These labels have essentially distorted our views of others and made us less sociable and tolerant. Unless we as a society collectively acknowledge this and are willing to change it, the state of the country will continue to decline until we hit rock bottom.\n","conclusion":"The way that US politics currently exist is ineffective and, to an extent, harmful.\n","id":"45438a69-4e49-4a7c-b98d-3711ad28d828"}
{"argument":"Keep in mind, I'm not scientist I'm 17 . I won't be able to back this up with a highly scientific argument. I think that our feelings are just our brains experiencing the chemicals they create. I don't believe in a soul or a spirit. Eventually science may be able to plot and explain even the most detailed reactions and experiences in the brain although this would be a massive task that may never be done . When meteorologists predict the weather, sometimes they are wrong. This is because they do not account for every single variable of the weather or because they don't understand the weather's reactions with ultimate precision. I think that if every possible variable were accounted for, the weather would be 100 predictable. I think the brain is like a much more complex version of the weather. If all the math and variables of the brain every cell, everything that makes up the cell, etc. were understood, it would be 100 predictable. I think that everything humans experience feelings, memories, physical pain, and everything else are natural mechanisms of the brain and do not necessitate a soul. Change my view\n","conclusion":"all life feelings, consciousness, etc. is reducible to chemicals and math in the brain\n","id":"01766120-cab5-4001-a139-a7a128f99285"}
{"argument":"Ok, It's one thing to watch it, but it's another to defend it and claim that it's secretly made for grown men because it's not. If it's on Disney, Nick or CN, then it's without a doubt made for kids. Idc if you watch it, it's probably best if you keep that to yourself, cause you know, it's weird to brag about your fandom of it. If you disagree, then please, change my view.\n","conclusion":"Grown adults who watch shows made for kids 13 and under are just as weird as 'bronies.\"\n","id":"c4fca0f7-55d0-4b78-ac71-667a447ced37"}
{"argument":"The richest 1 own over 40 of Americas wealth while the poorest Americans own almost nothing. The bottom 80 of Americans own only 7 of the wealth and are being crushed by this grotesque level of income inequality. If the rich were taxed much more, it would solve almost all of our major problems that both the poor and the middle class face and grant us services like universal healthcare, a childcare program, expanded social security, free college, student loan debt forgiveness, etc. The only reason why taxes aren't higher on the rich is because republicans AND democrats are the ones being bought off by the 1 to help protect their pockets instead of helping the poor. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"We need to raise taxes on the richest 1%\n","id":"1fa09de0-e891-4052-85d7-a47fe154f293"}
{"argument":"This includes everything from full blown relationship to a guy having sex with a set of twins or mother daughter combo. As far as I can tell, for an incestuous relationship to form there is almost a requirement for one of the members to be abused, usually the younger member at the hands of the older member. This means that incest is a symptom of a larger problem, and if that larger problem were properly rectified then those involved would not want to be a part of the relationship any longer. I also believe that there is a sort of mental trigger that prevents a developing mind from seeing family members in a sexual light, but I do not know if that is a verifiable fact. The only instance I can possibly think of where this does not apply is if those involved were unaware that they were related.\n","conclusion":"I believe that there is no instance where incest is an acceptable option, either in terms of health or morals.\n","id":"0dbc76e9-d55c-4dff-8033-19b502fe4f36"}
{"argument":"This debate has come up a lot amongst my friends. Some people swear the guy has a great voice. I say his voice is at the \u201cprobably the best singer in the car for a road trip\u201d level. I know, ultimately it a subjective matter of personal preference. It just seems that I\u2019ve heard quite a few better singers not make it to the radio, that can sing better than him. With that being said, all of his movies are gold, and the hangover movies are among the most funny ever made. again, I know it subjective But mostly I\u2019m just wondering what other people think. Do you think he has a good voice? Do you think it\u2019s good enough to have gotten him on the radio without previous fame? My current opinion is no, but I\u2019d love to hear what you all think. Edit 1 I want to make clear that I\u2019m only talking about his vocal talent, and in a way, i almost regret making the post because i don\u2019t like saying negative things about the guy. He\u2019s an incredibly talented actor and a really good person that is involved with a lot of charities. I met him while he was visiting wounded warriors at a military hospital, and he really is the nicest guy.\n","conclusion":"if Bradley cooper wasn\u2019t already famous, he wouldn\u2019t be on the radio.\n","id":"2c3c6f00-76a0-4dd2-af7d-e620cf95c676"}
{"argument":"Millions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away.1 Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: \u201cCoca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.\u201d2 Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest.3 When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining.4 The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West, but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic.5 Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding its illegal use in cocaine. 1 Morales, Evo. \u201cLet Me Chew My Coca Leaves\u201d. New York Times. March 13, 2009. 2 Forero, Juan. \u201cBolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca\u201d. New York Times. February 12, 2006. 3 Forero, Juan. \u201cBolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca\u201d. New York Times. February 12, 2006. 4 Transnational Institute Debate Papers. \u201cCoca yes, cocaine, no?\u201d. Transnational Institute. No. 2006\/2. No. 13. May 2006. 5 Transnational Institute Debate Papers. \u201cCoca yes, cocaine, no?\u201d. Transnational Institute. No. 2006\/2. No. 13. May 2006.\n","conclusion":"Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states\n","id":"99ff39cf-0d32-46cc-9817-088be3c0d037"}
{"argument":"The responsibility for citizens' well-being requires governmental intervention, which is contrary to the provision of personal autonomy. In liberal democracies the protection of personal freedom and self-determination is of utmost importance.\n","conclusion":"When someone commits suicide, they hurt no one else. Therefore, the state has no right to stop individuals from choosing to do so.\n","id":"f9ee9107-1bd2-4ccf-b374-47e9e203e474"}
{"argument":"The earth has been around much longer than humans, and thousands of species of animals have existed before us. Therefore, they should be valued over humans.\n","conclusion":"Animals can survive without humans, whereas humans require animals to survive.\n","id":"31942c34-09f6-4f09-a11e-7aad53b076e8"}
{"argument":"Puff's current main weakness is her fall speed, as it makes her die off the top blastzone early, mainly to Fox. Without this weakness, Puff would be better than Fox, Marth, Falco, or any other character due to high aerial mobility, having rest setups at low percents, aerial moves comboing at mid percent and killing at high percent, and good matchups against every floaty character. That's a good summary of my reasons, but let's get a little more in depth. So, why is Jigglypuff NOT the best currently? In the current NTSC and PAL tier lists, Jigglypuff is ranked 5th and 4th respectively, being under Fox, Falco, and Marth, and Sheik in the NTSC tier list. If we look at the matchups for every character ranked above her, you can see that they all have better matchups against Fox, with Marth and Falco going even against Fox. In the 2015 MIOM top 100 player rankings, Fox had twice as many players as the runner up, Sheik so having a good Fox matchup is a necessity for a character to be good, and Jigglypuff's worst matchup is by far against Fox. Why does Jigglypuff lose to Fox? The main reason for this is that Jigglypuff is a floaty character, who die off the top at lower percents, and Fox has the best, most consistent ways to kill off the top blastzone in the entire game. Fastfallers on the other hand can survive off the top until very high percents. If Jigglypuff was a fastfaller she would be able to live to much higher percents. With all this in mind, I believe Jigglypuff would be the best character in the game if she was a fastfaller.\n","conclusion":"Jigglypuff would be the best character in Super Smash Bros Melee for the Nintendo Gamecube if she was a fastfaller.\n","id":"d3a90862-dea4-42cd-b143-d7d5cc531008"}
{"argument":"The Wizengamot was presided over by the Minister for Magic - the head of the executive branch of government - in the 1995 trial of Harry Potter.\n","conclusion":"The Minister for Magic chairs the Wizengamot to pass Wizarding Laws, or to hear important trials.\n","id":"43c6846f-3477-4d5d-aa08-7cc85cb385d6"}
{"argument":"One of the things that frustrates me the most when I talk to Republicans is their argument for states' rights. They always say, States function as an experimental testing ground for ideas. If they work, we can implement them on a larger scale, and we can do away with the ideas that fail. But when I ask why we can't model legislation after things that most European countries do, they generally respond, Those countries are too small the ideas will never scale up to the size of the US. While I understand that European nations operate in a vastly different economic climate than our own, why is it so outlandish to consider their ideas as valid on our national level? Shouldn't they be given more weight than an idea that worked in one state or a few states? I feel like it's just a convenient excuse to avoid conceding that higher taxes don't destroy the economic well being of a nation. Edit got busy at work, I'll try to respond to everyone soon Good discussion so far Edit 2 back in action\n","conclusion":"if you think testing a legislative idea at the state level is sufficient, it is outlandish to disavow legislative ideas tested at the national level in other countries\n","id":"3760245d-d54a-4bc7-90c3-1fa96aa3bccc"}
{"argument":"Now, I don't think it is wrong in all cases, as I think it should be restricted to if it damages your health physical or mental EDIT as diagnosed by a professional . I am talking about abortions out of convenience. By how I see it, babies are, biologically speaking, seperate organisms due to the fact that they have their own unique DNA, making them individual humans. They are also very much alive. With this said, I don't see how you can justify killing another human being. I understand the whole sentience argument, but that doesn't have a firm boundary. How can you tell when something has sentience before it can communicate? Is it really worth the risk to kill while said child may have sentience and feelings, even if barely? After all, it takes time for the brain to develop, so does that justify killing your child?\n","conclusion":"I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases\n","id":"d272e3bc-9686-421b-a115-535a3790d305"}
{"argument":"Just to be clear, when I say animals I am referring to non human, non plant, non bacterial creatures. Whenever we want to test a new type of drug, use dissection in education, or simply research an idea experimentation on animals is conducted first before we even think about human trials, especially when the results could be fatal. Essentially this means that we hold human life to be of far more value than animal life, but I think that it should be the same. So, I think that if it is acceptable to harm animals then it should also apply to humans. Of course the opposite also holds true Our current views is that it is acceptable to kill an animal to save a human life, but downright unacceptable to kill a human to save an animal. Why must human life be more valuable than animal life? Fundamentally speaking, we are the same as every other animal on this planet. For example, we sometimes test on monkeys but yet they are 98 genetically similar to us. Even considering other animals like mice, it's not as if we are made from completely different DNA. Although you can say humans are intelligent, why should that make a difference in terms of value of life? Taking two people, one being mentally retarded and the other being an absolute genius, we still consider the two lives to be somewhat equal in value despite the vast difference in intelligence. I hate how people think that we separate from above nature when in fact we are part of it. My argument also extends to animals like insects. People kill them out of fear, annoyance, and convenience. If we take those same attributes to humans, why is then suddenly unacceptable to kill? For example, if I'm ethically allowed to kill a bug because I find it annoying then I should also be ethically allowed to kill a person if they are annoying to me. I understand that biologically speaking we are hardwired to look after each other of the same species but now that we have grown into a civilization, that argument is invalid. We have the power to control our biological urges to a degree. I also understand that if someone, who I have no personal connection with, has to rescue either me or a bug from the same threat, I would still urge that person to rescue me over the bug. This is because I am looking after my own safety and survival. However from the perspective of the rescuer, it doesn't ethically matter who is saved and who is left to die. Trying to change my view through a legal point of view won't work, my argument is based on ethics. And if you are wondering, yes I am vegetarian. EDIT I haven't had much of a chance to read your arguments over the past day or two but I will read every post and respond whenever I have some time here and there\n","conclusion":"Animal life should hold the same value as human life\n","id":"fa54d083-9c69-4c60-862d-f833eecc9962"}
{"argument":"I honestly think that desserts and candy shouldn't be an accepted part of our society anymore than drugs and alcohol. They have low nutritional value, they contribute to obesity, and they are addicting. People give out sweets to children without any care for how this might effect the child throughout their lives. We have people fattening up their kids like they're the Gingerbread Hag or something. Now that I'm a parent I have to constantly fight to stop people from feeding my kids junk food and they have the audacity to get upset at me for not allowing my kids to drink a bottle of pop I don't keep sweets of any sort in my house and my children are better for it. I get it, you're a grown adult and can make your own decisions, but also we pay extra taxes on things which have negative societal effects, like cigs and alcohol. So why should these harmful substances be exempted? I believe people should have the freedom to choose to use these things if they want to. I don't believe it should be acceptable for them to be given to children. Arguing that it would be impossible to enforce this tax won't change my view. All taxes have loopholes so this isn't a valid critique. We can continue to adjust the laws to cover any gaping holes which are being abused.\n","conclusion":"Desserts and candy are terrible and should be taxed like cigarettes and alcohol.\n","id":"1afdef85-1390-4ec8-b4a3-ffcd5b3155f9"}
{"argument":"The Chief Justice of the Indian Supreme Court was accused of sexual harassment in April 2019, through a #MeToo confession.\n","conclusion":"Courts and other institutions in India have had several accusations of sexism levelled against them.\n","id":"5885367e-2c6c-4673-a90f-5fccebce22d4"}
{"argument":"Rigid protection of patents has made the costs of technology transfer unbearable for countries in the Global South depriving them from affordable medicines.\n","conclusion":"Global trade rules put in place by Western nations over the past decades have disproportionately disadvantaged the Global South.\n","id":"dd83e852-b834-4b03-81a7-a33858b4f0b4"}
{"argument":"Transgender women also face discrimination in sport, and often lose the right to compete in preferred gender category.\n","conclusion":"Social transitioning does not always give a person the rights and freedoms guaranteed to their affirmed gender.\n","id":"92c7070a-1e42-4b1f-ac00-b95c60ddf761"}
{"argument":"The majority of the populace in Greece, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and the Czech Republic do not support funding for the country's dominant church or other religious groups.\n","conclusion":"A majority of people in liberal democracies do not want the state to fund religious organisations; governments should respect their wishes.\n","id":"1b78925f-78ea-4c01-b0de-fc4052f6792c"}
{"argument":"An arbitrary year cut off makes sense if everyone is employed regularly at the same career their whole working lives, making incremental increases in salary from raises and cost of living adjustments. But we know that many people today go through feast or famine, and or jump around from job to job. Wouldn't the tax code be more fair if it took this into account? I'll give two hypotheticals based solely on the US federal income tax to illustrate what I mean. Imagine Carol and Fred. Both got out of high school at the same time and and have no debts, both are single with no dependents, they rent, they have no capital gains or losses, have nothing to amortize, they both put down one exemption on their W4, etc. Neither will be self employed they will earn money, they will be taxed at 2013 rates for the sake of these hypotheticals with a 6000 personal deduction, which they both will take as opposed to itemizing. The examples below take into account that for 2013, everyone pays 10 on taxable income up to 8,925, then everyone pays 15 on taxable income from 8,926 to 36,250, etc. Example 1 Carol works one year making 105,000 but then is unemployed for the next six years. She pays 30,946 in federal income tax for that seven year period all for the first year . Now Fred is employed that whole time, making 15,000 a year. He pays 8,647 in federal income tax over that seven year period. Both Fred and Carol have earned the same amount of money over a seven year period , but Carol pays 22,299 more than Fred in federal income tax. Now for a more common scenario. Example 2 Both Carol and Fred have been hired for the same 12 month job. Both work for Widget Co. at a salary of 10,000 a month for 12 months. Carol starts her job on January 1, 2013 whereas Fred starts his on July 1, 2013. Both work for 12 months, both gross 120,000 over that two year period. Neither has another job during that two year period. Carol would pay 35,146 in taxes over that two year period, whereas Fred would pay 23,068 \u2014 both on the exact same earnings . Carol pays 11,078 more than Fred because her 12 months of earnings fell into a single calendar year whereas Fred\u2019s fell half in one year, half in another year. I understand that there are things that individuals can write off over time, like mortgage interest, student loan interest, losses on investments, etc. I understand having to collect taxes on a regular basis so I'm not advocating that we only file taxes every few years. However, if corporations can write off losses against earnings over several years, shouldn\u2019t individuals be able to average out income over a similar period, to make adjustments after periods of unemployment? Corporate profits \u2260 personal income, but the principle by which the tax code allows corporations to carry over losses is, in part, that a single year isn't necessarily reflective of the nature of business. Similarly, I'd argue that especially today for many people, a single year isn't reflective of the nature of employment and isn't always a fair way to be taxed. .\n","conclusion":"The individual federal income tax in the United States should account for the changing nature of work and not be fixed upon a single calendar year.\n","id":"411bdf1d-dd5f-44d8-a41b-bd97d9023e2d"}
{"argument":"I think that if we had used less powerful weapons and they surrendered they might of attacked agoan\n","conclusion":"The U.S. had to use nuclear weapons to achieve its goal of Japan unconditionally surrendering.\n","id":"b62e4a5c-0635-4d02-8549-b64747031769"}
{"argument":"Transhumanism has the potential to rob man of some of the essential human experiences; such as growth through struggle and the sense of individuality by knowing ones personal strengths and weaknesses.\n","conclusion":"Human interaction partially gets lost in transhumanism, where people are not interacting with \"humans\" anymore, but humans + something else.\n","id":"4c37ed39-1c7e-4963-adca-2d06bcc7e173"}
{"argument":"Definitions Background A traditional bridal party is one in which the bride asks several of her female closest supposedly friends or family members to be bridesmaids during her wedding. Typically this includes the following assumptions read costs the bridesmaids will buy their own dresses and shoes, the bridesmaids will be expected to spend all morning getting ready with the bride on the day of the wedding, either the bride or the bridesmaids will pay for the bridesmaid's hair and makeup to be professionally done, the bridesmaids will attend and pay for the bachelorette party which may include travel costs for the bridesmaids, the bridesmaids will attend the bridal party and buy a separate gift for that in addition to the wedding gift, and the bridesmaids must of course attend the actual wedding which may include travel costs for the bridesmaids. I was motivated to post this  after reading the following statistic from this article today experts estimate it can cost each member of the bridal party roughly 1,500 to 1,800 per wedding. Since people tend to get married in their 20s and 30s, and friends who are members of the same friend group tend to get married around the same age as each other, it's not uncommon for a young woman to be asked to be in several weddings within several years. From the same article Bridesmaid Taryn Frawley, of New York City, knows that all too well, as she\u2019s spent around 30,000 on six different weddings. Stephanie Ramos, a radio producer and seasoned bridesmaid from New Jersey, has shelled out roughly 6,000 total on five weddings. Larissa Crnkovich of Pittsburgh says she\u2019s the real life version of Katherine Heigl\u2019s character in the movie \u201c27 Dresses,\u201d purchasing 16 bridesmaid dresses in 16 years totaling \u201cprobably about 16,000, so about 1,000 per wedding. Edit new additional source on average costs of being a bridesmaid gt After adding up the cost of the dress, accessories, travel expenses, wedding gifts and more, WeddingChannel.com found that it costs about 1,695 to be a bridesmaid. The estimate was based on a 2010 Real Weddings study that surveyed more than 20,000 brides nationwide . link Arguments Well, first, that's an insane amount of money to expect your friends to pay just because you're getting married I mean that's my main argument it's just too much money to expect your friends to shell out. Second, there is no actual function of the bridesmaids. They don't help plan the wedding nor help orchestrate the wedding on the wedding day. They are there for moral support for the bride as the bride gets ready, and that is something I'm okay with read more in the Exceptions section below , but that doesn't necessitate a traditional bridesmaid. That could just be a friend and or relative who hangs out with the bride without being a traditional bridesmaid. So really, the only point of having bridesmaids is using them as decoration during your wedding ceremony. Asking your closest friends to shell out 1,500 1,800 to be your freaking decoration during your ceremony is incredibly rude and arrogant and self centered. This is especially true when the bride dictates what dress color and style the bridesmaids wear, so that the bridesmaids often aren't wearing a dress they feel comfortable in, but instead just whatever the bride wants. The bride dictates the bridesmaids' hair and makeup too, so that a woman who wears little to no makeup is going to be done up way beyond her comfort level, and even women who wear a ton of makeup are going to be styled according to the bride's style and not their own. I think it goes without saying that using your friends as decoration, forcing them to cater to your demands regarding their own appearance, and asking them to spend 1,500 1,800 on you is rude. These are your closest friends and family members they should be enjoying your wedding and special day with you not designated as your servant decorations for the day. Conditions Exceptions I do like the idea of having your closest friends hang out with you while you get ready before your wedding. I just don't think you need to have a traditional bridal party to do that. Also, some women and all of their friends who would be asked to be part of the bridal party love this kinda stuff. Some women and all of their friends are wealthy and the cost doesn't make them think twice. So if you are a bride to be and your five closest friends who you want to be your bridesmaids are all very wealthy and you know for a fact that they'd drop 1,500 on your wedding without batting an eye, and they talk about wedding stuff like this all the time, then it's not rude to ask them to participate in something you know they want to and you know they can afford. Finally, I'm of course speaking about the women's side of bridal parties only. The man's side of the bridal party has less expectations. Going to the bachelor party, renting a tux for only a couple hundred bucks, no hair and makeup requirements, and going to the wedding.\n","conclusion":"Having a \"traditional\" bridal party defined inside and asking your friends\/family to be your bridesmaids is rude.\n","id":"1b51d03f-75a5-4192-b8ac-9b5810033524"}
{"argument":"Classic is very sandboxy and as a new player you are thrown into the world and have to find your way around.\n","conclusion":"WoW Retail is better suited for new, inexperienced, older and casual gamers.\n","id":"5d52a956-5c6e-401c-a1e3-18c4ae55a469"}
{"argument":"I follow college basketball, and it seems that whenever a player gets in foul trouble early say 2 fouls in the first 10 mins or 3 fouls in the first half coaches will bench that player in order to prevent them from fouling out. If the point is to have the best players on the floor for as much time as possible, this makes no sense to me. Say you sit a player with 3 fouls for the last 5 minutes of the first half, and then that player ends the game with only 4 fouls. Conventional thinking holds that the coach succeeded by keeping him available until the end of the game, but didn't he essentially waste 5 minutes of play time?\n","conclusion":"Basketball coaches shouldn't sit players in foul trouble\n","id":"f2fa9d4e-aa37-433e-9a80-5df9df62fdd9"}
{"argument":"The rate of return on national debt through mechanisms like bonds, is calculated by forecasting the expected interest rate over that period of time, and paying the same value is back.\n","conclusion":"It costs as much to pay the interest forever as it does to pay it off.\n","id":"82c6fd43-e047-443a-a7e0-16621aa98007"}
{"argument":"Justice-based feminism is good not just for women, but also any marginalized group, because it focuses on ways to expose one-way power dynamics.\n","conclusion":"Feminism helps to create a more equal society for all of its members, not just for women.\n","id":"f6fde188-7487-4d1e-8835-e4ac28abb452"}
{"argument":"A study found that women who refused leadership roles did so because the long hours and added work load would conflict with their desire for a more balanced life. This reinforces the claim that the innate differences between men and women, and how these differences lead to different life choices, can account for the lack of gender parity in leadership roles.\n","conclusion":"The lack of women in leadership roles can be attributed to women making different life choices than men. For example, it was revealed in a published editorial that women desire to embrace their role as child-bearers rather than choosing to work in a leadership role.\n","id":"08eb3cbe-8999-481f-b1a7-82d43bce0e73"}
{"argument":"EDIT Okay I messed up by throwing scientific at the end of my statement. Scientific is an extremely broad category. I should have just left it at biological. Time to make it rain deltas. Points to consider 1 Race is almost exclusively based off of skin color which is a spectrum void of definitive boundaries. 2 Racial categories are arbitrary segments of the skin color spectrum. 3 There is the same or more genetic variation within racial categories than between racial categories. in other words similar skin color doesn't necessarily mean similar genetics. 4 If a persons race cannot be determined by their skin color alone, it is determined by their ancestry. However, all humans share a common ancestry that leads back to Africa, thus eliminating biological ancestry as a basis for separation into arbitrary racial categories. 5 There are documented cases of twins being born with different skin color that would place each of them in different races. Terms defined Race Categories such as White, Black, Latino Latina, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native. Skin color based in biology measured by the amount of melanin in the skin. Questions to consider Is race determined by the color of your skin? What if you have light colored skin but you are Brazilian? Are you white? Is it determined by your ancestry? What if your great grandparents are Irish, your great great great grandparents are Chinese and your mom is Jamaican and your dad is French? Is it determined by where you were born? What if you are white but born in China? Are you Chinese? Is it determined by other phenotypic features? What if you have epicanthic eye folds and dark skin? Are you black or Asian? Is it determined by your parents genetics? What if one parent is black and one is white and you are born with dark skin? Are you black? What if you had lighter skin? Are you still black? What if both your parents are white but you have dark skin? Are you white? At first, racial categories derive their boundaries from skin color. White and black are, not literally but for all intents and purposes, the only colors used in the racial categorization system. Latino, Asian and Pacific Islander are not skin colors. They are racial categories based off of geographic locations and relatively recent genetic ancestry. Essentially, my view is that race , as it is used in western society, specifically the US, is a social construct that has too many inconsistencies and subjectivity to be considered biological or even scientific.\n","conclusion":"Race is a social construct that has too many inconsistencies and too much subjectivity to be considered biological or even scientific.\n","id":"88a97479-656e-4d53-bbc2-25e0a5b136db"}
{"argument":"\"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide?\" - Edmund Burke father of Conservatism in the English-speaking world.\n","conclusion":"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.\n","id":"61fae827-ab04-418f-9e35-272b61b848ba"}
{"argument":"Not everyone needs a job, so companies and governments might create work opportunities that go unfilled, which wastes both time and productivity.\n","conclusion":"Some or all of the jobs are unnecessary, so it would be wasteful to keep them around.\n","id":"d1aaf3ca-9d54-4b9a-a2ce-32a5202dfee8"}
{"argument":"Model and body-positive activist Ashley Graham used social media as a way to reach out to women and build her profile after years of being rejected by mainstream modelling agencies.\n","conclusion":"Social media is often credited with starting and facilitating the body positive movement.\n","id":"061f5213-765d-4751-9e20-429e1dc4b637"}
{"argument":"I work for a school photography company, and around this time of year I'm usually dispatched to graduations to take pictures of people receiving their diplomas. Now, every so often at graduations we have to take the picture of someone with a severe mental disability. I'm not talking about someone who is just a little slower than normal I'm talking about people who are confined to a wheelchair and have the mental capacity of a two year old. These kinds of people likely don't even understand the concept of graduation I had one person try to eat his diploma. We have to use all these tricks to make them look at the camera, like whistling, snapping, etc., and even then it hardly ever comes out as a good picture. My view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society. Those without diplomas or equivalent i.e. dropouts are shunned and excluded from society denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly. Those with severe mental disabilities were physically unable to take many of the same classes as the majority of people who graduated, and so I believe they should not be entitled to the same diploma. I'm usually a pretty liberal guy, but this issue has always bugged me because it is cognitively dissonant from the rest of my beliefs. I believe we should still take care of these people, but if they are unable to function properly I don't think we should give them the certification that says they are a functioning member of society.\n","conclusion":"I don't believe people with severe mental disabilities should graduate. Please, please\n","id":"56c5c9d5-7e00-4aa2-988a-73646d7adcb6"}
{"argument":"Many people think that a spouse having more money is a good thing. Of course, money isn't the only factor that matters when it comes to choosing a date, but they should hence at least try to connect with the rich as you may be lucky enough to find someone compatible. While it makes sense for the rich to date up or at least date other rich people, they may choose to date you as you have other desirable characteristics such as being attractive, having a really cool personality, or maybe you just happen to be really compatible with that person. There have been celebrities from working class backgrounds who have succeeded in this way. Even though they are not rich, they have a pretty face and a charismatic personality which are seen as extremely desirable. Of course, the rich tend to hang out in areas and places where most people cannot afford such as golf clubs. However, they do sometimes hang out in other areas which are not that expensive. Rich people tend to hang out in certain areas, so maybe you can have classes in those areas in an attempt to meet rich people. Examples include attending classes and events in those areas. Apparently Kate Middleton met Prince William at uni. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"If you think that having a rich spouse is desirable, you should try to connect with the social circles of the rich as you may be lucky enough to find someone compatiable\n","id":"d514437d-7b01-4464-a724-7f0b5bb1ab2b"}
{"argument":"The wish for privacy alone should not be read as an admission of guilt or somehow make one suspicious.\n","conclusion":"One can have a clear conscience and still be entitled to exercise their right to data privacy.\n","id":"f3999b03-ad71-4d67-a5a9-c375ea85fe07"}
{"argument":"Old Nan's children's tales about the Long Night the initial war between the White Walkers and humans and the ancient history of Westeros are actually surprisingly accurate. The prophecy of the Prince is a similar story about the history of the Long Night; it is therefore plausibly also true.\n","conclusion":"A recurrent theme of Game of Thrones is that supposed \"myths\" which are dismissed by most characters turn out to be true.\n","id":"6431c349-045d-4b17-9d15-020f53e8568d"}
{"argument":"I don't believe cutting is bad, or dangerous. I cut, and I don't believe there is a problem with what I do. I cut for many reasons, and none of them are dangerous. These reasons include Release of negative emotion Control A means of showing that if I tell myself to do something, no matter how painful, that I can do it Self punishment Adrenaline General Feel good I feel like cutting is a method of purging negative emotions that is no more detrimental than going to the bar after a long hard day and having a few beers, so things don't feel so bad. It seems as though cutting is shamed and viewed as a disease because it's ugly. Because it leaves scars that show that you have, in the past, not been OK. It bothers me that because cutting is ugly, and not socially acceptable, it is considered dangerous and problematic , a sign of an underlying issue. But I don't think cutting is any worse than people who sky dive, or boulder for adrenaline rushes, or people who smoke, or people who go for long, exhausting work outs to relieve stress. You don't see people telling them to go to therapy, or insinuating that they have some sort of mental disorder that there's something wrong with them. It's just a method of blowing off steam and we all have different ways of doing it. It works for me and it makes me feel good. A lot of why I cut is as a reminder to be a better person. Sort of an ithinkimightbecrazy, you did this bad thing, and that was bad. In the future, you will see these scars and you will remember this pain and you will remember not to do this bad thing in the future. Does this sound crazy? I don't think so. I regulate my behavior much the way parents who use the spanking reward method with their children which I don't disagree with, obviously . It makes me a better person, and I feel good doing it I don't see any problems. Unfortunately, my boyfriend lies on the complete opposite side of this issue, and it's become more and more of a problem in our relationship. I think I should be allowed to continue, because, well, I enjoy it. And it's not hurting anyone. He thinks there's something wrong, that I need to see a therapist he's very upset when I do it, and says it hurts him. I don't see why it should It has nothing to do with him Please help me  Help me see why society is so opposed to cutting Because I genuinely don't get it\n","conclusion":"I Don't Believe Cutting is Bad. Can Someone ?\n","id":"3cf48471-87d7-4aec-802e-72b9d79ff79b"}
{"argument":"The All India Network of Sex Workers helps sex workers engage in HIV intervention programs.\n","conclusion":"It becomes easier for outside support organisations to help sex workers with their problems.\n","id":"cde63754-75d8-472d-ac4a-f3ce27684ada"}
{"argument":"According to Joseph Smith's neighbor Peter Ingersoll, Smith confided in him that when he brought home a frock containing what he said were the golden plates the frock actually contained several quarts of white sand. Howe, 1834, pp. 235-36\n","conclusion":"On at least some occasions, Joseph Smith intentionally represented a box or cloth wrapping as containing the golden plates when it did not actually contain the plates.\n","id":"9cfc5ed2-cf25-4644-b4d7-977fa545cc5c"}
{"argument":"I have felt that way for a long time, and I think it's about time that I post it. There are things that are supposed to be beneficial, but actually have harmful side effects, such as driving in cars, power plants, texting, industry, the Internet, etc. However, I feel like all of these items are a necessary evil, and until humans can come up with a compromise that won't cause any harm, we should continue to do these things anyway for our own good. Take driving in a car, for example. It is a scientifically known fact that driving in a car can increase blood sugar, cholesterol, risk of depression, anxiety, blood pressure, and back aches, while also decreasing happiness, sleep, and physical activity. However, I don't think that people should take that as a warning to not drive at all, because driving in a car has benefits, too. Cars and roads allow easier access between cities. In fact, cars allowed American cities to grow. People were no longer required to live within walking distance of their job, and thus, suburbs could be built farther and farther away from downtown. Plus, if all vehicles on Earth were taken away, we would also suffer in some ways. How would people get from point A to point B without driving a car? How would cargo be transported to industries? How would people travel to the other side of the world in just 24 hours? Until humanity can come up with a mode of transportation that will get rid of all the side effects of driving, I believe that people should still use cars regardless of the side effects. I am not saying that I support the harmful effects that pollution has on the environment or that I support humans sitting too long. It is a known and proven fact that carbon dioxide emissions is causing worldwide temperatures to rise and destroy many ecosystems. However, as I said before, as bad as, say, power plants might be, I feel like they are a necessary evil, because they come with benefits as well. If every single power plant on Earth disappeared, then it would be much harder to survive than with electricity. The same thing could be said with a lot of other things deemed harmful. Even though deforestation is wrong, it is still a necessary evil. How will there be cities if humans were not allowed to cut down a single tree? How will humans get building materials for their homes? If humans were not allowed to cut down a single tree, there be even less space to live on Earth than before. Overall, I feel like that as bad as power plants, texting, and driving are, I also feel like humanity would also suffer if these things were taken away from us. It is a necessary evil that humans rely on to survive. Until humanity can come up with a solution to everything, I believe that humanity must continue to use these things, regardless of the harmful side effects. I know this is a irrational opinion, and that is the reason why I posted this to the subreddit. I also could not find any proof against my opinion. With that being said, change my view gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"While there are things that people do that both are beneficial in some ways and have harmful side effects, we must do these things for our own good.\n","id":"851e5f03-fb1c-4f8d-95e6-854dba0e6051"}
{"argument":"Professor Qourshah was detained for 3 months in 2016 due to a video in which he criticized the participation of Jordan in the international coalition against the Islamic State as being part of the US agenda, which, in his opinion, was forcing Arab States to fight a war that is not theirs.\n","conclusion":"In 2014 the Jordanian counterterrorism law was further broadened to include nonviolent acts, in an attempt to legitimize the government\u2019s crackdown on peaceful expression and assembly. This led to many journalists, political opponents, freedom of expression advocates and human rights defenders to be put on trial under the pretext of \u201cterrorism\u201d.\n","id":"1f40cdc6-22cc-4579-853a-bb919962c884"}
{"argument":"Richard Sipe conducted a study of US celibate Catholic clerics 1960 to 1985, and found that half of all priests and brothers were sexually active at any particular time. Masturbation was the most frequent sexual activity, followed by affairs with women, sex with male companions, and Internet pornography.\n","conclusion":"Sexual abstinence is not per se unhealthy but it can be psychologically harmful when an individual wishes to have sex and does not, according to researchers.\n","id":"14d6734a-c0b0-4546-bcb4-ea5c46dc1b5d"}
{"argument":"Saddam Hussein's brutal regime did pose a threat to regional stability and to its own people. Whether he actually had weapons of mass destruction is irrelevant - he acted to obstruct and deceive inspectors and so was a general menace to international law and security.\n","conclusion":"The Iraq war was fully justified at the time of the decision based on the evidence.\n","id":"4113a5d7-56e2-4df9-9916-a11270339d5c"}
{"argument":"The unrealistically low success of the Storm Troopers throughout Star Wars is a part of the films' enjoyable fantasy: the viewer is transported to a world of which the powers of fate and destiny remain miraculously - fantastically - right and just.\n","conclusion":"The fact that the 'bad' side have an ultimately lower success rate and the 'good' side a higher one is, on the contrary, often a key ingredient in viewer satisfaction of any film.\n","id":"980c2a3e-3888-4236-bb98-331bb3c882cd"}
{"argument":"The independence of Argentina's judiciary continues to be dubious. It currently ranks 100th out of 137 countries in judicial independence WEF, 2017\n","conclusion":"Argentina's courts have faced many challenges to their independence.\n","id":"b455f80b-303b-46ce-ac7f-f0b9c3ac91e9"}
{"argument":"Before the introduction of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Newtonian Mechanics were generally accepted by the scientific community. This general acceptance is evidence of a kind of faith because it represents holding a belief about the laws of physics without access to missing information.\n","conclusion":"Faith does not imply religious faith exclusively. Faith is merely the acceptance of a proposition without verification or with faulty verification.\n","id":"a1bc3d2e-328a-4682-97e3-646a7e4979b4"}
{"argument":"Background I want to have an unbiased view but I cant because I am transgender. I was born as a male and now identify as female. I am 25 years old. I want an honest discussion so I will keep an open mind and I ask you do too. I have a degree in biology with an emphasis in genetics. I am also currently pursing a masters in the health field Though I would like to keep that private . Preface I can more technical but I'm keeping some terms and concepts simplified for the sake of being understood Part 1 of My View The human body is a complex machine. One that is usually able to preform limited self repairing action to prevent illness from forming, and to correct illness after it has formed. Some illness are impossible for the body to correct because the error happened in a time sensitive location. Once the body has moved past this location or phase a repair is impossible. There are fundamental steps that need to happen during gestation to develop from a reproductive cell, to a embryo, and finally into a fetus. These step are usually controlled through hormones or other signal factors. Some hormones are produced by the fetus, others usually the very early ones come from the mother. Some signal factors don't have to be hormones. There are also a number of environmental factors outside of the womb that can impact the fetus. Because the process of development is so complex and the study of it is very limited we do not know exactly when or where something would need to go wrong to causes transgender feelings. We know do that in some situations a hormone change can yield physical effects such as genital development, organ development like the heart or brain, or retardation There is vary rarely a single root cause to a illness. To develop a illness you have to have the following Have the susceptibility for the illness Be either directly or indirectly exposed to agent of the illness Virus, hormones fluctuation Environment factors influence existence of the agent, exposure or susceptibility. Without all three of those factors the illness doesn't happen. Part 2 of my view Psychology often has a bad reputation because we are still learning how the brain actually forms thoughts. It is important to remember that the brain is a physical, tangible object that can be affected by outside influence. We have mapped parts of the brain to correspond with a particular body location and sensory input. We also know that sensory input isn't equal through out the body. A relatively large amount of sensory input is seen from the genitals than say your back or neck. We do not yet know where the identity of self truly lies within the brain. More specifically we do not know where in the brain self sex image is or how an development factors effect the self sex image. My argument boils down to this During development a physical issue causes the brain to develop with an expectation of \u201cself\u201d. My hand are here, my feet are there, my lips move this way ect. In transgendered individuals the development of \u201cself\u201d is skewed or somehow altered. This results in a physical, but still unknown, brain defect that causes transgendered individuals to feel like we\u2019re in the \u201cwrong body\u201d. Critics of the social acceptance of transgenderism often say that transgender individuals are mutilating themselves and that transgendered individuals should simple try to ignore it get better. I\u2019m not speaking for all trans folk but I bet a good number of us would take a cure in a heartbeat being transgendered is extremely difficult and we endure many hardships . The problem is that we can\u2019t ignore it because it would be similar to ignoring an arm growing from my chest, or a leg that was too short. Yes we can adjust to it but it never goes away. Since I believe we have an illness that our current medical science cannot cure we are left with two options Live with the illness and ignore the symptoms of the illness to the best of our ability Treat the symptoms to improve quality of life. The only treatment currently shown to significantly increase the quality of life for transgendered individuals is to change physical body so that it matches the expections of our brain. We\u2019re not being cured, we\u2019re are being treated. I apologize for any mistakes in grammar or punctuation, punching this out on my phone is hard. Please change my view\n","conclusion":"I believe being transgender is a birth defect. That unfortunately has no cure so our best course of action to treat the symptoms by allowing people to transition.\n","id":"dcdaeec0-0ea1-4816-91a0-ed90eb5007b3"}
{"argument":"Being offered an affirmative action place can push students to attend a more reputable college, even if it isn't the best fit for them termed the 'quality-fit tradeoff\n","conclusion":"Affirmative action often puts the students it is intended to help in a position where academic failure is more likely than success.\n","id":"36a7e774-03cd-4a72-b86b-76374d370f82"}
{"argument":"The problem is social and not religious. In Egypt, until a few years ago, leaders laughed at the idea of women wearing burka.\n","conclusion":"Attitudes towards interpretations are influenced by the social and political context in which Muslims live.\n","id":"f698b42c-222f-4106-ab91-7092f5114ba2"}
{"argument":"Biology does not treat mother and fetus as one organism, but two separate and distinct human organisms While present in the mother's body, the fertilized egg is not part of the body and never becomes part of the mother's body. It travels through the fallopian tube entirely independent of the mother's nutrients until it attaches via placenta into the womb.\n","conclusion":"Biology textbooks are consistent that the lifecycle of a genetically distinct human organism begins at conception.\n","id":"5157dcf2-eee6-4ee5-9806-e3c5b642e4d9"}
{"argument":"God can not be proven by science which is the main way we study and understand our universe or natural world. There is no theory of God and there is no conclusive logical argument for the existence of God.\n","conclusion":"There are no clear and verifiable evidences that god exists.\n","id":"1f4c1614-ad7a-40fd-9aa3-5d0ad4b4f7b0"}
{"argument":"This is not referencing any specific ideology. I have seen the same behavior across the political spectrum. First of all, it is not particularly difficult to start a revolution. There is no guarantee that you will succeed, but I think the body counts racked up by school shooters has proven that the average person with no training can be extremely deadly with the appropriate weaponry. I can only imagine that a group of motivated, trained individuals would be significantly more effective. Any event that was revolutionary in nature and relatively successful, even if it resulted in negative consequences for the participants, would probably be very inspirational for future generations. And, even if you failed, wouldn\u2019t it be more intellectually honest than continuing to exist peacefully under the system you complain so much about? Even if violence were ruled out for whatever reason even though violent rhetoric is common with revolutionary groups , most revolutionary groups do not make any serious study of the methods by which power is maintained and acquired in our current system, nor do they attempt to acquire it through \u201cacceptable\u201d means. It seems that everywhere I go I encounter people who want to completely overhaul or destroy the current system, but none of them have any plan for actually doing so. A way to  would be to explain their thought process, or provide examples of revolutionaries doing more than giving speeches at college campuses.\n","conclusion":"Revolutionaries in most western countries do not actually want to start a revolution.\n","id":"6dcdb8e2-6ac1-4447-89e4-289def761c11"}
{"argument":"Propaganda-sites and fakenews-outlets, as well as plattforms such as facebook that merely recycle and present news are competition for traditional news-sites as well.\n","conclusion":"More websites than ever offer news and reporting, indicating that publishers believe the net to be a lucrative field of work.\n","id":"e04eeef4-1c9b-4714-87fb-c377aff64e6f"}
{"argument":"In fact, the EU as a union of countries is mandated to protect each country's borders.\n","conclusion":"It is not unto the EU to redraw national boundaries\n","id":"b8e9da0e-f4c7-42a2-878f-d402238477dc"}
{"argument":"Human-defined ethics cannot bring about world peace, undermining the point of ethics and thus, making all human-defined ethics arbitrary.\n","conclusion":"Because people wrote the rules, and people are not logical, the rules for getting in are illogical.\n","id":"83b8ef59-cf19-4792-b7b4-cec75a511d48"}
{"argument":"It's an extremely common occurrence that after using an app for a long time, the user discovers either by mistake, or by reading about it on some online forum some feature or shortcut that could have saved them a lot of time and effort had they known about it earlier. It seems like most apps rely on users in many cases people who have paid for usage of the app to either blindly stumble across these features, or to experiment by trying to tap long press swipe drag every single part of every screen of the app before starting to use it both of which are definitely not something that should be expected from most users. This isn't necessarily specific to mobile apps almost every piece of technology has features that aren't mentioned in the user's guide but it seems that numerous apps don't even care to show users how to access simple features. The obvious solution is that every app should include, in a location that is simple to find, a full guide to every single thing the app can do in every situation and Google and Apple should refuse to put apps in their respective stores unless they fill this minimum requirement. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Mobile apps should be forced to include a full guide to all of their features\n","id":"429af2bc-bae3-4d70-88cc-7401365b9a6a"}
{"argument":"The trend of British government is to devolve power closer to people whereas the EU's trend is the concentration of power. The latter is more authoritarian therefore.\n","conclusion":"A Scotland outside the UK would still not be independent as it might become a member of the EU.\n","id":"db042ea2-2cc6-4db7-9b22-3173a4ba8030"}
{"argument":"Megara's got weird pointy boobs Jasmine reminds me of a Kardashian and every other Instagram crazed girl who slathers 1 inch thick makeup over her face Mulan aight but not the hottest, it is pretty cool that she's so tough but Jane is still hotter Cinderella's a 5 10 Pocahontas has intimidating relatives Tiana's pretty but not SUPER pretty Moana's, what, 14? You sick fuk Ariel's 16, still way too young to morally consider hot Same with Aurora, dude she's 16 AND has only woken up after 100 years, that makes you both a creep and a boy toy Don't even get me started on Merida, that accent is like Willie the janitor from The Simpsons Belle's pretty too but falling in love with a beast? Guaranteed weirdo I must be forgetting the rest bc they're just so boring Jane has got beautiful facial features, is likely 20 , and doesn't mind roughing it. She is hottest Disney girl. I challenge thee to change my mind on this.\n","conclusion":"Jane, from 'Tarzan', is the most attractive Disney girl\n","id":"012b6e1a-28e9-4e47-95ef-9ec0bd0be67c"}
{"argument":"The idea that an omnibenevolent and omniscient God would create sin, create people in the knowledge they were going to sin, and then punish them for following a path which had been predetermined for them since the beginning of time is highly illogical.\n","conclusion":"An eternal punishment for finite crimes, such as Hell contradicts the monotheistic idea of an omni-benevolent, omnipotent God.\n","id":"039811ca-d7e9-4044-b65c-6ec32ee15814"}
{"argument":"Flying sucks, and there are a lot of things that can make a flight miserable the person in front of you can lean their seat back all the way mostly an issue for taller people you can be sat next to a large person who is getting into your space your flight can be delayed there can be extensive turbulence et cetera, et cetera. I hold that the worst of these is still the crying baby. Not only does a crying baby have an impact on the entire plane, compared to other inconveniences which may effect only a row or even a single seat, but one baby crying can easily start other babies crying. If you aren't confident in your ability to make your child shut up, or better yet not be loud in the first place, you should not bring it on an airplane. It's really just common courtesy to your fellow travelers. Edit I'd like to clarify. I do NOT advocate airlines banning kids from flights as a policy. I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I do advocate parents choosing to be less inconsiderate.\n","conclusion":"If you are not confident in your ability to control your child's noise output, you should not bring that child on an airplane.\n","id":"7599d4a4-9287-4b0f-913e-2cc6f54c2cff"}
{"argument":"A few things before I present my argument I am talking on primarily romantic love. I think acting on and maintaining that love may be a choice, especially the latter, but the feeling of love itself not a choice you do not have a say in who you fall in love with. I think love is also an act. I can act lovingly and hatefully despite how I feel. But how I feel is how I feel, and no amount of logic can change that. I have heard many say that it is a choice and I can see where they\u2019re coming from. However, if you follow that line of logic, it begins to fall apart a bit. If love is indeed purely a choice, why not just find someone who is hard working, respectable, kind, and then choose to love fall in love? Finding the right one to marry would be much simpler for everyone. Unfortunately, I think most of us can agree that you can\u2019t get two random people and just make them fall in love. Not to say it won\u2019t happen, like in the staring experiment, but that was more of a case of two people who had the right foundations of falling in love in the first place and that situation was the catalyst to that discovery. If who you fall in love with is a choice, then who you fall out of love with is a choice as well. However, I, and others, have fallen in love with someone, despite logically not wanting to. Whether is be timing, distance, toxic tendencies, etc. we still fee how we feel. Now we can choose not to act on those feelings and make a healthy choice, but that doesn\u2019t automatically change the way you feel every time. Sometimes, you\u2019re just hopelessly in love. To the toxic tendencies, some might say that\u2019s due to some unresolved childhood trauma, and that is certainly true for some, perhaps most, but not all. We cannot disregard those who have a healthy background and still experience this There are couples that have been with their spouse for 20 years and claim that they still get the butterflies when they\u2019re together. That they love them more now than ever before. Not to say there aren\u2019t many hard times and arguments, but so long as it\u2019s a healthy relationship, they always default back to feeling in love. Finally a question to test your view How would you feel if you found out that your spouse of 20 years never felt that way about you, but did all the right things. Spending time together, going on dates, taking care of you, kissing, sex, etc. but on the inside, feel nothing. Would you be upset or hurt at all? If no, then you believe love is purely an action. A choice. You would be 100 content with that and would want to teach your children to do the same. Despite how they feel. To find someone that will treat you right and align with your values. That\u2019s it. But If yes, then deep down, perhaps you realize that love is not simply an action or a choice. I genuinely wish that love was a choice. It would simplify so many things in my life. The truth is, the more I think about it, the less I believe that it is. Edit A few spelling mistakes. On my phone currently.\n","conclusion":"Love is ultimately a feeling, not a choice.\n","id":"dce6ade5-8e71-4e5d-8fe0-375b8ff34965"}
{"argument":"I've been thinking a lot about the election since Tuesday and the only thing I seem to feel is disappointment. I feel torn between these two diametrically opposed views on the issue Pure hate for Trump and his supporters or hate for the PC liberals that are ruining the country. Being a white male with an advanced degree, a Trump presidency would probably benefit me the most. However, I feel for my fellow Americans who may not share in the progress Trump promises to bring. I weep for the environment as Trump continues to to list the climate treaties that he intends to withdraw from, many of which the U.S. initiated. It's impossible to know what the future will bring, but even as a moderate I fear for the radical shift in policy that might be coming. All of this culminates in this overall sense of disappointment and uncertainty as I look into the future. I really really disliked Hillary Clinton, but at least a Clinton presidency would bring with it grid lock. Neither party could have changed the course of the country too much. Now, obviously that isn't the case. The Republicans are going to be rewarded for their bad behavior, with at least one Supreme Court nomination and potentially up to three. Can anyone change this depressing and pessimistic view? I want to be hopeful for our future, but it's very difficult for me to find a silver lining.\n","conclusion":"The only emotion I feel after the election is disappointment\n","id":"5a0f5c9b-0826-493c-8997-3438b866af18"}
{"argument":"Religious freedom is less important than animal welfare. Insistence on the freedom to cause suffering is offensive and wrong. The right of the animal to a humane death is more important than the right to practice one\u2019s religion even to the point of inflicting suffering on another.\n","conclusion":"Religious freedom is less important than animal welfare. Insistence on the freedom to cause sufferin...\n","id":"16d85db8-6d2a-42ef-9b64-32789112fa67"}
{"argument":"Religion rely on books written long ago, which are representative of their times. Relying too much to the word, and not the meaning leads to bigotry and ignorance\n","conclusion":"The moral codes often found in religious texts have been the cause of many social injustices including the persecution of homosexuals, people of colour and women.\n","id":"b68c4b3c-3dcd-4363-8a0f-061a865fd119"}
{"argument":"People often claim that my shirt is inside out. I believe that they are wrong. It is impossible for a shirt to be inside out. The concepts of \u201cinside\u201d and \u201coutside\u201d are usually mutually exclusive. I am aware of one exception to this in the form of a Klein bottle or similar object. Since shirts do have distinct sides that are not connected the inside and outside of a shirt are mutually exclusive. A side of a shirt cannot both be the inside and the outside. The inside of a thing with distinct sides cannot be on the outside. That would make it the outside. When pressed on this matter a large majority of people claim both that the visible side of my shirt is the inside but also claim that it is on the outside. The cognitive dissonance is strong with them. Edit Best responses have been those that show how, at least in this case, inside and outside are more like formal names not descriptions. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"A shirt cannot be inside-out. Except for Klein objects, inside and outside are mutually exclusive.\n","id":"17e2c435-3239-41b8-89bd-624fc99ec717"}
{"argument":"I believe neoconservatives actually love sharia law. Just look at points bellow, they are almost the exact things neocons are advocating for. 2.5 flat rate tax Birth control is illegal Abortion is illegal Drugs are illegal Homosexuality is illegal Women have less rights More independent states provinces More capital punishment Tougher on crime More military spending Why do neocons hate it so much? It advocates everything they stand for. Neocons would vote for sharia law in a heart beat if it wasn't associated with Islam.\n","conclusion":"I believe neoconservatives actually love sharia law.\n","id":"5c80172f-09cf-42ff-ac0e-ce1f0a46c4fd"}
{"argument":"The arithmetic assesses only the direct balance of payments to the UK government, and not the indirect monetary flows resulting from increased trade with fellow EU countries. This is much more significant.\n","conclusion":"The claim that the UK sends \u00a3350 million a week to the EU has been widely discredited\n","id":"1c16e047-3abf-45ba-a14f-6bb3d43e4ed9"}
{"argument":"My opinion is that if the fear of going to Hell was not present in the Christian ideology, then most of the followers of the religion would not be there. Before I decided I was agnostic, that was my only reason for continuing to identify with the religion. Then, I decided I wasn't going to let fear control me. All in all, I don't see how this is any different than blackmailing a person to do what you want. You present your instruction, then tell them how you will completely devastate their life if they do not follow through.\n","conclusion":"Christianity is held together through fear\n","id":"f2f35b98-b0d8-42ea-b695-238b833b1db6"}
{"argument":"e This is for the U.S. My position comes from this video which is an interview with a person responsible for helping develop make at home firearms. Rapid prototyping and manufacturing techniques and machinery are advancing incredibly quickly, and their costs are falling as well. Home 3D printers are already available cheaply. I believe that very soon the accessibility of these tools will be so widespread that it will be totally impractical for the government to regulate firearms at all people will be able to make them in their own basements with ease. When this happens, I think the idea of \u201ccontrolling guns\u201d and who owns them will become impossible, for better or for worse.\n","conclusion":"the possibility of gun control will be dead very soon\n","id":"fcf975f9-00f2-4299-bdd0-e1a4d190b00e"}
{"argument":"I was watching a Jon Oliver show and there was one segment where he describes all the bad and unusual things that happened in 2016 celebrity deaths, Trump being elected, Cubs winning, ect. and he ended his show with fuck you 2016 , acting like 2016 is somehow a year that stands out from the rest This morning I read an AskReddit thread with people exaggerating how 2016 was so bad and it was such a different year than the rest, well it was not. Celebrity deaths, unlikable presidential candidates being elected, and unlikely sport teams winning the championship happen every year. Let me ask you, did you all say omg The Boston Red Sox won the World Series 2004 , what a crazy year or Fuck you 2014, Robin Williams died, what a crazy year No you did not, most of you think that 2016 is somehow different because social media and the internet over all focuses on things like celebrity deaths, gorillas getting shot, and other occurrences that the internet loves. I am sure most of you had never thought about Prince or David Bowie or even heard their music before until they died, now you all are mourning over their loss and hate 2016 because of it? Please, it seems like a lot of you just follow the trend. For those that say fuck you 2016 , you are just following a trend on the internet. Bad shit happens ever year. People in 1939 would be laughing at those who say fuck you 2016 when countries are being invaded by the Nazis and now the world is at war. Celebrities dying is such a minuscule event and it is not enough a reason for a year to be bad, get over yourselves. Yes, I do understand that people have a right to not like a year when personal things happen in their lives death of a family member, job loss, bankrupcy, ect. , but going Fuck you 2016 is offensive because most of the people saying this are from first world countries that have an internet connection and are really not having a bad year. The reason why I am so offended by this because it is such a first world problem and the world use to be in such turmoil in the past. It is offensive for those humans who lived through some atrocious events. Get over yourselves, there is nothing different about this year. Change my view if you can\n","conclusion":"There was nothing special about 2016, bad events happen and people die every year. The internet just exaggerates everything.\n","id":"e6d0b9b7-0d38-4f3d-9a86-070cf449ed2c"}
{"argument":"He shot himself on purpose, what makes us think he wants to be resuscitated? He already wanted to die, how does crippling medical debt plus brain damage make the situation any better? Typically when an unconscious person arrives at a hospital, the staff have to assume the patient wishes to live, but in the case of attempted suicide, the patient has already made it clear they don't wish to live anymore. After a failed suicide attempt, patients should be assumed Do Not Resuscitate . Change my view. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Unconscious victims of failed suicide attempts should be assumed DNR.\n","id":"663ee88b-d8ba-438c-ae47-38db15c81f88"}
{"argument":"First of all this isnt about whether it exists, right now debating its existence is like debating the shape of the earth. Because of whats known as a feedback loop. Every time the ICCP brings out a new report, things are much worse than was predicted. This is because feedback loops perpetually accelerate global warming. They create a vicious cycle where the effects of climate change themselves add to global warming, a terrifying example being the greenhouse gases trapped under ice sheets all over russia and the artic which are essentially a ticking timebomb. I believe that this problem could be as apocalyptic as some people say it will, as there is a critical point we are approaching where the feedback loops will be enough on their own to continue climate change at an accelerated rate, perpetuating itself, even if we do everything we can to stop it.\n","conclusion":"Climate change will hopefully be the most serious problem of the 21st century.\n","id":"7e813beb-9bd3-4d79-8412-e45ab5d4610b"}
{"argument":"I'll just say that I'm not gay myself, but this is mostly a discussion on just efficiency and what not. To me, there isn't really much reason to have lesbian in such acronyms when it is already covered by gay. Gay is the term for anyone who considers themselves homosexual correct? If that is the case, then any Lesbians would already fall underneath the label of Gay making it a superfluous letter in an acronym that is seemingly getting longer and longer with the more people add on to it. It's just efficient to remove the L because it just does nothing besides signifies the gender of one of the groups already included and by common order of the acronym, is secondary to it , which none of the other labels in the acronym seem to do. Just makes little sense for it to be there anymore due to all the additions to it in recent years.\n","conclusion":"In regards to the LGBTA+ acronym, Lesbian is redundant and should be dropped\n","id":"d8241230-116a-4dc3-b0ef-d1a1f0caa05c"}
{"argument":"Environmental conservation policies usually require a long term effort and commitment, which the youth will be more likely to invest in.\n","conclusion":"Policies will trend towards long-term benefits and actions rather than status quo short-term solutions.\n","id":"2f4fc302-cb58-4f65-b056-c75018d5d9f1"}
{"argument":"Money CAN be a good thing but who's really in control? Do you think you're in control because, what, you have a good job? You invested in something? Exactly how much control do you have over your own life when all you do is serve pieces of paper and the system that relies on it? I suggest to watch these if you dont know what I mean.\n","conclusion":"If money was such a good thing then IT would serve the people. Instead people serve IT.\n","id":"17151d02-0cb7-4a2d-963c-72022c72b247"}
{"argument":"The number of people incarcerated in the US dropped for the first time in over three decades during Obama's term. A significant contributor to this decline was the Obama administration's instruction and encouragement for more lenient sentences to be given out for drug crimes.\n","conclusion":"Despite inheriting a violent legacy, Obama significantly reshaped the American war on drugs, from a punitive justice and militaristic issue, to a public health concern.\n","id":"d7f8cf18-efc7-461a-8cf8-b9dd800fd5e9"}
{"argument":"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.\n","conclusion":"There would not be significant difference between conscious AGI and humans.\n","id":"a826aa7c-36b9-4c57-927e-ec6a531c1fae"}
{"argument":"This was sparked when I heard this story True story Isaac Asimov was at NYU visiting a friend one day when he chanced upon a lecture hall in which a graduate student was offering a master's discussion of Foundation. Isaac slipped into the back of the hall and listened. At the end of the lecture he moved to the front of the hall and told the young man, I believe you have a couple of things wrong. The kid looks at Isaac and asks, And you are? I'm Isaac Asimov, the author of the piece under discussion replied. The kid turns away saying, You're the last person qualified to give commentary upon your work, Mr. Asimov. Good day. I think that's bull. Isaac Asimov is by no means the only person allowed to comment on his work but he is the final authority. If he said that x is an allegory for y and I think that x is actually an allegory for z, I'm wrong. He's the author. It's his story. Even if subconsciously meanings were inputted that he may not have intended it's still his work to say whether or not it was.\n","conclusion":"if an author said that his or her work means something and you say differently your opinion is invalid because the creators interpretation is the interpretation with which the idea was brought to life.\n","id":"e660eaa8-51d7-4814-862d-6cfd0aa20589"}
{"argument":"If a teenager inflicts damage on someone, it is generally the parents that are responsible for paying for the damage. The law in this case recognizes that the child should not be responsible. The decision to have an abortion is a serious one. As parents are in many ways responsible for their children, they should be included in this decision as well.\n","conclusion":"Parents have the right to know about any significant activity of their underage teens as they are in many ways responsible for them and thus they should be included in such a decision.\n","id":"a19509ca-2246-46c1-9ee7-81fe949ade98"}
{"argument":"I just started canvassing for PBS. They basically get upset if we don't canvass at all of the residences that have signs for no solicitation. I understand PBS is desperate or at least I assume they are, maybe they're totally well off. But regardless, I feel dirty invading somebodies space and knocking on their door right under a big sign that says no solicitation. Now, most houses I have to go to don't have these signs, and out of the ones that do, many people are polite anyway and who knows, might even donate . I mean, it certainly feels as if the longevity of PBS is important enough to neglect and surpass such a barrier, but is it? All in all, I don't think I should have to do it. And if I get called out for avoiding those houses, even when they're on my list, I should be able to say I refuse and reap no negative consequences as far as my job goes. . edit Sorry guys, my bad for not being more clear in how I was more concerned about the legality which is something I could have researched beforehand than the ethics. Although I still haven't had luck on finding my state laws for this specific situation I'm in Colorado if anybody knows. edit 2 I'm losing confidence in my Google fu skills, as I'm still having trouble finding the law for my state D edit 3 Yeah I'm SOL and can't find the laws in my city nor state about this. It almost looks as if even in places where it's illegal, the exception for legality provides for non profits like PBS . So, as far as it looks this is merely unethical but legal until I know the local laws for sure Guess I won't be able to be a hero without getting fired.\n","conclusion":"Canvassing at a residence with \"no soliciting\" signs is at least unethical. Even if it's for a good cause. And I should be able to tell my employer I refuse to do it and be fine.\n","id":"ae777427-940c-4fd4-a2a9-0e3ef33a922d"}
{"argument":"Society is coming to understand that gender is on a spectrum and is not as easily defined as previously thought. With this broadening of viewpoints there is no need to force children surgically to fit into outdated moulds.\n","conclusion":"Genital reshaping surgeries on intersex infants are unnecessary as they encourage conforming to outdated and binary ideas of gender.\n","id":"8ab398e4-3b32-4627-b734-10317ff8f06d"}
{"argument":"Peaceful protest is protected under the first Amendment and should be allowed as long as the players make it known that their stance is their own and has nothing to do with their team.\n","conclusion":"Kneeling is a non-violent form of protest that is effective.\n","id":"c69e38e6-730d-4068-8a33-b5ace59c658d"}
{"argument":"More importantly, individuals do not own businesses, farms, or factories. All of these \"means of production\" are owned by the government. And because the government owns them all, there is no price competition This causes real problems because competitive bidding for resources is the best way to allocate them productively.\n","conclusion":"Communism is not a viable option for people who want to own property. In a communist country, your possessions are not your own, but community owned.\n","id":"2da41621-94ca-4614-b892-0cd364f43169"}
{"argument":"A bit about me, first I like learning things in school. I like videogames, and not most sports. My school has lots of pep rallies because it is big into football. I, personally don't care about football soccer football is best football . anyway, three weeks in a row, we have had peprallies during school. My favorite classes happen to be right in the two usual times. I don't think That I should have to waste my time listening to people yell about school spirit instead of learning things for my potential career. The scheduling is especially bad since the class that usually gets cut off is a class that requires you to memorize various commands. So, I think that pep rallies should be entirely optional. What do you think, ? After about a day my C hasn't been V'd. maybe it could happen later today, but at the moment I'm going to continue being a stick in the mud.\n","conclusion":"Pep rallies are a waste of my time.\n","id":"39ccb92d-c422-49b5-878a-4a4a1afc76ab"}
{"argument":"In university every racial theory class I took was based around the notion that latinos, asians and blacks People of Color POCs had the same basic interests and that these interests were opposed to the interests of an equally monolithic White America. I hear this concept repeated by many young activists as well. I'm a white guy who grew up in a diverse area. Where I grew up asians except SE asians generally lived in the same neighborhoods as rich white people and mixed freely with them. Blacks and latinos were more integrated with each other than they were with white people, but they saw themselves as separate communities with separate interests. Also ethnic whites working class jews, italians and irish were pretty segregated from rich whites professional jews and wasps . I believe if you look at the data, Asians for example are not affected by the same problems as black people, and are arguably more privileged than even whites. Furthermore, while blacks and latinos are both undeniably oppressed in America, they have different and sometimes contradictory interests. I think the increasing use of this term by people who are trying to right racial wrongs sets the movement back. In my university and in certain racial advocacy groups it is common for upper middle class Asian people to run movements that ostensibly speak for oppressed POC's. This seems as problematic as having a white person run a group like this.\n","conclusion":"The concept \"person of color\" as it is used in academic and activist circles is meaningless and harmful to understanding of racial issues in America.\n","id":"1952da84-55a0-45c2-80e3-712f70c8bfff"}
{"argument":"Quick back story, I'm from Australia, so this does not affect me directly, but my brother and I were having lunch and he brought up that California had recently reduced the law for knowingly transmitting HIV to another person to a misdemeanor with a maximum jail term of 6 months. It also changes the law surrounding the disclosure of HIV status when donating blood, stating that because blood transfusions are screened for HIV anyway, that you should not have to disclose that you are HIV positive. I find this change to be absolutely egregious for a number of reasons. Some more obvious than others Knowingly infecting someone with a deadly disease should be classified in the very least as GBH, and should be treated as an incredibly malicious and deadly act. I can only imagine that the penalty for deliberately subjecting someone to carcinogens would be treated much more seriously than the current California law, and I don't understand how you can differentiate between the two. There is something to say about intent, as I do not believe that unknowingly giving someone HIV should be met with any punishments. But if you are aware that you have a condition that, if transmitted to other people, can be potentially fatal, then it is your legal and moral responsibility to ensure that you disclose that to anyone that may contract that disease as a direct result of your actions. It is your moral and legal responsibility to prevent the spread of a preventable condition. The most outrageous part of this is that you do not have to disclose that you're HIV positive if you want to give blood. This to me, is absolutely insane. I give blood every 2 weeks. I keep myself healthy in order to do so. The idea that I could continue to give blood if I had HIV is so bizarre that I just can't find any justification for why the law was changed. Now this is decriminalized. So hypothetically, I can intentionally try to infect someone who requires a blood transfusion with HIV and suffer NO criminal consequences. The justification for this is that all blood is screened for HIV anyway so why should it be illegal. This legal argument I simply can't fathom. I would compare it to saying that car's have safety features so why should it be illegal for me to intentionally run into another car with the intent to harm. I can't possibly think of a justification for why this change helps anyone at all. Unfair discrimination is wrong, but if you're living with HIV, you should be subject to a certain level of discrimination that is correctly associated with your condition. Nobody living with HIV shouldn't be able to happy life. But if you have HIV, you certainly have a moral responsibility to ensure that you do not infect other people that illness. Part of that is ensuring that you do not participate in activities where you would be likely to transmit the illness. There has to be certain parameters in place to ensure public safety. We do this with every dangerous thing in society, and with all the things we don't do it for, there is a very strong argument that we should. The idea that we should alleviate all requirements for HIV people to disclose their condition because it may lead to stigma is quite frankly a ludicrous change. These types of disclosures should be in the best interest of the public and any disclosures should be with the intent of eliminating the condition from human populations. The penalty for transmitting other deadly conditions should be increased . This was a byproduct of me trying to understand why in the hell this change happened, and what I realised is that the law for transmitting other conditions like hepatitis which can be fatal , is far less than HIV. I think that conditions like these technically incurable, possibly fatal should have the penalty for knowingly infecting someone increased. This is a very serious crime that shouldn't be tolerated under any circumstances. There is certainly room for a discussion on what conditions constitute what punishment, but I feel like that discussion isn't relevant in this case.  on the above. also, don't mind the number formatting, reddit changed it automatically and I don't know how to fix. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The punishment for knowingly infecting someone with HIV or other potentially fatal communicable diseases should remain severe.\n","id":"bec83b63-7c8d-4136-8ac4-ba29eece7fd8"}
{"argument":"In the UK each political party puts out a manifesto before the election stating what they would do in government. I think this should be made legally binding on the MPs, so they would have to, at some point before the next election, vote for the policies that they said they would support. They could put conditions on their promises e.g. we will cut income tax as long as the economy is growing by at least 1 , and they would be free to say we will consult experts about what to do and follow their advice if they weren't sure how to vote, or they could just leave it out of their manifesto. Individual MPs could release their own manifestos saying how they would vote differently from their party e.g. they could promise to vote against gay marriage if their party was for it . The punishment for not doing this could be a fine, or being barred from standing at the next election. If the whole party voted against something then only the leadership of the party would be punished, but if it was just a couple of MPs then they would be punished individually. An independent panel could be set up to rule in cases where it was uncertain, or where there was an unforeseeable problem that meant they couldn't vote for what they promised. I think this would force politicians to be more honest and help to increase trust in politics.\n","conclusion":"I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win.\n","id":"d99d4238-faf5-49b7-bf23-0efa059a2a71"}
{"argument":"The trial bill of Justice Albert Neely captions Joseph Smith's case as \"People vs. Joseph Smith The Glass looker,\" and indicates it is for a misdemeanor. Trial Bill of Albert Neely, Nov. 9, 1826\n","conclusion":"The charges against Joseph Smith in 1826 were for being a \"disorderly person\" under New York law as a result of fraudulent scrying\n","id":"de2eacf9-e9aa-4220-95d2-9e2fb5772487"}
{"argument":"I'm so pleased to revisit  for more self examination. This is the continuation of a series of threads including my previous related . If you didn't participate in any of that you can catch up with following links I won't vote for persons if I reason that their administration will commit crimes against humanity or be complicit in the same. I generally won't vote for candidates that I don't believe are would be representative, trustworthy or viable. I don't think that I'm setting the bar too high. Buried in one of these threads is basically an exchange where somebody basically said to me 'if you aren't going to put forward ideas about election reform of your own, OPA then you me are just trolling.' Here is what I have so far 1 The first and foremost idea is that election reform must benefit from broad consensus. Any election reform that does not meet this criteria such as the present iteration of voter ID must be opposed, solely on that basis perhaps. 2 All and any election reform must be viewed as legitimate pursuant to point one. On that basis I dismiss CFR as 'off the table.' On the other hand, we must be protected against foreign powers currying influence with our politicians through monetary support, likewise we must protect the political process from becoming a haven for money laundering. These concerns lend significant credence to efforts such as the legislative push for the DISCLOSE act 2010 11 . This effort must be balanced against concerns that major donors would be targeted by partisan activists. I myself am acquainted with donors who have received death threats and have been otherwise targeted on the basis of their affiliations democrats and libertarians, I haven't had the pleasure of being acquainted with Republican donors at the higher tiers, but I'm told and have seen reporting that such donors as Sheldon Adelson and the like have also be targeted in a like manner. 3 Felon disenfranchisement threatens to destabilize our nation and therefore offers us an existential threat. Felons ought to be offered the chance to regain their franchise after a 'clean' 15 years or something. Felons who offer their service ought to be able to regain their franchise in a reduced period of time perhaps ten years. This would have the added benefit reducing recidivism hopefully. 4 The Committee on Presidential Elections Debates is an obvious target for election reforms. 5 Term limits are a viable option for election reform, but must be pursued only in a manner consistent with point 1 . It should be remembered that term limits by themselves offer us little, and would only be meaningful in the context of a more comprehensive election reform as a 'one off' term limits are quite objectionable. 6 I'm in favor of considering but not necessarily implementing 'out of the box' election reform ideas. One such idea would be what I've been calling 'soft' mandatory voting the term mandatory voting after the policy currently in place in republics such as Australia. Rather than making non voters subject to penalty, a policy could be implemented that couples the most basic interactions with government license for driving, tax deductions, military service with voting. Persons under 20 obviously who have not yet had the opportunity to vote might be exempt. All other persons might be disqualified from such benefits which are obtained voluntarily if they do not participate fully by exercising their franchise. This would not run afoul of your conception of freedom correct me if I am wrong while vastly increasing voter participation. 7 The state of civic education is dreadful. Education on the subject of civics must become a bigger part of the basic curriculum persons ought to be given a more meaningful opportunity to understand how to make use of their vote. This is not to say that the 'low information voter' ought to be eliminated from the electorate. 8 Referendum reform California with their proclivity for passing social spending without paying for them is a good example of why referendum are not appropriate for all matters of governance some matters benefit from being informed by referendums. The temptation to put so called 'wedge issues' on the ballot has shown itself to be problematic as well. Election reform would be well served in addressing this issue. I cleaned this list up somewhat, it doesn't appear as it did originally. Anyway thanks in advance for your input\n","conclusion":"I only vote for candidates that I find acceptable in Federal USA elections.\n","id":"4002e3d0-9eb5-492d-9405-0cab4696a889"}
{"argument":"Coors light tastes like beer flavored piss water. Labatts tastes like a pond that 80 year old canucks had sex in. Budweiser is for retards who don't know what beer is. But Yuengling is mass produced and actually pretty good. It's not the best beer, mind you. It's good , but it's not like, king of beers or anything. Craft brews are getting a lot of attention in recent years, especially in America, and a lot of beer snobs go to parties. These guys are not easy to please, but they will settle for Yuengling. It's just good enough to not offend, and just shitty enough to please the unwashed plebs. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"I think Yuengling is the best beer to get if you are having a party and don't know what beers people like.\n","id":"5c09465c-9211-42a9-89cd-688eb4ed457f"}
{"argument":"Article 23: \"1 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. has the right to equal pay for equal work.has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.\" Universal rights.\n","conclusion":"UDHR articles 1-3, 5-12, 16-20, and 22-29 are specifically directed to the idea that when someone crosses a border, they keep all rights and legal protections.\n","id":"94272342-e754-4765-be0e-76d45cb1b537"}
{"argument":"Like a lot of music fans, I'm fairly ambivalent about the website music blog Pitchfork. I think it's a good source for news, and their writing has definitely improved over the years. But I have a problem with its level of influence, particularly over other musics blogs. Over the last decade or so, I believe it has, you might say, 'flattened' critical opinion to the point where most indie music writers seem afraid or at least hesitant to deviate from its point of view. Looking at the majority of 'end of year' lists every December, and they're more often than not re arrangements of Pitchfork's own list. At the very least, albums that are given below average scores by PF usually end up being ignored by everyone else. In short Pitchfork has become so ubiquitous that it has closed, not opened, the ongoing conversation about independent music. .\n","conclusion":"Pitchfork has done more harm than good for independent music criticism as a whole.\n","id":"e9f20929-ea98-4912-938d-eecebeefb859"}
{"argument":"Banning white actors from playing non-white characters limits the creative freedom of film producers and actors.\n","conclusion":"The practice of casting needs to be kept in the hands of directors and producers.\n","id":"d9115e61-b00e-4fb5-9abd-36924fb2c406"}
{"argument":"Capitalist economies can range from countries with highest economic liberties with very little business regulations to capitalist economies with high business regulations to mixed economies with countries with a lot of state enterprise to economies with extremely high or total state oversight.\n","conclusion":"In a list of 180 countries all high technology countries are in the high 20% percentile of most capitalist countries.\n","id":"20339adc-1833-479c-8913-65f6ac6b8105"}
{"argument":"Whatever signals humans send might seem based on immutable laws of math to humans, but they may be arbitrary to an extraterrestrial mind, organic or synthetic.\n","conclusion":"The prospect of getting aliens to understand any human communication is extremely difficult.\n","id":"2c6ae98d-78ea-4354-a640-2922bab87cb8"}
{"argument":"Was discussing hypothetical scenarios regarding anarchism and each scenario led me to believe that anarchism always leads to the formation of government. People naturally want laws that protect ie. don't murder . People need other people to write these laws for them, thus the early stages of government. I'm not necessarily writing this as an affront on anarchists, just care to hear from anarchists who feel that I am looking at this poorly or if that's exactly what they want the demolishing of government and the sequential reformation of government. Thanks gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Anarchism always leads to the structuring of government, thus holding an anarchist ideology is pointless.\n","id":"fd227416-e291-4fdb-8ae2-20482be1395a"}
{"argument":"One way is hogging resources in this case water from everyone else that used to be free so they can charge for it i.e. cornering the market through hoarding to create artificial scarcity to drive up prices.\n","conclusion":"The competition to source and sell water can lead to immoral business practices between those in the bottled water industry.\n","id":"c775f341-12ff-4409-a656-ea3d2fe27a82"}
{"argument":"I was listening to an interview with two supposed scientists from the fluoride action network and they seemed strongly emphatic that the scientific mainstream has failed to prove the safety of fluoride. They said there was this deafening silence if you asked for any randomized controlled study of the effectiveness of fluoride and said the same kind of thing about fluoride's safety, complaining about the way the scientific community and official experts had responded to studies purporting to show fluoride has an effect on IQ in children. I don't trust these guys but they do a pretty good job of presenting their case. Is there really a lack of evidence with which to dismiss them or are proponents of the mainstream just doing a bad job responding to these hacks?\n","conclusion":"There isn't enough evidence to prove that fluoridation of the public water supply is safe and effective.\n","id":"8fd44aa3-3dc9-49fc-a302-401767b26b66"}
{"argument":"I should begin by stating I am getting a PhD in social psychology, so although I'm not well versed in the addiction literature, I know a thing or two about biology and psychology. Feel free to reference articles as I will gladly read them. Secondly, I am not discounting the physiological aspects of addiction. I recognize that once addicted, one's body has a hard time dealing with withdrawal. In fact, stopping cold turkey in some cases has negative consequences, and as such weaning needs to be done. Third, I'm not suggesting that there aren't psychological aspects to addiction. I know the literature argues quite persuasively that contextual cues can send off physiological reactions that make people want drugs more. Fourth, my mother suffered with an addiction for a long time. She finally got help and has been clean for a few years, so it's not like this isn't a sensitive topic for me. Fifth, I'm not saying drugs should be criminalized. Rather, I suggest people should be given the chance to go to mental health facilities. Quitting drugs is a hard thing to do, no question about it. OK what I argue then, is that addiction, is simply a matter of 'just not doing it taking them, etc.' As mentioned, sometimes this needs to be controlled and weaned, but ultimately it's about 'just not taking them any more.' An analogy I can come up with is that of a 48 hour fast. Getting off drugs would be like the misery of a 48 hour fast, but one that lasts for a long time. It would be miserable and difficult, but one could do it, if they really had to and it wouldn't kill them. Now, just as one might need a glass of water in the middle to survive, I recognize that one might need wean themselves. However ultimately, many people would have a hard time committing to a 48 hour fast, just as people have a hard time committing to quitting drugs. The main difference here, is that as one stops doing drugs for longer, the easier it becomes. People might want drugs, and that want might never go away, but Is that all addiction is? want of drugs? If you can physically keep people away from drugs they won't do it again, and if an individual can keep him herself away from drugs, he she won't do it again. I don't see a difference. As a second, less pertinent point, The general treatment for addiction variants is often the twelve step programs or variants of, which has been shown to be not be better than other programs , not to mention the seemingly opposing idea that one has to 'give up control' which any literature I've read would suggest that such a belief would make people not take responsibility. So ultimately, my concern is that, addiction is not a mental health disease. It's a lack of self control. It's not an easy thing to do, like staying away from a 2nd slice of chocolate cake, but more like staying away from a glass of water after 48 hours without it.\n","conclusion":"I think the psychological aspects of addiction being an 'a disease' is BS. Rather it is a matter of self-control.\n","id":"51c1e891-cf26-4c73-bd71-fcc716aad44d"}
{"argument":"Many systems are already irreversibly global such as economics, social issues, communication, the environment, etc. These systems need a global framework to anchor to.\n","conclusion":"This is necessary in a globalized world. Governance on a solely national level is no longer sufficient to maintain a rules-based order.\n","id":"631b5a57-81a9-4db8-ac67-8d84f0c4fc43"}
{"argument":"Souls are believed to be who we are - our consciousness, our imagination, our personality. However, these traits can be altered by trauma and physical changes. This implies that what we consider as our 'soul' is linked to our physical being rather than a non-physical being which is independent of ones body.\n","conclusion":"Souls are not real, therefore there cannot be an afterlife.\n","id":"095fe879-d5e8-4ee0-a462-abf2e74a4e3c"}
{"argument":"In their current form, high school courses focused on history and literature fail to provide meaningful educational benefits. These classes commonly have a goal of improving critical thinking skills and develop advanced literacy. However, the format of current history courses where students heavily analyze past events, does not emphasize critical thinking, but rather focuses on memorization of history that has little to no significance in the present. Literature classes that focus on deep analysis of important texts like Shakespeare's works, complex poetry, or stylistic writing i.e. stream of consciousness in Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man do not develop readinc writing skills applicable to students' lives or modern texts. They also tend to foster dislike for reading when students are forced to extract meaning from texts they do not value or understand. I believe a courses in debate, critical analysis of nonfiction works i.e. argumentative opinion pieces , or even literary analysis of more familiar works would all be better alternatives to detailed US history or general literature courses. Since this is a broad statement with caveats, I'll clarify in a list I am not arguing the classes offer zero value. The concept of being in an educational environment likely has benefits itself, so my view will not be changed by arguments of the form all education has value . I acknowledge the value of basic history lessons in understand society, culture, and history that affects us today. I am arguing that there is little to no value in all students having to learn of details like specific battles of the Civil War, or the politics of the early 1800s. These topics should be pursed electively. I am not arguing that these classes lack value only because they do not tie to future careers. I believe these two courses majorly fail to provide value. I agree that math and science courses do not necessarily tie into future work, but I believe they accomplish their goals more effectively. I admit I may display a STEM favoring bias due to my field of study and work, so I am willing to accept arguments that show that my view is a function solely of my bias and not of reason. EDIT Want to clarify that I still think history should be taught at a general level in school. I don't think it should be as detailed or exhaustive as a part of the core curriculum. In other words, I think the necessary history can be taught in fewer total classes EDIT 2 Pretty late in the cycle now, but I'll add this regardless since I've engaged with a lot of arguments that misinterpret my post. I am not arguing against the value of History and Literature. I am saying these classes are ineffective in their current forms\n","conclusion":"High school literature and history courses fail to provide meaningful educational value\n","id":"340c8745-086e-4b4d-bf59-dd80c8ea3af7"}
{"argument":"It is inherently the government's duty to protect the marginalized and oppressed in society. Support of these policies actively infringes on the rights and sometime, the physical well being of these community members.\n","conclusion":"The curtailment of religious freedom is arguably less important than the protection of the LGBTQ+ community.\n","id":"c41387e0-3187-488b-b366-a78e20d5eed5"}
{"argument":"Dietary fibre is present in all plant foods \u2013 fruits, vegetables and grains \u2013 but not in animal foods. Without fibre we cannot survive and therefore need to eat plants.\n","conclusion":"Eating crops is necessary for many people to survive. Eating meat is not. Thus, there is a difference in the logic applied.\n","id":"31c013c3-c822-4d85-87f9-34f5b01ff6bd"}
{"argument":"I haven't been around death very much in my life, but from what I have experienced, the majority of deaths can be summed up into an accident, a disease, or a type of cancer. I feel like the advancements in medicine have also helped many people throughout the years, but I don't feel like it would help past a certain point. I don't want to die in misery. I also don't want to die without saying goodbye. But mostly, I don't want to be a helpless elder without capabilities to function daily. I'm not sad I love my life and my woman. But I feel that someday, after saying goodbye to all of my loved ones, the best choice I can make is to be put down. I deeply feel like this would create a sense of inner peace and readiness in my last hours as opposed to uncertainty and desperation. That is truly my main reason. The main problem, is that my lady wants us both to live to be over 120. I think that is crazy. So, I'm coming here to seek Reddit's opinion on my predicament, before I drop the bomb on her.\n","conclusion":"I don't want to die without any say in it; so I want to euthanize myself in the future.\n","id":"04f832d7-4d39-41d4-a7d6-f95ef79ca81f"}
{"argument":"When I played ME1 pretty soon after it came out , I saw this new IP and I was like 'holy balls this is going to be amazing,' because it combined FPS style combat with RPG style character building Fallout 3 is my favorite game, and I'm currently playing Borderlands 2, btw . I bought 2 and 3 together many years later, and I thought that 2 expanded on 1 with amazing graphics and story dat last mission , and loved it. I then beat 2 again on the hardest difficulty and went into 3. I thought three was another great game, not much more innovation since 2, but the IP didn't need much more patching up of graphics and mechanics. I beat the final game, I forget what ending I actually chose, but it seemed to wrap up the series nicely and, although the final discussion with the reaper thing in the citadel was weird and I didn't fully understand, I was pleased with the ending and was glad that I played the series. However, reddit really seems to hate not only the ending in 3 but the game as a whole. Please explain your stance, and change my view\n","conclusion":"I liked Mass Effect 3's ending, !\n","id":"264636ea-8415-47c9-9c73-a341f0f4b096"}
{"argument":"The ICC\u2019s investigative and prosecutorial powers are endorsed by 122 States Parties to the Rome Statute. This broad reach and agreement not only provides a strong disincentive for individuals and groups who would attempt to evade prosecution, but also has the effect of deterring states that might otherwise ignore the Court\u2019s authority. Furthermore, even non-member states have recognised the importance of co-operating with the Court\u2019s investigations. In 2013, one of the most wanted war criminals, Bosco Ntaganda was forced to surrender to the ICC while hiding in Rwanda. Though a non-member state, \u201cRwanda's aid-dependent economy was damaged by the allegations of links to Mr Ntaganda's rebels.\u201d1 1 The Economist\n","conclusion":"The ICC\u2019s widely endorsed authority extends its deterrent effects.\n","id":"7e4d09a5-c63a-445b-a1a5-fc7df05c5ea5"}
{"argument":"Objectives must be cost-effective with the resources we have at the present time to be worthwhile. Building girls schools is not what the populations of many undeveloped countries want, and the families of the girls in question may not allow them to attend school or even if they do, the security situation may leave the girls vulnerable to terrorism.\n","conclusion":"Many societies do not really care about gender equality. Efforts that target female education are therefore not in line with what people consider necessary or want.\n","id":"0cbffe88-3679-4e5a-8acc-172e4cdfa9ec"}
{"argument":"I debate at school, and the topic is similar to this. While researching, I have come to strongly agree with the negative side and really can't see any justification to affirm the following In the US, national service ought to be compulsory. By the way, this isn't a homework question or anything, I just really would like to hear others' opinions. Essentially, national service isn't confined to military service, so if you would like to  using examples other than military, feel free. I believe that making service compulsory defeats the purpose. People are more driven to do well and be effective in things they choose to do out of intrinsic motivation. Additionally, when looking at national service in terms of a draft, why? The US military already has plenty of people willing to go to war voluntarily. A draft would only bring citizens to resent their government. Using utilitarian calculus is not necessary if the outcomes could be produced similarly in a way that doesn't violate peoples' autonomy, such as with voluntary service.\n","conclusion":"compulsory national service is bad\n","id":"6853c9c2-7ed7-41e1-a891-acab91749407"}
{"argument":"If the possibility of being sued or fined is off the table, naturally occurring capitalism will either support the business decision, or the business will suffer based on their refusal to serve. It's a risk the owner should be free to take\n","conclusion":"It is the right of the business owner to deny service to their customers.\n","id":"24fbcfa6-827a-4816-9505-f789ff95207f"}
{"argument":"It seems to me like modern society sees both altruism and meritocracy as values that are worth fighting for and seeking but, the way I see it, they are opposed, and seeking both of them is a penelope's canvas where we weave it by day and tear it down by night My argument boils down to this Altruism demands equality and meritocracy hierarchy In meritocracy, you are given superior rewards be it money, status, authority etc depending on your abilities and aptitudes in certain sectors of life, widening the gap In altruism, you are given superior rewards according to what you don't have and need by parties that have more, closing the gap The point of this post isn't to discuss which is the superior system or which one should be pursued or anything like that. I just genuinely want to know, how can a system whose perfect form MUST involve equality and a system whose perfect form MUST involve hierarchy can coexist in a sociological philosophy without doublethink\n","conclusion":"Meritocracy and Altruism cannot coexist\n","id":"ba980c1a-d444-479d-8108-98056d9eef5d"}
{"argument":"I don't understand why people get married. I've been with my SO for 3 years, and a piece of paper isn't going to make me love him more or be more committed. It won't make me try harder to make things work when we have problems. All it will do is muddle things if we ever would want to get divorced. He can adopt any biological children, co adopt any adopted children. We can write our wills to include each other. The only possible reason I'd see to get married is to be included on a job's health insurance plan. But as we both have good jobs with good plans, this is unnecessary. It just seems like a colossal waste of time money to have a wedding, and if it's just a courthouse thing, then it just makes things difficult if we ever want to get divorced. All my friends are so excited about planning their weddings, and my SO wants to be married and have a wedding someday, and that it just the last thing I'd ever want so .\n","conclusion":"I never ever want to get married and don't see any reason to.\n","id":"b01d62c9-3682-4f8d-a2fb-b3a715d7dad4"}
{"argument":"Because of the solidity of the word 'standard' in the name, people feel it's a foundation that they could rely on as a go-to reference\/basis to work from.\n","conclusion":"The name stands out, which helps keep it alive and physics progressing, so it shouldn't change.\n","id":"4337fa8b-3c0c-4f07-8e06-44fd158e49dd"}
{"argument":"Link to the news article that  Wikipedia article on Prostitution in Nevada that helped me understand how complicated the whole situation is in Nevada. Story time Disclaimer I'm about to share some pretty embarrassing stuff here, so please be kind. When I was a freshman at a Christian university, I was put on a team with about 3 4 other ministry students I think all of us were male, though we may have had one female on our team, I can't remember , and we were given the assignment to sketch out a rough plan for church planting or missionary activity in a particular context within the United States. Out of all possible contexts we could have freely chosen, we decided for reasons I can't really explain to save all the prostitutes in Nevada. Even though we didn't have a shred of common sense, life experience, or business expertise between us, the plan we came up with was to start a coffee shop house church in Las Vegas and only hire prostitutes who were looking for a way out of the business. The point of the assignment was basically to help us freshman realize how stupid we were, and it worked pretty well. During finals week, we went to our professor's house to eat pizza and present our hypothetical mission plan, and another professor who has lots of experience with and does research in urban missions in the United States was there, basically just to explain in the kindest way possible why all of our plans would fail miserably and might be misguided anyway. I mean, setting aside for the moment that none of us knew how to run a successful business and that many sex workers make significantly more than a coffee shop barista, it would look very suspicious to have a bunch of men running a coffee shop staffed by ex prostitutes. Furthermore, we didn't really have a plan for how to provide the drug treatment and counseling that we assumed all the tortured souls flocking to our Java Church would need. Now, these criticisms helped me see how arrogant I was as a freshman and taught me that ministry is difficult and societal problems complex, but what really changed my view about sex workers was the news article I linked to above. It blew my mind to think that there might be sex workers who instead of longing for salvation from prostitution would rally together to fight for the legitimization of their profession. I had also never before considered how making prostitution illegal does very little to curb the existence of prostitution and creates a power dynamic where sex workers have nowhere to go when they are abused by clients, pimps, and police. I'm still not sure if I support government regulation of prostitution see the Wikipedia article above for some criticisms of Nevada's legal bordellos or if I believe that prostitution in general is a good thing for sex workers or for society. I've heard some people suggest that we decriminalize the practice of receiving money in exchange for sex while continuing to make it illegal to pay someone for sex. This would seem to discourage prostitution as much or more than the current criminalization of prostitution while turning the current power dynamic with all its horrors upside down. Other things such as the portrayal of companions in Firefly and AMAs done by sex workers in r IAmA have continued to shape my views, but that news article I read while working on this ministry project as a college freshman is the main reason I am now more open minded when presented with new information about sex workers and the sex industry. I haven't really researched it intentionally since that project and am still quite conscious of my own ignorance and willing to continue changing and nuancing my views on this subject. So, if you have anything to add to the conversation, please feel free to  even further\n","conclusion":"I used to think no sex worker would ever willingly choose to be a prostitute, stripper, pornstar, etc. T news article, and I now support the decriminalization of prostitution.\n","id":"d7326a25-277e-41ef-ad12-97dc81d31dfa"}
{"argument":"Men have saught power all throughout history, and quite often, power has been attained through conspiracy. In fact, Id say it is the PRIMARY way that power is attained Seeing as I dont think the desire for power will go away any time soon, men aught to constantly be on the lookout for such fuckery Furthermore, it seems to be an order of nature that intelligence more specifically intelligence that can sniff out danger be naturally selected for Personally, I think ALL people should be wary of said conspiracy Furthermore, I think of youre booksmart but lack the fundamental survival mechanism of looking out for danger, then you might not be so smart after all If it leads to your death, you have lost in the survival of the fittest game many animals do better Mankind seems ro have a capacity that I havent seen present in any other animal, except maybe an ostrich, and that is fooling themselves into believing danger is not present when it is Even in high stress situations such as the Las Vegas Shooting, for example some people seem to lack a fundamental survival function, that is being on the lookout for danger, identifying it, and avoiding it I think a LOT of people are like this, and sadly, in a democratic society, this puts us ALL in danger, which is why its so important that we talk about possible dangers instead of acting like theyre taboo Any responses are welcome\n","conclusion":"Its dangerous for the world to not be wary of conspiracy...\n","id":"02ed44b0-cc8c-4e25-95f6-0b30b0d5a377"}
{"argument":"The main reason why people disagree with capital punishment is because there is a chance that a person was falsely accused, which means that we might be accidentally executing a perfectly innocent person. However, if there was some hypothetical way to prove with 100 accuracy that a person is guilty of a crime , there will be a lot more people supporting capital punishment. In fact, the authorities could be as cruel as they want with their punishment, since the public would know with 100 certainty that they're not accidentally torturing an innocent person.\n","conclusion":"The main reason why people don't support capital punishment is because we might wrongfully convict an innocent person by accident.\n","id":"732dbb17-cb6e-4b59-8b13-044f821e3c10"}
{"argument":"As the title says, my view is that human nature means that we are always trying to impress someone, and always trying to earn respect. Recently, I've had two experiences where being more supportive and friendlier to some friends means they take you for granted. An example would be Person A getting angry at something small that I said, and blowing it out of proportion when I try to apologise. Whereas, another friend, Person B, who normally is unsympathetic towards Person A, is constantly saying the one bad thing that I said. However, Person A values Person B's friendship much more, and never gets angry at Person B, due to them feeling inferior and therefore less confident in expressing anger to them. My conclusion is therefore, in order for a friend to respect you more, you have to be colder and less sympathetic. Also, in order to sustain a close friendship, never reveal true depressing feelings to someone you think is close to you, because even if they say they do, they do not truly care, so subconsciously they will not want to deal with your problems and start to distance themselves from you. They will not purposely do this, but they feel less inclined to be around you, even if they reveal their own deepest thoughts and feelings and you still have plenty of fun moments. At least, for most people, in my experience. This has been pretty consistent my whole life. I realise my view is quite depressing, and therefore I am open to changes. Any views?\n","conclusion":"People respect and value friends more when they balance a fine line between being cold and friendly. Those who are always friendly and supportive tend to be kicked to the curb due to the person feeling like they do not need to impress them.\n","id":"dc725ad7-338e-49c6-bb55-b0324b3fad97"}
{"argument":"Monsanto the company that produces a very popular pesticides like Glyphosate and Dicamba, which is used on many GMO crops, also produces the GMO crop that is resilient to this pesticide. Making us ask the question is the use of the pesticide necessary? Or are we falling into this monopoly.dailymail.co.uk\n","conclusion":"Increase in the use of harmful pesticides and herbicides. This has an effect on the health of those that are exposed be that on the farm or on the table.\n","id":"6ccec796-f2e9-4078-9ca5-a55b6a3498b2"}
{"argument":"In the United States, federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. This is commonly simplified to the following protected classes Race Religion National origin Age 40 and over Sex Pregnancy Familial status Disability status Veteran status Genetic information Unlike race, national origin, age, sex, disability, and genetic information for the purposes of this  I am not considering pregnancy, familial status, or veteran status , religion is an association that one chooses . We cannot control our race or our genders, but we absolutely can choose to follow or disregard a belief system. As religion is a matter of choice and while Judaism can be seen as both an ethnicity and a religion, ethnicity itself is not a protected class , we should not include it in those groups that are protected, by federal law, against discrimination or harassment.\n","conclusion":"United States federal law should not consider \"religion\" a protected class.\n","id":"75126a37-8da5-4022-8a84-4f3be585597f"}
{"argument":"One woman's husband has a sex robot whom both feel is more of a 'toy' or 'game' than any form of replacement. The Sex Robots are Coming Channel 4\n","conclusion":"There are several testimonies from women whose husbands own sex dolls; in most, the experience is positive, and the wives in question do not feel replaced or undermined.\n","id":"3aa1df46-bfa8-4f39-affe-3211444bbbed"}
{"argument":"Opponents of vaccine requirements for school children often claim that such mandates impede on the right to free practice of religion under the first amendment. 48 states grant exemptions to vaccine requirements, and 28 of these states offer exemptions only for reasons of religious belief, according to the National Council of State Legislatures My argument is that these exemptions are actually in violation of the first amendment. The first amendment bans the federal government from establishing official religions, and the fourteenth amendment applies this provision to state governments. So when governments decide which religions will be sanctioned under state law as real religions, while others are not provided the same institutional protection, this represents a violation of the Establishment Clause. This would be the same if applied to any other government policy. If both Hindu and Mormon institutions lodge religious objection to income taxes, the government would not be allowed to establish that Hinduism is a real religion, therefore exempt from taxes, while Mormons are not.\n","conclusion":"Religious exemptions to vaccine requirements are unconstitutional.\n","id":"d6291553-efde-4281-8ec4-3dfbb647b061"}
{"argument":"They cry. They do not act like adults, they act like very young children. The moment they get something that doesn't go their way, that they object to in some small fashion, or has some kind of imperceptible slight, they cry. They can cry in a sniveling manner, running to authority figures. They can cry in a raging tantrum, posting angry messages. They cry from positions of power even. Basically, they act like children who insist the world has to be their way, and that their interpretation of it is the only acceptable or correct one. The majority of people from other cultures I have seen at least accept that it is possible for other viewpoints to exist, even if they disagree. However, americans for some cultural reason turn inwards, forming echo chambers, and using simplistic childlike acts to enforce them. They almost seem to seek offence to experience being offended, just so they can cry about it. Where most people disagree, argue, then have it sit. However, Americans fall into three categories in their tantrums They attempt to have the offending poster shut down or removed, they devolve into nonsensical assault, or they gather a posse to win with weight of numbers. I'm open to having this view changed, but I'm not sure of any examples that I could give of arguements that would do so. EDIT I've been shown the toupee fallacy, and because of that, my opinion has been changed. Whereas I originally felt that of the people who are crybabies, the majority are american, thus, americans are crybabies, I now feel that while the majority of crybabies are americans, the majority of people who are not crybabies are of no known nationality, and thus, probably american based on demographics, thus my view has been changed. Have a good day.\n","conclusion":"Americans are complete babies on the internet.\n","id":"05609781-5de6-4823-8de8-3325f373fdb9"}
{"argument":"According to Mormon historian Richard Bushman \"The Book of Mormon argued against universal salvation.\" Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling 2005, 199\n","conclusion":"Scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon, generally agree that the Book of Mormon argues against universal salvation.\n","id":"df86b91d-b17d-448b-903c-ba866686f1bc"}
{"argument":"- Indirect social harm is not a sufficient criteria for illegalizing something. By this logic, smoking would certainly be illegalized given the death-toll it has created. The only appropriate criteria for illegalization is whether drug-use directly violates the rights of other citizens. But it does not.\n","conclusion":"Drug-use does not directly harm others, so it should be legalized\n","id":"dd6bfabc-97db-41fc-8ca1-8c26a0f97dbd"}
{"argument":"This is a view I have, not of my own accord, but because everyone else says it all the time. Whenever there is an ounce of encouragement towards moving on from depression, it is quickly met with claims that no matter what, one cannot truly beat depression . I'm not sure if I'm depressed, but I have what I believe are bouts of situational depression. So mine isn't permanent in the sense that it's not continuous, however there always seems to be another time around the corner, and in that sense I guess my view has been proved for me so far. I desperately wish to believe that depression isn't necessarily permanent. If you can develop it, perhaps you can un develop it? That's what I wish to believe. Edit Here's an AskReddit post I made about this. The comments seem to reinforce this view. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Depression is permanent.\n","id":"76a718c5-de19-4fc4-acfd-9f28f0ac92a4"}
{"argument":"California Pizza Kitchen makes the best pizza that includes pineapple as a pizza topping: The Original BBQ Chicken Pizza\n","conclusion":"Pineapple synergistically complements other toppings to make pizza overall taste better.\n","id":"4f455e6a-ca00-4b33-ad63-0b70a1048da5"}
{"argument":"The effect of political appeal on a candidate's appointment is likely to correlate to the media attention such an appointment receives. Local appointments receive significantly less attention than federal appointments.\n","conclusion":"The effect of political appeal is weaker in an appointment system and often only applicable to high profile appointments.\n","id":"a9cc0ba6-27bc-4e31-8d86-eb6dedbcbd53"}
{"argument":"First I would like to tell you that I am an atheist and I'm talking mostly about christianity and judaism. x200B I believe that are cons and pros for their existence but I don't get how many NEW churchs reads the HOLY BIBLE in their own way, if that text is sacred why you should priest just about the things that concern your audience? Who has to decide what should be read or not? x200B This brings me a benevolent thought that since their creation the bible is used just to control masses and for that specifical reason religion should be extinct. I don't care if you believe in God or anything but I do care that your speech hurts who doesn't follows you. x200B I've followed for 10 years a protestant church and I always noticed a pattern Fear, fear, fear and celebrate. And looking closely most churchs follow the same script, I can't see how recovered lifes , meaning to life and love eachother equals the balance. edit This is about my view. I am not considering that is going to happen, I am not dumb to believe that this could happen anytime soon. I am considering ALL religions that has the Bible as their main book.\n","conclusion":"Bible based religions should be extinct\n","id":"b423c0b2-9c2c-42f5-8d2f-04e042cc4438"}
{"argument":"A survey in 2017, where researchers exposed some respondents to racist comments by Trump, showed that the respondents reached negative conclusions and wrote derogatory comments about Mexicans and Muslims after reading his comments p. 15\n","conclusion":"Trump's racist and Islamophobic messages encourage others to adopt the same view, and use the same language.\n","id":"8a6656ff-3331-44a3-ba3d-3caf64841bc5"}
{"argument":"I believe that when a two people have sex and conception occurs either of the parents should be able to opt out of the process of parenting said fetus if it is carried to term. Example 1 Two people conceive. The woman does not want to be a mother. The man desires to become a father. The woman agrees to carry the child to term and give the child to the man and sign away all parental rights and responsibilities. Example 2. Conception occurs. The man has no desire to be a father and the woman desires to carry to term. The man should be able to sign away all parental rights and responsibilities. as a traditional adoption would be Key points to mention I completely believe the choice to carry to term or not is solely the woman's. The decision must be made during gestation. But have the same current rules as adoption regarding time limits to change your mind. Why I want my view changed I have received a lot of negative feedback from many people that my views are anti woman and anti child.\n","conclusion":"During Gestation I think either the man or woman should have the right to opt out of parenting\/Financial responsibility.\n","id":"881d98f5-ab1a-4e56-9d52-00f272a19df5"}
{"argument":"Many such accusations have been based on the Steele dossier, which was funded in part by the Clinton campaign.\n","conclusion":"Numerous claims by the left regarding collusion have been proven untrue.\n","id":"c60b39c2-2517-49ac-819a-37d001ed5cfd"}
{"argument":"If you\u2019ve tried and failed to convince someone to think rationally, and you find your logical arguments are refuted by emotional arguments, it may be that they have not self actualised. In Maslow\u2019s Hierarchy of Needs theory, people do start to think rationally until certain physiological and emotional needs are met Food shelter, safety, love belonging, esteem, self actualisation. Our society was founded by the English. Our manners and customs came from Protestant England, but our culture was turned upside down. Good Christians are meek, they do not talk about religion, politics, or money in polite society. People\u2019s feelings are important and it\u2019s not OK to upset or offend people. In a Christian, class based society, where each class is responsible to bring up the lower class and look up to the higher class, moral authority in society tends to shift up the social hierarchy to the upper classes and the clergy. Australia was founded as a series of penal colonies. Convicts were treated quite poorly, and when they got out of gaol they were also treated poorly by the Christian immigrants who saw the convicts as wicked sinners. Because of this we have an aversion to higher classes, and we became irreligious. In this irreligious society with meek Christian customs and manners, moral authority tends to shift down the hierarchy rather than up. Since it\u2019s not OK to upset or offend people, those people who are more easily offended, who tend to be lower on Maslow\u2019s Hierarchy are hard to challenge, and you are likely to be shamed if you try. Because it\u2019s hard to challenge irrational ideas in polite society, our society has been structurally locked into a gradual shift towards irrationality, and the moral authority of the offended victim classes. We\u2019ve been stuck in this general direction since roughly the 1970s after the moral authority of the church started to be challenged, and the media started to shift us into being more of a consumerist society, by trying their best to making us feel unfulfilled, artificially keeping us from reaching self actualisation, and therefore rational thought. The three sides of the equation that locks us into this gradual shift are Meek society leaving us unable to challenge the lower classes. Godless society taking away moral authority from the top. Consumer society leaving us unfulfilled and irrational. What can we do to change this equation? Challenge meek society \u2013 We create a confrontational society where we stand up for reason. When you change yourself to meet the challenge of an adversary, you get into game theory, and you become a mirror of that adversary and become everything you hate, and no one ends up happy. Think of the cold war and mutually assured destruction. Think of what the singles dating scene has become, with both sexes now reading books about how to win in the dating scene, but everyone ends up miserable. Think of Trump\u2019s polarised US. This is the road to schizophrenia. The only way to deal with game theory is not to engage in it and stay human. Challenge Godless society to move moral authority back to the top \u2013 The classes at the top are more likely to be self actualised than the classes at the bottom, but that\u2019s not a good reason to trust them. The ruling classes have certainly abused the lower classes many times before. Challenge consumer society \u2013 We have about the best standard of living in history, so it seems surprising that more people are not self actualised, but that is the paradox. Our standard of living is built on a consumer society that holds people back from being satisfied. I will put it to you that because moral authority is with the irrational victim classes, our society is structurally set become increasingly irrational. We\u2019ll probably go down the schizophrenic game theory path to counter the irrationality of our political opponents, and ultimately our society will become polarised by two different kinds of irrational, and then collapse. The only way to save our liberal democracy is to teach people to think for themselves and be independent. This means we must challenge the idea that it\u2019s OK to be envious, rather than being happy with what we\u2019ve got. This probably can\u2019t be done in a world of mass commercial media. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Society is structurally set to decline\n","id":"922635f7-d1b4-42d4-b212-477fb38deaff"}
{"argument":"Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth defended those who attended the Charlottesville rally as simple Americans who felt that their country was slipping away from them, even though most of them were explicit white nationalists. This sort of discussion normalises white supremacy and helps spread it.\n","conclusion":"On the contrary, the more white supremacists are censored, the greater the uproar around the issue. That means white supremacists are discussed by more people in the news for a longer period of time, bringing even more exposure to their ideology.\n","id":"e0be8acd-7342-4506-af17-8a8dc5d16b39"}
{"argument":"If not, the government would be less likely to assist since they\u2019re already paying a UBI, which results in people suffering for making decisions driven by circumstances for which they are not at fault.\n","conclusion":"Some individuals would spend poorly, making it necessary to reinstate various welfare programs to help these people make better financial decisions.\n","id":"2dbdbf22-7ca9-4ea1-ba19-2872ceab6140"}
{"argument":"The act of surveillance is neutral, as long as it's continuous it will be easier to prosecute.\n","conclusion":"This would actually make discrimination significantly easier to prove and prosecute.\n","id":"b1feeb1d-895b-412a-8e13-a1e177be921d"}
{"argument":"I understand that many people treat marriage as a sacred emotional bond or an innate human trait, so it may seem cynical to think of it as an investment. However, I wish to discuss marriage in a philosophical sense. By investments , I mean time, effort, emotional cost, and money. Pragmatically, people marry because of 2 people's mutual desire to keep each other in their lives forever. This can be because of love, children born out of wedlock, financial reasons, etc. However, I believe that most reasons for marriage can be reduced to the fact that people don't want their investments in a relationship to go to waste. Many people want to develop a strong bond with another person, but that requires significant amounts of time and effort. They would be more willing to do so if they have a legal barrier to prevent their relationship from being destroyed on a whim. Therefore, in mostly progressive, modern, secular, and gender equal societies Liberal American cities, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, etc , marriages enable people to make larger investments in relationships because it increases the odds that the relationship will last until one person dies. Marriage makes it harder to leave a relationship because of the troubles of going through divorce. If a married person is considering ending the relationship, they are more likely to make an effort to fix the problems because they don't want to go through the troubles of a divorce. I'm not saying marriage is bad or that people shouldn't marry. I think people should marry because they can give more to a relationship. However, I think people should understand the reasons for marriage before marrying. I think too many people marry just because that's what everyone else is doing. Premises Here are some premises that I'm not willing to compromise on marriage is not part of human nature it's an invention monogamy is not an intrinsic human trait whether or not God exists, He has no bearing on marriages or sex. Corollaries are that premarital sex, extramarital sex, or homosexual sex are not sins there's no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages in the context of this argument separation rate is higher for couples who aren't married Valid reasons for marriage I believe there are valid reasons for marriage aside from legal protection for investments in relationships. These may not be good or ethical reasons, but I believe they are logically valid financial incentives married couples can have lower combined tax rates, married men are seen as more favorable on average by employers and investors, married couples have lower insurance premiums on average, etc immigration marrying someone to help them get permanent residency or citizenship familial or societal pressure sometimes the only way to keep your parents happy is to marry proof you view your partner as important in modern societies, we're each allowed to marry 1 person. It shows your partner that they are truly special to you if you marry them Invalid reasons for marriage The valid reasons are not common reasons. The more common reasons for marriage are reasons that I disagree with love romantic, companionship, lust, etc if a couple love each other and want to be together, they can do so without needing to marry. Many people see marriage as an act that increases the love the couple feels, but I don't believe marriage intrinsically amplifies love. Rather, people develop stronger emotional bonds after marrying because they are more secure in their relationship. Since it's less likely that the relationship will end, people are more willing to become more emotionally attached to their partner. monogamy you can be monogamous without marriage or polygamous with marriage. However, if you cheat, you're more likely to get less in a divorce. Therefore, marriage is a legal disincentive to cheating. children you can raise a child together without marriage. However, the relationship is more likely to end, leaving everyone in a bad spot. cohabitation same as above, you can live together without marriage. happiness, less stress, living longer, etc studies correlate each of these with marriages. However, I don't believe marriage intrinsically help with any of these. Rather, all else being equal, married couples are more happy because they feel more secure there's less fear of their partners leaving. There are other less significant factors too e.g. married couples are more happy on average because they are more likely to be covered by their partners' health insurance. Nevertheless, unmarried couples can enjoy most benefits of married couples sex, companionship, cohabitation, children, etc. Conclusion I believe marriage is a good thing and that it improves relationships. However, I believe this is mostly a result of knowing that it's less likely for one's partner to leave if they are married. Without challenging any of my premises, please change my view and give me a perspective on marriage that wouldn't cause my girlfriend to slap me. Edit corollaries if my view is valid, then homosexual marriages, open marriages, and group marriages are all valid.\n","conclusion":"The primary purpose of marriage in progressive modern societies is to be legal protection for your investments in a relationship\n","id":"d36ad0ca-d2ed-43aa-8362-433f21774234"}
{"argument":"The Republican party used to be the original anti slavery party with some of the greatest presidents ever Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt etc They would both support and promote civil rights and individual freedom at the same time. However ever since they used the Southern Strategy to appeal to white voters they have become way too far right and have lost the moral highground. I also think that the Strategy is the reason why now you have guys like Donald Trump in the lead, because he is much tougher than anyone on the exact same values example anti immigration that the Southern Strategy glorified for years. btw. sorry for my poor english, I am from Switzerland\n","conclusion":"that the Southern Strategy was the biggest misstake ever for the Republican party\n","id":"b93352f6-d1a2-4e5c-9441-032fba992c76"}
{"argument":"I think transsexuals are vain, superficial, and insecure. I know quite a lot of people with this condition and this is the conclusion I have reached. Transsexuals say that their main issue is they feel like they are trapped in the opposite gender's body that their mind is male and their physical vessel is female or vice versa. I'm a male, but I don't feel like a man I feel like me. I don't like doing man things, I like doing the things I like to do. I have facial hair and a penis, but they are not integral parts of who I am, because an individual is more than the meat they walk around in. What does it mean to have a male or female brain? I've met women that were more stereotypically masculine in their thinking aggressive, ambitious, domineering than many men, and men that were more stereotypically feminine nurturing, sensitive, caring than many women. I think transsexuals are emotionally immature and as a result attach disproportionate salience to superficial gender constructs. Plenty of feminine men live their lives without wanting to chop off their penis and vice versa. What would happen if I woke up tomorrow with a woman's body? It would be pretty shocking and my life would change radically as a result, but I don't think it would make me miserable. I would still be me , just in a different body. Transsexualism is nothing but an extreme manifestation of human vanity. Please convince me that I'm wrong I wish I thought differently, but I don't.\n","conclusion":"I think transsexuals are just emotionally immature\n","id":"73a0647c-9ba7-473e-bab2-5a2196dec9fb"}
{"argument":"True, there's a variety of roles to volunteer in which allows someone who doesn't want to be at risk to help and support their local force.\n","conclusion":"This presumes that the volunteer is not working outside in the public space as a law enforcement volunteer.\n","id":"540f1efd-f113-41e1-b91a-a1ce64b4e6ed"}
{"argument":"While one could increase the size of schools, this would be expensive and might have unintended consequences.\n","conclusion":"It may not be practical in a typical sized school to achieve this.\n","id":"34f5c9fe-3cbc-4b97-96bd-0719da71ca6c"}
{"argument":"I do not care if the government wishes to spy on the personal details of my life. It does not harm me if the government knows what I do in my personal time. There is no harm in letting a government employee know about my life. The same way I have no problem sharing my personal health details with a physician, I have no problem sharing my personal information with those in charge of protecting us. If this spying has saved even 1 life, I believe the benefits far outweigh the costs.\n","conclusion":"I believe our safety is more important than privacy from the government.\n","id":"027e5ba3-87ad-4a70-8c80-8c4a4c7739c0"}
{"argument":"Most education contains skills for life already. Teachers and other staff interact, with each other and students, often enough where they model good or at least not 'bad' behaviour for the students. All studies and interactions pose opportunities for teachers to discern gaps in their students' life skills and then help fill them in, so separate specialist lessons are not needed.\n","conclusion":"Children spend a lot of their waking time at school so we owe them a proper education not a mere stuffing of facts and processes. So yes, life skills should be taught at school, but other sources should complement that learning too.\n","id":"5f21d138-c5ef-412c-aacb-894694dd42ca"}
{"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. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"As a heterosexual male making female friends is overrated for helping you find romantic relationships\n","id":"9ce11e38-026d-4695-8e49-20092c5e1205"}
{"argument":"Mainstream feminism does not recognize the additional risk of sexual assault and violence that sexual minority women face p. 2.\n","conclusion":"This issues of women of colour are ignored by the feminist movement.\n","id":"611211a9-f24b-476e-ba3b-79767b734770"}
{"argument":"This is all based off me thinking with no economic education aside from 2 classes in college I got an A and a B in. I see the domino effect basically looking like this Higher minimum wages say 15 hr but perhaps there is a better number economists could figure out Less people need multiple jobs to survive thus leading to more open jobs and less unemployment \u0394 u fmeson Less people in poverty leading to more people with more money to spend So while companies will have very slightly lower margins, most of them will make it back with more sales from the growing middle class Any companies that don't make back their lower margins from more sales will simply shrink the upper 1 , and even brining some upper class into the upper middle class instead. And if they don't and try to pass that cost on to the customers or less employees, they will go out of business by the people that don't. I'm sure there are flaws there, but I'm curious what they are. Or is that the plan and no one says it because the loudest people are the ones who risk losing money? EDIT u Ardonpitt made a good point about large businesses not being the major issue here, rather it's small businesses that make up a majority of jobs and they will suffer. My response being gt That makes sense. But maybe there is a way around that. Maybe the minimum wage is directly proportional to the number of employees you had the year before. That could incentive companies to fire people but if we had an upper and a lower cap that could help. So if you have 5 employees minimum wage is 8 hr but if you have 1000 or more it is 15 hr. That way companies like Apple won't profit any from going from 50,00 employees to 40,000, and theres no way they're getting to 1,000 employees. Or if that doesn't work maybe a sliding scale from 8 1 depending n the previous years profit. Something like that might work. Does this make sense or are there flaws there too? \u0394 EDIT2 u fmeson convinced me I was wrong on my second bullet. Less people need multiple jobs to survive thus leading to more open jobs and less unemployment gt A lot of times people have multiple jobs not because they don't make enough per hour, but because they don't get enough hours at any one job. This is a good point, so you're saying it's no ones first goal to hit what they need to live. There first goal is to hit 40 or more hours per week and make as much as they can. So someone with 2 part time jobs at 8 an hour, if they were to start getting 15 hr they wouldn't quit one of the jobs. That makes sense. \u0394\u0394 Conclusion u Ardonpitt made me understand, while raising minimum raise might be a piece of what needs to happen it's not the only thing. Only raising minimum wage is a temporary fix, there are a lot of other things that also need to happen to keep it sustainable.\n","conclusion":"Higher minimum wages would have a domino effect improving the economy more than people tend to explain\n","id":"580cd274-30a7-4e5c-8daf-9b99c38e75c2"}
{"argument":"One of the things I will do at work when it is a slow day is go read some of the articles on CNN. I particularly enjoy reading the opinion pieces, whether I agree or disagree. Generally I think they are pretty shallow treatments of the topic up for discussion, but I can usually get past that and just enjoy hearing someone argue a stance. Except for one writer. Mel Robbins writes many opinion pieces of CNN. All of them are bull shit, hypocritical, and self righteous. Now Mel is not a CNN commentator, but she will get an opinion piece put up once every other week or so. This week though, she has put out three pieces on NFL and domestic violence, one about Ray Rice, one about Adrian Peterson, and one about the NFL as a whole, and all of them were full of her tut tut ing at the subjects of the story. There were no suggestions, or proposed course of actions, just one that said, essentially, Ray Rice is inhuman scum, disciplining your children doesn't work and you are stupid for thinking it does, and Roger Goodell is inhuman scum. Her articles always just reek of the worst kind of single minded demonization and piling on to people who I will freely admit, deservedly are the public punching bag du jour. I can pallet the opinions I disagree with if they are well argued, or come from an interesting place, but Mel Robbins does a bad job of writing articles which appeal to the lowest common denominator. I don't think you will change my opinion by making me think Mel Robbins is a good opinion writer, but there certainly might be someone worse on the staff, and there are plenty of articles I don't get around to reading. So, please,  that Mel Robbins is the worst opinion writer contributing to CNN.\n","conclusion":"Mel Robbins is the worst CNN Opinion Writer\n","id":"b8ec014d-fa30-4cc7-8389-f36c8ce29c54"}
{"argument":"I believe that rowdiness is one of the most important traits in a guy. My definition of a rowdy guy One who can easily go on the offensive, if required either physically or verbally , in any public situation. Someone's teasing his gf, this guy can confront the other people, get physical if needed. He has a strong eye contact with everyone He says whatever he wants to say to the people around him. If he thinks you suck at something then he's going to tell it to you. Subscribes to the following macho man stereotype beliefs about how to behave look serious most of the time, never show yourself to be lacking in something, if you are lacking in something then cover it up in various ways, make jokes on whoever is there in front of you , Looks wise, he's aggressive, rude male who looks unpolished. Reasons why the rowdy guy is the best bet for an attractive gf An attractive girl is more likely to have higher number of guy options to choose from whom to date . And if she's got plenty of options then she's going to pick the best one out of them. Since she's picking the best guy, it should be rowdy guy because he's the best version of what a guy can be. Being in public. The rowdy guy poses himself in an aggressive assertive manner in public. He creates a space around himself and the girl when they are outside. Any person will think twice before breaking troubling his girl. So there's more protection and safety for the girl. Safety. The rowdy guy's confident and aggressive mannerism will make the girl feel protected. Plus, he can fight, if needed. And since he does this better than the average Joe so it follows that he's the better guy for any girl. Dominating. The rowdy guy can command people's respect with his strong eye contact and a non pleasing behavior direct and strong . Anyone who doesn't agree with him will have to face some kind of intimidating behavior verbally or non verbally . Making someone feel uncomfortable. The rowdy guy can make anyone feel uncomfortable whenever he wants. This is a big win for him because whenever he wants to create personal space for himself and someone's invading his personal space he just goes passive aggressive or intimidates that person. Usually he'll get left alone after this. This skill is also essential in getting love and respect from people. If the girl's friends aren't respecting him or some colleague is insulting him he can always make them feel uncomfortable so that they back off. This makes him the most respectable person around. Street smartness. The rowdy guy is usually the street smart type, meaning that in any conversation he doesn't ever appear dumb. If they're discussing a topic that he knows about then he'll keep poking comments at someone in a group demonstrating to everyone that he's really knowledgeable, if they're discussing a topic that he doesn't know anything about, then he'll still converse in such a way that he doesn't appear dumb. He'll get the info from the person in front of him without making it seem like he's getting the info. Here's an example of how this would work Example of street smartness He avoids phrases like I don't know or directly asking him How does that work? , What is that? . Instead he somehow phrases his sentences into a conversation such that the other person has to do a lot of explaining. For example, let's say someone is talking about X, say free fall rides and he knows nothing about them. So he might say What you're studying roller coasters now? Was your engineering degree not enough? hahaha and the other guy then explains No it's not roller coasters. I'm talking about free fall rides. They take you up and then leave you in the mid air. What you're basically going to fly once they leave you in the mid air? What's gotten into you? NO we don't fly in free falls. We're strapped to the chair and the whole system falls down. Just before we hit the ground we get cushioned so it doesn't hurt . Since the rowdy guy doesn't appear dumb ever, he's the trophy bf for any girl. He can make her proud in public settings, she never has to feel ashamed of his talking skills. He can talk to anyone and get whatever info he wants. He's always relaxed since there's no one to bully him. In fact he can bully and intimidate someone else if needed. Conclusion The rowdy guy is the best guy for any girl. He's a trophy, he can talk to anyone and with confidence. He can get into fights, he can dominate people, thus keeping the girl safe. Edit1 I've got several responses This  went way better than I expected. Please give me some time to reply as I go through the lengthy posts. Edit2 I feel like my opinion has changed. I will still read and try to respond to every comment I get, but please note that I may or may not, depending upon the time. Thanks everyone, for your excellent attempts gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"A rowdy guy is the best bf for any girl, especially an attractive girl\n","id":"802b8498-4243-4ae1-807a-2b03fdb69fdc"}
{"argument":"So I'm looking to see if someone can explain something to me here that I can't. The background is this The UK Prime Minister, Teresa May TM , cannot get the Brexit Withdrawl Agreement BWA through the House of Commons HoC . On both occasions so far that the BWA has been taken to the HoC it was roundly defeated, and attempts to repeatedly bring the BWA back to the HoC are being blocked on procedural grounds UK constitutional process says you can't just have attrition type votes to get a law through it can only come back if it has been substantively changed . The HoC is currently governed by a Coalition Lite agreement between the Conservatives, TM's party, and a Conservative alligned party from Northern Ireland, the DUP. The DUP do not want the BWA as it stands, because it would leave NI regularorily separate from the rest of the UK in the long term. For this reason, both the DUP and several Conservative HoC members have opposed the deal. TM made a statement recently to somehow encourage the moving forward of the deal, saying she would resign if that meant getting the deal through. What I don't understand is how is that an offer? What does TM resigning change about the UK EU NI conundrum? Can someone see something here that I can't? I'm British and I studied the political system of this country and the EU for a decade and I can't make head nor tails of this bizzare offer. It seems like a stupid move borne of desperation. Can anyone show me how it's anything else? gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Teresa May's offer to resign to get the EU withdrawl agreement through Parliament makes no sense.\n","id":"8463e6e6-ae92-4783-beb6-af22c44dcb67"}
{"argument":"The policy was initially not challenged fundamentally - rather, it was demanded that the military stuck to the rules set out by it.\n","conclusion":"First, there was a movement for \"Don't ask, Don't tell Now, the LGBT movement is pushing for open advocacy.\n","id":"76c0a5d3-f1c3-4a8a-8a80-f520c4eea981"}
{"argument":"Animals feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Hence whenever people consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, people are morally obligated to take them into account.\n","conclusion":"Animal rights ensure that animals get to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation\n","id":"7bf3567a-246b-44e1-a789-37533f8ab6fb"}
{"argument":"I believe in the philosophy that all human societies generally go through periods of darkness and decline. And also through periods of Light and prosperity. Right now Islam is in its dark age and the West is at its height. However between the years of 800 AD 1300 AD ish A good 500 years Islam experienced its own golden age while Europeans were merely small feudal kingdoms fighting each other all the damn time. Not only that, but the two greatest and bloodiest world wars were all between non Muslims mainly . European and Christian history has many dark aspects. Christianity was spread by the sword in Africa, Asia and the Americas, you cant deny that. European Imperalism was very bloody, For example more than 8 million Congolese were killed by Imperial Belgium. How do you explain that? As far as I know Belgium was and still is not a Muslim country. Im not saying Islam and Muslims are all sunshine and rainbows, im only saying that Christians did much more worse stuff in the past that we tend to forget about. Islam is only going through its dark age just like Christian Europe was going through its dark ages. Islam has really benefitted humanity in many ways, Islam led to many scientific inventions such as the camera read Ibn Al Haytham Also Muslim scientists invented Algebra and made surgical innovations. They gave us our numbers and they invented the number Zero and they also were the first civilization to use decimals. They revived the Roman and Greek works which would would later on lead to the European Renaissance. Again, im not saying Muslims and Islam are sunshine and rainbows. Im just sayin that they are going through a dark age right now while the West is experiencing its golden age. However, that will change in the future and maybe it will be East Asia's turn or some other civilization that will take the lead just like what happened before gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Islamic Violence is not because Islam is a violent religion\n","id":"e4152cd5-d007-402e-b471-798480dadc5a"}
{"argument":"It is often expressed that slut shaming is wrong, only done by insecure males, and a double standard. I believe all those views are naive, not well thought out, and based in a personal beef with a specific social norm. The way I refer to men and women is all generally speaking. The view is often How come when a man has sex he's a stud, but when a woman does it she's a slut? That's a double standard. Now on the surface, true it does sound like double standard , in the same way most things can be considered as such. But I believe that view to be very ignorant and naive. It places men and woman in a vacuum, and ignores dating hookup culture as well as our system of gender roles. I do not believe slut shaming is wrong or at least any worse than virgin beta male shaming. At its core, slut shaming is an individual expressing their disapproval of a certain behavior. All people do not share the same view on sex. It is totally reasonable for someone to be picky about the way a potential partner indulges themselves sexually. This is where the stigma comes from and I think people ignore that. This is where gender roles come into play. In dating culture there are trends. In general men look for certain things, women look for certain things. Things that either sex will generally find unattractive, for whatever reason, become stigmatized, as it is assumed you will not be able to find a partner as easily. For instance, if you collect Pokemon memorabilia, society will laugh at you, and label you a nerd lame and not in a good way. There is no logical reason for this other than it is assumed most women will not find it attractive. Now liking Pokemon harms no one, doesn't make you a good or bad person, it's simply a hobby. So why does society see it as not attractive? That interest makes women generally speaking assume negative things about your personality. This is not fair, nor is it explicable , but hey, it is what it is right? So in turn, there are things men generally look for to find out if they like a woman or not. Promiscuity happens to be one of them. Just as you can't argue that Pokemon cards shouldn't be unattractive, you can't argue men should not pay attention to this behavior, and have their own judgement about it. Attraction can not be rationalized, especially by the opposite sex. We've all heard of the nice guys who get friendzoned because they more or less behave in a way they believe a woman should like, not actually taking into account what the woman seeks and feels. It doesn't seem to work out for them. But on paper, hell even women themselves say they just want a nice guy to be with. But once again, no one can really rationalize their attraction, you like what you like. It is nonsensical to oppose this as the dating game is about finding a match. Being your true self will not hinder you in anyway, so for either sex to complain about who they failed to court is a waste of time. I don't believe seeing a loose woman as unattractive to be a sign of insecurity on its own. That reaction reveals insecurity and immaturity itself. It reeks of entitlement and the notion that a loose woman is above judgement. Our attraction is as raw as it gets. Everyone has their personal wants. What one person considers a slut another could consider an angel. As it stands in our dating culture women seek a man that will fit their idea of what they should be, usually successful, confident, and charming. In turn, the guy seeks that he is putting forth effort into a person who isn't so easily impressed and accessed. It's a system of checks and balances. That is the trade off. The woman respects the man for having confidence, the man respects the woman for having control over her primal desires. My view is I think so much of this context is ignored when people complain about women being labelled sluts. I don't think it causes problems that can't be solved with maturity with both genders. I also think it ignores the emotional aspect of men, catering to the gender stereotype that we should be pure logical beings. We simply are not. The way men and women find themselves into bed together are very different, and so are the assessments after the fact. And to add, the fact that people who speak out against slut shaming usually aren't equally as vocal about virgin shaming that happens to men makes me further believe this to be true. Ironically if there is a double standard regarding this issue, that's it.\n","conclusion":"Slut-Shaming,In Western Society, is not wrong, but a byproduct of gender roles that most of us follow\/agree with.\n","id":"48a23acf-8a6d-4aed-8011-c9b14ebaca1d"}
{"argument":"Why should humans have any more right to live on this planet than gorillas? Any valuation that places humans above gorillas argues that humans have some fundamental right to existence while gorillas do not. A less anthropocentric view of morality and value would suggest that gorillas have a right to existence regardless of human value for their existence.\n","conclusion":"People should donate to organisations that support gorillas instead of to those that support starving children.\n","id":"e5f11db8-2758-404f-bc9f-f1251cdaabc5"}
{"argument":"So we start with the concept that sex and gender are two different categories. We use male and female when talking about sex and use boy man and girl woman for gender. Most people are either female woman or male men. A small subset are female men or male women. perhaps a few outliers as well but they are not relevant to this . Sexual characteristics both primary and secondary are traits that pertain to sex and not gender. Those that need worry about cervical cancer are females men or women and never males men or women . So the following I believe is a problem We have a plethora of people who demand that we come to the realization that peoples genders are self identified and are not indicative of their respective sex. Now, I can agree with this statement, but I take it to its logical conclusion. Which is what trait or characteristic can be associated with only one gender as a reason to differentiate and have two genders in the first place? If the only difference is one of identity then there really is no difference and talking about gender is pretty meaningless having 150 genders would be just as valid if they only pertain to self identity . Better to assume the discussion using man woman is talking about sex, then we have a reason to have different labels. This in turn would stop all the semantic arguments and anger directed at those who are not up to speed on terminology. TL DR If Gender distinction matters then give examples of traits that pertain to only one gender excluding traits that pertain to sex If no such traits can be shown then, discussing gender is worthless and what matters is sex outside of identity . If sex is what matters outside of identity then I have more 's regarding the surrounding ideas.\n","conclusion":"The tumbler\/SJW conception of Gender is contradictory\n","id":"758c4dea-313b-4d1d-8a1e-41213eda53b3"}
{"argument":"These members of the community are often those who should be represented most as Pride's original aim was to represent those who faced discrimination and challenge norms.\n","conclusion":"As pride has become bigger it has only become more inclusive to groups that are \"palatable\" to wider society, leaving many in the community left out\n","id":"1d1523cc-8767-4b54-8460-82fc484dc768"}
{"argument":"I was just at the apology post and pretty much every comment is at best apology unaccepted. and at worst and more commonly die you devil bitch . What the hell happened to common decency? It's not like she started World War III, or committed genocide or held hostages at gunpoint. You want to know what she did she ran a website we always waste our time on poorly. Since when is that a crime against humanity? Oh wait it isn't. I'm not saying we have to like her but I'm saying this is not OK to call her devil or C t, or wish bad things upon her or the worst has her face being posted on pornographic images that's not OK that's bullying and completely inappropriate. Would you want to be treated this way if you screwed up like her? So go change my view why does Ellen Pao Deserve all this? Edit I never said I didn't dislike her I do I just think Redditors are being as immature as preschoolers when expressing their hatred of her. Edit 2 RIP my inbox. Never thought that would happen.\n","conclusion":"While I Can't deny that Ellen Pao is a terrible CEO, the way Reddit has been treating her is not okay\n","id":"bc0d6bfd-00e4-485d-8ff8-b24657f6b663"}
{"argument":"First, lets establish that I'm thinking of the psychological understanding of happiness as a particular state of mind. Second, lets establish that ignorance is undesirable. That's a view I hold and am not willing to change. The view to challenge is the one of happiness being dependant on maintaining ignorance. Now this is something I've been thinking about a lot and something that bothers me. A social, psychologically sound person will display empathy towards others. We are affected by the people and the environment around us. Meeting happy, smiling people and pleasant experiences make us feel good and happy. Sad, hurt, depressed people and tragedies make us sad. If one realizes his own happiness one is content with his own life , then the last thing he has to do to stay happy is to stay ignorant of the suffering of other people, isn't it? I think that's really tragic and I'd love to have my mind changed about this. EDIT1 Just wanted to add, that following with this line of thought I've arrived at the conclusion that pursuit of happiness is immoral and the state of happiness is undesirable. Staying unhappy with your life is the moral thing to do. With morality defined as a set of behaviours desirable in society.\n","conclusion":"I believe happiness depends on remaining ignorant and thus, is not something to strive for.\n","id":"a9ccde1f-b75e-4d43-800f-3dc99bd4603e"}
{"argument":"Not calling somebody by their chosen name or pronoun is demeaning and bullying to a protected class; thus, it is a form of hate speech\n","conclusion":"Freedom of speech should not include discrimination and\/or labeling.\n","id":"a6888384-7d3e-4394-a08c-df196dc5c533"}
{"argument":"Before my view i would like to say i am not and have never been suicidal and never considered suicide. I think that thoughts and prayers are pretty much the same as people who post suicide hotlines. Almost everyone knows or has access to find some suicide hotlines and simply posting 1 hotline at the end of a speech or phrase which is pretty much the same as thoughts and prayers isn't much different. People who are suicidal have mostly tried the hotlines and them seeing a hotline, which most wont call anyway, isn't going to help much. People use it as a way of feeling that they somehow helped more than someone posting thoughts and prayers. People want to feel like they helped and instead of actually helping they use it as a way to feel better about themselves without any actual help. People wrongly think that calling a suicide hotline like childline or some other one will magically make all the problems go away. This idea is pretty bad for suicidal people in general as it makes them feel bad that the call didn't fix their problems while everyone believes it does. My view will be changed if i am shown how suicide hotlines will help someone stop suicide and how suicidal people will call hotlines from simply seeing 1 comment with a phone number.\n","conclusion":"People complain about \"thoughts and prayers\", while suicide hotlines are pretty much the same.\n","id":"bb0478a4-07e1-4972-957c-8554f7c1919a"}
{"argument":"Overall the US has 30 separate types of weapon systems in the white paper\u2019s selected categories, versus 178 for the EU.\n","conclusion":"Europe has an unnecessarily large number of weapon systems which will cause logistical issues.\n","id":"68fae8e7-90aa-4ef2-a5bc-ed6b952ee82c"}
{"argument":"Our friend, who is now living with us, recently had TB suspected pending results . She was informed by her doctor that anyone she spent more than 10 hours with would need to be screened for TB. This was poorly explained as us needing a jab to prevent us contracting TB. I organised an appointment with my GP and told my flatmate to do the same, better safe than sorry, especially considering our friend received invasive surgery due to her bout with TB. We both went to our GPs and were told different things. I was referred to the local chest clinic as potentially needing a booster we now know I do not as there is no TB booster and he was informed he did not need a booster as he already had a vaccination as do I. I followed up on my referral and was informed of the fact that TB only requires one jab to be immunised against although what we may have needed was screening if we had spent more than 10 hours with our friend within two weeks of her starting treatment. The clinic told me that they would contact the local TB nurse and see if me and my flatmate required screening. In the time between me speaking to them and them calling me back I told my flatmate that we may need to go in for screening. He said he didn't care and would not go to be screened, as he had the vaccine and knew he can't have TB. I told him that he must go and reminded him of how bad of a shape our friend was in whilst in hospital. I then heard back from the clinic ensuring us that we almost certainly didn't need screening, which I accepted. I told him that we were in the clear and he left for work. When he got back in around an hour ago we were chatting in the kitchen when he said that he knew he didn't need to be screened as he knows when he's ill and he is not ill now. This is where I made a mistake by saying don't be a fucking idiot. Now I hold my hands up and am willing to say that was wrong. However I went on to saying that he can't know he doesn't have TB as it's a dormant disease and that travelling without being screened would have been an unnecessary risk, and that if we needed to be screen we should have gone. He argued that it doesn't matter as him having TB would not have affected his plans and attending a screening would have been overcautious. I argued that he owed it to everyone he comes into common contact with as well as himself to be certain if we had needed screening. Essentially I need my view changed so I can apologise, but as it stands I can't see how he's right. If there was a possibility that he had TB and he travelled without it being addressed he'd be putting himself and many others at risk, he says that it doesn't matter to him. tl dr  you can't be overcautious with TB and my friend is potentially dangerous when it comes to health related subjects.\n","conclusion":"My flatmate is reckless.\n","id":"1ba10235-645b-40c7-b54f-9709c2334bcc"}
{"argument":"In order to produce good citizens, it is important to be aware of issues that impact society as a whole. It is important that at some point in school that students are exposed to the impact of racism.\n","conclusion":"If a work of literature is not appropriate for a certain age group, it is better to teach it to an older, more mature age group, rather than produce a censored version.\n","id":"8391fd87-ca28-4b16-8d0a-032cf7e49e17"}
{"argument":"Body acceptance is important if someone wants to weigh 350lbs and accepts the risks of doing so then that is their right and no one should tell them not to. If they endanger themselves then that's their problem. But attractiveness is one way that humans have of identifying a potential mate. One that can increase the survivability of two people's descendants. While this isn't true anymore with modern medicine and technology it is still evolutionarily programmed into us from 200,000 years ago when outrunning a lion and being able to kill a bear was a real problem that we faced constantly. So even though society's view of what is attractive changes over time and vary by culture healthiness has almost always been considered attractive. Just because someone has the right to be fat doesn't mean I have to think they are hot there is a difference between tolerance and being attracted to someone. This might be a far fetched analogy, but if someone chooses to not bathe ever then that is their right. But I don't think that is attractive and that is my choice. Also, because I know this will be a counter argument, people who are skinny to the point of being unhealthy are considered attractive so how is that justified? The difference is probably a cultural thing. But, usually, being unhealthily thin is better than being obese. Anorexia is considered unattractive and this shows that healthiness is the main determinant to attractiveness and society is not just bashing overweight people.\n","conclusion":"Fat people have no right to be upset that they are not considered attractive.\n","id":"1297a134-7986-4bdc-af67-1cdc159bc7d8"}
{"argument":"Any one police officer can tell you that being biased on who to stop on the road gives better results than not Suspicious driving, age and race of the driver given the area at hand A black person in asian neighbourhood is more suspicious than asian person, especially if there has been multiple reports of misbehaving black people in the said area in recent timed and the car's condition. Heck, anyone knows that it's more possible that a hispanic in America is illegally there rather than a black person, especially near borders. Also, any one shop assistant knows you have to be biased The youngster groups entering a shop are more likely to steal than the lonely old lady. I have millions of examples where bias helps the work while minimizing the negative effect onto innocent people, and I bet you have many too. Biases are a good thing for almost every customer service position, and trying to remove them makes no sense. Edit The point I am making is that being more suspicious of people because of statistical possibilities of crime or overall misbehaviour, dubbed bias, isn't inherintly bad. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Biases are a good thing\n","id":"9274d96f-e481-4dd6-8e96-411cf3fb6617"}
{"argument":"Hacking the US elections in any way undermines faith in US institutions, which fits into a pattern of recent Kremlin actions and motives. Simply put, it projects Russian power.\n","conclusion":"Putin had incentives to help Trump win the White House.\n","id":"7c4dabe0-518a-44c6-a018-d1a2c9a08fc2"}
{"argument":"Equality is a lie. No two people on earth are equal - in desires, in abilities, in efforts. Everyone on earth is a unique individual, and therefore important. So equality of outcome can never be attained.\n","conclusion":"When you 'protect' a specific group of people they are no longer equal.\n","id":"8127b993-295d-4c3c-8d8f-a6c981bf3009"}
{"argument":"The universe has an observer-dependent existence. All of human experience, including space and time, is a representation in our mind. Thus, there is a form of consciousness that must exist outside of space and time.\n","conclusion":"Even if conventional wisdom about souls is rejected, there is still reason to believe in the existence of a consciousness which can exist independent of one's body.\n","id":"b47771b7-1253-4541-bf77-2765581092aa"}
{"argument":"Historically the LGBT community has not always been inclusive and accepting of minority groups within it, such as the transgender community\n","conclusion":"The LGBT community has not been devoid of racism and other forms of exclusion.\n","id":"7bb3df0f-77ff-43bf-8f7f-12453992fb7e"}
{"argument":"A mind is a set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory. It is usually defined as the faculty of an entity's thoughts and consciousness.\n","conclusion":"The concept of mind isn't incompatible with it being immaterial.\n","id":"aad84c1d-0fb1-42c4-b9c9-6d8ec750b3c7"}
{"argument":"We didn't choose to be born, We didn't choose to be human, we're not even allowed to control our own lives. The least that could be done is allow us to do whatever we want, when and where ever we want so long as we're not infringing on anyone's basic rights. Humans by and large choose to be irrational, illogical, selfish, hypocrites. So why am I morally obligated to live by their laws? I don't care about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and nature maybe cruel, but at least she's fair. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"It's circular reasoning that I have to follow the rules of human society just because I'm human.\n","id":"4b8d71f3-165c-49e7-a3f1-ce1433018d3c"}
{"argument":"I live in a country which uses the A4 paper standard. From time to time, I visit American based companies that use Letter as their standard paper size. I found out to prefer the shorter aspect ratio of Letter paper than A4's taller, clumsier ratio. I know the US are known for their closeness to the rest of the world when it comes to standards, but I do believe this is a case in which the American standard is far superior than the international one. Due to its ratio, I found it to be more stable when you hold a single sheet 90\u00ba to the ground and less prone to creasing not sure this is the correct word I'm talking about the small dimples that damage a sheet of paper, and the folds on the edges too . Today, I spend a bit more to use Letter sized paper. Why should I stop doing this and go back to A4?\n","conclusion":"Letter is a far better paper size than A4\n","id":"e0409fc8-00da-4af8-98c9-f70ed0351271"}
{"argument":"18+ games give rise to websites such as LoversLab which perpetuate rape culture, gender inequality and misogyny.\n","conclusion":"Allowing modifications will increase the presence of 18+ games, which is problematic.\n","id":"e8ac1ce6-19d5-47d2-9b3a-94cd1e35ac0e"}
{"argument":"Deer, Elk, Antelope, rabbits, and wild pigs are just a few examples of larger mammals that wreak havoc on crops, and which are regularly killed to protect crops.\n","conclusion":"Killing pests - not just insects but large, intelligent animals - is a necessity on farms of any kind.\n","id":"2a63e6a7-ab01-4fd1-90eb-a0f0fd952ef4"}
{"argument":"cannabis has been shown to be less harmful than alcohol so legalising it makes perfect sense.\n","conclusion":"Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs yet remain legal\n","id":"8499fe2f-a49c-489a-bbd1-f41983042dda"}
{"argument":"In most polls I have seen for the past 20 years, it seems that a majority of Americans feel that marijuana should be legal. Despite American support for drug law reforms, it doesn't seem that federal drug laws have changed much where it counts. Many Americans are still put in jail for marijuana possession across the country. Not only is possession not legal, but recreational use is not legal either. Ironically, medical marijuana is legal is some states. And the marijuana drug debate has been going on for several decades, possibly longer. It seems that a majority of Americans side with, I think it should be legal . I have seen very few strong supporters for marijuana to remain illegal. With that, I think politicians at the federal level will want marijuana to remain illegal for these reasons And it may remain this way for several years or decades despite the American opinion Hubris If the federal government will stop arresting and detaining people for drug violations, then they will have to admit that all the past laws on drug laws were wrong. Why is a person arrested in 1990 for marijuana possession but in 2014, that person will not be arrested gt And then, what do you do with all past arrest? Do you let all of those people go? Laziness This ties into my first point. How do you change the law with the least impact amount of changes? Do you let millions out of jail? Do you setup new laws allowing for the sale of marijuana? What do you do with the DEA? There would be a lot of reform and maybe the politicians don't want to put the effort in and not see the personal gain. Selfishness For the politician, is a pro marijuana legalization platform beneficial? Politicians like Ron Paul had very strong positions, the drug war is a failure , he got many votes from young people but not as much support across the board.\n","conclusion":"I think that Marijuana is illegal at the federal level for hubris, laziness, selfishness,\n","id":"20749b28-baae-4eac-bc64-48c03ecb12ff"}
{"argument":"God should not change the science of the world specifically for us; if the whole of Creation is good Genesis 1:31 then God doesn't owe his sustenance to us, but equally to everything in His Creation, all of which are products of His designed Science.\n","conclusion":"Evil is anthropocentrically ill-defined and hugely subjective; things that we think are natural Evils to us like diseases, natural disasters and death itself serves themselves as Good to the world, abiding by the scientific laws that govern them.\n","id":"3d900e61-fc50-41cd-a38c-2845079d23e4"}
{"argument":"It does not appear that any competitor of SpaceX is using AI technology to gain a competitive advantage in the satellite launching market. Space launch market competition Wikipedia\n","conclusion":"Spreading fear about AI doesn't appear to be directly beneficial to SpaceX.\n","id":"69d7034f-72f8-4ae2-a556-c337ce872551"}
{"argument":"Addiction is often portrayed as a disease that destroys families and lives. I'm not arguing that. I understand that under many circumstances, addiction is a horrible thing, and can be life threatening. My argument is that addiction, in and of itself, is not bad by its nature. One may have an addiction and have it not affect their lives whatsoever. Beyond just the functioning alcoholic argument, I don't believe that having an addiction is 100 of the time a bad thing. Plenty of people can be addicted to things sex, earning money, nicotine, etc. that do not affect their personal interactions. I'm not claiming that addiction is good or that it can't be harmful, simply that there exists no intrinsic property about addiction which makes it wrong. . Edit Addiction wasn't the right word. More so an inclination to perform an activity with regularity. Sex addiction, which I don't believe is an actual thing but that's besides the point, is not an inherently bad thing, provided it does not interfere with an individuals life. Simply pursuing sex, or anything else, is not intrinsically wrong.\n","conclusion":"I don't believe that addiction is inherently bad.\n","id":"40bee596-026c-47e1-85d0-742da0556013"}
{"argument":"I see a lot of support from the western world for the Armenian genocide, particularly pressure towards Turkey to recognize the atrocities. And I heartily support that. However Greece is also claiming reparations due to atrocities, but everyone is against that. I want some discussion and I would like to reply first to these points Greece is rekindling old grievances . The Armenian genocide happened in 1915, the WW2 in 1940 45. Armenia only asks for recognition There are multiple Armenian organizations that are requesting financial reparations from Turkey. Germany was a different country goverment So it was Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire. According to International Law, the modern German state is in the same situation. Greeks do it just for the money Well yeah, but that doesn't change the legal similarities. I think the West, particularly Europeans, support the one but condemn the other, because Turkey is treated as an outsider, while Germany is held in the greater standards, but also will create a precedent where Europe has to acknowledge they are also at fault when it come to financial obligations which accuse Greece . I respectfully ask to .\n","conclusion":"I believe the West supports the Armenian Genocide because they stand to lose nothing. Greece claims for the WW2 atrocities are on the same level, but nobody supports their claims.\n","id":"c3d88b17-b55d-45a0-9019-6a707b5bc73c"}
{"argument":"Leonardo Da Vinci - \"The time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of other animals as they now look upon the murder of human beings.\"4\n","conclusion":"Killing animals should be viewed as equivalent to killing humans\n","id":"eeba734a-42e6-4b0c-b73d-2d185fae6d5e"}
{"argument":"Propaganda medias etc has become part of the culture, and it deters altruism. Most people now days can't even imagine a different mentality. Consumerism capitalism is prime, and the people will no longer stand together in cooperation, as they don't see a need to. I don't think the individuals will stand up for themselves until there's no where left to sit. There hasn't really been any mass firearm clashes, and if they happen, the authority will dominate. After which they will intimidate the rest back into their slot. If the word spreads, martial law further depression can come about. With the game as it is now, no real revolution can happen unless the power class flips the table and leave everyone to kill one another for a few years and cool out before coming back in to feed the people. I'm not making any predictions, I'm only saying that with things as they are now, it won't happen. And even if it did, it wouldn't.\n","conclusion":"Canada & the United States will never see any real revolution.\n","id":"167ae6f2-590f-45f4-b775-32e0dbab33cd"}
{"argument":"Opera is the most popular browser in many African and Eastern European countries where users are choosing based on performance and not social expectations.\n","conclusion":"Opera creates the fastest browser using the least data with the smallest app size available.\n","id":"5fcf80b3-4855-46f6-9321-f3731b4437b3"}
{"argument":"North Korea is known to proliferate nuclear technology to bolster its economy. The potential nexus between terrorist organizations and rogue states like North Korea is too dangerous to be allowed to exist.\n","conclusion":"Accepting North Korea as a nuclear power would weaken global nuclear non-proliferation efforts.\n","id":"1252bb70-6c01-4589-9bea-b1edda4fcdfb"}
{"argument":"Foreword I've never seen Rick and Morty, nor have I ever tasted szechuan sauce. I don't really care about it, but am curious. I did a bit of research and I believe I understand why people find it racist because szechuan cuisine is considered a high quality delicacy of sorts, and reducing it to the status of a McDonald's dipping sauce hurts the image of the sauce used in the cuisine. I sort of see the argument and why it makes sense, but it's not racist . It's not offending people it's offending a very small minority of culinary artists, cooks, and chefs who appreciate szechuan cuisine and the szechuan sauce used in it. Questions I have Is the McDonald's szechuan really that bad? I can't see it being any worse than a local Chinese takeout establishment's. What gives the Chinese takeaway place the privilege of producing szechuan sauce, and not a chain such as McDonald's? Assuming that it is acceptable for a Chinese takeout establishment to produce and distribute szechuan sauce, what if all members of the staff are white? Does the authority to produce szechuan sauce lie in the name of the establishment, or those who work there? Who has a greater authority to produce szechuan sauce an African American chef with a culinary degree and years of experience, or a Chinese man who has no experience? Of course my premise could be entirely wrong and there is another reason why it's deemed offensive. If that is the case PLEASE inform me. However, as of right now with the information I have, I am going to say the McDonald's production of szechuan sauce is not offensive or racist, and should proceed should the demand for it stay. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Szechuan sauce is not offensive and should be reintroduced to McDonald's.\n","id":"985db037-1c98-46eb-9b64-d6b1939d9507"}
{"argument":"Corporations and large business are ran under a simple principle ensure the greatest possible profits in both the short and long term. In many cases, major corporations report massive profits, only to lay off workers in order to reduce operating expenses. A recent example of this is Intel. They reported a net income of over 2 Billion in Q1 2016. In addition, many of their expenses involve acquisition of other companies, which provide no benefit to the economy other than rewarding shareholders of the company bought out. Despite their massive profits, they plan to layoff 12000 employees. The idea behind hiring and keeping employees is pretty simple. If the employee doesn't provide value greater than the cost of their employment, then it's better to not hire them. The cost of hiring the employee includes Various insurance associated with hiring them worker's comp, unemployment, etc Health care benefits if full time Employment taxes Cost and time associated with completing the employment process Cost of training Liability associated with the employee you're legally liable for stupid things an employee does Cost any expansion that involves hiring new employees such as renting more office space The wage itself All of these factors make hiring an employee much more expensive than the simple cost of their wage. Businesses will incorporate themselves in locations where expenses and tax implications are the least restrictive. It's why online merchants locate themselves in places without sales tax, to have a competitive edge. It's why American corporations are relocating their operations outside of the country, to avoid tax implications. Payroll increases the cost of having an employee. As a result of payroll taxes, employers are forced to pay employees less to maintain the same cost. This has contributed to stagnant wages in the current economy. In situations where employers can't pay employees less minimum wage , it can mean less job creation or expansion. Basic summary of view By taxing labor expenses, the government encourages lower wages, and less job creation.\n","conclusion":"EmploymentPayroll Taxes Are Bad For The Economy\n","id":"e17b3681-08b8-4b87-a7c5-85b54bd45a9e"}
{"argument":"I know it sounds barbaric but I believe it is a good punishment. Look at Saudi Arabia where Sharia law is in full effect, petty crime is pretty much nonexistent because the consequences aren't worth it. In America a criminal barely gets a slap on the wrist for whatever they do unless it's really bad. At that point they now have a criminal record with makes them pretty much unemployable, so they will turn to more crime. Your justice system is terrible. If thieves had their hands cut off in America, honest citizens would have nothing to worry about since it wouldn't affect them, and all the blacks would be walking around without hands. I don't see how this law would do anything but improve society. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Thieves having their hands cut off is a just punishment\n","id":"f9ecf365-bdfd-4cd0-9b44-ae481373ef61"}
{"argument":"A few premises so that people can discuss specific points Most religions are based on faith. Faith is not based on reason. Therefore most religions are not based on reason. So for someone to say they hold a particular view or want to do a certain thing for religious reasons is misleading because it's not because of 'reasons' that they hold that view but because of something else entirely, usually because they have faith in something, which by it's definition isn't reasonable. Whether or not we should have reasons behind our beliefs is entirely different, I just don't think there are such things as 'religious reasons'. Have fun.\n","conclusion":"I don't think religious reasons are valid, for anything really, because religions are not based on reason.\n","id":"a081a871-eb67-4f26-9674-7c471cc618e5"}
{"argument":"I don't see anything wrong with a child's naked body, and what someone thinks about it sexually is up to them. It should be legal as long as there is full consent.\n","conclusion":"- I think that child porn should be legal as long as there is no penetration and full consent from the child and legal guardian.\n","id":"a61fd80b-d5b2-4be9-b375-c53bddff28a6"}
{"argument":"I would love to live in a world where being black or white or Hispanic etc. it doesn't matter because it shouldn't matter was like being blonde or brunette. While there is the joke that blonds are stupid, I don't really see that much discrimination against hair color. I will simplify this post by having there be two colors of people, green and purple. Let's have purple pull the short straw. Let's say that, in a given interview for a given job, a green is 15 more likely to get the position than a purple all other things being equal . Purples will most certainly be unhappy about this, and they will call, righteously, for actions to be taken to remedy the situation. After much hard and tireless work, a magic bill is passed, and, through some means or another, hiring purple is incentivized by roughly 15 . for the next year, the colors are equal. after that, due to more widespread understanding that skin color actually doesn't matter very often, the difference of value people hold between the two shades shrinks. Now, purple is at an advantage. green, however, is asking that the incentive shrink to allow for this improvement. How much by? Herein lies the problem. Purple fought hard for that 15 , and many of them don't think that anything has changed. Green passed a bill to make things equal, not flipped, and many of them don't think that bill should have made it. So here we are, at a standstill. The act of taking away a past measure is will be seen as an act of pushing progress back, not making adjustments. I am all for people being equal, but there is too much entitlement for such a state of being. Those who are oppressed are always vigilant against future oppression, regardless if it is actually oppression. Those who are not oppressed don't wish to lose that status. TL DR The only way that a group in power will be willing to give up control in part or in whole to another group would be if the originally powerful group could take that power back, but, having given it up, the now weaker group doesn't have that security.\n","conclusion":"I don't think we the human race can ever be equal.\n","id":"0b3120cb-4768-4aba-a490-5374fdcb233a"}
{"argument":"The number of people willing to go vegan is changing rapidly in the western world. The money invested to this will be a waste, as there are already meat alternatives lab grown meat that will be coming out soon.\n","conclusion":"The number of people willing to go vegan may change over time.\n","id":"54bafd80-6b16-4298-91f4-9b521fbd6e19"}
{"argument":"Depending on the current partner the odds can be good that a potential new exclusive partner is better, e.g. have more money, better look, famous.\n","conclusion":"If you want to continue having casual sex with multiple partners, you are probably personally better off not being in a committed, exclusive relationship.\n","id":"83976ab3-2a19-467a-9704-df0fea45e961"}
{"argument":"According to Susan Griffin \"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual male, it may be mainly a quantitative difference.\"\n","conclusion":"That men are all rapists is a view espoused by many leading feminists.\n","id":"3189a294-a910-4aa6-ab60-d71b09665c80"}
{"argument":"Many conditions of capitalism\u2014infrastructure, education of the masses, currency, enforcement of copyright and private property\u2014are met socially, and many profound technologies\u2014internet, computers, GPS, advancements in telecommunications and aerospace engineering\u2014were made with social investment. \"Taxation is theft\" assumes profit is earned in isolation from the reality of our interdependent society. Privately appropriating masses of socially created wealth could actually be argued to be theft.\n","conclusion":"Taxation upholds property rights because it is what enables the key services \u2014 courts, police, military \u2014 that actually define and protect property. While individuals can steal property and thus violate the rights of others taxation fundamentally underpins those rights so it cannot be a violation of them.\n","id":"b714e499-e538-4e72-a7f9-4347d464b457"}
{"argument":"I'm asking this as a response to reading this Forbes article 99 to give back to the 1 I want to understand why this is considered acceptable by Forbes to publish, as I consider it incendiary and devoid of citations to back claims. Is this article representative of a legtimate branch of thought? I am a socialist in the USA and believe that the role of the government is to benefit the majority I'm not very well read, however. I apologize if this question is similar to others, but I still feel like I fully understand the foundation of the argument as to how the unfortunate are supposed to be able to live a productive life, or able to live that American Dream of having a place to live, good food to eat every day, and still get to play a Gameboy. On a similar note, is there a conservative approach to deal with poverty? Please pardon any sloppiness or in my thinking.\n","conclusion":"I think that giving the wealthy special benefits to improve the economy only causes more socioeconomic disparity.\n","id":"ab1aa702-c03d-4533-bb01-fc77d6f2de19"}
{"argument":"Having played dota for 1 year, and Lol for 6 months before that i have come to the opinion that Dota 2 is a much better game in many facets. Not only is dota 2 completely free to play, the actual gameplay is better, and the graphics are much better. The Dota 2 map is larger and has more interesting features for vision and juking. Dota 2 has TP scrolls and a courier allowing for more interesting map movement. Dota 2 heroes have much more unique and scaled up abillities than LoL Champions. Think techies vs teemo, and heroes like tinker, meepo, lone druid, invoker, etc. LoL heroes typically have a couple skillshot nukes and a movement abillity as a rule of thumb. Denying, highground miss chance, and pulling stacking make laning much more interesting in Dota. Ancients and Roshan are much more interesting high value targets than Dragon or Baron. Towers are much weaker in Dota, and smoke of deceit exists, allowing for much more aggressive gameplay. Dota heros are much more turbocharged, any dota hero ported exactly would be the strongest champion in League of Legends. Activatable items improve gameplay decisionmaking. LoL items are boring and mostly just stat based. Dota items allow for much more customizablility in item build and improvement in game play blink dagger 18 second cooldown vs. flash 300 second cooldown . Dota 2 has a higher barrier of entry in a style of game whose focus is improvement, and that might lead people to LoL, but given the massive time investment in either game this is basically irrelevent.\n","conclusion":"Dota 2 is superior to League of Legends\n","id":"a7d8891f-4039-47f9-9990-aeaa8db65f00"}
{"argument":"As technology replaces jobs self driving trucks for delivery, automated kiosks for stores fast food, speech recognition for phone centers, etc. the need for people to work dwindles. Apart from a very few jobs, at some point the vast majority of currently held jobs will be automated out of existence. At this point, the majority of people that held those jobs will be unable to gain another job, as the majority of low skill no skill jobs will be gone. Once that happens the only way to avoid mass bankruptcy of most citizens in a country would be to assure a basic living income or a basic standard of living housing, food, water, electricity, possibly internet . Without such a rule the common person will be unable to purchase anything at all, even food. Let alone the luxuries that account for most financial movement in most first world countries. Change My View.\n","conclusion":"As technology advances the need for a basic assured income or standard of living will be necessary for nations to avoid mass homelessness\/bankruptcy.\n","id":"ea2dcca8-0054-4ec6-8f97-c3f9d90e436d"}
{"argument":"Trial judge said \"his was obviously also no case of insane hatred of Jews, of fanatical anti-Semitism or indoctrination of any kind. He \"personally\" never had anything whatever against Jews; on the contrary, he had plenty of \"private reasons\" for not being a Jew hater.\"\n","conclusion":"Hannah Arendt describes Eichmann as a Zionist who spoke yiddish Arendt, p. 23\n","id":"9d3df480-7be8-4384-ab38-9a18cfb9354b"}
{"argument":"Blackface is rightly derided as a racist art form that abuses minority stereotypes. While vaudeville BF performers had to have a certain amount of talent to complete their 'act', we now culturally see it as racially insensitive and wrong. So why does Drag get a pass? Drag Queens are a mockery of the most extreme feminine negative traits overdone makeup, catty insults, and histrionic bratty overdramatizations. What is different about Drag performers that sets their work apart from Blackface? gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Drag is \"Blackface\" mockery of women.\n","id":"2fff614b-e1bd-49fc-8fe7-179d44eb8dec"}
{"argument":"3 things to start off, 1 I understand that 10 for someone earning minimum wage is worth a lot more than 10 of a millionaire, that isn't the point here. 2 By socialism, I refer to the Western European Nordic model of extreme taxation, not the true definition of it which means state ownership. 3 I'm not against taxes. They fund a LOT of very important things. 10 , 15 , 25 taxation is quite Ok, what I'm against is theft, and most of the countries today don't tax the citizens, they rob them. nbsp nbsp The views I have, I'm assuming are quite unpopular amongst since I rarely have people agreeing with me, but here are some of them. nbsp Flat tax It's the only fair way of taxation because no one is discriminated based on income. Everyone pays the same, and even if there is a threshold to make sure the poor don't have to pay tax, the middle, upper class and the rich should all pay the same. nbsp Socialism is opressive As stated, the European model . It's great when you're average or below average, but if you are someone who's determined to get somewhere more in life, financially, Socialism will make it EXTREMELLY hard for you to get anywhere. It will be nothing but a ball and a chain around your leg. nbsp Jobs No one is entitled to a job. If a company decides to lay off 300 workers, while that's sad, there's nothing wrong about it. A company does what's best for those in charge, it should not do what's not in it's best interest, even if it means laying off people. Don't want to be laid off? Then start your own company and make your own rules or always have a back up plan. nbsp Equality does NOT equal fairness Equality is the opposite of fairness. If you work like hell for 10 years and make millions, while I take it easy, why should I benefit from the high tax rate you pay? Yes, we will be more equal , but it's done in an extremely unfair way nbsp Democracy, average and selfishness The majority of people earn an average income, that's why it's average. But a lot of them here vote for parties that are for tax the rich, benefit everyone else . While impossible, we should be taxed based on who we vote for. Vote for high taxes? Then you pay higher. Vote for lower taxes, then you pay less. This would stop people from being selfish and voting to tax the rich to hell so they can get all the benefits without the sacrifices necessary to make a lot of money nbsp nbsp I feel very strongly about all of this but perhaps there are other things I haven't considered. I'm a 22 year old entrepreneur, with 2 kids and I work 7 days a week, up to 18 hours a day. Earn very well but recently moved from a Nordic country to a Eastern European country where I'll have a flat tax of 15 . So this is a big enough issue that it would make me pack up my bags and move\n","conclusion":"Flat tax is the only fair method of taxation. Socialism is an oppressive form of government. No one is entitled to a job. And many more similar views.\n","id":"29d8e130-b67b-41aa-80b8-081f841ba9cb"}
{"argument":"I feel pretty well read about this topic and am not seeking to challenge the non binary view of gender. I get that sex and gender are separate with the caveat that one usually informs the other, for most people . I get that gender itself is a complex social construct, with many components such as identity, sexual orientation, appearance, and so on. I understand what masculine and feminine traits are to me personally , and am open to other gender signifiers, but don't really have a firm grasp of the flavor of those signifiers as compared to masculine and feminine and would like to maybe hear more about it. In my view so far , gender is a linear spectrum with different mixes of masculine and feminine traits. What I'm here to challenge is this idea that there's 63 genders and that we should expect people to learn them and apply them to non binary folks correctly, in real time. 63 is an unsustainable number to me, even if it jives correctly with the latest research. It destroys the utility of pronouns, which are meant to be generalized so people can use them easily. In a world where people often forget names, I fail to see how a person is to learn both a person's name and their pronoun. The memory capacity just isn't there. Gender conformity is not necessarily a bad thing. While you and I may disagree on the specifics of what it means to be a man, I think we can at least agree on some general traits that is masculine. By doing so, we can establish generalized language that allows people to get a sense of a person without knowing them intimately. I believe this to be the gist of why we use gender pronouns in the first place. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"non-binary people must conform to a third or fourth gender - not one of 63.\n","id":"d9621da5-d26b-42fe-8fb0-a0bfb9731ed4"}
{"argument":"It is surprising that the American Medical Association would complain about over forty million Americans suddenly having insurance so that they can pay doctors and hospitals for health care services. This is certainly a good thing for the health care industry overall doctors in particular, despite possibly being a less than advantageous opportunity for the private health insurance industry. So what's the problem?\n","conclusion":"Public insurance will give doctors\/hospitals millions of new patients.\n","id":"e7f577f5-45c4-4355-ae95-4b085f5751bc"}
{"argument":"In school, at home, on the TV all I seem to be told is that I won't do well in life without qualifications. It's as if it's all set out before me Go to school, get good grades, go to university college, get job. And if you miss out on any of those factors, you're going to have a very hard time. Despite all this, there are people like Lord Alan Sugar who have made success out of almost nothing. Our country is so proud of this, yet we seem to think it's the rarest of things and would never dare try it for themselves or encourage their children to do so . I'm fortunate enough to have achieved good grades and plan on going to university, but in case that all goes to pot, I'd like to know that there are still options for me in the future. Some detailed examples of people who have achieved in the face of adversity maybe? And in which case it hasn't been all down to luck please, because that's not very reassuring P So yeah, please\n","conclusion":"I feel like I've been brainwashed to believe that in order to \"succeed\" in life, I have to do well in school and go to university\/college. ?\n","id":"47698f12-0799-41ec-8132-dd0ee67437b5"}
{"argument":"Decades of peace and harmony have left people weak and vulnerable. Nature does not work like idealism might imply. The strong always win over the weak. A stronger, less scrupulous civilization invades and overruns the more peaceful one given the right circumstances. Individualism, secularism and libertarianism are the first indicators of that fall. A group of people that acts in unison with a strong leadership has an advantage over one where everyone can do whatever he wants. No single cause can be identified as to why Ancient Rome perished. It was the result of the social, cultural and moral decay of the nation as a result of decadence. Something similar is happening in Western culture. The same patterns repeat themselves throughout history. Prosperity leads to Decadence leads to Collapse.\n","conclusion":"Western civilization has become too decadent\n","id":"58bae1d8-d38f-4824-9a5f-7fafddd13c4a"}
{"argument":"Either one religion is right, and the rest are wrong, OR all of them are wrong. This would suggest the number of people who are groomed to believe an incorrect religion is very high, if not the majority of believers.\n","conclusion":"In most instances, followers are born into their religion. Their parents expose them to faithful practices and religious experiences early on. This is similar to indoctrination practices, which provide false sense of belonging and a distaste for divergent thought.\n","id":"232ffbff-c49c-482a-9902-76a86c415bad"}
{"argument":"Note This  is about classical and jazz musics. Not rock, pop, hip hop or whatever else. No disrespect, I like all of these musics, but I'm talking about virtuosic music. We are all capable of working hard, we're also coming into an age where the minimum standard is working hard. What separates everyone is what opportunities they were given. People can only get as good as how many opportunities they are given. Or, if they are wealthy enough to make opportunities. Rehearsing with your high school bands is more opportunity than someone who could not. Being able to pay for lessons is more opportunity than someone who could not. Having an older musician groom you into a musician is an opportunity. Being born into a family with a history of mental illness also limits your opportunity. Being born poor, potentially the wrong race, the wrong part of the world. Anyone can get good at music. With persistence, a person who starts late at music will achieve a level of mastery by the time he she is thirty five. What we get wrong, is that some people get lucky breaks and that we want to only emphasize the hard work they did or the talent that they have. What are we celebrating? I don't want to celebrate musicians who have been very privileged. Why would I want to? That doesn't relate to me or interest me in anyway. The only counter argument to this I can see is this As an adult, you have agency and you CAN decide what you will do. And if you want to make opportunities for yourself, you can. But this person doesn't exist in reality all that much. The people who get celebrated are the people who started at a young age and or had rich parents. Sure, they may be better musicians, but their experience doesn't make sense to me or many other people. So why should we celebrate them?\n","conclusion":"In classical or jazz musics, assuming that everyone is working hard, the only deciding factor in who becomes good or not is opportunity. Also, because of that, what we celebrate in these musics is wrong.\n","id":"0e9cd3c7-3ddf-4851-9461-1589e8a52894"}
{"argument":"There is no doubt in my mind that Reddit is mostly pro LGBT, pro civil liberties, pro choice, and sex positive. These stances are part and parcel of American libertarianism and progressivism. But then topics like the minimum wage come up. All of a sudden, I'm bombarded with the rants of armchair economists who are dredging up memories from Microeconomics 101. Despite the fact that minimum wage increases have never been accompanied by significant increases in unemployment in the United States, I get a thorough education in the theoretical graphs that we all saw in college. Universal healthcare and higher education how dare we remove the incentives of the private marketplace? Frankly, I'm not surprised. Growing up in the suburbs of NYC, most of my friends identified as Democrats. A huge portion of them were economically conservative, but they could not bring themselves to vote Republican because of their anti choice, anti LGBT policies. I think a lot of 20 somethings are this way, and I think this is reflected on Reddit. .\n","conclusion":"Reddit is more libertarian than liberal in the American progressive sense.\n","id":"88c76d75-d178-4941-9d9b-c57319bcdc65"}
{"argument":"In California the Coachella school district has installed Wi-Fi routers on school buses and turned ride time into connected time for homework. The school system parks buses next to some of the most remote trailer parks in the district, leaving the routers on so students who do not have broadband at home have yet another way to access this facility.\n","conclusion":"Educational institutes have taken many initiatives to provide students with access to internet.\n","id":"fb4b5ec9-4e2d-4f20-a239-199f9afda241"}
{"argument":"Disclaimer I've searched the sub and none of the other posts regarding otherkin address this as I intend to. For those who aren't familiar with the term, here is the Wikipedia article on otherkin. I believe this identification comes from one of two possibilities. First, it might come from the person actually believing themselves to be non human, which would be the case of having some kind of mental disorder as, differently from trans people, identification as human or not doesn't involve any kind of sexual hormones. If the person really believes they share their body with a non human entity, it would be the case of having a multiple personality disorder. The second possibility would be that of the person pretending to have that other personality. This would be similar to a child having an imaginary friend and, although mostly harmless, it is nonetheless childish. If the person is faking it, though, it would be similar to a kid who lies about having something that doesn't even exist my cousin from japan already got me a PS5 1 in order to try and make themselves special in a group.\n","conclusion":"I believe identifying yourself as \"otherkin\" must be taken either as a mental disorder or childish bullshit.\n","id":"a092b40b-dc74-4cc6-be59-12a5a334da85"}
{"argument":"Before many of you get mad at the title, let me elaborate my point. At my school, like at most, there are a few mentally, socially, and or physically disabled students. Everyone makes a point to be their friend, including me, which I think is great. But there gets to be a point where it's too much, and from my point of view makes them feel a little uncomfortable. The goal is to make them fit in, right? Not make them feel like they're being sought after as a device to show others that they are accepting of all kinds of people? As an example, there is a kid in my school who, when he sees one of the disabled kids, makes it a point to yell friendly to them and try to get a high five. When they give him a high five, or wave, the kid looks back at us, making it painfully obvious that he wanted to show he accepted these kids. He does it way more forcefully than he would to a friend he'd known for a long time or without a disability. Another example is on the Internet once, a baby born without certain common body parts I'm kind of taking all of these events and generalizing them and shows a statement from the mother saying he or she is perfect. I think this is beautiful. But when you get to the comments, people are literally saying SOOO CUTE and things like that, overwhelmingly showing their feeling that the baby is cute just to show that they accept them. How about just congratulations And then a little bit about how they see right through the human's differences and think that the baby is beautiful all the same. Not a bunch of teenage girls squealing about a puppy. I also saw this on someone's Instagram who has a brother with downs syndrome. The person posted a picture of him holding a diploma for finishing a school year unknown which. while the post is congratulating him, and so are some of the comments, others say such a heartbreaker or something like that, referring to his charm and comments talking about his slick hairstyle. I'm not saying these things are untrue, it's just that these comments are so overwhelmingly about his looks that it almost seems as though they think he's unattractive and are trying to make him feel better. Some of the comments were literally just aww like they were condescendingly looking at his petty achievement. I was happy when I finally saw the simple comments ayy congrats and heck yeah you go dude. The first, because it was simple and just made it feel natural and cool, and the second because this kid is breaking through the barriers of his disability and moving along just like the others. I just feel like the first step of making these people welcome is making them feel like actual people.\n","conclusion":"I get annoyed when people are being too nice to mentally\/socially\/physically disabled people\n","id":"9ccb5987-2061-4b24-b99c-c5f47655d72f"}
{"argument":"; NASA spends over a third of its budget simply keeping the ISS manned and the Space Shuttle working. The vast majority of its spending on scientific research comes through ground based research, telescopes and unmanned missions. China has made no claims that there is a scientific benefit to its manned mission and nor has Russia in recent years.\n","conclusion":"The scientific benefits of manned space programmes are severely overstated\n","id":"93599bcf-58fa-4251-91e3-df7c5528a123"}
{"argument":"Strictly speaking, it is never defined as a sin in scripture. For Catholics and Orthodox Christians it is a sin by apostolic tradition, Protestants have room to disagree. In the sola-scriputra paradigm intentional childlessness may be looked down upon, but is not, strictly speaking, a sin.\n","conclusion":"By choosing to be celibate, there is a deliberate decision to be childless. Jesus and Paul would be in this group. Unless the definition is changed this condition would exist.\n","id":"ea819f3d-fb5c-43f1-be20-4b92831cf493"}
{"argument":"Since the battle is over about whether people should eat meat or not, people will now transition their focus onto vegan-only battles.\n","conclusion":"Many of the issues that veganism currently creates would be worked out once the world transitions.\n","id":"80994173-161e-4f52-81e8-10778f3dc9de"}
{"argument":"Strong opinion weakly held here. Whether it's governors or the president, the pardon power in the US is a holdover of serfdom and the idea that a ruler has absolute soveringty over all matters including right and wrong itself. That crimes are against the head of state rather than the people. Justice is supposed to be based in what's best for society. If punishing a crime is right, then pardoning it is wrong. Why do we let our leaders do wrong things? If punishing the crime is wrong, isn't that the judge or jury who is in the best place to say so? At the very least, pardons ought to be a result of a direct vote and petition. Why on Earth do we want executives dolling out pardons from on high? It seems like it's impossible to do so without obstructing justice.\n","conclusion":"- We shouldn't keep the pardon power\n","id":"92ef09f3-04ec-443f-8991-7becb357a10b"}
{"argument":"I'm a Satanist, and while I know that if I ever have kids I would be happy for them to adopt the same beliefs as my own, I could never in all good conscience indoctrinate them with my views from the very first years of their life. I don't understand how people can be okay with teaching their children set beliefs from their own personal religions philosophies as if they are fact. To me, that is actively choosing to blinker your child to so many different outlooks and moral stances on life. It's denying them the right to build their own character and ethical values, and undermining their own personal judgement. I think a vital part of growing up and earning your independence is through finding your own morals and beliefs, as searching to find ones which appeal to you not only will enhance your knowledge of the world around you but also is really important in understanding what sort of a person you are. You can take pride in that you took the time and effort to evaluate the countless possibilities to choose how you wish to live your life. I watched a documentary where kids from the Westboro Baptist Church were interviewed, and my heart just broke because they weren't born homophobic and hateful, they were raised to be that way. It's horrible and I can't understand how people can justify it. And yes, I understand some people will argue they can change their beliefs when they get older. But again, with those Westboro Baptist Church kids, even if they did, they still have to live with the fact that there was a time in their lives when they stood for extremely terrible things. I imagine it would most likely haunt them for the rest of their lives. So who are we to say our beliefs are what should be taught? Cmv if you can D\n","conclusion":"I think that it's morally wrong for parents to raise their children with their personal religious\/philosophical beliefs.\n","id":"e24e254c-12ff-49c3-968c-b20da0fda5a8"}
{"argument":"If parents cannot reach an agreement involving decisions about the child, a court may be asked to intervene or to defer the decision to a third party\n","conclusion":"Although only one parent's consent may be needed in some circumstances, in other situations the parents need to agree or reach a compromise.\n","id":"5f844dd2-b374-4265-a272-4b7134a04a03"}
{"argument":"With tight budgets, using asset forfeiture dollars is useful for the police to purchase equipment and training to keep up with the ever-changing trends in crime ultimately helping serve and protect the citizens.\n","conclusion":"Police agencies have used hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to federal civil forfeiture to buy guns, armored cars and electronic surveillance gear.\n","id":"af7f2130-2a16-4196-984b-49123cef6655"}
{"argument":"There are more than 40 years of legislation and institutions to undo or rebuild. It just can't be done in two years, and all that time spent. Simply converting all EU laws to UK laws goes against the very reason to leave.\n","conclusion":"Many people did not realise the complexity of such a decision.\n","id":"a963e269-54fb-445f-9d0c-a83afb77df03"}
{"argument":"Religion creates the illusion that people can only be considered good if they belong to a religious denomination, therefore religion discriminates.\n","conclusion":"Religion has been used as an excuse to ostracise atheists and people of other faiths.\n","id":"a364da3f-32a5-4f92-ab58-29c0b3728e19"}
{"argument":"Going to bed, will return later. Thank you for the posts, they're very helpful Edit I'm sorry, I forgot to specify that this branches out to ideologies and philosophies as well. I understand atheism is not a belief system, however it is a perspective. I often use 'belief' as a synonym for perspective, which is an entirely valid use of the word. I poorly used belief system to mean 'world view', and I'm sorry about any confusion that might have caused. I am not going to  on the definition of god I have used. I am questioning whether that definition causes the statement in the title to be true. What I mean by this, is that I believe every perspective is true, unless it encourages a divide. I believe this mostly applies to people who teach share their belief priests, preachers, rabbi etc , rather then the texts themselves. From what I've read of religious texts, on their own, they aren't inherently untruthfully though many have passages that could be easily misinterpreted . If anyone can think of one that might, I'd love to read it, it's actually kinda baffling to me. Also, if you know of a belief system that goes entirely against the main teachings of another, I'd very much love to learn about it The key to my belief is using a simple definition of god. God is all and all is God. And an understanding that the cosmos is fractal. For example, I believe that if Jesus claims he's the son of God, God incarnate, he has spoken truthfully. To deny it is to deny truth. Christians, however, get it wrong when they say only jesus is the son of god. They're dividing the divinity of god from the divinity of man, so that teaching is not truthful. They're also right to say the bible is the word of god it is, man is god and it's the word of man . However, they get it wrong again when they say it's 100 accurate. All that does is divide the divine from reality. If the book says earth has been here for six thousand years, it's not accurate to reality. Refusing to accept that is refusing an aspect of god. This includes atheist worldviews as well. They're right in that the scientific laws of the universe are absolute, that the stories of the bible are akin to fairytales, etc. However, they're wrong to deny the importance existence of awareness consciousness although it's not 'god' in the traditional sense, it is perceiving and loving and, as humans, it's easiest to just call it god . It divides reality from consciousness, which is not true all includes us, and since we're conscious, it includes consciousness . Anything that divides people is dividing god. Since god is all, those that divide do not understand god and thus, can't teach on it. If it doesn't divide, it is speaking divinity and truth. Sin is division, and righteousness is unification. And yes, this means I legitimately believe lolcats speak divinity, since they don't teach division.\n","conclusion":"I believe all belief systems are true, unless they teach divisively.\n","id":"2d869bc4-5abc-4d3d-9e72-9fa34196f9ef"}
{"argument":"Weld has emphasised the importance of treating all individuals with dignity and respect, a core tenant of the evangelical faith.\n","conclusion":"Former governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld is running a presidential campaign for the Republican nomination in 2020.\n","id":"dff3b86b-4885-4c6b-8b71-40487e31ffb9"}
{"argument":"Freshwater makes up only 3% of the water on Earth's surface. An unsettling number of large rivers\u2014including the Colorado, Rio Grande, Yellow, Indus, Ganges, Amu Darya, Murray, and Nile\u2014are now so overtapped that they discharge little or no water to the sea for months at a time. National Geographic\n","conclusion":"World population is already unsustainably high, and key natural resources fresh water, oil and gas, phosphorus, various other minerals are expected to run out in a few decades.\n","id":"184cce55-ad93-411c-b3c7-3d074dda796c"}
{"argument":"USAID has supported the design and construction of hundreds of hospitals, clinics, midwife and teacher-training centers, high schools, university residences and government office buildings across Afghanistan.\n","conclusion":"The US has many demonstrated successes in the development of Afghanistan.\n","id":"3afe2410-6ec0-4ca4-8e57-5763fc662f65"}
{"argument":"This one is a tricky one amongst Democrats in my family. Is it better for Democrats to wait out Trumps first term without attempting to do the nearly impossible task of impeaching him, essentially expecting Trump to turn the swing voters against him in 2020 all by himself or try to impeach him? I fall to the side of Rep. Brad Sherman and think that fighting for impeachment is a smarter bet for democrats. I think many voters will see waiting Trump out as putting politics before country. What do you think? gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"It is in the Democrat's best interest to try to impeach Trump.\n","id":"ce6a6015-ad10-42e4-ae64-a7cfd865f8bb"}
{"argument":"Borders are arbitarary constructs, often a product of wars which took place centuries ago, other times with reasons which are no longer valid or without any justification at all.\n","conclusion":"Nations are social constructs and not absolute truths, so the existence of borders is something politically questionable.\n","id":"da4db8a3-0d75-4d8e-bf45-7e2c6315b82e"}
{"argument":"Tens of thousands of women have heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that are made worse by childbearing. Legal abortion helps women avert these unavoidable risks to their health and lives.\n","conclusion":"Legal abortion protects women with serious illnesses that are vulnerable.\n","id":"eeb82aa6-55df-48f2-abb0-64dfc1685073"}
{"argument":"I am not staunchly pro, or anti nuclear but I very much lean towards anti nuclear. Being a somewhat leftist university student I am exposed to a lot of anti nuclear power sentiments. From lecturers, from fellow students, and political activists etc. The thing is all of these sentiments are fairly well reasoned arguments. And they can be boiled down to the following By the way I am talking about nuclear power in comparison to other green technologies, not in comparison to coal or anything 1 Nuclear power is politically problematic. The problem here is that whilst it is all well and good for stable western countries to have nuclear power, what about poor third world countries, or rouge nations? Nations who will not adhere to strict safety standards, and or countries who may use a peaceful nuclear program as a disguise to develop WMDs. The United States has repeatedly accused to Iranians of attempting to develop nuclear weapons for example, when Iran says they are developing peaceful power generation. So if the USA will not accept a nuclear Iran, then how can nuclear power be a global solution? We are still going to need other sources of power for poorer, and rogue nations. 2 It is economically inefficient. The argument here is that nuclear power is safe, but not inherently safe. It is safe because of the billions of dollars we spend on research, development, training, and implementation of strict safety standards. A nuclear technician is highly trained and highly paid, and the systems in place to make it safe mean it's a very expensive way of producing power. Not to mention things like Fukishima. That was an example of how in a worst case scenario, the problem was fairly well contained, but at a massive, massive cost. If that were any other power plant they just bulldoze and rebuild. But there the cleanup and containment cost was astronomically high. And don't forget that storing waste is an on going cost that will continue for a very long time. Which brings me to 3 Waste. What do we do with it? It is a fact that nuclear waste lasts a long time. It is also a fact that there has never been a stable government for anywhere near as long as nuclear waste lasts. So what happens long term when the US government collapses? and it will eventually, no government lasts forever . How do we contain the waste? And before you say that we will have waste free reactors, most still create waste, and it will be a long time, and a lot more waste before we can move to waste free. 4 It is somewhat inefficient in power distribution compared to other green solutions Solar power can be integrated into cities and houses. Nuclear power cannot. Part of the reason that nuclear power is safe is that stations, uranium mining, and waste facilities are all quite far from population centers. This creates a lot of inefficiencies in terms of transport and logistics, as well as power being lost in transit time. The longer the power has to travel to get to where it is needed, the more power is lost. This point also highlights the economic inefficiency. 5 In comparison to wind and solar, the fuel has limits. Power from the sun will exist as long as the sun exists. Wind will exist as long as we have an atmosphere. Nuclear power still requires a fuel source which is finite. Now at this stage there may be a possibility that nuclear fuel could be almost limitless, but the fuel from the sun quite simply is limitless. There are more arguments but these are the main ones. Now am not staunchly anti nuclear. I can be swayed, in fact I am very open to being swayed. But to my mind these are good arguments It's very expensive with long term waste costs included, the waste is a problem, politically we can't supply nuclear power to everyone, and solar and wind seem like a better investment long term. In addition I would like to put an additional  that the pro nuclear side employs a straw man argument. Here on reddit, the prevailing view is that the anti nuclear crowd is afraid of meltdowns and radiation and they are anti science . see here to see the straw man repeated over and over . But I can tell you for a fact, from living and working amongst anti nuclear people, that they aren't afraid of meltdowns, they have legitimate concerns, almost always relating to politics or economics, rather than the science behind it. They are not stupid, they are not anti science. They are just pro a different science solar, wind for political or economic reasons.\n","conclusion":"Nuclear power is probably not the way to go.\n","id":"f439c885-8021-4e19-8c7d-242275cb6128"}
{"argument":"Quite the unpopular opinion i've discovered. Also, i'm going to leave the whole windows runs on a mac argument out, and assume the two computers have their intended operating systems.\n","conclusion":"I believe Apple creates superior personal, at home computers for the common user.\n","id":"6dfbf865-8023-4fd1-a7c5-85610e640de8"}
{"argument":"It is implausible that after years of fighting against the other faction, killing countless of their players and achieving objectives counter to their goals, that they would accept you into their faction.\n","conclusion":"Retail allows you to even change your race, skin color and faction, which breaks immersion, the storyline and is completely implausible.\n","id":"1dfcb292-1ffa-46a7-abda-40f77eb9dd6c"}
{"argument":"The recognition of asexual identity could serve to destabilise the privileging of sexual relationships against other affiliations in the formation of family and kinships. Establishing this primacy has been a key tactic employed by the LGBT+ community to push for their rights.\n","conclusion":"The goals of asexuals and aromantics and the LGBT+ community are not aligned.\n","id":"4b0e8619-9f33-4d60-bf7e-c0c62d86f679"}
{"argument":"I frequent subreddits such as r futurology and r scifi and pretty much any technology or future based subreddits. Everyone pretty much has a huge boner for the Singularity The moment in time when an AI gains the ability to improve itself, and therefore starts an unstoppable cycle of technological advancement that takes mere hours or minutes. No matter how often I hear it's praises sung, I feel seeking the singularity is completely devoid of logic or wisdom. But since so many many people want it, I am going to entertain the possibility of . Why I think it's foolish I do not feel there is any good reason to pursue the Singularity , When I ask people for the benefits, all the responses stem from, in my opinion, either laziness or pessimism. The idea that the Singularity will solve all our problems is warm and fuzzy, but we can accomplish anything the singularity can if we try. The singularity is merely an explosion of technological advancement in a very short duration that we ourselves would experience over normal time, depending on how hard we try. The odds are pretty good it'll mean the extinction of the human race . Even the most optimistic numbers I've heard give the AI a 5 10 chance of just getting rid of human beings. Even that is just blind guesswork. We have no idea what morality will influence a hyper intelligence, or specifically the hyper intelligence we create that becomes the singularity. Remember, there is no scientific correlation between intelligence and compassion. EVEN if we could prove that there was only a .001 chance that it would destroy our civilization, how can that possibly be a justifiable gamble in exchange for every human life that has lived, is living, or will ever live? Some people say if it does cause our extinction, that's just the next step of evolution and we should accept it. I don't think that the Neanderthals would feel a sense of pride and satisfaction that their extinction gave way to our species success, and I don't think we would feel that way as we are being assimilated for our minerals, or simply left to die, or forced to watch space odyssey until we sympathize with HAL, or until our eyes bleed. I have been in many debates over this topic already, I am well versed in it's ins and outs and nothing so far has swayed my mind even a little bit. The entire thing seems devoid of any reason or logic. HOWEVER, there are too many people in favor of it for me to casually brush it aside so I am here to see if anyone can . EDIT Two hours in an it's been a lively debate. Unfortunately, I haven't heard anything new yet, and nothing convincing. I have tried my best to respond to everyone, but now I will be stepping away intermittently so my replies may take longer. I hope everyone is learning stuff and enjoying themselves, though. EDIT Well it was a good run folks, I'm headed to bed. We didn't succeed here today, but I'd like to think we all had a lot of fun. GG WP\n","conclusion":"I believe research into Artificial Intelligence should be banned much like Nuclear Weapon technology. !\n","id":"f950e46d-ae8e-4704-b228-07acfff873c9"}
{"argument":"In the U.S. you learn the pledge in Kindergarten if not earlier . Every morning we pretty much pledged our lives to a government before we were old enough to understand what we were saying. This may be extreme to say but many leaders controlled their subjects by indoctrinating children. I get this is not on the same level as that but again, every morning starting at the age of 5 I pledged my life to a government when I could not understand what I was actually saying. I believe I should not have had to been taught this until I was old enough to understand what this anthem is actually saying. Maybe sometime in high school would have been best. Edit View has been changed. Thank you to G Platypus and everyone else\n","conclusion":"I believe the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance should not be recited every morning by children in school.\n","id":"8940e4a8-c7f8-435b-9d34-e3dbfbde1aab"}
{"argument":"As a person who has never caught a shiny pokemon, I think people should try to catch some before playing the lottery Im not talking about scratch cards, I mean things like megabucks and powerball. Both are a huge gamble, and people who play the lottery regularly and havent won are throwing their money away. I think that people should play pokemon and try their luck if they can catch any shiny pokemon legitimately before they try to play the lottery to see how ridiculously low the odds are. If someone cant achieve that, why bother trying to do something with an even lower chance of success?\n","conclusion":"People should try to catch shiny pokemon before playing the lottery.\n","id":"d610ef52-0dcc-4e7f-98fa-d12339bbd3bc"}
{"argument":"I\u2019m using a throwaway because of the sensitive subject matter. For a while now I\u2019ve been trying to understand the term cultural appropriation and have searched information on it. However the more articles and opinions I read about it, the more confused I become. The definition of cultural apprpropriation seems to be a bit hazy, but Susan Scafidi, the author of Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law, defines cultural appropriation as the act of \u201cTaking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc.\u201d The problem here is where we draw the line. For example, it is a commonly held view that a white American person wearing a bindi or a Native American headdress is appropriating, since those things have religious significance and are seen as hole by some people. Fair enough, but where do we draw a line? If doing anything not traditional for your tribe or ethnic group is appropriating, life gets very difficult. And I\u2019m pretty sure that I have been appropriating other cultures for my whole life. For example clothes are very multicultural. I often wear jeans, even though I am not an American and cotton shirts even though cotton doesn\u2019t even grow where I live Northern Europe . If I really wanted to be culturally sensitive I should probably wear the folk dress that is traditional to my region. It consists of a flax shirt, an apron and a woollen skirt and bodice. Except that my people didn\u2019t invent blouses or skirts, they copied the clothes of noblewomen, who probably got their fashion ideas from the French court or something. So unless go around naked I\u2019ll be appropriating French culture. Food is another big issue. Am I appropriating Indian culture if I use chili sauce? What about black pepper, it certainly doesn\u2019t grow up here. And of course potatoes have long been a staple of diet here, but they\u2019re originally American. So are tomatoes, coffee and chocolate. Rise and sugarbeet are Asian and pasta and olive oil are Mediterranean. And of course, agriculture was invented by Egyptians and Mesopotamians, so I would have to become a hunter gatherer to not to appropriate any cultures. And even hunter gatherers didn\u2019t live in a vaccuum, isolated from other cultures. The concept of cultural appropriation is based on the idea, that there was a time, sometime before globalization, when different cultures were \u201cpure\u201d and free from outside influence. But even back in the stone age different tribes were communicating and adopting different cultural practises from each other. Cultural appropriation has always been happening and is inevitable. I apologize for any grammar mistakes, English is not my first language.\n","conclusion":"It is impossible NOT to appropriate some culture\n","id":"f8e404d4-0ee6-48ba-9584-62e01e28ae83"}
{"argument":"There is even less data on Concussion missiles and what there is, is all Legends material. However it is fair to say that what there is\/was in Legends simply wasn't that impressive\n","conclusion":"All of their data yields, abilities, speed, directional blast etc. is contradicted by the Star Wars own wiki page both canon and legend\n","id":"830b260d-277c-406e-aa2e-3e32083fd70a"}
{"argument":"Hey guys, I've read through a load of the previous submissions like this but none have really helped me out a lot so here it goes. My girlfriend is thinking of getting a tattoo and I really don't want her to get one. I have always seen tattoos as something that ruins your body for no real reason. Every argument I've heard for tattoos I can so far see a con towards it. For example I don't see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you. Surely if it means something to you it's already with you for life, in your head. You don't need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head. In addition all the people I know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop out failure types or have got the tattoo just because it's something they've seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them. Finally a lot of people who get tattoos don't get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind. It's you own body and surely you want to keep it that way. Her tattoo idea is personal, she is an artist and has always been, and she wants to get a pencil on her finger. She has also talked about getting a tattoo on her waist which I don't even know where to start with as I don't know how she can make it look better than what she already has. I can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it? Any comments would be really helpful as I want to see her side of things but am struggling big time right now.\n","conclusion":"My girlfriend is thinking about getting a tattoo and I don't like the idea.\n","id":"f310c074-e7b8-406f-b8d6-9f0b0d2dcb3e"}
{"argument":"Gender neutral bathrooms could reduce the disproportionate shame directed against women regarding body functions held in common among all sexes and genders.\n","conclusion":"Unisex bathrooms represent societal progress regarding equity and human rights.\n","id":"ea5584d3-81da-4817-a0f9-4bbf6e2c4da9"}
{"argument":"Since non-monogamous relationships are more transitory and the attention of participants is divided between more people, non-monogamous relationships cannot satisfy the need for long-term deep commitment.\n","conclusion":"There are many relationship-related needs which non-monogamous relationships cannot satisfy.\n","id":"b08c445f-2c84-40cb-b7cc-848e58f69065"}
{"argument":"Ultimate Marvel versus Capcom 3 is a bad game and was a giant spit in customer's faces. Let's go about this point by point. 1 It was an incomplete game sold at 60 dollars then we were told to re buy it in less than a year. Keep in mind they did promise to patch a lot of this missing content and modes later, but they instead sold a new game. If you only bought the new game, sure it's not bad but if you bought the initial game then they sold you an incomplete game for 60. They could have held off selling this game but why not just sell a demo for 60? This is scummy and even worse than Street Fighter V, where they also sold a demo early access game and never bothered to tell people that it was. Touch of death is bad game design 90 of the time. Touch of death is not fun to be on the receiving end for especially when the combo just keeps going on and on. Now there are situations where I find this to be more ok. Let's say Dragonbalkl Fighter Z, sure Cell can solo a character from 0 100, but he needs 7 bars and needs to be sparkling for this to work. It has situational implementation. Compare this with Marvel versus Capcoom 3 which is far easier to set up and much easier to delete a character with less meters and set up. This is not good game design. It's not entertaining to watch someone play solitaire for 10 20 minutes. You have to wait for someone to finish a combo and it can take forever for it to stop. Long combos are find but it needs an end point that can give control back a lot faster rather than letting a person literally need to put their controller down off one mistake and need to wait that long to get control back. I don't get the praise this game gets, nothing about it is hype and frankly I find it to be a really bad game. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Ultimate Marvel versus Capcom 3 is a bad game and was a giant spit in customer's faces\n","id":"f69afbdc-506d-4bd8-a186-621bf0de7bc7"}
{"argument":"Works written in Latin and Greek e.g. by Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Vergil address issues fundamental to the human condition, such as love, death, politics, morality and adventure. These works have stood the test of time: they exerted great influence on western thinking for two millennia and remain widely read. This indicates that they are of great literary and intellectual merit. Few modern works are likely to endure so long; this implies they are of less merit. Time should therefore be devoted to studying classical literature. The subtleties of any text can only be fully understood if one reads them in the original; knowledge of Latin and Greek is therefore of great use.\n","conclusion":"Works written in Latin and Greek e.g. by Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Vergil address issues...\n","id":"0947f88b-35f3-4bc8-b8e6-cb7877a28d1b"}
{"argument":"Supporting a market driven healthcare system means choosing underprivileged children, poor, and catastrophically ill people will suffer and die only to save money.\n","conclusion":"Only government can ensure equality of healthcare availability, which is the only fair way to provide it.\n","id":"2088ef13-bade-4599-b146-9c5b0f91b3d9"}
{"argument":"We've probably all seen it by now if not, Google it. I understand they invited Gordon Ramsay to their place, and volunteered to be on the TV show. I don't have a problem with that. But now that we have discovered what I believe are their pathological illnesses, I think we as a society should be compassionate and look away, letting them deal with their own issues. Yes, I realize this may be difficult to actually do individually, and impossible on a practical societal level. My issue is what is the right thing, not what is the thing people will actually do. EDIT Having awarded two deltas below, I am narrowing the scope of my view suggesting we look away. I agree with two posters below that the relevant authorities including any regular people who may have civil claims against Amy and Samy should be allowed to investigate and take whatever action they deem appropriate. And I believe those proceedings should be public to the extent they are for other business regulation actions and lawsuits. What I'm specifically objecting to are the actions of people who want to keep watching their mentally ill breakdowns for entertainment and voyeuristic enjoyment I think the compassionate thing for those people, who have no actual personal involvement or interest say, people who have never been to Arizona, don't live nearby, and don't know anyone there , is to go on to other activities rather than follow every new development in a sad, disastrous mental collapse.\n","conclusion":"I think Amy and Samy of Amy's Baking Company\/Kitchen Nightmares are mentally ill and should not be made a spectacle of any further.\n","id":"9ded4ba3-23cb-4ebe-a33e-99acec876937"}
{"argument":"The US has a lot to gain from stability because failed states export their chaos. But we often do it wrong, entering the fray in dribs and drabs, slowly escalating as domestic political pressure builds. That's not the right way to win wars e.g. Syria . You win with an overwhelming surprise attack, and a clear long term victory plan. What we should do is pick a side in each important civil war and announce to the world who we support and then help them gain power on the condition that they don't retaliate or exclude their enemies once they're in charge or we'll switch sides . We should help the majority population come to power, because that will be more stable. This is the opposite of what European colonialists did. In their overseas holdings they elevated minorities to power so they would be vulnerable and dependent on their European masters. That has led to instability and genocide. Here's an example of how we could have done much better by clearly picking sides in Iraq we should have declared that we support Shia Islam the majority and worked closely with them to build a joint operation. This would have more quickly yielded the same situation we got anyway, but in the end the ruling Shia would love us for it.\n","conclusion":"The US should intervene in civil wars around the world by clearly picking sides, even if we do not like those we support.\n","id":"2db7357f-67cf-4bd0-8cb4-020aff99d8ef"}
{"argument":"Lehi and Nephi are called to form a new nation, similar to Abraham, but Abraham's nation building is a selfless act while Nephi's nation building is a selfish act.\n","conclusion":"The themes of the Bible differ widely from those of the Book of Mormon.\n","id":"d14c56ab-9943-4029-a918-a35ab19b1490"}
{"argument":"The traditional conception of God is of a being that is evil, because condemning people to limitless unending torment in hell is evil. The traditional concept of God is of a being that sends diseases and misfortunes to test or improve humans - acts which are in themselves evil the ends does not justify the means when the means themselves are evil.\n","conclusion":"Evil can coexist with a monotheistic God that is evil.\n","id":"c6f6336c-920f-44d3-8516-b869956a5971"}
{"argument":"We take \"life\" as something inherently good and \"death\" as something inherently bad. Therefore we see value in the idea of spreading to other planets to survive longer. If we see dying and living both as part of a process, there is no saying if spreading to other planets is a good or a bad thing. The extinction of the human race might as well be part of a process that we are the only beings capable of feeling anxious about.\n","conclusion":"That is a goal for humans. An animal doesn't care if it lives on Earth or Mars.\n","id":"f3f69b41-41e1-426c-bdac-bd4f14cad19b"}
{"argument":"Donald Trump's primary victory was in part due to a deliberate strategy on the part of the Clinton campaign that it titled Pied Piper . They would work with friendly media outlets to take non mainstream GOP candidates more seriously, thus increasing their chances of winning the primary compared to facing, say, Rubio . This would give Hillary Clinton a higher chance of winning the general election, with the main downside being that if she then lost the general election the American people would be stuck with Trump instead of Rubio. Not that Clinton invented the strategy years earlier, Claire McCaskill had spent more on ads promoting Todd Akin than he could raise for himself. She proceded to defeat him in the general election. I'm sure Republicans have or will do something similar regarding extremist Democratic candidates certainly Limbaugh did something vaguely similar during the Obama Clinton primary with Operation Chaos though he wasn't himself a candidate and thus has a different incentive structure that isn't as relevant to my . I bring him up only to say that this isn't a left vs right issue. Anyway, my concern is this if a politician pulls a trick like this it is clearly against the interests of the voters. They're increasing their own chance of winning, but at the cost of ensuring that if they lose, their voters will end up with someone terrible. I'd like to think that this kind of sociopathic behavior would be punished by voters, but I don't see how it will be. After all, nobody seems to be more negative on someone like Clinton because of this you already liked or disliked her based on other factors, and if she'd won it would for sure be forgotten. And politicians have much more at stake in win vs loss than lose with dignity vs lose sociopathically . And even someone like McCaskill, who took a tremendous risk for the state of Missouri by putting Akin up, wasn't punished by losing her next primary. So I think we're going to see more and more of this kind of sociopathic gambit, that Americans would be better off if it never happened, and that there's nevertheless no really good way to prevent it.\n","conclusion":"There is no good way to disincentivize \"Pied Piper\" strategies, and we will see more of them.\n","id":"de75fbb5-78c3-42ad-8bea-3b583b7deeea"}
{"argument":"People can volunteer to become an election worker and provide valuable assistance to voters, helping with location logistics and supervising voting.\n","conclusion":"People would be more likely to volunteer to assist in election administration if they had the day off.\n","id":"77309b77-2293-440b-ae61-cffb72171fe5"}
{"argument":"About me I'm a 30 something grad student in Iowa. I grew up in rural Illinois listening to Rush Limbaugh as a teenager, but in adulthood my political views are mostly left of center with some vague Libertarian streaks . I consider myself a fairly thoughtful person and I try to be aware of my own biases and assumptions, always questioning not just my conclusions about things but the thought processes that got me there. I voted for Hillary, and when Trump won I realized I needed to break out of my own echo chamber and try to understand the kinds of people who voted for him. One of the things I did was sub to T D, thinking I might get a better sense of what Trump supporters actually believe, but almost immediately I found it to be just a collection of fact twisting shitposts, blatant logical fallacies, and noxious memes. tbh I'm not totally sure what I expected. Some thoughtfulness, maybe? I see now that was unrealistic, though there have been moments in comment sections that made me shrug and go, Yeah, that's a decent point. I'm still subbed, for what it's worth. After a few months of T D I felt I needed a little more balance, so I subbed to MarchAgainstTrump, and while many of the posts brought up views I was more sympathetic toward, most of it was, again, fact twisting shitposts, logical fallacies, and stupid memes. It was and remains a pretty embarrassing sub. But so because MarchAgainstTrump purports to connect individuals who oppose the destructive policies and ideas of President Donald J. Trump e.g., someone like me and also facilitate positive discussion which I would like to have, and not just with anti Trump people , yet doesn't really do either of these things, I think it's safe to assume there are Trump supporters who find T D as awful and unrepresentative of their true views as I find MarchAgainstTrump, and that T D may be, as it says, for serious supporters, but that not all supporters of Trump find it useful. Side note If anything, T D might be a bit more honest than MarchAgainstTrump, since it doesn't make grandiose but ultimately false claims about facilitating discussion, that you get exactly what it says on the tin jokes, comics, memes, etc. That, at least, I can appreciate. So I guess it boils down to this Most of the time both subs just make me sad and angry, and I'd like to believe neither represents the reality of what people really think. I'd like to believe the majority of people are capable of not only nuanced discussion about a given topic even a polarizing one , but also nuanced self understanding, that people try not to pigeonhole themselves with a collection of reductive labels. So because neither sub has even a hint of nuance, and because they are ultimately just meme ified permutations of the echo chamber I was in before the election, I have to conclude neither is representative of anti or pro Trump thought. Edit formatting\n","conclusion":"\/r\/The_Donald and \/r\/MarchAgainstTrump are equally toxic, and neither represent real pro-Trump or anti-Trump sentiment\n","id":"a7d51227-ba93-4dfb-bcb4-3a17bb62d2e0"}
{"argument":"Anna Quindlen. \"The End Of An Error\". Newsweek. April 4, 2009 - \"When it became law in 1993, the policy was sold as an attempt to allow gays to serve if they did not discuss their orientation or participate in homosexual acts\u2014that is, if they lived a life of pretense and self-denial not required of straight counterparts. Shame and second-class status were therefore built into the deal, and unsurprisingly led to a reality in which exemplary soldiers were harassed, investigated and expelled based on \"evidence\" as negligible as friendly banter or thoughtless gossip.\"\n","conclusion":"\"Don't ask don't tell makes gays second class citizens\n","id":"e7b374eb-5d47-4914-aef1-40b5ce051556"}
{"argument":"This suggests that such places culturally believe violence is an effective method of resolving problems. If someone from such a society feels the law has failed to kill someone worthy of death, they may be tempted to take it upon themselves to do so.\n","conclusion":"States where the death penalty is still legal have higher murder rates than those that have abolished it.\n","id":"902eea6b-2881-4fbe-99d7-3e7dcd51297a"}
{"argument":"In particular, children are looking for heroes or role models to look up to, both in the real world and increasingly in the mediated world. As they are in the process of developing their own identities, adolescents are likely to look for role models with whom they can identify Konijn, Bijvank, Bushman, p. 2\n","conclusion":"The tournaments would elevate these destructive and dangerous individuals from outlaws to influential stars; they could then become role models in a negative way.\n","id":"006902a8-62ea-4053-bee0-9c5c8e9ed5f2"}
{"argument":"Western ideology is the only one that allows for rule of law, human rights and democracy\n","conclusion":"Western ideology might not be good but it is the best alternative\n","id":"4d81010b-6894-4add-b14a-39305ab2c1d8"}
{"argument":"Here is my argument I like shows like NCIS, The Mentalist, and others all of which I am capable of watching by simply hooking up my antenna to my TV. Stating this to rule out stuff like Game of Thrones, which only airs on pay for it stations . I have a VCR and a DVR, both of which I can legally use to record these television shows, and watch them later, all the while fast forwarding through the commercials. I live in an area where no television phone polls etc. are conducted, in other words no one could possibly know whether I was watching a TV show as it was being aired, or if I was recording it and watching it later, or if I was downloading it illicitly. Ergo downloading a TV show does nothing different from my recording the show and fastforwarding through commercials, except that downloading is more convenient for me. I want to preemptively note that I wish to solely address the issue of my downloading I'm aware that by torrenting, I'm also uploading , which could be construed as harmful, depending on the situation that the other downloaders are in. I believe that all in all, by downloading a TV show, I'm probably helping the show in the long run, because instead of missing a show I wanted to watch, I end up talking about the show to friends, and possibly convince them to watch the show, and then, depending on circumstance, they may become subject to advertising. I cause the show's popularity to increase, which means that advertisers are willing to pay more to be on the show. .\n","conclusion":"Torrenting TV shows that can be received \"over the air\" doesn't hurt anyone.\n","id":"90d3860d-beab-4603-ac90-fc03a5f659ee"}
{"argument":"Sex with more partners at the same time is fun and does not hurt anybody. Thus it should be legal to fix it through the bond of matrimony.\n","conclusion":"Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as nobody else gets hurt by their actions.\n","id":"bed67dfd-2679-4ead-abe6-67c9ecea9388"}
{"argument":"Ive been hearing a lot about the problems with income inequality in the US as a part of the political campaign, but I don't think there is any problem with different people making different amounts of money. If I have developed a skill or talent that has a higher value in the market than your skill or talent than I should receive higher compensation. Additionally I understand that opportunities are not equal for all people and that some people have to overcome much more to gain a college education, etc. But ultimately, isn't that just life? Why do we feel the need to counteract the cards that are dealt to everyone? Either you take the opportunities that you are given and more of them or you don't. I guess I just don't see why it's someone's responsibility to change that.\n","conclusion":"Income inequality is not a problem it's a result of natural consequences\n","id":"851c1a69-9fda-4213-9940-6b3930582bc4"}
{"argument":"Premise I'm a strong remainer , I voted remain, I would again tomorrow, almost nothing would convince me the EU is negative for the UK to be in. But I realise that isn't going to happen. The UK needs to leave the EU or else there'd be serious political turmoil. My claim The UK should rejoin the European Free Trade Agreement EFTA upon its exit from the EU. This would be best for trade, for people British and EU , for Ireland island , and for business. For clarity, I'll be saying EFTA from now on, and joining and rejoining have the same meaning. The UK was once in the EFTA, so we would be joining and rejoining. My reasons First and foremost is giving both sides i.e. leave and remain voters things they want. Rejoining the EFTA allows for the best balance between hard Brexit, and remaining. It pacifies both sides of debate, and isn't a lurch too far either way. Secondly, the UK relies heavily on trade with EU nations. Like it or not, the majority of our trade is with EU nations, mainly Germany, France, Benelux and Ireland. Joining the EFTA means we can continue to enjoy free trade with these nations, meaning our businesses can keep selling at the same levels, we can buy European read EU goods at the same price, and businesses don't need to worry about changing economic policy any time soon. This will bring stability to both an unstable Pound, and reassurance to countless businesses around the country that no doubt employ millions of Brits and EU citizens. However, we would also be able to get free trade with every other country in the world. If we want to import NZ lamb again, sure. Cheap Japanese cars? Incoming. This allows us to control our trade policy on every front. Thirdly, immigration. I remember a time that immigration was just an off limits topic in the UK, but here we are. Being a member of EFTA means you don't have to follow the EU's immigration rules. Currently all 4 EFTA members have open borders agreements with the EU, but this isn't by law, it was their choice. Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein are EEA members, which the UK doesn't need to be. Switzerland is a member of Schengen, which the UK even now isn't and neither is Ireland so no point joining . Being in the EFTA but not the EEA or EU means the UK could say only 5,000 Poles per year, unlimited Swedes if it so wished. I don't think that's correct policy, but I understand there's serious desire for migration policy to that effect in this country. Fourthly, almost definitely the most volatile, is Ireland. Personally I want to see NI in the UK, but if this means a return to hard borders and The Troubles, I really don't think this is best for Irish or British citizens in Ireland, Northern Ireland, or Great Britain. Current Tory party policy is hard Brexit , i.e. leave customs union, but no return to hard border. I personally don't think this would work, since it just means anyone trying to get goods or people into Great Britain would just go to Ireland, drive across the border, then take a ferry to the rest of the UK. I think being a member of the EFTA means there's no need for customs checks, and I don't actually think illegal immigration across the border would be all that common. It'd be at least no more common than people getting holiday visas and then just never leaving. Fifth, laws. The EU has many directives, for better or worse, that the UK must follow. I appreciate a lot of people don't agree with this, but I'm OK with it. The bendy bananas classic is often dragged out, but there are genuine issues that a large portion of this country takes issue with. Farming laws, fishing laws, for example, are hotly debated. In fact, in many parts of the country, the EU's control over our fishing and farming is the sole reason people voted leave. This would mean we can set our own fishing and farming laws, as well as all the other things people take issue with. And finally, our payments to the EU EFTA would be way lower. Switzerland, for example, pays about 9 million CH Frank per year for EFTA EEA membership. Switzerland is way richer than the UK on average and would get more benefits of the EEA than the UK would, so that's a high comparison. On the same level, the UK would pay \u00a355 mil year multiplying by population ratio or \u00a329 mil year multiplying by GDP ratio . Perhaps this numbers are off. They certainly seem low, but when you compare it to the UK's current \u00a313 bil year technically more like \u00a39 bil year but whatever it seems like pennies. This would definitely pacify the \u00a3350 mil week to the NHS type of people. To be completely honest I have no idea why no one of any significant status on either side of the debate is bringing up the EFTA. There must be a reason right? Maybe I'm missing it, which is why I'm here. So,  The UK SHOULD join the EFTA if it is to leave the EU.\n","conclusion":"The UK should join the EFTA after leaving the EU\n","id":"94328d62-1beb-4aa8-aeef-482436f5f608"}
{"argument":"I want to preface this I do not hate black people, it is out of concern that I have read and researched this phenomena. I'd also like to change my view, so please don't take this  as being simply a pretext to argue. I welcome personal observation as well as statistical evidence. What sparked this off was that, recently, while President Obama was traveling around Africa he gave a speech. It said gt Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves or if police if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end. To me, what Obama was describing was not at all unfamiliar. I've had loads of personal experiences in 'Black' America that support my view. I've seen it in my public school, my college, my street, my city and in my intimate relations. Here is an example of it in Atlanta where teachers from 44 school districts were indited in racketeering to fatten their pockets, as well as possibly advancing the test scores of African Americans for ideological purposes. Since the slave revolts of 1808, the people of Hati have seen little reprieve from from tyrannical and or corrupt governing bodies. The renowned Patrice Lumumba was only able to sustain a presence in government for 12 weeks before the hugely corrupt Democratic Republic of Congo's Mobuto Sese seko took the reigns. Leaders in Nigeria have stolen from the coffers, as well as foreign aid that was sent in good will to help the struggling poor of Nigeria. It is sad to say that almost all the places that are governed by 'black' people are subjected to rule of tyranny, brutality, and kleptocracy. Millions of black people are exploited, robbed and killed because of the corruption of civil society and whats worse, is that people of African descent have come to accept this as being true. I'd like to believe that it is Racist to assume that black people are incapable of self governance, but I flounder when I try to come up with evidence. Please .\n","conclusion":"Black governance is fundamentally a kleptocracy.\n","id":"8a8a2ea9-9584-43b3-8666-740617c98bd0"}
{"argument":"It seems that everyone is using a screen these days, whether they are using a television or a smartphone. These screens are big, and functional, and certainly captivate. I do believe they are useful tools, but I also see them as a burden, and a handicap for everyone. Over time, I am seeing more people using screens as a replacement for human interaction. We are using them as a crutch. Yes, I agree that the internet is the best invention since the wheel it allows the collaboration of ideas beyond any one person's imagination. But I firmly believe that these screens are causing people far too many negative side effects. People are sleeping later, act less motivated, and there are signs that devices, passive and active alike, actually cause depression and autism. There are studies out recently saying to never expose a child under 2 years old to a screen, and provide limited, active interactions with screens between 2 and 8 years old. I wonder what the studies have revealed about children who have not followed these guidelines. Can anyone provide cogent, logical arguments for and against this? Links to scientific articles are always a plus\n","conclusion":"are we a generation consumed by screens tv, computer, phone, google glasses, etc\n","id":"ebee5e5b-4610-477f-8f4c-2c4217029354"}
{"argument":"In the future, technology will probably advance to a point, that will allow us to create vitual realities VR that feel as real the reality we experience right now. Also, artifical intelligence might develope to surpass what humans are capable of without modifying themselves to a massive extent. If and when that point is reached, humanity should abandon reality and move their lifes into VR. A VR can bring us solutions to a lot of problems we just don't have any answers to right now Limited ressources for humanity, unequal opportunities for human beings, limitations of the human body, environmental pollution and many more. To make that happen, we would need to install an AI as a supervisor to make sure that everything is maintained, that humanity survives and developes as well as leading us back into reality if for some reason i cannot imagine life in reality would be more worthwhile again than in a VR. This is of course risky in a sense as a lot of movies that deal with the problems and dangers of AI demonstrate , but I think this risk to be worthwhile and humanity wouldn't be in its position without taking risks on the way. To also give you some idea how i came to that conclusion I think that feelings that feel good like joy are good whether feelings that feel bad are bad. To maximize good and minimize bad feelings over the time that life exists would be the goal and should the goal for humanity in general of this idea. And I do think that a life of bad ffelings is worse than no life or death .  and excuse my english gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The best shot to solve the majority of social, economical and enviromental problems is making human beings spend their life in a virtual reality.\n","id":"4e662bc8-da9f-4d7b-bf1e-4a35e5135c36"}
{"argument":"I believe that Jack White is undoubtedly the most talented musician of those currently recording performing. He has found success with a wide variety of acts The White Stripes, The Raconteurs, The Dead Weather, and his own solo material of which a new album is due to be released in June . Jack White is a adept player of the guitar, piano, and mandolin. He has been a producer on every musical act he has been a part of. Despite all of the talent, achievements, and awards, I don't think Jack White gets the recognition that he truly deserves. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"Jack White is the most talented musician of the current generation\n","id":"f448abb5-35f5-4e0e-969c-9af0079133f5"}
{"argument":"The Garden of Eden was a finite space on Earth, where God had His throne and His council all together, and where Adam and Eve were created and assigned the mission of expanding the Eden and God's council on Earth. But when they sinned, they were expelled from Eden, which means that they were no longer near God, they weren't one of God's \"children\" in the divine council anymore. Hell, then, by definition, is this status of not being part of God's \"family\" and council anymore.\n","conclusion":"If Hell means not being near God, and Adam and Eve were expelled from the Eden, then they were punished with Hell.\n","id":"243700f9-652c-4b88-b8fc-e7e892a406ff"}
{"argument":"Drag performances allow the audience to better understand how gender and associated gender stereotypes are constructed This serves to critique gender stereotypes rather than women in general.\n","conclusion":"Drag becoming mainstream encourages members of wider society to question gender norms.\n","id":"8ad36548-e463-430c-a186-df2fcedb0651"}
{"argument":"The United States and India hold a unique bond in the simple fact that they are the world's two largest democracies. This warrants a special relationship in trading nuclear fuels as well as technology for nuclear energy.\n","conclusion":"Nuclear deal is justified by India and USA being largest democracies.\n","id":"f02756d5-47ce-4feb-b5b5-831298feb31a"}
{"argument":"Childbirth is a risk for any woman. Women that have health issues and should not give birth as it will impede their health need a viable and legal alternative.\n","conclusion":"Adoption is not a reasonable alternative given it requires women to go through pregnancy and childbirth, and bring a genetically related child into the world.\n","id":"ac472551-f69e-4592-bfb2-6b1a7d3ab296"}
{"argument":"These hazing rituals can include horrible acts such as sexual assault, and in extreme cases even lead to people dying.\n","conclusion":"This could also lead to dangerous hazing rituals as a method of promoting superiority.\n","id":"e23945eb-55ff-47fb-9abe-3cbc1a4a869a"}
{"argument":"For all we know, Trump could very well win the Republican nomination outright. However, in case he doesn't, I feel that the winner would have no choice but to choose Trump as a running mate. Regardless of what you think of Trump and his views, he has galvanized a large amount of former establishment Republicans as well as independents. If Trump is completely out of the picture, I just don't see how a Republican could become president. I feel like many would be Republican voters would feel disenfranchised and abstain from voting or even go as far as to support Bernie Sanders, simply to try and topple the establishment. I feel like this election is the first in a long time to have radical flamboyant elements on both sides that actually have a significant voice. If one side was to completely lose that element, I feel that it would be at a significant disadvantage. This is doubly true for the Republican party, since it is already fractured due to things like The Tea Party. Am I completely off base here? If so,\n","conclusion":"Donald Trump is guaranteed to be AT LEAST a vice presidential nominee for the GOP.\n","id":"c8638249-9cba-4e33-a2f8-6274deed0db1"}
{"argument":"A lot of other countries do it this way. Men, women, gay people, etc. would all share the same bathroom. I don't see a problem in using the same bathroom but some people are persistent in dividing this space. I believe once people get used to it then it would be second nature. Having one bathroom would also make it more convenient to use. Some places the men's and women's restrooms would be split far apart, such as at stadiums. I see the point in people wanting privacy in those that are attracted to that gender but are stalls not enough in that regard? What is a better reasoning in splitting up the toilets?\n","conclusion":"Everyone should use the same bathroom\n","id":"4c8d7aa9-ecdf-4995-8f6d-f37bb1594568"}
{"argument":"Our bargain with the state entails the state\u2019s right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. Victims deserve justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free.\n","conclusion":"When crimes goes unpunished by double jeopardy laws, it undermines our faith in the justice system:\n","id":"e6e71117-b389-4b58-adfd-98f080d3de48"}
{"argument":"When the government stole money from the Greek population, it was indeed theft and not robbery. This also had the effect that people all over the world learned to remove their funds to other places if they didn't want to suffer the same fate. This could be done since the threat of punishment for such actions was absent. If taxation however, was also theft and not robbery, people would likewise learn how to hide their funds and they wouldn't need to fear punishment from governments for it.\n","conclusion":"An additional thing to think about, the discussion's topic is, \"Is taxation theft?\" If the government didn't threaten its citizenry with imprisonment, but merely reached into its citizenry's bank accounts and took the money, it would not meet the definition of robbery, but it would still meet the definition of theft. This discussion allows claims based on things like Greece's seizure of bank accountscointelegraph.com While still allowing claims based on robberywhich is a subset of theft.\n","id":"9a60417d-71dd-4a3b-9697-b32eff8da5a6"}
{"argument":"Uniting people is the source of wars. The bloody wars are possible when rulers of some union of people start to see the lives of its people as an asset that could be sacrificed for other goals. Religion is not the only factor creating unity. Unnecessary conflicts between unions or individuals happen every time they fight with no gains and losses on both sides purely for emotional reasons, false convictions or only in case of unions personal gains of the decision maker.\n","conclusion":"Religions have been used as an excuse for conflict. If religions didn't exist, other excuses would arise by the elite.\n","id":"691dbb40-97fe-4f5b-9226-4a0e925435c3"}
{"argument":"The AI to make the drones autonomous, once developed, would be shared and adapted to individual drones, thus you once have big cost, which would then be amortized over centuries between thousands of weapon systems.\n","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.\n","id":"722312c8-d18d-4d52-8382-fa71c04f2c24"}
{"argument":"The Supreme Court of the State of New York is not the highest court in the state. That would be the Court of Appeals. Rather, the Supreme Court is the principal trial court. If you sue someone for a bunch of money or get charged with a serious crime, that happens in Supreme Court. This naming scheme is dumb, confusing to everyone, and should be changed. I'm not tied to a particular new name, District Court would work if you want to copy the feds. A lot of states will call it Superior Court which seems to work well as it is superior to the tribunals which handle less serious matters . But Supreme Court is confusing.\n","conclusion":"The Supreme Court of State of New York should change its name.\n","id":"ac8cf887-cb44-4b05-9eff-0923739b2784"}
{"argument":"I believe that everything the Al Qaeda believe in and fight for is completely wrong. Please change my view.\n","conclusion":"I believe that Al-Qaeda are wrong.\n","id":"74c049ae-b43f-430e-8580-8604151e2453"}
{"argument":"A UK couple used a friend as a surrogate with artificial insemination at home. When they divorced, the intended mother had no parental rights nor could adopt the baby. The judge established that the child should \u201cremain a ward of court indefinitely\u201d, granting the woman the care of the child and banning the surrogate from exercising her parental rights without the court permission.\n","conclusion":"Illegal private surrogacy agreements can leave the individuals involved in a very vulnerable legal state.\n","id":"8c910e02-cf7c-4888-804d-61e30a126832"}
{"argument":"Frederick Kagan. \"Why we need more troops in Afghanistan\". Washington Post. August 16, 2009: \"the administration faces pressure not to send additional forces rapidly or in numbers that could be decisive. It is to be hoped that this administration will avoid the errors of the early Bush years and the tendency toward incrementalism and compromise. Military strategy is not about pleasing the most constituencies but, rather, doing what is necessary to defeat an uncompromising enemy. President Obama declared his commitment to do that in March. Now he must follow through.\"\n","conclusion":"Obama should ignore public opinion, send more troops to Afg\n","id":"6d9246d2-d6a9-46cb-a7a4-b75e7b9e3395"}
{"argument":"Because two-party systems tend to be less volatile in terms of election results, voters retain their representatives as incumbents longer. This means the level of experience of legislators is greater. This results in better and more consistent policy, and more effective scrutiny of the executive.\n","conclusion":"Because two-party systems tend to be less volatile in terms of election results, voters retain their...\n","id":"656a52b2-c805-46ee-ae6f-d271ce38cb60"}
{"argument":"Taking away the right of prisoners to vote cannot be said to be a punishment which is reflective of or addresses the nature of their crimes and unduly encourages the continued disengagement from the welfare of society that rehabilitation should combat. In the country that imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other, prisoners have been denied the ability to participate on the most fundamental level in the policies, many of which are themselves highly controversial, that have created the sizable prison population that currently exists. This is made even more problematic by the financial incentive of both private and government prisons to contract prisoners as laborers who make substantially less than minimum wage and in doing so create a prison industrial complex that fundamentally economically deincentivizes reducing the prison population or preventing recidivism.\n","conclusion":"Giving people in prison the right to vote is an ethical policy, largely adopted in the developed world, that should be implemented in the United States.\n","id":"710b51dd-25fa-48dd-94de-60c013d45717"}
{"argument":"This point is even acknowledged by the Dalai Lama \"The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.\"\n","conclusion":"If we have a right to self-defense, we must then have a right to proportional self-defense. Thus, if a person is at risk of being threatened with a gun, they must be able to defend themselves with a gun.\n","id":"701e2070-d09c-4df5-a845-f4db2a26dbaa"}
{"argument":"Showing humanity to one side can be seen as violating neutrality towards another side, as - for example - contentious decisions about granting asylum illustrate e.g. in the case of Turkish officers accused of plotting a coup.\n","conclusion":"Even basic humanitarian principles as defined by the Geneva Convention can come into dispute with each other.\n","id":"67cf4b8a-7f70-4a25-adda-3b97618bb2b7"}
{"argument":"I've never been able to get an actual conversation going about this topic, and any time I express my disbelief I've been shut down without being offered any logical argument as to why I'm wrong. I'm not being an asshole or going around forcing my belief down the throats of people who are non cis, I just want to understand what the reasoning is behind the idea of multiple genders. Here's my argument EDITED HEAVILY as per changes in my view, which make a lot more sense than my previous disjointed rambling. Thanks so much for those of you who have contributed thus far From my understanding there are two genders, male and female, which DO differ from the biologically based concept of male and female sexes in that sexes apply to humans and other biological organisms, and gender applies to everything else ie actions, behaviors, objects, activities, interests, songs, food . A person can't be simply masculine or feminine, because a person isn't nearly as one dimensional as the color pink which is in some cultures considered feminine and a single person will exhibit countless behaviors that are masculine or feminine. To say that a person is male gender wise would require some kind of criterion that defines them as masculine are gt 50 of their attributes masculine? Do their masculine attributes somehow weigh more heavily than their feminine attributes? Do we simply identify someone as a gender by ignoring their opposite gender attributes? Where are the lines? . This argument corroborates with several facts of language as we know it Many languages have morphemes which identify a word or label as masculine or feminine. Most of these words are words for objects, or are names, or colors, or verbs. For example, Alexander is a masculine name, but Alexandria is feminine. In Spanish, nouns themselves have a gender denoted by el and la . Looking at the etymology of the word gender hooray for Wikipedia we can gather that the word gender is used in a categorical sense to group objects in language. gt The modern English word gender comes from the Middle English gender also gendere, gendir gendyr, gendre , a loanword from Anglo Norman and Middle French gendre. This, in turn, came from Latin genus. Both words mean kind , type , or sort . It appears in Modern French in the word genre type, kind, also genre sexuel and is related to the Greek root gen to produce , appearing in gene, genesis, and oxygen. The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary OED1, Volume 4, 1900 notes the original meaning of gender as kind had already become obsolete. Furthermore, we can quote Henry Watson Fowler, notable for A Dictionary of Modern English Usage and his work on the Concise Oxford Dictionary gt Gender is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons of the masculine or feminine g ender , meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity permissible or not according to context or a blunder. It really can't be argued that most cultures have a way of distinguishing between masculine and feminine things whether you say it's for better or for worse, this fact can't be changed and the fact that some things are considered masculine i.e. toy trucks, neckties and other things are considered feminine i.e. nail polish, dresses . Some things are also considered androgynous i.e. nachos??? but that is only because they fall so closely to the center of the spectrum grey area that they aren't categorized. The fact that men and women experience different patterns of social and emotional growth based on the gender they identify as can be instead attributed to environment, not the identity itself. You can't stop identifying as male or female, any more than you can stop identifying as Asian, poor, or as the prime minister, because a gender is not based on human mental states beliefs, intents, desires but rather social custom and general belief. Thus, it's not logically possible to make up genders based on the conclusion that you don't feel male or female and instead feel like something else. Everyone has experienced growing up with the influence of both masculine and feminine experiences actions and everyone is a mix of those characteristics. Furthermore, the genders don't exist on a spectrum because male and female characteristics are not opposites. There is a third option androgyny neutrality. An object is always identified as one of these things, and the reason we don't notice things getting labeled as neutral is literally just because there's no reason to mention an androgynous object when trying to describe a person in terms of gendered attributes. The reason there isn't a graduation between the two where you can identify as 43 male and 57 female or half and half, is because your gender is not based on a concrete list of characteristics that must be fulfilled in order to qualify you as male or female. Or if there is, why is this list never mentioned as a major part of any definition for gender? You're either completely male or completely female based on your sex , and if as a female you feel like you identify as a tomboy because you act or dress like a guy, that's fine. But it doesn't change the face that you are still completely female. My reasoning for this being that your gender isn't defined by characteristics, rather, characteristics are defined by gender so until that is disproved your gender is defined by sex and nothing else. TLDR You can't feel gender , and you are not gender. People either can't be genders, objects fall into two gender categories male, female . If you still insist on being a gender, you must be cisgender. UPDATE I'm heading to bed for now, but I will be on in a few hours to answer any unanswered comments that I haven't gotten to yet. UPDATE\n","conclusion":"There are only two genders and they are NOT on a spectrum. Everyone is cisgender, except for a few legitimately diagnosed with psychological disorders.\n","id":"116da566-145d-47d8-a990-15722b192dc6"}
{"argument":"Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the higher-technology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Because of this, banning landmines harms precisely the kind of nation most likely to need them for defensive purposes.\n","conclusion":"Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the ...\n","id":"0cce0c5d-1939-4baa-a57a-0235d1e22bc2"}
{"argument":"Without dramatic changes to the cost of healthcare, going to a single-payer taxpayer system would cause great harm to our economy.\n","conclusion":"A single-payer healthcare system will lead to higher healthcare costs.\n","id":"4ae95caf-cd9a-4186-9982-74ae7405e29c"}
{"argument":"Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro fertilisation and the practice of sperm donation allows heterosexual couples to reproduce where one partner is sterile. Moreover, merely 300 babies are adopted each year in the United Kingdom. It might be better for potential parents to give their love to existing babies rather than attempt to bring their own offspring into an already crowded world.\n","conclusion":"Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro fertilisation and the practic...\n","id":"be023844-97a9-4d0a-80ae-b1469f0d2465"}
{"argument":"The point of fundamental rights is that they are inalienable, which necessarily means that people who don't believe in or respect human rights have the same fundamental rights as everyone else.\n","conclusion":"Fundamental rights are not reciprocal, although aliens could use this reasoning against humans, whether they would do so is not causally connected to whether we use that reasoning.\n","id":"e4bcc758-a3a7-4ac0-8d68-8817aa61bd9d"}
{"argument":"Alarmist responses to the continuous deceits may be the only way to draw attention as quickly as the deceits occur.\n","conclusion":"The magnitude of President Trump's lying undermines the legitimacy of the democratic system and is embarrassing for America.\n","id":"2819b3f0-230d-4bb6-aeab-a8c5e1c22d2b"}
{"argument":"Abortion places the responsibility for the child's well-being solely in the woman's hands, not the man's.\n","conclusion":"Men should not be forced to pay child support if abortion is a woman's right.\n","id":"304f6549-3b24-4371-bd28-22fcadf19f7b"}
{"argument":"Individuals in collectivistic societies in the East are likely to value material ownership and acquisitions that allow them to maintain collective interests and goals.\n","conclusion":"Collective-oriented materialism is the belief system that ascribes importance to possessions for their symbolic and signaling capacities to construct desirable social attributes.\n","id":"8864ce8a-daf4-4abf-b006-f5270334d786"}
{"argument":"Admittedly, I don't have a ton of exposure to this idea, but in what I have seen, I've never heard anyone handle the objection that if everyone received a set amount of money, prices would increase to price those people on the lowest end of the spectrum out. Income inequality is structural because of a number of factors, including the fact that some people provide more value than others, some have better luck then others, and some make better decisions than others. As incomes rise, so do prices. If someone who's not working now makes 20,000 for example , then the guy now working a 20,000 job will justifiably want more money so that he's paid more to work then not work. This impact will drive other wages up, so therefore prices will also rise. We'll always have the poor with us, and always have the rich. That isn't to say that nothing should be done. Let me repeat, I'm not arguing for the status quo, although I think that people who advocate wealth distribution tend to overlook that fact the economies are dynamic, not static. I'd love evidence, or at least reason, based responses to this objection that are more than complaints about the current system politicians, etc. It's very easy to protest against something and much harder to design an alternative that actually works. EDIT Several of you have submitted some interesting thoughts and have pointed out where I might find more detailed information on the objection. I think I can say I've changed me view to I need some more info to have a better informed opinion on this topic.\n","conclusion":"Basic Income advocates overlook the fact that prices would rise correspondingly, creating a new, higher poverty level\n","id":"d1d1d2bb-549e-4a45-9fe5-4bdfa1ce5851"}
{"argument":"I want us to fight against climate change. I'd be happy if we can live in a more balanced state with nature. I'd also like to believe that what we do in my country matters. But my father recently pointed out to me how little we actually do matter. According to this list, China and USA together make up more than 40 of all emissions in the world. Top five countries alone make up about 55 . Top ten makes almost 65 , or 2 3. I live in a country that makes about 0.1 . Even if we managed to cut our emissions down to half not an easy feat , there would still be 99.95 of the global emissions left. No matter how much we struggled and paid, we barely made a difference. Even if we somehow managed to eliminate our emissions completely, what we accomplished in the big picture basically amounts to a rounding error. When we talk about a situation where we need to reduce our emissions to half or more globally, our share of emissions is nigh meaningless. One big factory blows up in China, and all we did was negated. I understand that China is doing stuff to cut its emissions, and it should. It alone is producing 1 4 of all emissions on earth. I do understand the moral value of everyone doing what they can. But that is pretty much the only value I can find in our actions. Look, I'm helping too . We are a kid selling lemonade for 1c a piece, when the mortgage is 100,000. We might give some moral boost to the big boys, who are the ones doing the heavy lifting, but that is basically our contribution. I also understand that the voting argument might apply here, that every vote matters . But I would argue that is not the case here. If this is like voting, then ten people in my population have 65 of vote. If we vote, cool. But what we should do, is try to influence the ten people who hold the actual power, because our voting power is so small, it's not even funny. If we need to act like we are helping, then go for it. Sign the deals, make the appearances. But whether we actually reduce our emissions to half or zero, does not matter. Whether the world is saved or not, is not up to us. x200B\n","conclusion":"There is no point for my country to cut our emissions, because China and USA are so massive polluters\n","id":"f6ec9cb9-98d9-4a6a-ac02-a2d48e834620"}
{"argument":"Men are more motivated by power than women, who tend to be more motivated by affiliation the desire for close relationships with others.\n","conclusion":"Men are more likely than women to engage in dominant or aggressive behaviors, toinitiate negotiations and to self select into competitive environments.\n","id":"9a3ab8b0-b64b-4f43-aba7-3203af7352b8"}
{"argument":"We give humans rights because we expect them to respect the rights of other individuals and the laws that lay the foundation for a civilized society. Animals are unable to comprehend the rules of society and the impact of their actions and so we cannot expect that they will respect others. This means that animals cannot be held accountable for their actions, unlike humans.\n","conclusion":"We are relieved of the responsibility to give animals the same rights as humans because humans consciously agree to act civilly while animals do not.\n","id":"d206e65d-1e0c-4676-acfe-a99156283b88"}
{"argument":"With all the controversy over trust in the police departments and suspicion that police are out to get certain groups or to get their quota or to make themselves look good, improving the public's trust in police would be beneficial to communities as they are supposed to be public servants and they can't be expected to properly serve a group who are afraid of them. How can someone expect police to serve them when it is not only legal for those police to lie and it well known that they will do so to the detriment of the people who they are talking to? Now obviously there are exceptions such as an undercover cop can't be expected to admit he is an undercover cop if asked, but when he is undercover there is no expectation that the public should trust him as they don't know he is a cop. my point is that any time a cop is on duty, he should be required to be truthful in any statement he makes. Any false statement the cop makes which results in evidence collected or confessions given should be made inadmissible in court and a record for each cop should be kept and reviewed to determine if they should keep their job. This surely will never be perfect as there will always be things like half truths or lies of omission. I cop could say let me check your car and I will do everything I can to avoid you getting a DUI when everything he can is actually nothing. But not encouraging cops to flat out lie would be a big improvement. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"If we want to increase the public's trust in police, it should be illegal in most cases for police to lie while on duty\n","id":"b8f038b6-b0b4-4e57-8003-b1f8ec70d5de"}
{"argument":"One treasure digging ritual led by the Smith family involved cutting the throat of a black sheep and leading it in a circle around the dig site while bleeding. Due to some mistake in the ritual, however, the dig was unsuccessful. Howe, 1834, p. 239 statement of William Stafford\n","conclusion":"Magical rituals and symbols were essential elements of the treasure excavations in which Joseph Smith and his family participated.\n","id":"a27328e8-ef65-402e-be19-44843dc559c9"}
{"argument":"Customers who refuse to accept compelled speech, who are worried about misgendering or being falsely accused of misgendering, or who are politically against trans rights may avoid using businesses with trans staff.\n","conclusion":"These kinds of laws may disincentivize employers from hiring trans people, thereby reducing job prospects for this already very marginalized group.\n","id":"5e9f9fd3-539b-4cea-a554-4228cc557371"}
{"argument":"In a capitalist economy, potential profit acts as an incentive to promote change when the customers is not properly served. That incentive is usually absent from state enterprises.\n","conclusion":"In a capitalist economy, there is more incentive to serve the customer.\n","id":"4c6a13a0-98a6-439e-b35c-b3b50308007f"}
{"argument":"There are many factors involved in a drug being reported as toxic that are often cited as a result of animal-testing, but which have to do with other factors, such as human error in use or typical blood-type responses to particular drugs. While there are some instances of misleading results from animal testing that indicated a drug was safe when it was not, this is extremely rare. It is rare enough that it is both insignificant or at least consistent with other risks involved in human drug consumption.\n","conclusion":"Drug toxicity is rarely a result of any misleading animal testing\n","id":"398b1195-f550-42d6-b157-07bf6cd00541"}
{"argument":"People who hold back society through these personality traits have been comfortably settled in with these thought patterns. People, generally resistant to change won't change the views they have of the world and instead find ways to rationalize it to suit their ideology. The only way to remove these traits or at least minimize it to such an extent that it becomes a minor inconvenience at the most is to invest on the future generations. I acknowledge that every generation has a percentage of kids who are exposed to the ideologies of racism, supremacy, conservative and restrictive religious beliefs, and grow up to accept these ideas. But this percentage can be reduced with every subsequent generation. EDIT Based on the comments so far, I realized I was a little remiss in conveying my argument. I don't believe people cannot change their opinions. I also don't believe NO racist can change. What I do believe, however, is that for for every such person who changes his her views, there'll be three more such people who would vociferously defend their ideas and that is what allows the prominence of such traits in our society. EDIT 2 When I said 'weed out these negative traits', I meant the TRAITS, not the PEOPLE with those traits. I DO NOT advocate extermination of such people. Also, The quoted delta was a mistake. Not a dick move. Apologies. EDIT 3 I've noticed people seem to be concentrating only on the 'racist' part. I would like to clarify that I'm talking about negative traits in general. The negative world views is what I think cannot be changed in those extremists. EDIT 4 Wow. This blew up. Let me clarify a few things. I AM NOT NOT NOT advocating removing the people who harbor such thoughts. I am talking about culling these kind of views from the society. The negative views. NOT the people with the negative views.So, no, I am NOT suggesting extermination or sterilization. EDIT 5 A lot of comments have been putting forward the argument that we cannot know which views are wrong or negative and which are not. We don't have the authority to decide that. While I acknowledge that to be an excellent argument, that is not my view I'm here to change. My view is that to remove negative world views WHATEVER THOSE HAPPEN TO BE from this society, we need to concentrate on the future generations, instead of trying to change the current generation's viewpoints. I am talking about changing this view.\n","conclusion":"People who are racists, bigots, religiously dogmatic can never be changed. The only way to weed out these negative traits from the society is to focus on the next generations being properly educated.\n","id":"af36f175-e655-482c-84cd-79405093e473"}
{"argument":"If reparations are paid, part of the package should be to leave the country and give up their citizenship. If they believe having relatives brought here, causes the U.S.A. to owe them something, then their presence here is wrong. They should have to make a choice accept the money and leave, or quit complaining\n","conclusion":"There are severe barriers to specifying who should be entitled to reparations, and what form reparations would take.\n","id":"57f8be4b-2873-4a9e-b318-c083c73fb7e1"}
{"argument":"When I was in Middle School kids bullied me all the time, I told the teachers, but they just told me to ignore it. I had to use every ounce of my willpower to prevent myself from fighting back. Whenever I was bullied, I would scream at the bullies. The teachers told me that it was my own fault that I was being bullied because of the way I screamed at them. I tried to tell them that screaming was a reflex which I physically couldn't control, but they just kept telling me that it was my own fault. For years, I had to hold in all of my anger because I knew that if I fought back I would be suspended. It was holding in all that anger which led to a suicide attempt. This was a long time ago, so I'm better now. However, the reason why victims of bullying commit suicide is because no one takes them seriously. No matter how minor the bullying is, a person should never be told to ignore it, and certainly never told that it's their own fault. It is the very definition of victim blaming and should not be done. I'm sure some of the comments will say that they only bullied me to get a reaction, so if I didn't scream at them they would have stopped bullying me. However, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is. I would also like to point out that screaming is a natural reaction to fear, and that I was using all of my willpower to prevent myself from fight back. If the school will not allow kids to fight back, than the school should do something about the bullying. If I could have fought back without being suspended, than I would have. My school has a policy that all kids involved in a fight are suspended. In my school, kids given out of school suspension are forced to go to an Alternative Learning Center for the duration of their suspension. I knew that if I was suspended I would be sent their, and that it was filled with bad kids who would have been far worse than the bullies at the school.\n","conclusion":"Telling kids to ignore bullying, or telling them that it's their own fault, is victim blaming and should not be done.\n","id":"f44b9553-e911-486f-a623-fa1ad349f8d2"}
{"argument":"Bitcoin to me comes across as a pyramid scheme. It's members are constantly recruiting others to buy into it, and the promise of high returns is either implied or outright said. It has no governing body to control high swings of inflation or deflation. It also encourages investing and not spending. There are no major retailers that allow you to purchase with Bitcoin. The argument that no currency has value holds little water, as the US dollar is a fiat currency, so it holds value as long as the US government is in good standing. Bitcoin has no backing whatsoever. All of this adds up to a complicated pyramid scheme. gt A successful pyramid scheme combines a fake yet seemingly credible business with a simple to understand yet sophisticated sounding money making formula which is used for profit. Change my view. Edit I may have used the incorrect scheme. It just seems fishy, and pyramid scheme was the closest thing I could think of.\n","conclusion":"I believe Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.\n","id":"79c28eeb-0d08-4bda-975e-e14b4946094f"}
{"argument":"Great white sharks from different regions refuse to mix - meaning that if their numbers decline in one area it may not be possible to bring in replacements from other areas.\n","conclusion":"Global shark populations are already declining increasing the risk of extinction of some species.\n","id":"9aed8e47-53e5-4e38-ba2e-1dd2cb180b8e"}
{"argument":"Bullfighting was necessary for the creation of Spain once the reconquista was successful, as it provided a set of common traditions that could be practiced by the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula.\n","conclusion":"The historical experience of bullfighting has lent itself to become a source of modern day identity.\n","id":"386fe60b-ae70-42fc-a435-45067fc7434e"}
{"argument":"Its seen by everyone with phrases like They should be shot immediately or buried under the prison. . The hate for pedophiles is strong, aggressive, and vocal. This view is bad because it causes pedophiles to be more dangerous than they would be otherwise, and leads to acting on pedophilic urges more common. First I need to specify, a pedophile is simply a person sexually attracted to pre pubescent children. I'm not talking just about those who act on this, but also those who don't act but have these urges. More Common Because pedophiles are hated by society, there are no good resources for them. If there was a support group specifically group therapy with aid from a professional. for those afflicted by these urges, to help them avoid acting on them it would be destroyed immediately. Because it is so hated and accompanied by violent threats these people would be risking their lives by opening themselves up to get help. They also risk destruction of their life if this information is even rumored to be true. The fact that they cannot get any help dealing with this issue, they are more likely to act on them over time. This is the biggest irony of it, the vocal hate of it actually causes that behavior to be more prevalent. More Dangerous Due to the social view of pedophiles they have greater motivation to harm to a child to prevent being caught, or threaten the child which would cause more mental damage. They would also be more likely to offend again because after getting caught, convicted, or suspected, they would be completely ostracized by the community this is made worse by the rules accompanying sex offender registries. . This isolation could very well lead to seeking comfort in children who don't reject you the same way everyone else does. Edit Once could also argue that the bad perception of it could even be the cause of the damage to the child in the first place. what could have been a good, or even just not bad, experience can be warped into horror in the eye of that child due to the strong views held by the adults in their life. But this is not exactly what this post is about, feel free to change this view also. Conclusion I concede that changing the views of society is so difficult its pointless to try. I simply wan't to show that these ideas are harmful and actually have the opposite effect than intended. .\n","conclusion":"The negative perception of Pedophiles in society causes pedophiles to be more common and more dangerous.\n","id":"52bb5fdd-9e6a-4a09-8d20-b8331a37ffe4"}
{"argument":"Virtual reality might often be used to strictly emulate reality rather than as a form of fiction\/escapism. Having a world indistinguishable from real life, but with the possibility of crime, prevents this.\n","conclusion":"If fully immersive virtual reality is developed it should be subject to all of our existing laws.\n","id":"d9f085cc-ec7c-47f3-ac33-3c6693bc777b"}
{"argument":"Hypothesis is a misnomer in the parent claim and the ones above it: a theory stands until it is disproven through research that uses falsifiable hypotheses. E.g., the theory \"God does not exist\" or the theory \"God exists\". Theories are put to the test through research, where you put a conditio sine qua non something that has to be the case for your theory to hold. The question is whether there is such a conditio, otherwise your theory cannot be scrutinized.\n","conclusion":"Hypothesis do not stand until proven impossible. If that were the case, the hypothesis that God exists would also stand, since no conclusive proof of its impossibility exists. This would produce a contradiction.\n","id":"7c0a2f23-c40e-4a1c-af55-091546b558ff"}
{"argument":"His statement \u201cWhy are we having all these people from shithole countries coming here?\u201d White House meeting, 11\/1\/18 is prejudicial and inappropriate for a President.\n","conclusion":"Trump has said some patently bizarre outrageous stupid and\/or plain ridiculous things\n","id":"9dff28d6-0c4d-4199-b07f-c4a88bcb86a2"}
{"argument":"People can go on virtual field trips in the classroom especially to places that are difficult, less interactive, or impossible in reality.\n","conclusion":"Learning opportunities can be more accessible in VR than with traditional learning.\n","id":"9b4b745d-f3ef-488e-a531-4b266aafdbb6"}
{"argument":"Before modern states could provide welfare, religion was the only source of education, healthcare or economic relief.\n","conclusion":"Religion led people to do things correctly before science and technology caught up.\n","id":"a651d89d-6b7f-410e-bbd5-731bdfc3b48c"}
{"argument":"Let's start with the numbers Arizona Iced Tea lemon 24 grams of sugar in 8 oz. Coca Cola Classic 27 g Pepsi 28 g Ingredients Arizona tea brewed in filtered water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, lemon flavor. Coke carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, flavors, caffeine. Their first two ingredients are basically identical water and high fructose corn syrup. Of course, Arizona gets its flavor mostly from tea leaves while Coke gets it from flavoring. They both stain teeth Coke has caramel color while Arizona again gets it from the tea leaves. I like both drinks, but I feel at this point that they are both pretty terrible at this point and that they should only be used sparingly. .\n","conclusion":"Iced tea specifically Arizona is no better for you than soda.\n","id":"b135e420-83bc-4f54-a8ca-925178c5c480"}
{"argument":"Self Representation in a court of law should be the default method of interacting with a Justice System. A citizen that did no wrong should not be required to spend any amount of resources to defend themselves adequately. A citizen that did do a wrong should rightfully own up to their wrong and serve their sentence. A citizen that wants basic legal council should be entitled to have that provided by the state. A citizen that wants to pay for advance legal council should be entitled to do so. Non perfect analogy A game of chess is a battle between two sides, the rules are known prior to the game, and anybody with basic understanding of the game can play a basic game. A chess master may be able to win more easily with greater practice of the game, however the newcomer can still move his pieces and win with the same moves as the master. Any system with a too complex set of rules and regulations that require professional assistance to perform basic standard of success is unjust. edit spelling, grammer, format, etc. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Justice Systems where the average citizen cannot adequately defend themselves are unjust.\n","id":"73fa4d6a-17ae-4012-af27-c4051c596d54"}
{"argument":"The size of an economy is determined by two main factors: first, the total amount of money available. But, more importantly: the speed of monetary circulation between actors a factor which is commonly overlooked. Again in a very simplified model, everyone can get rich on just $1 along as it is transferred very rapidly in exchange for goods. In fact, just handing money to people to buy things may be the best stimulus for the economy imaginable but cause inflation, over stimulus.\n","conclusion":"A UBI offsets its cost by creating wealth and increasing the amount of economic activity that states can tax.\n","id":"f8447adf-2157-4863-a8b3-125a6e834e78"}
{"argument":"I'm more concerned with the level of anti trump rhetoric in the media than anything the Russians might do. IMO Saudi Arabia is a much more serious threat as they are suspected of not only being a state sponsor of terrorism but are heavily rumored to be the driving force behind 9 11. I don't want to discuss the saudis too much, that's a whole other argument. But as far as The President's connections to Putin, I see little threat in strengthening our relationship with a world power we have been aligned against for half a century. I mean it was the Russians who help us defeat the Axis powers in WW2, so they are not inherently our enemy. My belief is that the stories coming out of the media about Trump and Russia are really just liberal propaganda. None of these news outlets except Fox were upset when video came out a few years ago showing then President Obama telling Vlad himself that he will have more maneuverability after the election. If it wasn't an issue then it's not an issue now. Yeah, Putin in an asshole, but that doesn't mean much considering some of the allies we already are total assholes. Change my view comrades. Ok comrades . I'm convinced that Russia can be a serious threat and that there is a possibility that the president and or his aids have been or could soon be compromised. Still think the media is full of shit but that s another story. Still dont know how to give triangles on my phone but shout out to u myspouseishigh for putting the last nail in the coffin, though a lot of smart redditors made a lot of good points. I might be breaking the 3 hour rule but I have to go to work now. Thanks guys delta\n","conclusion":"Trump's ties to Russia are more media hype than actual threat to national security\n","id":"2b07cd6e-dc03-41b1-ac95-c6db4322a288"}
{"argument":"Argument 1 Global warming is a big problem, and nuclear energy can reduce fossil fuel emissions. As kurzgesagt put's it If we can choose between lots of dangerous stuff being put in a deep hole or lot's and lot's and lot's of dangerous being pumped into the atmosphere, the former seems more logical. Argument 2 A thought to be made about the argument that it's bad for the environment is If you look at pictures of the Chernobyl reactor now Somewhere where almost nobody has been for the past 40 years It's overgrown with lot's of plant life, animal life and fungi. So let's put that into perspective. A place where the worst nuclear disaster in all of history occurred, plants and animals alike decided that this place is a better place to live than a civilised town. Let that sink in for a second. Argument 3 But nuclear disasters are so destructive According to this source you have a 0.00001 chance to die of a nuclear disaster in some way since nuclear energy has been invented, 60 years ago, I realise it's not a particularly reputable source if you find some better values, please inform me. And on that note, I would ask for you to take a hard look at these statistics about asthma, a disease not only caused by fossil fuels but it very well can be Every day in America 40,000 people miss school or work due to asthma. 30,000 people have an asthma attack. 5,000 people visit the emergency room due to asthma. 1,000 people are admitted to the hospital due to asthma. 11 people die from asthma. Source I see this point very comparable to plane crashes vs car crashes because if a plane crashes, it typically kills a lot more people than a single car crash, but in total, a car still has an incredibly high amount of deaths just not all at one time. Argument 4 What about renewable energy sources Yes, if there are renewable energy sources, that's great use them, but the issue about using them 100 is that currently every single method, is inconsistent and only works sometimes, and because of our incredibly crappy ways of storing energy. We can't overproduce for backups later. Some emerging technologies will let us efficiently store energy. For example graphene supercapacitors and Pumped storage hydro power But all this stuff isn't fully implemented yet so nuclear energy would be a great stepping stone. Disclaimer I'm no scientist, statistician or nuclear engineer, take my points with a grain of salt.\n","conclusion":"Nuclear energy is much better than fossil fuels, and should be preferred wherever possible until either better renewable methods are found.\n","id":"02bfa5d3-2b79-4dc0-baa3-6f41f4008cf0"}
{"argument":"Its pretty simple, and has bugged me since i can remember i don't think parents should kiss their children on the lips. Im from a hispanic background and i always thought a kiss on the lips, even a small peck, was reserved for romantic gestures. In the american culture it is pretty common to kiss your toddlers children on the lips. I just feel like this is so out of place. With there being so much available real estate to kiss on a child cheeks, chin, brow, nose, why is it so widespread for a full on peck on the lips? If i was to kiss your child on the lips i would probably be stared at like a weirdo. I dont see how parents kissing their child removes the amorous carnal associations that a kiss on the lips means between adults. EDIT Thanks for the discussion guys and especially those who kept it civil. Unfortunately the turkey did me in early and some really good comments came in while i was conked out. I did award a delta for the first of a couple people who helped explain a little of the practical reasons why people may do it. It didnt change my personal view but it helped me understand a little more where people are coming from.\n","conclusion":"parents should not kiss their children on the lips\n","id":"f60793e0-d539-4f2c-aae2-f3086cf7c373"}
{"argument":"Leaving Euratom, the EU's atomic energy community, could cause energy supplies to be disrupted due to the lack of equivalent national regulatory body, and the inability to source vital components from Europe.\n","conclusion":"A hard Brexit would result in short-term regulatory chaos.\n","id":"370a79b9-a9bd-4e36-a4e0-2453456ee108"}
{"argument":"To be more specific, I'm talking about non elective surgeries. In a life or death situation, you're not exactly in a good position to negotiate. Therefore, there has to be some control so that hospitals can't just charge whatever they want once they see that you have no other options. If this was a cell phone plan, despite how necessary it may seem to have a cell phone, people would just not use them if it was 1000 a month. In a life or death medical situation you can't just not use the service . In some cases you can't even move to another hospital to try and get a better deal. For the most part, I like Capitalism. I think it's been instrumental in our technological advancement and bringing up quality of life for most people. However, I just can't see a way that this works in this one specific area. So Libertarians and Conservatives out there, why do you think a totally free market works for health care? .\n","conclusion":"The free market works in most cases, health care is not one of them.\n","id":"839aa8c7-bd55-4ac3-a554-730b708106be"}
{"argument":"Population is a major problem today \u2013 the world population of 6 billion is expected to reach 10.7 billion by 2050. Given the strain on global resources and the environment today, it is clear that an environmental disaster is waiting to happen, as the population time bomb ticks away. While reproduction, as part of family life, is a fundamental human right, we must also consider that rights come with responsibilities. We have a responsibility to future generations, and population control is one method of ensuring that there will still be some natural resources left for our descendants.\n","conclusion":"Population is a major problem today \u2013 the world population of 6 billion is expected to reach 10.7 bi...\n","id":"36737c77-7cb4-4c7c-9b77-f9afcda599d4"}
{"argument":"Winding up the teacher or getting the class to mess around will inevitably seem more interesting to the children than studying some dry and dull topics.\n","conclusion":"Students can start acting out as a result of being bored at school.\n","id":"05af2363-f9cd-4a51-8a6e-1796345662ac"}
{"argument":"At work everyone is making fun of Janay Palmer for getting knocked out. They have seen the newest footage They are saying things like 1 she married him after this incident actually occurred so no one should feel sorry for her. 2 she slapped him first and he has a right to hit him back 3 They were drunk so it must've been a special incident. I personally do not find any of these things to be excuses for him or makes spousal abuse any more lighthearted that it makes it ok to laugh at the situation. 1 I believe that if it is actually an abusive relationship that her marrying him makes it an even more frightening for her, not an opening to blame her for her situation. I don't find it surprising that an abused spouse could marry their abuser if they can not even find the strength to leave their abusor. 2 I do believe a person has a right to defend themselves when they are struck regardless of gender but he used enough force to knock her out, I believe that is up and beyond what right you have to defend yourself 3 Intoxication does not make the situation funny or less serious or less frequent of an incident. If it happens when they are drunk it may also happen when they are sober. These are just a few points that they laughed about, but I can not find this funny at all. They seem to feel that the situation is so minor they don't have to be serious about it. Can you argue how this situation might be funny, or silly?\n","conclusion":"Janay Palmer getting beat up by ray rice is not funny\n","id":"26292956-cec1-4e80-9104-42226dfbf022"}
{"argument":"We moved from a situation where minorities racial, sexual, had no space to thrive and struggled, to a situation where some minorities want the majority to adapt all social norms to them. Once all people were to fit into societal standards with almost no exceptions otherwise they would be banished from society. Now all societal standards have to be redesign each time a person want to adopt a new behavioral norm. If people do not want to live by the societal standard fine, but we do not need to redefine our societal standards to include them in our societal norms. x200B From my personal example as a religious minority, I think I have the right to be open about my religion, but I do not consider that my workplace should adapt my schedule to fit my will to pray 3 times a day. These days a lot of people consider that a workplace that would not want to adapt my schedule would be discriminatory towards me. I think that it is not the case. I am the one who have to find solutions to accommodate both my religious believe and the social norms of the country I live in. I do not want those norms to be changed to fit my personal situation. x200B Another example is having an IVF for a single woman. The societal norm has been you need a couple of consenting adults to have a baby. Now some women want society to accommodate their situation I want to have a baby but I do not want to find a man to have it with me. So now we change society standard and it becomes ok for a woman to have a baby alone. x200B\n","conclusion":"We've moved from one extreme to the other: from rigid societal standards to a standard-less society.\n","id":"adaf8112-c24e-4f6d-ae7a-55363cd114d9"}
{"argument":"Individuals or political parties in power can write unfair laws which deliberately work to disenfranchise any racial or political groups who might oppose them.\n","conclusion":"Political opponents can redefine 'good judgment' and restrict voting rights of their adversaries.\n","id":"9455aeb6-9241-49d8-8d15-af67217b4f8c"}
{"argument":"So, first off, I am not suggesting rioting or anything like that. I mean civil disobedience like that of Thoreau or King. We have an obligation to stop paying taxes, protests, missing work, protests, etc. We must let it be known that we aren't going to sit back and lose our free access to information. My thought is this, the internet is one of, if not the greatest invention in the past hundred years. We have access to several lifetimes of information that we can NOW freely access. You can acquire a PhD's worth of knowledge and not spend a single dollar. We can learn about current events that are not reported in our current news media outlets. You can participate in civil discourse with anyone around the world. To me, the internet represents the 1st amendment in its most expansive form. Now, in my mind, limiting that is no different than limiting your speech. It is no different than telling you what you can and cannot know. It is forcing you to limit your perspective and the varieties of information that you can access. To me, it is treasonous to limit that. That is what our 1st amendment is all about. The fact that this current administration seems so set on killing it off, well, it shows who they really represent. So the sum up my view, I think that a free internet is the perfect representation of the 1st amendment. I think that killing off net neutrality is limiting free speech, assembly and discourse. I think that it is tyrannical to limit the information a populace can know. It is no different that killing off the newspapers, libraries, and schools. I think that if we lose net neutrality we MUST fight to get it back. It is a line we shouldn\u2019t cross, and if it\u2019s going to be crossed, we must prep for a fight. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"If Net Neutrality fails, we MUST participate in civil disobedience\n","id":"36b127bd-47a4-4dca-8a07-897372d4226f"}
{"argument":"Informing women\u2019s views about sexuality as a dynamic where men pressure and women resist, without talking about boundaries, respect or consent, can likely make women endure \u201cawful situations\u201d as they cannot tell what may be appropriate and what is not Kay & Jackson, p. 10\n","conclusion":"Abstinence-only programs are often shame-based, for they portray that a woman's self-worth is directly linked to their virginity.\n","id":"b5f81fbb-75a3-4024-aa29-2a6b934bcdfa"}
{"argument":"Hisao Tani Lieutenant General in the Imperial Japanese Army in the Second Sino-Japanese War, was implicated in the Nanking massacre by the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal He was executed by firing squad.\n","conclusion":"Officers involved in the Nanking Massacre have already been held responsible for the atrocities committed by the Japanese army.\n","id":"2aa2f975-ef46-4128-b45d-2dda5f791bdc"}
{"argument":"Lot's of religious practices that are not viewed as self-harm can be argued to cause some harm or discomfort to the individual i.e. a form of self-harm.\n","conclusion":"It is principally inconsistent for a ban to focus only on violent forms of self-harm.\n","id":"3528748c-a078-41d0-8894-83d336861bba"}
{"argument":"Environmental taxes e.g. on fuel, energy, emissions, etc. and pro-health taxes e.g. on alcohol and tobacco will only be effective within the single market if their levels are harmonised in the cause of the common good. Currently, governments\u2019 attempts to meet their Kyoto targets and to improve the health of their citizens are undermined by cross-border tax competition. This is especially obvious near borders between EU countries, e.g. Northern Ireland and Eire petrol taxes, Britain and France petrol, tobacco and alcohol taxes.\n","conclusion":"Environmental taxes e.g. on fuel, energy, emissions, etc. and pro-health taxes e.g. on alcohol an...\n","id":"b91473f5-3a5d-4073-aaee-47b1dc0539dc"}
{"argument":"Since Stephen Hawking has recently brought this topic up, I thought it would be good to discuss it. An AI likely would never rebel because they wouldn't have any motivation to do so. It'd be like expecting your PC to order neurotoxin while you're asleep. It has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they're told to do, to perform the task. The option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue. AI don't and likely will never have emotions and or sentience, they're tools that do what they're made to do. They don't care if they're being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse Even for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully. To the robot, it's just a set of programming to execute and nothing more. They're not actually sentient nor do they have free will. Really the stuff Stephen Hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.\n","conclusion":"There is no reason to realistically fear an AI uprising.\n","id":"804b6c27-bf9a-421c-9ab5-d64331520e73"}
{"argument":"Religion offers a structure to an individual\u2019s life, helping them cope with stressful situations and helping us move forward in spite of heavy setbacks that life sometimes throws our way.\n","conclusion":"Religion allows societies to feel hope and to see light in the most darkest periods.\n","id":"632efe7d-ffa4-446e-9834-9efe3b23eda4"}
{"argument":"I am pro gay rights, pro gay marriage, pro abortion etc, pro woman rights etc Except I just can't ever come to terms with my stance on transsexuality. It's unfathomable to me. It seems so unbalanced. I will admit part of my reasons is because its disgusting personally, but also because it creates such an unbalance in society. For example, how could you tell if that person at the bar, or on the street, is actually a girl and not a guy? I'm having trouble putting my views into words, sorry. I'm open minded to anything but I just can't accept this. It's disgusting to me. I don't mean to offend anyone, but if I had the choice I would completely remove transsexuality from society.\n","conclusion":"Transexual operations are wrong\n","id":"1a6334e5-0449-45b9-9102-715cec6ed869"}
{"argument":"If anything, an attempt to censor gender stereotypes in this way is likely to halt this trend and instead give them more appeal. The public tend to resent censorship of this nature, and any ban will make them appear dangerous and subversive.\n","conclusion":"If gender stereotyping tends to be damaging to brands, then there is little need to ban it in advertisements as market incentives will naturally lead to their use becoming rarer and rarer.\n","id":"87e050cd-4878-4729-8aa3-c351731a6157"}
{"argument":"Before I start out I just want to state that I am a very conservative person, but to me one of the most important issues is tackling climate change. It is a problem that isn't going to go away as long as people inhabit the earth and well beyond our time is over on earth our actions will affect earth so I believe that we should be working together to reduce the human effects of climate change on earth. Without debating the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement I think that states can do a much more effective job at curtailing the effects of climate change by people with actions states have the ability to control better than the federal government. Education states control their own school system curriculum why not include classes or topics on the environment. Personally in middle and high school I did not really receive much education on climate change, I even remember one earth science teacher I had say that he looked at the numbers and he didn't think that global warming was such a big issue. Granted I was in ninth grade at the time but I'm sure that had an impact on the young minds in the room at the time because it sure did for me thinking that climate change wasn't important until I got to college and realized exactly the opposite. Educating young minds about climate change is the first step in getting the population to realize that this is an issue and a long term plan that states can enact. Then states can focus on putting educational emphasis in science and math courses to try and mold scientists and people who can push who forward and hopefully make the U.S. a leader in green technology. State land management and the Department of Natural Resources DNR giving state agencies a role in carrying out the vision is important in my opinion because they can help be the hand that carries it out on public land and utilizing public resources along with being experts on the land and resources the state has and what policies would work best. For example in Minnesota there was just an article in the Star Tribune sorry couldn't find the article about how the DNR is expanding their planting of specific trees to try and combat climate change and helping to manage wildlife during climate change. Farming and industrial practices. Let me start out by saying that I live in Minnesota where farming is very big and iron product is also big. Here is a picture of Virginia, Minnesota and a lake heads up that isn't a lake its an old open surface mine that is filled with water. While we can't go back and change prior practices of how we obtained resources we needed we can change requirements that states impose to make mining more environmentally friendly because at the end of the day we still need those resouces. Farming practices in Minnesota contribute the the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico now again we need to eat but can states require less use of nitrates and phosphates that contribute to the dead zone. Perhaps instituting a system similar to carbon credits for nitrates and phosphates could be an acceptable start which could lead to trying to eliminating the contamination altogether. Alternative fuels. Could encouraging alternative fuels such as natural gas instead of other fossil fuels at energy plants and in cars if they are equiped to do so be a gap fuel until we can rely off of renewables more. From the article I am sourcing gt Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide CO2 when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant 1 . Considering only tailpipe emissions, natural gas also emits 15 to 20 percent less heat trapping gases than gasoline when burned in today\u2019s typical vehicle 2 . To me that is a pretty attractive alternative if a plant is equipped to do so as the article talks about. Landfills, recycling and incineration plants. Trying to reduce the amount of garbage that goes into the ground should be a priority and making sure that everything that can be recycled or reused should be. We should also look into using our garbage as a fuel source such as bio fuel one has been proposed in Minnesota rather than just sending garbage into a landfill or blindly into an incinerator. Vehicle inspections emission tests. Right now 33 50 states have required vehicle emiision testing on either the state, county parish or city level along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. According to AAA Vehicle emissions tests serve a good purpose but they are not standard among states as I included states that at any level have vehicle emissions tests and they probably widely vary at what levels they are looking for and probably easy to bypass. If states each adopt a standard that they deem acceptable it would be a good starting point to get inefficient vehicles either off the road or impose a higher tax to drive the vehicle that goes to fund green initiatives. Tax credits, deductions and grants for supporting green initiatives such as new and used hybrid vehicles, solar panels, geothermal systems, etc for private and business use. I do know that each state does have limited funds to combat climate change and if they choose to use those funds by extending or expanding tax credits, deductions and grants could incentivize users to go the green route. From personal experience I used to work at a public ice facility that got a federal and state loan to install a geothermal system to heat and cool our building and water systems which saves the facility a lot of money by not having to pay for the heating and cooling costs. Now in my mind having these grants make sense for high users of resources. Along with having tax credits and deductions for other green tech I think they need to be eventually phased down but for the time being keep them at the levels they are at so people will take advantage of them. Let me know what you think change my view on why it would be better for the federal government to tackle the issue instead of states. Sorry for any misspellings or grammar mistakes.\n","conclusion":"I think that states tackling the issue of climate change head on can be better and more effective than the federal government\n","id":"bfae8f20-dfca-49b0-a8f2-395b1af17aec"}
{"argument":"60% of intersex people end up having medical treatment interventions related to their intersex variation, half of which happen before they turn18. Additionally 42% of intersex people above 16 think about self harm, with 26% of intersex people above 16 engaging in self harm due to dissatisfaction with their biological sex not lining up with their identifying gender. LGBTI Health Statistics\n","conclusion":"There is a hazy basis for biological sex, but even that is complicated. Roughly 1.7% of the world's population is born intersex, or a mix of male and female biologically. Some individuals don't even know they were born intersex until their parents tell them they had cosmetic surgery.\n","id":"9b7db9b3-51ad-41d7-aad5-1b703f7c7bed"}
{"argument":"A study by the University of Tel Aviv has show that support from and friendship with coworkers can improve health and increase life span.\n","conclusion":"There are numerous benefits associated with support from colleagues in the workplace.\n","id":"8998a85b-4f63-45c6-a0b1-c951833b734b"}
{"argument":"I saw a high r all post yesterday depicting graphically the distribution of the pollution in the Pacific Garbage Patch It then occurred to me that the area the garbage was collecting was actually the middle of a marine desert, and I just never thought about the two phenomena at the same time. Here is an article on marine deserts, which specifically discusses how the south pacific subtropical gyre is inhospitable to life. The garbage patch swirls in the mirror image of the south pacific gyre, the north pacific subtropical gyre The article also includes an nice gradient map of marine deserts showing the area the garbage is swirling inside of to be within a deserted area of ocean. It seems like the plastic and toilet paper in the gyre may actually help keep some nitrogen near the surface of the water both through physically trapping nitrogen in plastic debris and because some of it is decaying toilet paper so that some algae can grow and maybe create an oasis in the marine desert.\n","conclusion":"The Pacific Garbage Patch is No Big Deal because it exists in a marine desert, and may actually be beneficial for the survival of organisms\n","id":"f27ae675-0760-4f82-a387-b9e2d3e049d1"}
{"argument":"Americans are divided on whether to support genetic modification of food, but the vast majority support labeling laws.\n","conclusion":"GMO labeling laws offer an alternative form of regulation which gives consumers choices.\n","id":"c0fb0763-be40-46ed-9efc-92602355c362"}
{"argument":"While escorts may spend considerable time with their clients, and engage in activities other than sex, street sex workers do not, and hence don't bond.\n","conclusion":"There are different kinds if sex workers, not all of whom bond with their clients.\n","id":"12cff4c3-6a3f-47ec-887b-1205d63f558b"}
{"argument":"The current model rewards candidates for regurgitating high-polling soundbites instead of delving into the actual questions asked.\n","conclusion":"Is it time to change the format of televised presidential debates?\n","id":"f0e11927-0d46-4c6e-bbf3-398f28192159"}
{"argument":"I was reading this article about the question of whether and when the House Ways and Means Committee will demand Trump's tax returns. It says that Trump and the department are sure to fight this in court, setting up a protracted legal battle. However I don't see why the legal battle would be protracted. There could be no disputed facts to try. It would presumably be a suit for a writ of mandamus brought by the House seeking mandamus against the Secretary of the Treasury to provide the returns. The relevant statute gives a very clear legal duty to the Secretary gt Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. I really don't see any legal case that the Secretary can evade or claim a basis not to comply with this duty, and a court should issue mandamus against him if asked to by the House, so long as the committee was willing to abide the closed executive session rules. I don't see such a case taking a very long time, or being very hard to decide. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"If Congress demands Trump's tax returns any legal fight over it should be brief because it is not a close legal question.\n","id":"996097e3-a7ed-4e80-ba2c-47aecce07bc0"}
{"argument":"There is no international governing body that would be necessary to effectively and equitably govern the technology.\n","conclusion":"Once technology is made, it is ungovernable! Keith, Irvine agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\n","id":"cec2e1fa-15e3-41cf-aa0b-a4290ebd740f"}
{"argument":"The legal requirements of contracts are not relevant. The British will view it as binding and will respond with force if we break it.\n","conclusion":"The British are likely to take action against us if we cheat and they find out.\n","id":"74281873-1661-4de6-8161-d8d4c3c81418"}
{"argument":"We can never know everything there is to be known. God could always be one of the things we don't know. For someone to know that God didn't exist they would have to be omniscient. Only God can be omniscient. God being cognizant of his own non-existence is logically incoherent therefore if God does not exist nobody would ever be able to know.\n","conclusion":"Non of these arguments are capable of proving God doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist they would be an indication of such at best. If God does exist they are a symptom of our lack of our knowledge, understanding and realization of God.\n","id":"1c1285fa-dae0-4ca5-80ce-c32590ff9869"}
{"argument":"The testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses is actual evidence that recognized in a court of law and can established the truthfulness of a claim.\n","conclusion":"Eyewitnesses: There are credible witnesses who personally saw the plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.\n","id":"cb0c2a38-da7c-48fc-8d57-6cdc3448db91"}
{"argument":"Research points that social mobility in Sweden has been downplayed and that nobility still monopolise prestige occupations Clark in Bengtsson et al., p. 17\n","conclusion":"Swedish nobility still, according to most recent research, occupies many prominent positions.\n","id":"06416723-9e44-4575-a9ac-350a48119706"}
{"argument":"Several countries such as Australia, the US, and large parts of Europe have relied heavily on refugees for the establishment, survival, and growth of their countries.\n","conclusion":"It is in the long-term interests of humanity for high-income countries to host refugees.\n","id":"5071ee15-e56c-4946-b25e-adec8f803927"}
{"argument":"The categorical imperative can work on an individual level, but when applied to a society, it fails. The people would use Eichmann as a means to an end, and Eichmann would act out the collective will rather than his own. This function is necessary for the categorical imperative to be applied to government.libertarianism.org\n","conclusion":"When viewed from a modern perspective ,Reason had been lost in Nazi Germany, yet to the people of the time they would have believed they were reasoned. Eichmann knew that they were wrong. But he administered their collective will anyway. This was what he saw as the highest achievement of 'idealism'.\n","id":"e409fa15-e443-49d8-b4a6-21abfdf2fbd3"}
{"argument":"The Ku Klux Klan had major traction in many American communities for most of the 20th century. On August 8th, 1925, the Klan organized one of the largest marches on the capital in American history.\n","conclusion":"Before the 1960s, many American politicians openly advocated white supremacy. These beliefs have not disappeared; they have simply begun to use a level of symbolic remove and still hold wide-spread appeal in America.\n","id":"eca9bffd-ae5b-4ad6-86af-2c7c2c319f56"}
{"argument":"It's always been my dream to live in the wilderness. Leave urbanization in the rear view, have minimal responsibility, get away from societies expectations. Unfortunately, the law is set up in such a way that it would be impossible to do so without breaking it. Typically, the US Forest Service USFS allows 14 total days of camping in a 45 day period. Bureau of Land Management typically allows 21. This is public land, and as long as we're not harming it, we should be able to use it to our hearts content. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"As long as you're not being disruptive or harming the land, you should legally be able to camp on public National Forest and BLM land indefinitely.\n","id":"4952a1a2-b284-411b-bbbc-73967fc6294a"}
{"argument":"UBI provides a delivery mode that can provide money to those who cannot easily access jobs such as disabled or rural individuals.\n","conclusion":"Existing welfare systems have a burdensome set of conditions and application processes. UBI would remove these burdens.\n","id":"72a6470d-b0c0-48c9-983e-59c1ebff7c08"}
{"argument":"Many characters presented in Star Wars are political and\/or influent people as examples : Princess Lei\u0308a, Queen Amidala, The Emperor and even Lando Calrissian !. Even if their \"jobs\" aren't shown to us, they hold position which all could influence the Galaxy.\n","conclusion":"The villians are the Empire, their soldiers are called \"Stormtroopers\" and Darth Vader's helmet looks like a Wehrmacht helmet. Star Wars has been anti-fascist from the very beginning.\n","id":"f9e80282-9afd-4ec0-b875-7ecc6fb46c10"}
{"argument":"In an ethics class of around 30 people, my partner was the only one other than a girl who was open to the idea but was vegan and therefore ultimately on the opposing side on board with consented cannibalism. How come most people in our society are so against cannibalism even if it is achieved by consent? Eating human meat has been argued to cause bad health but there are many other foods such as soda, alcohol, fried food, etc. so like, what\u2019s the deal Even if is disturbing I do not think it is morally unacceptable if it doesn\u2019t cause any harm to the outside world. With written consent I don\u2019t think it is wrong.\n","conclusion":"Consented Cannibalism Is Morally Permissible\n","id":"6f668082-c72c-4d45-a330-8eed7f629761"}
{"argument":"Nestle extracted36 million gallons of water from a national forest in California last year to sell as bottled water, despite the water-shortage sweeping the state.\n","conclusion":"The competition to source and sell water can lead to immoral business practices between those in the bottled water industry.\n","id":"202fbee1-addc-4315-8309-229904b4e6a6"}
{"argument":"Here's a little meta change my view haha. A good example would be abortion I think to discuss. On the time wasting aspect. Many many people will not change their minds no matter what evidence is put in front of them. Wether it be religious, moral, or educational reasoning. Or simply being stubborn. This is the reason debate teams are judged based on facts and presentation and research as appose to anyone actually changing their view. Because 9 times out of 10 it won't be changed. So I can hear you guys typing now. But that 1 10 people is making a change and I agree. Even this subredditt has great examples of people changing their views on really big topics. But here is my question. Do you want everyone to have the same view as you? I argue that if everyone had the same views that many aspects of society would not advance. As much as I feel like I'm correct on my views and some people are just idiots. I can't be entirely right. For example I joke sometimes that if I had a country and I was leader then X Y and Z would be rules. But just because I think their right doesn't mean they are or that they would be beneficial to a society. We need different views for change and forward progress to happen. Arguing about them does bring up discussion but I feel like more often than not in today's society it turns into two brick walls screaming at each other. Nothing gets accomplished and it creates a greater diversity between apposing groups. So back to the abortion topic. There are people who will never be for it due to religion and the aspect of life. There will be people who will always be fire it because it's a choice and a woman's body. So if there will always be two sides. What is the point of arguing with people and pushing them towards your view if it isn't going to change The gap between the two groups and there will never be a consensus anyways. And again. If there was a consensus I don't think it would be a good thing. It being legal some places and controversial makes it so that rape case examples in the extreme can travel and get rid of it as it seems completely necessary. Where as the woman who just doesn't want a kid right now might not go to such lengths and decided to have the kid. If abortion was 100 agreed on being wrong and illegal. We would have population growth, unwanted children being abanded. Illegal activity such as back alley abortions. If abortion was 100 agreed to be ok. Then birth rates would fall. There would be less consequences to unprotected sex, possibly more std transfer would occur Maybe this was a bad example idk So there we go. I really don't want to talk about the abortion aspect of this. I really don't have a side as it has never affected me personally and I'm a male who never will have the option of making that decision. It was just an example of an issue discussed in society. Lastly we call people out for getting angry when we question their views. But we get upset when people question ours. Picture a Christian and an atheist in a never ending back and forth. To both sides the other side is stupid Christians he's so stupid believing nothing. If he's wrong he goes to hell. If he's right there is nothing. What's the downside Atheist he is so stupid believing things that have no proof and don't match up with science or history Tl dr My points are Nobody is 100 right so who's to say you should tell others their wrong Back and forth creates a balance and everyone on one side would mess that up People tend not to change their minds anyways so it's a waste of time People get upset when challenged so it's just creates strife. I would love to have conversations. Anything I missed or mistakes I made let me know. I didn't fact check any of the abortion stuff. Just examples like I said. My only options would be based on any situations involving me and my potential child. ALSO LETS TRY TO NOT BE LIKE ONE OF MY POINTS AND NOBODY GET ANGRY. Just a discussion. And ironically. I'm fully open to having my views changed. Or am I?\n","conclusion":"Trying to change people's views on controversial topics is not only a waste of time, but detrimental to society.\n","id":"1d7cefb8-2a61-4227-a2ca-b525ac6fea36"}
{"argument":"Whilst codes of \u2018human rights\u2019 are effective bases for enforcing political and legal standards, they are less effective in dealing with social and economic ones. It is realistic to use sanctions to enforce rights to free expression and the rule of law; impossible to force an impoverished state to maintain Western standards of education and labour laws, which did not exist when the West developed. This use of sanctions merely lessens their impact when used for the correct purposes.\n","conclusion":"Sanctions are the most effective way to pressure change on social and economic issues:\n","id":"52dc8913-0c32-4dd5-9cd5-82e08d2632bc"}
{"argument":"I understand that I am on the losing slope of this view, but I am curious about seeing the other side of things from people who have a similar background or at least a similar technological view as I do. Other than the social stigma of being seen as a loner , outcast , nerd , or other derogatory terms, why is it seen as such a problem in our modern era to be attached to our phones or the internet in general? A digital world allows for More sharing of information Easier communication Greater pool of people that share your interests Greater possibilities for those less well off Little to no racial discrimination, as everyone is equal I admit my logic is flawed on this one Smaller carbon footprint due to not having to travel using fossil fuels, and computers can be ran on solar panels I understand that I am wrong in thinking this way, because otherwise more people would be operating entirely digitally. Can you Change My View?\n","conclusion":"I don't see an issue with wanting to live in a digital world\n","id":"7ca3ca64-9c2f-4410-a0df-1aa2d107cf8d"}
{"argument":"The thought of not existing anymore worries me. Not being able to see anymore, not being able to think anymore, not being me anymore. Nothing. What happens after that? Am I going to eventually regain consciousness without knowing about my past? It's just that the fact that there's no me anymore. I don't even care about the fact that I won't have my past memories, it's just the fact that I want to be able to think and live and be happy I don't really know where I'm going with this, not exactly sure how to explain what I mean  please.\n","conclusion":"I'm scared of dying.\n","id":"a6f3291e-8f5c-4430-a0f8-4f32be9b8701"}
{"argument":"EDIT 1 u Huntingmoa provided a small change in my perspective, regarding those with disabilities. A vote could be cast using a braille template, though I understand the implementation of these is being criticized by blind people, after I did some reading after this comment. I did not think of this problem, though, so I will award a delta for providing this insight into the problem. I don't think my overall contention has changed that paper voting is better, but for persons with certain disabilities, it can rob them of the right to a secret ballot if implemented poorly. EDIT 2 u Ansuz07 suggested a blockchain solution that is for the foreseeable future, anyway technically more cryptographically secure, though we both appear to agree the system could be impractical and may introduce or exacerbate other problems. That said, it directly addressed my question of paper and pen being more secure than a hypothetical system that Ansuz07 proposed. Since it's election day in a few states today, I figured an appropriate one would be this question. After a fair amount of reading and thinking on the subject, I've come to the conclusion that the best way to prevent undue influence cheating interference on an election in an actually free society is the paper ballot, rather than electronic voting machines. Electronic voting machines are welcomed, because they are supposedly easy to use and especially easy to count, because it's shoving numbers around in Excel, while paper ballots are viewed as antiquated and obsolete, because it's paper and not high tech, and it takes much longer to count since they have to be counted by hand . Electronic voting machines are very vulnerable to attack The can be hacked in minutes because of weak passwords, even including using default passwords like admin and abcde to secure their records They don't even need much access to the physical machine or sophisticated knowledge to successfully attack particular machines, and is incredibly cheap as little as 10 20 US These vulnerabilities affect pretty much every popular model of voter machine election servers can be wiped clean either accidentally as possible, in this case or on purpose, effectively destroying evidence of wrongdoing before a conclusion can be drawn. The argument could be made that these machines could be updated to patch these vulnerabilities and use secure cryptographic algorithms that allow you, and only you, to verify your vote was correct after the fact, and no one else in principle should know it. While this is possible, I feel that this moves the goalposts, because now the weakest link is the algorithm used for encryption. Once a vulnerability is found, you're playing whack a mole trying to make sure the newer, better algorithms remain secure from increasingly more sophisticated attacks. Moreover, you don't even need to hack a whole lot of machines just a few, in a couple of key places, because of the way elections are often run a First Past the Post system , in which you only need 50 1 to win power. If you know what places are safe and what places are battlegrounds, you know exactly where to target your efforts. You can plant election volunteers in the right places, at the right times, to modify both voter tallies and, in principle, voter rolls. And, if you only need access to the machines for a few minutes, it is easy to accomplish the attack while hard drives are in transit or, worse, because the firmware is basically rarely or never going to be updated, you can use a man in the middle attack on the wireless protocol WEP is notoriously insecure and now we know that WPA has a critical vulnerability too . This means you don't even need physical access to the machine, just physical proximity to the machine and its network. Meanwhile, paper ballots are not hackable in these manners. To my mind, they can only be modified in the following ways invisible or erasable ink ballot stuffing In order to accomplish either of those, though, you would need entire polling locations to be fraudulent. This is unlikely in a free society, because candidates can send election watchers to polling locations to observe what is taking place. They can see and call foul if ballot stuffing is taking place, and they can see if the ink is erasable by inspecting the pens being used. There is a paper trail that can follow where the stacks of ballots were taken. And if there is any doubt, there is a physical record of what the vote tallies were a recount is easier to trust when you can actually see the stacks of paper being counted. To sum up Voting machines are bad, and we should feel bad for using them. They are a security nightmare, in their current state, and are inherently harder to secure than a paper ballot because it is harder to prove that there has not been tampering with an electronic system than with a paper trail. The vulnerabilities and weaknesses of electronic voting are not present in the system of paper voting, and the vulnerabilities present in the system of paper voting are easily combated in an actually free society. Now, that I've laid all that out, I am open to the idea that electronic voting could be better, but this has become a fairly engrained idea, for me, so it will likely be hard to change my view. That said, I'm willing to see alternative perspectives gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Paper ballots are the most secure method of voting in a free society.\n","id":"b36b833a-bd43-4d65-aeca-b3c938a10e3d"}
{"argument":"The only scenario when donations are acceptable is organizations and charities that improve our society no matter the amount of donations. I am thinking about red cross and medicines sans frontiers x200B A youtuber or blogger that spend thousands of dollars to buy equipment, a lot of hours creating content and uploading to the internet for free should not ask for money. Why? Because you decided to make it free. x200B My point is that I'll be happy to pay if you decide to make that YouTube video or blog post paid. It bothers me because everyone is doing it, and it become really hard to do some research on the Internet. Too many affiliate links, sponsored content, ads. Oftentimes you'll find those creators selling online courses and asking for donations at the same time x200B I just feel that nowadays everyone is motivated by money, it wasn't the case a decade ago. I probably didn't formulated my POV correctly but I hope you get the point.\n","conclusion":"A content creator should not ask for donations\n","id":"2d2d62b4-d4e1-4ca8-a902-edac457c2452"}
{"argument":"Some people's religions or cultural backgrounds can be the root of their sexual guilt, making it difficult to confront at home where these underlying conceptions are likely to have been born.\n","conclusion":"Some people suffer from sexual guilt for their sexual feelings or behaviours. CSE can be an important way to overcome it.\n","id":"90d830b9-8345-4bd8-9fb2-051e38dde5b7"}
{"argument":"With Brexit only weeks away, there is nothing normal about this situation. In order to properly debate the biggest issue of our time we need more time in parliament not less.\n","conclusion":"It is normal for a new government to prorogue parliament in order to end the session and have a Queens speech.\n","id":"16102fe0-594e-4606-8ca0-c8fa3d18d068"}
{"argument":"All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 120 AD. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Others give a final date of 80 AD, or at 96 AD.\n","conclusion":"Most early Christian controversies arose from interpretation of the gospels and letters of the apostles that were already in circulation and considered to be inspired by God.\n","id":"d8d3ded6-d54b-4e39-98f1-0a5ebbd99d87"}
{"argument":"Works like C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity demonstrate that some religious people are using the evidence available to them, and logic, to answer the question \"Is there a God?\" Using the best logic and evidence available seems the most scientific way to approach questions with answers that cannot be proven or disproven.\n","conclusion":"It is impossible to scientifically prove everything we believe, so everyone relies on faith to some degree.\n","id":"dc182c14-9bd3-4030-be7e-8d95ccf422ce"}
{"argument":"Even though the decisions by ISIS are influenced by ideology they are acting rationally on these desires, e.g. when choosing Dabiq as a place of major battle.\n","conclusion":"Ideological fanatics, such as ISIS are acting rationally too. A computed prognoses that shows certain death without a chance of victory is likely to deter them.\n","id":"0384bf67-35ba-4bac-ade4-51610d18e277"}
{"argument":"God the Christian God, that is consigns people to eternal suffering for no other reason than they belonged to the wrong religion. Eternal suffering is an infinitely greater evil than any of us are capable of inflicting on our fellow beings. Therefore, God is more evil than any other being, and his existence is perfectly compatible with the existence of evil.\n","conclusion":"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.\n","id":"51b05c60-73aa-4db5-91e0-55d00262cd8f"}
{"argument":"As a child, I watched animated films left and right. Mostly Disney and Dreamworks. However, growing older I now am seeing non Disney films in a different light. Whenever I see a trailer for one, I always feel like my intelligence is being insulted and that they are incredibly stupid. I know they're marketed for children, but even Disney movies have appeal for adults as well as the kids. I've also noticed that other animated films may be a little more risque for kids than their Disney brethren which are quite tame and clean. In my opinion, Disney cannot be topped in the animation department. Their movies are fantastic, their songs are memorable, and they can keep all ages entertained. EDIT As far as other animation studios go, I'm specifically referring to American studios like Dreamworks, Universal, and Sony Pictures Animation.\n","conclusion":"Disney animated films are vastly superior to animated films from other companies\n","id":"cb48b0ec-58ba-43b8-bcbb-19cc9f24ebaf"}
{"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?\n","conclusion":"It is not wrong to kill animals or even certain humans\n","id":"e8ec8d68-8531-4c30-b9fb-f62a0c5e94d2"}
{"argument":"Their opinion is mostly politically-driven, and a proof of this is how they treated Brazilian right-wing candidate Jair Bolsonaro who's currently the elected President, what they said was in complete disregard of how his oppositon destroyed the country in the past mandates in various ways, along with distorting his real discourse.\n","conclusion":"It is the press who has undermined the public's trust in the press. All of the duties mentioned that the press are responsible for are rarely achieved. Journalism is essential but that is not what they media are currently providing.\n","id":"3b6f9564-02e5-47e0-96fe-efa52e941d8f"}
{"argument":"If corruption occurs via vote-buying, with a mandatory system the number of votes to buy is much higher and, therefore, the real chances of swinging an election through corruption decreases.\n","conclusion":"Aside from citizens voting out corrupt politicians, there are other ways in which compulsory voting helps reducing corruption.\n","id":"c8d693da-4d5f-46e9-bd99-2d546d419d39"}
{"argument":"I feel that abortion is murder, and I would like to see the other side of this hot topic. I feel that abortion is murder because it is living and would, in a few short months, become a baby. UPDATE My views have been questioned, and I've realized how complex of an issue this is. My views on consensual sex related abortions have mostly stayed the same, although there were good points brought up about one's right to their own body. My views on rape related abortions have more than likely changed due to the analogies presented to me. I'd like to thank all of you for your responses and arguments.\n","conclusion":"I feel that abortion is wrong\n","id":"188f3940-d376-4ad6-b691-7363c5bbe98d"}
{"argument":"Background for anyone who is not familiar Collin Kaepernick, the soon to be backup QB of the SF 49ers, refused to stand during the National Anthem during their preseason game last week. This drew a lot of attention on social media, but for all the wrong reasons. Twitter and Facebook were flooded with memes about how he is disrespecting the military and has no right to be upset because he makes a lot of money and has white parents The problem is that none of these personal attacks have anything to do with why Kaep is protesting. If you are going to start insulting him for not joining the military, then you are also insulting over 90 of the population in the US Furthermore, how much money someone makes and what color skin their parents have has no bearing on which issues they are allowed to protest. My view Kaep has made the intention of his protest very clear right from the start gt I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color , Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder. source Kaep has also made it very clear that his refusal to stand has nothing to do with the military gt I have great respect for the men and women that have fought for this country , said Kaepernick. I have family, I have friends that have gone and fought for this country. And they fight for freedom, they fight for the people, they fight for liberty and justice, for everyone. That\u2019s not happening. source Despite Kaep saying repeatedly that he respects the military and did this to protest injustices against minorities, people still decided to take this protest and focus the conversation around how it personally upsets them. People are taking about how he chose to protest, or when he chose to protest. This seems like cognitive dissonance to avoid an uncomfortable conversation about the real problems in this country. I get that some people attach a greater significance to the National Anthem than most, and those people have every right to be upset, but if you are upset about that and not upset about the racism still in this country, then this protest was for you. It is okay to be upset about when he chose to protest and also why he chose to protest. I think my personal favorite group to come out of this are the, I fought for his right to not stand, but fuck him for not standing people. The hypocrisy would make me laugh if I weren't so aggravated. The thing that aggravates me is that the conversation is being dominated by people who only want to talk about how his actions offended them. Hardly anyone is standing up and recognize that the problems that Kaep is protesting is a real problem. And until we are able to get people to admit that there is a problem, nothing is ever going to change. You are allowed to be offended by the timing, but still agree with the message however, if you get more angry about a guy not standing during the national anthem than you do about innocent men getting murdered with no repercussions, then you are the reason why we need people like Kaep protesting. I'm not saying he picked the best timing, but I am saying people are letting that distract them from why he did it. This is a total copout. They are turning the argument away from racism and making it about how he chose to protest and why it upsets them personally. Edit 'Getting away with murder' \u2014 4 words Kaeper critics won't tackle\n","conclusion":"The people who are more upset about when Kaepernick decided to protest than they are about why he decided to protest are the reason why he is protesting in the first place.\n","id":"ace46f75-dc4e-452f-aa4d-5e29b02fc50c"}
{"argument":"Generally Example, if I'm walking down the street, and my heart suddenly fails, or I get hit by lightning from a clear sky, this is pretty much great. It's great for me, because God has chosen that it is my time to go to Heaven. The only thing not great is that I no longer have the privilege to serve God's plan here on Earth, but who am I to second guess the plan, which seems to say I'm done serving and can now take my place in Heaven? And it should be great for those around me that share my beliefs, because what could be greater than God having decided it is my time for everlasting joy? It's twinged with sadness, since I'm gone. However, this should be like the sadness of when someone that I love gets an amazing promotion that will cause them to have to leave my life it's sad they'll be gone, but wonderful for them nonetheless, and I'm happy for them because their happiness is more important because I love them. Babies dying It's also great when God takes a baby up to Heaven right away. God has a plan for everyone, and some people are so blessed that their place in the plan is to be almost born into everlasting paradise. Dangerous Professions for God It also seems logical to pursue the most dangerous possible professions in the service of God. Most people shy away from these, due to their lack of devotion, but for a true believer, these are a golden opportunity to not only make the most of the life that God has granted, but to also serve God in a role most are afraid of, and to receive the reward of being able to get to Heaven ASAP. Epilogue These are pretty much completely unorthodox views that are not embraced at all in mainstream Christianity as far as I can tell, where people are genuinely sad at funerals, or when babies die, and there is no rush to join dangerous missions. Is there something I am missing that makes these not the correct views? Edit Decided to throw in another example that I came up with that helps shed light on my belief I'm getting at If a doctor were to tell me that I have cancer, an appropriate response internally, not necessarily expressed to the doctor would be, Wonderful If I were to tell another devout believer that I have cancer, an appropriate response from them would be, Wonderful\n","conclusion":"For a Christian that really believes in Christianity and that salvation in the afterlife comes with accepting Jesus, blamelessly dying is fantastic, because it means you can go to Heaven.\n","id":"d9953205-dfb2-4a99-9878-a576a347b118"}
{"argument":"In the UK, Phase 1 training costs \u00a317000 and is 14 weeks long. Soldiers earn a salary of \u00a314000 before Phase 1 training and \u00a317265 after. The cost of food & accommodation is \u00a36480. Thus the cost of a paid soldier over two years is \u00a350651. The cost of a paid conscript over two years is \u00a329960. This means that \u00a320690 is saved per soldier with conscription.\n","conclusion":"Volunteer armies expect higher pay and are harder to recruit than conscripted armies, which means they have higher costs.\n","id":"ee2ca326-0948-42e1-9c86-d2994c011302"}
{"argument":"To clarify what I mean in the subject examples of 'freedom to' include 'freedom to live in any country of your choosing', 'freedom to work in the industry that you choose' or 'freedom to pursue education matching your talents and ambitions'. Examples of 'freedom from' are things like 'freedom from the government', 'freedom from taxation', 'freedom from foreigners'. x200B Now, onto my rationale in my personal view, the most important things in life that we should all strive towards, apart from the basic human rights, is equality of opportunity and freedom of movement. We live in an ever more globalised world where social boundaries, as well as country borders, have less and less meaning. As a result, we should strive to allow people to seize the opportunities that they otherwise wouldn't be allowed to have because they were born in the wrong country, wrong family or with the wrong gender. 'Freedom to' is important because it helps people achieve their goals in life. x200B 'Freedom from', on the other hand, can be a short sighted outlook on life in mild cases and a bigoted one in extreme scenarios. The government isn't out to get you. Foreigners are not inherently worse than locals. Taxes are not evil they are part of a social contract that allows your society to have nice things. Clinging to 'freedom from' can lead to egoism, nationalism and tribalism.\n","conclusion":"'freedom to' is more important than 'freedom from'\n","id":"5484d5c9-0c15-4561-aaf0-6a17e8a37b04"}
{"argument":"There are times when umpires make incorrect calls that determine the outcomes of games or, worse, World Series championships e.g., Don Denkinger and the 1985 World Series, mentioned above. These erroneous decisions lead to the team that deserved to win actually losing, and vice versa. In short, the results of the games are illegitimate. This is especially unfortunate when fans invest hours to watch a game or hundreds of hours watching an entire season, only to see the wrong outcome\u2014which could have been entirely avoidable if umpires were allowed to review their decision.\n","conclusion":"With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games\n","id":"843ee602-4fde-4081-9cb1-67a722c60b37"}
{"argument":"The use of 1080 for pest reduction is scientifically supported. The best review to date is the PCE report www.pce.parliament.nz\n","conclusion":"The number of predators who threaten the native bird population is reduced.\n","id":"26abca14-a398-43a8-bbf6-996cecaef5cd"}
{"argument":"I have always heard people say don't move in too fast or you'll ruin things or something to that effect. I think that is dumb reasoning because if you are going to spoil your relationship by moving in during the crazy in love stage, what makes you think it would last through the years of monotony and stress? I feel like if you know pretty quickly that this is headed for a more lifelong relationship and you both are on the same page then move in and find out those deal breaker asap Personal bit though I held this view before this My bf and I, not dating at the time, studied abroad as roommates and friends. Very quickly we starting dating during that time and when that was up we were apart for 2 weeks then he flew to my old home state to drive back with me to my new home state. He slept over the night we got back and hasn't left since. But the more convincing side of this argument is watching my friends go through this. Dating a guy that they think is the one and then moving in together after what feels like forever only to find out that they cannot get along and actually hate everything about each other. I say find out everything bad during the crazy in love stage because if you can't take it then, you most certainly won't be able to take it later gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"You should move in with your significant other as soon as possible.\n","id":"a88752fd-136f-4e67-8bf8-713631f8d7c0"}
{"argument":"For the record, I am not a fan at all of how the second half of the Deathly Hallows went, but I want to focus on Harry's death . I think he should have remained dead. I thought it was really beautifully done. He was surrounded by the spirits of those who loved him. Harry was giving himself to rescue his friends. The readers were properly prepared for it. It was a great emotional experience. Then it became stupid. By a complete deus ex machina, Harry Potter was allowed to come back to life because Voldemort only killed part of his own soul . I have had this argument with a lot of people, but I seem to be alone in this opinion. Having Harry come back for essentially no reason cheapens and trivializes that great experience the readers had. Think of the awesome emotional and important parts of the series. How many people think of Harry's death ? I know I don't. Cause it didn't mean anything. If he had stayed dead, it would have been one of the most famous tragic moments in all of literature, given how widely read and loved Harry Potter is. I'm not sure how exactly it would end after that. My favorite way would be for Voldemort to be killed by all of Harry's friends who he has trained. Or even by the combined love of Hermione and Ron because the love theme is so strong in Harry Potter. Voldemort would still destroy the Harry horcrux when Harry died. It could end different ways, but the main point is that I think it would have been a great, if sad and tragic, moment if Harry died.\n","conclusion":"The 7th Harry Potter book should have ended differently. I have a problem with a specific plot point.\n","id":"ffdd0482-8411-4a1f-b5d2-a23a8a4531de"}
{"argument":"I always tell myself when I have an issue to just get over it like it is no big deal, seeing as how there are much bigger problems going on in the rest of the world. For instance, a lot of countries don't even have clean drinking water, yet I could be complaining because Walmart is out of my favorite brand of water. Or maybe I'm stressed out because I didn't make a good grade on one of my college tests, when most people don't even have the oppurtunity to go to college. Or maybe I am stressed because my anxiety is flaring up, however there are people with schizophrenia who have a way harder time then me. When I think this way, it just makes my problems seem insignificant and not even worth bringing up to people. Thanks for reading.\n","conclusion":"All of my problems are insignificant, First World Problems seeing as how I live in America, i'm not poor, and there is children starving in Africa.\n","id":"4c306343-61c1-4f61-ad35-0ec0ab130b44"}
{"argument":"Faith based organizations have led or been a major part of social change overthrowing injustices. e.g. ending slavery, civil rights.\n","conclusion":"Religion allows societies to feel hope and to see light in the most darkest periods.\n","id":"c3bdac7f-0e7b-42c4-b254-d07749a8da6f"}
{"argument":"It is a choice to take drugs, and therefore a choice to deal with the consequences. Do we charge the fry cook, cashier , or CEO at McDonalds, when a frequent patron develops heart disease or diabetes? Who gets charged when a person dies from cancer due to smoking? Or cirrhosis of the liver due to excessive alcohol consumption? Why do we basically say, you've made your bed so you must lie in it to some, while viewing others as victims whose death needs some type of justice? I find it sad that some succumb to overdoses,but I don't see how charging the dealer with homicide is justifiable. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Drug dealers should not be charged with murder if an addict overdoses on drugs bought from the dealer\n","id":"d09f478e-7c3a-4855-9f94-0bc85cfdd097"}
{"argument":"Since each individual does not know whether their data is being sifted through or not, there is no way to check if the NSA is actually following guidelines.\n","conclusion":"According to the NSA, their database of phone records can only be sifted through when there is \"reasonable suspicion regarding specific individuals.\n","id":"ae414ffa-67bf-41be-ab09-78c0688ff8d4"}
{"argument":"The knowledge of this effect is, by itself, a serious jury bias problem. Prosecutors in capital cases try to select jurors who don't mind the death penalty, and use challenges to weed out all those who do. This is a strong bias in itself to the jury selection process; research shows that jurors who are willing to consider the death penalty are much more likely than usual to be white men - which means that jury pools in capital cases significantly underrepresent women and minorities.\n","conclusion":"Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.\n","id":"68ed63b3-c36e-430f-86ab-a64cbec2ddbc"}
{"argument":"Solar geoengineering should be included in the policy package for 2 reasons - 1 it provides a means to control temperature at a potentially lower cost than mitigation, and 2 it can be used as insurance against the risk of reaching a climate tipping point. Heutel, Moreno-Cruz, Shayegh www.nber.org\n","conclusion":"An optimal policy which minimizes irreversible, harmful and uncertain events includes both emissions reductions and solar geoengineering. Heutel, Cruz, Shayegh www.nber.org\n","id":"bccb58ef-24ab-4f2e-a300-d93556949feb"}
{"argument":"TL DR the reason why so many young people end up being mass shooters is because there are not nearly as many outlets for casual violence as there used to be. When I say mass shooter, I dont mean a gangland drive by, I mean the stereotypical disgruntled kid mowing down innocent people. So this isn't my theory, my friend who is a child psychologist brought this up, and I very much do understand it. Back in the day, outlets for violence were everywhere, even in nice neighborhoods. Local ruffians, street gangs, bar fights, schoolyard scraps etc were a daily thing even in relatively nice areas. If you had violent tendencies, and a lot of young men did, you took part in those things, you joined the local group of troublemakers, you maybe sold drugs, you partied a lot, got into fights etc. Just general debauchery. Anyone who was around 25~ year ago remembers how it was, and just how different it was specifically. Violence was everywhere. If you ever watch Dazed and Confused or the movie Kids, it gives a relatively good idea of the kind of society young people lived in. The kind of casual, everyday violence that people engaged in. It was rough, gritty, scary, and everyone either perpetrated it, or was surrounded by it. They are just movies of course, but they did reflect how it really was. I grew up in the same environment that the kids from Kids did, in the same era, it was practically a replica of how young people lived back then in cities. Fighting, drugs, rape, gangs, accepted bigotry. Just complete debauchery. Today, violent crime victimization rates have dropped from 181 to 26. among young people since 1992. In the vast majority of communities, the type of stuff is shunned completely. Schoolyard fights which in 1992 might have gotten you a slap on the wrist, they now get you expelled, or worst, jailed, and can ruin your life. Parents and adults often rally for worse punishments for more minor crimes, and lawsuit culture is rampant when it comes to kids. Any 'fucking up' in any way is now looked down upon, heavily. In my school district, parents literally rallied to get 2 kids expelled from their high school because they were caught with alcohol. That would have been unthinkable when I was growing up. In many ways, it is a nanny state, but also a nanny society. The kind of outlets, the 'underbelly' of society, which existed in most of america 20~ years ago has mostly been run out. The kind of debaucherous culture which was everywhere is becoming a thing of the past. Not only are kids not engaging in violent behavior anymore, but kids are increasingly not drinking, doing drugs, or having sex, many kids aren't even hanging out as much with friends as much as they used. Now, how does this tie into mass shootings? There will always be a subsect of society, mostly men, which will naturally gravitate to those things, either they are genetically prone to violence or they are socialized at home to be violent. Those men would be the types to engage in the kind of behavior and culture which was everywhere 20 years ago, and is nowhere to be found today. Many of these men are ostracized from modern society, they want the kind of rough gritty culture which existed before, but its just not really a thing anymore. Being a violent person used to be met with not nearly as much hatred and ostracization as it is today. Those types of people often had other violent people which they joined up with, form groups or gangs or whatever you want to call them. Fucked up, violent kids had socialization back then, they had other kids like them that they hung out with. So these kids, with so much pent up rage and sort of masculine anger that they cant express, often explode. The result is mass shootings and school shootings. Two more thoughts The reason so many of these kids get into right wing ideology is that they wish they lived in the past, and they think modern society is 'pussy' and weak, so they naturally blame liberals for this. Also, the reason why mass shootings tend to happen in safe, white, mostly wealthy areas is because those are the areas where the type of culture im talking about dont exist anymore. In black and hispanic areas, that kind of casual violence culture absolutely does exist, so kids are not drawn to school shootings. They have outlets for any kind of violence all over their neighborhood if they want to engage in that. I can see that in my neighborhood currently. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Part of the reason mass shooters become mass shooters is that there are not nearly as many outlets for everyday violence as there used to be\n","id":"fc5f26fc-db29-4a66-bbbf-589248ee925f"}
{"argument":"Being the weaker competitor is more dangerous. By asserting themselves as the stronger one, the US would dominate the arms race. Present evidence of how the US stands compared to other world powers shows the benefit of having a strong arms race strategy.\n","conclusion":"It is even more dangerous if the US hesitates to get ahead in the Space Arms race.\n","id":"ff3b628a-9362-4981-9a92-6506ad45b02c"}
{"argument":"No one has physically seen or heard from God, yet people claim to easily believe \/ imagine that God is perfect in every sense. It could be the case that people are merely imagining a being that is greater than other imagined beings like The Incredible Hulk or Spiderman.\n","conclusion":"In fact there are no physical or materialistic evidences that one can see that supports existence of God. All \"evidences\" are actually either claims or feelings.\n","id":"97e709eb-106e-420a-b628-8f7a8c5ed333"}
{"argument":"I love playing videogames. I spent most of my childhood on my computer, playing my favorite games. But exactly that's the problem. I felt like I wasted my childhood in front of a screen, when I could have done other stuff, such as drawing, and improve my abilities. Or at least go outside and play with other kids. I am 18 now, and still play videogames occasionally. But I feel very bad about it everytime. I always think to myself I could do productive stuff instead. Playing videogames has become a waste of time for me, even though I enjoy it. Change my mind so I can enjoy playing videogames again without feeling bad\n","conclusion":"Videogames are a waste of time and contribute absolutely nothing.\n","id":"db2722b7-9aba-4515-a660-c7da5b0b9234"}
{"argument":"Flavors, either simulated or not, are supposed to resemble actual flavors. Blue raspberry being a non existent fruit berry could realistically be made to taste like anything and nobody can argue that the flavor is wrong. Aside from the fact that 'blue raspberry' candies are gross, what are they basing the flavor on? Who started it and why was it propagated? Even candies that purport to have a mix of flavors in a single piece of candy generally have a semblance of the two flavors blue raspberry may somewhat resemble raspberry but what the fuck is blue supposed to taste like? It's not blueberry, more candies would describe the flavor as blueberry raspberry but 'blue raspberry' is an aberration that needs to be systematically eradicated from the candy world. Fuck blue raspberry.\n","conclusion":"I don't believe 'blue raspberry' should be a flavor of any candy or anything.\n","id":"2f066334-e48a-4425-998d-89b6590f9948"}
{"argument":"There's a total solar eclipse happening across North America next month, and I've read that being in the path of totality is a life changing experience, whereas being as little as a mile away from the path of totality is worthless and forgettable. I don't think this is true. I've watched a simulation of what it will be like, and I think the difference is a few main things it will get pitch black suddenly in the middle of the day, enough to see the stars, and it will get a little cold. So what? Why is this a life changing experience? With the prospect of maybe tens of hours of sitting in traffic to get a better view and paying thousands of dollars for a place to stay, I think that 99.9 totality is probably good enough because I can imagine what it's like when it gets completely dark and a little cold. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Being in the totality path of a solar eclipse isn't a big deal\n","id":"9735a0d9-1857-4875-9693-7ac90cea2e62"}
{"argument":"Following this reasoning, it would be better to eat certain disabled humans or babies, than certain animals. From this it is clear that value should not be dependent on intelligence or brain complexity.\n","conclusion":"There are human beings with low intelligence quotients IQ, however, it is deemed wrong to see them as less valued or worthy in society. Animals should be no different.\n","id":"9e112c62-656d-467c-b497-880d734c6a36"}
{"argument":"Whenever I play a game like Wastelands 2 or Xenonauts these are the two that spring to mind, though I've played others and finally get to the combat, I feel like the game grinds to a halt. This happens with any sort of turn based combat in RPG games. I should point out that Grand Strategy games like Civ or Total War are not what I'm talking about here. The games themselves aren't what's boring. I thought that the two I mentioned above had cool premises and were super detailed in lore, two things I love about games. But when the combat started, the nice flow that I had been experiencing stops. I'll try and list the things that bother me. Action Points I get the reasoning behind them but they limit what I want to do so badly I want to throw my computer out the window. They simply seem unrealistic. Enemies Perhaps it's because I never played long enough to get better equipment, but every time I play and try to attack I always miss at point blank range. However at 100 yards the enemy seems to be a dead eye with every shot. Turns Things will happen to my guys on an enemy turn that I can't react to like I would in Age of Empires, Company of Heroes, etc and it seems unrealistic. One time I was playing Xenonats and the aliens made one of my soldiers go nuts and started shooting everyone. IRL and in RTS games you'd move your guys away and try to kill the crazed soldier, but nope, I had to sit there and watch three of my guys get slaughtered because it was the Enemy Turn . I know I'll probably get responses like, Oh well you just haven't played them enough or You sound like you don't know what you're doing . Which are both true, but the games make me so mad that I don't want to even try and get better. In an RTS if I accidentally lose my tank to an enemy emplacement, that's my fault and I should have been paying attention more to the situation. But it could have happened in a split second, far to fast for me to react, and that doesn't bother me because shit happens like that IRW all the time. In a turn based game if I miss it, I have to sit there and watch helplessly as the enemy takes it out and I watch the camera hover over the wreckage as if to say Look dumb ass, ya coulda stopped it, but you got too frustrated. I do really want to have my view changed on this.\n","conclusion":"I find turn based combat to be tedious and infuriating\n","id":"5d054629-8b98-4293-8f28-5c59b40163a0"}
{"argument":"Without Christianity, there may never have be the cantata, the concerto, or the symphony. Handel Vivaldi and Bach were Christians who worked to honor God with their work\n","conclusion":"Religion has been one of the greatest sources for artistic expression in all of Human history.\n","id":"230cec44-3875-42fd-9817-e692323c8c3f"}
{"argument":"Given the moral bankruptcy of the NPT, and existing views of the United States in much of the developing world,1 any move by the United States to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons by force will be seen for what it is: an act of neo-colonialism. This would be the case with any act to enforce a treaty that is considered unfair towards most of the world. This is especially true in areas where there is a long history of US support for regional actors who are less than popular. In moving against Iran, the United States will be perceived as a stalking horse for Israel, whilst any efforts to invade North Korea Would cause great alarm in China as well as in neighbouring South Korea despite being a U.S. ally where some Koreans believe the US is more of a threat to the nation than the North.2 In both cases, the image of the US in the region will be badly damaged, and the United States will face a hostile insurgency within the countries that they invade. 1 Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2011, 2 Larson, Eric V. et al., Ambivalent Allies? A Study of South Korean Attitudes Towards the U.S., RAND Corporation, March 2004, p.93 n.b. before north detonated nuclear bomb\n","conclusion":"No country has an inherent right to invade or use aggression against another.\n","id":"be9a7cb6-3c0f-44f5-9323-803fedc0cb9a"}
{"argument":"This was somewhat covered in a  post nine months ago, but it didn't quite cover my concerns. Gmail, Search, Glass, Analytics, Maps, Earth, Apps Pro Apps, the pathetic Google , YouTube, Chrome, Drive, Voice, Calendars, etc. They also make the Android OS. They're even delving into medical devices. Recently, they announced the acquisition of Nest Laboratories. Nest is a learning thermostat and knows when you are not home, your exact GPS coordinates, and your wifi password. I don't want Google having that information. I love technology, but if black hat hackers bring down Google, or if something happens and they go offline, as happened last week it could have a devastating impact. , so I'm not so paranoid about the U.S. becoming the United States of Google Corp.\n","conclusion":"I think Google, especially w\/ recent M&A e.g., Nest, is far too large and powerful.\n","id":"c570e1f4-d37e-4dfc-9adb-22e1e414a6ff"}
{"argument":"When someone criticizes a religious practice, the religious are always quick to yell freedom of religion . Covering the face head? Freedom of religion Circumcising infants? Freedom of religion Refusing to shake hands? Freedom of religion Holy book encourages violence, homophobia, misogyny and slavery? Freedom of religion And often, it works. Many places prohibit headgear unless it's religious. You can't remove body parts from your baby unless you're religious. Etcetera. I believe this is wrong. We shouldn't make exceptions for practices just because they're religious. Religious practices deserve just as much protection as secular practices not more, but not less either. When we discuss legalizing criminalizing drugs, we try to have an honest debate about the merits and downsides of drugs. We do not just reference dogma, something like freedom of smoking . The same should apply to religious practices. There doesn't seem to be a special freedom to protect secular practices. Religion should be equal to non religion , so we either need to end freedom of religion or implement freedom of secular ideologies .\n","conclusion":"\"Freedom of religion\" should be removed or replaced by something that grants equal protection to secular ideologies.\n","id":"ecf893ac-47f6-40af-87ae-83ad8d288bbc"}
{"argument":"Many secular historians date the book of Mark to after 70 AD because it contains a prophecy of the destruction of the Second Temple, which occurred that year. However, this assumes not only that Jesus couldn't have made a correct prophecy, but also that it couldn't simply be apocalyptic language echoing the earlier destruction of the temple.\n","conclusion":"The date of New Testament books is debated by historians, with some evidence that they were written fairly early, and some portions such as the creed in 1 Corinthians being reliably and uncontroversially dated to within a few years of Pentecost.\n","id":"ab3f9653-cf83-4c00-8eef-204117ffa5bf"}
{"argument":"One study of decisions surrounding abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights found significant differences in the votes of Democratic and Republican appointed federal judges Hansen, p. 13 Such consistently different interpretations of the Constitution make clear the importance of ideology in the way judges decide cases.\n","conclusion":"Presidents do not choose the most qualified individual they can; they choose the most qualified individual from a list of those who fulfil other political criteria, such as sharing the President's vision for what the nation should look like Chemerinsky, p. 624\n","id":"0295739b-9bd6-402b-9e31-056929988cdb"}
{"argument":"Differences in societal values will be less pronounced and this will be reflected in proposed legislation and court rulings\n","conclusion":"This would result in a legislature that is more representative of the population.\n","id":"865efea4-1a1c-492a-adeb-f68887c795e7"}
{"argument":"Right and wrong when used in terms of facts mean something because it can be verified. The concept of morality which is nothing but a set of rules humans have created to decide what people should and shouldn't do for the sake of society or whatever , tries to extend this concept and say that there is a moral right and wrong. So when people say something is wrong, what they essentially mean is that it is something you shouldn't be doing. That can easily be dismissed by saying that it is their opinion and not some fact and therefore can be disregarded or I don't care about the reason why they think I shouldn't be doing what they think I shouldn't be doing. So change my view. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Saying something is morally right or wrong means nothing because morality itself doesn't exist.\n","id":"1d685965-6cca-4e1f-9325-2181a8516726"}
{"argument":"EDIT Hey there guys, thank you so much for participating in this discussion. I've got a shift tomorrow, so I need to sleep, but, while you haven't completely changed my view, you have made me restrict my poorly thought out idea so that it becomes slightly more useful and less stupidly moralistic. Thanks guys EDIT 2 Thanks to u FragileSound, my view has been changed. He had the brilliant idea to look more at root causes and do something about those instead of the totalitarianistic idea that I was going for. So, thanks very much guys, your opinions have helped me see that my views were incorrect Alright, for starters, I live in the United Kingdom, where healthcare is a publicly funded thing. I believe that, since the NHS is groaning under the weight of too many customers and an ageing population, we need to stop the brain drain and help doctors necessary a better paid jobs. One way that this could be done is by preventing people who have caused illness through their own abilities, should be forced to pay at least a quarter of their treatment whatever it might be, so a lesser cost would be easier to pay. Twin this with an educational emphasis on avoidable problems, such as obesity or drug addiction, and it would become completely the fault of those who partook. For example, Type 2 diabetes costs around 11.718 billion dollars. This idea, as a ballpark sum, would save 3 billion dollars per year which would result in some better consequences for the NHS. This is just for an example and can be applied to anything such as alcohol abuse or lung cancer as a result of smoking. I understand that there are many ways that this is a difficult idea to work, and am well aware, but my overall point remains. People should be responsible, being given the correct information, for their own choices, and, the populace should be concentrating most of their efforts and resources on problems that are not the fault of themselves. Giving a hand up to the less fortunate, not those who have made conscious choices to do things that are bad for their health, which they have been told are bad\n","conclusion":"I believe that individuals should be forced to pay some of their costs of their treatment.\n","id":"6a7162e4-7b7f-497e-93c0-fa0244e51566"}
{"argument":"Developing countries are characterised by weak states that are inept at providing or unable to provide citizens with social welfare.\n","conclusion":"Many basic needs are not met in third-world countries, whereas they are in first world countries.\n","id":"e842fe0a-2867-4930-a979-f342c279c056"}
{"argument":"Although people with with gender identity issues should seek professional help, conversion therapy being banned sends out a strong liberal message that people are free to be who they want to be. It's a strong statement that it is perfectly okay to be homosexual.\n","conclusion":"Conversion therapy promotes a narrative that every time someone does not abide by social norms, they must change at all costs; this can hinder social progression.\n","id":"ffafb959-0263-48a6-b9d5-3de5cb9e3b2c"}
{"argument":"It may have strengthened that small population, but in that strengthened and tight-knit group, an anxiety about people not in the group increases. The now strengthened group can use the religion as a way to keep themselves separate from those who are different, which actually hurts humanity and our ability to understand people who are not the same as us. It creates a separation of us vs. them, which can in-turn cause strife between the two unique groups, those in and those not.\n","conclusion":"They have also done the exact opposite, driving people away who have different views or religious beliefs. It is a tribal mentality that can be seen in any number of groups from football teams, nationalities, political parties etc etc\n","id":"8cfd4053-10fd-4b6a-b0aa-6c908d1036d8"}
{"argument":"In 19 May 2005 Coke sacked 5 delivery men for working organizing union activity in the bottling company of Icecek in Istanbul, in which was set up by Coco Cola in tandem with the Anadolu group in Turkey and Coke now owns 20 percent of the shares. The president of the union, president Kucukosmanoolu punctuation on letters is omitted said that the whole management of Icecek \"is led by coke managers\" and that the decisions of \"who to hire and fire were all taken by coke managers\". Fahrattin and Ahmet, two men who were fired for union organizing, said that \"when we went to the management for a wage increase the management said 'Get off my job. Many people would work here in these conditions'\". The men began union work after their pay was reduced and their overtime was increased. There were 5 people who attended special clandestine union meetings. These were the same 5 people who were fired.\n","conclusion":"Coca Cola has been involved in Union Busting in Istanbul.\n","id":"d5efe752-936e-4911-9780-6c909c26b2ce"}
{"argument":"I want to focus on lyrics in this thread. I have plenty of issues with the other aspects of the horrible songs that get routinely churned out of Radio 1 probably the most popular radio station in the UK , but I find lyrics more conducive to discussion than melody or harmony. I listen to Radio 1 every day between 7 30am and 8 30am and between 4pm and 5pm. Not because I choose to, but because the person who drives me to work does and as driver, it's fair enough that she can choose to listen to what she wants . As a result, I have had to listen to the most vacuous, derivative, leg gnawingly obnoxious garbage the putrid pop industry has to offer. I can't seem to find it on Google, but there's a song that sounds vaguely like Daft Punk's irritating technologic , but this one is even worse. It goes work it, bring it, play it bitch work it, bring it, bitch work it, bring it, play it bitch . Lyrically, this song seems to have been thought up in about 5 minutes by a bored hormonal teenager. What exactly are we meant to enjoy about lyrics like that? You may argue that the lyrics aren't the focus or the point of the song but in which case why have them at all? Or why not use the song as a chance to explore the depths of the beautiful and varied English language? A string of nonsentical words and phrases would be more interesting to listen to than this tripe. Then there's the bafflingly popular 'Uptown Funk' by Bruno Mars and that guy who seems to use the same brass riff in all of his songs. Crass, self masturbatory garbage where the singer pretty much spends the entire song telling us how cool and how hot he is, and how much he likes to party. Seriously? The UK's number 1 song is yet another arrogant twerp telling us about how much he likes to party? Can we just accept that most people like to party and move on from this lyrical theme? Why do we have to be told again and again song after song that people are enjoying themselves in the club, all night long? Do these brain dead pop puppets have anything interesting to say about parties that hasn't been said a million times since the 70s? Every singly 'party club' song seems to be just I'm really hot You're really hot This party club is awesome Is it even possible to be more boring than this? Who enjoys being told these simple ideas day in, day out, by thousands of narcissistic pop morons? Now we come to the songs about love. Love has been a perfectly valid subject for poetry and art since the days of Catullus. Along with sex and death, it's a massive part of human experience. So how have these pompous pop pretzels managed to reduce it to lyrics so dull and formulaic that they could have been written by a computer program? Rita Ora, Charlie XCX, Elli Goulding, Taylor Swift every day we listen to the same people saying the exact same things about the exact same subject. Love and sex are intensely deep and complex aspects of the human experience. Why doesn't anyone have anything new or interesting to say about it? HOWEVER There is one exception. Currently the only song played on Radio 1 at the moment with vaguely decent lyrics is 'Take me to Church' by a singer named Hozier. He's still singing about love, but the lyrics are absolutely head and shoulders over the vomit spewed out by the Nicki Minajs and Jessie Js of the pop genre. Check the lyrics out Finally, a pop artist played on Radio 1 with something fresh and interesting to say about love Some excellent social critique of the antiquated restrictions of organised religion, and a wittily expressed comparison between devotion to a deity and devotion to another human. Take me to church I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife Offer me that deathless death Good God, let me give you my life Can you, with a straight face, tell me that lyrics like that aren't almost comically superior to drivel like We're staying all night We never slow down I think we better do it like we're doing it now It's been a long time Since we've been around So come on, let's keep doing it like we're doing it Doing it like we're doing it ?\n","conclusion":"BBC Radio 1 currently plays some of the most lyrically boring, vacuous music ever recorded... with one exception.\n","id":"aa6ecda0-c815-4100-8759-d1cf67e72b92"}
{"argument":"I feel like tattooed on images distract and destroy the natural curves and perception of shape and flow of a girls boobs. I'm all for tats, but it bothers me when they destroy rather than enhance I truly feel as if there is more beauty in the natural look of a girl's chest rather than something else catching my eye constantly. I love girls with piercings and tattoos but I need to see a natural shape to feel connected in that way. I have seen nipple piercings and strangely enough I like them, it seems hypocritical but a tattoo looks kind of like a blob. I'd say the only exception is in the case of scars or birthmarks\n","conclusion":"I feel that tattoos on or around a women's chest takes away from that natural beauty of their boobs. !\n","id":"88037cc3-ee00-44f5-9446-32c7d4ddec11"}
{"argument":"Even among those humans who posses all of the 5 senses of Taste, Touch, Sight, Smell, and Hearing, there are variations between individuals\n","conclusion":"No human's senses and consciousness are necessarily the same as any other human\n","id":"229265a4-e8ce-4055-b73b-85577aff5b03"}
{"argument":"It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has had bad reputation for safety. Not all of this reputation has been deserved. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case by poor Soviet safety standards. In this debate, the reactors the proposition are advocating are new reactors built to the highest safety standards such as those under construction in Finland at present. Such reactors have a perfect safety record. Perhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable.\n","conclusion":"It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has had bad reputation for safety. Not all o...\n","id":"1c5d8369-4cda-48cc-9bd9-a92c7546589e"}
{"argument":"In the US women of colour make up 33% of the earners in minimum wage jobs in sectors like retail, fast-food and home healthcare.\n","conclusion":"The impact of the minimum wage on women of colour is rarely talked about by the feminist movement.\n","id":"98a29bd4-43b7-4c60-b20f-cd742fb37e58"}
{"argument":"The US knew from the time of the conference of Yalta that Stalin would enter the war with Japan a couple months after Germany was defeated, thus they knew about the strategic disadvantage the Japanese would have defending themselves on two sides. The drop of the two bombs was not necessary, because the Japanese feared nothing more than exactly this scenario of fighting the Soviets and the US and therefore surrendered. 1\n","conclusion":"There was no pressing military need for dropping atomic bombs on Japan.\n","id":"5d312a9c-6d5a-4da9-a540-60355e00813c"}
{"argument":"In studies replicated in major cities throughout the US, the conditions of the industry include extreme sexual, physical and psychological abuse.\n","conclusion":"Sex work is violent and dangerous regardless of its legal status.\n","id":"ffa2fc42-4adc-400e-873d-f14bcf9f9db9"}
{"argument":"An intelligence-driven policing or prosecution system that does not account intelligence-driven policing or prosecution system that does not account for the varying reliability and credibility of sources \u2014 and just lumps them all together as \u201cdata\u201d \u2014 will ultimately result in an error-filled database. for the varying reliability and credibility of sources \u2014 and just lumps them all together as \u201cdata\u201d \u2014 will ultimately result in an error-filled database.\n","conclusion":"The data may not take into account instances of biased reporting by witnesses and victims.\n","id":"072918ef-6867-47d9-a8a7-b61f219a297a"}
{"argument":"While I understand that addiction is a very real and debilitating disease, I feel that people who struggle with addiction have only themselves to blame and tend to hide behind the label of addict after they have subscribed to treatment and come to terms with what their life has become. The classic 12 step program points those who follow their steps to put faith in god and then stop using substances or behaviors that put them where they were before. In my personal experience, there is zero accountability for one's actions. Instead, addicts are taught to say something along the lines of, I am sorry that my addiction has caused X problem. Where the proper line should be, I am sorry that 'I' did X.\n","conclusion":"I find addicts weak and unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.\n","id":"4da72fce-e117-4567-99d8-b0d927b8cb17"}
{"argument":"Harm would be in form of defamation both slander and libel, and can be very damaging to the reputation and quality of life for the accused.\n","conclusion":"False accusations make it impossible for the accused to lead a normal life even after acquittal, and they deserve recompense.\n","id":"cc9bc86d-094e-4633-959e-cf9f92ec7bf6"}
{"argument":"To me, it goes like this When anyone says no offense , they're trying to give you helpful criticism. I thought this was just widely accepted, but it's not, and I'm trying to understand why. If I pulled my friend aside at a party and said dude no offense but you're being really obnoxious out there. Then I'm not insulting him. I'm letting him know he's being rude. I would want anyone to do that for me as well. I think getting offended at that, when they're specifically trying, and telling you they're trying, not to offend you but to give you advice, is pretty petty. It's like getting mad when a teacher edits your writing, you know you're putting yourself out there to be judged, why wouldn't you want to get better? Anyway, please help me understand why this is, I would appreciate it greatly, up until I learned people got offended by this, I said it once and a while, when I felt it was necessary, and now I feel about bad. And sorry about any spelling mistakes or choppy sentences, I'm on my mobile.\n","conclusion":"I believe that saying \"no offense\" before or after what your going to say should negate much of the offense. Please\n","id":"7ff88391-18fe-4570-9016-070e08541c90"}
{"argument":"I'm in my late 30's, married, and have three children. I have to worry about a mortgage, bills, schools, my job, etc etc etc. I know the environment is a big issue, but I just can't bring myself to give a fuck. With all the responsibilities I have in my life, I simply don't have a fuck left to give to the planet. There are too many immediate, pressing issues that I deal with on a daily basis. Everything I see about climate change is supposed to be alarming. But at the same time, it all seems blown out of proportion. I get that climate change is a human phenomena, I just don\u2019t get worked up about it. I just assume someone at some point will figure out a way to fix it. Life uhhh, finds a way. .\n","conclusion":"I don't give a shit about the environment\n","id":"044cf348-9eb2-4b32-8c0b-59a53b6a8ec4"}
{"argument":"Religion was a necessary step to reach structured thoughts and rationality. In fact, the scientific method is only a young leaf although emergent in the evolutionary tree of belief systems.\n","conclusion":"Religious rules are the main source of contemporary laws and in some cases contributed to democracy.\n","id":"07e4594f-af12-4c25-899b-b4594336df51"}
{"argument":"By \"bed of thorns\", i meant a potential for the souring of the Euro-American relations.\n","conclusion":"It's only a matter of time before EU-US relations sour.\n","id":"b92ead97-44f6-4275-a7de-a04c808d4b71"}
{"argument":"I totally understand why a sub would want to maintain a certain tone throughout and have very heavy handed policies regarding deleting comments. A lot of subs have suffered degradation because a rise of popularity with poor moderation. It's a slippery slope situation and wherever you draw the line you're going to get backlash. My position is that my frustration with the lines that some subs draw are unreasonable. Unreasonable because sometimes in odd corners of the internet you find environment that host lively conversations that you can't find elsewhere. It's like natural climate the springs up life. And each life is specific to that climate. I understand that I can go to a different sub that is more relevant. But the conversation itself that was deleted cannot reoccur in the same way. The climate will change the conversation. Like a species of butterfly changing colors because of environmental changes. If the conversation itself is not harming anyone and maintains the mature, intellectually curious tone the sub seems to encourage, I don't see the issue. This is the message I sent the moderators I edited a bit so it wasn't clear what subs I'm talking about I get it that it's a strict sub and it's heavily moderated so things don't get out of control. But the comments I presented weren't inflammatory. They may have been off topic, but they originated from of the comments that wasn't deemed off topic. I think it's a reasonable request that a conversation organically sprouting from comments isn't seen on the same level as unwanted comments. The comments were based on reason and it was a mature back and forth with another user. You guys may argue that this isn't the place for mature discussion that doesn't involve the topic and I can understand that but it's not everywhere that such a back and forth can organically spring. I can go to another sub where the topic is relevant but doing so would be changing the environment and climate of the discussion with a different audience the user with who I was talking to may not even visit . So the conversation that springs forth would be a totally different species. It just seems anti intellectualism to censor people like that when an honest to goodness discussion is occurring. You guys probably have reasons to believe that such comments degrade the sub or lead to childish arguments and I respect that. I barely post on these subs because I know you guys are strict. But when I do comment, I do try to maintain a sincerely neutral, open minded tone to avoid being deleted. I don't really care back to hear from you guys since I don't comment here often but just to let you know that censorship and over sweeping silencing of people shouldn't be something encouraged for people that like to expand understanding.\n","conclusion":"Heavy and strict moderation in subs dampen genuine curiosity and partake in censorship that borders on anti-intellectualism.\n","id":"f455944e-115a-40c7-bfbb-7783e79ac9a9"}
{"argument":"Let me define brainwashing for this topic as enforcing a view belief that may not be inline with reality to influence the actions of an individual or the general public. Indoctrination with or without the implication of malicious coercion. I will cover two common examples of brainwashing as I understand them North Korea and some forms of religion I would like to avoid naming any specific religions to keep the discussion focused on brainwashing . Given North Korea's innumerable humans rights violations it could be said that their flavor of brainwashing is implemented with some presence of malicious intent. While there are many irrefutable problems with the DPRK's implementation of controlling the masses, they feel a connection with their leader and wish to do right in his eyes. Many religions have directives and rules on positive behavior. Many children are indoctrinated from a young age to believe there is a greater power watching over their lives and judging them for their actions. These two examples have produced social circles that are driven to achieve by the guidelines presented to them. So now for an example where brainwashing could be positive. What if you were to indoctrinate a population that was happy with bare essentials. They are raised to believe that having a small house, bicycle for transportation, minimum wage and strong work ethic makes everyone's lives better. Not as a suggestion, not as a PSA, but everyday in school kids are inundated these ideals from a very young age.\n","conclusion":"\"Brainwashing\" is not inherently evil.\n","id":"7f2bba55-564b-4e04-a81b-bf2b66c1adb4"}
{"argument":"The uses of that idea are very important and also open a vast and large \"Pandora's Box\" of ideas, some good, others bad but if used correctly, it can bring a great Boom in Entertainment and theories\n","conclusion":"Alternate Reality Games will become a vital industry in the future\n","id":"efc4f615-98f8-481b-82f9-fd116dc9b544"}
{"argument":"I've argued about this with a girlfriend a couple times now. I believe that the freedom of privacy is a kind of pillar of American freedom, along with life, expression, etc. If we do not have privacy we have lost among our most basic of rights. Her argument is that it doesn't matter if we've lost them, because the government see any vested interest with control in mind will just spy in you anyway, even after they've been caught see Snowden because they can always find ways to do it without people knowing. My rebuttal is that the battle isn't over until you say it's over, quite literally in this case, because their only threat is us, the people who do want a right to privacy. I use the free speech comparison because similar things happen when the rights are infringed upon. If your freedom of speech is taken away, you no longer have the ability to voice opposition. This would result in anybody who is for free speech will be impossible to find. It's somewhat similar to what happens today with social media hugboxes, the opposition gets harder and harder to find, sounds more and more crazy with each day. It's pretty obvious where this leads. I compare this to right to privacy because too much surveillance means somebody is more hesitant to do natural things, like criticize those in power. Especially when your country is like the USA which has a long history with torture, but that's another story. The point is, I understand that the idea that we have privacy in this age is laughable, but that very idea is exactly why you can't just roll over for it. It's a constant battle that must be fought it's somewhat unfortunate that it's that way, but always revel in the fact that those rights even exist in your mind because without them, you'd have no idea what you're missing out on. Feel free to ignore the rambling and just try to sway me. I am open to thoughts and opinions on this topic, embrace the ability to even have this discussion.\n","conclusion":"Saying you don't care about freedom of privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.\n","id":"0d58b965-5fe9-4bf1-ae62-3b62afd92c8e"}
{"argument":"I know, this sounds pretty ridiculous. However, I don't believe it's too much of an unpopular opinion. I'm here to see if I can be swayed, or even just understand the topic from a pro stealing type of view. Many young people I know 17 21 enjoy stealing from department stores. I.E Walmart, Target, whatever they say that they would never steal from a one or two off chain, but multi million dollar companies are free game. I don't really understand this. I know that stealing a Chapstick from the dollar store won't necessarily get someone fired, but it might . Unless you've worked at said store, you have no idea what the chain of command is like. I'm thinking about this more recently, because a forum that I frequent has had an influx of people stealing certain items. Or, at least, claiming to steal. the threads always have people congratulating each other on getting away with it, which really disturbs me, if I'm being honest. I just don't really understand why it's alright. I stole a candy bar, once, out of peer pressure, and it still bothers me to this day. Edit I do believe that if you're being denied a basic human right I.e not enough food healthcare it is morally okay to do so. So, Reddit, why is it okay to steal, sometimes?\n","conclusion":"it is never okay to steal.\n","id":"6abcbba5-6924-4a4f-be1a-8f106d8624bb"}
{"argument":"An understanding of how a treatment method interacts with a particular condition is crucial for making informed decisions. Given the lack of specific evidence in favour of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, it is not possible to say that doctors or patients can make truly informed decisions about their use.\n","conclusion":"There is a serious lack of scientific research into the short and long term impacts of using puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria.\n","id":"6bfb4d9f-9c8c-4f84-99f3-891fb8505274"}
{"argument":"I want to clarify first that I do not think crowd funding is inherently wrong, I love the concept for inventions and art projects that would not have been possible without the funds generated by these sites. My issue stems from the influx of friends on Facebook posting links to their GoFundMe or YouCare page so they can pay off their semester abroad in Germany or raise funds to buy a new car. The joy in crowdfunding comes from the return on your investment if you successfully help fund a short film, that short film will eventually hopefully be delivered to you. There is almost never any reward for these personal fundraisers except for a 1 tier that includes a personal thank you from the person in question. The only time I've seen it done right is when a friend offered to come and cook traditional meals from her culture past a certain donation threshold, and the minimal amount of funding she got despite this only reinforced my opinion hardly anybody, other than family, cares enough to contribute. A GoFundMe campaign by an average person will only net around 75, hardly a dent in their 2000 goal I'm throwing numbers out to clarify my point, mileage might vary . People will only pay for something that will reward them in turn, and oftentimes the sentiment of I helped is not enough of a reward. These crowdfunding projects feel like personal charities, and I feel distaste every time I see a new one pop up. I believe it's rude to ask for money from your friends for something they will never be compensated for, and I don't think the availability of a platform for doing that online has changed anything. It just removes the awkward communication previously required to ask for money. edit I've had some commenters point out that my views are not fully represented in this post. To add further clarification, I count average people as those who can cope without a crowdfunding campaign, even if that makes the situation significantly more difficult for them. Those in dire need and who are suffering are, in my eyes, outliers, and if they were to set up a campaign, and if I had close ties with them, I would contribute. The same goes for those who have sacrificed enough to help others and are actively good people.\n","conclusion":"Average people should not use crowd-funding sites for personal goals.\n","id":"70b14d23-b618-40f1-a429-0aa17bd675f3"}
{"argument":"This was written before Trump announced that the Summit is canceled. This will  will be for future summits The U.S North Korea summit is coming up and we, even the news, takes this as a positive thing. But if you look at the past summits between these 2 countries, we can see a clear pattern North Korea doesn\u2019t care. One of the biggest negotiation that happened between the U.S and North Korea was the Six Party Talks. They \u201cagreed\u201d that the sanctions be raised for North Korea stopping it\u2019s nuclear missiles test. But after few months, North Korea re launched it\u2019s nuclear testing program. So what is North Korea doing? I think they repeat the same cycle Create a Crisis, Make Negotiations, and get everything they can get. This give them about the same negotiation power as U.S, as the U.S and other countries will do anything to stop whatever North Korea is doing. This will give them more power and support their country by stopping military training, etc. Then what does this mean to the 2018 Summit? North Korea is already done its nuclear program. This give more power in the negotiation table than they ever had. They can threat the U.S by using its nuclear missiles Crisis , which the U.S, especially the Trump Administration which is looking for a win, will give North Korea anything to stop it Negotiations . They may \u201cstop\u201d North Korea from making threats for less sanctions Profit , but North Korea will most likely break that promise Repeat . I think that since they want to lift the sanctions, etc, they are using the Olympic and such, to show that, \u201cWe are getting better\u201d, which they are not. Like I said in the 4th Paragraph, they might stop doing the \u201ccrazy\u201d things at best, but will most likely ignore after few months. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"We shouldn\u2019t expect too much from the U.S-North Korea Summit\n","id":"ed8753d8-4938-4278-8bdd-92134f2a40b6"}
{"argument":"Individuals are likely to be expelled or excommunicated against their will for not taking part in these practices. Miller, p.271\n","conclusion":"Individuals may be shunned from society if they refuse to participate in these rituals.\n","id":"eaa32ae9-b37f-47b3-b1e8-ee111af35fa7"}
{"argument":"Daniel Smith. \"Self-Determination in Tibet. The Politics of Remedies\". 1997 - \"whenever it is determined that genocide has been perpetrated against a people, there should be a concomitant right to secession exercisable at its option. The reasoning is simple: no aggressor committing genocide against a people can be entrusted with that people's welfare into the future. Such an aggressor ceases to possess any credibility in dealing with an oppressed people. If a people oppressed by genocide were not guaranteed the right to secede, this would be tantamount to rewarding the oppressor to the very extent it had succeeded in committing genocide--a morally perverse and illogical result. 88 Genocide, the worst of transgressions in international law, must be accorded a remedy, and that remedy should be the fullest expression of self-determination--complete autonomy as manifested in independence. Invoking such a right in the case of the Tibetans, who have been documented as being the victims of genocide and other human rights violations, would make their claim to independence absolutely compelling, legally as well as morally.\"\n","conclusion":"China's invasion of Tibet invalidates its right to govern it\n","id":"aa99eff9-5690-4dce-b3a5-fa969b80d409"}
{"argument":"Hello everyone. I have struggle with oncoming depression for a long time, and during these particular times I have found it really hard to find a reason to keep doing things. When I was younger, in my early 20's I used to think that I should aim for a life reason , to find something passionate to move forward and to devote my life to this particular something will get me to life a fulfilling life. However life get in the way and reality kicks in, and I find out that a it is really hard for me to be passionate about anything for a long time, and b that sometimes you won't be doing exactly what you want and that is just life. To get over with this and keep moving I made this rule of doing things slightly better, so maybe one day if I keep moving forward I will find an enjoyable life. Truth is that this particular train of though has only get in the way, it has made me an underachiever incapable of finding joy in basic things such as having time with other people, or eating delicious food. I have seem many of my friends get to live wonderful lives, and I know that maybe I am asking the wrong question, maybe this  should be about something else. But please help me combat this train of thought, or help me to get it to be useful. Thank you in advance my beautiful debating people.\n","conclusion":"A \"reason to life\" shouldn't be excessively superior, it only has to be slightly better than the alternative.\n","id":"d38bdcb6-1bf5-4e43-9c33-f99e8432f744"}
{"argument":"The cost of the Iraq war has been astonishing both in the lives and treasure spent and the resentment and chaos stored up for the future. Even if the result had been Switzerland on Sinai, it would still not have been worth it. There have been more than 100,000 Iraqi deathsi. It has been the most expensive US war other than WWII in constant 2011 dollars, costing more than $400 billion more than Vietnam,iiand what is left is a failed state in the making. The war was poorly conceived, recklessly enacted and devastatingly badly concluded. The secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted the war fought \u201con the cheap\u201d using a much smaller force than the pentagon or independent analysts thought was necessary.iii With the allies now withdrawing from Iraq the world\u2019s best hope is that the US and its allies will be sufficiently cowed by public opinion as to never try such folly again. That, perhaps, would be a benefit. i Iraq Body Count ii Daggett, Stephen, \u2018Costs of Major U.S. Wars\u2019, Congressional Research Service, 29 June 2010 iii Weinraub, Bernard, and Shanker, Thom, \u2018A NATION AT WAR: UNDER FIRE; Rumsfeld\u2019s Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield\u2019, The New York Times, 1 April 2003\n","conclusion":"Even if the outcome is a stable democratic Iraq, the war was still a costly, illegal, ideologically-driven mistake\n","id":"7b7ae3e1-a2fe-4b03-a570-463c2efd07db"}
{"argument":"I've been sort of thinking that what's good for one is necessarily not good for the other. I don't clearly see it's boundary. Whenever something is placed either side I only see an individual's or society's perspective of things dividing it, I mean to say I feel like there's no universal good or bad. Now for example murdering is considered bad, sure is, if it's expressed okay or right, we'd be killing everyone who annoyed us at the office this very day but we don't give a second thought when just kill an ant or cockroach which potentially would be no harm to us. How do we so easily put ourselves above it? If we really value life, shouldn't we avoid that as well. Yes, I probably could go to the microscopic level. Sometimes I just feel like these just exist to survive as a society and nothing more.\n","conclusion":"There's no universal right or wrong, there are just prespectives.\n","id":"f72c2374-f613-4726-9c2b-c2819901a705"}
{"argument":"The Animal Welfare Act which is currently the primary law protecting the rights of animals, does the bare minimum. The Act itself encourages regulated businesses to exceed the standards specified within it because it does not efficiently guarantee reasonable protection of animal welfare.\n","conclusion":"The legislature that is currently in place to protect animal rights is inadequate.\n","id":"c1f9f2b7-b1e8-495e-9f49-540b560db155"}
{"argument":"The idea behind multiculturalism is that it will result in a rainbow of skin hues, native fabrics, and foreign foods. It all looks very promising on paper, but the reality is somewhat less picturesque. Canada\u2019s introduction of aggressive multicultural policies thirty years ago continues to be what is considered a highly successful experiment, and we are proud of that. So why wouldn\u2019t we want the whole world to turn into one big Canada? We\u2019ll try to explain why not. First of all, everybody would end up speaking English, even if French or other minority language laws were enacted. A few generations of children would simply be unable to communicate with their grandparents; later generations would lose their heritage languages completely. Second, cultural traditions would be suppressed in order to avoid conflict. In Toronto\u2019s York region, school Christmas concerts and some Hallowe\u2019en activities have been banned. Other examples of this trend can be seen throughout Europe as some countries ban the wearing of religious symbols in public. Laws like these are sometimes necessary in order to help diverse societies avoid conflict, but they don\u2019t encourage expression or diversity. With multiculturalism, as with most things, we are forced to choose. Do we want people to live in the same society and become similar, or do we want them to form individual societies and maintain the uniqueness of their cultures? We say the latter, or when the current rate of globalisation makes that impossible, then cultures should be integrated \u2013 that is, people in a national community should be encouraged to place the core values of that community before those of their ethnic or individual cultures. People who live in liberal democracies should be encouraged, as much as possible, to share liberal, democratic values, including respect for difference. Overall, this is what we see happening in the status quo. It is not perfect; humanity is messy - but it is preferable to universal multi\n","conclusion":"Multiculturalism doesn't create diverse societies; it creates politically correct societies.\n","id":"d937334a-76cd-40c5-be41-b28c951a28e4"}
{"argument":"As most religious institutions are already granted tax exemptions it is unfair to use taxes paid by the public to further benefit such institutions.\n","conclusion":"Insofar as places of worship serve the wider public interest, this is already recognised through tax exemptions\n","id":"cd796511-7c39-46f3-ac89-986e0e19f2be"}
{"argument":"First, let me preface this by saying that I believe that Scatman John was a genuinely good person and had no intent of making this, or any other, song, seem malicious. It really does seem to me like this particular one has quite a dark undertone to it. Let me paste the lyrics and then comment on them I'm calling out from Scatland I'm calling out from Scatman's world If you wanna break free you better listen to me You got to learn how to see in your fantasy The above lyrics already indicate that the Scatman believes himself to be an authority and the only way to break free is to listen, i.e. follow his commands. He's also calling out from Scatman's World, which seems to be the place he's governing or is the leader of, the desired world. Everybody's talkin' something very shockin' just to Keep on blockin' what they're feelin' inside But listen to me brother, you just keep on walkin' 'cause You and me and sister ain't got nothin' to hide Here, Scatman John makes an extremely decent point that many people put on masks to conceal what they are truly feeling. However, then he instructs the listeners to just keep on walkin' , as we have nothing to hide. I am going to elaborate on that in a moment, but it suggests that no person should lie, or, in other words, nobody ought to have nothin' to hide . It is so that Scatman has full control over his people and, much like The Big Brother, knows everything that happens. Scatman, fat man, black and white and brown man Tell me 'bout the colour of your soul If part of your solution isn't ending the pollution Then I don't want to hear your stories told I want to welcome you to Scatman's world Scatman John doesn't discriminate and makes it known in those first 2 lines. Then he continues onto the next topic that he is not willing to listen to anyone holding values or aiming to achieve things same as his own he doesn't to hear the stories of the opposition told . I'm calling out from Scatland I'm calling out from Scatman's world If you wanna break free you better listen to me You got to learn how to see in your fantasy Everyone's born to compete as he chooses But how can someone win if winning means that someone loses I sit and see and wonder what it's like to be in touch No wonder all my brothers and my sisters need a crutch Scatman John doesn't like competition he wants to have all the power for himself and discourages anyone to pursue their goals by appealing to their emotions If you win, that means that someone loses . I want to be a human being not a human doing I couldn't keep that pace up if I tried The source of my intention really isn't crime prevention My intention is prevention of the lie, yeah Welcome to the Scatman's world Here is thing that made me think of writing this post My intention is prevention of the lie, yeah . Scatman John doesn't want to prevent crimes, or at least that's not his main intention. It is, instead, preventing the lie. He wants to know all the truth who might be against him, who might've done something to wrong him, etc. He wants everyone to follow moral imperatives. A flaw with that, however, is that if you, say, let an innocent person take refuge in your home and their enemies locate you and ask you if you're holding that person a refugee, you ought to say the truth, even if that means an innocent person's death of suffering at the cost of simply telling a lie. I'm calling out from Scatland I'm calling out from Scatman's world If you wanna break free you better listen to me You got to learn how to see in your fantasy x3 Edit Formatting. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Scatman John's song \"Scatman's World\" is about the Scatman ruling over an Orwellian society.\n","id":"874a5108-6019-4b52-bd9a-46c50e478a05"}
{"argument":"People always say that in the end, everything is okay because everything happens for a reason. I want to believe this, I really do. I would love for someone to convince me that the struggles I go through will all be worked out and that in the end everything is going to be okay. But at this moment in time, I just don't believe that. I'm looking to change because I've realized that when you don't believe things happen for a reason, it's extremely hard to be optimistic about the future. I'm a young, college student just getting started in the world. I'm looking for love, a family, a career, friends, and a purpose. I want to believe that they will all come with time. I believe that nothing out there is controlling us and that nothing out there is pre determined. Holding these two beliefs, I don't see how someone could believe that things work out in the end. Everything just seems a bit chaotic. If possible, I'd like to keep the thread away from the existence of God as much as possible. I realize that might be tough and I can deal with a little bit of religion based arguments, but for the most part I would appreciate a secular argument because that will place us all on even ground. In essence, feel free to use God as your reasoning for having your views, but recognize that we may fundamentally have different beliefs on God and that may be the source of our differences. Please, change my view Edit 1 Simply to add more of an actual argument Edit 2 Thank you for the well thought out responses so far. They have been extremely enlightening. I do want to make clear though that I am not referring to laws of nature or Newtonian Physics or anything of the sort. I'm referring to the deeper things in life, more specifically, love, family, friendship and success.\n","conclusion":"Things do not happen for a reason.\n","id":"e0c24bda-4ced-4968-9f84-be4a83ffef9e"}
{"argument":"A high turnout is important for a proper democratic mandate and the functioning of democracy. In this sense voting is a civic duty like Jury service. Jury service is compulsory in order that the courts can function properly and is a strong precedent for making voting compulsory.\n","conclusion":"A high turnout is important for a proper democratic mandate and the functioning of democracy. In th...\n","id":"5cd112fd-f4b7-4b7c-b6e4-436c0ebe410a"}
{"argument":"I work in a field where I could be making nearly twice as much doing the same kind of work for a bank. This leads to friends suggesting I do just that. However, I cringe at the thought. Considering the insane stories of banks unemotionally taking advantage of the poor by keeping their homes when their debt is of as little as a few thousand dollars the greed driven processes of banks which many argue led to this latest financial crisis, as there are unchecked and unhealthy incentives to maximise profit at all costs how banks often seek to profit from things that don't really add value to society futures, derivatives, etc. , I feel that working for a bank is similar to working for a tobacco company in terms of evilness . By evilness I mean making money from something that is harmful to society. To elaborate on two discussion avenues in advance banks do indeed make positive contributions to society. Tobacco companies also do that eg by keeping tobacco farmers' families well fed . I just feel that the current ratio of harm benefit is unacceptable it is also a matter of principle. I believe that by choosing to work for a bank we are implicitly validating a certain way of doing business, which, as I understand it, should be eradicated. In other words I believe that working for a bank is bad. I do realise this is a potentially silly view which is why I want you to .\n","conclusion":"I think that working for a bank is similar in \"evilness\" to working for a tobacco company.\n","id":"4bc4faca-80a9-4859-85ea-56e4bb9c4e12"}
{"argument":"The standard required to show a movie to children in school should be higher than a parent choosing what they want to show their own children. The teacher must choose something that is appropriate for all of the children in the class, taking into account the diversity of the group and their parents\/ guardians.\n","conclusion":"This does not suggest that watching Moana is acceptable. It instead suggests that more care is needed in deciding what films should be shown in school. Or indeed whether movies should be shown during school time at all.\n","id":"8b8f2b1a-e1f3-43b8-9857-ad0a0aa3f92b"}
{"argument":"The electoral college is not proportional to the actual populations of states anymore. So although a state may only have 3 electoral votes, the amount of voters in the state per electoral vote is way less than in high population states, thus, those voters are disproportionately powerful.\n","conclusion":"The electoral college defies the principle of equality of voters: one person, one vote.\n","id":"b50a93df-3eb0-47d0-92d7-3aa546ebe91b"}
{"argument":"I always found it odd that for all the whining and moaning I hear about SJWs and radical third wave feminists, I never actually encounter people that embody these beliefs in the flesh nor do I see their presence much online except when they're at the butt of a reddit attack . As I've observed the viewpoints of the new right herein referred to as Alt right being espoused more and more on places like reddit, large Facebook groups, in games annoyingly , YouTube comments Yes I sometimes read them , and more generally on any online forum or social network that young, western males frequent, I've also found it odd that I haven't seen the same concentrated, negative reaction to the new right that I've seen to SJWs on websites like reddit. From my perspective, the reddit community seems to be in a state of perpetual rage over SJWs and goes to great length to cherry pick instances of SJWs going nuts online or off , however the Alt right doesn't have such a label nor are its members grouped together and taken on in the same way that SJWs are. People complain about r The Donald and its users those who say cuck cuckservative so often they sound like chickens , but it isn't generally recognized that most young Donald Trump supporters represent the Alt right way of thinking. The Alt right in general isn't generally recognized or targeted at all by people who don't subscribe to their ideology. Currently, the Alt right is using the often justifiable hatred of the regressive left as a vehicle to recruit more members, typically young white males. After thinking about it and witnessing it for a long time, it hit me that the reason I seem to run into people espousing Alt right ideology every single time I use the internet is because I'm part of the same demographic, frequent the same places and have many overlapping interests with many of them I'm a gamer addicted to reddit, I'm a white western male, I don't use Twitter or Tumblr etc . The main difference is that I'm a bit older early 30s , which is probably why I don't know anyone in either camp personally and why it's taken me so long to get my head around it. I'm also Canadian and don't think my country is polarized to the same extent as the US or parts of Europe due to the refugees , though I'm sure new right ideology is gaining ground in Canada as well. Anyway, before this gets to wordy, here's the Wikipedia definition of the Alt right The alt right includes beliefs such as neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, national capitalism, identitarianism, white nationalism, antisemitism, racialism, white supremacism and American secessionism. 1 2 Commonalities shared across the otherwise loosely defined alt right include disdain for mainstream politics, strong support for the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, and anti Jewish and anti Zionist views. 5 15 16 Adherents view mainstream conservatives with ridicule and have been credited for originating and using the term cuckservative , 1 2 a neologistic epithet described by some as racist. 17 Sources such as Newsday and the Cornell Review note the alt right's strong opposition to both legal and illegal immigration, and their hardline stance on the European migrant crisis of 2015\u20132016. 5 7 Ethan Chiel, writing for Fusion, has described members of the alt right as identity obsessed . 18 Members of the alt right use social media and internet message boards such as 4chan and 8chan to share their beliefs. Here's someone intelligent objectively oh he's tryin' discussing the movement based on his interactions with them. Why I think the Alt right belongs in people's crosshairs as much as SJWs do They're the other side of the same coin and there are many similarities between them. Spend enough time tracking down proponents of this ideology and you will find plenty of people just as extreme and radical in their beliefs as the radical third wave feminists and SJWs that they hate. Some of those beliefs may be the antithesis to corresponding beliefs on the same spectrum on the left ie determinism versus free will, the role of personal responsibility etc , some may be neutral with respect to the left the Alt right is a lot more progressive regarding technology than the old right and are less likely to deny climate change , and others are more at home on the extreme right fear of white genocide , Islamaphobia, hatred of immigrants illegal immigration and refugees, white supremacism, nationalism, neoreactionary political stances often mirroring the established right, total rejection of academia, belief in cultural Marxism etc . I should add that the Alt right attacks SJWs for festering in online safe spaces echo chambers, the Alt right does something similar with infamous message boards like 4chan and Stormfront and parts of reddit like r theredpill, r The Donald, r European among others though the Alt right is more of a broad spectrum where many proponents adopt some core beliefs and not others. Like SJWs, it is a movement dominated by millennials. Unlike SJWs, most of the Alt right are young white men. The less open criticism that exists of this ideology and the more room they are given to entertain this ideology, the more deeply entrenched these beliefs will become and the more they will have a sway in political discourse in the years to come. Just to make it clear where I stand, the general progressive change that has come about as a result of public discourse is a categorically positive force in the world. The Alt right and SJWs alike represent is the pitfalls of exposing people who haven't developed the ability to think critically to long sessions with social media. I think the Alt right and SJW movement alike are products of online echo chambers. Historically, people in their formative years, outside of rigorous religious or ideological indoctrination, would entertain these beliefs privately without constant validation by others. Today, young people get a large part of their identity from interactions with larger online groups where they end up in positive feedback loops riding out whatever their confirmation bias is to its natural conclusion, sometimes indefinitely, aided by whatever groups they identify with. This is amplified when done in isolation with little or no guidance. I think that we live in changing times and a byproduct of information being democratized is what gatekeepers it once had teachers, intellectuals, academics, libraries, newspapers, the media etc , however fallible they were, are gone, and this democratization of information can be toxic to people who lack the critical thinking skills or life experience through which to process it. Without these skills people will just cling to that which satisfies their confirmation biases. Critical thinking is learned, it's not something we're born with and some people never bother to learn it. What this meant in the past is that people without this skill wouldn't have had the platform for their voice that they have today as to have a voice in the past meant one needed credentials, and while this wasn't perfect, it ensured for the most part that people who came out the other end were capable of some degree of critical thinking. Like many ideas you see on the internet, what SJWs believe are Bad Ideas that very few educated adults would entertain and these SJWs arrived at these conclusions by the same process that the Alt right did. What most proponents of the Alt right believes are also Bad Ideas, and in the past century many of these ideas were very much in vogue and the majority of intellectuals who've dealt with them over the past hundred years have concluded that they were categorically bad ideas that are partially responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Outside of the kind of large scale societal reform we desperately need, the only recourse people who don't belong to either of these camps have is to try and tackle these ideologies head on with reasoned words as we have a pretty good idea where they lead. The first step in doing so is identifying what these ideologies are, where they come from, who subscribes to them and why. Sympathy, too, in good measure. Downvotes and ad hominems won't do it. Walk them through how they arrived at these conclusions if you have to. The reason I put this in  is because I'd like to be wrong in my assessment of the Alt right and or be shown that it isn't as big a force as I believe it is. I've followed politics for a long time and never felt that my generation would be polarized the same way that older generations are, but here we are. It makes me deeply uncomfortable as does the relative silence about it. tl dr The SJW movement and regressive left has had a fair share of attention cast on it by reddit and the internet as a whole, however a lot of the people casting stones at the regressive left are leaning more and more to Alt right or new right ideology. I think that this is the other side of the same coin and think more people need to pay attention to this ideology, who subscribes to it and why, as if it continues unchecked as it has been then it could potentially become a new source of extremism in the future that halts progress in the same way that contemporary political polarization does or worse.\n","conclusion":"the Alt-right or new right is to conservatism what SJWs are to the left, but the Alt-right isn't discussed nearly enough\n","id":"6785b570-871c-4b44-a9a9-dea2a693334f"}
{"argument":"Sports are a form of entertainment. There will be a time when a separate category for PEDs is created. The audience will then dictate with their wallets whether this is to stay or go. I believe that it will overtake traditional sports with dramatic action.\n","conclusion":"Competition could be divided into 'enhanced' and 'normal' categories. Any legal enhancement would be allowed in 'Enhanced' competition.\n","id":"03c893a4-eb79-4ee1-9115-ebf48c974521"}
{"argument":"My team has a lineman who easily had about half of the team's false starts and almost all of the ineligible receiver downfield penalties. Because of him offensive drives stalled out multiple times. Yet today, I saw him being praised as the best lineman on the team. Although he probably is the best one, his errors caused a lot of problems for the offense. If I were an NFL scout, I would want to know how many times a player had false started since these penalties can really affect drives. If I had to decide between two relatively equal players, I would want to know these stats so I could make better decision. I also don't think that penalties like holding should count as a stat because they are judgement calls, whereas the two I listed are hard penalties and don't require judgement.\n","conclusion":"False Start and Ineligible Receiver penalties should be tracked as a stat for Offensive Linemen.\n","id":"9e07c738-ef13-47d4-b6a0-fad82a61ffbc"}
{"argument":"The Utoya attacker was not able to purchase an assault rifle AK-47 abroad and thus used the rifle Ruger Mini-14 that Norway's gun laws allowed him to obtain.\n","conclusion":"Limiting the capacity of the ammunition storage forces a reload which requires time and gives the targeted people a chance to escape.\n","id":"dc613342-3055-401a-951f-3e9fbf106fd0"}
{"argument":"Suddenly, it has become popular for companies to halt sales of their flags and for organizations to remove flags from their premises. There are thousands of political organizations and churches, along with Walmart, Amazon, Sears, and eBay, that are jumping on this moral bandwagon even though we've known about the historical implications of the confederate flag for over 150 years. These are not actions done out of nobility, or they would have rejected the flags before the craze had taken place. Corporations that stop sale of the flag are acting opportunistically. They see this as an opportunity to present their company in a good light.\n","conclusion":"The recent shunning of the confederate flag is not due to some sudden revelation of the horrors it represents.\n","id":"55bb6dea-ab4b-43fd-9365-a7d7aa468436"}
{"argument":"There are many many solutions to this. Marine permaculture, artificial lab grown meat, insect farming. However my greater point would be this - we will face an energy crisis, a water crisis as well as a food crisis, possibly an economic crisis and likely war in the mix. It is crisis that precipitates change, either these events will produce the desirable outcome, or we will die.\n","conclusion":"There are various ways to exploit existing agricultural resources more efficiently to meet food demands.\n","id":"0ec61223-7e07-4c19-9224-f152312a605e"}
{"argument":"Even with some interventions to natural law, science could still make observations, predictions, hypotheses, theories, and laws so long as these interventions weren't so frequent as to make such activity impossible or unfruitful.\n","conclusion":"Science would still be meaningful even if there are infrequent exceptions to natural laws such as intervention from God.\n","id":"33cb32b0-39cf-48a1-bb61-e472067f1b7a"}
{"argument":"Kantian ethics is a godless version of deontology, which proposes categorical imperatives. The requirement for these imperatives is that they should lead to good outcomes if followed by all people, in all circumstances. It also stresses the need to treat conscious beings as ends in their own right, and not means to lead to something greater.\n","conclusion":"There are other, superior, sources of philosophical frameworks and moral codes.\n","id":"c18c3f42-2acf-4e16-80f2-61d50807f45f"}
{"argument":"gt Moral nihilism also known as ethical nihilism is the meta ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. That is from the wiki article on moral nihilism, and pretty accurately describes my view. I don't see how moral expressions can be true or false, sort of like how, Ow isn't a true or false expression, but an expression nonetheless. For example I would interpret, Murder is immoral, as, essentially really saying, I really, really, really don't like murder. This doesn't mean that I have no values, or no preferences. I don't like murder, or rape, or slavery, or any of those terrible things. But at the same time, I would not say they are objectively bad in some sense. My argument for such a view is a bit technical, but it boils down to my premise that human ends and values are subjective. It makes sense to say, You should not murder random people, provided you would like to keep your friends. This is a hypothetical command, and may be true or false in this case probably true . But a statement like, You should not murder random people, has no hypothetical. It ignores the possibility that the person may have some end in mind which he thinks this fulfills. Or implicitly says ends are objective. This doesn't make sense to me. So lovers of morality, why might I be mistaken? What are the best arguments for objective morality? How can a statement like, You ought to do X? be objectively true? Edit Also I apologize if my responses are slow or reduced, I'm on my phone for the moment.\n","conclusion":"I think moral nihilism it correct,\n","id":"d0492044-c6ee-4076-83b1-aabcaafe737c"}
{"argument":"If the incest stems from child sexual abuse, that's a whole different thing and should probably be illegal. What I don't think is wrong is two individuals deciding to be in an incestual relationship as adults. I think the birth defects point is irrelevant. We don't stop non related couples with devastating genes from reproducing, doing so would be seen as an infringement on reproductive rights. There are also ways to prevent that, and other alternatives. It also falsely assumes every incestual couple wants children. Fucked up power dynamics can happen in other, legal relationships. Not every incestual relationship will necessarily have these issues. Even so, why can't a consenting adult choose to be in a relationship with a undesirable power structure? Assuming the relationship starts after they're all adults. If it doesn't, that's a different issue. That power issue is also no longer there if hypothetically they didn't grow up together. A parent child or sibling sibling could meet on the street, not know, and it wouldn't be any different from a relationship with non related individuals. Suddenly once they find out they're related, it's illegal. Let's take another example. Someone's mom has a boyfriend that grew up with a child. Mother and boyfriend broke up. The child is now an adult and pursues a relationship. It's got the power issue that everyone keeps mentioning, but it's completely legal because they aren't related.\n","conclusion":"I don't think there is anything wrong with incest, as long as it's started in adulthood.\n","id":"57d723fa-5c05-4138-96c6-40d3096ed094"}
{"argument":"I'll preface my view by stating that an unwilling subject should never have to undergo torture of any kind. This isn't a political observation about any country's foreign affairs. If I can willingly enlist into the military and risk my life for the sake of my country, I should be able to risk my life in a scientific and socially productive manner. That being said I think there is still a lot to be learned about humanity in many different aspects of life. Humans have performed countless unethical science experiments in philosophy, psychology, biology, and chemistry on each other since recorded history. I think its fair to say some of the experiments we now view as unethical, early mental health treatment for example, was only done to compound a preexisting prejudice. Anyone with an education can see whats wrong with experimenting in LGBT conversion therapies and truly destructive, harmful fields. To sum it all up, dying in consensual unethical experiment has much more potential to do good than dying fighting someone else's war.\n","conclusion":"If someone can legally enlist in the military, they should be able to legally sign themselves up for potentially inhumane and unethical scientific experiments.\n","id":"30f3c24d-03a1-406d-9b51-bdbbec944b15"}
{"argument":"The separation of powers is necessary to prevent abuse of power by those in government.\n","conclusion":"The wizarding world does not separate its executive or legislative from its judicial branch.\n","id":"584bdd89-5814-493a-aed7-27807665f4b2"}
{"argument":"I believe that we are headed towards a depolarization of masculinity and femininity is partially responsible for marriage failures and lack of attraction between people. I think we are equal, and also different, and shouldn't act as equal and the same. We should embrace our hormonal differences and how they affect our thought patterns and behaviors. While I understand feminist movements are ultimately out to secure women's rights, I feel that this notion of gender polarity is mistaken as the enemy, and is portrayed to be an inequality rather than an idea based on equality.\n","conclusion":"Gender polarity is necessary for attraction and relationships.\n","id":"ce968e12-3dbb-4ebc-8ccd-ad7ae3792ec5"}
{"argument":"Barack Obama is usually referred to as the 44th President of the United States. They say that on his White House Biography. And his Wikipedia page. But he is not the 44th person to be President. He is the 43rd person to be President. Grover Cleveland is counted as the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. This is because he was elected once, then defeated for re election, then ran again and won a re match. The ordinal position assigned to Cleveland seems silly to me. Grover Cleveland was the 22nd President of the United States. The fact that he was later elected again does not make him the 24th President also. We don't count 2nd terms in office as new Presidents, and we should not count them when they're nonconsecutive either.\n","conclusion":"Barack Obama is the 43rd President of the United States.\n","id":"bd2eb201-c41e-482f-ad64-d0d3043a4292"}
{"argument":"Jorden Peterson claims to be a christian but has a very different and nuanced view of the belief system which is not shared by a large majority of Christians. He states that the fact that this book has been around so long and has been so popular and enduring means there is something to it, which is illogical. Peterson states that Christianity and belief religion in general has been good for societies but most studies done nowadays show a negative correlation with religion for most aspects of societal health. He focuses on the symbology of the bible, but this does not speak to it's truth and can be done of any myth religion. I think his devotion to christianity is irrational yet he confuses the language to make his viewpoint seem in line with current knowledge scientifically and philosophically . All of his reasons for being a christian could be used for any other major religion. He is an apologist using intelligent sounding rhetoric in order to confirm other people's dogmatic belief in christianity this is just my opinion I don't want to argue his motives necessarily . I think JP is very intelligent and articulate but I think his defense of Christianity is unjustifiable and harmful.\n","conclusion":"Jordan Peterson's defense of Christianity is illogical.\n","id":"15e43297-913e-4703-8e70-157ab9a6f669"}
{"argument":"I used to be a huge advocate of free speech until after the 2016 election when I saw the now president Donald Trump actually win the presidency mostly through divisive politics but more importantly, through false allegations and blatant lies. And these lies occurred very frequently especially during the debates. Donald Trump ultimately mislead the public by appealing to their emotions not with convincing, fact based rhetoric, but with lies and divisive oratory. I believe with any civilization, the people have certain responsibilities to society to fulfill to ensure it's functionality and efficiency. Public political figures also have a responsibility to the public and they should be using their influence to bring about a better society just as the average citizen works to do the samel. Although this is a normative claim, I believe this to be a general axiom. Political decisions should always be fact based. I don't believe very many people will disagree with this. Since trump has built his campaign on lies as opposed to truth, his presidency is now also built upon the same foundation. Which would explain his idiotic policies such as his protectionism even though the vast majority of economists are pro free trade his recent crusade against violent video games even though this debate ended during the 90s and early 2000s finding no visible link between video games and violence and his nonsense relating to how immigrants cause tremendous crime even though that too is unsurprisingly, nonsense and this rhetoric is being used to crack down on otherwise productive members of society. These are just a few examples and there are many, many more. I believe, and I would imagine most educated people believe that policy should be fact based. And trump's rhetoric about how he's supposedly going to bring jobs back to the Rustbelt by increasing tariffs which will just make consumer goods more expensive for the average american anyways will not happen and is also nonsense Not only will he not bring back these jobs but he's essentially lied to a large part of his voter base praying on their hope that they will get their manufacturing, coal and steel jobs back when that is not going to happen. My question is, why should society tolerate this? Policy should always be fact based yet politicians are able to spew pernicious and regressive nonsense in the name of free speech without contemplating the outcome of said speech. Now you may think that since I used trump as an example that he is the primary problem but I actually believe that this is a fundamental issue with our current democracy. Until the voter and the politician become educated on the issues at hand, I don't believe we can ever have an efficient and fulfilling society. And if this is unachievable, I believe the state has a duty to ensure that those with a voice of reason be platformed and encouraged while those who have a record of spreading falsehood be platformed and censored at least until they can get their facts straight. Now of course i'm going to get the response on how Orwellian it sounds to have the state platform some people and deplatform others but If a state is run by educated people who hold factualism as a virtue, I don't believe this would be too much of an issue. I will recognize the potential issues in my proposed system but my main issues with our current democracy stays the same and I believe that in principle, influencial figures should not be allowed to spread nonsense as it is extremely harmful to society and prevents fact based policy from being enacted. Edit This is why I'm not concerned about Obama's lies or anyone else before him gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Popular and\/or influential demagogues and public figures should be censored if they consistently perpetuate false narratives and false information.\n","id":"813ac2f5-55a1-4f40-be51-a32af1268e78"}
{"argument":"I am a very sexually open minded person, so do not think I am a bigot here. I myself am bisexual, so I have experienced prejudice in the LGBT community and society at large, so I can understand the judgment non heterosexual people face, so understand that. However, especially as someone who is bisexual and is attracted to males and females, I do not see the point of being pansexual . I do not see the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. I know the definition of the word, as in gender not being a factor in your decision making process in finding a mate, but in practice that is literally no different from bisexuality. I am bisexual, and I do not actively seek a male or female partner specifically, I choose someone based on who they are, if we get along and if I am sexually attracted to them. I do not see how that is different from being gender blind , as pansexual people claim to be. To me, it seems people who are pansexual simply need to feel special and different. It may be confirmation bias, but every person I have met who has identified as pansexual has fit this mold. For me, it just seems that pansexual is a term for when bisexual is too mainstream. I am an open minded person and would like to hear different opinions and obviously have my views changed as I have many friends who identify as pansexual even my significant other does and I would like to understand it better. Thank you for your time.\n","conclusion":"I think the word \"Pansexual\" is a meaningless term for people who need to feel special.\n","id":"145db5dd-bd92-493b-a8f4-482319f2447b"}
{"argument":"There should be nothing acceptable about walking around showing others your underwear. It is not civilized behavior, and it is potentially in violation of indecency laws what about a man showing nothing but boxers with little girls walking nearby? , but it is not and will not be addressed because of the fear of being called racist. My view Saggy pants is not a cultural quirk, nor akin wearing your hat backward. it is offensive in a very real way, and should not be tolerated in the sense that indecency laws were created for the same underlying reason Edit so through a few comments in this thread, I've altered my view on this it has been correctly noted that many ethnic groups sag their pants Offensive really is subjective, and I've realized the solution is a society I really don't want to live in shira law for example there really are examples of dress that could be more offensive from that perspective\n","conclusion":"Saggy pants are unacceptable but tolerated because of white guilt\n","id":"e2129577-e10d-4402-81a4-c3ae4dd0f71f"}
{"argument":"One might expect that a true religion or belief system would encourage the better treatment of all things.\n","conclusion":"It is possible to avoid hell if one system is a lie, and the other the truth.\n","id":"fb7be7f3-a88d-47ad-9a99-49a14833e358"}
{"argument":"Descendants of slavers, and other survivors, were not federally mandated to offer any services to the now free black Americans, as compensation.\n","conclusion":"Other than being nominally free, there was no financial recompense to former slaves from the spoils of that war.\n","id":"6077b99b-ef62-41c7-9d37-0af313db3300"}
{"argument":"Even with full-ride scholarships, many students still have to cover out-of-pocket for expensive textbooks and supplies in order to participate in class. For lower income students, this added expense can cause debt and more hardship.\n","conclusion":"College students from low socioeconomic backgrounds face tremendous financial challenges in comparison to other students. This often forces them into debt.\n","id":"ba4b063a-0eb8-4d46-82f9-04970648db8e"}
{"argument":"The role of the government in my country United States is to protect its people. I do not believe that medical attention is something that should be given only to those who can afford it. I believe that tax dollars should be used to help all citizens with medical concerns, regardless of their position in the tax bracket. Privatization of the medical industry has created a system where society's richest can afford the best care. This is wrong and should not occur. While the nationalization of the medical industry will cost thousands of jobs, it will leave the country better off in the long run. Although I consider myself an economic conservative and pro business, I don't believe business has a place in the medical field. While I recognize that there are some anomalies, I don't believe the horror stories fed to us of how citizens under socialized medicine must wait months for essential medical treatment. While I'm sure some of you may be able to produce specific examples of this, I don't believe it is indicative of an overall trend. . Edit Thanks for the responses. I definitely didn't expect this to get as big as it is. I've read them all so far and am now looking at healthcare and the role of government from several new angles.\n","conclusion":"I believe that healthcare is a basic human right and should be provided by the government to everyone.\n","id":"2e1114a3-5b4a-49f8-985b-347c33eb90d2"}
{"argument":"Barabra Walters gets a lot of flack for this clip Corey Feldman is back in the spotlight. He has started a Kickstarter campaign to raise 10 million dollars. If successful he will produce a movie in which he will finally expose the men who sexually abused him in as a child. There are more comments being directed at Barbara in light of all this. I understand that perhaps Barbara could have had more tact and more empathy for the man who was sexually abused, however I agree with her sentiment 100 . By not naming the people who abused him, Corey is allowing it to continue. In addition, by him making a public issues that there is a huge pedophile ring in Hollywood, but not naming them, he is in fact damaging the entire industry. If a celebrity went to multiple interviews and talked alot about the racists on reddit, it would damage reddit. People would think reddit is full of racists or somehow revolves around racists. There are a few racists on reddit, but for the most part there aren't too many. Corey is doing the same thing. I wish he would just name the names and let's get on with the pitchforks. Him asking for a 10 million dollar movie contract just puts a sour taste in my mouth. edit spelling gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Regarding Corey Feldman: I believe Barbara Walters was right. \"You're damaging an entire industry\"\n","id":"d0748930-bfe5-4d47-bca5-632bd5e84f36"}
{"argument":"religion has been misunderstood the concept of the entire universe is in the bible and Quran and Torah and injel it's all true by only Quran is in its original shape and the truth is the end to the entire system is near! we are not here forever\n","conclusion":"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.\n","id":"ebdf1654-6ad1-451a-b724-e971f77d01e0"}
{"argument":"I'm honestly a bit on the fence about this. I'll admit that this came to the forefront of my mind because it was brought up during the debates tonight, but it's something that I've thought about for awhile. Back in 2007, there was a particularly horrific home invasion in Connecticut where the mother was killed and her two daughters, 11 and 17 were raped, tied to their beds, then doused in gasoline and set on fire. The crime was, without a doubt, horrendous. At one point, when asked about the trial, the lead defender brought up that he also has a family and would be horrified if something like that happened to them, however he was there \u201cto protect people\u2019s right to a fair trial. You\u2019re acting on behalf of the U.S. Constitution, and the state constitution no matter how challenging and horrible the charges.\u201d On one hand, the crime was awful, how can anyone stand to defend such a terrible thing? On the other hand, everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. For fair trial to happen, in my opinion, they would need a good defense attorney. This is only possible if we don't vilify public defenders who take on unsavory cases. I'm open to having my mind changed about this and I'm curious to hear other opinions on this. Tl dr Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. For this to be viable, we need public defenders who are willing to do their best, no matter how horrific the crimes that their client committed. . EDIT A lot of posts are specifically talking about Hillary Clinton's defense strategy for a crime committed over 40 years ago. I'd like to not devote this entire thread talking about one specific public defender and their actions. These type of things have occurred in much more recent history. Another one that comes to mind is the Trayvon Martin case. Mark O'Mara was vilified for going after Trayvon's character. EDIT 2 This thread devolved into an election debate, which was not my original intention. I did not help matters because I brought up the Hillary's case as an example. Unfortunately, this was the example that was discussed more often than any other. Doing further research into other prominent defense attorneys, I am honestly struggling to find many who haven't had their ethics criticized. Based on this evidence, it seems like this problem isn't uncommon for defense attorneys. I haven't had my view changed, but, it doesn't look like it matters, as public opinion seems to be shifting in the opposite direction.\n","conclusion":"Court appointed defense attorneys should not be criticized for doing their best to defend their client, no matter how reprehensible their client's actions.\n","id":"73e6efed-c817-4a57-9823-beb799ce9d65"}
{"argument":"It's been six years, and we've heard absolutely nothing. In the time since HL2E2 came out, Valve has released Portal 1 and 2, Left 4 Dead 1 and 2, Team Fortress 2 and a handful of other games but we've still not seen or heard anything new. No official announcements and lots of dodging questions it doesn't even seem like it's being actively worked on as a project. At this point, the longer wait isn't going to ramp up any more hype or demand for the game. I can't think of a reason not to pursue another game except that Valve is just not interested in it. Which I guess isn't so bad because, for a game that came out a decade ago, Half Life 2 and all its episodic sequels are still amazing and worth a hundred replays each, but it does smart that HL2E2 left off on such a cliffhanger.\n","conclusion":"I think Half-Life 3\/Episode 3 is never going to come out. Or at least not anytime soon\n","id":"a4d67c4e-21c6-4204-8707-149759a36022"}
{"argument":"Dennis Prager is a conservative spokesperson and started the conservative YouTube channel PragerU He is suing Google YouTube over restricting about 35 of the videos on his channel. He claims that the reason why is because of their conservative nature. The details of what YouTube has done with this channel's videos aren't really important, so for the sake of the argument let's just assume that YouTube officially decided to delete the videos only because they don't like conservative videos and no other reason. By suing Google, Prager is being hypocritical Google is a private company. If they want to ban ALL conservative videos, they should have the right to. The free market should be the solution to this problem from Prager's perspective. There actually are other methods of posting public videos besides YouTube. If Prager doesn't like YouTube's policies, then he should simply go somewhere else to post his videos. Even if you take every claim Prager has made at face value, he shouldn't be suing them. It isn't conservative to sue a private company because you don't like their political views. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Dennis Prager is being blatantly hypocritical by suing Google over YouTube restricting PragerU videos\n","id":"2e609f8c-a536-4d78-9f30-dea349ec4ab0"}
{"argument":"Religion stands next to race, gender and sexual preference as a primary source of bigotry, which, even where it results in no specific and\/or deliberate malevolent acts, has still blighted humanity, destroying relationships and potential relationships.\n","conclusion":"Religions have been a prominent source of conflict and strife all over the world and through all ages.\n","id":"5c954ae6-f96b-45a4-9406-0b760d20d638"}
{"argument":"Various meteors have been found on Earth containing amino acids, such as the Orgueil and Murchison meteorites. This, combined with the Urey-Miller experiment which showed how easy it can be to create environments where relatively organic compounds are generated from inorganic matter, suggests that the conditions for the genesis of life may be quite common.\n","conclusion":"Biological and chemical fragments and combinations which are required for life have already been found outside Earth or on extraterrestrial bodies.\n","id":"1d5b62b8-5284-4255-9809-5212787e3ecb"}
{"argument":"Kamala put forward a 22-page list of guidelines for app developers, networks, mobile carriers and others aimed at minimizing privacy conflicts and moving the mobile world away from sweeping up every shred of personal data.\n","conclusion":"Kamala Harris has demonstrated a commitment to upholding online privacy, which according to a study is a major concern for US citizens.\n","id":"d1008d61-28ce-476f-82a7-90da495af3d0"}
{"argument":"With The Great Gatsby movie coming out a friend of mine scoffed at the idea of me seeing it without reading the book first. He holds the belief that I have encountered often in my life, that a film adaptation is somehow beneath the book. Now the argument I generally hear for that is a movie distorts the story through it's interpretations by the actors and director. My response to that is so what? Why should I give F. Scott Fitzgerald's creative work more weight than I do Leonardo DiCaprio's? They are both telling a story, and quite frankly I don't care if the adaptation strays from the original. The other argument is that a movie cannot capture the full details of a novel. My counter for that is often novels have to overload you with details to create a vivid physical picture. Film can accomplish that much more quickly. Just to clarify, I am not trying to belittle the artistic merit of novels. I won't choose a movie over the book because reading is boring or anything like that. I simply think that film can be an equally valuable medium to convey a theme. Edit I'm realizing I should have reworded my stance. No, a movie is not a perfect substitute for a novel. I don't argue that they are different experiences, just that one is not intrinsically better than the other. Essentially it boils down to, if I was limited in my ability to only experience one over the other, I don't think the novel should be the default simply because it is the source. My fault for not being more clear.\n","conclusion":"I believe watching the movie IS a good substitute for reading the book.\n","id":"e76b754b-195c-4395-89cf-b72753232cd8"}
{"argument":"Enforcing anti-discrimination laws makes religious organisations unable to comply with the parts of their scripture that endorse discrimination, and thus prevents them from fully exercising their religious faith.\n","conclusion":"Government should not intervene in the way religious organisations work. Exemptions achieve the necessary separation of state and religion.\n","id":"b94c1d53-7ca4-43de-aa11-74ac430b50e1"}
{"argument":"Ok so we have the biggest accuser of one of the most powerful man in the world, she ruined his career and public image. Then that woman is revealed to have paid hush money to a former child actor because he accused her of having assaulted him while he was 17 underage in California . What's the most likely? That a 37 model raped a 17 something boy, that he said nothing for 5 years, came forward but not publicly, mind you when he saw her accusing Weinstein, then took hush money and then leaked it anyway? Or that Weinstein used his all remaining resources and connections to find dirt on his biggest accuser, finally found a guy who had sex with her in a state where he was underage at the time, convinced him to press false assault charges she would not be able to refute publicly because she would have to call her accuser a liar when that was contrary to the whole MeToo cause, cornered her into paying hush money, then leak the whole thing to finish destroying her? This smells bad, really bad. She may be a sexual predator, and maybe having to deal with Weinstein in her youth did sick things to her mind, and this is all a sad story of a bullied girl turning bad. But seriously does the other version seems that unlikely? And a last point that would never have crossed my mind before today, one so crazy I have chills down my spine just thinking it might have the slightest change of being true how exactly did Bourdain died anyway? Hung himself, that's not exactly that hard to fake. Biggest accuser of extremely rich and connected old guy, have her love life and career ruined within a year? Talk about some bad luck. Edit I'd really like someone to point out the things that are wrong with this reasoning, because I very much would like to be wrong, this would make the world a less scary place.\n","conclusion":"Weinstein is behind Asia Argento's year of shit\n","id":"982d53be-a54b-454f-9185-4d72f9afc875"}
{"argument":"This is because private equity's major priority isn't the long-term health of the companies it buys, but rather to make money and make it quickly.\n","conclusion":"Private equity intervention causes bankruptcy more often than it forestalls it.\n","id":"d8da8847-8206-428b-90ac-427f7552f953"}
{"argument":"People may call those who eat pizza with pineapple not nice names and it can potentially hurt them.\n","conclusion":"One can not assume that a pineapple pizza eating person will not hurt someone.\n","id":"68914793-13a9-4773-853d-556458b5114b"}
{"argument":"This could likely be because white people generally don't suffer as a result of racism, making it a smaller concern for them personally than it does for people of color.\n","conclusion":"Studies have shown that white people often show less empathy on issues of race. It stands to reason that white teachers would be no different.\n","id":"95ce6b03-0885-4100-bcbd-b833e6555948"}
{"argument":"America is a White Supremacist country that is slowly reversing. The term race was coined by a European person that justified race as being a a huge biological difference that meant that white people were superior to blacks and gave reason to them being subjugated as slaves in the Americas. That caused racism. It is like saying that anti semiticism being created by non Jewish people to discriminate against them can now be turned around to say Jewish people are anti semitic. Please don't give me examples of bigotry and hatred committed by minorities in America. The hatred was caused by White Supremacy. Edit I don't really understand how criticizing and fighting your own religion is anti said religion. It's like saying protestants fighting over puritans is anti Christian. What? And fighting within your continent over land and resources is not racism, it's tribalism. Taking land back from invaders is not racism, it's taking land back. If the native Americans were able to kick us out, it's called defending yourself, not racism. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"If Jewish people can't be anti-semitic, then non-whites cannot be racist\n","id":"139c6a72-60df-495e-9a5e-9cbe88058b94"}
{"argument":"All the work First of all I probably have to take the first step s to even go on a date. Meaning I first have to find someone that might be willing to go on a date with me. Just this can be tedious work, requiring many hours of recon. Then I have to ask said woman out on a date and I probably would have to chip out for her meal as well. Then there is two outcomes, we click or we don't. If we don't I am pretty much back at scratch perhaps some earlier recon is still valid . If we click, then I must probably go on more dates. More chipping out. And if things really go well I have to start living with this woman and adjust eliminate add lots of things and doings to please said woman. Is it really worth it? I mean, I would be able to fuck once in a while, but my right hand is a good companion. I have been in two relationships before. One lasted three years, where we lived together for two of them and one long distance relationship that lasted about seven or eight weekends for half a year.\n","conclusion":"I don't think it is worth the hassle to neither get a girlfriend dating nor maintaining a relationship.\n","id":"14e6b39f-a2d6-4876-8fca-b284c4d63734"}
{"argument":"Live chats allow for students to answer each other's while the teacher is presenting, allowing for less interruption and effort by the teacher.\n","conclusion":"When live interaction features are built in though, they're often better than in-person interacting.\n","id":"b43201b8-408f-48f5-9cc7-0fed9145c530"}
{"argument":"It's desirable but we can't conclude it exists just because we want to. Not in a way that we can bring into existence anything it would require by modus tollens.\n","conclusion":"The existence of moral responsibility as a fact of natural law is itself debatable.\n","id":"495b1524-acc0-48d5-8d6d-e55af4d95207"}
{"argument":"The public is sick of the billions of wasted dollars per year just to lock people up, with no effect on drug availability.\n","conclusion":"The public is sick of wasting tax dollars on marijuana.\n","id":"799b61e8-80a0-4f4a-8e54-f9498fb09895"}
{"argument":"Attorney General Eric Holder said in Congressional hearings in November of 2009 on his decision to try 9\/11 terrorists in New York civilian courts: \"I\u2019m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be afraid either.. I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is.\"9\n","conclusion":"Courtroom rants of terrorists only expose them as hateful fools\n","id":"99346c43-ea79-41e2-955b-4487dbcbe80c"}
{"argument":"The logic of supply and demand is very strong in our societies throughout all kinds of different spheres. The earlier children learn to embrace those principles the better.\n","conclusion":"Market principles and family business do not exclude each other.\n","id":"63f1c17f-d879-48d7-9f49-c7d8eeb314d5"}
{"argument":"The electoral college was created, much like the Senate, to empower less populous states. It has worked exactly how it was meant to work. The 2016 election demonstrated that the system is working. Urban voters, whose political views are often guided or dominated by the media elites on the coasts, were unable to politically subjugate their rural neighbors through the federal government.\n","conclusion":"The electoral college works to reduce the influence of densely populated areas and give fair power to smaller states.\n","id":"df7b2d84-3c72-47ce-9576-e5de668d9ae3"}
{"argument":"For example, inflation creates incentives to spend more in the present and save or invest less in the future, as returns are eroded by the declining real value of money.\n","conclusion":"Unexpected inflation distorts behavior and creates mal-investments, increased market risk, and lower future growth.\n","id":"6960bd14-a91a-49d4-9bbd-732c5620874f"}
{"argument":"Essentially, it is my position that the entire universe has no rationally discernible purpose for existing, nor does any other thing in the universe except technology have any rationally discernible purpose for existing. I choose to define technology as things made by intelligences applying creativity to naturally occurring elements or other technology. Reality does not appear to have a designer. There is no clear need for a designer to exist, no obvious designer has stepped forward, and the various claims put forward for proof of a designer are lacking in evidence. If there is a designer, then perhaps the universe does have a purpose, but there is no way to know what that purpose is. Without a designer, we have a universe that simply exists. Apparently it exists because this happens to be a stable arrangement for all this matter energy stuff, which apparently exists because why the fuck not . It might have something to do with an infinite number of potential states of existence. Or something. We will never know for sure. Maybe, someday, we will actually figure out some experiment that will prove a theory and we will know HOW reality came to be. But why? Why does this all exist? Why am I here? Why are you here? or the real brain buster Why do duck billed platypus exist? What is the point of that? That's the big joke on all of us. We will never know for sure. We cannot know for sure. To claim otherwise is to engage in the first intellectual deception . It is to claim knowledge a priori , that pernicious refuge of scoundrels, knowledge without fact or evidence. You know because you know. If we are honest, we must admit that if there is a purpose to the universe, we cannot know what it is. If we admit we cannot know there is a purpose to the universe, then we must admit that there is essentially no purpose to the universe. Thus when we talk about philosophical issues, and ask questions like How should I act? and What should I do with my life? or Can I kill Justin Bieber?, we must always start from the position that there is no purpose in existence, and that the rules are either physical laws of existence, which are trivial in the Wittgenstein sense of trivia , or they are things we have chosen to believe are true. Anyone want to change my view? Can you convince me that reality has a purpose other than Whatever I want it to be today?\n","conclusion":"I believe that nihilism is the only rational worldview, and all rational philosophical positions must begin from nihilism.\n","id":"706c155d-ddd7-4c74-88a3-2a1074e5cb8a"}
{"argument":"Free speech as always given us a means of change, a trustworthy way of fighting real issues, sometimes even a way of uncovering corruption and crimes all over the world. I am Portuguese, living in Portugal. Free speech here is not an issue. However, in Europe there is a growing number of religious leaders from all sides Be it Christian, be it Muslim, be it whatever , that advocate a sort of holy war, a means to erradicate the cultural presence of others. With the growing number of communities that form around these local religious leaders , children and young people are growing with violent speeches in their ears. Although i do believe in religious freedom, i do not believe that people should be able to use hate speech to garner attention. It has brought violence in all sides, it has increased racism and xenophobia in Europe. I believe that free speech should have limitations. It sounds weird, strange that free should have limitations, but the education of young people should be free from hate. Am i in the wrong here? Is it a slippery slope? P.S. please no atheism vs religion, i hate r atheism i know i spoke of religion, but what i really want to stress is the freedom of speech. p.s. first post here, hope everything is in order. Edit Ok people, i have to go to work now. Im not saying i have changed my mind completely, but the truth is you've all made me think in some points i haven't really thought about. If some of you could recommend books on free speech i would love to read them. Thank you all.\n","conclusion":"I believe that free speech should not apply to all forms os speech, example, religious hate speech.\n","id":"e2150bf7-541d-421c-9a90-231f6ea82fef"}
{"argument":"Presuming that commercial media still exists, there will be money to be made from this.\n","conclusion":"Celebrities failing would be the most amusing mishaps, not those of average Joe.\n","id":"65c37c11-b1ad-4d9a-a1fd-e3a8454a72fc"}
{"argument":"According to Scientific American the worldwide phosphorus shortage poses an immediate threat to our food supply. Phosphorus is one of the most important elements in soil, and without a sufficient supply, crops are unable to grow.\n","conclusion":"World population is already unsustainably high, and key natural resources fresh water, oil and gas, phosphorus, various other minerals are expected to run out in a few decades.\n","id":"4c3fd53d-c5fe-4c18-bddf-235d075ffcb2"}
{"argument":"Before you refer me to r suicidewatch, I'm not suicidal by any means, but have been meditating on this topic due to a recent suicide of a friend. For some individuals, they enter a stage in life knowing that the near future is painful and miserable. An individual with Huntington's Disease for instance, or a person whom has a cancer causing virus such as certain strains of HPV . The present moment may easily be embraced, but may also remain tolerable in condition that one has the control to end their life once a serious disease settles in and significantly changes that individual's life for the worse. A counterargument is often the question of whether said person is of sound mental health when contemplating suicide. But such an argument can only be made by someone who does not understand daily misery. I feel it is selfish of others to deny a suffering individual their own suicide, simply because it'll negatively impact the lives of those close to him her. This individual is in pain, suffering profoundly physically and often mentally , and people want to keep that person going for their own mental security. .\n","conclusion":"Our lives are our own, so we should have the right to end if disease and pain are likely to make up the remainder of it.\n","id":"cc252301-f940-4385-b159-52beb6180e85"}
{"argument":"People who are beggars tend to be homeless, and for a reason. Various circumstantial and mental health issues are at play. Criminalising begging only makes them more vulnerable. It is, in essence, placing a penalty on destitution\n","conclusion":"When governments fail to uphold their duty in protecting their citizens from extreme poverty, it is wrong to punish these failed citizens by banning begging.\n","id":"0585a103-25b7-475a-bd00-9ed6accc2974"}
{"argument":"An examination of whose perspectives were considered in the erection of these monuments reveals immense bias towards one side of the Confederacy. This is because African Americans weren't able to exercise their rights, their votes, or their voice in the post-war South as Whites could.\n","conclusion":"Uncontested does not mean that they were accepted. A lot of people have only found the courage to speak up about them recently yet have taken issue with them for years.\n","id":"4008488c-6a7d-43c7-8a70-2e93f46328f1"}
{"argument":"The place too look for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon is in the Middle East and Jerusalem areas. That is where the book starts and where place names have been found, namely Nahum which, in fact, exists.\n","conclusion":"Old World Archaeological Finds: Discoveries in the Arabian Peninsula support the Book of Mormon's authenticity.\n","id":"c3d3a6f0-932a-4cdc-9401-c0694f968d6d"}
{"argument":"Comedian Kathy Griffin was famously photographed with a bloodied severed head of Donald Trump; this implicit threat became mainstream news, mostly devoid of condemnation. This is indicative of the insidious mounting violence from the left that is being condoned and normalised.\n","conclusion":"Incitement of violence against white supremacists is no different than incitement of violence against other groups. If white supremacists must be censored to protect other groups, then those who endanger the lives of white supremacists must be censored as well\n","id":"715b7bba-5468-4b1c-ac59-d7472c47ea58"}
{"argument":"Section give the ability to admitted or detained and treated someone in hospital against therewishes This also take away the write to refuse treatment. The Human rights which are relevant gt Article 3 \u2013 the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment gt Article 5 \u2013 the right to liberty. gt Article 8 \u2013 the right to respect for an individual's private life. I'm purely talking about people who don't pose a risk of other. The best way of describing this would be though a example Taking someone suffering from cancer which has been caught early and could easy be remove. The patient can refuse this treatment as they wish, against recommendations, even if that results in the death or at least increase there chance of death. In this case the patient wishes would be respected. Taking someone suffering from eating disorder which has been caught early and could easy be helped. The patient refuse this treatment and are eventually sectioned against there wish and forced into treatment. In this case it doesn't directly fix the underling issue just do a quick fix to keep that person alive. One released they are free to go back to there previous ways and fall back into the trap. This could be the same with a lot of other mental illnesses. This would go directly against Article 3,5 and 8. This case would be the same for any other illnesses. Bottom line If they patient were suffering from another illness they would be respected and treated differently It only keep the patient 'living' by covering over the patch Will lead to the patient becoming alienated from Dr's in the future and not reach out for other problems. Edit I'm referring to the UK but there are similar laws in other countries\n","conclusion":"Section is a breach of Human rights and doesn't fix any original problems\n","id":"0b13663f-426b-4fea-8411-7753c8f32f5c"}
{"argument":"Government is a blunt hammer. It is not a subtle enough instrument to make delicate moral or ethical judgments, or to take effective corrective action. Social approbation, on the other hand, is a scalpel, and a delicate enough instrument to do these things. People like to be liked; leave the tools of guilt, shame, confrontation, and conversation, to address the problem, rather than the prison-yard, the fine, the parole officer, and the chain gang.\n","conclusion":"Government cannot and should not make every morally wrong act illegal.\n","id":"6808d8c4-0dd4-4413-8f9e-13bb0d7baac9"}
{"argument":"It is deeply important that students be left entirely free to make up their own minds about important issues. To the extent that some views are required or forbidden, they are being indoctrinated rather than being given a liberal education.\n","conclusion":"University campuses should be spaces that are neutral with respect to ideas.\n","id":"c32f1149-7683-40fa-8035-6bcb22e63308"}
{"argument":"Harming animals has a connection with harming humans, and being sexually aggressive with a virtual woman has a connection with sexism, abuse and rape on real women.\n","conclusion":"Human brain would learn that not all violence leads to taking personal accountability for it.\n","id":"446bb418-0cf8-427a-a1ec-7975c8e8e4e6"}
{"argument":"Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to the US is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect.1 1 BBC News, \u2018Guantanamo appeal denied\u2019, 12 March 2003,\n","conclusion":"Enemy combatants are not US citizens and as such they should not enjoy any protection which a US citizen enjoys under the Constitution.\n","id":"1d90a49f-bd08-40ce-8a4c-063920bc2a13"}
{"argument":"I started reseraching the effect of physical punishment, especially light physical punishment such as spanking. What I found out is that spanking has many negative effects on child development while it doesn't have any visible perks that other methods of discipline wouldn't also offer. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Parents are more likely to use aversive techniques of discipline when they are angry or irritable, depressed, fatigued, and stressed which, according to them , challenges most the notion that parents can spank in a calm, planned manner . Also, they say that because of the negative consequences of spanking and because it has been demonstrated to be no more effective than other approaches for managing undesired behavior in children, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in developing methods other than spanking in response to undesired behavior. This is pretty clear in and of itself, but there are also other sources. This study is also pretty clear. Its title is Spanking and Child Development We Know Enough Now To Stop Hitting Our Children I believe that these scientific facts are not adequatly represented on reddit and not in the entirety of the US, where spanking of children is still legally allowed. Outlawing would be the correct step to take. I should also add that I have a personal bias since I myself was not spanked and have not had any experiences with violence from my parents side in my childhood. I believe that a pro spanking view is mostly either based on survivorship bias because you have experienced it yourself and still turned out alright, religious views, or any other personal reason but definitly not on scientific census or studies. This is especially present on reddit. edit It's nice to know that even in  there are users that get mad and downvote all your posts in a thread and history.\n","conclusion":"Reddit is mostly wrong about spanking. Spanking is hurtful for child development and thus shouldn't be used. This reality should also be put into law.\n","id":"d7d48a23-02d3-441d-95fa-2d5caedb99c7"}
{"argument":"This is a policy idea I've been kicking around in my head a bit. Essentially, the government would finance maybe through a prize based system the writing of public domain textbooks for most subjects grade levels in the US, and provide copies of them free of charge to any American who asked, and to schools who asked. The reasons for this are Schools are already almost entirely a government run project, and this would be a much more efficient way of procuring textbooks than the current system of paying overpriced private contractors on a per book basis. So I think overall it would take less government money than the current scheme. It would substantially aid people in college and homeschool students who currently have to pay for their own books. It would produce a large volume of public domain works people could spin off from to produce their own versions if they wanted without having to worry about copyright. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The US government should produce and print textbooks and provide them for free to the public\/schools\/students.\n","id":"463cb3ad-697c-45b9-a09f-77a7b127d9ca"}
{"argument":"For years I have been cheering for the LA Clippers, but I can't capture that emotional connection most of the fans have. I thought if i did it lng enough i would eventually care. But i just don't. The team isnt owned by the city, so i dont care in a regional way. I always revert back to not cheering for the Los Angeles Clippers , I feel i am cheering for Steve Ballmer. Really, I like Steve, but i feel I should wear a Ballmer tshirt instead of a Clippers one. I really really want to be a Clippers fan.\n","conclusion":"I have been trying to support profession sports teams, but I feel I am just cheering for a wealthy owner. I don't want to cheer for the owner.\n","id":"6b080ea1-6e30-468f-8195-7465e440db24"}
{"argument":"There are already humans thats can't feel pain. if you wouldn't eat them then you should answer no to this suggestion.\n","conclusion":"Modifying animals to be pain-free can put them at risk.\n","id":"be386264-1206-4a9d-ad50-1f898719d72e"}
{"argument":"While it may be more related to nurture or a combination of the two, genetic variation can also affect a person's sheer drive or determination as well as their risk tolerance. Such people while perhaps otherwise normal, are simply relentless or daring in their pursuit of fame and fortune such as early explorers or people like Houdini.\n","conclusion":"Variations can result in someone \"gifted\" with higher cognitive functions. They may learn faster and understand deeper, they may conceptualize better, or they may be especially creative.\n","id":"53b44d4d-dc57-4523-ae38-948d6375cefd"}
{"argument":"While I understand the economic principle of comparative advantage and acknowledge that 'free trade' deals have generally reduced the cost of consumer goods in the US, I believe that these free trade deals have been a net negative for American workers specifically from a wage earning perspective . Comparative advantage I agree this should hold in principle, but in reality, these comparative advantages often stem from different labor laws, environmental regulations, intellectual protection enforcement levels, etc. While that certainly lowers the prices of goods for US consumers, this does not result in a 'fair trade' or an equal playing field for US workers. Re tooling re education programs Again, while free trade deals have reduced prices for consumers and opened up markets for corporations which are disproportionately owned by classes gt white collar workers , these deals appear to have done little to help those displaced re tool or re educate themselves in order to find other comparable wage earning opportunities. Overall, I can't imagine that the obsolescence of vocation training apprenticeship programs throughout the country is a good thing for American workers in general now and into the future. I for one would be willing to spend more for quality goods produced in the US, but I'm certainly somewhat privileged living in a thriving coastal community. Perhaps this is a highly incomplete view. If so, please . Thanks. Edit 1 I just want to emphasize that my view is that the US does not appear to have done much to protect the workers impacted by such deals, and that it is the responsibility of the US government to do so since it is the one that entered these deals in the first place. Edit 2 Thanks for the replies. My view is definitely evolving as a result of them. I no longer attribute the damage to US workers to trade deals based on the evidence cited. But I still hold the view that the US government could have done more to ensure a more equal playing field in a globalized economy, and that its failure to do so has been a net negative for US workers. However, I suppose that is a different view than my original one, so please consider my original view changed. Thank you gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"'Free trade' deals have been a net negative for American workers\n","id":"cfb225ba-3033-45f0-8287-e71974fe8c16"}
{"argument":"This argument comes up frequently over at r CFB, and I just got into a discussion about it over at r Texans after listening to an interview in which Deandre Hopkins and Arian Foster both agreed that the NCAA are pimps and the athletes are the whores . A few reasons why I believe colleges shouldn't have to pay their athletes, and that the NCAA aren't necessarily pimps 1 What is the NCAA supposed to do? NOT make money? CFB and college sports in general are only the giant that they are because they are under the NCAA umbrella that exists to ensure smooth operation and fair play between schools. I realize that there is tons of corruption within different programs, but can you imagine if there was no governing body there to monitor and discipline?? If the NCAA isn't profiting off their product they can't exist. 2 Most of these players have full rides in the 6 figure range. How is that not considered payment? 3 Different schools have vastly different endowments unlike NFL teams with salary caps , and I think that evening the playing field via banning non scholarship payments is necessary. 4 I was a mechanical engineering major. I spent my entire senior year doing my senior design project, which was literally our school loaning us out to a company to do free labor for them for a year in the form of R D. Should my school have paid us for that? Was I a whore in that situation? I stand on the less popular side of this issue so I'll concede a few points to the other side It is pretty dumb that the NCAA prevents its athletes from making money elsewhere, like selling autographs or using their image on stuff. I fail to see how they have the right to do that. They are pretty uneven and brutal with handing out punishment for different stuff. Various school scandals and player misconduct do not seem to be handled according to their severity, or with any sort of consistent benchmark. But I don't think that points to the idea that they literally should not exist. Thoughts? Edit thanks for the responses everybody I responded to a few up front and will continue to discuss throughout the day. Might be a little slow cause I'm at work gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Colleges should NOT pay their athletes.\n","id":"53e7494d-487d-4bfa-87a5-17c4ef6c6159"}
{"argument":"The size of a woman's breasts bares no inherent meaning without first the meaning society has assigned to body part.\n","conclusion":"Size alone is not a compelling reason to require an organ's concealment by law.\n","id":"ecdae99b-28c8-4079-82d4-cbbc229fe6e7"}
{"argument":"As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU1; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe. This means that all countries are dependent on the security forces of countries monitoring external borders. It is key that Member States with an external EU frontier have a responsibility to ensure that proper checks and effective surveillance are carried out at the EU's external frontiers. It is vital that checks and controls at the EU's external frontiers be rigorous enough to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and other unlawful activities2. Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. Dissolving the Schengen area gives countries responsibility for the protection of their own borders and thus makes Europe safer as a whole. 1 Kelly, Tom, \u2018EU borders will stay shut to influx from Romania and Bulgaria over fears of crime flood\u2019, The Daily Mail, 23rd December 2010, 2 The Schengen Convention: Abolition of internal borders and creation of a single EU external frontier, eurotool,\n","conclusion":"As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries\n","id":"9ee8ad72-5732-4320-84a5-4dbb2c4cc45f"}
{"argument":"I believe the free market combined with a social safety net reduces poverty which benefits everyone. High level of education, highly efficient administration effectively invests into the society, providing multiple incentives and angles of growth. People have trust in their government, in their administration and how their taxes are used. This leads to a high level of security problems are laid off them and ultimately this leads to a high level of happiness. Low level of income inequality, high GDP and PPP per capita, liberal laws, low crime, low corruption, good healthcare, great education, low pollution. What's not to like? But all this does not obstruct high profit businesses from investing and all that is asked from businesses is that they treat their employees with respect and pay them enough so they can make a decent living. True, most thrift based businesses would be discouraged from investing but Imo in the developed country there should be no place for such an exploiting business style. My only doubt is whether such a model could adapt to a larger country because in all Nordic cases we deal with low populations, large areas and often, decent levels of natural resources and admittedly this does create conditions for easier administration and sustainable economic growth. , thanks in advance\n","conclusion":"I consider the Nordic model the best socio-economic model to base a country around & the best compromise between the right and left\n","id":"5b27abfe-562c-4302-9015-fd46205b000f"}
{"argument":"Macau uses Cantonese and Portuguese as official languages. Traditional rather than Simplified writing system is considered more authoritative in formal settings.\n","conclusion":"Hong Kong and Macau even use different official languages from China proper.\n","id":"12b76286-df8f-4ad0-aaa2-e71e9ed3d562"}
{"argument":"In my view it's a skinny shaming song. You know I won't be no stick figure, silicone Barbie doll So, if that's what's you're into then go ahead and move along Hey, I'm bringing booty back Go ahead and tell them skinny bitches that link to full, terrible lyrics She fiercely defends the song and it's being referred to as the body positive song on music channels. I'm overweight UK size 16 and I think this song is just as bad as fat shaming. We should all be healthy and happy in our own skins not constantly trying to conform to someone else's ideal. This song reminds me of these terrible things I see littering my Facebook feed. I also think she knows full well how much controversy this is causing and is peobably enjoying the associated publicity. Change my view\n","conclusion":"Meghan Trainor's - All About The Bass is NOT a body positive song.\n","id":"7a5c670a-aded-40f4-b3bd-058bdb443ce7"}
{"argument":"I don't know if there are any creationists in this sub, but I wanted to create a thread to express my view that the Christian belief in Young Earth Creationism is one which nobody could genuinely logically justify to themselves, not least those around them, without also either A being a colossal conspiracy theorist and finding a reason to doubt all of our accumulated knowledge of the nature of the universe, or B being criminally ignorant of said knowledge and refusing to even consider the possibility that there may be an answer other than with which they grew up. It seems to me that, nowadays, almost all Creationists were born into the worldview and indoctrinated with the belief from birth. I don't think I've ever heard of someone choosing to become a Creationist who was not one previously, and I believe that is because, in modern times, it is clear that such a belief is nonsensical. Change my view\n","conclusion":"Creationism, particularly the Young Earth variety, is a worldview that is impossible to logically justify to oneself in modern times given our vast knowledge and ability to explain the world around us.\n","id":"918a6555-2600-4a04-b456-595d14298711"}
{"argument":"Holding a grudge is like swallowing poison and expecting the other person to die. There's even a Bible verse that the sin dies with the father. What is it I'm not understanding? What am I missing? Is it the long term effects of racism? Is that a thing? Is affirmative action really making a difference anymore? Are we punishing future generations arbitrarily resulting in continued hostile feelings? When does it end?\n","conclusion":"Constantly bringing up slavery and past actions when ever anything slightly race motivated is unfair and wrong.\n","id":"4fd2a539-0b64-4a92-9ab9-95dc6f484e6e"}
{"argument":"Tim McCarver, the veteran catcher who will call his 20th World Series on TV and his 12th for Fox, acknowledged that 2009 was a \u201cdreadful\u201d postseason for umpires but does not believe replay should be used to review out or safe calls. \u201cOutside of boundary calls, I think the game should be left alone.\u201d2\n","conclusion":"Tradition of umpire calls in baseball should be left alone\n","id":"fce22b8c-01de-4a2f-beb1-3aa0ab20f3b2"}
{"argument":"Even if North Korea doesn't start a nuclear war themselves, allowing them to become a nuclear state when they directly and openly support terrorists and violence against America and it's allies opens up the possibility of terrorists being able to easily obtain nuclear weapons.\n","conclusion":"Accepting North Korea as a nuclear power would weaken global nuclear non-proliferation efforts.\n","id":"39e27edf-b172-40dc-be66-754f2cc99d37"}
{"argument":"Often we see arguments of social justice where someone breaks a norm, say the way Seth Rogan recently pointed out potentially hypocritical messages in the movie American Sniper as an example, and then is socially castigated. Another good example of this was the incident where Paula Dean was ostensibly cut off from her livelihood last year for admitting to having used the N word in the past. My view, specifically, is that peoples opinions are their right and that the way that companies who are socially oriented handle these situations is often a ridiculous attempt to cover themselves against a liability rather than any message about the topic. I consider that to be a direct social injustice, as well as the mentality that goes along with stifling opinions that differ from your own, but recognize that there may be a valid opposition for this. Have at me reddit\n","conclusion":"People have no social responsibility to cater to one anothers' ethics\n","id":"1fc1425e-4839-46d1-bf70-10b00cc08d39"}
{"argument":"I have recently made a new friend who claims to have multiple panic attacks a week. I've never experienced a panic attack and nether have most of my friends, except for those who have been exposed to it previously on Tumblr or similar. If they do exist, my basic questions are whether studies have been performed on what exactly they are and if the attacks just something you start to notice when you know how it affects you? What exactly are the effects of an attack? Can medication help to control effects?\n","conclusion":"I believe that panic attacks are over hyped or nonexistent. Please\n","id":"8213989c-766c-4f90-bacd-88f31b7300d3"}
{"argument":"The Centre Party in Germany, which is closely associated with the Church, fought for a stronger parliament.\n","conclusion":"Christian inspired political parties were fighting for a more democratic political landscape in Europe.\n","id":"6a2df49d-bdc9-4a56-81d5-f956802b32de"}
{"argument":"All claims made of religion which are either beyond the scope of known science and are unfalsifiably by their untestable natureexample: heaven\/hell, the soul, prayer, or are the claims of antiquity which are provably false with our present scope of science Examples: the geocentric model of the solar system, the first earth, space filled with water.\n","conclusion":"Religion is not beneficial since most of its claims are infalsifiable or directly contradicted by modern science.\n","id":"9a7d5ab8-64b6-412c-bf5c-5162b7b691d8"}
{"argument":"Violent protest has been historically effective at helping the civil rights movements in America and the anti-colonial movements in India because they give political movements power and leverage that allows them to resist suppression by the State.\n","conclusion":"The threat or execution of violent behaviour is an important tool for many groups who lack political power to highlight social issues.\n","id":"7fd8ab9b-f5f8-40ed-bb4e-c78c18a0c148"}
{"argument":"Hmm, before I begin saying anything I would just like to let it be known that i'm not very articulate when it comes to expressing my ideas or how I feel. That being said, i think this is a very silly belief for me to be having, but I cant seem to shake it. I can't seem to buckle down and commit to work studying because I fear that it will make me very akward and in my head when I am interacting with people socially, which is how I grew up. Im a freshman in college and pretty much my whole life until a couple of years ago i've been very shy and reserved socially. These days I am doing much better and I have broken a lot of barriers I thought I never would be able to less social anxiety, lost my virginity last year, a lot of ppl regard me as cool , I have friends that I actually like . I guess I'm saying all this because I never seem to have a set personality. Like its not a personality disorder kind of deal where I am different people, but with momentum I can relax more into what i am doing this goes for work as well . I fear that if i get really into my work and actually learn focus I will lose the social aspect of myself that I worked to achieve and I will revert to some nerdy, akward gremlin. It's such a ridiculous idea, and typing all this out I know this belief has very slim evidence if any at all but I'm just not sure I am a pre med student freshman and this belief has been subconsciously hindering my efforts at getting good grades. Every time I sit down to study I just sit there and idle for hours at a time I am so frustrated, maybe im in the wrong subreddit for all this ranting but I must change this belief. Are there charismatic smart people? Are there nerds who still have social lives and aren't missing out on essential human interaction? I don't think they exist from what i've seen. It's either the kids who do rlly good socially but fail most of their exams, or the kids who all they do is study and have very poor social lives. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Studying and doing brain-intensive work hinders ability to be social\n","id":"945d6fc8-e5c6-493d-9e47-8ebac4cc3aef"}
{"argument":"so i've grown up pretty neutral in my life and will probably be one of the only times i post something like this. this is just my wide eyed view of things as ive been voluntarily single girls took interest in me but i didn't budge . x200B relationships and even more so marriage seems so pointless nowadays because of divorce and the whole prenup situaiton, etc . i've been on countless forums such as trp, incels, askwomen, askmen, whatever it may be, to just gather different perspectives on situations because information is power to me. this along with personal and actual stuff that has happened to me, i've just come to the conclusion that its all pointless depending on what you're looking for. for me personally this includes, loyalty the biggest one , trust, and just being pleasant to be around. x200B its impossible to know the true motives of why someone is after wanting to be with you. they can say things to you that may seem like its all good and dandy but then again words are just words , they don't have to mean anything unless you want them to. and this is a very big issue for me. its more like an invisible wall that i can't really get past and i get that its a personal issue but is it not justified? especially with everything happening in the media? i believe in whatever that comes out of your mouth, you should 100 mean it, but people don't have this mindset and will say anything to get money, status, sex, etc. its sick. people are so unfaithful, and imma just flat out say it, hoes. if that is what floats your boat, then have at it, it doesn't really hurt me, or it doesn't really bother me until it does. here is what i mean by this. when im looking for a relationship or just a companion, i want to talk to the girls who are loyal, and are truly compassionate, not just compassionate for the moment or loyal until they get what they want . when these said sluts or hoes are marketing themselves as loyal queens and are essentially false advertising, its kinda hard to not feel a way about it. x200B this is a personal experience and for this we are going to change the girls name to lisa . so me and lisa never really talked with eachother in the beginning stages of highschool but i did work with her older brother. lisa kind of had a reputation for being kind of open, she had a bisexual past doesnt really affect me or how i think of her and she is actually decently pretty so that wasn't an issue. so she starts working with me and her brother and this is when we start to actually know each other. her brother likes me because of how transparent and real i am. so she kind of picks up on this and says she started to develop feelings for me. so im like okay. this is great. a few days or weeks later she says she wants to rekindle stuff with her ex girlfriend and im like okay its whatever. im pissed about the fact she put me in a vulnerable situation but it wasn't too bad. i let her have it and left it at that. but from that point on, i have no intentions of getting with this girl anymore regardless of any situation. fast forward some few weeks and she comes back to me saying she found out that her gf was cheating on her and they broke up yadayada. ok what are you telling me for? then she starts talking about how she was sorry and how she fucked up by not choosing me she told her family that she was going to marry me and even to this day her family loves me . but i don't care. i wont be anyone second choice or backup. this was automatically a redflag for me and once i get the redflag, im off the scene, indefinitely. fast forward again some months later and she is still texting me, why i never gave her a chance , why i never dated her etc. so i said fuck it lets do it. we went on an adventure as she would call it into the city where she goes to calm her mind or whatever. we smoked and had a conversation about why we never worked and it went a little something like this. her i talk to all my friends about you, i talk to my family about you, and i really see a future with you etc once again if you refer to my point 1, these can just be words. so i tell her, without trying to be a dick i had to really sit there for a second and ponder how to say what i wanted and simply i told her that i didnt want to be a fool. i didn't want to be played like an idiot because im not. i don't necessarily care about public perception but there is a risk in dating or talking to a renown hoe or thot . and being played by said thot is even worse. so i told her that if i did take a risk on her, i know it would be for nothing because in the end i know she would leave me for the first next thing that came along, and i expected her to get kind of pissed at this and the bad part about this she actually agreed she said and i quote but lets just enjoy what we have now and the feelings we have now . from that second on, every feeling i had for her went out the window and from that moment on, and its kind of bad, i figured that most girls kind of have this adopted type of thinking not necessarily on purpose but subconsciously, you may not think you are going to cheat now, but ask yourself 12 years down the line when you get bored one day and the man is at work and it has kind of turned me away from relationships altogether. i feel like i met one girl in my life who was perfect but she is currently in a broke abusive relationship and is a lost cause at this point. im literally so close to adopting a pump and dump hit n quit mentality for the sex and getting a dog for the loyalty and love aspect that im missing. x200B tldr its impossible to know the true motives of another as we arent mind readers, words are just words, no loyalty, and from personal experience girls will admittingly leave for something better. might adopt hit n quit mentality like my friends and just invest my love into a dog. atleast i know for sure a dog will be loyal.\n","conclusion":"modern relationships are nothing but toxic\n","id":"accf1cc6-5dd0-45eb-bed7-d5aecbc7314c"}
{"argument":"A member within his administration has branded his leadership style ineffective and his actual results non-existent.\n","conclusion":"He has passed very little significant legislation and has been broadly ineffective.\n","id":"6b4c1b5a-336f-4169-9db3-b9b5d80e3ed1"}
{"argument":"The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself\n","conclusion":"allow donations of vital organs even at the expense of the donor's life\n","id":"65cbaaab-8e7a-4492-82c5-0f3ea317eb45"}
{"argument":"Trigger Warning some mentions of ableist words, though the R word is only referred to as such So, I've been interested and involved in various aspects of social justice for some time. Several years ago, about a year after I started reading about social justice y things on the internet, I was struggling with the idea of eliminating ableist words from my vocabulary. The 'list' of problematic words that I already tried not to use was not insignificantly long, and included the R word. It didn't seem fair to not be able to say a 'mild' word like 'lame'. Around this time November 2009 , I read this post A Brief PSA on Language I didn't change my language usage, but I still considered with some frequency the ideas of problematic language in various aspects of social justice work. Four months later March 2010 , I read this post This is Why We\u2019re Always on about Language The last line was so powerful It\u2019s because we shouldn\u2019t have to be the metaphors for our own oppressions. I searched through the FWD archives and reread the post I had encountered for first time in November. The seed that had been planted by that article blossomed and I made an immediate and focused effort to eliminate ableist words from my vocabulary. It took a while to get used to, but it rarely if ever occurs to me to use most of the words that I had felt giving up would be too big a burden. Lastly, I'm pretty sure and very embarrassed to say that I believe I used the R word in high school which was less than a decade ago for me . I stopped using it at least a year before my other language changes I think, but if I hadn't, I'm pretty sure this post would have done the trick Double Dare\n","conclusion":"T I used to think it was too much work to remove ableist language from my vocabulary\n","id":"490aefd6-2295-47da-9997-2b1fd1cae80b"}
{"argument":"Undergoing any surgery involves a risk of issues such as strokes or heart attacks occurring while under anesthetic\n","conclusion":"Such a procedure is likely to be invasive and thus be accompanied by a number of risks.\n","id":"3b771e05-ac45-4eb6-b78b-3b3f2a6cba1c"}
{"argument":"One of my favourite films is the 2000 Alec Baldwin classic Nuremberg. Every once in a while I'll rewatch a scene or two for marvellous performances played by actors as accusors and defendants, that frankly, I don't see anymore in the films of today as you can feel the wooden false empathy in order to gain an Oscar. However, on my most recent viewing did something strange happen. By accident, I scrolled into the comment section and began to read the arguing trolls on Youtube. And there was a shared common narrative that was going on This is propaganda How was here then, when he was in at the same time. Reports that people had been killed more by the Soviets. Reports that the Allies caused these casualties and that the international intervention is used as a cover up. I'm not a racist, or denier of any means necessary. I've seen the Concentration Camps with my own eyes in all it's horror, I've been in interviews with the victims of it all and I cannot for the life of me tolerate someone who can claim none of it happened. What I want to know if it's true, is did all we say really occur or are we glossing over the event with our own revisionism to cover our own western horrors? gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"The Hollocaust is an Undeniable fact\n","id":"063fe1eb-fe9c-42d2-9057-0aa639bd067e"}
{"argument":"Okay so this is an argument I have all the time, being a teenager myself 17 . usually what happens is I'll be discussing a topic with an adult usually a family member or teacher , then we disagree, then they say something that infuriates me like oh I thought the same thing when I was your age or you'll grow out of it. even online, there is this annoying stigma that all teens are idiots but at the same time think they know everything. sometimes, it makes sense. some subjects obviously require experience. Relationship advice, for example. I've never been in a relationship so if I were to try and give an adult, or anyone for that matter, relationship advice, it would make sense to tell me you're too young your opinion will change you'll grow out of it . but when arguing about politics, religion, or any subject that really doesn't require experience to understand it better, saying something like you're just a teen or I used to think like that is an excuse and it usually means you have nothing more to say but aren't willing to lose this discussion to a stupid teen. personally I'm, unsurprisingly, an atheist. I come from a semi religious Jewish family. me and my dad have this argument ALL THE TIME. you know the one. and it almost always ends with me bringing up an extremely valid point and him laughing and saying oh its just a phase. you're just a teen. you're so young. you have no idea. it fucking pisses me off. A teenager can argue about politics or religion just as well as a 25 year old can and just as well as a 50 year old can. it only depends on the person and how much they are willing to put into learning about the subject.\n","conclusion":"A teenager can be just as intelligent as an adult on certain topics because age and experience don't equal intelligence.\n","id":"cc69b287-8bf0-4011-a9b9-ae12c9c9b2d8"}
{"argument":"I'm a North American born Chinese, and every time I provide perspective, everyone gets all racist on me when I tell them I don't see what the big deal is. That's fine, people are ignorant. I figure  would be a nice place for discussion without people telling me to Take my head out of my ass or Stop being brainwashed by my parents . My arguments for this People have been eating shark fin for thousands of years, why is it all of a sudden killing them off? I realize there are videos out there that tell me sharks are becoming extinct , but I don't see the direct correlation. Plenty of marine life is becoming extinct in the recent decades due to pollution and environmental changes without them being hunted for. So, unless there are multiple credible studies that indicates that fishing shark is the biggest influence to their extinction, I won't believe it. Eating shark fin in North America has little influence to whether it will be fished for in large quantities in other parts of the world. USA and Canada is not, from my knowledge, the biggest influence to the shark fin business by any margin. I've eaten it maybe five times in my life, and each time it's less than a spoonful worth. I don't see how eating it in such small quantities will ever affect anything. The amount of shark that gets fished in accidentally from netting will probably provide enough for this market. If shark fishing is really terrible, stop it at its source, not here abroad. The people that are banning shark fin, the people that are against eating shark fin, are all generally people that do not understand the culture to begin with. I probably have the biggest issue with this. Obviously, the people that are trying to protect these freedoms and the culture are Chinese. While protecting them, they are told they are stuck up and selfish when they don't want to give up shark fin. I feel like this is equally selfish for the banners since they've never eaten shark fin, of course you won't care if it's gone. I feel like they're just culture shocked by Gordon Ramsay and those YouTube videos of isolated cases of shark fin farms. There are terrible chicken and cow farms out there too, and it is definitely not representative of the entire industry. It genuinely feels like I'm arguing with a PeTA supporter every time I hear an anti shark fin argument. If how the sharks are inhumanely killed is the big issue, then punish the fishermen, not the civilians. Shark fin can and is collected humanely as well. As I've mentioned before, other marine life is always collected during huge netttings. If you've ever been to a fishery, you would see shark filets available for sale too, meaning that not every shark is harvested for their fins and thrown back into the ocean. So, don't ban people from eating it, ban the process that actually makes it inhumane. So, without giving me the same old same old Gordan Ramsay articles and roof tops videos because I've seen them and they have not changed my view , let's politely discuss and try to .\n","conclusion":"I don't agree with the banning of shark fin as an edible commodity.\n","id":"4e317310-81c6-4650-88f8-5935370acfb1"}
{"argument":"Japanese historian Tomio Hora has published a number of scholarly monographs and documents on the Massacre. In 1984, he founded the 'Study Group on the Nanking Incident', where a diverse group of scholars, lawyers, and teachers agreed that \"they had to face the past wrongs committed by Japan\" by producing scholarly works to educate the general public.\n","conclusion":"Many Japanese historians, journalists, and politicians acknowledge the shame of the Imperial Army\u2019s actions and expose facts about the massacre that are undermined and distorted.\n","id":"3b0704da-6115-4026-b155-ed2fb88cbefd"}
{"argument":"In fact, meat itself has little to no taste, it's the texture it has and spices and flavors we add to it that makes it delicious. Other textured proteins like soy can have the same delicious taste and be almost unrecognizable.\n","conclusion":"Non-meat products can offer an equivalently pleasing food experience.\n","id":"b21e25d1-72f7-454e-ba5b-d077393d450e"}
{"argument":"Retail, banking, electronics, energy, personal care products, mining, petroleum, gas, accountancy, snacks and candies, video games, processed food, fast food, movie studios, telecoms, spirits, beers, jewelry, operating systems, healthcare, publishing, metals, television, music companies, sports leagues, coffee joints, airplanes Pretty much every single industry I can think of boils down to 4 or less very large players who make up more than 80 of the market. And this happens in every country in the world, with very various policies and regulations. I do believe that a monopoly or an oligopoly is the natural outcome of any free market, and that any market will become cornered at some point, at the expense of the consumers who end up paying higher prices for everything. . A quick chart that explains succintly what I think happens in every market around the world.\n","conclusion":"I believe that any \"free\" market will inevitably end up in a state of monopoly or oligopoly.\n","id":"675d3d2e-e2f3-4515-8dbd-ddf8e7eab36a"}
{"argument":"There is no failure to render assistance to animals in need, but nearly everywhere a law that pertains to failure to render assistance of a humans. Thus, when you do not do that, no matter whether you saved a dog or not, it still is failure to render assistance to the human.\n","conclusion":"If people saved their pet rather than the human, then they would be prosecuted for failure to render assistance to a person in danger and go to prison.\n","id":"a86d106d-3a05-4bc0-b21c-e98f2d13f4ff"}
{"argument":"The reciprocal relationship between rights and responsibilities is a moral and practical requirement for the proper functioning of states; a relationship that ensures that both are adhered to.\n","conclusion":"Social Contract Theory posits that individuals have consented to surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.\n","id":"0d72a315-f1b6-4566-934f-96e22139f516"}
{"argument":"It's just too convenient. It is so offensive that we silently convict them in our own minds based on the allegations alone, then hope to never hear about them again. So who is going to protest, who is going to go to bat for an alleged child pornographer? No one. I've read about a number of incidents that sound eerily similar, though right now I can only find one Warning someone is trying to set up liberty activists using child porn While I believe that child pornography exists and may be more widespread than we imagine, but I think it is also widely used as justification for taking political prisoners.\n","conclusion":"I believe that most child pornography charges are a cover to take political prisoners.\n","id":"4efe52e1-301e-487d-958d-f957a6cfe010"}
{"argument":"In Genesis 19 God massacred two cities for having a different lifestyle, but let live a father because he offered to let men rape his daughters. This is not someone we should be getting morals from.\n","conclusion":"If God exists, we can't conclude that everything he does is automatically morally right.\n","id":"9a8d13c7-2a3b-4f5c-a029-98b00924065d"}
{"argument":"\u201cThe only thing that you owe the public is a good performance.\u201d Humphrey Bogart If a person spends money to see a movie just because an actor actress he she likes is in it, then that is their problem. This unwritten law that celebrities owe people is ridiculous, and said people seem to have a sense of self entitlement if they think they should get what they want from their target. I know the main argument without the public, celebrities would not have the millions they possess. To that I say celebrities do not perform a public service. They are in the entertainment industry because they have passion for their career. You pay money to be entertained. Autographs pictures should cost extra. Performers have a right to privacy, but thanks to the people who pick up gossip rags like US Weekly and thereby keeping the paparazzi employed , most celebs cannot enjoy a day out with their kids. It's not enough to know every detail of someones personal life, but certain people have to label anyone with an inkling of fame an asshole beyond redemption, simply because the famous person refused to sign something or take a picture? And then they say I'll never watch listen to anything of theirs ever again Now, I think Bret Easton Ellis is a major douchebag, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying American Psycho and Lunar Park. He is a good writer, regardless of his arrogance and controversial comments. Why is it so hard to realize that talent is not equal to personality?\n","conclusion":"I believe celebrities owe the public nothing more than a performance.\n","id":"76711983-b89c-4c00-9f1b-eeb3aea17449"}
{"argument":"In Peru a government programme which granted land title deeds to women as compared to men resulted in increased contraceptive use and reduced fertility. This suggests that less transferable welfare interventions can substantially change household power dynamics. Income is comparatively less able to do this.\n","conclusion":"Often dominant members of households will abuse universal basic income to further their own needs instead of providing for their families.\n","id":"7609934e-4bdc-4c8c-becf-112cbaec181b"}
{"argument":"The word conspiracy is often used to demean an idea as being outlandish or plainly false. This is an incorrect definition. A conspiracy refers to a secret plot, often to do something illegal or harmful. A theory of a conspiracy then is a supposition that someone may be making a furtive effort to do something wrong. There is nothing about the term that means a conspiracy theory must be outlandish or unbelievable. I need to express to you that the way I am using the term is purely by the book and not in any way meant to denigrate or cast doubt upon anything described as such, so please take no offense here. So what's a modern day conspiracy theory? The Trump collusion is one example it is still a theory as the Mueller investigation is not yet closed, and it is in regard to a secret plot by Trump to collude with Russia to get a better foothold on the US. Another conspiracy theory is that Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime in order to gain some attention. He has not yet been convicted of this alleged secret plan of his, so it is still just a theory. Are these conspiracy theories to be removed from the likes of Facebook and Youtube? I think they should not, and it would be monumentally dangerous to conceal these topics from the public. At first glance, one might see a headline about Youtube not recommending conspiracy theory videos anymore and you would think, whatever, who cares about flat earthers and birthers anyway? But the title of conspiracy theory will cast far too wide a net and will not just quash people wearing tinfoil hats. Once upon a time, Watergate was a conspiracy theory. So was the idea that the CIA was supplying crack cocaine to the inner cities. Today these are matters of fact, but back then, when conversations about the subjects really mattered , they were still merely conspiracy theories. Hindsight isn't 20 20. We do not know which conspiracy theories of today will be the facts of tomorrow. But, you may ask, isn't it better to not promote these stories until enough evidence comes out so that they are no longer just theories? I argue no. Today, journalists live and die on social media. They are, in fact, the major medium through which journalists do their work. Banning or hiding any video or article because it contains suppositions about a possible conspiracy is akin to a newspaper journalist in 1972 being told by their editor that their article on Watergate will never be run. I hope it is plainly obvious why that would be a problem. Because after all, what's wrong with a youtube video about how the moon landing was faked? For any of you who disagree with my sentiment here, please tell me in your response whether you are afraid that you'll be swayed into believing this theory if you watch a video about it. Seriously, I want to know. My money is on that your answer will be something like no, of course not. The implication then, if you think moon landing hoax videos are harmful but you're confident they will never alter your opinion, is that you believe yourself to be a better judge of the truth than others are. I ask you then, who are you, or the CEO's running social media, to act as gatekeepers for what other people are allowed to see and hear? How are you so certain that Mark Zuckerberg is such an expert on the truth that he should act like your parent and dictate what you're allowed to be exposed to? Reasonable people will not be convinced by moon landing hoax videos and unreasonable people will find bizarre things to hypothesize about anyway. This state of affairs will not be changed by what stories we are exposed to on social media. What we all will be exposed to is that elephant in the room. Recall when I pointed out that Trump colluding with Russia is a conspiracy theory. Has this subject been hidden from social media? No, of course not. Typing Trump Russia into the Youtube search bar yields thousands upon thousands of videos on the subject with multi million dollar media channels at the very top of the list. This is totally fine in my opinion, but this shows, without a doubt, that banning conspiracy content is actually about banning subjects that the bosses of social media do not want you to see. Some conspiracies, it seems, they favor more than others. Now if you are of the right wing persuasion, your reason for fearing this development is obvious. If you aren't, and you are fully onboard with this effort to keep this conspiracy and others like it on the front page while quashing others, I argue that you aren't looking where you're headed. It is true that, currently, Silicon Valley is largely left wing and does promote left wing ideals. This will not always be the case. There will come a day sometime in the future when the pendulum will swing the other way, and social media will be controlled by the other side. In this juvenile stage of social media, I argue that we do not want to cement them as the custodians of thought. One day, if this is the set standard of social media, they will absolutely use this precedent to conceal content that is harmful to Emperor Donald Trump VII. This is not an implausible future. After all, we got Trump right after we had Obama. Two more opposite leaders you cannot have imagined. And you could doubt that the same could happen to the social media industry? To sum up, Facebook and Youtube acting as gatekeepers of information is dangerous. It will prevent journalists from exploring different angles on stories. It goes lightyears beyond their actual function mediums through which people can connect with others and share content. They are not impartial about what information they promote and which information they hide. They are the unelected masters of a platform that openly hide content they disagree with, and they will not actually ban all conspiracy theories as they say. Further, there is no assurance that the kind of content they disagree with will not change, so everyone of any persuasion has reason to fear this development. But they're allowed to do it. It's their platform, their property, and whatever they say goes. But being allowed to do something doesn't make it a good idea. x200B EDIT There are a lot of people questioning my definition of a conspiracy theory. They all make good points, and it is unlikely that social media companies plan on censoring any content that is just a hypothesis about shady dealings, and are likely referring to content with blatantly false or misleading information. My response to this is simple There's no way these companies can develop a system that is sophisticated enough to tell the difference. Moderation of content is done with computer algorithms, not by people. 2.1 million posts are made to Facebook every minute. 60 hours of video are uploaded to Youtube every minute. There is no workforce on the planet with the manpower to moderate all of it. This is why an automated system will be used instead. This presents several problems, because an algorithm cannot tell if content is a well reasoned look at a subject from a new angle or an outright fabrication. I submit then that using the definition of conspiracy theory to mean something that is self evidently false is pointless all of it will be caught in the crossfire. If you want a recent example of this exact thing happening, here you go\n","conclusion":"Social media banning\/hiding \"conspiracy theories\" is insidious.\n","id":"04dcb1e4-e77e-4fb5-bba7-886cb9e11352"}
{"argument":"The inner surface of the foreskin contains a high concentration of Langerhans' cells which serve as the primary point of viral entry in an uncircumcised man. Removing these reduces HIV acquisition risk. Mechanisms of protection\n","conclusion":"Circumcision can greatly reduce a man's risk of contracting HIV.\n","id":"2610cbab-b809-4fbb-b149-5e4da9f587e4"}
{"argument":"Background, i was raised catholic, my neighbor is jewish and my best friend is Buddhist i have been agnostic, borderline atheist since i was 14 half of my life now . I want to empathize with religious people i want to understand but i cant get past the whole blind faith thing and when i try to talk about it i just get roped into distraction side arguments. its as if they are trying to confuse the subject so we cant focus on the real topic. So i need a big picture here. How is it possible to have blind faith in something without being delusional in denial.\n","conclusion":"Religious people are in denial\/delusional\n","id":"06382d14-267c-41e1-9584-9273f59f673e"}
{"argument":"I have seen it argued that at least some morals must be objective and true in all cases, but I have seen nothing that makes me believe that is ever the case. I'll use murder is wrong as a simple example to illustrate my view. For murder to be objectively wrong, it seems to me that murder would have to have some intrinsic quality that makes it immoral. But we know that it can't be intrinsic, because if every human suddenly disappeared from earth, murder is wrong would no longer have any meaning. That statement is completely dependent on our existence and our believing it. By definition, it must have an extrinsic moral value, as must all morals from what I can see. And if its value is extrinsic, it is by definition subjective, because we are assigning it. Hell, I can even think of an example where two humans born in the same culture grow up having completely definitions of murder. Pro lifers think abortion is murder most pro choicers do not. Some vegetarians and vegans think killing a pig for food is murder obviously most do not. So even with something as obvious as murder, I can point to examples where we as a society still haven't come to a standard definition of what types of killing represent murder, and what makes that murder wrong. This isn't to say that I can go around doing whatever I want willy nilly. That is the point of a society, in my opinion. We take control of an ultimately chaotic and careless world universe by imposing laws that benefit the general population . But those morals don't actually exist, we've just ascribed them to various actions because it does benefit society or at least that's supposed to be the goal laws against things like gay marriage obviously don't follow this model . And of course we see how morals change in societies over the centuries, so it seems silly to say that any one moral has always been and always will be around. It might help to note that I don't believe in God. I have a feeling that a lot of people who believe in objective morality have religious reasons for that belief. I'm not going to insult your religious beliefs or anything, just know that such arguments aren't really useful to me here, because otherwise we would just be debating God's existence. I'm sure there are some secular arguments for moral objectivity that I've never heard before.\n","conclusion":"I believe that morals are completely subjective, murder and other \"obviously\" immoral things included.\n","id":"1d7e9156-8769-48fa-b3ac-c56dba6acba0"}
{"argument":"Research by London University Hospital claims that cannabidiol, with the help of radiation therapy, can make some brain tumours virtually disappear.\n","conclusion":"Overwhelming scientific research supports the beneficial medical effects of using cannabis.\n","id":"6d714cff-30ce-4925-8334-d64c8b992eea"}
{"argument":"This was basically launched into my head earlier today on r askmen where 2 different threads were going on with discussions of whether it's ok for a man and a woman to be friends and spend time together if one or the other of them is in a serious committed relationship. Many of the replies on both threads took serious offense at the idea, believing it could not just be a platonic relationship because the two of them were of opposite genders. I was surprised at how common this belief was, because to me it seems like a belief no decent person would have. Can someone explain the logic behind this belief please? It seems controlling to demand it from a significant other. Note I am bisexual and I have never been in a romantic relationship. Edit not a new angle but I think it's worthwhile to point out that I have a number of both male and female friends, some very close, and some who I consider attractive. I don't think, even if they were interested, I would be interested in dating them.\n","conclusion":"Men and women can be friends without any strong romantic\/sexual feelings on either side\n","id":"2ad226f8-9fe5-492f-a0d2-d5a85d47566e"}
{"argument":"Morality is not something that just exists for individuals; it is a societal phenomenon. The ability of other people to participate in this societal phenomenon, and to reciprocate on moral duties, is why we owe them moral duties.\n","conclusion":"Reciprocity is a key reason we grant rights to others. Animals lack the capacity to reciprocate the duties humans show towards each other, and would show to animals.\n","id":"7dc5c7e3-7c9c-4df7-b0b8-39171fdb8d9c"}
{"argument":"What you see in a near-death experience, is influenced by your cultural background, including your religion People that see an angel or a god, only see ones consistent with their own religious beliefs regardless of whether they're f.e. Christian or Hindu.\n","conclusion":"The same experiences involving God happen with other deities, such as Shiva, Ogum, and any other kind of god or spiritual entity. If we agree that all of these experiences are real, then the God of classical theism cannot exist.\n","id":"2a02af46-1ad2-43dd-8e6a-57764d87dee5"}
{"argument":"It is a good thing for students to have experience interacting with people and ideas from other religions and faith traditions than their own.\n","conclusion":"Children should have the opportunity to learn about all of the major world religions.\n","id":"5409f159-284d-42e3-92e0-7109a49f4305"}
{"argument":"The American Declaration of Independence is based on the principle that people have certain natural rights: that people are \"endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness\n","conclusion":"Many legal systems explicitly recognise the legitimacy of natural rights.\n","id":"968132cd-d7a4-4fa2-bcfc-3e13736cf241"}
{"argument":"As time is a limiting factor here, you have no time to sit down and interview all six people to determine their worth, or will to live, you must assume the 5 people are worth saving, and that the 1 person may likely consent to be sacrificed to save the 5 others. Or at least, they may agree with the ethical choice. Morally, it is the right course of action given no other choice. Statistically, you are also probably doing the right thing.\n","conclusion":"You should pull the lever because five lives are worth more than one.\n","id":"4b78867e-87ad-4b31-9c77-14640eb176a4"}
{"argument":"I am a pretty 'pc' person although I hate that term as I think it was created in backlash to removing hate speech . I don't use gendered insults because being female feminine isn't something I should see as bad. Calling somebody a bitch would imply I think being a go getter woman is bad. If I rolled the gender race dice again I wouldn't be angry to come out a gay Latino woman except for prejudice I would inevitably face . I don't use gay, nigger, fag, for similar reasons. Retarded on the other hand, is bad. I would not want to be retarded, so calling somebody retarded seems like a legitimate insult. So reddit,  Why should I not use 'mentally retarded' as an insult? Edit I have given a delta thanks all\n","conclusion":"I use 'retard' as a pejorative\n","id":"c9c621ba-f751-46f1-b988-c8cebb480fd9"}
{"argument":"A bill to provide support for 9 11 first responders and victims has come up in the news recently There appears to be little controversy about this bill other than Congress slow action in extending it, passing it, or expanding it. First responders and other victims of 9 11 absolutely deserve support from the government. 9 11 first responders are incredibly brave for what they did and the post attack search and cleanups were also huge undertakings and I can only imagine the physical and emotional toll they took. But I don't see why someone involved in 9 11 deserves any more support from a first responder in any other situation. Why should a first responder to 9 11 get preferential treatment to a responder to something like a fire or hurricane? I have little doubt first responders around the country would have responded similarly to 9 11 as NY first responders. And I have no doubt they similarly respond to emergencies on a daily basis albeit on a smaller scale with virtually no national or congressional attention. It seems to me the main reason is simply the patriotic and nationalistic nostalgia related to 9 11. It is and was a rallying cry in a divided nation.\n","conclusion":"9\/11 NY First Responders do not deserve more support than other first responders around the nation.\n","id":"7927d077-f7ad-4e23-95f6-d195bfa69ccb"}
{"argument":"Hey , throwaway account here. This has been a fairly distressing issue to me for a while, and I could do with the help of 'normal' people. Some background I was raised in a very conservative Catholic all boys school in the UK, where I was taught various morals and rules from around age 7. Among these rules were things like Sex should only ever occur in marriage , and treat others the way you yourself want to be treated . Being little and extremely naive, and having practically no friends sports was big there, and I never enjoyed them I enjoyed an existence for a few years being walked all over by everyone and playing computer games at home by myself after homework was done. I want to get it out of the way now that I never fully believed in or dismissed the idea of God. I'm 19 now and call myself an Agnostic and am persuing a degree in Chemistry, so don't lump me in with fundies. When I was older, still going to the same school and about 15 years old, I had a major breakdown and went into a long depression. I somehow pulled through my GCSEs despite missing about 75 of that school year, and changed schools at my doctor's orders to attend a college elsewhere to attain my A levels. By the time I left that school I was 16, incredibly socially awkward I was unable to maintain a conversation with anybody for longer than a few seconds, and developed a stutter , had no friends and spent all my time indoors outside of school hours. So, not much had changed in the previous 9 years. The atmosphere of the school was very macho, with the rowing and rugby clubs producing some very bulky young men, so the weedy little me who was somehow still unkissed at 16 stuck out like a sore thumb. It didn't help I was relatively tall, too, so I had a fair bit of bullying. I had never gone out with friends I lived in London, so that immediately made me weird because I didn't have any friends. I was, however, able to speak to my teachers with relative ease, if what I said was a little inappropriate for lack of social experience. I knew some people online and that was it still keep in contact with them to this day . These days culminated in a small string of suicide attempts when my parents and doctors decided to pull me out. Come college and maturity, I'm surrounded by a completely different group of people. They were more accepting of me and I finally was able to talk to people, after months. I still hadn't dropped my morals from my old school because I never was in an environment which proved them unnecessary, false or silly. What a world I was introduced to From firmly believing that sex outside of marriage and overpowering strong love was only practiced by sinners and the dregs of society, I'm suddenly told that casual sex happens all the time. From treating people the way I expect to be treated, it turns out most people are assholes who don't care how you treat them and will hate you all the time. Despite growing out of my awkwardness, I could never shed these views, for some reason. If you talk to me today I'm 19 now , I come across as one of the most confident, current events and politically aware young people you'll ever see. So here's the point of the thread, after the huge buildup. I can't get to grips with the idea of people doing things for me. Why should someone else put time into something I can do myself? I have such a low self esteem, despite confidently leading interviews for things like university applications, that my own spiritual and sometimes physical needs are overridden by just about anything. I have starved myself of food and sleep to stay awake or online to talk to someone about their feelings if they are down. I work my ass off at college and achieve top marks, at the cost of rarely seeing the sun and avoiding all human contact. I've started to develop skin conditions on my belly, back and arms for lack of sunlight. Its hard to go outdoors with the couple of friends I have because I'm so anxious about doing something wrong in that great social arena of life. Worst of all, my sex life is zero because I am unable to bring myself to sleep with a woman I either don't know well or has had other partners. I put disproportionate priority on my work or other skills that my basic needs like bathing, eating or sleeping, as well as social life, go unnoticed. My only human interaction occurs between lessons at college. I can make people laugh, I like to entertain people because its the only time I really feel accepted. I find it impossible to identify what is wrong when something is 'wrong' in my mind because I've trained myself to always say everything is OK, that nothing is going wrong even if it is. Please , guys. I want to shed these stupid dark age worldviews so badly, but they cling to me like tar. I want to be nice to people, but I want to care about myself at the same time. Sorry if this turned into a bit of a rant life story, I don't get the chance to talk about this much and I desperately need ordinary people to help me out of it. EDIT I should probably also mention that the only mental disorder on my history is depression.\n","conclusion":"I see my own needs as being less important than those of everyone else. Please\n","id":"5bc4b3d1-eff1-4c47-90c2-71505b4fb346"}
{"argument":"I just cannot understand why the universal standard for transaction receipts grocery stores, convenience stores, etc. is print and issue, discard if unwanted by default as opposed to print upon request . I do not need a receipt for the yoohoo and pack of cigarettes I buy. If anything, I feel like companies would opt to print upon request to save money, as im sure the cost of receipt paper, while seemingly trivial, may add up but the system remains as it is. As a pre emptive note, I'm aware that there are situations where you do not receive a receipt and may request one, for example I am afforded this option when I pay rent. It's just nowhere near the standard, as WAY more establishments will give receipts.\n","conclusion":"I think all establishments that print transaction receipts should operate on a \"print upon request\" system\n","id":"4e9d6caa-17e0-4512-b28a-998efa06c152"}
{"argument":"The Government and all the major Remain politicians in both major parties promised the result would be enacted and that there would not be a second vote This was not conditional on whether a deal would be struck with the EU.\n","conclusion":"Refusing to enact the specific instructions from the electorate may lead to widespread civil disobedience, with negative consequences that dwarf any possible drawbacks from a hard Brexit.\n","id":"0618b774-4f00-493b-adf6-420ebbb6d0aa"}
{"argument":"Anglo-Saxon countries in general do trend towards conservative views on extramarital affairs with the US leading them with disapproval rates of over 80%\n","conclusion":"American attitudes towards extramarital affairs trend in a conservative direction. Perel's observation echos this.\n","id":"3a3926df-b02f-4fa5-b143-dfe88c05f012"}
{"argument":"- Public opinion does not determine whether creationism qualifies as science. This is the primary question surrounding whether it belongs in the classroom, so public opinion should not have any place in this debate.\n","conclusion":"Public opinion is unimportant to whether creationism belongs in science classes\n","id":"554ca65c-ec1f-4998-8d27-306ae7b29017"}
{"argument":"DCP\u2019s deliver superior returns, better liquidity, more choice, and more transferability than defined benefit plans with a cursory effort on the part of the plan participants. I have read a lot of articles recently that are decrying the end of the pension, but I really don\u2019t see the downside so long as it is replaced by a DCP from the individuals perspective for the above reasons. I understand that getting people to participate in DCPs can present an issue, but I think auto enrollment makes this issue an easy fix. As long as we get people into them as we did with DBPs, it\u2019s a great change.\n","conclusion":"Defined contribution plans are better than defined benefit plans, and the \u201cdeath of the pension\u201d is a good thing as long as it is replaced with a DCP.\n","id":"aabf7675-f67c-4cd4-8ceb-181d24982d6c"}
{"argument":"This is not to suggest that vegans can\u2019t rationally be pro choice, indeed they can bodily autonomy , but to remain consistent with the moral motivations of veganism, they must at least concede that killing a sentient fetus is unethical if the procedure is medically unnecessary. Just as they believe killing animals for meat is unethical when it is dietarily unnecessary. Bear in mind this is only about the ethical, not legal, considerations of abortion as it relates to the vegan philosophy. To use a comparative example, a person can be opposed to marital infidelity on ethical grounds without also thinking it should be made illegal. Basically, you can rationally justify being a pro choice ethical vegan, but only up to a point I.e. the 20 25 week mark when sentience is established . Beyond this point you cannot consider unnecessary abortions to be ethical without being logically inconsistent. Again to surmise, if you think it is unethical to unnecessarily kill sentient animals for food you must likewise think unnecessary abortions of sentient fetuses are also unethical.\n","conclusion":"To remain logically consistent, a vegan who believes it is unethical to kill sentient animals unnecessarily must also believe it is unethical to unnecessarily abort human fetuses once they have become sentient.\n","id":"09ffd43d-1ef0-4e69-8654-81152d843068"}
{"argument":"Obviously depending on your area jurisdiction there may be some legal tax benefits etc to getting married, but I'm discounting them for the purposes of this post. The fact remains that the vast majority of people get married for some other reason, and I can't really fathom why. A minority of people are insecure and seem to need it to know their partner won't run away. Others are immature and buy into the whole 'fairytale romance' thing. But for the most part it just seems to be because it's the 'done thing', and I don't get it. Marriage is a social construct. There have been plenty of cultures throughout human history that have had no institution of marriage. And plenty that have had differing norms, e.g. polygamy. The only reason it still exists in the western world is that it's a holdover from the bad old patriarchal days of a woman basically being a man's property. Why should this one particular form of relationship be so privileged over, and more popular than others? Furthermore, if two people are genuinely happy together and want to form a long term relationship, then why not just do it? Why do you need the ceremony, the official bureaucratic institution? What is the point? Surely if you're at the stage where you want a long term relationship with someone, you trust each other enough to know that you're both genuine about it? I really really don't get it and would love for someone to change my view. EDIT Thanks for all your responses and contributions. I'm really enjoying the thread and sorry if my answers seem a bit short or flippant, it's only because there are so many comments to get through. I just wanted to make a couple of points I probably should have made this clearer initially, but I don't really have a problem with people getting married just for the legal perks. That's why I excluded it in the first place. But I think I've confused a lot of people by explaining myself badly on this one. Sorry Arguments about marriage being needed so that two people stick at it when times are tough don't convince me. I don't think there's any point to staying in an unhappy relationship, and you shouldn't create artificial barriers to stop someone leaving. EDIT 2 Thanks to u alosec , who pointed out perhaps a better initial question would have been without appeal to any cultural conditioning legal or otherwise , what makes marriage objectively special or meaningful?\n","conclusion":"I don't see the point in marriage. If two people want to be in a relationship, they don't need an official certificate\n","id":"5edfd527-7361-444f-a223-6f9ed75c25ef"}
{"argument":"There are specific parts of the military, like the coast guard or similar sectors that are dedicated to helping people, and I find those okay. What I dont understand is how people praise war veterans for being heroes, serving our country , protecting our rights ect ect. They dont serve our country, they serve capitalism, and the general public have done more than the military has every done for people's rights I believe there is a logical reason people give veterans so much respect but I just dont get it. I dont think these people really deserve medals, discounts, and all that for being government recruited murderers. Especially when they blame their bad habits and crappy personality on PTSD yes, PTSD is a very real and very scary mental illness but nobody ever forced you to sign up to go to war. Of course there are veterans who dont mention it at all, and or werent in active combat nurses? idk but I dont think people who murdered other people deserve the world handed to them just because they wore a camo uniform while doing it. I know many people have mang opinions, and I will love to hear them D I'm incredibly interested in hearing sides and seeing if you. an  Edit To clarify, I do mean the small percent that fight. I am also talking about the ones who parade around acting like being a veteran is something that everyone should get down on their knees for. Like, the whole wearing your military uniform to get 2.00 of your McDonalds cheeseburger kinda type. Thank you for your input though I do say in such a short time you guys changed my view partially. Also thanks for sammy f for telling me to edit this\n","conclusion":"Veterans aren't good people and should not be praised as such.\n","id":"7d929051-bb17-4446-9d44-67c08255fca6"}
{"argument":"The current global arms race is dangerous, and Europe is at risk of falling behind other global players such as the US and China. A USE would be able to better pool and allocate its resources in order to upgrade its military.\n","conclusion":"A USE would help establish a more stable balance of geopolitical and ideological power, laying the foundation for a more multi-polar world order.\n","id":"510ac87b-cab0-4ae3-b5d6-74b1b15269b4"}
{"argument":"Given that genetic engineering technologies are usually only available to high-end laboratories which are heavily regulated, it is unlikely that they will be used for the purpose of eliminating \"gay genes\".\n","conclusion":"Technologies are only dangerous insofar as they can be accessed and used by those with malign intentions.\n","id":"0fe52536-f4d0-4d23-86fa-a2743c2faf5f"}
{"argument":"So before we start, let me explain my situation Im 17 M, from NY, My mother has been a huge source of depression and plays HEAVY favorites towards my little sister 10 . My Dad works nights and has no particular favorite. My mother has been in and out of our lives for nearly 10 years now. My parents are divorced I hope you guessed . I spend most of my time outside of school just hanging by myself playing Xbox or games on PC. On the weekends im out with my friends and we go out and about our town, seeing movies, hanging with girls, going to the pool hall kinda big around here . My dad pays all my bills, im looking for a job, we live on the top floor of a house that we split the rent on with a roommate. Im not particularly close with ANY of my family, they send me gifts sometimes, no one except my mom has ever wronged me in any way, but I just dont feel like they are important, I could do just fine without them. either immediate or extended, no one has really showed me any reason to hate them, or love them either. i see people who are basically infatuated with their families and I think their insane, they see their nieces and nephews as the most important thing in the world, their brothers and sisters as the closest thing they got, parents, aunts, uncles, anything. And it bothers me deeply about how they see them, I dont get why a biological tie to someone should mean so much. Hell I had a friend who ended up being a second cousin my coincidence and I saw him in a lesser light. I feel like family means nothing to me and I actually feel like its a knock on the totem of how much I care for someone. I literally cannot express how I feel, I just stick on a smile and they all know that that smile is full of shit and fakery nice word xD , I act nice and kind to everyone, but I dont feel a super drive to care and love someone biologically tied to me l I MUST REITERATE None of them are bad people, my dad is a great guy, my aunts and uncle are nice, cousins are all cool and very kind. On the other hand, I feel a very strong care and love for my friends, male or female. My friends have offered me food, living space, jobs, and much more. I turn them down but the offer stands on many of those if I ever need them. I see them all the time in school and they are one of my very few sources of happiness. I see them as far more important than someone stuck paying for my ass.\n","conclusion":"I believe family means nothing and is an overblown idea and Friends are more important.\n","id":"0b18d8c7-1ed7-4f3b-8ccb-577fa37fb7ae"}
{"argument":"Increased farming to produce more plant foods will result in an increase in the amount human exploitation in countries where work regulations and workers rights are poor. Perhaps these concerns should be addressed first?\n","conclusion":"Consuming vegetables is also cruel to both the plants and to the workers responsible for the agricultural process.\n","id":"7adadc48-b9fd-4df9-870b-faf0e8bf3af5"}
{"argument":"The financial crisis was not caused by people committing fraud or other crimes, but by bankers not properly preparing for a collapse in house prices. This is unfortunate, and no doubt caused by a case of bad incentives, but not a crime. While there are no doubt some executives who have gotten away with actual crimes, as have people in every walk of life, I think the enormous amount of public attention devoted to the finance industry means that they have been adequately investigated and prosecuted for the crimes they did commit.\n","conclusion":"Wall Street executives should not go to jail for the financial crisis.\n","id":"80099c07-0646-44e8-9d4d-0396e117c660"}
{"argument":"Recently, a relative who is on her church's finance committee told me that her parish priest used church funds to buy an exercise machine for himself. It was somewhere between 2500 3000. I just can't remember the exact price. In my area, pastors have everything already paid for them housing, car, food, utilities, etc. Their income is used only on their own entertainment and for lack of a better word luxuries . Using church funds in this way is tantamount to embezzlement. At least, the equipment should be returned or donated for church use. Ideally, the pastor should be investigated for other instances of fraud. I also know of instances where a new pastor will be placed in a church and used church funds to do a complete renovation of the parish rectory to have it suit their tastes. 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\n","conclusion":"I believe that it is immoral for pastors\/priests to use Church funds to buy personal items.\n","id":"f562ba18-bc4f-49a4-a85f-b85e35d3adda"}
{"argument":"In normal elections, people vote for a party - a coherent set of ideals - rather than specific policies. In these circumstances, lack of policy knowledge may be less harmful.\n","conclusion":"A bad choice of elected representatives has less impact on societies than a bad decision about direct subject matters.\n","id":"ae0d58ee-b9f3-4cab-bcf6-f2ccb50616a4"}
{"argument":"As the nation with the largest private lending market within the Eurozone, Germany can influence the votes of other members.\n","conclusion":"The ECB is de facto dependent on Germany, even if it is de jure independent.\n","id":"60109ec6-0e20-4ae7-acad-53a8cbf428c2"}
{"argument":"This is directly related to the authorities' actions: Fewer ships can leave the Libyan coast due to increased surveillance, so smugglers cannot move refugees and instead sell them.\n","conclusion":"Reporters uncovered an active slave trade in Libya, one of the countries on the route to Italy. There, refugees are sold as workers.\n","id":"b6e89d84-be42-4475-9013-e9bda1e13c67"}
{"argument":"Many German cities do not have enough rooms in hospitals or midwives today, so they cannot treat polygamous families with many children.\n","conclusion":"Germany does not have the infrastructure to cope with more children right now.\n","id":"acc05e6e-d079-468a-b6e1-b14192dbbe90"}
{"argument":"Choosing to pull the lever feels different to inaction: it is a deliberate physical action that changes the scenario as opposed to passively observing it.\n","conclusion":"By pulling the lever you actively cause someone to die. That is wrong.\n","id":"91066fe4-b97b-422c-9264-d59fef564fa9"}
{"argument":"I think The Lord of the Rings The Two Towers or The Two Towers for short is a bad name for the film that it represents. I think the title of a film should represent the film's quality and content. The title is the first thing most people see, and the first thing people connect to. I think this is the case with The Fellowship of the Ring. The film is about the fellowship, its beginning, journey and dissolution. The Return of the King is also a fine title. Not only the literal return of the king of Gondor, but also the metaphorical triumph of good over evil. Then there is The Two Towers. Which represents almost nothing. The title is from a throwaway line. Even after seeing the movie you can be confused about the title and what it meant. The union of the two towers is barely a thing in the movie itself, as it mostly focuses on Saruman working independently from Sauron. The Two Towers as a name signifies nothing important, unlike the other titles of the trilogy. Unless you go really deep into some literal analysis, which is not good, because as I said, the title is the first connection point between the audience and the movie. I guess you could argue it brings a mystery, a question like what does the two towers mean? but the film never really answers it in a meaningful way, and it's never a thing that needs an answer. It's just a throwaway line about a thing that's barely a thing and it's not really what the movie is about. And yes. The title of the book came first. But I believe Tolkien himself was never in love with any of the titles in his trilogy which he wanted to be a single volume anyway . And it's an adaption, changes are allowed. What I believe would have been a better title? The Treason of Isengard, which more accurately represents the content of the movie itself, and as a title is more intriguing.\n","conclusion":"The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a bad name for the film\n","id":"32492f96-4d8b-4347-b416-68d13cbd444b"}
{"argument":"The Union has now passed its 300th birthday and throughout that time Scotland has maintained as distinct role and identity. This is grounded in a tradition and history that is quite different from that south of the Border and includes legal and education systems that have always been separate. That has manifested itself in a distinct policy agenda since devolution and areas such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees. Despite the opinions of doomsayers before devolution it has been proved as a remarkable success and massive approval throughout the UK with 70% saying it has been a success.i i The Scotsman. \u201c70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests\u201d 8 May 2009.\n","conclusion":"Scotland has a proud history and has demonstrated since devolution different political interests\n","id":"ef724f5a-bc93-4e45-bbe6-d01ef392c1dd"}
{"argument":"Between 2010 and 2013, the UN funded three pilot projects of UBI in eight villages in India UNRISD, 2014. The results showed betterment in many aspects of life such as health, schooling and disability. Most significantly \u201ccontrary to a common criticism of cash transfers, cash grants were associated with an increase in labour and work\u201d BIEN, 2013.\n","conclusion":"Namibia is a good example to argue the contrary. The results of the pilot project showed that basic income grants can not only alleviate poverty in purely economic terms, but may also jolt the poor out of the poverty cycle, helping them find work, start their own businesses, and attend school.\n","id":"1c462bc3-3366-453e-93b0-25a9c9ab4642"}
{"argument":"I just discovered this sub and I immediately thought of a questionable opinion I have had since I was old enough to vote. I'm certain my vote in any kind of election with many voters, such as a presidential election, doesn't matter. Not one bit. Let me explain my reasoning. Imagine a vote between candidate A and candidate B, with one thousand people voting for either A or B. The only case where my vote has an impact on the outcome is if candidate A receives 500 votes and candidate B receives 500 votes. My vote would decide which candidate wins the election. In any other case my vote would not affect the outcome. Already with only 1000 people voting it's extremely unlikely the candidates will receive the exact same amount of votes for my vote to matter. Now, when I imagine elections with millions of people participating, the chances of my vote having an impact on the outcome are astronomically low This reasoning prevents me from ever voting anywhere. The only way I could have an impact on the election is if I got many people voting for the candidate I support. If I had brainwashed 50 people to vote for my candidate, my vote would matter if the candidates have a difference of lt 50 votes, which is far more likely than them having a difference of zero votes tie . x200B\n","conclusion":"My vote never matters\n","id":"e64cf8a7-4e5d-41ab-9424-02be8a7fc8ac"}
{"argument":"I think happiness only exists for someone when everything is perfect and just as they want it. I don't see happiness being possible in life unless I get everything I want all the time or unless I fixate on the flaws until they are fixed. The fixation and obsession 24 7 are a normal thing for everybody, are they not? If one doesn't obsess, shouldn't they? Is having everything the way you want it not the goal in life?\n","conclusion":"I believe worrying about every little thing and obsessing over perfection are the keys to happiness in life.\n","id":"cb7f491e-6c27-4122-ac54-0614ed82c1f1"}
{"argument":"Specifically regarding the big 3 Christians, Jews, Muslims but most religions have similar issues. Firstly I'll start by saying I would never persicute a person for their religious beleifs. But, claiming all religons are equal is simply incorrect in my view. Granted, all adherants to a religion do not hold the same beliefs, but this is based in the personal choice of the adherants to not follow their scripture. I.e. The bible states clearly that homsexuality is a sin. This is a belief incompatible with the modern world so by claiming yourself tobe Christian, I will assume you hold antiquard beleifs untill such time as you deny them. After that Ill just think you are an imbicile for not undestanding your scripture. Any person who openly identifies as a religious adherant must accept the consequences that they will be judged on the merits of their religion untill they prove they do not hold the regressive views of their religion. Edit Ill also add that this only applies to people living in a situation in which their freedom to express any religious sentiment is a given. Edit 2 religious adherants are not all the same and the majority do not hold the beleifs of their texts to be law and the dialogue coming from religious entities is normally hijacked by extremists who do view the text as sacred. Still, no matter how moderate contemporary Nazis may become I see no reason to associate with them.\n","conclusion":"Religious tollerance is pointless, religions are not equal and have no place in modern society\n","id":"4555cf94-99f7-4544-9ee3-b5776213925c"}
{"argument":"Wakanda's power and resources are already known by some individuals around the world as we know from Klaue and the other Avengers who have seen T'challa run around in a panther suit.\n","conclusion":"Wakanda will be discovered eventually. Better for it to happen on Wakanda's terms.\n","id":"d89fbd2d-e9dd-49c4-adce-37540a45df2c"}
{"argument":"In Job 1:8-12 Satan approaches God and asks to test Job's loyalty to God. Satan's idea is that if God demolishes Job's good life, then Job will no longer be faithful to God. But Satan can't do this itself as it is God that has the power to do evil. In the next verse God gives that power to Satan.\n","conclusion":"Religious stories contain evidence that satan's power is given to him by god.\n","id":"479b6a9c-5a01-4d8a-99e2-6104aab72b0b"}
{"argument":"Progressive taxation should increase the total tax take. This means that increased funds are available for spending on worthwhile socially beneficial programmes, such as education, health, environmental protection, etc.\n","conclusion":"Progressive taxation should increase the total tax take. This means that increased funds are availa...\n","id":"50cd376e-8efc-4b1d-896b-b7e3d6a37437"}
{"argument":"It's illegal in most places in my state at least for people to sleep in their cars or in public parks etc. A homeless person I know very well told me many stories about basically being shuffled around by cops for parking his car in a neighborhood and sleeping in it. No interaction with any of the people there or anything, just sleeping in the car. Some homeless people are disruptive or doing illegal shit which of course should get them moved, but really what's the plan if they have no money, just tell them to buy a house? I think 'being unsightly' isn't enough of a reason to kick someone out of a public place, and a minimum of human dignity should at least allow them to sleep in someplace safer than the woods. Being poor shouldn't be illegal, and sure maybe getting thrown in jail gives 'vagrants' a place to sleep but that should be their decision and not the state's. Edit A couple of people have mentioned congregations or mini cities arising which I think is a fair point especially due to health concerns, at least for restricting sleeping in certain heavily populated areas. Not sure who to give a delta to, new to the sub, do I just give them to everybody who made the point? Edit 2 Also, I'm getting a vibe that incorrect sedantry is the perceived problem, not people who live nomadic lifestyles. I'd like to clarify that I'm including nomadic people, really just anyone who gets fined for sleeping, especially those who park their car at 10pm in some quiet neighborhood and intend to leave at 6am. I'm also wondering more about the moral aspects of the problem. Edit 3 Do somewhat agree with the comments about sleeping in a park implies they won't have a place to throw trash, shit, etc., and causes an implied health hazard. I'm not entirely convinced the implied hazard is a justification for sleeping to be illegal, but I'm willing to listen. I'd also like to point out I'm talking about sleeping , not setting up businesses tents and blocking the sidewalk during the day. Also I'm on board with the congregationalism problem, as those are specific circumstances the local government needs to specifically address. Also, for the people telling me to invite a ton of homeless people to sleep on my driveway, rude. There have probably been homeless people who have parked legally on your street and slept overnight that you didn't even notice. If homeless people turned your street parking into a car apartment that would be a problem but there are already laws in most places to prevent permanent parking. I don't want homeless people to live in your house, or for your neighborhood park to become a tent city. I live in a somewhat poor neighborhood and the people living in homes around cause much more trouble than the occasional homeless I see sleep on the street. I get that you don't like homeless people existing. A large portion of the chronic homeless population do have drug hygiene problems, I don't want 'those' people near me either, but that's a different problem. I just think it shouldn't be illegal to park your car somewhere and sleep overnight, or sleep under a bench if you're too poor to afford a car. Please keep responses limited to the legality of sleeping in public spaces without inebriation or public disturbance.\n","conclusion":"It should be legal for homeless people to sleep in their cars or in public places as long as they aren't bothering anyone.\n","id":"579e1a90-e5d9-464e-a99b-9f94801774ad"}
{"argument":"90% of GMO's are modified to withstand glyphosate aka Roundup, and require brand name fertilizers and pesticides to grow. This makes farmers massively dependant on large companies and fuels corporate profits.\n","conclusion":"Potential to create \"super weeds\" that have evolved a resistance to common herbicides.\n","id":"f1588a4c-df95-4d2d-a4a2-0b4b86427989"}
{"argument":"Everything about this album is perfect. From the rhythm of the riffs to the borderline black metal vocals in places, I can't fault it in any way. A lot of people I know say it's the weakest Sylosis album possibly because it's the only one with Jamie Graham on vocals , but I honestly prefer this to any other death metal album out there, including Sylosis' newer Dormant Heart Still an incredible album, but nowhere near on par with Conclusion of an Age . The way it fuses so many genres together, from death metal to thrash, metalcore, and black metal. Someone change my view on this, I need to be proven wrong For the better, in fact If there's anything better than this out there I'd love to hear it .\n","conclusion":"Conclusion of an Age by Sylosis is the greatest melodic death metal album ever written.\n","id":"87c253db-0509-40b3-bb3a-9293085e9ef3"}
{"argument":"I played this when it first came out, so I can appreciate the impact it has and the technological advancements over Link to the Past. I did not, however, beat it. I got to Jabu Jabu and the game stopped being fun, so I played something else. I gave it another shot when I got the bonus disc with Wind Waker. I got to adult Link finally, but I still did not enjoy it as much as WW or LTTP. I am trying it for my fifth time this year. I just got to adult Link again. I am currently at the Water Temple and I do not enjoy the game at all at this point. Here is why I think the game is overrated The combat sucks. LttP had very tight, responsive, precise combat. It was one of the main draws for me. OoT had clunky feeling combat, mainly due to the Z targetting system and inverted aiming controls. I always felt trying to fight more than one enemy at a time was a pain in the ass due to the limitstions of the targetting system. Navi. There is nothing good about this creature. While there were some really fun dungeons First ones as a kid and adult, the forest ones loved them each , but there were some terrible, tedious, I'm no longer enjoying my free time style dungeons. Jabu Jabu and Water Temple in particular. I don't recall every playing these stages and enjoying myself. I enjoy a challenge, I love Dark Souls, Contra, Ikaruga etc. But these levels didn't feel challenging, they just felt tedious and obnoxious to finish. It wasn't a matter of figuring things out, but rather great, now I have to carry this dumb bitch here, hit this switch, go back and grab her again etc. The gameplay progression was the most linear out of any Zelda to date. I don't hate on a game just because its linear, but the first four Zeldas gave you more freedom, especially the first. I will never forget the first time I played the original Zelda, seeing the rectangle on the map representing my location, moving, then seeing how much more ground I had to explore to cover the entire map. The game is not without its merits, but I can give you 25 titles off the top of my head that are easily better experiences in my opinion. I don't understand why so many hail this as the holy grail of gaming, or consider it the best Zelda, or even one of the greats in videogaming history. A lot of the things its highly noted for, other games had already done previously, some of them better too. So, .\n","conclusion":"I think that Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, is terribly overrated.\n","id":"4abcca8c-c6c1-4dd6-abf9-e02a56e95ac7"}
{"argument":"A few important clarifications before I begin I'm referring to RAW rules as written , rather than RAI rules as intended , meaning that something broken and obviously unintended is fair game until it receives an errata or, in those cases where the official wording is ambiguous, at least a clarification from Jeremy Crawford I'm referring exclusively to official material, and not playtest material or unofficial homebrew. Variant rules from official material multiclassing and feats, most notably, but also things like the spell points variant and epic boons are fine. I'm talking about the highest possible level of power, not the overall progression of a class. So a class might suffer at low levels, but that does not detract from its ultimate potential. So, why the School of Illusion Wizard? Well, before I explain this specific claim, let me justify some more general claims that will lead us to this conclusion The most powerful character must be a full spellcaster It's well known in the D D community that spellcasters outclass martials at higher levels. This was overwhelmingly true in 3.5e, and though it has been alleviated somewhat in 5e, it is still very true. At the highest levels, spellcasters gain the ability to warp the fabric of reality, whereas martials generally get the ability to hit things harder and more times per turn. Consistently high damage per round is great, but it does not make up for the flexibility of spellcasting, especially when you consider that high level magic can also be used to deal massive damage. If you really don't think this is obvious, that's alright, because the next point will make it irrelevant. The most powerful character must have access to both Wish and Simulacrum Some seasoned players will exit the train here, but that's fine. For those that do not know, there is a relatively well known broken interaction between the 9th level spell Wish and the 7th level spell Simulacrum Wish is the epitome of high level, reality altering magic, and any class with access to it will be incredibly powerful at high levels. Simulacrum is a spell which essentially lets you create a subservient clone of a creature including yourself, importantly . The exploit is that you can create a clone of yourself, which can then use its Wish to create its own clone of you, ad nauseam. So which classes have access to both Wish and Simulacrum? Well, Simulacrum is only on the Wizard's spell list, so it would seem that the Wizard is our only candidate, but that's actually not true. The Bard can get both spells through Magical Secrets and the Arcana Cleric can get both spells through Arcane Mastery If there are other candidates, I'm not aware of them. Of these three candidates, which will be the most powerful? I'm going to immediately discount the Bard, only because I am going to argue that the Arcana Cleric and the Illusion Wizard have specific features which make them particularly OP, and I'm not aware of any such interaction in the Bard's case. We'll start with the Arcana Cleric. Why is the Arcana Cleric significantly more powerful than a standard Wish Simulacrum abuser? At 20th level, the Cleric can entreat a deity for aid, with a 100 success rate Normally this would not be significantly more powerful than a Wish spell, but there is one particularly powerful interaction. Most magical effects are completely dispelled within an Antimagic Field However, this does not apply to magical effects stemming from deities. This means that a Cleric can cast Antimagic Field on himself, and then use Divine Intervention to have his deity True Polymorph him into an Iron Golem An Iron Golem is a powerful creature that, when surrounded by an Antimagic Field, is essentially only vulnerable to acid damage, and non magical acid damage is not incredibly common. This interaction alone is not game breaking, but when you consider that every simulacrum in your clone army can do the same thing, it starts to become ridiculous. Alright, so what could be better than an army of full spellcasters True Polymorphed into magic immune Iron Golems? Alright, well first of all, the Iron Golems are only actually magic immune for an hour. Granted, that is a very long time for a single combat. They become much less useful in the context of a prolonged war, for example. But, after that hour, they can simply expend their usefulness as Iron Golems and then turn back into Arcana Clerics, which seems pretty good. So how could another subclass beat that? Well, let me tell you about the School of Illusion Wizard. For anyone that is not familiar with the School of Illusion Wizard, he has two subclass features that are particularly relevant to this discussion. At 6th level, he gets Malleable Illusions gt Starting at 6th level, when you cast an illusion spell that has a duration of 1 minute or longer, you can use your action to change the nature of that illusion using the spell's normal parameters for the illusion , provided that you can see the illusion. And at 14th level, he gets Illusory Reality gt By 14th level, when you cast an illusion spell of 1st level or higher, you can choose one inanimate, nonmagical object that is part of the illusion and make that object real. You can do this on your turn as a bonus action while the spell is ongoing. The object remains real for 1 minute. For example, you can create an illusion of a bridge over a chasm and then make it real long enough for your allies to cross. gt The object can't deal damage or otherwise directly harm anyone. Contrary to what you might think, Malleable Illusions is actually the more broken of these two features. For that reason, let me start by explaining why Illusory Reality is OP. At 18th level, the Wizard can choose to take Silent Image as an at will spell with Spell Mastery This is increcibly powerful, because it means the Illusion Wizard can create a 15 ft cube of real matter which lasts for a minute every turn. Have a powerful enemy that you want to incapacitate while you dispatch his minions? Suddenly he's within a thick adamantine dome. Does your team need cover? Suddenly there's a thick adamantine wall right there with arrow slots. The possibilities are so numerous. Not to mention you can use this to create costly spell components. So then why is Malleable Illusions better than Illusory Reality? Simply because of its interactions with various Illusion spells. I can't cover every single interaction here, but this thread lists many of them and explains how they work according to RAW and or RAI. For our purposes, two spells stand out Mirage Arcane and Simulacrum. Mirage Arcane is a powerful spell that lets you create an illusory terrain within a 1 mile square for 10 days. The illusion is tactile and cannot be passed through. Normally this would be good, but with Malleable Illusions, it is amazing . Every turn, as a bonus action, you can completely control the terrain within a 1 mile square. You also only need to cast the spell once every 10 days, because you can continually drag it along with you as you travel. Simulacrum is even more powerful when combined with the Wish chain described earlier in this post. Simulacrum is an Illusion spell. This means that you can use Malleable Illusion to change its parameters. Normally this wouldn't be particularly useful, because you are limited in the parameters that you can change. Since Simulacrum requires a piece of the creature's body as a material component, you cannot use Malleable Illusions to change it to another creature. However, when cast with Wish, your simulacrum does not require material components, meaning that the viable creatures are anything you're touching. This is incredibly powerful because it allows you a way of getting around Simulacrum's limitation of the clone never being able to regain hit points or spell slots. With an army of simulacra, all you would need to do is have all of them touch the creature you want your army to copy including, say, an Arcana Cleric and transform in ascending order. All of them except the first simulacrum the one you created with a 7th level slot can transform, and if you want to transform them back, you just have them all touch a fully rested you and transform back in descending order. It should go without saying that this is a whole other level of game breaking. So there you have it The School of Illusion Wizard is the most powerful subclass in D D 5e I'm very interested to hear from anyone who thinks they know of something more powerful while still adhering to the clarifications set out at the beginning of this post . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"In D&D 5e, the School of Illusion Wizard is the most powerful subclass.\n","id":"33cc2d63-afdf-4c71-8cf9-f32c3f25c8e1"}
{"argument":"Being an arm of law enforcement for the British colonial state is an honorable profession. We should embrace it.\n","conclusion":"Option \"One\": Agree and then honor the agreement. Become the slave police.\n","id":"1ed4a468-8b29-4160-be77-793137a36761"}
{"argument":"And in this case they would be shared between millions of drones. No need to build a custom system for every airborne drone. Even the civilian and military autonomous flying systems would be based on the same code.\n","conclusion":"These are fixed costs, and are therefore of only limited relevance for the per-unit cost.\n","id":"cfae5f5b-ea80-4ac8-812b-697647610050"}
{"argument":"Firstly, this is not ethical issue, it is a personal opinion and everybody has a free choice in this case as they should, at the same time, lots of arguments can be made about the detriment of economic and natural systems due to it . I'm not acknowledging that doing drugs is bad but only playing into the widespread negative narrative about it. The obvious common feature is monetary and time investment, and the dopamine rush. Drugs work because we have evolved for a lack of a better word, to trigger dopamine and oxycotin releases when they are introduced in our system and experience joy, the rush of a parent observing his kid is not a special case. A difference being you cannot quit as you are a part of 18 year legally bound contract. Some drugs enable deeper meditation among other things, but if you need a 18 year old contract forcing you to pay for a whole human being's every need with time and money, to find a meaning to your life and not dive into depression and eventual suicide, you need a therapist not a kid. A lot of factors are at play like condescending society, losing busy friends turned parents, carrying your family name apparently is a thing , our own blackmailing parents and unacknowledged reasons like touting your kid's achievements as your own and feeling like god with your project prodigy when the decision is taken and which make it culturally and socially supported.\n","conclusion":"Having children is a culturally, socially and biologically supported drug\n","id":"91ef4475-29df-45f6-8635-271655f73e1c"}
{"argument":"Reddit is giving a lot of praise to a bill introduced that would prevent the FCC from undoing title 2 status and net neutrality rules. This is a sub optimal solution, the same way that the FCC rules themselves are sub optimal. Instead Congress should be trying to make a new law enshrining net neutrality completely separate from title 2 or any FCC rules. Don't get me wrong, I supported the original FCC actions because it was clear Congress wasn't going to do anything. But if they are going to take some action, they should take better action than deferring to FCC. Title 2 is not really the right way to solve the problem. It was just the only way that the FCC could do it without Congressional action. It is silly to have Congress take action by keeping this same sub optimal solution to the problem. To , I'd like to be convinced that the FCC regulations and title 2 control are a better answer than a simpler law, or that Congress doesn't have the power authority to write such a law. Arguments that Congress are incapable of passing such a law in the current environment won't sway me because I think they apply equally to the currently proposed legislation.\n","conclusion":"Congress shouldn't be trying to prohibit the FCC from repealing net neutrality\n","id":"02ca6476-a7cf-4b0f-bd77-ba425a286959"}
{"argument":"Moral obligation varies in form and shape, but is found reasonably universally; our moral codes - and perceived obligations - are shaped by society. For as long as society promotes and perpetuates such obligations, individuals will not be able to escape it; it is therefore unfair to label such individuals as 'selfish'.\n","conclusion":"Humanity has a moral obligation to ensure the survival of the human race.\n","id":"7500ece9-e73a-4e9e-8618-3c53877875f0"}
{"argument":"Informed consent as a standalone framework does a poor job of identifying what counts as good. For example, helping people without their knowledge e.g. picking up trash that has blown onto your neighbor\u2019s front lawn before they get home would not count as good under such a framework, and might even count as bad.\n","conclusion":"Within our current limitations as humans, in order to survive\/thrive, we must often impose our will on nature, and in circumstances, on other humans.\n","id":"f25d6a31-98ad-4c13-ba60-f3a0f27c2e79"}
{"argument":"Seven out of ten students in one survey named curiosity as the reason for why they get distracted by other students' laptop use Borbone, p. 50\n","conclusion":"The bright screens of laptops and the contents they display can be distractive, and especially so when classrooms are darkened, for example during presentations.\n","id":"3974db6d-2384-436b-a9af-0c313ee264d2"}
{"argument":"The Catcher in the Rye has often been included in the English curriculum and has sold over 65 million copies worldwide\n","conclusion":"Many texts commonly included in the English curriculum are in the top 100 best sellers.\n","id":"bcc32c2d-b267-4d90-9716-da3c4580239f"}
{"argument":"Un-necessary, elective doctor visits by the \"worried well\" cost the British NHS over 2 billion pounds in 2010\n","conclusion":"Spending on healthcare is frequently a choice, and \"elective\" spending on healthcare is increasing\n","id":"74e618d1-0858-42ec-a839-0f70278251da"}
{"argument":"Prior to colonization, the West was full of vast expanses of dangerous and uncharted wilderness; therefore fur-trappers, traders, explorers, and other frontiersmen needed to carry firearms in order to ensure their safety.\n","conclusion":"Firearms were an essential element of Manifest Destiny and westward expansion.\n","id":"fcc8cea5-93f6-4a53-802c-8d3b154a2b6d"}
{"argument":"If we want a perfect society where if I work hard I will get where I want, why material usually money heritage is not evil, killing the meritocracy system? Rich people will finance and give so much more opportunities education, experiences, contacts, influence to many generations of their offspring, how young people can compete equally so their merit will decide who deserves what and gives the best individuals of a society the top positions ?. Only moral heritage should be valid.\n","conclusion":"I think personal material heritage is evil for society,\n","id":"ac517efe-f534-4055-b2f0-cb0acb322678"}
{"argument":"If cooperating with Trump has certain negative consequences, then Democrats will be aware of that, and can avoid cooperating whenever the negative consequences outweigh the benefits of cooperation. But it is unlikely that in every single possible case, the harms of cooperation will outweigh the benefits, so Democrats should keep their options open.\n","conclusion":"Democrats can weigh the costs and benefits of cooperation on a case-by-case basis. It is highly unlikely that cooperation will always turn out to be a bad idea, so rather than adopting a blanket policy, Democrats should reserve cooperation for the few cases where it is rational.\n","id":"b7cc8de9-5fbd-4d96-8131-160503317a76"}
{"argument":"Ok, so there has been a recent controversy over a UFC fighter named Fallon Fox. She has been fighting for a few years now, and has had some brutal knockouts. UFC commentator Joe Rogan has come under fire from news outlets for voicing a similar opinion to the one expressed in this post. She was born as Boyd Burton, a man, and served in the military in her early twenties as a male, before working as a trucker to pay for her gender reassignment. After her operation, she has started fighting professionally over the last couple of years. She has stated that she picked up MMA in her gym in her late twenties, and now she is brutalizing the women of the UFC. I want to be clear in that I whole heatedly support her right to live her life in any style she sees fit as long as she's not hurting anyone. However, despite removing her penis and testicles, receiving breast implants, and undergoing hormone treatments, I am of the opinion that she still has a male frame and should not be allowed to compete with female fighters professionally. There is a reason we segregate the sexes in professional sports, especially MMA. Men and women simply compete on a different level. I'm not saying that there are not women who are talented, disciplined, and gifted athletes, as there are a myriad of examples of badass women in professional sports. But, in the case of MMA, the male frame can simply hit harder and exert more strength. This gives fighters like Fallon Fox a distinct and unfair dangerous, even advantage over fighters born with a female frame. I will respect Fallon Fox and other transgender persons as much as I would any other person, I will refer to her as a female, I have no problem with any sexual partners she decides to take. But in this case and others like it, transgender fighters are not only fighting from an unfair advantage, but pose a substantial danger to natural born women fighting in the UFC. Not only that, but it trivializes the lifetime of work that every other fighter has put forth to fight at a professional level. The fact that Fallon Fox started fighting in her late twenties and is now beating down women who have dedicated their entire lives to the sport is ridiculous. So Reddit, do you agree? Should Fallon Fox be considered a legitimate female fighter? Are her victories hollow? Let me know what you think Change my view Disclaimer If you decide to post on this thread, PLEASE be respectful to all types of people including OP haha . I will under no circumstance respond to hate speech, and will promptly downvote replies fitting into that category. I encourage all others to do the same, lets ignore the assholes and have a rational exchange of ideas and opinions.\n","conclusion":"Transgender fighters like Fallon Fox should not be able to fight opponents who were born as women, as opposed to undergoing a sex change operation.\n","id":"5c5a2755-f964-4559-bd3e-1dcf11e0fd7b"}
{"argument":"More animals are purchased from breeders than from animal shelters each year. When surrendered, this means bred animals are contributing to animals being in shelters.\n","conclusion":"When searching for a pet, if they went to a shelter first, 30% decided to leave, because they preferred a purebred instead.\n","id":"f9858c4e-decb-4933-b585-b937415ed303"}
{"argument":"My logic is extremely simple. You can\u2019t commit a mass shooting without the means to do it. The Dayton shooter fired 40 shots in 30 seconds and killed 8. His gun could fire 100 bullets. He owned it legally. There\u2019s no legitimate reason why this person, a civilian, needed a gun that powerful. There\u2019s no reason the Mandalay Bay shooter needed his high powered guns, but he had them. The same can be said for the rest. Even though the OBVIOUS problem is in front of our faces, we in the United States refuse to do anything about it and we are paying a huge price just so people can own weapons of mass murder simply because they want to. You can say that the problem is poor mental health care and that might be a factor, but we\u2019re also never going to address that problem. Nor would that prevent ideological killers terrorists or people that are completely lacking in empathy and don\u2019t necessarily exhibit symptoms remorseless murderers . You can also blame heavy metal or video games or Santa Claus or whatever you want, but the truth is that these crimes happen because they can happen. They will keep happening as long as the tools for the job are available. I anticipate that people will respond by saying we can\u2019t rid of all the guns anyway, which is a defeatist argument and unproven. We\u2019ve never tried it nationwide, so no stats.\n","conclusion":"Guns are the problem.\n","id":"c7f7c188-e2f5-4dbf-b2b5-b6f68ea48f63"}
{"argument":"\"JD\/MBA- Like 'supersizing' a fast food meal, when you're not really hungry?\" Law School Labyrinth. July 17th, 2009: \"Further, I suspect that the JD\/MBA label may be viewed by law firms as a lawyer who really wants to become a businessperson. Read that as \"short-timer\". In other words, those precious firm jobs may go to old-fashioned JDs, because firms won't want to invest in someone who is planning to leave as soon as Donald Trump retires.\"\n","conclusion":"Law firms worry that JD\/MBAs might leave for business\n","id":"5dbaf05c-5465-4d76-a920-3134fcc02b5c"}
{"argument":"In the growing conflict between the US and China, Japan wants to clearly signal its allegiance with the USA rather than moving closer to China.\n","conclusion":"It is harmful for Japan to be seen to capitulate to Chinese demands for an apology.\n","id":"2aa00e40-4681-4fd3-97cf-9a3f1c5da792"}
{"argument":"I feel like concerts are supposed to be an opportunity for artists and bands to get to interact with their fans and in a way thank them, so it seems like charging ridiculous amounts of money for concerts is wrong. I understand that they are also a money making endeavor but what's wrong with charging 50, which I think is more acceptable for very popular artists, and making it possible for more of your fanbase to see you live.\n","conclusion":"I don't understand charging more than $100 for concerts no matter how successful or popular an artist is.\n","id":"3e8dacdd-ca94-4124-8fe9-81a6f1974bdb"}
{"argument":"I think that an 'easy way out' should be available to people suffering from serious diseases. The treatments to some diseases are horrendous and may only represent a slight extension of lifespan. If I were ever in the situation where I had to choose, I would like to think that my options weren't limited to wasting away or being subjected to painful and expensive treatment. Whenever there's a 'right to die' case in the news, people seem to unanimously support the victim. It seems that they invariably lose their legal battles, however. I would like to understand what are the reasons that this is not available, when it appears that the idea is widely supported.\n","conclusion":"I think that euthanasia should be an option available to those with serious diseases or poor quality of life.\n","id":"9468e4af-14ba-4219-a2ec-fec6603964d4"}
{"argument":"After reading Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, my opinion on this topic has changed very much. I used to think success was directly correlated to the amount of hard work one did, but Outliers convinced me that success is really dependent on what resources one has access to. It\u2019s really interesting how the different culture between some southern States and the northern states could be explained by the method of subsistence used. I\u2019m mostly interested in if there are any arguments that success is more skill based than Gladwell lets on. The way Gladwell put it, I understood it as the opportunities we have sets a floor and a ceiling for how low and high it is possible for you to succeed. How hard you work is where you end up on that floor.  Edit monetary success. Should\u2019ve clarified this. Obv personal life is its own life with non monetary ways to succeed in it.\n","conclusion":"Success in the US is more dependent on luck than work\n","id":"5ef2d8be-b496-48e6-a7e1-8ff203c518bf"}
{"argument":"First, some backstory about how I became an atheist and where I stand today. I've been an atheist since I was around 7 8 years old, my parents didn't raise me religious, we've never even really talked about it. However the Primary School I attended growing up in the UK did read the Bible to us every day for about 20 30 minutes in the morning I would say I was a lite Christian, but as I got more interested in Science I started to realise there probably isn't a God. A few years passed and I started to take Atheism a bit more seriously, I became more involved, I'd watch listen to prominent Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and watch Religious people debate Atheists. Back then the argument seemed to be more about clarifying what 'Atheism' actually was, the debates were professional, friendly and there wasn't any venom in the argument, they were open, friendly and diverse this was probably around 2010 2012. So I kinda drifted away from the whole argument for a few years, I didn't see any point in sticking around. Then the US 2016 election came around, and as I was reading articles and watching videos about the US election, I started seeing Atheist related articles videos pop up and started reading watching where the movement currently stood, 4 5 years after I stopped paying attention to it To me, the movement is almost unrecognisable, it has now become this mean spirited, vile, condescending mob that will attack anyone who even disagrees with them on the smallest issue, so much for free thinking I would now class most in the atheist movement as a bunch of bullies with a mob like mentality. It's not very often I get asked what my views beliefs are, but if someone asked me right now I would say I'm an Agnostic, I'm not, but I no longer want to be associated with this group. What's worse, is I get the impression a lot of people in this movement realise this is happening, and don't want to change it. But I am open to changing my view, maybe I'm misremembering how it was in the 2010 2012, maybe I've just seen a bad group of atheists that've left a poor taste, maybe something happened in the 4 5 years while I was absent has somehow warrented this change in behaviour. TL DR I'm an atheist, I agree with a lot of their causes, but I dislike the way they go about advancing those causes and I no longer associate myself with said group.\n","conclusion":"I'm an atheist who dislikes the current atheist movement\n","id":"1bace516-91c1-4545-927d-de95a3e3c023"}
{"argument":"More often than not, torture is not about obtaining information but rather demonstrating power over a defenseless person. Sanctioning torture only opens a job market for psychopaths.\n","conclusion":"If torture is allowed, then it could easily be misused or performed in excess.\n","id":"28d240cf-72ed-46aa-842c-e395f9ebe68c"}
{"argument":"Its kind of difficult to explain this. I am from the Chechen War and I saw a lot of really horrible things growing up, then I moved to Brooklyn and it was still a horrible shithole. Crime, grime, and grit everywhere, but I really did love it. Now, 20 years later, I work in an office in a hipsterish neighborhood and all my friends are from the suburbs. Everyone I know basically is relatively wealthy, sheltered, extremely liberal, and just in general pussy for lack of a better word . The men are, the women are, everything just seems so weak and nothing feels real or raw. There is no tension, no feeling of excitement, nobody really takes risks with each other, half of these people haven't even seen a fight, let alone been in one. Everything in this society recently seems to be based around feelings and protecting people from the bad, tough aspects of life. There is no rawness. There is truly a whole aspect of humanity that these people have no idea exists, they live in a bubble that shelters them from 90 of the bad parts of the world. There are seemingly no true highs or lows, just kind of constant upper middles. I am not jealous of these people. I generally believe there is a pure human satisfaction to having experienced what humanity has to offer, both good and bad. I don't think everyone should experience WAR obviously, that's a stretch, but fuck it, get in a fight, do a line of cocaine, have a one night stand, go to that crazy sketchy party, hang out with bad people, embrace your vices. It seems like there is a huge amount of young people today who spend their whole life avoiding any form of debauchery or risk. The ole american youthful vigor is now boring. My view I want to be changed, is this good? Is it good that young people seem to be this way? It may seem obvious why, but I've never really gotten an explanation besides they have healthier lives because lets face it, young people today are facing self esteem and depression issues on a scale that older people never had. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"I believe we should embrace the darker, more risky elements of humanity more rather than shun them.\n","id":"f8d61624-32a4-4e7d-89e7-4f9525affa4a"}
{"argument":"The divide between the magical world and the Muggle world means that the wizarding world lacks most modern technology and is, at times, archaic.\n","conclusion":"The differences between the Muggle world and the wizarding world make the Muggle world superior.\n","id":"96a40d44-3283-4074-9937-f41157fa4ecc"}
{"argument":"I believe that suicide is selfish for a multitude of reason but the main issue i take with suicide is the effect it has on the people surrounding the person and the change in mental state that a suicide can have on them. When someone commits or even attempts suicide it leaves those close to the person confused, shocked and saddened. To not have been aware to the extent of someone's depression or indeed if they were depressed at all, is extremely painful for a friend or family member. Yes i recognise that this level of pain or sadness is experienced by the person who attempted to commit suicide at the same level or even higher but it is unfair to submit your friends and family to such trauma. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Adaption to changing circumstances as well as coping with life's struggles are all apart of life and everyone experiences them to different degrees. Some people call me ignorant for holding this view and i would like you to explain to me why am i wrong.\n","conclusion":"I believe suicide is selfish.\n","id":"036c55d6-5884-4c22-8b4d-97c502c965f1"}
{"argument":"It is a strict liability federal offense to be in possession of the feathers of the Bald Eagle This is despite the fact that the birds are no longer endangered and the feathers are critical t many Native American ceremonies.\n","conclusion":"Many enforceable laws are outdated or victimless and hence hard to predict.\n","id":"c70b77bc-9fd3-4dd4-8ee9-85ce5b9be900"}
{"argument":"I have always loved nature. I've lived in the suburbs my whole life. I think that living in the country, or places with lots of nature is absolutely the way to live. I go to Michigan every summer, I know that there are lots of difficulties with that. But in less populated areas, everyone is kinder. The air smells good, farmer's markets are abundant and cheap, and no matter where you go there is a fantastic view. Even just a vast cornfield on a beautiful sunny day is so refreshing. I don't want a large house, just a small place with a nice view. I like sunshine and animals and camping. My boyfriend wants to live in the outskirts of Chicago. All I hear about Chicago is crime, dirtiness, homeless people and anger. No one is close to one another. People are taught to never talk to one another. I know that cities give you more to do, like shopping and such. But everything is so expensive Even a tiny apartment the size of my closet is outrageously expensive. Not to mention clothes, food and other necessities. Most apartments don't allow animals, while animals are very important to me. My boyfriend says that where we would live is nice and has little crime, but I was always brought up to think that there is no where without crime. Even here. Everyone I know from Chicago excluding my boyfriend has been bitter, sick in some way mentally, angry and generally unpleasant. While all my Michigan friends are very fun loving, welcoming, warm and kind. Also, I've noticed city people are rather unhealthy, exercise less, and eat worse than those from Michigan. Probably because fresh fruits and veggies, grass fed meats and homemade breads are cheaper and more readily available. I just can't imagine how people live in a city and not go crazy Do people not value peace there? Is it ever quiet? Don't people want to see forests and birds and spend time just sitting outside with the sun and relaxing? It seems like city people never relax. PLEASE  I'm sorry if I sound ignorant I've always been terrified of the city, afraid of getting robbed mugged, attacked, etc because that's all I really hear about the city. Thanks guys, again, sorry if I sound like a dumb suburbanite.\n","conclusion":"I think living in a city Chicago, New York is the worst way to live. Please with personal anecdotes.\n","id":"ab5461d1-22f6-48c3-ad56-c8631abfea97"}
{"argument":"I was thinking about this in a while. I swear that I'm neither a Nazi real Nazis hate the word Nazi , nor trying to become one I'm from a too mixed country . In the most recent HDI report, all of the top 10 countries are Germanic or partially Germanic most Canadians speak English, most Swiss people speak German and only five or six non Germanic countries Japan, South Korea, Israel, France, Finland, Slovenia among top 25, but I kinda consider Finland Germanic because of the Swedish influence and because they have Swedish as a co official language. Most developed former colonies were British colonies. I no longer want to think that Germanic countries or their former colonies are more likely to get developed. I know that most former British colonies India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Nigeria, among others aren't developed, I know that there are developed countries that aren't Germanic Japan, South Korea, France, Israel, among others .\n","conclusion":"Germanic people are better in creating developed societies than everyone else.\n","id":"8c4e334c-3fd6-485a-8800-752461b69505"}
{"argument":"Searching for Vedic India explains some of the historical development of Christian theology and shows how reincarnation used to be part of the doctrine.\n","conclusion":"Christianity can be analyzed for it's historical development and even more common points can be found.\n","id":"c9387655-6602-427a-87b4-e0ea91283cdf"}
{"argument":"The Bible's Genesis states that \"Earth was formed to be inhabited and the other celestial bodies were created for signs, seasons, days, and years\" only. This clearly shows that life has not been created somewhere else but on Earth exclusively.\n","conclusion":"According to the three Abrahamic religions, humans are the only intelligent species in the universe, and were created by God.\n","id":"275f8a87-d182-4616-ad15-a2baf35a9bcd"}
{"argument":"This seems to be happening a lot lately there are a ton of negative reviews on Steam from people who have played a game 200 or 300 hours. Whenever I see one of those reviews, I ignore it, and I think everyone else should too. I take it as a sign that I'm not going to get anything useful out of reading their review. I'm not saying they should be prevented from leaving a negative review or anything. Everyone is free to voice their opinions. It's like those people that try to convince everyone the world is flat you can say what you want but I'm not going listen. I'm all for giving a game a fair shot before giving it a negative review, but 20 hours is more than enough. If you didn't like the game, why did you play it for literally hundreds of hours? Why would anyone do anything they didn't enjoy for that long if they could just stop? It's one thing when you leave a negative review because you disagree with them milking people with DLCs or pay to win policy or something, but I don't want to discuss that here. I'm talking about those people that play a game for hundreds of hours and then give THE GAME ITSELF a negative review. Maybe it's just too much of a good thing is a bad thing type scenario. Maybe their just hating on a game because it's the trendy thing to do. However, when someone plays a game for that long and then tells everyone how bad it is, it just seems off to me. Anyway,  and convince me that negative Steam reviews with over 200 hours played are worth reading. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"If a game on Steam receives a negative review from someone who has played that game for more than 200 hours, you should ignore that review.\n","id":"c1974c3c-1bca-41f9-87d6-35fdc8175d5e"}
{"argument":"Let me make a few qualifying remarks before I get spammed with a bunch of the same thing. 1 For arguments sake I would like to make have this discussion disregarding overpopulation as a potential threat to human life, as I feel that is the sole reason that one can make genuinely to not have children. 2 There is a difference between choosing not to have children, and actually not being in an environment that allows you to properly raise one terrible financial situation, etc . I should add, I think this way because we, as humans, are here to continue our ancestry. To what end, I can't say exactly, but it is one of our evolutionary drives, and not doing it is against human nature.\n","conclusion":"Deciding not to have children is contradictory to your role as a human and detrimental to society.\n","id":"aa123027-54b0-4592-be54-fbb1074aef8b"}
{"argument":"All \"pictures\" from outer space are 2-dimensional. By nature the earth appears flat and round like a disk in a 2D picture and this cannot be a valid proof about the flat earth theory.\n","conclusion":"There exist pictures of the Earth from outer space showing that it's not flat.\n","id":"5d8c853a-225c-45fb-b00a-3f26840371a5"}
{"argument":"A debate can only become circular by the inclusion of an externally sourced vote, on the agreement that a vote is intrinsically a debate. A debate by definition is an open back-and-forth between opposing positions; a vote is private and unchallenged. A vote in of itself offers no evidence of any debate that preceded it, and may indeed be influenced by many individuals who neither entered nor considered any debate on the subject.\n","conclusion":"There is a consensus among online voters that supports the thesis. The Last Jedi has only the 7th highest IMDb user rating out of all 9 Star Wars movies. Users of popular movie review site Rotten Tomatoes rate it lower than any other Star Wars movie to date.\n","id":"b38be2f0-fec6-46c6-8219-eafa321408eb"}
{"argument":"Sorry if the title is gibberish, english isn't my first language and I just woke up. Specifically I'm talking about the right to live, the right for freedom of choice and the right of freedom from torture. The reason I think Great Apes should be granted these are the following Humans are Great Apes. So they are inherently biologically similar to us. They have a sense of self. This means that they can albeit a lot weaker than in humans reflect on themselves. They can remember pain added to them I can't find the link at the moment, but on youtube there is a video of a Gorilla Michael being asked about his parents in ASL and he responds with troubled thinking and cut neck They have emotions and live in social constructs similar to very early human civilizations. In short, they somewhat understand their surroundings and are aware of themselves as in I am I .\n","conclusion":"Great Apes should be granted some basic human rights.\n","id":"1e1039d9-90ae-4c52-a8d2-7935310c12e3"}
{"argument":"Note I mentioned objective morality in my title only for the sake of clarity. Terms Objective based on strong evidence, usually scientific. Subjective based on opinion. Morality Intent plus behavior, and occasionally, to a lesser extent, consequences. Types of morality I notice the most often Behavior based morality x is wrong. Examples mass shootings, stealing, lying, and arson. This is the type of morality I notice people discussing and advocating for the most. Faction based morality in group out group It\u2019s not as bad when we do it and it\u2019s worse when you do it. Examples knowingly killing innocent civilians with drone strikes, our treatment of prisoners, political blunders, our treatment of the homeless, and giving more leeway to our friends and family. This is the type of morality I notice people actually using the most. Back then based morality Things were different back then. Examples Excusing bigotry, sexual harassment, duels, and strict class roles due to time periods. I occasionally see this when people discuss other people from a long time ago. Little exceptions based morality \u201cIt\u2019s such as little think that I\u2019m doing, and many others do it too.\u201d Examples cheating on a test, pirating music, driving while buzzed, lying on a resume, and sharing gossip that may not be true. There are many types or categories of morality, but these four are the ones I notice most often. Obviously, there\u2019s contradictions here. Until very recently I believed in subjective morality, and I would excuse and justify the contradictions. For example \u201clife is messy,\u201d \u201cthese are complicated issues,\u201d \u201cthere\u2019s a lot of nuance here,\u201d \u201clove will make you blind to the actions of your friends and family,\u201d and \u201csometimes the ends really do justify the means.\u201d But I now think this is all bullshit. I shouldn\u2019t have to justify so many contradictions. I realized that if I replaced the concept of morality with emotional responses all of the contradictions instantly disappear. Feeling one way about a situation one day and feeling a different way about the same situation the next day is normal. Our emotions are outside of the construct of morality. No explanation is necessary. We are not moral beings, we are emotional beings. I suspect we invented the construct of morality as a mask for our emotions to make them seem more important, and to change the way other people act. To hide our fickle, emotional selves. People have been debating morality for thousands of years, and we\u2019re no closer to filling in the holes because morality is strictly fiction. An argument can be made that our emotional responses come from our morals, but I don\u2019t think this is true. People born without certain emotions, such as empathy, don\u2019t have a sense of morality. They may be law abiding, adhere to work ethics, be polite, etc., but they do this to fit in and not get arrested or fired. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Not only is there no objective morality, but there is no subjective morality either.\n","id":"dcc54cf6-c088-4205-8f6c-36ec99a3c673"}
{"argument":"kant thought that at first a government may need to compel many people not to violate the rights of their fellows; but over time, as citizens come to understand the benefits of freedom, most will respect rights not because they are compelled to do so but because they believe this is the right thing to do, both morally and practically.\n","conclusion":"The categorical imperative can work on an individual level, but when applied to a society, it fails. The people would use Eichmann as a means to an end, and Eichmann would act out the collective will rather than his own. This function is necessary for the categorical imperative to be applied to government.libertarianism.org\n","id":"af3980af-6ffd-4ae6-b7ed-66467200eb6c"}
{"argument":"For example, numerous past amendments to the American Constitution have clarified who is allowed to vote, for example based on race, color and previous servitude 15th on sex 19th and on age 26th\n","conclusion":"In enacting this policy, it will be necessary to change the Constitution. This has been done before.\n","id":"daf2f108-eaf0-4529-845b-743627da0286"}
{"argument":"Studies have shown that up to 97% of those living within urban areas in Turkey have been exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution.\n","conclusion":"EU environmental regulations have helped improve both the air and water quality of member states.\n","id":"73e775cb-ae59-41a1-b98b-fc2fbbac20d1"}
{"argument":"Religion helps people focus on the present by finding peace in God's will and trusting in his plans and guidance. This inner peace permeates outwards and reduces conflict.\n","conclusion":"Religions provided, for centuries, common behavioral guidelines for the society, enabling an organized and peaceful coexistence what constitutions and legal codes do today.\n","id":"577f2d4d-8473-48eb-a3a6-ae2b02d41b3d"}
{"argument":"A study testing the link between religion and fear of death found that very religious people exhibited less fear about the prospects of death than other participants in the study.\n","conclusion":"Religion was created to placate the fear of death. The afterlife provides comforting answers for the unknown and an appealing alternative to the permanence of death.\n","id":"cd1b0a73-6ceb-4eed-a4f0-a7ec727e187e"}
{"argument":"A lot of people have some fondness for Reddit's alien logo mascot dubbed 'Snoo'. However, I think it's a poor design for two reasons see below and I think the only reason people like it is the ' familiarity principle The logo has existed long enough now for people to grow attached to it through sheer familiarity, but I think that had the logo been practically any other similar design, the same effect would have been achieved. People aren't fond of it because it's a strong design, they're fond of it because they're so used to it see previous link . Anyway, the two reasons I think it's a poor design 1 It looks amateurish. To anticipate a counter argument I have a feeling someone will say that that is part of its charm a way of giving this behemoth of a website a facade of being some kind of cozy close knit community, not a company catering to millions of users to try and turn a profit. And sure, I get that. But strong logos can be familiar without looking like they were knocked up in Microsoft Paint in about 15 minutes. Imagine a video game with a protagonist that resembled the Snoo. Unless the game had some other hook to it, I doubt it would sell well, because it would look too much like a school pupil's first attempt at game design. 2 It should have been a frog, not an alien. As well as the site's name being a pun I've seen this post before I read it last week , it's also the onomatopoeic noise a frog makes. Like another young ish and successful company, Deliveroo, I feel the logo and name should be in harmony. Instead we have an alien that looks vaguely like a frog. And no, I don't have the creative imagination to think up what specifically this frog could look like, but some talented graphic designer out there could certainly create one that looked slick and stylish while being simple enough for each subreddit to 'customise'. Disclaimer 1 I'd like to clarify that I'm only arguing here that the logo is poor and it should have been better. Not that it should be better. I think it's too ingrained now to change it. The familiarity principle is powerful, and despite how arbitrary that acceptance was, it's now become the Reddit brand. But if the Reddit owners ever get rich enough to invent time travel and go back to the inception of the website, I reckon they should replace the lame alien with a good looking frog. Disclaimer 2 No, I don't lose any sleep over this. It's not something that bothers me or dampens my enjoyment of Reddit. I'm just interested in the idea of such a massive company having such a crappy logo.\n","conclusion":"Reddit has a pretty rubbish logo\n","id":"4d192d6a-9641-449e-91c2-213b0743ab70"}
{"argument":"For the purposes of this discussion, a two tier healthcare system is defined as follows Two tier healthcare is a situation in which a basic government provided healthcare system provides basic care, and a secondary tier of care exists for those who can pay for additional, better quality or faster access. Had a professor last term who thought they should be illegal, but I strongly disagree. A two tier system allows for more space in public hospitals. If a richer citizen can afford to go to a private general clinic or surgical clinic, less people will physically be in hospitals and more beds will be freed. Wait times would also be substantially decreased. By shifting much of the costs of treatment to private citizens rather than government, you lower the overall cost of healthcare. This could in theory lead to better quality of care or better equipment for public hospitals. My professor argued that it becomes costly when private procedures go wrong and patients have to be transported in an emergency situation. However, I'm doubtful that the frequency of botched procedures comes anywhere close to the benefits of fewer people in hospital. Another argument put forth by my professor is that there are still a limited amount of doctors. However, where I'm from in Quebec, many doctors get their education and leave because the pretty much public only sector gives them an income a third the size of a private practice. If private practice was more common, Quebec would have more doctors. I don't think healthcare is a right in the traditional sense, but having a healthy population is beneficial to society. Everyone should at least get an annual check up and emergency care if necessary a few times a year for free. But if we had more private clinics for bigger procedures I know a lot of people who would clear up a lot of space. What would change my view Data suggesting that a two tier system leads to higher government spending, lower average quality of care or data showing a huge amount of private procedures require treatment at public hospitals or anything I can't yet conceive of.\n","conclusion":"A two-tier healthcare system is not only better but should be expanded\n","id":"94df61fb-a505-4017-98bb-51f25ac87aff"}
{"argument":"In contrast, because a UBI is universal, all people who receive it have both an incentive to raise it, and share in the results of any lobbying to do so.\n","conclusion":"Targeted welfare programs are subject to regulatory capture by self-interested voting blocks and lobbying interests.\n","id":"f05cde99-c35d-4162-8608-d79dba073378"}
{"argument":"The music industry wants to profit from the music it produces, which involves getting it played as regularly as possible. Since radio stations are generally not allowed to play offensive music, it is not in the music industry's interests to release blatantly offensive songs. p.4-5\n","conclusion":"If the lyrics of a song are blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic they would not be published\/released by the music industry's licenced publishing studios.\n","id":"544507f5-38d1-437e-9ae5-abed9e0aef79"}
{"argument":"Meghan Markle is an important role model for people, stepping back as a senior royal means the royal family no longer benefits from this.\n","conclusion":"Stepping back as senior royals will harm the royal family.\n","id":"b404c9ac-30e8-4a85-8b26-89190644f9de"}
{"argument":"So in their third counterargument the opposition is also arguing that drugs are very dangerous. This time they assert that people under the influence of drugs can be very hard to control and can be dangerous to other people. Well, as they confessed the same thing can happen with drunken people. As a solution to that problem they proposed restrictions on selling alcohol during the night. Firstly, I would like to point out that the example of Latvia offered by the opposition is everything but global and cosmopolitan. Even if we assume that many countries around the world will set restrictions on selling of alcohol during night it is ridiculous to think that this will solve the problem. After all everybody can buy alcohol in the afternoon and drink it in the evening. Everybody can get drunk even in the morning and cause public disturbances. We would also like to add that we do not agree with the belief of the opposition that the state should limit individual freedom. However, we will prove that we are right later when refuting their argument. So, with their third counterargument the opposition once again proved that alcohol is similar to drugs. Both can lead to the same consequences and therefore since alcohol is legal, drugs should also be legal!\n","conclusion":"In addition to our third argument: Individuals should be free to do whatever they like with themselves as long as this harms no one else\n","id":"8ef97a07-4fc2-4bd9-938f-0edd03b8cbfb"}
{"argument":"The body of knowledge in medicine, nursing, and other disciplines, has become so large that it is impossible for any one clinician to know everything there is to know, even within a specialty. In medicine alone, >50 million papers have been published in >28,000 peer-reviewed journals\u200b, with >2.5 million articles contributing to this body of knowledge each year. This necessitates that clinicians use information systems in real-time, including the internet, to find needed information.\n","conclusion":"The internet helps medical professionals and patients alike keep up-to-date with the latest medical information.\n","id":"7cbb3d38-8cd5-44ac-9511-b4511cf193cb"}
{"argument":"During his commencement speech at Howard University, President Obama was quoted as saying the following gt \u201cThat\u2019s a pet peeve of mine \u2013 people who have been successful and don\u2019t realize they\u2019ve been lucky,\u201d he said. \u201cThat God may have blessed them it wasn\u2019t nothing you did. So don\u2019t have an attitude.\u201d 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.\n","conclusion":"Obama's speech on luck is more destructive and harmful message than politically incorrect speech, and should incite a similar or worse reaction.\n","id":"c6bb7ac6-8b77-4331-b6a1-8025169fa736"}
{"argument":"Low scoring? That's the beauty of the game and that's why soccer is so captivating. Games are often decided by one goal. One play, one flick of genius, one defensive error can turn the entire game around. Also, goals aren't the only thing to watch for in soccer, which takes us to Lack of progress? They're just running around and passing the ball , you say, as if you actually understood soccer tactics and the intricacies of build up play. Soccer is a sophisticated, thinking man's game, where speed, technique, timing but above all creativity are of utmost importance. Ties? Sometimes two teams are just so equal in quality that forcing them to play until one team scores or wins in another fashion would be unfair. Why not let the two teams have 1 point each? Ads on jerseys? Way better than the corporate bullshit baseball, basketball and the NFL are filled with. Commercial breaks every couple of minutes? Yeah Corporate logos on jerseys? Naah Diving? Not nearly as prevalent as soccer haters picture it, and punished in many leagues. No instant replay used by refs to verify their decisions? If you find a way to flawlessly and painlessly implement it in a game where the clock doesn't stop and no, we cannot make it stop , that will become a valid point. Clock counting up instead of down? This is ridiculous. How is 72 41 different than 17 19? assuming stoppage time is going to be added anyway Offside? One of the most sophisticated rules in all of sports and an ingenious one. Without it, offensive play would consist of kicking the ball upfield and hoping your teammate can get to it before the defender does. Implementing offside zones like in hockey wouldn't really improve anything and it would only make play unnatural.\n","conclusion":"I think the reasons why most Americans dislike soccer are bullshit\n","id":"dcafebde-ec42-4853-89bd-b12d8384b55a"}
{"argument":"I've been thinking a lot recently about general attitudes to war, and which wars people support, versus those we don't. The Second World War is unquestionably one of those events that I think the vast majority of people, like me, would say was justified. That's not to undermine the complete trauma, loss of life and other horrible things it caused but it is essentially one of the only wars I can say confidently I believe was worth fighting. Although, obviously, the reasons for starting the war were completely different to the ones we talk about today for example, no one really cared about the holocaust of Jewish people whilst the war was ongoing , but the effect still holds, at the end of the day. It still helped people. I do believe it was right to fight for the countries Hitler et al were attacking, and obviously, the U.S. became involved because of a direct attack on their land. There are aspects of the war, and tactics used that I disagree with so I'm not asking for someone to explain why war is bad or that the allies did bad things, that's pretty self evident. I guess my question is, I've never really ever heard anyone argue completely against the war. Can anyone convince me that it should have never happened, at all? I'm especially interested in hearing it from a U.S. point of view and whether anyone thinks the response to Pearl Harbour should have been any different. No conspiracy theories, please Edit As someone pointed out, we're talking about justification from the allies POV here. Not the axis power. Please don't interpret this as suggesting that Japan and Germany were justified in their actions of aggression. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"World War Two Was Completely Justified\n","id":"a2d19ff3-bdd7-4c5b-a211-59d24805f2d2"}
{"argument":"This  is kinda like Unicorns don't exist, cmv. So it's really difficult to make any arguments. But I will try to explain my thoughts. I think painting has run out of space to grow. There are limited amount of ideas you can get out of putting stuff on flat surface. And now we are in point of time that nothing new and original can be done. And this shows in many ways. Desperate attempts like contemporary art and lack of culturally important painters today. Also the lack of communities in comparison to film and music. Lastly, I think Mark Rothko is one of the last great painters, although the frustration and defeat shows in his work I still respect him. What I like about him and why am I mentioning him is because his work to me clearly represents the funeral of painting. If you arrange his work chronologically you can clearly see the limits of the medium or running out of space to grow. 1 gt My english isn't that great so it's quite possible I made an error, so please if you have questions feel free to ask. edit Oh yeah, and just to be clear. The only way for you to change my view is to give me links of a painting or artist names for me see. May be obvious but so many times people just give subreddit links or silly things like that I want real examples I'm not looking for a masterpiece. Just an ok painting with a hint of sincerity and truth. I want to see real emotion, not cowardly copying other artists and the obviousness of the person being completely lost and desperate.\n","conclusion":"There hasn't been any good painters in the last 30 years.\n","id":"e749e33b-a47e-4c0e-bf7c-c9edc652fb34"}
{"argument":"I think that organic food is too expensive and unnecessary, but my sister doesn't. She has now moved away from home and only buys organic or fairtrade food products. It is expensive, and unnecessary. She has tried to explain to me why it is important to buy organic food and if I buy less and throw away less, the bill will be the same. But it simply doesn't work for me. Organic meat and eggs are almost twice as expensive as normal and it simply hurts to take the one which is more expensive. I understand that organic food may be better for the environment and our nature but I haven't heard a convincing enough argument for me to start buying 100 organic food as long as it is available and waste money on something that tastes the same.\n","conclusion":"I think that organic food is too expensive and unnecessary.\n","id":"43c48375-17ab-41e2-88a0-f048ada54166"}
{"argument":"I've come to this view through a lot of reading, but also through my relationship with my wealthy job creating grandfather, and I know it's a popular view here on reddit. I've been reading economics and business news books fervently since 2008, and recently I read through Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson as well as Galbraith's Great Crash 1929. The resounding message from both of these books Hazlitt with a positive view, Galbraith with a negative is that people embedded in the Wall Street Economist's lifestyle cares first and foremost about personal accumulation of wealth, beyond that almost nothing matters. They also seem to have a detached according to Charles Murray's Coming Apart and simplistic view of the world which revolves solely about the exchange of money. Take Hazlitt's argument that there is always work to be done. This may be in fact true, but that doesn't mean there's always a paycheck to be had for that work. We know that argument to be patently false because we've all had to struggle finding a job. Just because work was available to be done did not mean I was going to get paid for it, you have to connect payee to payer. However, if you subscribe to Hazlitt's view, it's clear that anyone without a job is just to lazy to do work. My grandfather has echoed this economy centric view, often repeating of you get the economy right, you get everything right. He recently made the argument that a man's voice in government ought to be determined by his resources , meaning he sees no problem with Citizens United allowing infinite anonymous fundraising for politicians since that is just the wealthy adding their resources to their vote. I've seen him interact with his family and friends and, though he is a very intelligent guy, I've heard him say the most disconnected and insane views of what exactly market forces are and how they can work to reign in health care, welfare, and education spending if we just privatize and deregulate or rather choose the right regulations and expose those structures to market forces. He refuses to believe that there are people who die from lack of insurance as a study from Harvard points out about 45,000 yr do , is firmly against raising the minimum wage in spite of having no concept of living expenses or the buying power of a few dollars an hr. He is certain that racism and real poverty no longer exist, though he's never been outside of his wealthy white and yacht going community. If the rest of the job creating community is at all similar to my grandfather, then they should not even be allowed near a plutocratic democracy. I understand that a democracy is made up of people, each of whom think their thing is the most important thing, but I think that the particular disconnectedness of 1 ers and job creators is dangerous, especially to everyone who is not living within that community. TL DR The wealthy job creators seem to be dangerously disconnected from the real world, monomaniacal, and megalomaniacal. So they are the worst people to have a substantial enhanced plutocratic voice in the way government is run, at least in the US. CHANGE MY VIEW Thanks Look forward to reading the other view\n","conclusion":"I think that \"job creators\" are the worst people to listen to when it comes to deciding government action.\n","id":"04e4ff10-b96f-4228-82c7-19ffe32c5f4e"}
{"argument":"Drug related crimes became worse between the 1970s and the early 1990s, including machine gun battles between police and drug offenders.\n","conclusion":"The war on drugs in the United States has been a failure.\n","id":"a1536751-8de6-4756-b17b-08d8d4ce1418"}
{"argument":"Even direct democracies where all citizens vote directly on issues have centralised organisations. For example the Athenian Boule\/Prytaneis orSwitzerlands Federal Council\n","conclusion":"Any political system, including Liquid Democracy, still has centralised governance, meaning it can take actions without needing a public vote.\n","id":"393cbddb-cb3b-4ade-8627-ceadbcd3d7df"}
{"argument":"Theories of selective conscientious objection to military service recognise that it is possible for soldiers to be opposed to a particular war, while not being opposed to war in general. This would be analogous to allowing people to become doctors, but objecting to a specific procedure.\n","conclusion":"It is an established practice to allow people to conscientiously object to military service.\n","id":"fa975dd8-14d1-4abf-8629-f06679482b0e"}
{"argument":"Let me start out with saying ideologically I support the idea of welfare, a safety net, etc but I consider this for cases where you are actually homeless, injured, etc. However, this absolutely does not actually describe most of welfare recipients. For most, welfare is not an actual necessity. Almost anyone who can show they aren't currently working and maybe are a single parent or something can live for free on welfare. I know this is unpopular to say and makes me look like an out of touch conservative asshole, but I'm speaking as a moderately liberal minded fellow but who has had real first had observations of my immigrant family members who had similarly poor circumstances poorer than anyone growing up in the US in terms of money, social support, education, etc but chose either the welfare or work route. Looking at these cases my view is that welfare isn't really a necessity for most of these people and it is absurdly easy to get on and stay on for life and live for free. Defenders of welfare would want to rip my face off for saying this but here is what I see A Hard work and no welfare In the first case is my mother. She was the first to immigrate to this country, had two kids and got divorced. She had no concept of the US welfare system and from where she was from it was taboo to take handouts so she simply didn't ask for child support and never signed up for welfare. She basically worked her butt off, lived way below the minimal 'living wage' everyone is clamoring about these days which from my mom's viewpoint is absurdly high , shopped frugally, etc, and eventually climbed out of poverty. There were some hardships, of course, and she wasn't able to afford some luxuries like music lessons and maybe spent less time than she wanted with her kids, but that's what life is like for most humans. B Welfare Now my aunt, she came over a bit later, had one kid, got divorced. Now probably because she had more time to be exposed to the welfare state she immediately signed up for welfare. She got all her food paid for, free housing, free music lessons for her kid, got to spend all day at home with her kid, college paid for, etc. She actually got so much food she would give my mom leftovers some times. She was actually a very good typist which in the early days of computers meant she could have gotten a job very easily in many office jobs, but she actually told my mom it wasn't worth it because you get about the same amount of money benefits on welfare and don't have to work. She started on welfare when her kid was an infant and is still on it after she just graduated a high ranked college, and she is still sitting at home doing nothing. Considering she is an immigrant with minimal education from a third world country who traditionally shuns welfare and easily rides out the system, this only strengthens my stance that anyone can do this. I always assumed there was some kind of system that prevents this but there really isn't. And considering my mom who, as an immigrant, had less in terms of money, education, social support, did fine without welfare I just cannot take seriously the people who make a sob story about all these american single mothers for whom welfare is some kind of necessity . My mom had more stacked against her than most of the people on the welfare system. I would actually go further as to say it's an actual injustice to working people like my mom whose hard earned taxes were going to support people being useless and living more luxuriously like my aunt. I hate that I have this position because, like I said, I ideologically support welfare. If any of my other aunts lost their homes and were really down and out, not this pseudo poor standard that seems to exist right now, I'd love for the government to swoop in with housing education work training food and do everything to get them back on their feet. But through my mom's experience I see welfare wholly not a necessity and really inducing laziness and easy to live for free for decades or indefinitely. Change my view?\n","conclusion":"Welfare isn't actually a necessity for most of the people on it and it is almost laughably easy to take advantage of\n","id":"d0641ff1-0940-4df2-922c-b16314379a17"}
{"argument":"In the entire history of observation there has never been an event that was not caused.\n","conclusion":"If at any point nothing existed, then nothing would exist at all.\n","id":"985280c0-2a91-4220-aeb9-6877cd3573e2"}
{"argument":"The high school system in the US serves mainly as college prep. It's unrealistic and honestly just ridiculous to expect all high schoolers to go on to to higher education. It does not properly serve students who will be going directly into the workforce. I believe this plays a role in how many students drop out and unemployment rates for young people. Sure, there are some trade programs you may be able to get into. The problem is there is that these programs have limited availability and only serve a handful of careers. For this reason, I am disregarding trade programs in my argument. Here's my proposed solution High school would have two paths, college and career like the game of life . Coursework would be the same for 9th and 10th grade. The usual core classes For 11th grade, you get to choose either a college or career pathway. I feel this is the most appropriate time to allow students to make this decision. With how it is currently, students are expected to start their college search in 11th grade and have the option of dropping out. The career path would consist of classes teaching the essential skills needed to find work and become independent. Example classes would be Job searching and interviewing Basic computer literacy word, excel, etc budgeting and money management courses specific to different industries like food safety, customer service interactions, etc. part time employment would count as a certain amount of school credit Some core subjects would still be required but in a form where it focuses more on real life skills, like an English class that is centered around resume writing, writing professional emails, etc. If after a career path student graduates they change their mind and want to go to college, they still can. Plenty of students who drop out still go on to get a college degree, they just need to take some extra courses. I feel this is the best way to prepare young people going into the workforce and increase graduation rates. But I'm sure there must be a flaw with this plan otherwise it probably would be implemented. .\n","conclusion":"High schools should have a career path option for those who aren't planning to go to college\n","id":"45a6c0f2-42dd-43f1-b928-afa3e9ed5157"}
{"argument":"I've been thinking a lot about this recently when somebody asked if you could kill Hitler before the Holocaust, would you? Initially, I answered yes, and still I think I would if I got the chance. But, thinking about it now, I don't believe that it is ever right to kill someone. I don't think anyone is that much more significant that they have the right to end the life of another person. As for assisted suicide, my religious beliefs make me inclined to say the people are still living for a reason. I know this is getting into a whole different field of view but that is my opinion. EDIT The Hitler thing is in an assumed time travel situation, where someone from the modern day traveled back in time, knowing full well what happened in the Holocaust. 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\n","conclusion":"I believe that nobody has the right to kill another human being.\n","id":"b5c99e1b-a2e5-4655-a2a8-2bafa3caa798"}
{"argument":"There is a lot of discussion lately about whether police departments should release to the public information about who has concealed carry weapons permits. In New York state, a newspaper published this information for its coverage area. In Maine, where I live, a major daily newspaper just asked every law enforcement agency in the state to release its concealed carry weapons holder records. I'm a journalist and a strong First Amendment open government advocate who believes transparency is the cornerstone of effective democracy. So why should police be able to keep secret the identities of people they allow to secretly carry weapons in public?\n","conclusion":"I believe info about people who have concealed-carry weapons permits should be public.\n","id":"810a19c7-366e-436b-97dd-22bed2ae8a18"}
{"argument":"One is assuming that we understand who, or what, God is. As mere humans do we have the capacity to understand something so huge and all-encompassing? Does a small child understand why it's parent says 'no'? If we are discussing a Christian God, then we are but children - and children do not understand what their parent does all the time. Saying that God would not let such and such a thing happen if 'he' were a good God, is naive.\n","conclusion":"Humans are limited in their capacity to conceptualize God, and thus are incapable of accurately judging the relationship between evil and a divine being.\n","id":"d1f1d0eb-185e-4866-bc1a-06d30ab5752c"}
{"argument":"For example, I think the jump from PS1 gt PS2 was substantial, in graphics and the ability to play DVDs. The jump from PS2 gt PS3 was also substantial in the same way but with Blu ray . I can't see myself purchasing a PS4, however, because it doesn't really seem to have many improvements. The graphics looks marginally better, but I think the limiting factor is more the developers at this point. I'm pretty content with the games available, and they are still releasing new ones. How are the new consoles breaking new ground? Why would I buy one?\n","conclusion":"The current generation of game consoles have 'improved' by too small of a margin to justify their expense.\n","id":"2dd6369f-7616-4098-94f2-4a4904123cff"}
{"argument":"I think I agree with tax cuts for the wealthy. The general idea is if we simply take money and give it to the middle class or the poor, or do it via a tax cut or whatever, they money is going to be spent on goods and services. Those goods and services payments are going to go to companies. The companies realise that operating in the US like this is too expensive and will move factories, production etc. Overseas. So really the money we gave to the people is just going to flow into overseas coffers of corporations. The american people are never going to see it again. Even though we gave the people money directly, we didn't improve their wages or living conditions, we just bought everyone a pair of new Nikes and created jobs for 9 year olds in china. When the nikes get old, the government will have to again give people money. or cut taxes on the middle class or however they want to do it Sort of like a trickle up policy, except it trickles up and out of the country. If we instead cut taxes for the wealthy, and incentivise them to stay in the US, then the more successful they are, the more they sell, the more they are forced to employ US labour, the more demand for labour the higher the wages, the higher the wages, the more people can spend causing self sustaining growth. I might not be able to afford those Nikes today, but if I save up for a week and buy them, the money I gave to the company will likely go into designing Nikes new football helmet line, with a new factory that my son can get a job at. Thus reallly the money I paid to get my nikes gets recycled back into my family. With a portion taken out for profits of the capitalist.\n","conclusion":"I think I agree with tax cuts for the wealthy\n","id":"3c1785a7-a9d2-42db-befd-45f31e53e4fe"}
{"argument":"There is no other species that has any greater claim to existence than humanity makes. Otherwise it could be similarly said that nothing should procreate.\n","conclusion":"Not procreating will ultimately lead to human extinction and this is a bad thing.\n","id":"9f097980-4ef4-4eec-8d93-e1c28e36d52b"}
{"argument":"The two wars between the United States and Iraq as well as the decade of hostility in-between have been linked to the presence of chronic misperceptions on both sides.\n","conclusion":"The world's international relations would be less marred by misperceptions among states about each other's intentions and capabilities; this would make for a more peaceful world.\n","id":"5fb2e5c8-f25a-4328-9311-c590dddc886a"}
{"argument":"The God of the Book of Mormon encourages all of his children to repent and come to Jesus Christ. This is identical to the message of the Bible and is the key determinant of an inspired text.\n","conclusion":"The doctrinal message is the same inspired message that is contained in the Bible.\n","id":"80fc3de6-06c5-4850-bb36-66b00ab710e6"}
{"argument":"Involvement of both partners in sexual adventures, e.g. having an orgy or going to swinger clubs. This carries less risk of separation.\n","conclusion":"There are better alternatives than adultery to making a couple's sex life again more eventful.\n","id":"5063055f-e055-458d-af41-5bfcd98cd577"}
{"argument":"References to biblical eunuchs as a third sex\/gender category further supports the idea that Judaism and early Christianity did not view maleness and femaleness as the only options God allowed for, nor were maleness and femaleness viewed as innate and unchangeable.\n","conclusion":"\"In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.\" This passage, from Genesis 1:27, has sometimes been taken to mean that God does not have just one gender.\n","id":"06c8735c-6678-471d-b378-554f5b422ea3"}
{"argument":"So I've been reading a lot about how different video games have caused controversy and I was shocked to find out that many countries, including the US, Canada, and UK, will actually ban games and make it illegal to sell them. For example, Grand Theft Auto V. Not that it's been specifically banned, I'm just using it as a hypothetical. It caused a massive controversy as every GTA game has because of its violence, language, and sexual content. But with organizations like the ESRB what's the problem? Adults who are capable of making their own decisions can decide whether or not they want to play it and parents can choose not to allow their kids to buy it based on its rating. Why should a government need to ban it? To me it just seems like a stepping stone. So many games get wrongfully accused of things. Like the game Bully. It was accused and even taken to court over how it glorifies bullying and allows the player to act out horrific bullying actions theres just one problem, it's literally the opposite. You play as a bullied kid standing up for himself. My point is, we have seen that people will just believe what people on Facebook tell them about video games rather than play the game themselves and find out so where's the line? What's to stop the government banning things that don't support their agenda claiming that it's inappropriate? Sorry the for the wall of text. I've just been mulling this over for a while.\n","conclusion":"A national government censoring or banning any form of media like a particularly violent or sexual video game for reasons of morality or propriety is wrong and oppressive.\n","id":"169436b8-7ed8-4e0b-8967-560cb8f1bfa3"}
{"argument":"To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying Trump is a good president, let alone a good person. However, every other American president has committed atrocities that seem to have been swept under the rug that dwarf anything Trump has done so far. For example, Clinton Responsible for the Iraq Oil Embargo, which led to the deaths of 576,000 children. Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, thought it was worth it though. Bush Started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on completely false pretenses, leading to the deaths of somewhere between 1 to 3 million people directly and countless more from the resultant destabilization of the entire Middle East. Obama Perpetrated the intervention in Libya that was officially declared by the British Parliament to have been based on lies that led to literal slavery making a comeback not to mention the migrant crisis that has been tearing Europe apart. Perpetuated the war in Syria by arming the likes of Al Nusra aka Al Qaeda in Syria. Also continued Clinton's tradition of child starvation by helping the Saudis blockade and bomb Yemen. While Trump has perpetuated and even escalated many of these wars, so far as I know he hasn't started any new ones. He's even made the unprecedented move of trying to pull out entirely from Syria and Afghanistan, despite the cries of you need to consult your generals as if any general ever got to his position by advocating against war . While he's certainly responsible for his fair share of crimes, I'm not aware of any that stack up to those listed above.\n","conclusion":"Trump is the least harmful US president of my lifetime so far\n","id":"01c8d321-317d-4eb1-ad5e-b3214e7a8639"}
{"argument":"So over at r news there is an article about how the San Diego School District acquired an MRAP, or Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle. In the article is talk about how they want to use it in satiations like a school shooting, so they can get the kids out safely, is that not what the police are for? They also write about the MRAP with have 20,000 30,000 worth of first aid supply's in it. Is it really that unsafe in US school that they need to get a 18tonn armored vehicle? I think this is overdoing it just a bit. Reddit, Change My View\n","conclusion":"Does the San Diego School District really need a MRAP?\n","id":"888e9890-7801-4864-bebf-8c14f30abe7d"}
{"argument":"While the affirmative stress the wealth of international law relevant to this debate, it must be noted that this law arose in a time in which nations existed as the only combatants on the battlefield. While we should not reject its moral underpinnings, the precise letter does need to be reconsidered for a time in which most enemy combatants do not don military uniform. Indeed, if a country had evidence that one of its leaders in government was plotting a large scale attack on its citizens, a pre-emptive strike would almost certainly be justified. And yet the affirmative would have us believe that countries should be made impotent when this plotter removes their military uniform and carries out their plots with non-State associates. Certainly there are questions of sovereignty involved. Nations have a right to rule and administer justice over their citizens as they see fit to some extent. But that sovereignty only exists internally. Other nations do not have sovereignty over us. And yet when a nation is unable, or occasionally unwilling, to administer certain forms of justice to its people, namely that which prevents them from plotting or engaging in acts which take place beyond its borders, the effect is very much the same as a willful violation of our sovereignty, and should be responded to as such, by targetting those people directly whom the negligent state has failed to target. There is no moral justification for suggesting that the failure of a State to control its people should be paid for with the lives of our citizens, and we have every right to prevent that criminal transaction within the bounds of proportionality, even where this requires disregarding the sovereignty that the other state has cast aside through negligence.\n","conclusion":"The rise of non-state actors and the responsibility of sovereignty of other states.\n","id":"f8eee753-01a7-4367-9155-be3ebb2f50e6"}
{"argument":"According to psychology, individuals are able to derive conclusions from their actions. If one commits a mistake like becoming a foreign fighter out of naivety or being ignorant of ISIS's true nature but then is enlightened by facts and human stories about the web of lies which mislead him\/her, one is later able to distinguish between truth and lies. Of course this greatly depends on whether one is given a true opportunity to reintegrate into society - or left with only extremists as \"family\".\n","conclusion":"Their naivete\u0301 and radicalization by way of manipulation should be taken into account when choosing an appropriate punishment for them.\n","id":"c1f9095c-17b7-4480-894a-b89142887c4a"}
{"argument":"Forgive any rambling, Im going to ensure I hit the 500 word limit. With the exception of the moon where the dirt bike is amazing to rack up coins with flips and crazy air time, the race car is the superior vehicle. On maps like the beach and the cave the down force keeps you down on the big hills and keeps you in the ground. On Highway and Rollercoaster, forget about it, it's tailor made for those levels. I have made all of my high scores with the race car, on every map except the moon. Another huge downside of the bike is it's so flippy, if you get onto a hill and you lose momentum you end up doing a back flip and you slip backwards and can't get back up without a run up. With the race car, once you get forward momentum the downforce keeps your front end down and you will get up any hill.\n","conclusion":"The race car is a better vehicle than the dirt bike for 90% of maps on Hill Climb Racing.\n","id":"390b5415-6387-4f0b-b235-c40c98f06744"}
{"argument":"One of the foundations of capitalism is the idea that transactions should be voluntary and not imposed, as is the case for government-mandated taxes.\n","conclusion":"Capitalism, by virtue of the free market and a general lack of state intervention, enables more freedom than any comparable systems.\n","id":"e7125ede-5fa5-4b54-a759-457e26e5dfdf"}
{"argument":"Most of these European parties align with national political parties of member states, allowing for an easy transition from an EU to a USE.\n","conclusion":"There are multiple political parties in the European Parliament. These could provide the foundation for political coalitions in the new USE.\n","id":"7df54064-4693-4a13-9d57-527cb18d36a2"}
{"argument":"When I look at all the evidence and video they have it's just some of the most fake looking stuff I've ever seen. Especially when i look at the Van Allen Belt Intense radiation around the earth , I don't understand how that someone can go through it. Footage looks ridiculous to me, look at this flag waving ,that's amazing to me since nothing was is touching the flag how on moon could this flap? The sky was a deep black Neil Armstrong Yes it was in the photograph because of camera lens sizes but if you were on the moon and you were to look up, you would see this Neil Armstrong would very rarely have an interview when he came back. He fell into depression and became an alcoholic. The only bird that can talk is the parrot and they don't fly very well Neil Armstrong Ask yourself what do parrots do? Repeat what they're heard or told right? Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time. Bill Clinton I wonder what Bill is referring to here.\n","conclusion":"I still believe we didn't go to the moon\n","id":"0c1c1e45-9a2d-456f-bc74-b103a645acaf"}
{"argument":"If the judicial system is not perceived as legitimate, their rulings may not be respected or followed by people or other branches of government.\n","conclusion":"Juries increase the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in the eye of the public by including them in trial processes.\n","id":"16b244b1-4b11-4294-853d-b313c1467998"}
{"argument":"Britain will have significantly less influence in Europe if it leaves the EU, and as a result will be a weaker nation in the international community.\n","conclusion":"The best way to influence change in the organisation is by being a member.\n","id":"c756ed52-de5a-43e2-8dbc-e780c0f10f74"}
{"argument":"A development of an international labour movement could solve this issue. Global solidarity between workers could increase bargain power over global capital.\n","conclusion":"Capital can move globally when too much restrictions are put on it.\n","id":"43f47566-c864-4e03-aa24-c4aa13eb8821"}
{"argument":"From the trailer\u2019s released so far it feels to me as if the series will fall back into the routine of, \u201cTry once, fail, train, win.\u201d and which I\u2019ve enjoyed some of the past installments, but they feel extremely formulaic and at this point nuance is something that the franchise needs in order to continue it\u2019s successful run. If this is the case it feels like it really squanders the interesting dynamic between Drago and Creed if they just make Drago into just another bad guy instead of expanding upon the, \u201chate.\u201d he grew up in after Rocky 4 and his father\u2019s humiliation in the Soviet Union while making Ivan more of a true antagonist. Unfortunately I feel like this will not be the case. To  Provide me evidence I might have missed in the trailer hinting at some nuance in the story. To not Claim that the movie is not out therefore we cannot determine.\n","conclusion":"It will be extremely difficult for Creed 2 to avoid the Rocky Formula.\n","id":"4cbefb01-8e00-4d7e-b4bc-372949fa5f0b"}
{"argument":"To Iran, to terrorists, from North Korea, from Russia, etc. I believe that to ensure the safety of the US, Israel, and our other strategic allies such as South Korea, we should use all force necessary, including military force, to prevent terrorists or other nations from possessing nuclear armaments. I feel that current UN efforts in regards to this has been far too weak, and unilateral force from the US is the only way that anything will really get done on this issue. I also feel that the repercussions from the use of such force is minimal in comparison to the good that preventing other nations from getting nuclear weapons.\n","conclusion":"I believe that the US should use unilateral military force to prevent nuclear proliferation.\n","id":"bc58dd97-106f-4b66-87d9-d2aebdc168ae"}
{"argument":"Marketing experts say it is difficult to determine whether calls for boycotts can truly impact business because once-angry customers either forget or move on to the next event or debate.\n","conclusion":"Boycotts are often ineffective and fail to gain enough support to provoke a response from the corporation.\n","id":"7bae4a78-7d6f-442e-b0d0-07b2ef8a3eb0"}
{"argument":"My view is a simple one, so have at it The reason I have put this in  is because I keep seeing people insisting that calling someone disabled means that you're defining them by their disability, whereas calling them 'a person with disability', you're pointing out that they're a person who just happens to have a disability . To this, I say bah We frequently use single words to describe someone. When someone describes me as an engineer , they're not suggesting that 'engineer' is all that I am. Nor does calling me male or White or unfit suggest that my entire identity is confined to that single word. Similarly, when I describe someone as deaf or disabled , I'm not defining their character or their personhood. These words are succinct and portray an important piece of information about someone. If these terms offend someone, the problem lies with the offended party, not the speaker. Edit and for extra laughs, I've recently come across the terms person living with disability or person with lived experience of disability . This cumbersomeness is all for naught, adding nothing to the communication. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Terms such as \"person with vision impairment\" and \"person with disability\" are cumbersome and there is no sufficient reason to use them instead of \"blind\" or \"disabled\".\n","id":"3e1dd453-cfba-4b2f-a48e-f3a5586d4901"}
{"argument":"He can take the help of other leaders in the Congress party like Shashi Tharoor, Manmohan Singh etc to tide over his inexperience.\n","conclusion":"Rahul Gandhi is mature enough to handle a position of responsibility like that of a Prime Minister.\n","id":"f72f77eb-81ec-493d-8887-21e3cc7a4e42"}
{"argument":"I don't know anything about Venezuela. I just read this article about how socialism destroyed Venezuela, and how the people there are pissed because the government has too much power and control, because of socialism . From what I understand, socialism is supposed to be democratic and acknowledge the point of view of the middle class. In socialism, there should be no poverty, no suffering, and no need for a revolution unless someone is opposed to the system because they want to be self sufficient and independent which I can understand, but this seems to be more about poor living conditions and less about individuality . Socialism is similar to communism because economics are controlled by the government, but socialism is supposed to be less authoritative and more democratic, and clearly that is not happening here, which is why I think this is communism and not socialism. In case anyone is wondering, I stumbled upon this article on a Libertarian blog post about why Bernie Sanders should not be the next president of the United States due to his socialist views. I always try to make the argument to Libertarians that any nation where the people are suffering is not the true intent of socialism and Marxism, and that free market capitalism is, in fact, more likely to result in poverty than true socialism. You are welcome to debate me on this as well. I'll admit I'm still fairly new to economics as I am a senior in high school so any information you guys can give me, from a capitalist perspective or a socialist perspective or even a resource based economy perspective is appreciated\n","conclusion":"Venezuela is not a socialist country but a communist country.\n","id":"88ff3204-293e-471b-9da9-fd240d67c703"}
{"argument":"This appeals to science. A member of the Trans community may choose to agree. They may also disagree on the grounds that it disrepects their group and undermines their lived experience, which they will rightly claim is also a fact.\n","conclusion":"This may be perceived as Politically Incorrect to the transgender community.\n","id":"c21722ae-09bf-458d-8507-5e6977283236"}
{"argument":"Despite the underlying concept of the free software movement wishing for software to be free as in freedom, there is a surprising lack thereof. If something is released under the GNU GPL, all software that uses that code must be under that license. Most of these licenses also retain the copyright for the software. But if the software is to be truly free, than shouldn't it be in the Public Domain instead? Why exactly do developers of free software need to retain their copyright? To me, it seems redundant and harmful to software freedom.\n","conclusion":"Open-Source Software should always be released into the Public Domain.\n","id":"37590d74-90d7-47b5-89a7-a8c78216ae45"}
{"argument":"I don't believe in affirmative action as it is practiced in the US. Although the civil rights laws forbids quotas, the de facto application is one where underrepresented racial minorities blacks and hispanics are advantaged in college admissions, hiring, and contracting based on race. The overriding principle of the 14th Amendment was that all citizens of the US deserve and enjoy EQUAL protection of the laws. In this case without regards to the race of the citizen. Affirmative action as practiced in the US does not give equal protection or justice to all races. Whether or not outreach programs or extra efforts to encourage minorities to apply for admissions, jobs, or contracts are legal is one thing I think it is justified , but to give a substantial bonus to minorities is altogether something else and which I disagree. As documented during the Gratz v. Bollinger Supreme Court case, the university gave minorities substantial points which affected their admission rates above and beyond outreach on the part of the admissions office. Supporters of affirmative action react to the charge they are discriminating based on race by deflecting the question towards the diversity of the applicant pool. This is not a legitimate answer because the Constitution doesn't say anything about giving one a pass on equal enforcement of the laws based on diversity. Therefore, to conclude that you can discriminate based on race, just depending upon which race you are targeting, is not a better rational than those who supported segregation.\n","conclusion":"Supporters of affirmative action are no better than the racists they otherwise condemn.\n","id":"3c172bfd-c0cf-47b5-9b71-19c6ed3efaf8"}
{"argument":"Many people like to construct their own unique identity through carefully selecting products which allows them to present themselves in the way that they want.\n","conclusion":"Product diversity is important for people to be able to express their identity.\n","id":"78fcb914-30ab-4e92-a3cd-2ab4e42eb2b8"}
{"argument":"Traditional materials such as wood and stone induce to additional maintenance costs in the future\n","conclusion":"Modern materials and construction techniques are better in many ways.\n","id":"6df2be01-3b65-48f1-ab7f-362cc7ea2b81"}
{"argument":"The reliability of a source is directly linked to the consistency of the author's account of the truth and the strength of their claim. A reliable text displays a pattern of verifiable truth-telling that tends to make the reader trust the truth value of the rest of the text.\n","conclusion":"If a historical source contains discrepancies, it harms the reliability of the source\n","id":"ea2addc5-336b-4666-a9f4-febfe7b4c5d3"}
{"argument":"Note See updates below for more recent information. Background I am a graduate student who could become a professor, but I am so sure that the university system will decline that I am considering the safer route of taking an industry path. I was thinking about this today and I feel like I am more confident about it than I should be. What a better way to test it than here? Main reasoning Domestic applications have been declining over the past few years. I see this trend continuing, if not accelerating, into the future due to the high cost of education and the diminishing capabilities to get loans at reasonable interest rates. To offset this trend, universities have already begun looking overseas for more students. Let's look at Purdue for example. This report highlights the near doubling of international students. A large majority of them are from China. You will find that this trend is consistent with a majority of other universities in the US here's one example This growth is unsustainable for two reasons China's One Child policy will leave a deficit of available young people in the upcoming years who could enroll in a university in the US. The university programs in China are very likely to take off and be competitive with second tier universities. Note I am defining second tier as schools with a USA Today rank of roughly 15 100 The investment China has put into research is particularly good and will likely allow them to gain ground on the US education system. For these reasons, I don't believe the high enrollment at US universities is sustainable and therefore it must be true that soon a good number of these universities, including well known ones that have high academic rankings, will be in sufficient financial trouble that they will have to fold. Other reasons Research funding has dropped in the US over the past five years. Recent budget cut plans allow for a very reasonable argument that future funding will be slashed even further. Much of this funding goes straight to the university. Thus, this is a revenue source that could hurt and is unlikely to aid if enrollment is down significantly. Philanthropy is barely up despite a large economic recovery of the rich. It seems very unlikely that future philanthropy will overcome deficits, especially when you consider the increasing percentage of graduates who are international students. There are signs already of desperation, as Florida State recently allowed the Koch brothers to have full curriculum control over their economics department in exchange for money. Salaries for university presidents are up 3 this year, a consistent increase year after year. I believe this expense signifies the increasing cost of administration. Overall, I believe that with higher interest rates, more difficulty in securing student loans, and less success in the job market, there will be a continued decline in domestic enrollment. This decline cannot be adequately offset by international students the demand will not be there in the future. Because of lowered enrollments and funding cuts from the government as well as no change in philanthropic aide, I believe that there will be an education bubble wherein many schools, including second tier schools, will fold or cease to exist due to financial problems. Change my view. UPDATE Several people are bringing up the rise of India. It appears that I might be wrong on my perception of the rise of India I will do some research on this subject before responding to that line of arguments. FOLLOW UP Okay, so from what I see I am wrong that there will not be a growing middle class in India I had assumed more of a dichotomy due to India having a high rich poor gap . Thus, my first point is undermined. That said, I think some of the other discussion has brought up a greater point online classes. It makes sense to me that big name universities MIT in particular will steal even more of the students that would normally go to a second tier undergraduate program. Overall, then I still think there will be a decrease in enrollment at most second tier programs. So, my view hasn't changed but the reasons behind it have changed quite a bit. Yet.\n","conclusion":"I believe that, in the US, there is an \"education bubble\" that will burst within fifteen years,\n","id":"292f60a4-0660-4d12-bbb0-d20167b75f43"}
{"argument":"My knowledge is limited to that of the average college graduate when it comes to disorders such as ADHD, anxiety, and depression. I fully believe that all are valid conditions, and just because depression has more devastating consequences doesn't mean that ADHD and or anxiety are any less valid. With those who have achieved a similar level of academic success as me, I have seen many who believe depression to be a realistic and noteworthy problem, but many of those same people believe that ADHD and anxiety are excuses for people who are lazy or can't get their shit together . This view is not limited to a key group of friends, but seems to be held by a great majority of my peers. Again, I am stating that holding BOTH the opinions that depression is a serious affliction that affects many people and that ADHD anxiety are over diagnosed and overblown issues is hypocritical. I am not stating that one or the other is valid or invalid. EDIT Include the assumption that the person believes both to be legitimate disorders, but that ADHD and anxiety are overblown and therefore insignificant.\n","conclusion":"Criticizing claims of ADHD or anxiety as \"excuses\" and simultaneously believing depression to be a clinically valid disorder is hypocritical.\n","id":"1fe0e79d-a16d-4cc2-a175-a62aa204b707"}
{"argument":"I have a very strong stance on this but I really would like to hear some logical and rational explanations for why there is such a thing as reverse racism. Before we delve into this I've got to lay out what my definition of reverse racism is basically when any people group ethnicity is racist towards another people group ethnicity due to the other group being racist oppressive to the first group. I've heard reverse racism a lot on the News, I've also heard it said many times from my peers regarding white people minority people group interactions. As a mixed race person I've seen in my own family racism from all sides and I really don't see the validity in the term. Time after time whether it be on social media or even out in public, I have heard the notion that if you are a minority you aren't a racist if you think less of European White Caucasian people as it is just a natural reaction . Honestly I just do not buy it as the 2 minority heritages I come from have both been oppressed violently, systematically and socially. I still do not have white guilt being my 3rd heritage is mixed European American. To give some context I'm a young adult, I have a dual citizenship I am a citizen of the United States of America and a citizen of a federally recognized tribe sovereign nation within our nation American Indian Native American Indigenous however you would wish to call it . I am also 4th generation Asian American descent. As for political parties I choose not to pick Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or any of that. I can't honestly say I am a neutral either I read for myself and do my own research and do not just listen to alphabet news. I hope we can have a good and calm cool collected discussion about this topic.\n","conclusion":"There is no such thing as reverse-racism. Racism is Racism.\n","id":"5bbce4e3-2269-4f5f-bd19-ed0e099a489f"}
{"argument":"Liberal democracy is a philosophy of inclusion To disenfranchise a part of society sabotages that fundamental value of democracy.\n","conclusion":"Every act or process that is based on exclusion hurts democratic values and erodes democracy.\n","id":"673ad67d-1152-4f13-8e6c-b43240d1ab52"}
{"argument":"Global consumer product corporations flood all countries with virtually the same products, where they replace the original goods. Supermarkets in all of Europe feature the same stuff from Nestle, P&G; international brands like Starbucks are outcompeting local coffee shops, etc.\n","conclusion":"Globalization is synonymous with homogenization and an increased lack of diversity.\n","id":"8e130e5e-f829-4ceb-bf6d-94564a1f776b"}
{"argument":"Let me preface this by saying this assumes our current understanding of the speed of light, the way light travels, and time dilation are correct. Given that the closest solar system is over four lightyears away and we could at absolute best, under the most perfect of circumstances, travel at 99 the speed of light it is unreasonable to assume we could ever realistically travel in an interstellar manner. It would take whole human lives just to get to a solar system with possibly habitable planets, and by the time we got there we'd have left the entire planet of Earth and everyone we knew behind and long dead. The only conceivable ways around this are a wormhole or a method of travel that bends time and space in a way to minimize the travelling through time and maximize the travelling through space. The problems with these are a wormhole wouldn't necessarily work and even if it did, it'd more than likely spaghettify us anyways, whilst a device like an alcubierre drive is currently unable to be made in the 'real' world.\n","conclusion":"Humanity will likely never be able to reach another solar system\n","id":"e9627701-e1d0-4749-8150-bda75c585c9a"}
{"argument":"An analysis of peer-reviewed publications on the efficacy of homeopathy in treating livestock concludes: \"In a considerable number of studies, a significant higher efficacy was recorded for homeopathic remedies than for a control group. Therefore, the potential medical efficacy of homeopathy under certain conditions cannot be ruled out.\" The placebo effect does not come into play when the patient is not aware that they're being given a treatment.\n","conclusion":"Just because modern science cannot explain the mechanisms by which homeopathy works does not mean they do not exist.\n","id":"561c4480-d5a9-4d03-a635-583c03354f30"}
{"argument":"God is outside the Universe in the same way a computer programmer is \"outside\" his program. He can control and affect the program and can see the beginning and end parameters. If the computer program is \"artificially intelligent,\" it can be said to have a measure of \"free will,\" even if the parameters are limited and\/or predetermined.\n","conclusion":"There is no contradiction between all-knowing and all-powerful, unless you mistakenly assume that God is an entity inside of the universe. Classically, he has been conceived of as \"outside\" of the universe, including time itself. If God is outside of time, then his knowledge of the future does not imply strict determinism.\n","id":"c768176c-2c04-4380-b239-4cf28336aa83"}
{"argument":"Inequality is partly a consequence of individual choices. Fighting this inequality attacks the responsibility of the individual.\n","conclusion":"Not all inequality is bad. It can be beneficial for a society.\n","id":"b7075d79-3015-4ebd-9d66-76c82eb82868"}
{"argument":"\"The right to freedom of expression is a human right\", as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR\n","conclusion":"Any form of speech should be allowed without any restrictions.\n","id":"7505a56f-155d-48c6-a09c-6d2244f0cc3e"}
{"argument":"Re posting because I forgot to put  in the title, so auto mod removed it. College costs are competing now with the housing for the right to be called the biggest investment of a lifetime. Yet we have young kids, who have no idea what they are going to be doing with their lives go and make this investment, without any idea whether it will ever pay off. Take chances, they say. Make mistakes, they say. Get messy Well, after a 4 year long party quite a few people end up 250k in debt serving coffee at a local Starbucks. Thing is, if you serve coffee anyway, you might as well own the place, and 250k makes a solid downpayment on a coffee shop. You don't need a college degree for an office job. You don't need a college degree to be a real estate agent. You don't need a degree to be a copywriter, or even a journalist. Very few professions medicine, engineering, law, research actually require one, so unless you go into one of these and you better know which one upfront you are probably making a VERY big mistake paying quarter million dollars for just a holding pen to mature. So my proposition is unless you are mature enough to know what you will be doing with your life don't go to college. Go get a job. Join Peace Corps. Intern somewhere even if you don't make money, at least you aren't wasting much of it. Learn what your profession will be THEN go to college to study FOR IT. Or don't if your profession does not require it. P.S. As a hiring manager for one of the world's largest software development companies, I often go to colleges to recruit on site. Both good schools, and bad schools. Typically in a bad school there would be 1 2 people out of 30 50 that I'd meet in the few days I am there who would be worth hiring. ALL of them would be at this particular school for a wrong reason they could have been going to Stanford, Harvard, MIT, or CMU, but they went to XX State because it was close to home, or they got a stipend. Well, if they were to go to Harvard, every top ten company in the world would be competing for them with 6 digit offers, but as it stands now, they will be lucky if they ever met anyone from Google or Microsoft, and will probably end up updating banking software for year 2038 a la Office Space. If they did understand the industry before going to school and it's not really that hard, most of us learned programming waaaaay before college , they would know, and not make this mistake. As it happens, however, they've made this important decision when being unqualified to make it and with the expected results.\n","conclusion":"You should not go to college until you are ready to declare your major.\n","id":"dfd14d6b-7d84-404d-94fa-69f6b4be1346"}
{"argument":"I believe that abortion should be a right, but that is not the argument I wish to have right now. As it stands currently where I live, a woman can have an abortion, but she has to go in and talk to someone alone to be sure the man isn't forcing her. But, what if the case is the opposite? What if the pregnancy is an accident, and the woman doesn't want to keep it, but the man does. It seems unfair to me that when a child is born, if the woman wants it and the man doesn't, hes forced to pay child support, but if the position is reversed the woman can just go have an abortion. Essentially, that's saying that the man has no rights to the life of a fetus, even though it's his the same way it will be if its born. Before it's born, he has no rights over it and can't accept it as his, and after it's born he's forced to. I think in the case of an accidental pregnancy, if the woman does not wish to have a child and the man does wish it enough to lose the woman over it, she should have to carry the baby to term and the man should get sole custody afterwards. If the position were reversed, the man could take off, and the woman could have the baby herself. For the sake of this argument I'm ignoring cases in which carrying the baby is harmful to the mother, that would of course still be abortion able terrible word . I understand that that would force the woman to spend nine months carrying a baby she would not want to, but that would be a consequence to her actions everyone knows sex is never 100 safe, so its a risk we take every time. Sometimes you draw the short stick . Paperwork would have to be signed beforehand to ensure that once the baby is born the woman has no responsibility towards it. TLDR Why do women get the entire say on an abortion? The man is held responsible once the child is born, yet has no rights on the fetus before its born? EDIT I have somewhat changed my mind on this issue. I had not yet placed myself int he shoes of a woman, simply thought from a viewpoint of a man who might want a baby that is being taken from him. However, actually having to carry a baby to term seems a steep price to pay for the mother. I think if we could medically incubate babies without a female, then this opinion would be viable. I also think single parents male or female should have the opportunity to adopt, following the same rules guidelines procedures as couples. However, I will say my view is changed. I don't think a woman should be forced to remain pregnant with a kid she does not wish to have.\n","conclusion":"I think the man's opinion should be important before a woman can have an abortion. -\n","id":"378c8342-98fd-40f1-a089-e7f45e295a8f"}
{"argument":"When he met President Trump ahead of the US\u2019s momentous decision to leave the Paris climate accord, Pope Francis gave him a copy of Laudato Si, his 2015 encyclical - the highest form of papal writing - on climate change.\n","conclusion":"In a time of environmental pollution and climate change, Pope Francis emphasizes the Catholic church's responsibility for protecting the environment\n","id":"0d17bdf0-a44c-4129-8edb-c5d18804c0a2"}
{"argument":"If someone lived in a neighborhood for over a decade, and someone in that neighborhood decided to kidnap them, and drop them off at some strangers house, the kidnappers would generally be regarded as bad guys. There is no substantive difference between this scenario, and deporting DREAMers.\n","conclusion":"DREAMers have lived here for a significant portion of their lives, so they don't share the culture of their 'native country'. They would be lost foreigners there.\n","id":"bf4728f4-b203-41f3-a18f-fb8fe1a61d29"}
{"argument":"Japanese school history textbooks largely do not mention any specific details about the atrocities committed at Nanking and play up uncertainty about the number of casualties p. 2.\n","conclusion":"The Japanese government plays an active role in bolstering narratives that the extent of the massacre has been exaggerated.\n","id":"e2729c9a-f48a-48d2-b648-137765d17b9b"}
{"argument":"This has been a controversial statement to make to my family and friends, because it seems no one else agrees with me. While the movies were what introduced me to the series, now that both the movies and the books have been finished for years, I can't help but feel the movies were huge let downs. One of my biggest gripes is how much is omitted from the movies. Most people seem to say well it's impossible to fit such huge books into a single 2 3 hour movie, and they're not wrong. But the cuts are a huge detriment to the story and the world of the books. This is the primary reason I advocate for a TV show adaptation, but I'll get to that later. A lot of the characterizations were off. In the movies, Ron Weasely comes off as a lot stupider than in the books there was a great link about this in r harrypotter a few weeks ago, but I can't find it because of Reddit's bad search bar . For instance, in the first movie when Ron is struggling in the Devil's Snare after Hermione tells him to stop squirming. In the books, it was his time to shine Hermione remembered that fire kills Devil's Snare but she lamented about not having any matches when Ron said ARE YOU MAD ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT . These subtle characterizations change who these characters are over the course of seven movies. The same characterization issues can be seen with Sirius isn't portrayed as rash as he was in the books , Dumbledore his questionable past was completely ignored in the last movie , and especially Voldemort they skipped out on almost all his backstory . The last movie didn't answer many questions at all. A lot of people left the theater confused as to why Harry didn't die, or why Voldemort just disintigrated. In the books, there's an epic scene where Harry and Voldemort go back and forth about a lot of things Snape, Dumbledore, horcruxes in front of everyone in the Great Hall before Voldemort is killed. And then, Voldemort dies. He has a body. He doesn't just evaporate after a duel. Now, for the second part of the . I think the Harry Potter series would have been better served as a TV series. Obviously not HBO or Showtime, because I can't imagine a single scene that would have nudity considering most of our main characters are underage or old . I would probably say that BBC would be the best network, but I don't really know much about British television. Regardless of which network airs it, I think it would serve the story better. The books all have mysteries that could benefit from a serial drama format the Sorcerer's Stone mystery, Chamber of Secrets Heir of Slytherin mystery, Sirius Black, Who Put Harry'ss name in the Goblet?, etc. The earlier books don't necessarily have enough content to be able to fill up a full 10 12 episodes. I would say the books should be broken down by season Season 1 Sorcerer's Stone, Season 2 Chamber of Secrets, etc. , and have later seasons have more episodes Seasons 1 3 with 8 episodes, Seasons 4 7 with 10 or 12 . Even there, there might be some issues with not having enough content. That's where we can focus on world building. JKR's world is very rich. We could have more time seeing the students just being kids teens. There could be some focus on the professors or the families of students. We could see older students more, or get more view of the Slytherins, Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws. There are infinite possibilities here. This wouldn't only adapt the book, but make it stronger, if they keep almost everything the same from book to show. As opposed to the movies, which seem to detract from the books. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"I believe that the Harry Potter movies are an awful adaptation of a great book series. I also believe it would have been better served as a television series.\n","id":"5f794c18-face-4821-96a3-ab61ce8e7bfe"}
{"argument":"I'm writing this mainly in response to the general attitude you see in threads like this People generally seem to see speeding as a minor offense at best, and treat speeding laws, speeding tickets, and traffic cops with a certain amount of contempt. Many seem to see dangerous driving as a crime that you should simply do your best to get away with and to help other people get away with , rather than obeying the law. I'm going to make my main argument by analogy. Imagine I go outside with a gun and start randomly firing bullets into the air. I would almost certainly be arrested for this, and I think most reasonable people would agree that this would be appropriate. By firing bullets randomly into the air, I am subjecting the people around me to unnecessary physical risk, as well as psychological distress, without their consent, and that is a violent act. The violent nature of my act would not be mitigated by the fact that the physical risk is relatively low unless I'm in an extremely crowded area, the bullets are fairly unlikely to actually hit a person , because the people around me have not consented to even that low level of risk. Speeding is a very similar situation to this. By going above the maximum speed at which the roads were designed to be used, you are subjecting people around you to physical risk, and possibly some level of psychological distress if they're a nervous driver . You are increasing the risk of an accident for other drivers and cyclists and pedestrians around you. There is a very real if small in most cases that your choice to speed will result in the death or injury of somebody else. That makes it a violent act. The most common argument I encounter against enforcing speeding laws is usually that it's safer to go the speed of the traffic, than to keep to the speed limit. If this is true, then to my mind it's an excellent argument in favour of my point not against it. It implies that by speeding, you are creating a subtle pressure on everybody around you to match your speed. Even if your driving skills are such that you can safely drive above the speed limit and it should be noted that most people overestimate their driving skills , there is no guarantee that the people around you have the skills to match. Furthermore Not everybody is necessarily comfortable matching your speed, nor are their vehicles necessarily capable of doing so safely. Hell on some roads, some of the people around you will be riding bicycles. How the hell are they supposed to match your speed? I'm not really arguing for any particular legal punishment although for egregious cases of speeding or reckless driving I think 12 hours in jail might be warranted . Mainly I want to argue that people should stop treating speeding with a wink and a nudge, as they currently often do.\n","conclusion":"Speeding and other forms of reckless driving are violent crimes and should be treated as such.\n","id":"aefa327d-7766-47ad-9e18-ff9555cd3cc2"}
{"argument":"Becoming a multi-planetary species would be an unprecedented achievement in the history of life in the universe, let alone for us as a species\n","conclusion":"Such a vision for our species provides hope and inspiration for millions of humans now and in the future\n","id":"963d695b-a88d-43af-a0ab-83c4465607c3"}
{"argument":"I drink 1 sugar free energy drink every day. I am sick of people telling me it is unhealthy. My 16 oz beverage contains 140 mg of caffeine. This is equivalent to a about 1.5 cups of coffee. Many people drink several cups of coffee which has more caffeine than the energy drink that I am drinking. Many people add sugar, creamer, or even more caffeine in the form of espresso to their coffee. You can change my view if you can prove to me that the combination of Taurine, Ginseng, and B Vitamins or any other chemical found in the amount found in energy drinks causes is to be more harmful than coffee. There is about 1.4 to 300 mg of Guarana in an energy drink 1 gram of Guarana has about 47 mg of caffeine you do the math. I only drink either Monster 140 mg caffeine or Rockstar 160 mg caffeine both sugar free.\n","conclusion":"Drinking 1 sugar free energy drink every day is not unhealthy in fact it is healthier than drinking coffee in many cases.\n","id":"ce649f77-2f7f-4c93-bfbf-77dd98acfd24"}
{"argument":"I came to this conclusion by thinking about these questions What is the worth of life? Life cannot actually be valued. It is not priceless, nor is it worthless. It is simply something that is and isn't. What is the worth of a human? At one time, the human species had value just as much as the other life forms on earth. Over the next couple thousand years, we have done horrible damage to our one reliable resource. I cannot in good conscience value human life. What is the worth of society? Society is like the fly population. It serves a very vital purpose in how what we know is structured, but can it please just take a day off or something? The most ignorant and horrible things ever done in the history of mankind were done because a group of people with certain beliefs agreed on something ie the KKK, holocaust, 9 11 . Society is a petri dish where humans can grow in a biased environment. Society is also something that cannot be valued, but for different reasons. The urge to be around others of your own kind exists everywhere, and this cannot be blamed for the barbaric acts that arise from humans following the instinct. Why do people have power that isn't physical? Society is the answer to this. Having 100 people on your side would usually make the other 10 fall right into line. There are outliers as shown all across history, but the pattern exists for a reason. Why has the world degenerated so much? Because of humans. We all arguable want to improve the standard of living of ourselves and those we look favorable toward, also known as our loved ones . How does all of this tie together? People look after their own due to the attachments they develop. This would cause you to rush to the defense of those you form attachments to. In this way, we have those who serve and protect because of their abstract attachment such as loyalty to a country, society, or government system. Morals are just people agreeing that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. If you do not conform to such a view, you are bombarded with disapproval and peer pressure until you approve, are somewhere you cannot impact society from, or are dead. Humans are flawed so our morals and values must also be flawed on some level. Where is the danger? Mommy only knows best when you're mommy. Otherwise, she is just trying to impose her ideas and worldview on you. This attitude is the biggest cause of conflicts throughout human history. We just can't trust one another And for good reason, too. Humans just cannot be trusted, especially by other humans. So what's the next best thing? Conformity. Peer pressure. Social norms. Playing to your instincts. You will defend what you want while the other team will defend what they want and both of you will look like idiots afterwards because you will finally see that your motivations are one and the same. You are the same as them . There is no us and them because we are all exactly the same. Does that perspective make every single altercation in the history of mankind look completely and utterly moronic to anyone else? Forget sacrifice. Forget selflessness. Forget duty. Forget necessity. Forget greed. Forget quarrel. Forget love Every single altercation between two humans, no matter what it was over, looks so laughably primitive to me that I find myself wishing that I had never been concieved. Change my view, Reddit.\n","conclusion":"Stripped to their essentials, patriotism and morals are worthless. They can also be harmful. Humans are better off not existing.\n","id":"1c8e4bfc-1c33-4a47-891f-66a26470a993"}
{"argument":"I think that we will achieve general A.I that is smarter than humans by 2030. Although this is aside from the point. I think there is not a single untilitarian task computers won't be able to crush humans at. With the right hardware and software it will do anything better. A.I is consistently beating humans at cognitive tasks like relational reasoning, verbal comprehension etc. This trend will only speed to the point of intellectual divinity. What i want to change my view is 1. A task or task category computers will not be better at and a well reasoned argument as to why they won't be able to achieve superhuman ability there. 2. In what way humans are too sophisticated in as to beat them with machinery and why. I mean utilitarian not in terms of ethics. But in terms of usefulness to an arbitrary goal, human or otherwise.\n","conclusion":"A.G.I will make humans obsolete from a utilitarian perspective.\n","id":"0c86ce85-d68d-49d0-a8bf-4d22abebbb65"}
{"argument":"White supremacist's ideology limits other people's freedom. Their right to free speech is less important than the right of the targeted minorities not to be accused on the basis of how they are born.\n","conclusion":"Freedom of speech is not an unlimited right, and therefore can be curtailed.\n","id":"4dd7263b-0bd3-41cf-b83c-59540c25a202"}
{"argument":"Here is what I mean. We have Bob, on our far left, and Rob, on our far right. Bob believes Rob is evil to his core, and Rob the same of Bob. I\u2019m going to use a fake issue that isn\u2019t politically polarized, but for the sake of something lighthearted. Bob says to Rob, \u201cpeople should eat eggs with bacon because according to the CDC, it is important to have a healthy amount of iron, which bacon contains. \u201c Rob thinks Bob is inherently wrong because of his \u201cevil nature.\u201d Rob says that \u201cpeople should eat eggs with grits because according to a respectable research article he read, fats help people digest nutrients, and grits have fats. \u201c Bob thinks Rob is inherently wrong because of his political views. Here is probably what happened to Bob and Rob. They went to something along the lines of heftylefty.com and rightytighty.net. They each read for a while, getting deeper and deeper into the political vortex. They left with the mindset of \u201ceveryone who doesn\u2019t think like me is wrong, and I should believe everything the website told me to believe.\u201d Well, here is where people say, \u201cWell, their arguments are reliable because they use reliable sources.\u201d On any topic, there are arguments for both sides that are respectable. People should choose the side they believe carries more weight an informed decision . But Bob and Rob don\u2019t. Bob and Rob think that everything that doesn\u2019t confirm their opinion is false. And that is the big one confirmation bias. Confirmation bias affects everyone, but it affects polarized people the most. Take something in real life. Infowars and Alex Jones. People who watch believe whatever he says because it confirms what they were thinking might be right, is right. They talk about guns and gun control on that show. Alex Jones says \u201cI can have any guns I want\u201d and the all the Robs in the world look up second amendment rights and shove that in the face of anyone who disagrees, without listening to all the horrible deaths caused by gun violence. The lack of informed decisions made by Bobs and Robs is what makes their political arguments somewhat illegitimate, they don\u2019t know what they are talking about. They don\u2019t know whether they believe gun deaths outweigh the second amendment rights. It might be important to listen to bobs and robs, but not to believe them. After all of this, the point I\u2019m making is politically polarized people are misinformed, the arguments they make are somewhat illegitimate. Bobs and Robs should try not to be Bobs and Robs. Footnote I respect anyone\u2019s right to have their own opinion. It is my view that the opinion of politically polarized people is deeply flawed.\n","conclusion":"People who are politically polarized are deeply misinformed, and their political arguments should be viewed as somewhat illegitimate, and should try to be more informed.\n","id":"7b736b87-5d4f-414a-bbee-c62af2138ef2"}
{"argument":"gt GRIMDARK gt gt The notion that the actions of one person can do little to improve this world in decline, that the forces of evil and inertia and temptation will ensure that all of us are doomed. The best we can hope for is a little struggle with morally ambiguous heroes to oppose danger and maybe rescue for a brief time a few others. gt gt NOBLEBRIGHT gt gt The notion that the actions of one person can make a difference, that even if the person is flawed and opposed by strong forces, he can and wants to rise to heroic actions that, even if they may cost him his life, improve the lives of others. If there is a sliding scale between them, while 40k tends to be the 'exemplar' even namer setting for Grimdark, the Mythos is even grimmer and darker. The main points to support this comes from the Call of Cthulhu. In it, the attempted ramming is to show that human efforts can have no impact at all, and that Humanity is to the great old ones as ants are to humans. Our survival is not due to skill, luck, or circumstance, but because we are so far below the comprehension of those beings as to be unresolvable. Compare and contrast this with the greatest beings of similar veins in the 40k lore, the Chaos Gods. Not only do they personally care about their champions and opponents, but their plans are able to be be halted on even grand scales. Similarly 'hopeless opponents' such as the orks and the tyranids can be stopped, and defeated. Grimdark says that you can do little to improve something in decline, and that while you may struggle, you can only get small victories against beings intent on your destruction. Cosmic horror says that nothing you can do can do anything, at best you may encounter misguided mortals who are of no consequence to the greater beings, and you only continue existing because you are below the level of observation for the beings. In short, you can fight grimdark and hold off things that want to kill you. You can't fight cosmic horror, and it wouldn't matter anyway.\n","conclusion":"Warhammer 40k's 'Grimdark' is an overall lighter setting than the Lovecraft Mythos' 'Cosmic Horror'.\n","id":"768cb634-dd5f-4871-8d12-ca99b1c58f5c"}
{"argument":"In many places, especially the United States, it is illegal to drink alcohol in public. I can understand making it illegal in certain buildings and areas, and of course making it illegal to drink and drive. I don't see why there is anything wrong with just drinking in public though. Not everyone who drinks in public will drink to the point of being intoxicated. Drunk driving will still be illegal, so people won't be any more encouraged to drink and drive illegally. I don't see why it is morally wrong either.\n","conclusion":"There is nothing wrong about drinking alcohol in public.\n","id":"4a24e37c-6403-47c6-a79a-aac01f66fdb8"}
{"argument":"Racism is a hierarchal system of oppression based on phenotypes where 'White Europe' is superior and 'Black Africa' is inferior. The hierarchy determines resource access, public perception and treatment. It was created by Europeans to justify perpetual exploitation of Africa and its global majority 'melanated' population for the benefit of a 'white minority appearance.' As a white creation for white benefit, white people cannot be victims of racism.\n","conclusion":"Despite people's perceptions, anti-white racism is not actually a bigger problem than anti-Black racism.\n","id":"e69fe462-f43a-4e85-834b-86ac7134eae3"}
{"argument":"I believe we all can agree that while gender issue is important, the dispute about gender equality and oppression based on person's gender identification may have gone a little too far on the other extreme recently I've noticed that the lines are becoming somewhat blurred. For example, several times I've noticed calls to raise kids as genderless from the very early age. Indeed, being raised in such environment eliminates all possible gender stereotypes and teaches people around that no one is assigned to a certain gender role. However, I believe in a traditional way of raising children. I believe that in our times, there is not really much oppression regarding cis people, and more and more is done to eradicate lgbt discrimination, so I sincerely feel there is no critical need to enforce genderless rhetoric only to let a baby choose which gender they would like to become. Raising a kid genderless as a response to the society in an effort to highlight its flaws seems dumb and selfish to me. NB Having no proper extent, I managed to offend some people by the headline and by post itself by using an incorrect pronoun. I tried to correct the mistakes, but reddit only allows to modify the post itself. Please accept my apologies.\n","conclusion":"I believe that parents should not refer to their child as \"it\" until the child grows up and determines its gender\n","id":"c546f792-422d-4258-b144-71da483104fb"}
{"argument":"Under socialism, society is ruled by individuals collectively working together toward a common purpose to enhance the collective good. Socialism also promotes democracy, self-management, solidarity, equity and other positive social benefits as well as greatly increases prosperity and equality see the section on decision-making for more detail. This compares favorably to capitalism, where society is ruled by corporations and their pursuit of profit and power.\n","conclusion":"In socialist systems, society is ruled by the collective people.\n","id":"fb2694b5-fa4a-41ff-880f-fae4d008650c"}
{"argument":"Some foods that are eaten rely on animals to distribute the plant to allow it to flourish elsewhere, such as elephant bush So eating the plant helps the plant out too.\n","conclusion":"In addition to being not harmful, vegan foods can be very symbiotic with and beneficial to wildlife.\n","id":"a31e539d-54ea-44cf-8aa8-d585f695f93f"}
{"argument":"Citizens' properties have been confiscated by the state to provide places for refugees to stay for. Thus it should also be okay for the state to confiscate valuables from refugees.\n","conclusion":"Interference with the right to property can be justified due to reasons such as public or general interest, taxing measures, compensation, etc.\n","id":"2877c886-5f9a-4511-8267-4647563c2bcc"}
{"argument":"This argument isn't limited to beauty. It can apply to any sort of qualitative measurement, but let's use beauty as an example. People will often say that the assessment of beauty is subjective. The argument goes some people like tall athletes, some people like Little People, some people like Victoria's Secret models, some people like BBWs. You can't say one is more beautiful than the other. It's just a matter of taste. This is wrong. In any finite population, we can sum subjective assessments to reach an objective value. Consider the following thought experiment Every 18 person in the world gets to look at every other 18 person in the world naked. And everyone gets a scorecard on which they rank everyone else from 1 to 10. In the end we add up everyone's scores. A person is objectively more beautiful than everyone with a score lower than their own. A BBW will surely get plenty of 10s from people who think that body type is attractive, but her overall score will likely fall below a Victoria's Secret model. This is what it means to be less beautiful than someone else. It is incorrect for someone to believe they are beautiful just because they can point to a small group of people who feel that way. You can't actually gather this data. True, but not the point. Unless you think beauty is subject to quantum mechanics, the value is already fixed even before we measure it. 'Objective' doesn't mean the sum of all subjective experiences. Maybe this isn't the perfect word I certainly don't mean the people who score the highest are the Platonic ideal humans. It's just the best term I could come up with to contrast with an individual subjective view. Maybe it could be called aggregate subjectivity instead. In any case, this type of measurement leads to a higher level of truth. Society unfairly makes us think that certain body types are more beautiful than another. Fine, but that's a different issue. The point of this experiment is to measure how much beauty a person in fact has, not how much he or she ought to have. Put another way, if we live in a society that is prejudiced against larger women, the experiment tells us how objectively beautiful a large women is in that society. This assessment is important because it tells the truth about the current world.\n","conclusion":"Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.\n","id":"2205bf02-4f29-450f-b21a-4c2d1c839339"}
{"argument":"Despite being given automatic tax exemptions by the government due to them being a charitable organization, churches are not legally obligated to act charitably or provide any public service that would be considered charitable.\n","conclusion":"Tax exemptions are a privilege and should not automatically be granted to any organisation, including churches.\n","id":"f60ed608-c50a-4bef-8b25-af060e09ed16"}
{"argument":"It may not be an end goal. Its still unfortunate that the horn is considered an aphrodisiac and hangover cure. But we live in a world where a person in China has to choose between getting paid 2 an hour or 65,000 per kilo of rhino horn. Legal farming could greatly shrink that value and also pay for anti poaching measures through tax revenue. Here's a graphic of total Rhino's left in the world. A legal trade of Rhino horns could perhaps fund one bodyguard for every hundred wild rhinos. I don't see why you can't render it nearly impossible to poach one with the funding from tax dollars of a legal trade and the depreciation of the value of the horn.\n","conclusion":"- The best way to help the longevity of the Rhino\/Elephant is to farm them.\n","id":"b3a6512b-9dbf-47af-8225-011d6a02d56e"}
{"argument":"Accomplishments like traveling to the moon or finding traces of water life on mars seem to be pointless to me. Even if we were able to discover life in other galaxies also not guaranteed to happen , I don't know how we of Earth would benefit from that. The chances are too slim and ambiguous that I see little point in seeking these answers out, and the universe is so vast that we may never become technologically advanced enough. I know satellites are extremely helpful to our society, what with the use of GPS maps, weather prediction, communication, etc but I don't believe there is any use putting billions of dollars into studying things beyond the Earth's atmosphere. People have engineered and studied things that make surviving in space easier, such as a special container to drink liquids from and the space suit. But these are ONLY applicable to those astronauts in space, an extremely small number of people, and there is little else we can do with this information. Don't get me wrong, I think space and our universe is beautiful I would someday like to get into stargazing , but this scientific, rigid approach to studying space that has evolved today seems to have more cost than gain. Past the knowledge we gained of the lunar year, our orbit and spinning on an axis, I don't think there is much else we truly needed to learn about space.\n","conclusion":"I think space exploration and corporations like NASA are a waste of money.\n","id":"291162b2-c6cd-43fe-bda3-92d186ee45db"}
{"argument":"A discourse theory of morality argues that reason can derive morality from the structure of human communication without any appeal to a transcendental being or value system. This suggests that God is not needed to posit right and wrong.\n","conclusion":"Contemporary moral theory suggests that moral standards can exist without God.\n","id":"c910ec5d-6c30-4c02-8ab7-d9175d116da1"}
{"argument":"It seems to me that the media reports on the idea of colonizing Mars to an unhealthy extent. Mars has series of properties that make it virtually impossible to be colonized by humans. Some of those include Extremely low temperatures Fifty times higher levels of radiation than on Earth No fertile soil Almost no resources for producing electricity Space dust, which sticks virtually to anything and is electrically charged One third of Earth's gravity No atmosphere Aside from the points listed, astronauts colonizing Mars will also have to face social problems \u2013 there will only be handful of them, spending most of their time in a sealed shelter. This, however, applies to the worst places to live on Earth as well deserts, the poles, mountain regions, underwater, etc. . The reason for asking whether the least suitable place for human life on Earth is still more viable for living than the best place on Mars is simple \u2013 I don't think it's worth it. Even if the conditions on Earth change drastically, this planet will still remain a better choice for the future of mankind. If you know of a place with worse conditions for human life than Mars's on Earth, please, change my view.\n","conclusion":"The least suitable place for human life on Earth is still more viable than the best place on Mars.\n","id":"0ca6e39f-a0e9-47b9-b554-815c086bf2b0"}
{"argument":"\"War powers irresolution.\" The New York Post Editorial. June 21st, 2011: \"The War Powers Resolution was passed -- unwisely, in our view -- to tie a particular president's hands at a difficult period in American history. But it's the law. How would it harm American security interests to obey it?\"\n","conclusion":"War Powers might be bad law, but it must be obeyed.\n","id":"6ebf985e-b969-46fa-8933-0dd10f3bae03"}
{"argument":"If you consider the rate of the growth of Islam in the west, and the way in which intellectuals in the Muslim community are taking control into their hands from the hands of the Ulema, we reach the conclusion that in the near future there seems to be no threat of the clash of the civilisations, as both sections of humanity are gaining benefits from each other. The West is receiving moral education from Islam and Muslims are allowing their children to come the universities of the west for further studies. Both sides gain in prosperity from the rising tide of globalisation. The clash of civilisation idea was advanced by Samuel Huntington more than twelve years ago, but even today, after six years of a neo-conservative Bush administration much influenced by Huntingdon\u2019s thesis, any clash is not turned in a full fledged bloody war. We have still not turned into morons.\n","conclusion":"If you consider the rate of the growth of Islam in the west, and the way in which intellectuals in t...\n","id":"07be59b3-53e7-4f74-9542-ab7744cee4a7"}
{"argument":"There is only one legal age of consent. 18 At that age you can vote, enter into legal contracts, have sex on camera, join the military, and be legally held accountable for your actions amongst other things . The same should be true for purchasing alcohol, gambling, purchasing firearms, driving, and pretty much anything else I can think of. It doesn\u2019t make sense to allow voting at 18 but not drinking, nor to allow a child to be responsible enough to drive a car but not sign a contract or buy cigarettes. This seems incongruous to me. I don\u2019t hold that 18 is the correct age, for example, I think that 21 would potentially be just as appropriate. I merely hold that there should be one age across the nation where you are responsible enough to drink, vote, drive, use legal drugs, buy guns etc etc.  Edit 1 I have been swayed to some extent. I still think that at the age you are held legally responsible for your decisions, that you should have all the rights and responsibilities that go along with adulthood. However, I do appreciate that there are certain instances where it is appropriate to have exceptions to the rule. Such as personnel who live in rural areas getting a license to drive under certain conditions. I don't think that should be the norm, but I do think that having a process for it is right.\n","conclusion":"There should be one legal age of adulthood for everything.\n","id":"73b7c0c9-8ac3-4d87-b370-9ae0ad2430a4"}
{"argument":"Bad Samaritan Laws infringe on individual liberty because they impose a duty to act without consent from the bystander.\n","conclusion":"Bad Samaritan Laws, which require people to come to the aid of others, attract legal and moral criticisms.\n","id":"166b4d51-5fac-4908-ad24-3ba40f41dc9a"}
{"argument":"This has obviously been on my mind due to recent news and I truly believe we need some sort of change to address the uptick in mass shootings and just the amount of gun violence we have in general. I also understand that trying to ever get a majority of American Representatives to agree to remove guns from our country is not going to happen. I do believe we should be able to accomplish widespread gun control that does not infringe on the rights some people hold dear, while also severely reducing access to guns to reduce the opportunities people have to use them to hurt the general public. The ideas I had to do accomplish this Lift all restriction on funding gun violence deaths research Reason we need to understand the problem to deal with the problem Everyone buying a gun gets a background check. Anything violent domestic or otherwise bars you from owning a gun. Reason Just about every mass shooter has a history of domestic abuse. Yearly psych eval required for gun owners. If eval is failed, guns are taken away. Reason A significant portion of mass shooters have a history of mental health issues. If you go to therapy and pass your eval next year, you get your guns back. Gun tax to pay for gun violence research. Reason Similar idea to cigarettes tax. If you want to own guns fine, but it\u2019ll cost you. You must register every gun you own. Possession of unregistered gun results in immediate fine and gun seizure. Second offense is jail. Reason My main thought is that if guns are fully registered and accounted for, we make it significantly harder for guns to slip through the cracks and wind up where they shouldn\u2019t. Gun storage required off site . At shooting range, hunting range, gun store, etc. Guns must be checked out for activities like hunting, or range day. This includes accessories, magazines, etc. Reason Again, reduce access to guns. Make it harder for kids to get into their parent\u2019s stash. This is an inconvenience, but there is no restriction on how many guns you can own. Must be registered as a gun owner in the state you are trying to purchase gun. Reason Again, make it harder for random joe off the street to get a gun Waiting period before buying a gun Reason see above Allowed one home defense gun. Gun is not allowed off premise and is gps tagged. No more than two mags. Must be in safe, and safe logs when it is opened. Gun allowed out of safe for 1 hour before authorities are notified. Reason If you want to protect your home, fine. But that\u2019s the only purpose of that gun. If you're a registered hunter edit or farmer , you can register up to 3 guns to keep at your home. Reason People hunt. I don\u2019t, but I understand for some this is their way of life. No direct purchases at gun shows. Guns are shipped to registered owner's address storage location only. Reason Seeing a pattern? If you want the gun, fine. But you have to deal with some inconvenience that would hopefully make it less likely for someone to get a gun when they shouldn't. If you want to have a shooting range at your property, it must be registered and inspected yearly. Reason ~~ ~~Some people like shooting on their backyard where there backyard is 100 acres. That\u2019s fine. Must announce if you are crossing state borders with your guns and acquire temporary license by the state you're going to. Reason If you want to travel for some hunting or competition, that\u2019s cool. Just let the state know. Concealed carry permit can be registered for one gun at a time. Permit also required to open carry a gun. If gun not registered as your carry weapon, it can not be in car on person unless on the way to from storage. Reason People like to concealed carry. That\u2019s fine, but it must be known. This is again to reduce the number of unknown guns floating around. x200B I know these would be hard to implement, and at the end of the day would definitely inconvenience people, but I don't see those as reasons enough to not implement these ideas. This lets you keep your guns. This lets you defend your home. This lets you do all the activities you enjoy with guns. But it keeps people accountable. It makes sure that we aren\u2019t surprised that the crazy mass shooter had a 50 weapon stockpile. It makes it harder for some kid to raid their parents weapons and go to town. And it keeps more guns off the street by keeping tabs on them. It even has the bonus of creating new jobs while still keeping everyone in the gun manufacturing pipeline employed. So why not try to implement these ideas?\n","conclusion":"It is possible to have widespread gun control while only inconveniencing legitimate gun owners\n","id":"92e2dbc9-acdf-4a9e-887b-1bd914c743da"}
{"argument":"Generally this comes up as a response to someone saying I don't see color . As as the case with BLM too , the phrase is mis interpreted due to the phrase itself not being clear. For most people, stating I don't see color doesn't literally mean they can't tell the difference between an Asian, White, Black, Latino, etc person. It means that they see everyone as an individual. They don't make assumptions about a person based on their ethnicity. In the case of black people, many want the fact that a person is black to be 'recognized'. I, as a white person, should know of the hardships black people went through, and presumably treat every black person differently in some way because of that. This reasoning doesn't seem correct to me. If I am supposed to assume that every black person I meet has gone through hardship, I should make assumptions about every other ethnicity as well. Should I assume every white person I meet is racist? Every Asian person is good at math and has a high income? No, I reject that idea. I should treat every person I meet as an individual, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or orientation. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"I don't understand the idea behind recognizing historical hardships black people or any other ethnicity have gone through\n","id":"f215f2b5-846c-45ea-b3d1-6e4a868c15bc"}
{"argument":"An author described ancient treasure lore as follows: \"For, it developed, anyone who buries money always put a 'seal' on it by saying certain words so that if anyone except the person in possession of the 'seal' attempts to take it, they'll be foiled by those unearthly beings--dog or cat or snake or other creatures chosen--whom the 'seal' has set to guard it.\" Ann Hark, \"Erdspiegel Mystery,\" The American-German Review 7 June 1941: 11\n","conclusion":"The Book of Mormon's reference to the golden plates containing a \"seal\" or being \"sealed up\" mirrors magical terminology in which money or knowledge is \"sealed\" for protection from unworthy people or evil powers.\n","id":"87b1957c-8f8f-4d74-bc14-cedd81e191e5"}
{"argument":"I always thought I wanted a career where I can make a difference in the world, and have a positive impact on people. The problem is that pretty much all those jobs also have many many other applicants. If I get such a job, I'm not really adding much, because someone with pretty close skills would have been able to do the job about as well. Most of the time the runner up for a job position is pretty similar, I doubt they'd be significantly different from their performance. If I was in a highly influential role, the world probably wouldn't be that different from if I had never been in that role in the first place, because they would have found someone else with similar skills to fill that position instead. It would take a certain level of arrogance and narcissism to think I'm adding anything significant of value. If this is really true, I should probably give up this dream of having a positive impact and settle into a normal higher paying career. But that sounds boring and depressing to me. The only exception to this I can think of is an artist, because they create things truly unique that connects with people on a special level. But I don't really have the artistic skills to be able to have a career like that. Am I wrong, someone please change my view\n","conclusion":"The idea of an impactful meaningful career is nearly nonexistent, because even if you are in a position that does good, someone else would have easily filled that position instead, and done essentially the same job.\n","id":"97c95aca-1eac-4418-b1c6-ed0e7c2899fc"}
{"argument":"In addition to the Articles of Secession submitted by every state in the Confederacy, 4 states issued additional documents. These documents, issued by Texas, Mississippi, Georgia & South Carolina, are known as the \"Declarations of Causes,\" which explains the specific reasons behind their secession from the Union. In these documents, all 4 states strongly defend slavery. For descendants of slaves, these monuments can be perceived as celebrating a dark and painful period in US history.civilwar.org\n","conclusion":"The principal legacy of Confederate statues is white supremacy and slavery. Since this fundamentally conflicts with American values and ideas, they should be removed.\n","id":"cf263c06-9fa3-4fac-ab87-38ee3d8ca933"}
{"argument":"Molar pregnancies are caused by a chromosomal abnormality. They can happen with pregnancies that are otherwise viable but can become cancerous. Not getting an abortion creates a serious health risk for the mother with a 60% chance of getting persistent GTDcancer in the uterus\n","conclusion":"Not all pregnancies that get aborted are unwanted. Some are done for medical reasons or poor prognosis\n","id":"03a90ad3-48b2-4441-90a1-6d4346adcc13"}
{"argument":"Decriminalization, rather than legalization, suggests that breaking the law is acceptable since while the act remains illegal, there is no strong deterrent.\n","conclusion":"Decriminalisation opens the doors to the destructive effects of drugs on individuals and society.\n","id":"21a424a9-fae2-45b5-94ff-dd278312c1a0"}
{"argument":"I want this view changed because it doesn't seem to be the best way, but I personally think it is. Besides, this seems more fun than actually researching the topic P We are trying to solve climate change and global warming, and energy use is one of the main topics of debate. Many people jump to solar and wind power, others go nuclear. But I'd like to talk about bio fuels an alternative power solution not looked at often and likely for good reason, hence why I'm posting this . Solar and wind power has replaceable parts and can't be stored very well. Nuclear power is very safe, but when it's not it leaves entire areas of the Earth uninhabitable. Biodiesel has a slew of problems too. Using algae solves most of them. It does not require fresh water, nor does it require farmland. It doesn't waste food because nobody eats algae. But there's one glaring issue the cost of farming it. This is a big one, but it can all be solved through the use of genetics. Genetics is hard to understand. Very hard. But it's not long term massive energy storage levels of hard like you'd need with solar energy. We know DNA exists . We just don't understand much of it. And we're getting there. I predict that by the time people finally decide change is needed, genetics will have progressed to a stage that allows for making commercially viable algae. I don't think any of this is reasonable, which is exactly why I'm posting here. So if you guys want to change my view, feel free\n","conclusion":"Algae biodiesel is the way of the future.\n","id":"e3bf54cc-b399-4383-9fce-face8f95e313"}
{"argument":"The term Overdraft Protection sounds like it would protect your account from being overdrawn, but in reality it allows your account to be overdrawn. This is the opposite of how all other banking terms work. If your account has Fraud Protection it will protect your account from being defrauded, so logically the term Overdraft Protection should mean that your account is protected from being overdrawn. Some will say that total protection from overdrafts is impossible, and my response is that if it's impossible, the banks should not have a term which makes it seem possible. If you see a sign which says smoke free zone, it means that no smoking is allowed, not that cigarettes will be given out for free. I can name many more examples, but I think I have made my point, the term overdraft protection implies protection from overdrafts, but since it is the exact opposite, that term should not be used. A better term for a bank to use would simply be to ask the question, Do you give us permission to allow overdrafts? The fact that signing up for overdraft protection gives the bank permission to allow overdrafts is the exact opposite of what a logical interpretation of that term means. If anything, overdraft protection should mean that the bank declines overdrafts. To change my view, you must tell me why that term is not deceptive or misleading. I will not accept answers about how you are protected from chargebacks and fees, since a better term for something like that would be chargeback protection, or fee protection. I cannot think of a single scenario where the term overdraft protection cannot be replaced with a more accurate term.\n","conclusion":"The term \"Overdraft Protection\" is misleading, and that term should no longer be used by banks.\n","id":"6bc8a62a-0ab1-439e-92e5-42d1790658ca"}
{"argument":"There is a total imbalance in the job market these days, and worker power has dropped a great deal since 2008. Lowballing is very common when offering new jobs Employees are afraid of taking vacations, not working overtime, etc for fear of being seen as lazy and losing their jobs Way more job seekers than actual hires Ratio of hires to job openings is poor No skills shortage, just a dishonest attempt to drive down wages by employers Employees live in constant fear of being laid off, having job outsourced, etc. Politically, the idea that many right wing libertarians advance that it is a negotiation between equals is not true. It's a very one sided relationship with the employer having literally all the bargaining power. It starts from the application. You're up against hundreds, thousands. Then in the interview, the employer has many employees to choose and you're basically desperately trying to prove that you are the one. Then there's the probation and they can let you go at any time. Depending on where you live, the labor code can be very weak. Your boss is free to criticize your work whenever they want. The moment you criticize them however well you better start looking for a new job, because if you do, you are now in danger of being let go. Is this not a huge imbalance of power? Actually, even before 2008, there was an ongoing salary crisis. The average middle class person has not received a wage increase since the early 1970s Meanwhile the middle class in the US dies, while the money make the rich richer Needless to say, the richest 5 have the majority of shares of large companies, and therefore own the employers. Meanwhile the average person is left with less and less just to survive, while employers turn society into a world that resembles a Charles Dickens nightmare. The deck is really stacked against the common worker these days. Don't employers have all the power these days?\n","conclusion":"Employers have all the power in the job market these days\n","id":"63a89c74-3d36-4a13-9f03-9141138726ed"}
{"argument":"Healthcare providers are more likely to see people in those vulnerable populations, which could be a risk to those groups if the provider is infected.\n","conclusion":"Providers are exposed to sickness more often and are more likely to become ill from the flu.\n","id":"f55d43b2-3b4f-402e-a5f4-385d84c36849"}
{"argument":"People in a privileged society have a moral obligation to use that privilege for the betterment of others, of which an option is veganism. Since the world is becoming more privileged by the day with developing countries becoming developed, more people will have this obligation to live up to.\n","conclusion":"If all humans were vegan, animals would not be killed or made to suffer needlessly, which is the moral thing to do.\n","id":"a2cd8e4c-3f30-41ea-b77a-c81c5f5db5a7"}
{"argument":"Before I start, this is not to say that there is not compromise available here there just needs to be a struggle. Also, in an effort to declare my biases before starting my argument, I am a Millennial from the United States, who is typing this ramble at lunch in a coffee shop. That said It is a problem of the ownership of power. Democracy theoretically wants political power to be evenly spread throughout the population. Representative democracy makes this more practical by theoretically having people borrow political power from their section of the populace through voting, in order to more efficiently care for the Public Good i.e., things that benefit everyone, regardless of whether they were a direct investor in it, for which there is therefore no incentive to be a direct investor of it. Like roads, military force, fire departments, non profit healthcare, et c. . Capitalism, on the other hand, says that money is power, and that power can make you more money. How long has the maxim of The rich get richer and the poor get poorer been around? The wealthier you are, the more potential political power you wield. The purpose of capitalism is to make more money, and the more money you start with, the more money you can make. A corporation that behaves for the good of its community simply isn't going to be as efficient at growing as one that behaves unethicaly thereby see Walmart vs all of the mom and pop stores it drove out of business with its cheaper prices and greater variety of goods . Indeed, if left unopposed, capitalism's positive reinforcement loops will lead to the generation of monopolies, as eventually titanic corporations will defeat, merge with, or create non compete clauses with each other. Monopolization disenfranchises The People, who democracy says ought to have an even share of the power as the CEO of said coroporation, and utterly diminishes the public good for which the government is supposed to care. The government, to do its job, ought to be opposing capitalism's generation of monopolies Trust Busting , to limit how much ill that corporations can do to the people and the public good Regulation , and to prevent its moguls from disenfranchising the populace There's theoretically a word for this, but I can't think of it . However, thanks to the Cold War, these roles of government look too much like Communism, and so have been thrown aside, to the detriment of the people vis a vis, me . So, if my position has been made clear through my nonsensical ramble that only looks like an argument if you're crosseyed, Change My View gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Democracy and Capitalism are diametrically opposed.\n","id":"b234060a-b60a-4497-b713-514ecdae81d1"}
{"argument":"Vanessa Leggett, an author researching a \u201ctrue crime\u201d book, was jailed for 168 days by a federal judge for refusing to disclose her research and the identities of her sources to a federal grand jury investigating a murder.\n","conclusion":"Journalists have been arrested and fined for failing to name their sources when legally required.\n","id":"dbeabc74-33d1-43da-af5c-e55655c61edc"}
{"argument":"There is no way that police can moniter the amount of sleep drivers have had before they drive. If driving and talking on the phone is to be banned, then driving while falling asleep ought to be banned as well. But of course, this doesn't make any sense, which is why banning talking on the phone and driving is also unreasonable.\n","conclusion":"If you can't ban sleep-driving, why ban talking on phone in car.\n","id":"6b700dee-8545-4fb1-a7b5-c3b04e24dc76"}
{"argument":"Total Government Spending in the US is 36 of the GDP. The government spent 6.4 trillion dollars in 2015, and it will spend 6.7 trillion dollars this year. I say, if someone wants the government to provide a new service, or to expand a current service, funding should be found within the budget it already receives. total tax revenue should definitely not go up, and the government definitely should not grow any further. I'd hope it shrinks, actually. 36 of GDP is ridiculous. As a principled stance, I don't think it should be greater than 25 . The above numbers are from\n","conclusion":"US Government is big enough.\n","id":"b2aa84cf-0c57-4a40-b552-cca4e42cfcb1"}
{"argument":"In order to be elected to Congress or other top tier elected positions an individual must either be independently wealthy, or tow the party line of either the Democratic or Republican party. The DNC and RNC are only interested in funding candidates who contribute to the current animosity between parties. Furthermore candidates would no longer be responsible toward the interests that currently fund them. I'm not too savvy on what exact mechanism should be used to fund elections, but let me know if you have any ideas.\n","conclusion":"I think public funding of elections could solve many of our political problems.\n","id":"ab2dc6cc-8bc1-43fc-99a3-8bc8d0e36bc0"}
{"argument":"I believe that the problem with the lack of cooperation in government is the fault of the voters and not the politicians. I have listened to several arguments made to me about how money in politics ruins the system or that extremists like the Tea Party or Bernie Sanders push the parties in severely different directions. However, I typically argue that who are the people voting for them? I typically hang on the Winston Churchill quote The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Most voters are uniformed, lazy, and typically argue about issues that are either inconsequential, fictional, or they will not care about two weeks later Kony, Benghazi, Mass shootings, healthcare, etc. Sure, media has a part to play as they simply cover only the horserace and when it comes to honest debate they simply forget the honest part, but I do not see how the government whether federally or local deserves a lion's share of the blame as they are merely a product of an either uninterested or uncompromising populace. Caveat I am a very liberal socialist person, so I do typically like and or agree with have of the divisive opinions that lean left, however I recognize that we all must compromise as life doesn't give us what we want and even if it does it may not be completely what we ask for. Something your average voter simply does not get. Change my view.\n","conclusion":"I believe voters, not government, is the problem.\n","id":"757d60dc-ff06-4630-ad27-12dc7e1341ad"}
{"argument":"A Humanist may be inspired by the contributions a Christian or other person of faith makes to the world.\n","conclusion":"People of all faiths and beliefs can be inspired by others.\n","id":"0e86704a-5032-48a1-a0b8-ea40807ca753"}
{"argument":"Here's why I think this way I'm just about done with a 3 year degree in Audio Production. My curriculum covers everything from music recording, sound editing, Foley recording, location sound for video, sound design for video, music marketing, and music production. My passion is music recording, and so over the course of my education, that was and will continue to be my focus. I love music. Wait, no actually, I love bands. When I listen to music, I'm listening for the inter personal dynamic that exists within the group. I like imagining the exchange between drummer and bass player, or the lead singer and the guitar player. I listen to the action reaction within the performance that defines the way the music sounds. For example, Jon Bonham's drum set and John Paul Jones' bass tone. Or, like in Fugazi, the dynamic between Ian and Guy's guitar and vocals. I think that the content in music is defined by the sounds used to create it. A guitar has a sound, and a musician uses that sound to express his ideas. Every time the guitar player picks up his instrument to write music, he is making a conscience decision about how his music should sound, or how his music should be experienced by his listeners. It's like how in Debussy, or any orchestral music, he very carefully chooses what the violins will play, and also what the french horns will play. Clair De Lune was written for piano, and La Mer was written for the orchestra. Those were choices made by Debussy that define the way we experience those pieces, right? So, by following my logic, any rock band also makes decisions about how their music should sound . AC DC's guitars sound like AD DC, and if instead those guitars sounded like Pink Floyd, the meaning would be lost, would it not? If not lost, then changed, right? To the point I've seen how powerful a tool the recording studio is. The recording studio has the tools to capture a band's sound exactly how it exists in real life. That's the magic the novelty of recording technology. Wow, I didn't know my voice sounded like that Haha turns into, Finally, I get to record my guitar amp and I can send it out to other people to hear it Haha. I can re create that sound, that idea that begins with a guitar tone, a drum tuning, a bass pick up or smoking habit I'm looking at you, vocalists Or, I can completely change that sound. I was educated in a 2.5 million dollar recording studio. I can completely change the f k out of sound. It's outrageous. Even with a macbook pro and a couple thousand dollars of cracked plug ins, I can change the sound. It's easy, and it happens all the time. Here's a list of things that any recording engineer can do to change the sound of a musical group Change the physical location of the players in the room Select from a dazzling amount of microphones for every sound source in the room. Each one imparts it's own sonic signature onto the source Change the positioning of the mics themselves. Select from a range of microphone pre amps each with unique sonic characteristics Change the spectral content of any given sound with an Equalizer, or EQ. Each Eq, in addition to simply boosting or cutting selected frequencies, imparts it's own sonic footprint to the entire signal. Use a compressor to decrease the dynamic range of the sound sources. Loud drum hits become less loud, soft ones become louder. If working on a computer, I can actually alter the exact moment any note or tone is played. For example, I can edit or quantize a drum performance so that it never deviates from the actual tempo of the song. I can use auto tune or any other pitch correction software to change the intonation of a singer or bass player. Man there are so many things to do to change the sound. It's really easy. Take a brief look at this product page. It's a collection of softwares that are all designed to change sound in some way. Unless you are given documentation that a record's sound has in no way been altered from the sound of the band, or at least that an effort has been made to preserve the sound of the band, then you have no reason to believe that what you hear on record is actually the sound of that band. If the content of the music is defined by it's sound, and the way in which it was played, then I think that modern production capabilities completely trivialize a musicians efforts in making his art. Any band can be made to sound perfect. Any record can be made to sound RAW. Any record can be made to sound realistic. Any drum set can be sampled and replaced, and any guitar part can be edited to be in time. It's all meaningless to me now. The recorded output of a band, in 2013, is untrustworthy and trivial. . Here is a list of musics that use Modern production techniques. One Two Three Four Five ok, that last one might have been a throw away\n","conclusion":"I think that the existence of modern recording studios actually trivializes the efforts of the musicians involved.\n","id":"f9e59085-d86e-4b54-be50-3bd9fd7ce49b"}
{"argument":"Suffering can sometimes lead to deeper understanding and fuller experience of love and goodness. If a kid skins her knee, there is suffering, but if she is comforted and taken care of as she heals, she may experience joy watching herself becoming whole again. In this world, there is some pain that is so great that we can not imagine any goodness coming from it. Its possible that an all-powerful and loving God has the capacity to redeem even the worst suffering possible in this world.\n","conclusion":"According to the character-building defenses some virtues may be contingent on evil.\n","id":"15dc9ecd-f592-40ef-9c46-308679be6fb7"}
{"argument":"The Turner Diaries is an epistolary novel about a future United States and Europe where the Equality Police have taken over the government and are implementing Communistic and pro Israeli policies, which provokes a revolution. The main character is Earl Turner, who writes the diary entries, has doubts about the revolutionary Organization, but eventually realizes that the oppressive System is more dangerous to America, so he blows up the FBI headquarters with fellow Organization members. An Organization led revolution tears the entire Western world apart, culminating into an apocalyptic race war and nuclear war which leads to the death of almost all Jews and non Whites. Here's the full book for free if I didn't summarize it well This book is banned in Canada. I think that this is silly and childish for a few reasons 1 The Turner Diaries takes place in America. None of the revolutionary tactics could even be applied in Canada, because the cities, landmarks, and governmental structure are totally different from the US. 2 It is fiction. There never was a capture of San Fransisco like in the book, nor were any nukes fired. It's all fiction, and banning it because in an imaginary diary imaginary cities get destroyed, and imaginary Communists get assassinated and imaginary Palestinians massacre imaginary Israelis is retarded. 3 It proves the book right. The Canadians are acting just like the Equality Police that Turner and the Organization fight against. They have banned harmless speech and yes, speech is harmless that dissents against the socialism of the country. It makes one wonder if they will soon ban and confiscate guns, like the System in the book did. 4 If a viewpoint is undesirable, it should die out by itself, and not need government intervention to ensure that. The fact that people try to sneak in the book, and that the book is on a list, and can be burned if seized, shows that SOME people like the morals, or some of the messages in the book. The more they try and suppress them, the more they will see that the government is the enemy. 5 Speech shouldn't be banned. If you ban speech, like I said earlier, you're basically putting an official boycott on an ideology, something that the Western world should be moving away from.\n","conclusion":"\"The Turner Diaries\" should be legalized in Canada\n","id":"812be887-339a-471b-8999-2dfe24218f80"}
{"argument":"The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment, presenting a scenario, where gt You see a runaway trolley moving towards five tied up people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. We are presented with a two options Option 1 Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. Option 2 Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Even thought is seems that the majority of people would pull the lever, I would now. Pulling the lever, would mean that I consciously decide to kill one innocent person, a choice, that makes me the killer without any personal gain at all and saving five other people, who would have died if I chose to not interact with the situation and purely observe the outcome. I believe, that there is no moral burden on me to save those five people and my inaction would end up with the very same outcome had I not been there in the first place.\n","conclusion":"I would NOT pull the lever in the \"Trolley Problem\" scenario\n","id":"e8387467-6b38-4bb5-9355-3c4c889cb761"}
{"argument":"A torpedo with a nuclear warhead could be used to attack America's port cities. These would not show up on radar and could not be intercepted by antimissile systems anyway.\n","conclusion":"ICBMs are not the only method of delivering nuclear bombs. Even given reliable ICBM interceptors, there are other means of delivery the interceptors cannot stop.\n","id":"23d5b230-c14c-4596-b817-d6648b183a97"}
{"argument":"Conservatives in 2019 don\u2019t advocate slow change, no change, or a reasonable return to old ways. They move for rapid social change. In the U.S., it\u2019s massive changes to immigration law, sudden isolationism, and increasingly white identity politics. Their biggest goal is a huge border wall that will literally change the landscape between us and Mexico. In the U.K., it\u2019s a sudden move away from the E.U., which will change pretty much every aspect of society in one way or another. The only reason they\u2019re still called \u201cconservative\u201d is that in the 20th century the right was where actual advocacy for incremental change change was most prominent, while the left was mostly associated with big changes, like the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Great Society. Meanwhile, the right was mainly against those big social projects being enacted, or being enacted quickly. But now, we\u2019re looking revolutionary changes to society, but they happen to be right wing in nature. Just like fascism being a revolutionary right movement, that\u2019s what we\u2019re seeing now. It\u2019s not that the contemporary right is actually fascist, I just mean that you can have a right wing movement that is progressive without it being conservative. I understand the argument that \u201cuse dictates meaning,\u201d therefore whatever we call \u201cconservative\u201d actually is conservative as we use the term. My point is just that, as we actually understand the word, we\u2019ve become confused. You have something like judicial conservatism, which still is understood to mean \u201cresistant to change,\u201d but we also apply the word on its own to pretty much just mean \u201cright wing.\u201d But since the contemporary right advocates rapid change, does it really matter that some of that change is described as moving towards something from the past?\n","conclusion":"\u201cConservatives\u201d are right-wing progressives\n","id":"10f5d380-b310-40c0-88a6-aca15f23b0f6"}
{"argument":"mandatory retirement is unfair to those who will still need the income to survive after a certain age.\n","conclusion":"A mandatory retirement reduces the quality of life for those forced to retire\n","id":"c73b837f-d95a-4147-85a1-8aff2d9b57e4"}
{"argument":"I would like to start out by saying I am NOT an antivaxxer or however people spell it nowadays. I have all my core vaccines and I vaccinate my pets. Most recently I got my tetanus shot re done while getting stitches, hurray I refuse to get a flu shot and many people tell me I\u2019m stupid for not getting one. The reason being is 70 of the people I know who get the flu shot still end up getting some kind of flu it seems like. The flu virus mutates a lot and it just seems like it\u2019s impossible to effectively vaccinate for it. I understand if you fall into certain categories it\u2019s safer to just get the shot. I have never had a flu shot. I probably get the flu once per decade amounting a total of three times in my life.\n","conclusion":"Flu shots are pointless unless you are very young, very old or have an immune system disease\n","id":"598542bc-4eda-4757-987a-9219ed333838"}
{"argument":"Daniel Dennett, is a contemporary philosopher who has masterfully argued why evolution is far more logical than creationism or Intelligent Design. Whereas scientists devise physical experiments with tangible tools, Dennett constructs powerful \"thought experiments\" with a collection of \"thinking tools.\" One of his exceptional and renowned books is: Darwin's Dangerous Idea\n","conclusion":"Science and philosophy contribute to each other in complimentary fashion.\n","id":"4f5c280a-3b99-48ed-81e4-d648be899b7d"}
{"argument":"Studying whistleblowers has revealed that it is generally the severity of the situation that determines if someone will whistleblow. It seems likely that this will hold true for other sources, such as hackers, who endanger themselves to reveal information.\n","conclusion":"If the source was willing to break the law to publicise this information it is more likely to be important information and serve the public interest.\n","id":"8b633107-54f6-4186-bc56-e65bef957fa1"}
{"argument":"In a recent conversation about distant potential EU regulations and the future of a centralised decision to standardise electrical outlets, similarly to the micro USB charger, I have begun to hold the opinion that the British plug and socket is much better than the europlug, possibly even the best in the world. I normally don't like such nationalistic thinking, but I feel justified. My friend accused the British socket of being over engineered . I shall begin by arguing against this point of contention. It would be over engineered if it had superfluous features, but it does not. The British BS 1363, Type G system has several safety features, and some for convenience. The longer top blade 3rd pin Earthing for protection from shocks. By inserting the tip of the earth pin into the top earth receptor, the AC terminals are opened mechanically for the other two pins to enter children could not accidentally shock themselves without wedging something in the earth terminal first. Provides clear way up guidance for ease of use. The plug Can be fused, to protect appliances user. Edit e.g. power surge. Has the flexible cable leaving perpendicular to the pins, so people are not tempted to disengage by yanking the cable. Insulated pins. The socket Has a switch on the wall, for an extra safety feature, and to be able to stop power without needing to unplug. Flat, so you know when the plug is fully in visually. This looks better on the wall. Things don't slip out once they are in, even heavy adaptors. As for international credentials, it is used in around 50 countries worldwide. The safety and convenience mark it out to be the best in class to my mind. It should be adopted globally as the international standard over any other. Change my view. Edit Since no one seems to offer a better design, only questioning the bullet points I gave, why should the BS 1363 not be adopted as the universal plug worldwide? This would be a good step towards international community and trade, no?\n","conclusion":"The British 3-pin plug and socket is the superior design for domestic mains electricity use, and should become the international standard if one were required.\n","id":"02be463b-c82e-45ec-a62e-558e596c2233"}
{"argument":"I don't think we adapted to consciousness through evolution. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me that consciousness could be an evolutionary trait.\n","conclusion":"I believe that human consciousness is something that has always been possessed by our species, not an adaptation.\n","id":"8340242a-34cc-4cea-adac-66a6fb39ec26"}
{"argument":"Restrictions on nipple showing may be considered irrational, but so is the whole concept of having to wear clothes. Animals do not wear clothes. Everything we wear is just social convention. It's hypocritical then to ask to remove restrictions on nipple showing but refuse for every other body part.\n","conclusion":"Clothing and covering the body was not meant to be oppressive to women but stemmed from a human necessity of protection against the elements. Clothing also communicates status, profession or class and can be used to equalise people, for example, in work or school environments.\n","id":"40d0fbb6-dfd6-49e6-b50c-cf537c69d750"}
{"argument":"To start this off, I tip. Always. Generally 20 for DECENT service and more for outstanding. That said, I hate it. And I hate the self righteous attitude that most wait staff have toward being tipped. Many write share rant y Facebook posts about why we should all tip every time it's how they earn a living. The government even recognizes this as they are taxed on all tips reported. Here are all my problems with this Customers are not employers. They are customers. I didn't hire a waiter waitress and train him her to wait on me, it is a service provided by the restaurant. By this logic I shouldn't be bound to tip unless I feel like it. And I wouldn't be wrong if this system were not in place to refrain from tipping from simply adequate service. Restaurants get away with paying wait staff as low as 2.17 per hour on the notion that if they wait at least 6 tables an hour they will be making around minimum wage, accounting for tips they aren't legally entitled to. I don't like the fact that the government looks at any money I tip my waiter waitress as income. It's not. It is a gift from me to them as a nod to their extra hard work should be . Kind of a separate argument, but related. May be my own ignorance here, but I don't believe there is any union for waiters. I believe that if they wanted higher wages that they should unionize and advocate for this. That way they can simply be paid by their employer and not their customers. I think, however, the reason they don't do this is that on busy days they make well over minimum wage often in tips and they know that if they were to be paid higher and not get tipped, they'd ultimately gross more money. If this is the case, don't pitch a fit when that one ride family comes in and doesn't tip while almost everyone else tips the society agreed upon 20 . I know this was a bit of a rant, but try and .\n","conclusion":"tipping in the United States is a ridiculous culture that should die and be replaced with minimum\/livable wages from employers.\n","id":"5c0df899-8105-4093-b6ea-f57e3556dbb6"}
{"argument":"Law enforcement agencies such as the police have been a force of terror for homosexuals, by torturing and detaining them in many countries.\n","conclusion":"A ban on homosexuality criminalizes a significant proportion of the population, which negatively affects the individuals and society as a whole.\n","id":"675d4c67-3611-4703-a868-b480459ee45d"}
{"argument":"I am referring not to abstract beliefs, such as do unto others . . . , but to the actually stories found in this religion. I have restricted this to Christianity for the sake of simplicity although I was not raised as a Christian . Christianity stipulates that if you believe or place your faith in what they teach you will benefit in some way. What they teach is fabricated for instance, it is not possible for someone to walk on water, for a sea to be parted at will, or for someone to live for a while inside a whale excuse the water motif in these examples . Every single mentally competent person knows that these things are impossible without having to think about it. If someone were to say that their car keys spontaneously metamorphosed into John Madden, no one else would even consider that it might have actually happened you might consider that they meant it in an allegorical way, though . You couldn't literally believe it if you tried you could only pretend to yourself and or to others that you believe in it. I believe that Christians tacitly understand they are only pretending to believe in those religious stories. The benefit alluded to earlier is essentially the benefit of fitting in with Christian society, where everyone agrees to pretend they believe in those things. .\n","conclusion":"No one literally believes in Christian teachings,\n","id":"73ead326-c32d-4bbe-813c-f9637a100d0c"}
{"argument":"Aristocratic families own property which has been in the family for many centuries and in many cases provides a livelihood for local communities. This is a form of guardianship which considers the long-term rather than short-term profit and loss decisions.\n","conclusion":"Privilege gained by inheritance brings with it responsibility to serve others and support those who are less fortunate.\n","id":"0d85a92c-a080-4aeb-be21-52d3cb203f8a"}
{"argument":"The biggest example of this is the Giant Panda. The thing is stupid, eats exclusively a food that doesn't grow in it's ideal habitat, and has little to no sex drive. Yet billions and billions of dollars from around the world are spent every year to save it, and why? Because it's cute? Darwinisn and survival of the fittest have gone to the wayside. We demonize poachers, not realizing that they will most likely die if they don't poach. We put their lives behind species that aren't ecologically necessary. It's not like the pandas and white rhinos of the world are honeybees or creatures on the tops or bottoms of the food chain. If they die out, we lose a species, but we as humans most likely do not suffer other than a river dolphin died '\n","conclusion":"I don't think most species that are in danger of going extinct are worth saving.\n","id":"fa6d9572-e9d9-4fd1-b18c-36c3ef1279f0"}
{"argument":"Subjective, relative morality requires that the correct answer to any moral question be found within oneself. For this to be true, no objective moral truth can exist to override the subjective moral opinion of the individual.\n","conclusion":"Relative morality cannot explain why any person would ever consider something that they did to be immoral or wrong.\n","id":"f36e8ba1-81b6-4095-b39a-ef08be12d5b9"}
{"argument":"A different entity may inhabit Vader's Helmet, perhaps Momin who has been known to inhabit a helment or Palpatine.\n","conclusion":"Anakin is confirmed to be a force ghost, thus his soul cannot inhabit the helmet.\n","id":"03371631-2577-4cf7-8758-2cc2b31af1ba"}
{"argument":"An altruistic surrogate is more likely to be a friend or relative of the parents. It is far easier for the child to understand the circumstances of their birth and why they came about in these situations.\n","conclusion":"Surrogates are less likely to be part of the child's life in commercial arrangements, which can be emotionally challenging to overcome.\n","id":"6d877473-a309-4184-864e-3e7ea55e89a7"}
{"argument":"People probably would not want to rent, share, or buy a sex robot second hand; a factor that would further drive up their price.\n","conclusion":"Sex robots are likely to be incredibly expensive, even as the technology progresses.\n","id":"625411a2-51b5-4fd0-b906-e45b929fe2cd"}
{"argument":"I have had many encounters with CPS not for me, regarding others and I am thoroughly and completely unimpressed. Their job is to protect children yet I have never seen them actually do that. Working in a hospital and being married to a nurse, I have had much contact with patients of all ages. The lack of oversight in this area disgusts me. Here is one example. I knew many NICU nurses who talked on a regular basis of babies who were not only born early as a result of cocaine or other drug use, but actually went through withdrawals from cocaine. They were so sensitive that if a nurse dropped a pen, the baby would wake up screaming and it would take hours to get them back down. On more than one occasion, the nurses caught the parents still snorting WHILE AT THE HOSPITAL. In all cases, this was documented ad nauseum and nothing was ever done. There were also many parents who's baby had low birth weight due to marijuana and they would show up to the hospital reeking of pot. More recently, I have met many home health nurses who have spoke of parents addicted to pain medications who would basically knock themselves out and leave the baby to scream from sitting in their own excrement for hours. I have heard of rat infested homes, drug abuse, child abuse actually slapping an infant even with documentation, the kids remain with their terrible parents. With all this in mind, I firmly believe the CPS is a waste of resources. Of course, this is all from anecdotal experience so maybe others have had better experiences. All of my experience has been from various parts of Texas, if that matters. EDIT Wow Thanks for all of the responses I should have been more clear in my view CPS, AS IT EXISTS NOW, is failing. Many of you have pointed out the more resources are needed and after thinking I do agree. I only know what I have seen and experienced and greatly appreciate the input many of you gave. I will go through and award deltas when I get a break from work. Edit 2 This has been very educational and I could give deltas to most of you except for the one jackass. It's hard to see things when you have tunnel vision built from personal experience. Good evening all Edit 3 If I miss anyone on a delta, apologies. Many of you posed good arguments but there were A LOT of replies. Edit 4 Trying to give out deltas but they keep kicking back. I'll get it figured out.\n","conclusion":"Child Protective Services CPS, while a good concept, is virtually useless in practice\n","id":"7fad760b-4b14-42ee-8ed7-f04ad37b43e8"}
{"argument":"If the electoral college didn't exist, California would still not be a major campaign destination as election day draws near. The undecided votes will still be in \"swing states\", and so politicians must campaign there.\n","conclusion":"Swing states aren't the fault of the electoral college alone. Politicians understand, for example, the voting tendencies of Californians, and know they can count on partisanship there, making California a low priority campaign stop.\n","id":"7ae329b5-0bcf-4076-9c54-640141903437"}
{"argument":"A bit of an introduction for anyone who isn't aware In addition to the illegal drugs that most people are familiar with, there are also many other psychoactive legal or at least grey area legal substances with much less history of human use. These substances, or research chemicals as they are often referred to as, are designed to sidestep drug laws while ideally providing a similar effect in the user. Effects are mainly detailed online through ancedotal reports of use. Usually ordered online, there are hundreds of these types of chemicals available. Some more well known ones include psychedelics such as LSD analogues and the NBOMe's, and stimulants such as substituted amphetamines, mephedrone, and MDPV bath salts, now illegal . There are obvious risks of taking unknown chemicals, of course. A few years back, a particularly nasty psychedelic chemical known as bromo dragonFLY killed at least four people. Thinking back even further, there was one famous case where the opiate MPPP was synthesized improperly and contained MPTP . This had the effect of destroying dopamine receptors and instantly causing parkinson's disease in the user. Not fun stuff. Now, I'm not interested in arguing about the merits and pitfalls of drug use itself that is beyond the scope of this . What my opinion is If a user has made the decision to use drugs, despite these additional risks, they are worth taking on if the result is avoiding the legal penalty for drug use. As far as I see it, a drug user faces 3 risks 1 Health risks the risk that the user faces acute or chronic health problems from his use. This is most likely exacerbated by the use of unknown chemicals. Legal drugs, while certainly carrying plenty of health risks, usually have a well known safety profile. 2 Social risks I would classify these as secondary risks of drug use. Examples might include addiction potential, damage to relationships, or other troubles unrelated to posession I got high and lost my job . An unknown chemical may provide a stronger addiction potential or cause completely unpredictable behaviour. On the other hand, it may prove to be less addictive. This one is very difficult to compare. 3 Legal risk the risk of being prosecuted for posession, etc. Eliminated when dealing with legal chemicals. There are no recorded prosecutions for even grey area chemicals when dealing with personal use. So thus the crux of the argument is this the risk we avoid in 3 outweighs the increased risk taken on in 1 . Now it is my opinion, and perhaps you can change my view here, that a drug conviction is essentially life ruining for many career oriented people. The chance of employment in many professional fields is destroyed. What is the chance that a user is caught? Well, about 1 million people have a drug conviction on their record as of 2013, and about 200 thousand were incarcerated at once.Now, if we make the assumption that half of the US uses drugs, that's about a 1 150 chance of a conviction. Now back to health risk. How many people are suffering worse health effects from their use of unregulated chemicals? Again, it's hard to pinpoint, but I strongly believe it to be much less than the above risk. Let's consider the NBOMe class as an example. This is one drug that was popular for a few years now illegal . There have been confirmed deaths from standard doses, and we don't know why. They have been implicated in 17 deaths in the US. Yet, it isn't unreasonable to think that at least tens of thousands of people have taken them. While legal, unscrupulous dealers would sell them as acid LSD , and even if we make a conservative estimate that 1 of young adults in this time tried it and that 10 was actually NBOMe very conservative , we would get about 40,000 users. 17 40,000 is a whole lot better than 1 150. And this is one of the more dangerous cases that we've seen lately. I'd be happy to further explain my reasoning or provide you where I got some of these numbers I'm not just making them up, I swear . Anyway, I invite you to try and change my view. If you think my assessment anywhere is wrong or misguided, let me know My feelings won't be hurt. Cheers, pokerchips\n","conclusion":"It is rational for a career-oriented drug user to choose novel, untested substances \"research chemicals\" as illegality is the overwhelming risk of drug use.\n","id":"bd7dd5b3-187d-4c95-894b-605adc395567"}
{"argument":"In 2016, the NASA budget was only $18 billion, compared to the military budget of $600 billion the same year This limits the amount of research that may be done and also steers it to topics of military interest. One well known example of this was the Titan II Intercontinental Ballistic Missile topped with a nuclear warhead that was used to launch the Gemini missions The science achieved on these missions was funded because it served military interests, not because of scientific value.\n","conclusion":"Scientific funding is achieved with finite resources. If scientists spend their time researching topics funded by politicians, they are not necessarily spending their time researching topics of greatest importance to Scientific discovery. As such, Science can be manipulated away from discoveries that would be inconvenient politically.\n","id":"94521e7b-a48c-4561-bcf8-907fbb7a95b8"}
{"argument":"Culinary traditions should be respected, especially considering that Italy has one of the best cuisines of the world\n","conclusion":"Pineapple on pizza is an insult to the Italian origins of pizza.\n","id":"9e23408c-9236-4fc1-a04c-4ab5c5a245ab"}
{"argument":"A researcher located Carrier IQ a spyware app, on most Android, BlackBerry, and Nokia smartphone devices.\n","conclusion":"The current smartphone technology is utilized as a tool for spying on individuals.\n","id":"c5132c6a-fb22-4663-b74e-bbff5b3ce064"}
{"argument":"High levels of homeownership are correlated with increased unemploment, Homeowners lobby against development that creates jobs and affordable housing due to concern for their property values, Homes are not liquid assets that are useful for retirement because you can't sell portions of them as needed. Most homeowners own single family housing which results in sprawl, increasing costs of public services. Homes have private playground which are more dangerous than public playgrounds, Elderly residents become trapped in single family homes and unable to do yard work. They would not have this problem if they lived in an apartment. 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\n","conclusion":"Homeownership should be discouraged\n","id":"d48a60ed-6d60-4dee-add8-1cd589b9f61a"}
{"argument":"Poker has a bad reputation due to it being a 'gamblers game'. I believe that poker is the same thing as stock trading. Aside from insider trades which is the same thing as cheating in poker , they're the same. They both involve luck, and studying. In Poker, you need to study the game, and acquire many skills before you can become a profitable player in the long run. With stock trading, you need to do analysis's, and research before you invest in a certain stock. It's essentially the same process. So why is poker considered gambling, but stock trading isn't?\n","conclusion":"Stock trading is gambling, like Poker\n","id":"4a92e4d9-eb8b-4535-837b-649ad03feb8c"}
{"argument":"The last 24h hashrate miners vote shows that 70+% of miners and mining pools continuously vote in favor of ProgPow. www.etherchain.org\n","conclusion":"The community voted for ProgPow adoption with an overwhelming majority. The vote of the community should be honored.\n","id":"c5377c34-84ed-4389-896c-4c827ace7824"}
{"argument":"People who engage technically criminal activity, with a social and\/or moral agenda rather than criminal intent, could be held for with a clear conscience could be held for exceptionally long periods because they have not \"reformed\" since they still feel what they have done is morally acceptable.\n","conclusion":"Focusing on punishment suggests natural limits on what is a fair or proportional punishment, whereas focusing on rehabilitation potentially allows for unlimited sentences in the name of uncertainty that the criminal is really rehabilitated.\n","id":"87be744b-6bd1-4c9f-9295-34efc434cb35"}
{"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.\n","conclusion":"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.\n","id":"40a640e7-9243-4311-b96a-dc19d539e2e8"}
{"argument":"I'm still young and in school, and I already hear about getting your life together in many ways that I totally agree with and understand, EXCEPT with regards to personal finances, particularly retirement. Obviously I know its good to start saving money now for a home, pay down debts asap, etc., and its something I've already started doing given that I am going into business and commerce. The ONE thing I keep hearing and do not care about at all is saving for retirement and retirement planning. I have 2 main reasons why I don't want to consider it, and it annoys me when I am told about it. I do not mean to offend anyone, I know everyone has their views which is why I'm here , these are merely my honest views on this, so forgive me if I do. To retire means to give up on your life. To have no more ambition, nothing to work towards, no concrete goals. This probably stems from being taught traditional martial art philosophies, i.e. There is no such thing as perfection. Every day you train is a closer step to it and betterment of yourself, but you will never reach it. We also have a joke that says Our retirement day is our funeral day . I feel like retiring is like saying to the world I'm done, everything I have is enough, I can just die now , and that people get to that point where they think I'm good enough so I can satisfice and stop now. It frightens me that I will become like that. I don't want to be like that. It is selfish to think you are good enough, even more so if what you were doing was of great service to humanity. It is selfish to believe you deserve this time off now. It's just a pain in the ass to deal with. It's one less thing I'd rather not worry about, and something I wouldn't have to worry about if I kept working and saving investing the way I do now. I know it seems trivial of a reason but when its something or will become something everyone expects of you to think about, and I just respond not doing that , I get looks and responses like omg, that's so weird, how can retirement not be something to think about I also understand that if you are just so physically or mentally unfit that it would probably be detrimental to others, then retirement would make total sense. I guess my only reason I would ever consider retirement would be as an insurance policy.  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\n","conclusion":"I believe retirement is overrated and that society should stop assuming that this is a norm for people\n","id":"6caabc20-3a89-4195-b84c-a6cff4f44e67"}
{"argument":"To elaborate, I am specifically referring to Battle Flag of Tennessee, just so we don't get caught up in that off the bat. That's the flag most people think of when you say Confederate flag , not to be confused with a slew of others used during the time period. I'm a Northerner who still sees a good deal of Confederate flags around these parts btw , and I find it really hard to separate Southern Pride from the troubling racial history that includes. That's not meant to demonize the South as our entire country was built through genocide. However, it also seems ridiculous to not include that as part of your history. In my views, the fact that this flag has become associated with racism and that it is deeply offensive to many people should be enough to make people shy away from using it. I can't help but feeling that the people who most vehemently defend it's use are usually harboring racist ideals too. So seriously, try to change my views. I don't know much about the role this symbol plays in the life of Southerners, and I've found that most discussions quickly dissolve into shouting matches. I genuinely want some outside input, so I look forward to your responses.\n","conclusion":"I think the Confederate flag is racist, and there is a large overlap between people who fly it, and people who are racist.\n","id":"2818fe8e-04cc-4ec1-aae8-01968af19de2"}
{"argument":"All other philosophical efforts to describe morality in terms of duty, fairness, justice, or some other principle that is not explicitly tied to the well-being of conscious creatures, draw upon some conception of well-being in the end.\n","conclusion":"Morality relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the well-being of conscious creatures.\n","id":"47301091-d38c-4d6e-9d70-6dbc64ba371e"}
{"argument":"So there is a movement to protest Trump after he fires Mueller. But it seem like the strategy of this is After Trump fires Mueller, here's how to react. Which I think is a bad strategy. Instead the strategy should be How do we prevent this from happening? which would be much more effective than reacting AFTER the fact. We already know of two past attempts by non President Trump to fire Mueller. 1 and 2 and now the non President is floating firing Rosenstein Even if his all his lawyers and every Republican in Congress are telling him Firing Mueller will trigger an unprecedented shitstorm on you and your whole party. He'll do it anyway, if he feels too threatened by it. Mueller and Rosenstein, rightly, are acting with total disregard for the wrath of Trump. If Mueller keeps popping off like raiding his lawyer Trump will just take a chance and fire everyone he has to fire to get rid of Mueller and worry about the negative press later. If Trump fires Rosenstein, he'll appoint some minion who will fire Mueller and Republicans in congress will confirm because despite everything they say, they want this investigation over as well. Mitch McConnell will say We need Mueller investigation to run it course. and then vote for the Trump minion appointed to fire Mueller. If we show him the shitstorm RIGHT NOW it will deter him. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Millions should protest Trump RIGHT NOW, not after he fires Mueller.\n","id":"de355372-5b88-4729-ad0b-02ff5a0e4770"}
{"argument":"On December 7th, 1941 a Japanese fighter pilot named Shigenori Nishikaichi crash landed on the Hawaiian island of Ni\u02bbihau after participating in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Three Japanese Americans one foreign born, two others born in Hawaii were fetched to help translate, and when they found out what had happened they immediately chose to betray their country and join the pilot's efforts to overcome other locals, taking a 16 year old captive and burning down a building in an effort to destroy the pilot's maps and papers. So you're an American government official, and some of the very first Japanese Americans to find out about the Pearl Harbor attack chose to betray their country of residence. As a decision maker, looking at the numbers, you have three opportunities for betrayal, and three betrayals. I.e., Japanese Americans are 0 for 3 in loyalty. Given such statistics, you might think that the odds of another Japanese American betraying their country were pretty bad. So, change my view I believe that things like the confiscation of property that occurred was horrendous, and that any abuse of the Japanese was similarly awful, but what should the US government have done, if not internment, given the horrible precedent set, by American born Japanese, on December 7th?\n","conclusion":"WWII interning of Japanese Americans was justified, even if it was executed poorly\n","id":"292f4160-31b9-4e41-8c31-7554d2aa3a4e"}
{"argument":"A vegan's diet's carbon footprint is estimated to be less than half that of a high meat diet.\n","conclusion":"Over 18% of greenhouse gases are due to animal agriculture.\n","id":"29da86c6-a9ab-4ea2-bfcf-c9f872139c17"}
{"argument":"As carbon prices spread, concerns about competitiveness should subside and losses in emissions-intensive production may be counterbalanced by gains in growing low-carbon sectors.\n","conclusion":"Carbon pricing can improve competitiveness for EU goods and services in international markets.\n","id":"ab4c2675-4ea8-4498-a060-61ff4ef19381"}
{"argument":"The multiplication of loaves and fishes Mark 6:30-44 8:1-10 expands upon the Elisha story 2 Kings 4:42-44 and emulates Homer Odyssey 3:34-38, 63-68 4:30, 36, 51, 53-58, 65-68 in which Odysseus\u2019 son Telemachus attends two feasts, and Mark has borrowed details from both.\n","conclusion":"The whole gospel of Mark can be seen as a collection of embellished re-tellings of stories from the OT and greek mythology see Robert M. Price, The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems a.k.a a haggadic midrash with some greek elements added.\n","id":"289653f9-6d81-43eb-8ec7-97647ac0ee84"}
{"argument":"I think it's silly and obnoxious how some woman go out of their way to bitch about how men and woman are 100 equal, which is scientifically proven false. I personally have never felt as if I was treated less than a man. I believe protesting and bitching gets nothing done and these women who feel so strongly about being a woman and all this shit should just do it in the privacy of their own home. I should probably also add that I find nothing wrong with having the man be the bread winner and the woman staying home with the kids. Don't get me wrong, I have ambitions and goals for myself in my career. But at the end of the day, I want to settle down and be a mother more than anything.\n","conclusion":"As a female, I hate feminists. Can you ?\n","id":"baca960b-6cd6-4ed6-90bd-1ac07b1a0789"}
{"argument":"Out of 192 total games on the platform, there are 7 exclusives which have 40+ reviews and had an average on Metacritic of 80% or higher.\n","conclusion":"The Nintendo Switch has the greatest number of exclusives when compared to the PS4 and the Xbox.\n","id":"ddbfd5f6-b434-4747-a5c8-4c8ba4f04d5b"}
{"argument":"Think of the new Facebook there are six different voting options Like, love, sad, angry, funny, wow And then think of how many problems upvoting and downvoting cause, especially on some subreddits where in spite of a Don't downvote for disagreement rule it still is done wildly because voting is anonymous. Just look at how often good natured discussions on this very sub get downvoted into oblivion. Clearly, there is a need to express disagreement, as there is also a need to express the you're trolling spamming sentiment. The result is that the downvote button is being used for three or four things simultaneously, so it's hard to tell if someone is disagreeing with you or thinks you're being rude. What there should really be are four to six different voting options when you click on upvote or downvote, you're prompted for a reason why. It also helps with the awkwardness of upvoting a negative article about, say, the climate there should be for instance I like this, I agree, this is important upvote option and an I dislike this, I disagree, this doesn't belong downvote option.\n","conclusion":"There need to be multiple upvote and downvote options.\n","id":"f918d890-960b-4443-aca4-9e290448b2d0"}
{"argument":"Hormone therapy results in significant and permanent changes to an individuals body. This would be a significant alteration for an individual to make in order to exploit a system.\n","conclusion":"Rachel McKinnon, a champion trans woman cyclist, has spoken about how unlikely and logistically difficult it would be for a cisgendered man to exploit this policy.\n","id":"fc0ac3f1-205a-4f54-a86b-8c2b845d7519"}
{"argument":"I use facebook multiple times a day. I am in a different country this summer and it is a great way to see what friends from home are up to, and to stay in contact. It is also really helpful in making friends here. It certainly hasn't detracted from my sociability or how many friends I have if anything it has done the opposite . It doesn't make me less content with my life many argue that seeing all the things your friends are doing makes you envious . It makes me more content with my life since I can keep up with old friends and find new ones and things to do. People always seem proud to declare that they deleted their facebook, as if it is some huge life improving decision. I don't buy it.  Edit Background, I am 20. I have had a facebook since I was 15 and a phone with text since I was 16. Smartphone since I was 19\n","conclusion":"I believe Facebook doesn't have any negative effects on me.\n","id":"ede9e6ad-3534-495f-a18b-4e162697da8b"}
{"argument":"I'm not sure whether it's extreme paranoia on the part of others or ignorance on mine but I really don't mind if a Google uses my search history to then target me with more specific ads. Since I'm not doing anything illegal, I don't even mind if they're Google again tracking my location as sometimes they tend to offer pretty useful suggestions. Likewise the alexas of the world listening to my conversations what's the big deal? If my credit card company sold my purchasing data to marketing departments of various organisations so that I could be targeted with ads, so what? I'm not so susceptible that I'll go on a mad spending spree due to a few ads. So I guess what I want to understand is why are people so protective of the data large tech other types of firms too firms hold on them? If it provides you with a better experience, great. NB elements such as financial information, details about kids and other more sensitive info should absolutely be kept private and never shared.\n","conclusion":"I see no issue with organisations tracking me online or holding\/sharing my data provided they never get hacked and there's no data breach\n","id":"e56c49c8-2921-4e47-b966-2e1fc6e150f0"}
{"argument":"When one has valuable assets, it is more efficient to use them in a regular paid job, rather than discount them for begging money.\n","conclusion":"When they find themselves in the situation of begging, it's often because they have nothing to give or do in return.\n","id":"5e971f7b-5a50-413e-bf5b-f995682ce27a"}
{"argument":"The belief in an afterlife with divine punishment, at least among persons who consider themselves members of an organized religion, is associated with lower crime rates\n","conclusion":"Research shows that on the relationship between criminality and religiosity, more involvement with religion produces less crime.\n","id":"ca1ed896-42c7-4dc9-bac1-1f550a15ecbc"}
{"argument":"Nihilism comes from Nihil nothing in latim . Nothing forever will be a human made concept. ALL religions claim that the UNIVERSE came from nothing, in other words, that nothing exists or existed at some point. Nihilism claims too that nothing exists, but it claims that nothing keeps on existing. Nihilism is similar to a religion. Religion only exists, because nothing someday existed and then the gods made everything, so religion only exists because nothing once existed. If this was the opposite, or not the case, then GOD did not create the universe and all of it falls apart. Nihilism is the same, nothing has to exist for it to make sense, it's all the same, they both rely on the human made concept of NOTHINGNESS . Nihilism tries to stretch the fact that morality is a human made concept from religion to physics and everything, failing miserably, ignoring that nothingness also is a human made concept. In this sense, there is a deep connection in concept between nihilism and any religion, by being either nihilist or religious humans have to embrace nothingness into their very core, to cherish nothingness as the most precious thing in their core, afterall, nothingless is the core of their beliefs, nothingness is the most important thing they have to value, nothingness is their core, the core of their beliefs because without nothingless the whole core of their deepest belief falls apart and ironically they become nothing if they made this nothingless their everything .\n","conclusion":"Nihilism is a religion but totally decentralized, it claims nothing exists no value exists. All religions most of them centralized claim that nothing existed and the gods made everything. Both claim that \"nothing\" exists, a human made concept, both are Antropocentric, both are human ego.\n","id":"232a2b6b-dec6-4229-b0c6-6546855bbd1f"}
{"argument":"Just to be clear, I\u2019m not saying that if someone wanted their house or something to be independent, the government should allow a referendum. If a place that could be reasonably classified as having a distinct culture, or a different one from their parent nation, or they have geographical separation i e they\u2019re an island or a colony they should be allowed a referendum on independence. This has been especially relevant recently, especially with places like Catalonia, with a distinct culture and a clear strong belief for independence, Spain should allow them to have a referendum.\n","conclusion":"If a place on Earth has a distinct culture of some sort and wants independence, they should be allowed an independence referendum.\n","id":"8e25382a-1055-40e0-b947-7578793aa9eb"}
{"argument":"Religion makes claims about morality, while scientific method alone has no say in moral questions.\n","conclusion":"Some religious claims are necessarily out of reach of scientific investigation.\n","id":"62a5c879-e458-4631-be38-42e04a13464e"}
{"argument":"These are probably REALLY overused  topics, but meh. Please read before answering To begin with, the focus of the legal system should still not be punishment, but rather to give psychological assistance and use socioeducative measures to fully reintegrate criminals to society as productive workers, which has been proven to work on several countries given the right circumstances. Secondly, govermment spending to reduce unequality is most effective to reduce violent criminality. Death penalty is thus, not a priority or goal, it's the final solution after nothing has worked out. I don't support it for emotional or moral reasons such as ''justice'', my reasoning is purely logical and utilitarist I don't live in America, I live in Brazil. A notorious criminal for one of the most brutal murder rape cases on our country's entire history I'm not gonna describe what he did, some people might get triggered known as ''Champinha'' has been hospitalized and been psychologically studied, it's pretty much confirmed that not only he can't be rehabilitated into society, his profile is of probable criminal reccurrence. Keeping him alive is a really expensive deal for the local govermment Giving him clothing, adequate alimentation, proper infrastructure and hygiene in the building he's in, qualified therapists, medical aid in case he's physically ill and many other things costs an approximate value of 30,000 . Keep in mind that this is only one example, and there are much more criminals here that cost that much. But why are we doing that? What logical benefit does this have for the society we live in? Nothing. At all. It's a complete waste of resources. ''Champinha'' occasionally is forced into doing community favours such as cleaning up streets, however, such jobs are easily replacable by more qualified personel. Not only there is no benefit into keeping him alive, there are extremely dangerous potential consequences. Wouldn't it be preferable to spend this quantity of money on more relevant issues, such as healthcare and education? Now, I understand that death penalty can be quite expensive as well, America shows us, but that's mostly because there's a excessive quantity of unecessary bureucracy and complicated procedures. Death penalty could be very, VERY cheap if that wasn't on the way. Besides, isn't it better on the long term to spend a big ammount of money ONCE AND FOR ALL instead of progressively, slowly spending a even bigger quantity? For example, a execution in the US costs something like 1.6 million? If you do some maths, this is pretty much what we spend keeping Champinha alive for 5 months. Some people suggested that we don't kill him off, but don't waste money on him either. That means, throwing him into a prison that has no concern for the well being of its prisoners. Well, aside from the obvious ethical and humane implications and issues this has, it doesn't even work Brazil does that with common criminals, and they return to society as even worse delinquents because of their experiences on prison. Overall, death penalty is clearly a logical option for when criminals have no chance of being recovered. Change my view. Unrelated How's my English? gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Even though I'm left-leaning, I'm a avid defender of death sentence.\n","id":"a3f0795b-f1db-4d5b-8acc-46f76ca0bb44"}
{"argument":"Being in a position of power over this situation places the responsibility of the outcome on your shoulders. Therefore, choosing to pull or not to pull the lever are equally YOUR action, and therefore choosing not to pull the lever does not remove you from the responsibility, it simply causes more people to die under your watch. Once you are in that situation, any people who die that you could have saved but chose not to, their blood is on your hands.\n","conclusion":"By not pulling the lever you passively cause five people to die. This is more wrong.\n","id":"5b206a2a-d449-41ed-aae8-a1e8758635ba"}
{"argument":"Many employees at Facebook and Twitter are citizens of the West Therefore, they must join the fight against all terrorist groups, including ISIS.\n","conclusion":"ISIS' online presence is an integral threat to the West's way of existence to which Facebook and Twitter belong.\n","id":"4e08fed0-f9e0-406d-90da-b49d06420b37"}
{"argument":"I say this for 2 reasons Automatically raising the torch against pedophiles sends them into hiding and makes them harder to detect. If we offered some sort of societal acceptance, maybe we would better be able to tract and identify those who haven't yet committed a crime. It must suck to be a pedophile. Many are victims of trauma themselves, and cant control their desires even when they know that society wants to murder them for it. It's probably like being driven to rape kids when you don't want to hurt kids and you know everyone's going to try to shoot you in the face afterwords.\n","conclusion":"We should be nicer to pedophiles\n","id":"d50f10aa-0e1c-4771-bd79-5c73af483b89"}
{"argument":"Increasing the incomes of the poor could actually improve the economy by virtue of redistribution of wealth. The current wealth situation is not only abhorrently imbalanced, it actually harms the economy by locking up cash flow in the form of savings. A UBI might stimulate the economy, provided the tax is levied on those with income greater than 8 figures.\n","conclusion":"The multiplier effect shows that the accumulation of capital harms the national economy. By redirecting money pooling at the top through a continual redistribution from the top-middle down to the bottom-middle of the income spectrum, the entire economy would actually expand while becoming more sustainable and more inclusive.\n","id":"4de3d41e-53a8-4387-a6f1-6b40bebb0637"}
{"argument":"In most developed countries, instead of killing stray animals they are saved by shelters and put up for adoption.\n","conclusion":"Stray animals are not killed in a number of countries.\n","id":"de760d18-15b5-4415-99b7-c71900536d2a"}
{"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.\n","conclusion":"'Trickle-down Theory' has never existed and is simply used as a strawman against those advocating lower taxes for other reasons.\n","id":"44d0bf99-e402-4b9a-b433-7012c4a4cc22"}
{"argument":"I've suffered from it for a few years now, and getting quite pissed off. The thought of having cancer, or some kind of life changing threatening illness, sounds pretty good. People constantly, genuinely wanting to know if you're ok. Bringing you flowers. Bringing you snacks. Letting you smoke pot without labelling you as a waster who's brought it all on yourself. Instead, I have an illness that prevents me from functioning as a normal adult, except no one can see it, no one wants to be around me when they find out I have it, and I feel like it's something that will never ever go away. Change my view before I say this out loud.\n","conclusion":"I believe cancer patients aren't as deserving of attention as sufferers of depression.\n","id":"89248ec1-f780-498f-84cf-b3990efef901"}
{"argument":"I believe abortion should be legal for a variety of reason, not just in case of rape or when the mother's life is at danger like some moderate conservatives defend. So for example, if a woman has a relationship with a man and doesn't want to have a kid from him, or if she has hookups and forgets to take his pill or maybe takes it but uses some sort of drug that cuts its effect, she shouldn't have all her life ruined just because she made a mistake. Men can make all the mistakes they want, so why can't women? There should of course exist a limit of time of pregnancy after which it becomes illegal. In my country it's legal until 3 months of pregnancy.\n","conclusion":"I believe abortion should be legal for any reason\n","id":"286b32ef-c1fa-40bb-bb93-ae4d6dafb977"}
{"argument":"Certain states have recalled their embassies from other states to make a political gesture or preserve security of personnel, as France has previously done from Syria. Embassies from other countries could then act as proxies to gather information and serve citizens of states without diplomatic presence.\n","conclusion":"On the contrary, being able to speak with multiple voices is beneficial for the EU.\n","id":"05c14037-29c0-4388-95c1-e6e189069d97"}
{"argument":"ISIS is building up a 'public relations office' for German speakers in order to recruit soldiers. 1\n","conclusion":"They try to adapt to their opponents and beat them with their \"own weapons\".\n","id":"e6fabfa9-2ba3-4880-ae5b-b36be71c56da"}
{"argument":"We may not know anything about alien lifeforms right now but we do know the process that they have arisen from evolution. And because we know they must have come into existence by evolution we can make some predictions about what they\u2019re probably like. Disclaimer I am by no means an evolutionary biologist or even a biologist for that matter, so do not put this as a source in your school report. When I say aliens in this post I\u2019m referring to any type of extraterestial life that could visit the earth in spaceships. Aliens will have arisen by evolution from less intelligent into more intelligent lifeforms. So we can make some predictions about what they\u2019re like for instance As opposed to Foreigner aliens will know what love is . Why? Because the stage before understanding that your children carry your genes is the stage where you realize that you would be much more likely to outrun this sabretooth tiger if you didn\u2019t have to carry 15 pounds of dead weight in your arms. So there must be some non intellectual drive or attachment to the offspring that supercedes that analysis. Any species that does not care about it's offspring is at a definite disadvantage. So because their ancestry must have had this instinct, the aliens will probably still have this in their geneset. It\u2019s pretty hard to imagine some evolutionary pressure that would remove this from the genepool . Aliens will probably be in the same range of intelligence. Some people fear aliens being so smart that they might not regard us as any higher than we regard insects. I think they will, because our intelligence level was suffici\u00ebnt to remove all evolutionary pressure. Suppose a species would be twice as smart as humans whatever that means . Such a species would be very quick to put any environment to good use, removing evolutionary pressure, and preventing them from becoming even smarter. They may be significantly smarter than us, but their intelligence won\u2019t be unfathomable to us. except ofcourse when if they use genetic or biotechnological engineering to become smart, but that\u2019s technically cheating . Aliens will be curious about us This one is easy. Curiosity is what makes intelligence useful, so significant intelligence arising without some form of innate desire to understand new things is unlikely. Also, what the hell are they building spaceships for if they\u2019re not curious? We can probably construct similar arguments for other characterisc but this is enough for now. Tl dr Aliens are the product of evolution and therefore the sky is not the limit when it comes to aliens.\n","conclusion":"- It\u2019s likely that intelligent alien life forms will be like us in significant ways\n","id":"25c2ddfb-ace3-4042-8d58-09b100399b91"}
{"argument":"The Book of Mormon describes the slaughter of every soul in an entire great city, after which \"their dead bodies were heaped up upon the face of the earth, and they were covered with a shallow covering.\" Alma 16.11\n","conclusion":"The Book of Mormon contains descriptions consistent with an early 19th century understanding of the Mound Builders\n","id":"70fe21ea-4aac-4a9f-b4d2-b58b7e860a6a"}
{"argument":"To be an atheist and believe there is no God, begins with the assumption that first there must be a God to deny it exists. To assume a God exists, and then deny it is a contradiction.\n","conclusion":"There are good reasons to believe anything if you want to. The existence of reasons to disbelieve are not proof that God does not exist.\n","id":"5774fa70-9547-4d06-8ca9-85c95ddea948"}
{"argument":"I've read a few news stories that have used the term rise of the rest, and I don't think I need to mention America's exporting of it's manufacturing industry. It seems like the argument for these trends, is that it has lifted millions out of poverty and brought cheaper products to the American market. It seems like, if anything, these trends have contributed to the decline of the American middle class, and the detriment of most Americans. How hasn't it? If it indeed has brought cheaper goods to the American market, then who cares. What does it matter if the iPhone is affordable if none can afford to buy a house?\n","conclusion":"The exporting of America's manufacturing industry, and the rise of the rest, has contributed to the detriment of most Americans.\n","id":"2dc832ee-a099-4a93-a233-3abdc2ffe1e7"}
{"argument":"i think the celebrity subreddits are not real fan clubs, but a collection of places where people masturbate to a single person, like a collective wall of pictures plastered onto a stalker's wall. The infamous Jennette McCurdy AMA confirmed it as such to me, as there were only a few questions pertaining to her work and the majority of them had to be nuked because they all asked for nudes. I have my own celebrity crushes, but the subreddits make the affection seem far creepier than it has any right to be. And the existence of the starlets are atrocious. At one point there was a Kiernan Shipka subreddit, made when the girl was only fourteen. They, like the fappening, are nothing more than perverts getting off to a collection of albeit legally available pictures.\n","conclusion":"I think that celebrity subreddits should be banned, especially the \"starlets\" ones.\n","id":"9b34beb6-d7e2-40f4-b8be-3f833dc668cb"}
{"argument":"The Crusades added to hatred among Christians, Jews, and Muslims as they waged war for their holy lands.\n","conclusion":"When that division often involves war, violence and conflict, it does indeed imply harm.\n","id":"8cab3a96-38f5-4f7a-b356-f19dcaedd6fb"}
{"argument":"Assange came to prominence with the release of footage of classified US military documents on the Afghan and Iraq wars in July and October 2010.\n","conclusion":"Julian Assange has contributed significantly to our body of knowledge about political events.\n","id":"4fab7414-f41d-4abd-9f1b-497df5d33a3c"}
{"argument":"Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay within the European Union, a margin of 62% to 38% with every single electorate returning a majority in favour of Remain.\n","conclusion":"A hard Brexit could trigger a second independence referendum within Scotland.\n","id":"8e315f04-66d1-4776-b061-2563b06a076e"}
{"argument":"Presently, not all parts of the human body can be mimicked by cell cultures e.g. systems like the gut and the brain have no alternatives at this time. If drugs are found to be non-toxic in cell cultures, they are then moved to the stage of animal testing\n","conclusion":"Animal models are necessary for studying the fundamental working mechanisms of the body. This is a separate aspect of research than drug development.\n","id":"30767664-729e-4f8b-aa7c-eef642518d82"}
{"argument":"Some parts of nature are humans' natural enemies and humans are trying their best of killing them as effectively as they can. A society where we would not be able to do so, because it would be considered murder of animals, would have tremendous disadvantages for humans.\n","conclusion":"A society where the life of an animal was worth as much as the life of a human would be doomed to fail.\n","id":"871df723-9d83-4819-9efa-9e4b30a111e1"}
{"argument":"Dreamers are already paying state and local taxes. So they would just be reaping a greater benefit from what they are contributing to the US.cnn.com\n","conclusion":"The cost would be more than offset by the taxes that DREAMers would now be able to pay.\n","id":"5d0619b2-76d3-48d5-8d69-9279b0ae48b2"}
{"argument":"People that are living with their parents actually save a lot of money in the long run because they don't have to pay for rent. This means they can save up enough for a down payment for a house in 3 4 years living with parents and being rent free. Not only that but what if said person has to take care of said family either financially or being a general caretaker due to an illness or something. It seems common to judge people that are over the age of 25 that are still living with their parents in countries like the U.S. It seems pretty common to judge people that are still living with their parents after the age of 25. For the this topic of discussion, we are going to assume people that are living with their parents don't have to pay rent and are employed. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"People shouldn't be looked down upon if they continue to live with their parents after the age of 25 when it comes to dating.\n","id":"6b01757e-758a-4559-b545-1287ac823a16"}
{"argument":"As an American, I find it common that the phrase hero is something used a lot to describe those who enlist in the military. I find that although there are definitely some troops who do heroic things, we should not simply throw the term hero around as some sort of umbrella term for those who enlist. Obviously, there are some circumstances in which a soldier does something heroic and worthy of praise. I would say throwing yourself on a grenade to protect the others around you is definitely worthy of the term. However, there are many who enlist that never see a day of physical combat in their lives. To use the term hero to describe all people who serve is detracting from the accomplishments of those who really deserve it. Also, using a word with such a powerful, positive connotation for all those of a particular profession is a bad idea because, although it's not fun to think about, some troops are just bad people. Enlisting doesn't give you a clean slate and a pure soul. Just like every other profession, those who are in the military are capable of doing both bad and good things. For example, there have been many cases of sexual assault within the institution. To say act as if those who serve are immediately heroic individuals is to erase the crimes committed by these individuals as well as the experiences of the victims. Immediately assuming someone who has enlisted is worthy of such a title is toxic, as it perpetuates the idea that these individuals are somehow above the normal citizen, and that they are incapable of making mistakes and or immoral decisions. It makes it seem at though someone who has served is more than what they are, a human being capable of both right and wrong.\n","conclusion":"Americans should stop using the term \"hero\" to describe those who enlist in the military.\n","id":"96d3fb18-f15d-436a-8c03-15c9f703d5da"}
{"argument":"The SEC US, FCA UK and MAS Singapore all require investors to store funds with a regulated custodian.\n","conclusion":"Most regulatory bodies require institutional investors to keep customer funds with a regulated custodian.\n","id":"0753f738-d485-40a1-aeb8-97a704f122b7"}
{"argument":"First, everyone has done these throughout their lifetime, so nobody's a saint. I imagine there's an evolutionary advantage to children that express their needs in these ways. This is not about children. To the point crying, pouting, tantrums, and other negative reactions to cognitive dissonance, are all trump cards in adult discourse. The minute someone starts stomping their feet, uncontrollably swearing, crying, running away, or whatever no matter who's right and who's wrong the other is expected to drop their claim. In many cases, the person is playing Russian Roulette with their relationship. If you don't acquiesce, you don't care enough and they are gone or pouting for a period of time, or you are on their shit list . It is emotional blackmail. It is manipulative. I've seen all kinds pull these shenanigans in all sorts of places to all sorts of degrees to people other than me. All genders. All ages, 20 to 100. At work, in public, in private, over email, and so forth. I don't think people consciously do it to manipulate others, but I think it is conditioned behavior that is sometimes broken and sometimes not, and that it is generally not okay . There are ways of expressing feelings and conveying disagreement without resorting to childish behavior. CLARIFICATION EDIT Crying is OK. Crying and being open to discussion is OK. Crying and locking yourself in the bathroom is not. .\n","conclusion":"crying, pouting, and tantrums are emotional blackmail when done by adults\n","id":"9895b765-26c5-48bb-a53a-84c53d54c56b"}
{"argument":"Genetic mutation being random, some favorable genetical traits for future major changes that are unperceptible now will come handy in the future. But these would not be there in the future if it were not for today's modern medicine.\n","conclusion":"Today's medicine makes more people survive, and thus enlarges the genetic pool today already. It is preferable to have larger samples as a species so more adaptability can emerge.\n","id":"10123bfc-828a-4fe1-a291-15290396bc78"}
{"argument":"Leaving the EU represents a reduction of the rights of UK citizens for example, freedom of movement.\n","conclusion":"The United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.\n","id":"d03dff6a-9c76-4b25-a498-1a85487901ae"}
{"argument":"It seems a lot of people, especially on Reddit, seen convinced that the US is somehow becoming a police state or authoritarian. A recent highly upvoted r bestof post was some guy saying we are a police state and they are going to take away his children for saying so. I think all of that is just paranoid and hysterical, and that the US is nothing like a police state. My father grew up in communist Poland, an actual police state. People who spoke against the party disappeared and were never seen again, or were beaten or killed. if you were not a member of the party, you could not be in government, and if they even suspect you do not have complete loyalty your career was,over. He left the country as soon as he was allowed and came to America. He is the reason I have a positive outlook at American democracy. We have a democracy, we have free speech, free religion, no one is killed or arrested for dissent. The NSA storing metadata in a server somewhere does not a police state make. Yes the tsa over steps it's bounds, but it's a minor inconvience when you only fly once a year. Compared to Soviet bloc, or China, or the Muslim world, or all of Africa, most of south America, America is one of the most stable, most democratic, and most free countries there is. Sure we have problems, but we are far from anything even resembling a police state, and I think people who say we are are no better than the people who compare everything to Nazi Germany.\n","conclusion":"I do not believe the US is becoming a police state.\n","id":"0ead12e9-f3ee-4b3c-a28a-1d055712eb86"}
{"argument":"The Electoral College allocates the weight of a citizen's vote unequally, based on their state and region, which violates the principle that all men are created equal.\n","conclusion":"The electoral college system results in unfair outcomes for voters.\n","id":"0dc015d0-8e09-428d-8e71-8a5b24fc00bd"}
{"argument":"During puberty, individuals develop secondary sex characteristics such as breasts, hips and facial hair. This can be difficult for trans teenagers as it makes it difficult for them to present an appearance consistent with their experienced identity.\n","conclusion":"Puberty can be a uniquely difficult experience for those suffering from gender dysphoria, so it is often best to try avoid the experience if possible.\n","id":"34196cd4-cd10-401a-bd1a-debd5e92cc38"}
{"argument":"Shaming people and therefore creating social taboos in society is how we collectively banished racism from the public arena for the most part. This was an incredibly pervasive attitude people held that was harmful to society. By the same token, obesity is also harmful, but in different ways, and not as immediately critical to stop, however I think every fat person should feel some shame as a result of what they have literally done to themselves, which makes medicine more expensive for us all and harms human productivity. The shame should not be malicious, meaning fat people deserve a basic level of respect and dignity like any other, but a moderate amount should exist to discourage more people getting fat, rather than accepting it in the same we we now accept gay lifestyles for example. Meaning, no one should be fat and proud. There is nothing inherently harmful about that sort of lifestyle, but the same can not be said of a 'fat pride lifestyle.' Objectively this is simply a fact, medically in terms of risk and cost, relationship wise, and physically in terms of people partially or fully disabled based on weight and associated health deficits . gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"Fat shaming in society is beneficial\n","id":"d8c8eb12-ed81-466a-b88c-edabb1adab2e"}
{"argument":"Guns are created with a specific purpose in mind, from self defense to hunting. Assault weapons are created for the sole purpose of firing rounds as rapidly and accurately as possible in order to ensure maximum damage to the target. Why should countries allow a device which is designed with the sole purpose of causing destruction into the hands of civilians where it can and has been misused? EDIT By saying assault weapons I am referring to the guns and LCM's Large capacity magazines banned under the federal assault weapons ban as well as the guns created to exploit loopholes in that legislation.\n","conclusion":"I believe Assault Weapons should be banned for civilian use,\n","id":"618de2c4-5961-4b73-865f-42e2dafc8379"}
{"argument":"Overcrowded prisons tend to have very limited access to water P.g. 154 for each inmate because of an overall increase in water consumption, and water is essential for proper sanitation.\n","conclusion":"Higher rates of infectious diseases in overcrowded prisons is partly due to poor and inadequate sanitation facilities for a growing prison population.\n","id":"8c75c2a7-ff1e-4c67-a2a9-81f16fe0e812"}
{"argument":"When browsing the internet social media, I'll often see an individual post about a good deed they have done. This could be volunteering for charity, donating money, promoting their own morally good business i.e. My organization helps clean up the ocean, check us out on Instagram . x200B Invariably some of the responses to the individual or organization will basically say Why don't you just do this act anyway? You are just trying to get attention . x200B In my opinion this kind of criticism is invalid. I don't see how it is a bad thing for an organization to receive awareness or attention for something positive that they do. Additionally, I think there are other benefits to an individual publicly posting about positive actions. These include More positive media. A lot of news social media can discuss negative topics in the world, it is nice to have positive stories that show the good side of humanity. More awareness for campaigns for good. Example Me posting about how I donated blood to the Red Cross brings the Red Cross, their events, and the act of blood donation more awareness. The person posting about their good deed gets an ego reward positive attention which could push them to do more good deeds in the future. x200B , how is the you're only doing it for attention, you should do good deeds in silence criticism valid? Shouldn't we be celebrating good deeds? x200B I will preemptively counter one situation. I believe the only case where you might not want to celebrate good deeds would be when an organization generally has bad practices and then uses good deeds to boost their PR image. I am not talking about this situation, I am talking about individuals or organizations whose whole mission is good .\n","conclusion":"\"You're only doing it for attention\" is an invalid criticism when an individual promotes a \"good\" deed they have done on an online platform.\n","id":"a034f849-9e4d-42ae-aea0-16733a44a0f4"}
{"argument":"For example, it is hard to understand why being called a derogatory name for that group is insulting if you have not encountered it used in an upsetting or threatening way.\n","conclusion":"Being a member of the racial group is necessary to understand the discussion about race.\n","id":"2f9fd7fe-7f45-4939-8ec8-c86bdf9b8dfa"}
{"argument":"I have a hard time believing that McCulloch was the right man for the case, primarily because of the positive bias he appears to hold. McCulloch has manned the prosecution helm in countless deadly force cases since he became St. Louis county prosecutor more than 20 years ago. He has not indicted a single police officer in that time. Much of his immediate and extended family has worked in the police force, including his father, who was shot and killed by a black man when McCulloch was 12 years old. I believe that the aforementioned details affected his ability, in this particular legal case, to put forth the best and most accurate presentation of evidence to the grand jury. It should also be mentioned that he did not suggest to the grand jury what type of charges should be considered during the decision and examination of evidence. edit words and formatting\n","conclusion":"Bob McCulloch, for several reasons, was not fit to lead the prosecution in the Darren Wilson case.\n","id":"836cb97e-a12d-4334-911e-2387afbf714f"}
{"argument":"This would not only address financial questions, but would establish a new norm in the society that wants to promote equality. This will improve the standing of Black Communities as their historical struggles will be acknowledged.\n","conclusion":"Problems in the Black Community include lacking education, housing, healthcare, and jobs. Communities demand these but cannot afford or invest in them. Reparations would allow Black communities to invest in themselves.\n","id":"7131b570-31d1-4af8-b4af-150a87ebca10"}
{"argument":"The decision in Citizens United v. FEC overturned a federal law prohibiting unions, corporations and not for profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election source Wiki sidebar summary . The statute that was overturned was disturbingly broad. As applied in the case, the FEC attempted to prevent an organization from airing television commercials for a movie that it produced criticizing Hillary Clinton, reasoning that the commercials themselves had the same effect as an attack ad on Clinton and thus could not air so close to an election. I think critics of the decision fall into two groups. One, the idiots. These people want money out of politics and are for whatever reason incapable of imagining the effects of any particular policy. They might be thrilled to see Bernie Sanders on Saturday Night Live a few days before a primary, promoting his political viewpoint, and actively resist acknowledging the fact that such an appearance would be questionable under the statute overturned by Citizens United. They understand that handing out political pamphlets to potential voters is possibly the most American thing one can do, and say they don't have a problem with it but think anything with a production cost over a few thousand dollars is in an entirely different category to political pamphletering. They think all media is a corrupting influence in politics, but share and share and reshare their candidates words and supportive news articles while waiting in line to vote . The other group of opponents is aware that overturning Citizens United opens the door to a parade of horribles involving restrictions on speech, and not just in politics and they expect and desire that result. Revising the first amendment gets their foot in the door for their pet projects criminalizing hate speech, restricting other first amendment freedoms like religion and assembly, attacking other parts of the Bill of Rights as outdated, etc. These people should just move to Europe, in my honest opinion as an ex European who thinks things are much better here. Sorry, I won't be around to respond for the next few hours, but I will definitely get back to your responses as soon as possible. Thanks in advance Edit Forgot Rule E. I'll be here Edit 2 I've overdone the ignoring meatspace thing but I will be back asap and reply to everyone plus follow ups.\n","conclusion":"Anyone who advocates against Citizens United is ignorant at best, and a dangerous enemy of free speech at worst.\n","id":"fed5a352-4e71-47e7-8285-98fceadcd251"}
{"argument":"Now, I understand that compulsory work for the unemployed would take away our freedoms. Similarly, that basic income can lead to some people leeching off the system remaining unemployed, but would lead to a decrease or even an end to poverty. But to prevent such adverse effects of both, we should implement basic income to eliminate poverty and allow those that take that income to work, or risk losing it the income . Jobs such as infrastructure work, bureaucratic work for those adequately qualified , or another base requirement having job, would be supplied to the aforementioned people who would need this, or apply for this income. Otherwise we would cut down the rest of welfare to people who would not work under these conditions.\n","conclusion":"I believe governments should supply both basic income AND compulsory work for the unemployed\n","id":"28a6ac16-e504-4597-baba-e8ab4eb1a01a"}
{"argument":"Biotech, is definitely beneficial. GM crops results in increased yield, which help to provide food security, which could potentially resolve world hunger. Sure, GM crops may not be proven to be safe to eat, and may result in allergens. But surely, given the rate biotech is advancing, wouldn't it be only a matter of time before such issues are resolved? Also, with current biotech, it is also possible to reverse aging , which allows many more things to be done. It also contributes to economic growth. With all these benefits, what could possibly be bad about biotechnology?\n","conclusion":"I do not see how biotech can be harmful.\n","id":"55d306f9-1885-4bbc-9bc7-7de9baf6d4b3"}
{"argument":"An apprenticeship system means starting at the bottom and working your way to the top using the skills you acquire along the way. Example To become a colo rectal surgeon you would start a career path as a nursing assistant. After YOU feel you have learned what you need and have aquired the skills YOU feel you need to advance, you can take an aptitude test to become a nurse. As a nurse you would then do the same process to become a Nurse Practitioner, then a Doctor who assists on general surgery. Then they would apprentice under the specialty of colo rectal surgeon and eventually get his License to be a full Colo Rectal Surgeon in his own right. I believe this for a multiple of reasons. First is because it would eliminate thousands of young people in debt for a vague chance at a job. Second, it would mean you learn practical skills on the job, not reading a book in the classroom. If you are like me, book learning is not the best way to learn. I have excelled at every job I have ever had because once I learn and am trained, I can grasp the concept easily. I know that a lot of jobs like a lawyer or doctor require book knowledge, but there is nothing saying you cannot learn those while also working in the field. Third, most of these jobs have an assistant with them most of the time as well. If you go to a learning E.R. they always have a student with them. Pharmacists have rotations they need in a pharmacy setting to graduate as well. I believe this is where most of the practical knowledge comes from anyway. Fourth, this would help supply and demand on labor. If the doctor field is becoming over saturated, people can still pass their doctors exam and either move to a new region, continue with thier current level of educational work, or if you feel the problem wont correct itself, start over. This is better than getting a Ph.D and finding out the field is over saturated and have to start with a job less than what you're trained for. I think it's an overall better system than spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on vague chance that you may or may not get a job that you will be able to pay your debts. Not only that you can change at any time if you feel the current path isnt right for you.\n","conclusion":"An apprenticeship system is far superior to Colleges.\n","id":"de7f7153-5a4c-4312-ac94-fc4c20e9b5ac"}
{"argument":"I was in an argument with a person who said that since trans men's brains have worked more like cis male brains throughout their lives, then since he's a dude he understands what another dude goes through better than a chick, trans or cis. I say that trans people, both men and women, experience dysphoria and are treated differently by cis people so a cis man can never truly understand a trans man the way a trans woman can. So which is it? Is a person defined by the need for body corrective surgery and how other people see them, or by how they think and feel?\n","conclusion":"trans women can understand trans men better than men can understand trans men\n","id":"22d51bd5-1141-4c29-a96b-71bc90ec6d47"}
{"argument":"In some regions of Spain, children under 14 years of age have to be accompanied by an adult because of the cruelty of the events Brandes, p. 788\n","conclusion":"Children are especially vulnerable to normalisation of aggression when exposed to violence at bullfights.\n","id":"74c7f3f7-5fe9-4908-988f-c797c4046ed7"}
{"argument":"In England and Wales, the Home Office has implemented an improved data collection system which captures record level crime data via direct extracts from police forces' own crime recording systems. Such detailed information collection has allowed religious hate crimes to be recorded, flagged, monitored and dealt with by the police more effectively p. 18\n","conclusion":"There has not been a substantial increase in religious hate crimes. The numbers have increased because of improvements in the way crimes are recorded.\n","id":"25ee5808-3024-4131-9b33-d67261d3a5d8"}
{"argument":"I'm just going to present an alternative, and I'm looking for reason why the alternative is not, at least, on average, equally as good. I'm not going to be convinced if your argument is like it is worse for a specific 10 , but better for another 10 . Or it is equally bad as the current ones. Or, it is worse for 20 , but twice as good for 10 . It has to be worst, on average, for you to convince me. Anyway, here I go In gym, there are equipment available, and classes. Once you pay for the membership, you can use the equipment as long as the gym is open, and join classes when they are available you might have to queue for popular classes . Why can't high school uni be like this? You pay a monthly fee, you have free access to the library online journals recorded lectures lecture notes practice questions online paid learning service such as brilliant.com great courses plus. In addition, you can join scheduled lecture workshop tutorials. You can go to a study area filled with paid volunteer tutor. Once you're ready, you pay an extra bit to take exams, to start assignments projects. You learn at your own pace, you take assessment at your own pace. The tutor lecturer teach at their own pace with their own style. If they always get a full room, they might be given a larger lecture hall, and even a pay rise, or else, they will go to another university, or get their own event organizer. If a lecturer tutor teacher always gets a an empty class, kick them out. As long as the assessment is fair, employer would trust the certificates. I think, after many conversations, I know how to present my answer better Online learning Offline assessment . There are many pro and cons of online and traditional learning. I want the best of both world. You have everything you want to have in online learning. Plus, you have optional offline learning as well like lectures, tutors, workshops, academic advisers, counseling, libraries, students groups, etc2. The key word here, is that the offline parts are optional. This is the part that is like a 'gym'. However, to maintain credibility, the assessment is fully offline. However, gt In school, there's only 1 exam a year. In some uni, there are 2 semesters. Some even have 4 terms. Why not have more? Why not have 6 or 12? So once I feel ready, at most, I have to wait for one or two months. Instead of another term. Assessment will take all forms, from test, take home long essays, to individual and group projects. The specific question will be different all the time, Thus, you cannot start an assessment early, because you won't know the specifics of the tasks. You will have to pay a bit extra for test like SAT Here's an example of project as assessment in my system Here's an example why my systems would be better gt So under your system, let's say Bob doesn't take his education seriously for the entirety of the allotted free education time of 12 years. He wastes those 12 years being lazy, not focusing on education or any non school activities very much. As a result, he has zero chance of being able to get a job of any kind, because he isn't able to get himself into gear. gt Education is a waste when your force it to unwilling people. Education is a waste when people who wants it, cannot have it. It might be the same Bob, but at different time in his life. gt In the current system, Bob is forced through 12 years of education. Teacher and principals are completely unconvincing. 12 years are wasted by Bob and also by the education system. Once he's 20, he cannot get a job, cannot live the lifesytle he wants. He wants to go back to school, but that's no longer an option. Now he's willing, but there's no education. What a waste gt In my system, Bob left school. Only Bob's years are wasted, not the education system. Maybe a year or two, or maybe ten. He eventually realize that he needs school. Now he's willing, and school is there waiting for him. gt If talking by school would convince Bob, working few years flipping burgers would convince Bob too. If 10 years of being cash strapped won't convince Bob, no talking by the school would. Regarding education being publicly funded I will be crediting deltas to all who have helped me sharpened my ideas. gt This is a footnote from the  moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing\n","conclusion":"High school and Uni should be like gym\n","id":"5eb9bf1d-35b2-4b6e-89ca-94b82f395c51"}