argument
stringlengths 116
44.5k
| conclusion
stringlengths 8
1.16k
| id
stringlengths 36
36
|
|---|---|---|
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Traditionally, trademarks are considered a form of intellectual property, but unlike copyrights and patents, they are not giving you control over your original creations, but control over simple, often pre existing labels that started to get widely associated with your product. That's because when you are writing a book, or inventing a tool, you are given control over it with the expectation that it will incentivize other creativity like that. But calling your OS Windows , or your fast food restaurant McDonalds , is not a creativity issue, it's a matter of consumer protection, it is given as a way to try to stop others from decieving customers by implying that their work is similar to yours while in fact it's a cheaper knockoff. With that in mind, the market would be much better served by a system that allows different businesses to compete using the same branding, and only regulate quality control, rather than start from the assumption that there is something inherently virtous about letting corporations exclusively own words, doodles, slogens, or colors the same way as they own their original content. An effective alternate system instead of trademarkes, would be one that allows the first user of a branding to declare a list of Quality Standards , and treat that as the official definition of what facts the branding implies about the product. E.g. Any Apple iPhone has to have this and that technical parameters , or a My Little Pony product can't be unsuitable for 3 6 years old , or any Coke drink has to be identified as equal in taste, to the control sample that we provide for comparison, by 90 out of 100 tasters . If a seller breaks these, they should be sued, not by their rival, but by the customer whose reasonable expectations of the previously published standards were broken. If a company manages to define it's product's values in a way that no one else can imitate, then they get to benefit from being the only one who makes it. But if the product's relevant qualities are easily replicated, and it's not alread subject to patents or copyrights, then there is no public benefit from letting one company own it just because they happened to be first to use it. The benefits would be The ereasure of a useless, non productive marketing industry that is built around inflating brands' net worth, through promting implied, unspecified values, that can only be cashed in thanks to the current trademark system. Maybe if corporations wouldn't be rewarded with billions of dollars for subtly promoting an emotion attached to a logo, then the same money would be better spent on actual meaningful competition, or just cut from the product prices, but in either case benefiting meaningful efficiency. Increased competition, more free market, less monopolistic control. Less ways to use trademarks as backdoor copyright extensions. Nowadays, otherwise Fair Use, or even Public Domain creative works can be shut down, if they feature trademarked characters or locations. If they could only write a finite list of ways in whch the mark is not to be used, that would still leave infinite possible usages open for artists.<|ASPECTS|>stop, monopolistic control, reasonable expectations, regulate, non productive marketing industry, increased, unsuitable, patents, relevant qualities, benefits, fair use, copyrights, cheaper, ereasure, creativity, served, consumer protection, inflating brands ' net worth, works, useless, public benefit, decieving, technical parameters, free market, infinite possible usages open, equal in taste, meaningful efficiency, intellectual property, incentivize, control, competition, meaningful competition, less, product 's values, system, unspecified values, backdoor copyright extensions, facts, quality control, virtous, quality standards, trademarked characters<|CONCLUSION|>
| The trademark system is largely useless, and any merit it has would be better served by other regulations
| 17b0edad-7fc0-4d90-aeb3-8898e2c518f5 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think governments and law enforcement agencies are entitled to monitor the people they are responsible with and said people's actions as long as no one is prosecuted or illegally punished for thinking differently than the guys in charge. I think such surveillence is a neccesity in today's world. I also think one who supports the idea of a civilized society ruled by law where a higher authority exists to serve and protect people, must also support such surveillence. However, I also think if and when there is a breach of privacy where said authority abuses its power to punish people's thoughts, legal action must be taken towards them just as with any other type of autoritarian protection. Until such abuse occurs, though, such surveillence is a must of modern day civilization. EDIT I'm sorry I haven't been very clear. My main point is, why is mass surveillence not okay if other forms of law enforcement are. Also, don't think about USA NSA. We all know all governments do it, I'm talking about it in general.<|ASPECTS|>, thinking differently, protect people, mass surveillence, punish people 's thoughts, society, surveillence, higher authority, 's, legal action, monitor, breach of privacy, civilization, governments, autoritarian protection, neccesity, abuse, usa nsa<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think mass surveillence by governments is completely okay if I am assured that I will not be punished for thinking differently
| 6ea443e3-149c-44a3-8a06-8598fc75be6c |
<|TOPIC|>There should be no limit to freedom of speech.<|ARGUMENT|>Political Correctness sometimes sidelines the search for the truth, often resorting to what is perceived as virtue signalling posturing and condescension. It would seem to be an appeal to character rather than an direct expression of moral virtue. The word "political" in the term refers to this directly as it is common among politicians and is likewise viewed with suspicion. Ethos for the sake of group solidarity.<|ASPECTS|>group solidarity, suspicion, political, character, virtue, political correctness, moral virtue<|CONCLUSION|>
| Political correctness trumps the search for the truth, replacing it with morality.
| 673ad557-9e73-42cf-9f55-31dded8e2abd |
<|TOPIC|>Do we need religion for morality?<|ARGUMENT|>It is possible to come to moral conclusions by observation of the current/objective reality now that religion has given us the opportunity therefore we won't need religion again unless the lack of it leads to people discarding those objecive moralities.<|ASPECTS|>moral conclusions, moralities<|CONCLUSION|>
| Morals can be universal independent of custom or opinion, as opposed to moral relativism, but not absolute independent of context or consequences, as in absolutism.
| 49746c36-2524-4376-bd03-97d69ca90b64 |
<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>The existence of evil can be reconciled with an all-powerful and all-loving God. God would not want to remove evil if a greater good were only achievable with the existence of evil.<|ASPECTS|>all-powerful, all-loving god, remove evil<|CONCLUSION|>
| Good and evil must necessarily co-exist, thus a good God must co-exist with evil in some way.
| f09685a1-7dae-4fe0-b59f-00aae6ea60ae |
<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>"People may also be saved, or gain salvation, from individual spiritual death through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, by their faith in Him, by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of His gospel, and by serving Him."lds.org<|ASPECTS|>saved, gain, individual, spiritual death, faith, salvation<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is logically necessary for the wise and beneficient operation of the Plan of Salvation as taught in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ to require the exercise of faith
| 9bed7532-2f9f-44be-bdd7-c2d887c25b79 |
<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>This entire argument is based on an assumption, an extra variable that has been added, with no on screen evidence to support, let alone prove. Variables such as "variable settings" and "yields" have been added when there is no indication this is the case or even possible in Star Wars. There is no one on screen flicking switches or sliders, or inputting into a console, just firing. Scientifically, using Occam's razor, the extra, unsupported variable should be removed.<|ASPECTS|>yields, unsupported variable, variables, variable settings<|CONCLUSION|>
| This is pure speculation with no evidence to back it up, on screen in any movie to date or in the novelisation. As such, it is hardly a substantial claim.
| c7f9f6d3-1f45-479c-971e-9f54493dbbd3 |
<|TOPIC|>Should selective breeding of animals be prohibited?<|ARGUMENT|>In the case of rats, inbreeding is used to identify problematic genes and features, to avoid problems later down the line. As a result of this experimentation, bad genes can be all but eliminated from the line.<|ASPECTS|>bad genes, inbreeding, problematic genes and features, avoid problems<|CONCLUSION|>
| Selective breeding can be beneficial for the animals themselves, not merely their human counterparts.
| d22ec5f4-873e-4a9a-84ff-959ce61c9292 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>POST DELTA EDIT Thank you all for your input. My main takeaway is this I was, incorrectly, viewing Libertarianism as a purely free market system based on the tenuous presumption of rational choice. In many ways, Libertarianism in the US has been bundled up with unabated capitalism, which probably fed my initial distrust u law talkin guy . Libertarianism as an ideology maximizing personal liberty while accounting for potential negative outcomes , is a viable stance from which to create effective policies u yertles . The cognitive biases I mentioned don't factor in as strongly when we are deliberating on policy. I do wish that we had more political parties in the U.S. so that the nuance of many arguments in this thread could get more attention. Hi all, Libertarianism has seen a resurgence in the U.S. over the past few decades. While it is hard to pin down what has actually led to the ideology's rise, I think it has to do with three things perceived government overreach and incompetence the conjoining of economic and social conservatism by the Republican party. corporate influence in public opinion. I can elaborate on any of those if they're unclear But Libertarianism, in my view, could never really work as a form of governance. There are many specific criticisms of the ideology that it fails to protect the environment, for instance but I think they all stem from the presumption of homo economicus , a perfectly rational and self concerned actor. For a true libertarian system to work, constituents would need to accurately evaluate the utility of their decisions in both the near and long term, a task that humans are inherently bad at see behavioral economics Some good examples of why I think Libertarianism wouldn't work Planning Fallacy Tragedy of the Commons Heuristics in Decision Making From another angle, Libertarianism couldn't work in today's society, because we already have an establishment of capital wealth that would enhance the power of certain groups over others. Especially when we view humans as irrational and manipulable actors, we can see the potential for those with capital to wield it unfairly for their own benefit. Theoretically, if we were all starting from zero and perfectly educated on our cognitive biases and how to work around them, a Libertarian society could thrive. But that's not the world we live in now nor in the foreseeable future. Libertarian policies today would disproportionately benefit those with capital at the expense of those without. So, Reddit. How could Libertarianism ever work? Edit formatting<|ASPECTS|>attention, protect, input, homo economicus, self concerned, disproportionately, capital, cognitive biases, incompetence, capital wealth, libertarianism, capitalism, government overreach, distrust u, unabated, libertarian society, personal liberty, effective policies, political parties, libertarian policies, world, rational, resurgence, edit formatting, ideology, manipulable actors, negative outcomes, power, environment, unfairly, public opinion, corporate influence, benefit, economic and social conservatism, governance, free market system, utility, many, rational choice, irrational<|CONCLUSION|>
| Libertarianism is not a viable system of governance for modern society.
| c238c236-9de5-4a44-9866-e16aa0b3f8f9 |
<|TOPIC|>All Humans Should Be Vegan.<|ARGUMENT|>A vegan world is not possible. Vegan food is sometimes prepared using indirectly animal-derived products. Even if all products are animal-free, they might be produced using other tools that derive from animals and so on. You are never 100% vegan. Even just by living in this society, using its benefits, you are living off the usage of animals. The only way to be totally free is to live in nature.<|ASPECTS|>vegan, free, indirectly animal-derived products, vegan world, benefits, living, live in nature, animal-free, usage of animals, tools<|CONCLUSION|>
| Following the ethical logic of veganism creates a high moral standard that humans would struggle to adapt to.
| 8b4fd838-ad24-42ac-8ce4-1cd9229c5775 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's begin by assuming all the conspiracy theories about censoring Trump at just that conspiracies. This is more a discussion about the ethics of people like Mark Zuckerberg criticizing Trump, or tech CEO's donating to Hillary's campaign. I believe that these platforms or rather, their leadership have a responsibility to be impartial in the election because they have the power to influence so many voters. It's not hard to see the bias with Hillary in this election cycle either. I've read arguments in other subreddits saying that they can do whatever they want, because they're a private company. I think this is all fair and ok for small businesses, but when you have a platform that reaches well over half the population of the US, you should have an moral responsibility to be unbiased and impartial. Otherwise, it is essentially an oligarchy where these tech companies, who basically unanimously lean towards Hillary, can completely control the narrative and get her elected with ease. tl dr the largest social media platforms are run by Hillary supporters and have the power to quite literally control the election results. Therefore, they have a moral responsibility to be impartial.<|ASPECTS|>control the narrative, control the election results, fair and ok, conspiracy theories, censoring trump, ethics, oligarchy, influence, responsibility, power, private company, impartial, bias with hillary, moral responsibility, conspiracies, voters<|CONCLUSION|>
| Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have a responsibility to be neutral in the US election and politics in general.
| b24a4574-42c5-4d50-8923-ad9d30824471 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be clear, I'm only talking about positive political contributions meaning I'm not including personal contributions e.g. charity, friendships . This involves using politics to make positive changes that improve the helps of most people and or reduce the amount of suffering. Looking at republican sites and posters, the consistent trend seems to be hatred of liberals over all other issues. I'm of the opinion that republicans don't really care about the impact of their policies to the country or world at large compared to the damage it does to liberals. There does seem to be a trend of them promoting their own self interest at the expense of others e.g. race, gender, immigration issues but they seem entirely motivated by the idea of helping themselves at other's expense, moreso than most political groups. There are a variety of examples of republican behaviour that convince me this is true. Trump has fanatical support despite not being particularly conservative but he hates liberals so he seems to count as their champion. Ted Cruz has been humiliated by trump but praised his ability to offend liberals recently. Most accusations of wrong doing by republicans is justified by What about Bill Clinton Obama Hillary Pelosi? as if corruption doesn't really bother them. Republicans main cards for the midterms are the tax cuts they made that will cost the federal government trillions and Nancy Pelosi who they seem to hate for no obvious reason her gender aside . Arguments for Trumps election frequently rested on the alternative being the hated Clinton rather than any positive contribution he could make. An accused paedophile Roy Moore , an open Nazi, a convicted coal baron responsible for deaths Blankenship and an admitted pussy grabber Trump have all exceeded expectations thanks to the republican party but they still seem focused on the threat posed by college 'SJWs' as if the far greater threat posed by their own members isn't an issue to them. When it comes to policies, there is a similar trend. Whether it's the environment, the Iran deal or the ACA, republicans despise the efforts of democrats and seek to undermine and unmake all of their efforts to improve things despite having no clear alternative. On abortion and guns, republicans seem unwilling to consider the wellbeing of others at all despite the consequences of their laws affecting everyone from rape victims abortion to children mass shootings . On tax cuts, they seem willing to cut their own despite the cost to future generations while denying their political opponents deductions seemingly out of spite. When it comes to popular republican 'intellectuals' or personalities e.g. Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Roger Stone, Milo Yiannopolous, Tucker Carlson, Dinesh D'souza and their popular outlets e.g. Fox, Breitbart. National Review , they all focus on misrepresenting or demonizing democrats and don't seem very interested in learning or finding the truth. Essentially they focus on achieving personal profit and hurting democrats rather than making any genuine positive impact on the world, just like republican voters and politicians. So I'll if someone can convince me that republicans genuinely believe their political decisions and policies cause more good than harm and don't base their political decisions on pure selfishness and or spite. EDIT I've awarded a delta because it's been pointed out to me that republicans could be so partisan and fanatical that they genuinely believe hurting America is justified to stop democrats. This is a depressing thought but it is possible likely given what I've seen and does change my view. I still believe that their actions overwhelmingly cause great harm but I do think it's possible they're so partisan that they either don't know this or think it's worth it. <|ASPECTS|>stop, wrong, hated clinton, positive impact, consequences, hurting democrats, partisan, shootings, hates, tax cuts, improve the helps, great, unmake, harm, charity, popular republican, offend liberals, similar trend, personal profit, positive political contributions, selfishness, political decisions, corruption, threat, personalities, undermine, improve things, fanatical support, liberals, future generations, federal government, expense, positive contribution, justified, self interest, pure, demonizing democrats, helping, deaths, depressing, damage, 's, fanatical, republican behaviour, friendships, change my view, learning, good than harm, democrats, positive changes, amount, suffering, wellbeing of others, spite, policies, cost, hurting america, humiliated by trump, cut, reduce, personal contributions, impact, hatred of liberals, misrepresenting, immigration<|CONCLUSION|>
| Republicans prioritise beating democrats over making any positive political contributions to their country and the world
| 74b72e9d-c896-422a-800b-4633bddc1412 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Spider Man PS4, Anthem, No Man’s Sky, rated from least to most downgraded by release. Things such as lower FPS, worse animation, less puddles lower quality character models and building models. I believe it’s acceptable to an extent, atrocious downgrades like No Mans Sky are of course unacceptable, but lesser such as Spider Man are better off since it’s still same game. In most scenarios I’d think we’d be more concerned with playing the actual game than it’s graphics. Debut and gameplay trailers are meant to wow us and make us excited for the actual game.<|ASPECTS|>atrocious, unacceptable, trailers, excited, us, lower quality character models, graphics, lower fps, downgrades, building models, playing, worse animation, game, downgraded<|CONCLUSION|>
| Most games suffer a sort of downgrade from debut to release. It’s only a matter of HOW much it’s been downgraded and if it’ll make the experience any worse
| a808dfc1-73cd-400d-aac0-9a8fa17e74e5 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Having Children Selfish?<|ARGUMENT|>For many parents, having a child involves giving up the best years of their lives, which they could be devoting to themselves, to look after children that are completely dependent upon them. This is clearly inherently selfless.<|ASPECTS|>dependent upon, selfless, best years<|CONCLUSION|>
| Having a child involves considerable sacrifice on the part of parents. It is a more selfless than selfish decision.
| 69a1e6eb-11f6-4cef-965a-8833c7075957 |
<|TOPIC|>Progressive tax vs. flat tax, Debate on Progressive Tax versus Flat Tax<|ARGUMENT|>It is unfair that people who earn more should pay at a progressive rate. Even on a standard rate, they already pay more tax, because they have a higher taxable income. Therefore progressive tax rates are a form of double taxation, as higher earners pay tax on more income, and then at a high level. This is further unfair to them since high earners are the least likely group to benefit from much taxpayer-funded activity e.g. welfare.<|ASPECTS|>double taxation, progressive rate, pay, pay more tax, tax rates, taxable income, taxpayer-funded activity, unfair, tax, higher<|CONCLUSION|>
| Flat tax fairly has wealthy pay proportionally more in taxes.
| cc64715e-d1fc-49f2-b0f7-dc84111ae835 |
<|TOPIC|>Can God's existence be understood by rationality?<|ARGUMENT|>The natural world is full of complexities and structures which from a mathematical view point are impossible based simply on chance. To consider that a virtual infinite number of mathematically impossible occurrences all are the product of chance, is an absurd of a belief as any.<|ASPECTS|>mathematically impossible occurrences, complexities, structures, chance<|CONCLUSION|>
| The alternative to accepting a supernatural being is far less rational because at every stage science runs into problems which are inconceivable based on a materialistic world view.
| 69a08761-7e3c-426e-b065-d05b03702c45 |
<|TOPIC|>There should be a united International Women's liberation party.<|ARGUMENT|>Women's rights is not a partisan issue and any international movement should go beyond partisan lines. There are proponents of womens rights across the spectrum, that have little to nothing else in common in their political views.<|ASPECTS|>womens rights, partisan lines, partisan, women 's rights<|CONCLUSION|>
| Issues facing women around the world are vastly different, so there is no point having a consolidated political front.
| 922008bb-56db-4de0-87ee-28ad3cec3011 |
<|TOPIC|>Should there be one singular global government/entity<|ARGUMENT|>Currently, only 14.2% of Chinese in China express concern. Based on this statistic, a single government similar to China's may not take it as a serious threat.<|ASPECTS|>serious threat<|CONCLUSION|>
| A singular government may err on the side of less concern over climate change, thus diminishing any efforts at all.
| a8a359ce-d9cc-465e-8993-b11361ce60cb |
<|TOPIC|>US 2020 Presidential Election: Who should the Democratic nominee be?<|ARGUMENT|>Andrew Yang is not afraid to have discussions with strong political speakers, such as Ben Shapiro who is known for his incredible debating ability in favor of conservative values, about his platform.Andrew Yang on the Ben Shapiro Show<|ASPECTS|>debating ability, conservative values, speakers<|CONCLUSION|>
| Andrew Yang focuses on discussing issues we face as modern Americans rather than slandering his opponents. This shows his moral strength as well as his interest more in solving problems than just winning the Presidency.
| d26e9fdd-0c5d-4947-9be0-12d7f4f4cc96 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I never tip, I think It reinforces the notion that employers can get away with paying a sub standard wage to people based on their chosen occupation, I think tipping should be abolished and in it's place employers should be legally obligated to pay. Realistic and survivable wage then if people decide to tip then it should go directly to the server. I've never understood why employers are allowed to pay 2 an hour and society is expected to pay their employees wages while they soak up more profit by avoiding paying their employees a realistic livable wage, and I don't feel anyone should be guilted into paying X percentage on top of the bill at a restaurant to pay the servers wage wen it should be their employers<|ASPECTS|>survivable wage, guilted, realistic, profit, sub standard, tipping, legally obligated to pay, realistic livable<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't think you should tip at all good or bad services, it's an out dated custom that just encourages employers to pay sub standard "tipped" wage.
| 5efc2246-acc7-4d82-9f6b-055387f56ddd |
<|TOPIC|>Should Euthanasia Be Legalised?<|ARGUMENT|>Taking person's life is a great psychological burden that should not be put upon a doctor, because it might impede with their future work.<|ASPECTS|>future work, impede, psychological burden, 's life<|CONCLUSION|>
| Medical professionals have a moral obligation to save a life if possible, and should never willfully end a life
| 9351715e-da91-4de4-8343-53a6de84be0b |
<|TOPIC|>Did Trump Collude with Russia?<|ARGUMENT|>This is an age-old theme among those who seek power and wish to solidify or expand their power. George R. R. Martin used it in his A Song of Ice and Fire Game of Thrones, where in Cersei seeks to solidify her power and control by aligning herself with the Sparrows religious fanatics, and empowering them. They impose harsh religious law. This ultimately backfires on Cersei when she herself becomes subject to and victim of these laws. A demonstrably immoral Trump may face his SCOTUS picks.<|ASPECTS|>age-old theme, harsh, laws, empowering, solidify, religious fanatics, expand, religious law, immoral, power, power and control, scotus picks, victim<|CONCLUSION|>
| Indeed Trump likely feels neither he nor his family have much to worry about from laws that are hostile to the Separation between Church and State or otherwise impose religious edicts onto the people at large. As a billionaire or at least multi-millionaire nothing would stop him from getting around any such laws that inconvenienced him or his family say from one of the female family members getting an abortion.
| 52fcc806-9fed-4fac-83fc-c7e9d71a5274 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a 2nd year resident physician in a Pediatrics program in the Southern United States. In my experience dealing with patients and their parents intelligent, hardworking professional couples well into their 30's are usually having just one or two children this doesn't even count the ones that are childless who I don't see in the clinic . Meanwhile, poor, welfare recipients are having several children. I saw a 28 year old single mother who does not work yesterday who had 9 children from 4 different fathers. These children will undoubtedly have a disadvantage growing up, and likely end up as their parents. Meanwhile, they will soundly outnumber the children of rich parents who had a high quality of life growing up creating a stratified society. This is both a burden to the individuals and society as a whole. My plan would be to provide a BIG cash payout to rich couples for having their own children because their high quality genes are as important as their high quality lifestyle they will provide to the child . Couple this with giving a BIG cash payout to poor people for not having their own kids similar reasoning genetics environment . Even more of a payout for getting sterilized. I think the money saved by introducing more children raised by rich couples and higher quality genetics environment and fewer children raised by poor couples and lower quality genetics environment will more than make up the money we pay the respective couples. , reddit<|ASPECTS|>parents, genetics, money, rich couples, physician, single mother, cash payout, outnumber, quality lifestyle, quality genes, rich parents, big, burden, sterilized, high, quality of life, genetics environment, childless, welfare recipients, children, stratified society, money saved, payout, disadvantage, poor, hardworking professional couples, poor people<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that rich/higher quality of life couples should be incentivized to have more children while poor/lower quality of life couples should be incentivized to have fewer children. !
| f15cab7e-a738-4864-ba78-0766e80ed8e5 |
<|TOPIC|>Campaign Finance Reform<|ARGUMENT|>Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive, thus resulting in more turnover or 'fresh blood' in politics. This is valuable in challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas. It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise huge sums of money.<|ASPECTS|>competitive, deterred from candidacy, blood, turnover, ethnic minorities, money, disproportionately, new ideas, challenging old orthodoxies, sums, class<|CONCLUSION|>
| Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive, thus resulting in more turnover or 'fr...
| abae60e3-cf6f-44c6-9646-ff82b26f1202 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Board game use is already going down as kids are using board games less and less because phones and other gadgets now exist. Monopoly used to be a very commonly played board game with families, however i am in my early teens and when i first learnt about monopoly, i was playing an nintendo disk version. Very few people are going to continue to buy board games from shops and online when they can for cheaper and simpler, buy it from the internet and instantly start the download on their device. Change my view that board games aren't going to die out.<|ASPECTS|>board games, cheaper and simpler, monopoly, games, board game use, gadgets, die<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that board games are going to be replaced by electronic versions or different electronic games
| cecd9d00-5386-4741-9cb2-cab5bea4a568 |
<|TOPIC|>Does Feminism Strive For Equality?<|ARGUMENT|>Feminism is good for men as well, who are often socially conditioned to always play certain roles, that they are bullied for not enacting. Feminism allows a variety of different types of masculinity and femininity to flourish.<|ASPECTS|>flourish, masculinity, femininity, socially conditioned, men, good<|CONCLUSION|>
| Feminism helps to create a more equal society for all of its members, not just for women.
| 963c2149-2b6d-4861-95e9-dab45ff047a7 |
<|TOPIC|>Should You Confess to Cheating After a One Night Stand?<|ARGUMENT|>Sex is what makes it "cheating", and not the length or breath of the affair. So, because it happened once does not make it any less important a subject to confess to.<|ASPECTS|>subject, important, cheating<|CONCLUSION|>
| A one-night stand is as much a reason to confess as a full-blown affair since it still involves sex - which is typically not acceptable in exclusive relationships.
| fab0389a-dfa3-4558-bdf7-ce13aa59701f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It is close to a decade of the anniversary of my father passing away due to complications arising from leukaemia, I have been reflecting on his last year alive. Towards the final months, he turned grey, lethargic and weak real quick, outwardly looked like he aged 30 years between two of his birthdays. The diagnosis for cancer came too late, even with all the resources in the world, he would have had at best five percent chance of living towards the end of the year. He was advised to undertake chemotherapy by his oncologist, I have no idea why even bother. Cancer may have killed him, but the chemo was what fucked him up. The remainder of his life was not by his loving family’s side, but constantly coming in and out of consciousness, when he did communicate, it was to express the extreme pain and discomfort he was feeling. I consider it a blessing he at least didn’t die of neutropenic sepsis, which was always a possibility with this kind of treatment. I read that doctors, whether it is arrogance or not wanting to cause upset in the families of the sick, tend to overstate the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Apparently here in the UK, chemotherapy is still administered to nearly 10 of cancer patients right up to the last month of their lives. Clearly not cost effective, more importantly, it has to be a massive emotional burden to all those families involved. Palliative and different types of End Of Life treatment options are poorly communicated to patients, if at all. My argument isn’t just that EOL care should be better explained as an option, which is really a complete “well no shit” stance to take. I’m saying that firstly, doctors should have the balls to ward patients off chemotherapy, if they know that deep down, it would be futile. Patients should better understand that chemo isn't necessarily in their interest. Secondly, death by cancer isn’t actually as bad as the other contenders for common deaths in the First World. Chemotherapy is hugely expensive, logistically complex, painful, and frankly useless in many cases. Like that of my old man’s. The older the patient, the significantly lower the chances they would survive with each passing year, after the age of 40, or 50, or whenever. And by some miracle they do survive, the quality of life can diminish so much, it might not be worth living. We should take cue instead from how the actual experts the doctors themselves decide how they want to die. Which seemingly involves very little medication. But an acceptance of their fate, quality time spent with loved ones, and not engaging in an often futile fight, that realistically buys them a few months longer, but in pain and misery. We should die like that more often. I am not saying chemotherapy should never be an option, that it should be banned or such. I’m not saying everyone with cancer should lie down and let it kill them, either. Of course not all cancers are equally fatal. And obviously there are those 1 in a million cases who have “beat” cancer even in an advanced old age. But we, at least in the West, have pussyfooted too long. Doctors routinely lie to cancer patients about their chances, and too readily administer them with toxins hoping it will kill solid tumours before the chemo kills them. This is not wholly the fault of the medical profession, of course they try their best with what they have, and are emotional human beings who really do want the best for those in their care. It’s also on you, me and everyone else to rethink our relationship with death. That prolonging our lives as much as possible, usually a measuring stick for quality of life, isn’t necessarily in our best interest. Politically, it is suicidal to decline the sick this treatment, but we are only doing ourselves a huge disservice by pretending the status quo is fine. If I were closer to my father’s age when he died, and was similarly diagnosed with the same or similar as he was, I would at least take comfort I will have the luxury of dying a slow and predictable death. A death that I will allow me the time to settle my affairs, cross off stuff from the bucket list, and spend what’s left of my time, with people I love. Dying by cancer probably is the best death really. The alternatives the long, slow death of dementia, stress, stroke, or sudden shock of death by organ failure, are all much worse in my opinion. But all of them are still much preferred to the torture and false hope of late chemotherapy.<|ASPECTS|>death, upset, pain, want to die, overstate, leukaemia, settle my affairs, slow, predictable death, fucked, chances, lie, diagnosis, die, lethargic, best, dying by cancer, quality time spent with loved ones, emotional human beings, effectiveness, arrogance, anniversary, killed, stroke, slow death of dementia, time, luxury, suicidal, futile, neutropenic sepsis, disservice, aged, torture, extreme, kill, cross, grey, would, fault, medication, little, acceptance, option, painful, fatal, ward patients, worth living, cancer, chance, try, want, discomfort, beat ” cancer, kill solid tumours, complications, poorly communicated, rethink, death by cancer, decline the sick, quality of life, end of life treatment options, stress, relationship with death, pussyfooted too long, expensive, false hope, survive, common deaths, diminish, spend, die like, sudden, cancer patients, interest, emotional burden, weak, useless, pain and misery, organ failure, advanced old, cost effective, undertake, family, shock of death, eol care, status quo, chemo, living, banned, logistically complex, fate, lives, cancers, chemotherapy<|CONCLUSION|>
| Cancer patients, particularly older ones, should be heavily encouraged towards palliative care over chemotherapy
| b67cd700-6f04-4b3e-8cef-20a318478487 |
<|TOPIC|>Is it Time to 'Free the Nipple'? Toplessness and Gender Equality in the US<|ARGUMENT|>Cultural anthropologists found that men in Mali were “bemused or horrified” at the perspective of sexual foreplay involving breasts<|ASPECTS|>horrified, foreplay<|CONCLUSION|>
| Viewing women's nudity as something indecent is not a universal perception.
| 0932a78f-307b-42e2-8fae-db26ab92c65e |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The US electoral college was specifically created in order to prevent against the tyranny of the majority by protecting the rights of smaller and more rural states.<|ASPECTS|>tyranny of the majority, rights<|CONCLUSION|>
| One of the founding notions of US government was that it can be used to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority.
| c20c7062-30a5-40a2-a016-40012378aed4 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A good academic study hopes to enact positive change in the world. However, they are all written in such a way that only other academics can quickly and easily understand what has been found and is being said. Academics are most often not those that would most benefit from this information and almost certainly are not the ones that have the ability to enact the changes the study discovers would be most beneficial. Were these texts easy for the layman to read and understand, information would be able to spread much further and have a much greater impact on the world outside of academia which is surely the point of these studies in the first place. Whilst academic study may be more concise, this is of no use if the only people who are saving time reading them are academics. .<|ASPECTS|>quickly and easily understand, benefit, beneficial, information, academic study, spread much, positive change, concise, academics, impact, changes, greater, time<|CONCLUSION|>
| Academic studies, articles, texts, etc. should be written in easy to understand language in order to appeal to everyone.
| c09b6319-e18f-4bdc-9f72-d25e0fb28a3f |
<|TOPIC|>General AI should have fundamental rights<|ARGUMENT|>An AGI shouldn't be created because controlling its reproduction it copying itself, mutating or taking different forms wouldn't only be ethically hard to justify but also difficult to accomplish in the long term, which would create a new set of possible risks.<|ASPECTS|>ethically hard, risks<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is the chance an AGI might be able to think for itself and turn on its creators.
| 1c3f178c-5a1f-48c4-8c0e-045a26ee34c5 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, I feel obligated to make clear that I'm a lesbian and advocate for the rights of my fellow LGBT people because people have called me homophobic for having this view. Please just hear me out. One of the rights guaranteed to American citizens is religious freedom. If I violate a group of people's religious ideology, then that's fine. If that group of people runs a business that I'm trying to buy something from, but they don't want to take my money just because I'm a lesbian, then that's fine. I'll just take my money elsewhere to a secular business that will be glad to take it and will probably be nicer to me as well . There are plenty other businesses in America that will be glad to accept my money. America is a country that prides itself for its freedom. Therefore, they should be allowed to practice their religion in peace. If they don't want to take my money just because of their religion, then that's fine. I just won't bother them and find others that are willing to do business with me. Also, as a rebuttal to a possible counterargument, I want to make clear that this does not apply to workers of faith that work for the government a secular entity or secular companies. Similar to how the government companies may not allow their workers to talk about government company secrets, these workers should not be able to deny service to a customer based on their religion. That's about all I have, so please change my view because I don't understand where the other side is coming from. EDIT I've had a complete change in view thanks to the comments on this post. I don't believe that businesses should discriminate based on religion anymore, but if you still want to go ahead and comment to make a point against religious discrimination by businesses, then please, go ahead Thank you everyone for your comments<|ASPECTS|>, glad, rights, religious freedom, money, religious discrimination, counterargument, prides, side, bother, business, change in view, workers of faith, discriminate based, homophobic, religious ideology, freedom, government company secrets, peace, deny service, secular, accept my money, religion, nicer<|CONCLUSION|>
| Religiously affiliated companies should be able to deny service to people that violate their religious beliefs.
| 70b48653-22d3-4f8d-803f-b03f5a05091e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I like to think that people have free will and that people of either gender are equally likely to be bad. However, there's mountains of evidence that most of the evil deeds committed by humanity are committed by males, males are more likely to be creepy and manipulative you rarely hear about nice girls but you always hear people complain about the behavior of nice guys , and men are more likely to have personality disorders with the exception of borderline personality disorder which is really more of a psychosis anyway. Men are more likely to be narcissists than women, and the largest gender gap in narcissism relates to entitlement and exploitation, which are probably narcissism's ugliest facets. Men are also about three times more likely to be sociopaths than women 3 of men and 1 of women according to the estimates I've seen cited. Look at all the allegations of sexual assault in Hollywood lately ALL of the perpetrators are men. With a few rare exceptions, women just aren't bad enough to commit these kinds of crimes. Same with murder 95 of the murders in the world are committed by men and boys. That means that for every woman who kills someone, there are 19 men. I have a strong hunch that if you scanned the brains of people who would generally be considered good people you would find that most of them have brain structures that fall onto the feminine side of the spectrum, and most bad people would be found to have highly masculinized brains. People with more masculine digit ratios are statistically more likely to cheat on their partners, and criminals of both sexes tend to have masculine looking faces compared to other people of their gender based on all the mugshots I've seen in my life. Even Jodi Arias, who became well known partly because she's considered pretty, looks pretty masculine compared to the average woman. It's very rare for an attractive, feminine looking woman to be accused of a serious crime, and anecdotally I've noticed as a general trend that feminine looking people, men and women alike are more likely to be nice people or at the very least tend to have more agreeable personalities. However I am open to having my mind changed and would like to be proven wrong, as I find the idea that morality and gender seem so inherently related to be disturbing. I'm a Christian and I believe what makes a person good or bad is not their actions, but rather what's in their heart. After all according to Genesis Eve was the first to disobey God, though I suspect the writers of that passage might have had a patriarchal bias. Of course a person's actions are often a good indication of what's in their heart, but I believe people who are fundamentally good can do evil things and I think people who are evil inside can do good things. I do know that males are more impulsive and risk taking than females and generally not as good at understanding other people's feelings this doesn't necessarily mean they have a bad heart, but it could at least partially explain why men and boys are responsible for the lion's share of the wicked deeds committed by humanity. Perhaps women are just as fallen as men on the inside, but for various reasons are less likely to reflect this in their actions at least in obvious ways? I was also thinking about something else from a Christian standpoint. I know Reddit is mostly atheist, but I posit this question for the Christians and deists if men are inherently more fallible and temptation prone than women, do you think God judges the sexes differently? Sometimes I wonder if the reason that Bible seems to be written primarily for men is because God figured that men were more in need of moral guidance, while for women it's more intuitive. <|ASPECTS|>psychosis, sexual assault, fallen, masculine, brain structures, bad, morality, personality disorder, actions, highly, evil deeds, creepy and manipulative, crimes, temptation prone, women, committed, commit, good things, murders, intuitive, fallible, moral guidance, agreeable personalities, cheat on their partners, good or bad, personality disorders, feminine, masculinized brains, nice people, understanding, narcissism, free, wicked deeds, entitlement and exploitation, behavior, masculine looking faces, kills, narcissists, good, evil, gender, masculine digit ratios, patriarchal bias, less, related, god judges the sexes, impulsive, risk taking, enough, gender gap, disobey god, serious crime, men, evil things, sociopaths, christian, bad heart<|CONCLUSION|>
| Men are more fallible than women, and much more likely to be bad people
| 1135950d-0766-4d78-9edd-2ddf8b435648 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Legalizing sex work causes predation on the weakest members of society who may be unable to refuse it due to socio-economic reasons<|ASPECTS|>socio-economic, predation, weakest<|CONCLUSION|>
| The sex industry is often a means of providing for oneself or a family when all other options have been exhausted.
| db6a94e0-678a-4802-918d-305c1868ec68 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The F 35 sounds like a great idea on paper. The idea is to create one airplane that can fill the needs of the Navy, Air Force, and Marines and operate in every environment the military needs it to. Theoretically this should unify everything and cut down on training and maintenance costs. The problem is everything hasn't gone according to plan. The F 35 Joint Strike Fighter program has had numerous cost overruns and is slated to cost over 1.3 Trillion by the time it is finished. This will make one of the the most expensive weapons platforms ever built. It is years behind schedule and hundreds of billions of dollars over budget. The flyaway costs are projected to cost an average of 178 million per aircraft. The bigger problem however is that the entire program risks being obsolete before it ever sees combat. The way it's looking right now the future of aerial combat is drones. Within the next few decades they will likely be better in almost every aspect over human pilots. The most obvious advantages are cost and not having to worry about pilots getting killed or captured in combat. But it extends far past that, drones will likely have quicker reaction times and be able to pull extremely high g loads on an aircraft that would cause a human pilot to blackout or possibly die. This means that without the limitations of a human pilot a drone should be able to easily outmaneuver a piloted aircraft in a dogfight. From the surface it seems to me that the F 35 is like the modern day Maginot Line, built based on the rules of past wars with the assumption that future wars will follow the same formula. But just as in World War 2 the rules of war are changing and we are getting to a point where humans need not apply So am I wrong, is the F 35 worth the investment? Please . edit Thanks for all the awesome responses guys I will definitely look through them all though IRL requires me to take a break at the moment. edit2 Whoa, almost 100 responses. I didn't expect this topic to get this kind of interest. I am doing my best to respond to every comment though quite the backlog is developing. Thanks again for all the responses and the time to reply edit3 My view has changed regarding the F 35's cost given the vast amount of aircraft it is slated to replace. The 1.3 Trillion statistic that is often quoted is a bit misleading because it is actually over a 50 year period. Given how relatively close the project is to completion and the significant amount of time it would take to complete a newer replacement it may in fact be imprudent to cancel the project at this point.<|ASPECTS|>human pilots, aircraft, cancel, everything, future wars, budget, quicker reaction times, break, obsolete, interest, risks, costs, misleading, idea, future, gone according to plan, backlog, drones, die, advantages, outmaneuver, blackout, captured, investment, billions, statistic, high g loads, maintenance costs, easily, imprudent, cost overruns, training, time, humans, expensive weapons platforms, aerial combat, cost, limitations, better, pilots getting killed, behind schedule, dogfight, rules of war, fill the needs, flyaway<|CONCLUSION|>
| The F-35 is the modern day equivalent of the Maginot Line and should be Canceled.
| a91d39d7-4e6c-4ae9-b1e7-3d02dde5c86b |
<|TOPIC|>Retirement Age Should Be Raised<|ARGUMENT|>. A high quality of life after retirement is now expected by many pensioners. As insurance and living costs rise, a longer working age is necessary to maintain the same level of pension contributions.<|ASPECTS|>quality of life, pension contributions, living costs, working age<|CONCLUSION|>
| . A high quality of life after retirement is now expected by many pensioners. As insurance and liv...
| 41905c10-9dae-4d27-aee0-168f68b52f80 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Elected presidents almost always impose a minority ideology over the majority of voters in a runoff vote where there are more than 2 candidates, elected leaders often polarise the country they are elected to heal. I believe budding democracies like Egypt should be run by appointed technocrats and economists for some time before being handed over to a Parliamentary system. I have no doubt that the newly elected Afghani administration will be marred in its ability to govern by radicals in the opposition. When said radicals get elected people would have realised that nothing has changed because there is no continuity of government. Democracy is all very fine and well, but the gesture of having an elected top office will just make things worse. 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<|ASPECTS|>fine, ability, parliamentary system, remind, popular topics, appointed technocrats, democracy, things worse, concerns, democracies, nothing has changed, effective, downvotes, continuity of government, happy cmving, minority ideology, message us, change, downvote, elected top, questions, radicals, govern<|CONCLUSION|>
| Presidential elections are not appropriate for budding democracies like Egypt and Afghanistan.
| fa34600d-2662-4e13-b0ae-94644fea70dc |
<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>All cosmological models that postulate no beginning to our universe or offer a cause for the beginning through naturalistic events in a prior universe/multiverse fail to account for observational evidence or still imply a beginning to the prior universe/multiverse<|ASPECTS|>observational evidence<|CONCLUSION|>
| If the universe has a cause, the best candidate for that cause is the God of classical theism
| 8e0133b2-f9be-4414-8f95-d494f2157012 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Religious Education that Promotes a Certain Faith or Religion be Abolished in Schools?<|ARGUMENT|>1+1=2. It's not proved before it's taught. The proof is deeper than you'd want to try to explain to children whose ages are also in single digits, so it's left until later, university in fact.<|ASPECTS|>ages<|CONCLUSION|>
| Examples occur where young children are taught assumptions because the proof is either beyond them or not necessary at their age.
| 35806cd1-ed32-4d6d-ac98-5b5e415ddd52 |
<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Similar applications of attempts to protect marginalised groups through limiting free speech, can often have the opposite effect of the intended one. Hate speech legislation has been used by the majority to vilify the minority the legislation aims to protect.<|ASPECTS|>protect marginalised groups, hate speech, free speech<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is a danger that censoring insensitive words in Huckleberry Finn might be used to justify censorship that is oppressive towards minorities.
| 42ccc248-174e-4279-a966-bcc33b9928d1 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Referendums Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>Journalists are not restricted by a party book, the fear of reelection, or the need to find compromises with other political actors. Therefore they can address issues freely.<|ASPECTS|>compromises, fear of reelection, address issues freely, restricted<|CONCLUSION|>
| Unlike politicians the lack of accountability enables the media to act independently. This is beneficial for democracy.
| 0a9c114c-17bd-49c9-b109-44fa0523d58e |
<|TOPIC|>Is it ethically wrong to watch pornography?<|ARGUMENT|>Sexuality for most people is a fundamental component of the human condition. Pornography is a sexual performance and needs to be placed in the context of "Acting" as it presents an unrealistic ideal of sex and body image. If pornography is handled intelligently and in a mature fashion without legislating the morality of others then pornography can be free from ethical complications.<|ASPECTS|>sex, unrealistic ideal, human condition, morality, body image, ethical complications, sexual performance<|CONCLUSION|>
| Porn is made to promote arousal, entertainment and even escapism. As long as the one watching is an adult that knows what happens in screen may differ from reality, there is nothing morally wrong with it.
| acd45f6d-68d0-4b78-9089-6e26ea1defe8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT I now realise that 'famous' is not absolute it may depend on how said 'celebrities' are marketed where I live. I guess it sort of answers my dilemma. Thanks a lot, people You have been kind, and thankfully, not as scathingly judgmental as I'd initially imagined. Look at all the pop stars would they really be this famous if NOT A SINGLE PERSON knew what they looked like? Also, look at said stars' music videos live performances there seems to be a correlation and even causation here the more a 'star' exposes her skin the more famous she is. Would anyone care as much about Miley, Beyonce, Nicole, Aguilera etc. if they were fully clothed at all times? I don't think so. Same sort of applies to most film actresses as well, in my opinion. And talking about 'models' is a no brainer here. All their job entails is losing more clothes. Change my view? EDIT I guess the downvoters should explain? It's Change My View after all<|ASPECTS|>marketed, scathingly, losing more clothes, care, answers, brainer, causation, film actresses, fully clothed, judgmental, dilemma, famous, change my view, correlation, kind, downvoters<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think most female 'celebrities' are famous only because of their looks. ?
| 20f0c764-4b56-4451-838d-9016efb19985 |
<|TOPIC|>Should cosmetic surgery be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Black market cosmetic surgeons offer reduced prices and results that are too good to be true. This often means unsafe doses, inferior quality products or dangerous substitute substances and unqualified practitioners administering the procedure.<|ASPECTS|>reduced prices, dangerous substitute, unqualified practitioners, results, inferior quality, unsafe doses<|CONCLUSION|>
| Banning cosmetic surgery does not get rid of the demand for it, which leads to a rise in unregulated cosmetic surgery.
| 94c7d273-c385-409f-b016-514428ef7651 |
<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>For some people, sex is enjoyable because they like the experience of desiring someone and being desired in return. Sex robots are unlikely to be able to give this illusion as it will be known that the robots are not experiencing genuine emotions.<|ASPECTS|>genuine emotions, sex is enjoyable, desiring someone, desired<|CONCLUSION|>
| For many people, sex is important because it allows them to feel intimate with another person. A sex robot is unlikely to be able to replicate this.
| ae24145e-9c40-40f7-91b9-7bd2fbe0d691 |
<|TOPIC|>There should be further research on solar geoengineering.<|ARGUMENT|>Without technical counterbalances, climate change might endanger the survival of the entire human species. Corner & Pidgeon www.tandfonline.com<|ASPECTS|>climate change, technical counterbalances<|CONCLUSION|>
| This would prolong the health of the earth, and thus, human health
| 21bea23c-d7d9-4599-8044-0c11f6f1f93c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi all. I don't know much about Tim Kaine. I know he was on the final three shortlist for VP in 2008, and I know he got his start as mayor of Richmond, then moved up as Lieutenant Governor then Governor of a swing state. It seems like his pick has strong political chops he is catholic, speaks Spanish, is admired across the aisle and has a son in the military. What would y'all say about Tim Kaine? Why might he be the wrong pick? Bonus points if you've personally worked with him.<|ASPECTS|>wrong pick, political chops, admired, catholic, personally, bonus points<|CONCLUSION|>
| Tim Kaine is likely a strong VP choice for both campaigning and governing
| 72a94098-83d3-4373-98e0-7898fe2b2f83 |
<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>They could be used by people who don't have current sexual partners, to experiment without the health hazards that may go along with multiple one night stands.<|ASPECTS|>health hazards<|CONCLUSION|>
| Sex robots can provide an outlet for people to explore sexual interests that their current partners are uninterested or unwilling to engage in.
| 88e30583-0230-431a-9462-d7dd6a676bb9 |
<|TOPIC|>Should people break up with their partner at the first sign of abuse?<|ARGUMENT|>Marriage is a big decision in the lives of people. If they decide to get married to someone, it is likely they would have spent sufficient time in getting to know the other person.<|ASPECTS|>decision, time, marriage, know the<|CONCLUSION|>
| People are likely to have spent enough time with their partners to know they are abusive before getting married.
| 1fd3bae2-cdcd-4d45-8eb5-9a3d28c0f7a0 |
<|TOPIC|>Should all companies be entirely owned by their workers?<|ARGUMENT|>Currently only those that hold a significant amount of equity ownership have control over the political power in a company.<|ASPECTS|>political power, equity ownership<|CONCLUSION|>
| The worker cooperative promotes democratic participation and education in running a business for the workers.
| 4800c4ea-37a8-44cb-a44c-edec3331ce81 |
<|TOPIC|>Should "women-only" spaces be open to anyone identifying as female?<|ARGUMENT|>While transgender women face unique struggles due to being transgender, they can also benefit from women-specific spaces due to the resources and support offered for women.<|ASPECTS|>support, women-specific spaces, unique struggles, resources<|CONCLUSION|>
| The idea that transgender women need their own spaces doesn't contradict the idea that they should be allowed in women's only spaces.
| d305e861-bceb-4e98-9295-b045c31c2eba |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This was motivated by this article . However, I feel that zero tolerance is wrong even for far more serious offenses. A school fight? I believe that expulsion should certainly be on the table, but not an absolute consequence. Even severe bullying, I again think that expulsion should be an option perhaps even a likely option , but not the absolute consequence. I feel that zero tolerance discourages critical thinking, which is a vital tool for school administration. I've been out of high school for over three years, don't write me off as a disgruntled sophomore.<|ASPECTS|>school, critical thinking, tolerance, discourages, expulsion, serious offenses, consequence, bullying, motivated, school administration, zero tolerance is wrong, disgruntled sophomore, school fight<|CONCLUSION|>
| I Believe That "Zero Tolerance" in Schools in the Wrong Course of Action for any Scenario, Murder/Attempted Murder/Attempted Rape/Rape Excluded;
| 08ab7232-a9a6-4088-b4ec-093974dc9f06 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in Saint Louis, and in the wake of everything happening in Ferguson, I keep hearing people calling for the release of the name of the officer who was accused of shooting Michael Brown. I think the police department should not have to reveal his name. First of all, there are clearly a lot of tense emotions running through the community, and members of the community are not making smart or rational decisions. The QuikTrip that was looted and torched speaks to the violence and aggression in the situation, and the QuikTrip was completely blameless. What are people who torch convenience stores going to do to the officer? There are already been countless death threats leveled against him, and it seems to me that there is no reason for wanting to know the officer's name except a desire to harass, threaten, and even attack a man who is still considered to be innocent until proven guilty in our legal system. I believe that the Ferguson Police Department is justified in not releasing the officer's name. .<|ASPECTS|>rational decisions, harass, officer, smart, 's name, tense emotions, torch, death threats, aggression, name, stores, justified, blameless, reveal, violence, innocent<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Ferguson MO police are under no obligation to release the name of the officer accused of shooting Michael Brown.
| 14590aaf-44cb-426f-88e5-6d31f01051c2 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>"The earliest evidence for life on Earth are graphite of biogenic origin found in 3.7-billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland."<|ASPECTS|>biogenic origin, life<|CONCLUSION|>
| The first evidence for life on Earth is approximately 3.7 billion years old.
| e860a325-41f2-4366-b4f4-5ff38e3483ef |
<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>Self-preservation, particularly as expressed in Darwin's concept of "survival of the fittest", is a fundamental aspect of evolution. Thus, anything that contradicts the drive for self-preservation -- particularly, altruism and any moral position based on it -- cannot have arisen from evolution.<|ASPECTS|>moral position, evolution, survival of the fittest, self-preservation<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is a lack of evidence to show how human desire for beauty, morality, and truth have evolved.
| 043e0957-1f46-410e-be6a-f157abbf60ab |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Living with my parents. Early 20's. Virgin. Used to be a heavy gamer but sold my consoles because I got bored of them. Have very few friends and most of my family abandoned me because they're too busy . I've read lots of books and articles, I was the kid who was booksmart with no real life experience. I thought I was better than most of the hooligans my age partying, but now I realize that I want to be a little more like them, or at least establish some kind of balance. I feel like just throwing all my morals and hangups out the window and go straight ignant. Hitting the gym to get ripped. Get some tattoos. Partying, doing drugs weed, ecstacy, LSD no pills, coke or anything hardcore, and having lots of sex. If you wanna judge me, pay my bills. Or at least return my phone calls<|ASPECTS|>morals, ecstacy, tattoos, return, weed, abandoned, busy, pay my bills, friends, lsd, family, bored, hangups, ripped, booksmart, heavy gamer, sex, balance, better, judge, real life experience, my parents<|CONCLUSION|>
| I've been sheltered my whole life and I feel like just going ignant, do some drugs and living it up
| 8fb9e2c1-e74c-4d4a-a172-56ce43618fb7 |
<|TOPIC|>Should humans be allowed to explore DIY gene editing?<|ARGUMENT|>Policy issues aside, if there is a chance for a better future, it is our moral duty to pursue it<|ASPECTS|>better future, moral duty<|CONCLUSION|>
| A cure could be generated and the potential lives saved outweigh any potential risks.
| 5c0651fb-cd04-4382-8f55-b03883510186 |
<|TOPIC|>Right to bear arms in the US<|ARGUMENT|>In the modern day, the importance of checking a tyrannical government remains important and relevant, even if the prospect of a citizen militia overthrowing the United States military is now effectively out of reach. There are numerous ways in which an armed citizen can check government power: An armed citizen can place a check on abusive police power and the emergence of a police state. An armed citizenry can ensure that government thinks twice before violating the rights of citizens, or that it considers the potential for violence and bloodshed to be an intolerable risk in the violation of rights. An armed citizenry empowers citizens to protect themselves, so that a big government doesn't have to. Finally, the right to bear arms is, in itself, an expression of liberty in the face of government power and control. Upholding this symbol is, perhaps, the most important check that the right to bear arms can place on government power, as it symbolically spills into other fields of individual freedom.<|ASPECTS|>violence, check government power, rights of citizens, armed citizenry, protect, empowers citizens, risk, violation of rights, liberty, government power and control, individual freedom, government power, citizen militia, abusive police power, tyrannical government, bloodshed, police state<|CONCLUSION|>
| In modern America, the right to bear arms still helps check government power
| 24523b0f-78ff-42eb-9ac9-dbb0299c12f8 |
<|TOPIC|>Artificial Intelligence AI: Should an artificial general intelligence be created?<|ARGUMENT|>Many Western nations will have to deal with an ageing and dwindling population. If those nations want to stay relevant without losing there identity due to immigration they will need a more productive non human workforce. This can be done by the use of smarter robots who can take over a variety of jobs.<|ASPECTS|>productive, jobs, ageing, identity, dwindling population, workforce<|CONCLUSION|>
| The development of AGI could create an economic boom that could lead into a golden age for humanity.
| a9a8bb0a-2073-49ca-97f8-da4e141017f8 |
<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>The concept of God has a mundane explanation as a consequence of human desire for power. When individuals with conflicting desires form groups, the group assigns an individual with infinite power representing their shared goals in an attempt to dominate all others.<|ASPECTS|>desire for power, shared goals, conflicting desires, god, infinite power, dominate, mundane explanation<|CONCLUSION|>
| The world is full of good reasons to believe in the lack of any God as defined by classical theism.
| c05c6877-2f79-4182-a93a-f8fee41d87b0 |
<|TOPIC|>return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin<|ARGUMENT|>Display of cultural treasures in Western museums may be seen as a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true cultural successors to Ancient Greece and Rome, and that the ‘barbarian’ inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt; it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre is a reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression. For instance, the British Museum is refusing to return 700 of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria despite repeated requests by the Nigerian government1. The Rosetta stone has been the subject of demands by the Egyptian government but remains in London. These artefacts become almost souvenirs of Imperialism, a way of retaining cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded. Returning them would be a gesture of goodwill and cooperation. 1 “The British Museum which refuses to state clearly how many of the bronzes it has is alleged to be detaining has 700 bronzes whilst the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, has 580 pieces and the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, has 167 pieces. These museums refuse to return any pieces despite several demands for restitution.” From Opoku, Kwame, ‘France returns looted artefacts to Nigeria: Beginning of a long process or an isolated act?’ 29th January 2010<|ASPECTS|>goodwill, imperial trophies, isolated, imperialism, cooperation, cultural successors, looted artefacts, past, oppression, cultural ownership, restitution., artistic heritage, cultural treasures, demands, political power<|CONCLUSION|>
| Retaining artefacts is a relic of imperialist attitudes to non-occidental cultures
| d08e22a5-4f83-4d30-acf8-4a89df82c363 |
<|TOPIC|>Has the Conservative government lost its legitimacy to govern?<|ARGUMENT|>The Olympics also created a strong volunteering legacy, with the ‘Join In’ initiative supporting 10,000 local events across the country in summer 2013<|ASPECTS|>volunteering legacy<|CONCLUSION|>
| The 2012 London Olympics have left a positive legacy which has been felt across the UK.
| 459496a2-ad6c-44ef-a5ce-672380b52609 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've seen and experienced way too many iterations of the following conversation Dude What if we're living in like a simulation ? So what if we are? That would be freaky, right? I don't mean to argue here about whether or not we are. Just that it's a question that's pointless to wonder about. Consider 1 Given the current limits of our technology and understanding of reality, it's unknowable. Our knowledge of the fundamental nature of the universe is so scarce that it's similarly valid to debate What if the universe is a speck in the eye of a giant and such. 2 The unproven possibility that we might be doesn't change the way we live our lives, conduct science or philosophy, or create our own simulations 3 Even if we demonstrably lived in a simulation, for all intents and purposes this would still be reality for us, so there are still no consequences unless we could hack it or something. But again, proving a simulation alone is inconceivably out of our current reach, much less hacking it. We know so little about both that it's impossible to have a conversation about now it that isn't just totally baseless daydreaming. I will concede it might simply be fun, along the lines of If reincarnation is real, what animal would you want to be? , but that's just a creative writing exercise, not a philosophical scientific enquiry with any merit. tl dr It's a question with a currently unknowable answer that has no consequences, so discussing it just amounts to pointless navel gazing. But I know this is a popular topic despite my cantankerousness, so please try to <|ASPECTS|>unproven, consequences, creative writing, animal, reincarnation, cantankerousness, pointless navel gazing, technology, reach, fun, freaky, baseless daydreaming, unknowable, hacking, fundamental nature, pointless, inconceivably, iterations, valid, question, reality, simulation, philosophical scientific enquiry, understanding of reality, limits, popular topic<|CONCLUSION|>
| The debate about whether or not we're living in a simulation is a pointless thought experiment
| 5ea2b1bb-dbff-4333-8c74-6c4141e77f9c |
<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>Italy’s new Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and his deputy Matteo Salvini have promised to put a stop to illegal immigration coming to Italy. They were elected by the Italians to fulfill this mandate<|ASPECTS|>elected, illegal immigration<|CONCLUSION|>
| The refugees crisis in Italy has increased worry and intolerance among Italian people.
| 68d0910d-295f-42a6-b836-56007dba1703 |
<|TOPIC|>All drugs should be legalized.<|ARGUMENT|>Evolutionarily, teaching children that pleasure does not systematically remove danger is one of the key reasons we have succeeded as a species.<|ASPECTS|>remove danger<|CONCLUSION|>
| Taking pleasure from something does not automatically mean it is good.
| 0841f644-ba29-4a62-97ce-11a8c1eac887 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What is Cryonics you say? Here you go. Now, everything I've read and researched about the current cryonic preservation technique seems to support the idea that the neural connections in persons brain are successfully maintained, and that it will eventually be possible to re create the personalities and memories of the people stored. Vitrification prevents any kind of ice damage to biological cells. The cryoprotectant used is somewhat toxic, but that's being worked on and progress is being made in protectants as I'm typing this. Only the physical connections between neurons is necessary for maintaining personal identity and long term memories. There are several surgeries that involve incredibly low electrical activity from the brain, and cooled blood brain surgery results in a complete lack of electrical activity. Of which there are no serious side effects in memory or personality. Maintaining a temperature at Liquid Nitrogen temperatures ceases all biological function and decay. There is no chemical activity undergone in cryonic patients, so no rotting or loss of information is possible. That's literally less variance in yourself than you'd expect from a standard night's sleep. Preservation is incredibly cheap and simple, especially if it can take advantages of economies of scale that worldwide adoption would allow. It's easily less than 300 a year with life insurance, especially if you're young. Liquid N2 and insulated containers are also incredibly cheap, and membership comes with enough money in trust funds to pay for minimal maintenance costs and will generate enough extra to fund re animation. See Alcor's Patient Care Trust for the more nitty gritty. Cryonics Myths Alcor's FAQ and Ben Best's FAQ TL DR It should work, And it is cheap. It's a good deal at current prices even at low chances of success. So, am I wrong? If so, change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, low, animation, loss of information, variance, low chances of success, economies of scale, rotting, preservation, cheap and simple, lack, life insurance, current prices, cheap, neural connections, personalities, memories, long term memories, memory, ice damage, side effects, personality, cryonics, toxic, protectants, nitty gritty, electrical activity, change my view, maintenance costs, maintaining, physical connections, young, less, biological function and decay, cryoprotectant, progress, personal identity, chemical activity<|CONCLUSION|>
| I am convinced that every person on earth should be signed up for Cryonic suspension, and that the future will view our refusal to do so as the largest tragedy of their past.
| 3d05497e-09c2-46f6-bcfb-67e87c68747b |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For those unfamiliar with what exactly the supreme court justices do, their primary responsibility is to judge whether federal bills are constitutional. Very little of their time is spent hearing high profile law cases. But still these cases are used as precedence for decades of other cases. The 9 justices are one of the last lines of defense for a bill to become a law. Collectively, they hold quite a bit of power in the American legal system. 5 of the 9 supreme court justices have held the office for more than 20 years. 20 years ago nobody could have predicted the technological changes that occurred. Though these justices may have been good choices during the cold war, there may be better options available.<|ASPECTS|>lines, defense, precedence, good choices, better options available, constitutional, high profile law cases, federal bills, power, time, technological changes<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think that US supreme court justices should have a limit to the number of years they can hold the office.
| 8587d249-7739-4f56-91ed-ae2f4014caf7 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've had countless people tell me I could never learn piano guitar music because of XYZ , the biggest reasons being I didn't start out as a kid and ‘missed my window’”, “My mind just doesn’t work that way”, or “I’m tone deaf”. I think all these are BS because of the reasons below Adults can learn just as fast as kids if not faster . Any disadvantage adults have from them physiologically not learning as fast is easily overcome by the advantage of having life experience and being able to apply that experience to learning piano. Our brains are capable of learning anything. There have been things in my life I didn’t think I was natural at, but when forced to learn it whether because of a grade in school or some other reason I was able to. The “official” stats out there are that 5 of people are medically tone deaf because of “scientific” studies that have come out. But I doubt they gave these people any kind of ear training, they probably just took a bunch of random people and gave them an arbitrary test. Are there any cases of people who CAN'T learn piano or a musical instrument? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.<|ASPECTS|>fast, bs, physiologically, medically tone deaf, musical instrument, ear training, capable, natural, tone deaf, learn piano, learning piano, learning anything, life experience, grade, scientific ” studies, learn, learning, window, random people, thoughts, disadvantage, piano guitar music, arbitrary test<|CONCLUSION|>
| There's no such thing as an unmusical person
| 7f4bea63-8a91-4630-be43-3679a2c09d3c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Commonly it is stated that every human has equal value, I do not believe that is the case. I personally do not think there is such a thing as objective value as I believe that the concept of value is a human construct. I think that the value a person possesses is determined by the value that he she and other humans consider him her possessing. Following that line of reasoning it is quite evident that everyone does not have equal value as everyone is not treated as if they have equal value. Still, i would like to take it one step further and say that everyone should not be considered to have equal value. It is hard to define value but for simplicity i will use the most common social construct for value measurement economics. I will try to explain my view with the following analogy You find yourself facing the option to either pay for Adolf Hitler’s or Nelson Mandela’s life. Most people would not hesitate before choosing to save Nelson Mandela. Thus they value him higher than Adolf Hitler. I would argue that this is the morally best decision. So, am I missing some central point, or maybe I am defining value in a poor way?<|ASPECTS|>pay, value, human construct, hesitate, objective value, equal value, morally best decision, defining value, value measurement, social construct, save nelson mandela, choosing, adolf hitler<|CONCLUSION|>
| Everyone does not have equal value
| 1fcdd100-a533-4d9b-a9b1-a2c951b15bea |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>Confederate memorials should be taken down because the oppressor should not be used to teach about oppression. We don't have many monuments or memorials to the millions of Black men and women who were beaten, raped, and killed to build this country. We honor the master or those who would keep them enslaved but not the victims of slavery or lynchings. We need to better teach and honor our history by recognizing the brutality that Black Americans have faced.<|ASPECTS|>black americans, honor the master, beaten, monuments, slavery, teach, victims, oppression, black men, honor our history, raped, lynchings, brutality<|CONCLUSION|>
| The US should remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces.
| 7b53a46e-23d6-4de5-8d6c-c57f4f391c87 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT A user below made me realize that I should clarify my argument only applies to adults in full control of their chosen console. Younger people who's consoles PCs are bought for them do have a right to complain, as it is not their choice. Console exclusives are both good and bad, I can make an entire post explaining both sides but I don't understand why PC gamers complain about them. I would understand Xbox gamers complaining about Spider Man PS4 and PS4 players being unhappy about Tomb Raider back in 2015, but as far as I know PC gamers do not have that same right to complain about these games being exclusive. First off, cost. A quick search on Amazon and Google puts the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 base consoles at about 300, this includes a controller, 300 GB of data, and other necessities. If you're very luxurious and have a 4K monitor you could buy an Xbox One X or PS4 Pro for 500 450. Both consoles costed the same amount as their upgraded versions on launch day Late 2013 . Any bonus costs aside from video games come from subscriptions like Xbox Gold and PlayStation Plus which are required to play online games, and even so these subscriptions provide free games as a result among other benefits. Both cost around 59.99 yearly. This means you will have spent a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 600 for the console alone, and at 600 you gain the highest quality experience. I am not well versed with the functions of PCs, so I am relying on information from google and other tidbits I've collected from my 4 years on the internet. Originally I had assumed you needed 3500 for a working PC and needed accessories alone, but I'm sure you know that's absurd. Yet from what I gathered the cost is still significantly higher than even an Xbox One X and Gold membership. In this IGN discussion page from 2012 gamers state to built a good PC, it'd cost 500 800 for a Bare bones model Which involved alot of Ebay scumming and 2,000 maximum for a high end PC, but most settled at 1,100. These costs include all necessary accessories such as keyboards, graphics cards and powerboxes. This was before the Xbox One and PS4 came out. This 2017 Forbes article neatly sorts information from answers in Quora stating you need 650 750 for a budged PC, 1,000 1,200 to be able to effectively run good games for Slick performance , and 1,600 2,000 for streamable 4K gaming. Again, includes all necessary accessories. There is a very large cost difference, you'd need an average of 1,200 for a gaming PC that can run these higher quality games. Graphics settings can help weaker PCs get around the limit but consoles cost under half the estimated price and can still run these games at maximum capacity. This is because console graphics are preset. Even so, from my knowledge PCs are more vulnerable to digital viruses and corruption than Consoles. Consoles are protected from viruses by their companies, but you as the PC owner much protect yourself and that's always out your pocket. As time goes on, PCs go out of date and require updates in order to be able to run current games, which is more . While even with the new consoles, the base XB1 and PS4 can still run the same games. Even when purchasing a cheap PC in order to save , you could still easily get a console for half the price. If your obsessed with high quality gaming then you can buy a 4k TV and Pro X console for the same price as a budget gaming PC. Since gaming PCs cost so much , these people are still capable of investing into a Console, or at least were. They are rich enough to pay 1,500 just to play 300fps, so they can buy a PS4 for 300 to play Spider Man if they want, so why complain? As opposed to an Xbox gamer, as if they are stuck on Xbox they clearly lack the to invest in both consoles, so they have a right to complain about Spider Man as it is most likely inaccessible. If they too are rich, they probably own both Consoles already. <|ASPECTS|>, of date, inaccessible, protect, exclusives, accessories alone, free games, necessary accessories, price, exclusive, luxurious, corruption, costs, run, invest, run good games, performance, pcs, games, high quality gaming, protected from viruses, vulnerable, bonus costs, necessities, costed, digital viruses, console graphics, adults, run current games, require, information, control, highest, functions, good, accessories, quality, graphics settings, pay, unhappy, right to complain, cost, preset, complain, updates, data, rich, weaker pcs, cost difference, investing, quality experience, choice, large<|CONCLUSION|>
| PC gamers have no right to complain about console exclusives. If you can afford a high-end gaming PC, you could easily afford a console.
| 34d6ec83-3547-49c0-bd1d-cc995af18fda |
<|TOPIC|>Is Christianity Compatible With Feminism?<|ARGUMENT|>Christianity is centred around the teaching and calling of Jesus. Christians believe that many teachings within the Old Testament lead up to and prophecy the coming of Jesus. By placing him as the most important source of knowledge for he is believed to be God himself then Jesus' teachings would be assumed to be supreme above others in the Bible. This trumps the Old Testament's subjugating statements on women.<|ASPECTS|>source of knowledge, teaching, god, subjugating statements on women, prophecy, calling of jesus, supreme, coming of jesus<|CONCLUSION|>
| Feminism is about freedom from male power over women and is not only compatible, but key, to Jesus's teachings as he is highly anti-power.
| 22d51c2d-f980-4ae0-92a1-cffd78fc175d |
<|TOPIC|>Should conscientious objection to abortion be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Some US states have laws applicable to medical contexts prohibiting discrimination on categories spanning gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, and medical condition.<|ASPECTS|>discrimination, disability<|CONCLUSION|>
| The right to refuse patients is limited by discrimination laws in a number of countries.
| a8e0b00f-e579-4715-af39-907854cd4203 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What someone else masturbates to, and how much they do it, as long as it doesn't involve disturbing others i.e. masturbating in a public place , is 100 their business. People have every right masturbate to whatever they like, no matter how objectionable that content could be, as long they do not commit immoral actions in the real world. For example, masturbating to someone's picture on Facebook, as long as the person doing it does not disturb the other person by telling them about it, is perfectly acceptable. Masturbating to thoughts of friends is likewise acceptable. I anticipate this will be a common reply, so let me state that I do not think child porn should be legal. Making it by definition involves the exploitation of children. However, I do not think that masturbating to thoughts of children, or even to pornography of children, is in itself an objectionable thing to do. If someone has pedophiliac desires, then they have every right to deal with them in a way that does not harm anyone else. EDIT Accidentally a word. No one SHOULD be judged or feel ashamed for their masturbation habit.<|ASPECTS|>exploitation of children, accidentally, masturbation habit, disturbing others, pornography of children, harm, masturbating, thoughts of friends, edit, business, objectionable, disturb the, thoughts of children, child porn, immoral actions, legal, acceptable, right to deal, pedophiliac desires, masturbates, ashamed, feel, right masturbate, judged<|CONCLUSION|>
| As long as it doesn't deliberately distress others, no one be judged or feel ashamed for their masturbation habits.
| d63c18d5-c321-4af0-9e36-f762882bd096 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have always been pro LGBT etc etc. let people be who they are. However, I am straight and do not appreciate when talking to someone in person or via online dating when they simply refuse to clarify their situation because it shouldn't matter Claiming that because you identify with both a boys and a girls traits that may be the case does not automatically mean people who are frankly only attracted to women physically, will or should suddenly be okay with wanting to have sex etc. And it doesn't make them an asshole for not wanting to pursue a romantic relationship. People can live their lives however they choose, sometimes that isn't a choice I know. I shouldn't be bitched at for not wanting to have sex with a biological guy since he also sees himself as a girl. Especially when I was polite about it all. I've yet to have a single encounter with anyone in the new spectrum of gender and sexuality who hasn't flipped out when they find out that I am not automatically attracted to them while supporting their right to be themselves. They are probably lashing out because they are treated poorly by others etc etc. I get that, but I was taught not to snap at those who haven't wronged you. Just me though I guess. Gender fluidity should be open and honest not trying to guilt people into doing or thinking something they don't want to. I can support your rights without having to partake. Edit Obviously This post is regarding romantic encounters. Not just anyone i see walking around.<|ASPECTS|>, guilt people, romantic encounters, women, gender fluidity, snap, wronged, open and honest, biological guy, romantic relationship, asshole, support your rights, pro, treated poorly, live their lives however, gender and sexuality, right to, lgbt, choice, polite<|CONCLUSION|>
| - I'm Pro gender rights, but while "talking" you should be open about your working parts etc.
| 13282c90-393a-4e58-9c13-fff1b3f376f6 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Schools Push Back Start Times?<|ARGUMENT|>Adolescent biology is different from that of an adult and that of a child and should be adjusted as such.<|ASPECTS|>adolescent biology<|CONCLUSION|>
| A delayed start time could help teens sleep during their natural sleep/wake cycles.
| d442e83d-4a39-4d61-9d09-b55fdd79670f |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>The US kept Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II, to no notable international consequences.<|ASPECTS|>international consequences, japanese americans, camps<|CONCLUSION|>
| Many evils committed by the US haven't earned it a negative reputation in the world.
| c3d34cee-cbc6-4c18-9e53-51ce74a09d48 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The argument, I've heard on several places on the internet from youtube and reddit was that Fred Phelps was a horrible person, but he united people together. He caused the LBGT movement to strengthen. He even caused gay marriage skeptics to support gays against hate Initially, it sounded like a smart contrary argument. And the people who use this argument have good intentions. But I wouldn't be quick to embrace it. First, it's circular. It just gives LGBT groups more work to do. It doesn't advance them in anyway. It's like saying, eating a whole cake inspired you to go to the gym tomorrow. Why didn't you just not eat the whole cake? More importantly All Fred Phelps did was establish god hates fags as the extreme so everyday people who are dismissive of gay rights seem normal by comparison. It only gives people the i'm not as bad as that guy excuse. By using so long as you don't picket funerals, you're fine as the standard, we set the bar really low. Yes, Fred Phelps was a bit worse than your average person who doesn't want equal rights for gay people because they believe a magical invisible man in the sky told them so . But our goal should be to establish intolerance for homosexuality as socially unacceptable. Not as a respectable difference. Fred Phelps moved us away from that goal, both directly and indirectly. As for my reaction to his death, which is not really on topic I'm indifferent. Neither happy nor sad. 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<|ASPECTS|>socially unacceptable, death, bad, reaction, lbgt movement, equal rights, good intentions, horrible person, remind, hate, popular topics, happy, normal, lgbt groups, advance, concerns, gay marriage skeptics, effective, downvotes, happy cmving, embrace, quick, smart, intolerance, sad, work to, circular, message us, change, respectable difference, downvote, homosexuality, god hates fags, questions, indifferent, picket funerals, goal, gay rights, united people together<|CONCLUSION|>
| I'm not embracing the "Fred Phelps united us all" argument.
| 9a9d41f6-2954-446a-83e5-57c6c6af2469 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I can see how asexual is thing, but aromantic seriously? If you’re aromantic, you have problems and probably need to see professional health. Having romantic attraction is something that all humans that are mentally okay have. I feel that if you have no romantic attraction to anyone, you have serious issues or have trauma. Or is not all the way there in the head. I’m not trying to be hateful I just have seen any other explanation that makes sense. I’ve looked it up and I can’t find anything that I can change my view. I’d like if you guys would help me understand more or convince me otherwise. Thank you to anyone who is respectful. EDIT I was under the impression that being aromantic means you can’t love someone or have feelings for them. Sorry<|ASPECTS|>understand, asexual, mentally, romantic attraction, aromantic, help, hateful, respectful, feelings, love someone, change my view, serious issues, problems, trauma, professional health<|CONCLUSION|>
| Aromantic isn’t a thing
| ff9395c4-d1a2-4ce6-a834-0176fc472387 |
<|TOPIC|>Should God Have Tested Job?<|ARGUMENT|>The Bible backs up this belief in that it states that God is unchanging multiple time.<|ASPECTS|>unchanging multiple, god<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is a common monotheistic belief that God does not change.
| 6cfbd8be-124c-449e-859e-520fcda62755 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The main argument I see against the compensation of college athletes is that they are already paid, through tuition and such. I have no qualms with this argument and agree, I believe however that we should remove the cap on compensation of college players. I am not advocating that we force schools to pay players, I believe we should remove the restrictions and let the market decide. If someone believes that it is worth their money to pay someone to play a sport, why should we deny that transaction? A big argument against allowing players to seek their own compensation is that smaller sports and even big sports at small colleges will suffer. I don't disagree, but why should sports be any different from any other industry? It is unfair to limit the potential compensation of one player in the name of keeping the field even and if this idea was suggested in any other field it would be insanity. Schools should not be forced to pay the players, but we should allow the market to decide what the players are worth, not tradition, or the greater good of the sporting world.<|ASPECTS|>, pay players, tuition, players, pay, tradition, insanity, market decide, sports, money, compensation, market, greater good, smaller sports, already, paid, suffer, athletes, worth, restrictions, transaction<|CONCLUSION|>
| College athletes should be paid.
| 50e7d5dd-923b-444b-a742-8259ff7d65cf |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So obviously, the most environmentally friendly method would be that we're no longer dependent on fossil fuels, and they no longer need to be transported great distances, but that's not the case, nor will it be for the foreseeable future. Consider the alternatives By Boat No brainer. Can kill marine life for thousands of miles in every direction. Also consumes massive amounts of fossil fuels to transport. By Train Often through towns cities, and derailments can be explosive and devastating Also consumes fossil fuels to transport. By Truck Similar to trains. Explosive accidents cause human death and destruction. Extremely inefficient, consumes fossil fuels to transport a relatively small amount. The Canadian government recently approved Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline and the environmentalists are losing their minds . Obama is hugely and unnecessarily delaying the approval of the Keystone pipeline and I can't help but think that those who are who are lobbying against it are taking a not in my backyard, ruin the entire west coast instead approach. I simply cannot understand why they would be so completely short sighted as to think that the alternatives are safer for the environment and surrounding human life. Please, help me understand their position and change my view. Edit 1 OK, two reoccurring themes Tar Sands are dirty oil, we don't want it. First of all, most of the clean sources of oil aren't easily accessible without going over water and or starting wars making deals with evil dictators. So, yes, the up front environmental costs of dirty oil are higher, but IMO the hidden costs moral human environmental of the clean oil make them comparable. That being said, stopping these pipelines will have absolutely zero impact on the exploitation The price of oil has already risen well beyond what makes the tar sands profitable You're going to be using dirty oil no matter what This is simply to choose the method of delivery. BC Nebraska Montana et al assume all the risk of the pipeline, but reap none of the benefits. The benefits of the pipeline s aren't that it will protect your land from all the environmental human costs, but rather it is an alternative to what is going to happen no matter what. Stopping the pipeline won't impact the flow of oil through your province state the oil's still gonna flow, but be transported by truck train boat instead. Edit 2 OK, thread has kind of died down at this point And no one has managed to . u tikka me elmo and others made some interesting points about the supertankers coming into kitimat through very narrow channels, but that's specifically to do with the Northern Gateway project rather than pipelines in general.<|ASPECTS|>understand their position, land, protect, derailments, safer for the environment, price of oil, ruin, benefits, losing their minds, managed, dependent, transported great distances, environmentally friendly, human life, flow of oil, hidden, brainer, costs, consumes, cmv, clean sources, flow, evil dictators, delaying, explosive accidents, human environmental, risk, died, human death and destruction, short sighted, dirty, change my view, similar, devastating, kill marine life, easily accessible, supertankers, exploitation, thread, narrow channels, alternatives, dirty oil, environmental human costs, environmentalists, inefficient, unnecessarily, fossil fuels, explosive, impact, environmental costs, alternative<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that a pipeline is the safest and most environmentally friendly option to transport oil/other petro-chemicals and essentially anything that is able to be piped.
| 59b10d9b-a6c5-4450-9b6f-2eef208decb8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in California and I can not breathe the air today. We are way past the point of no return of global environmental disaster. Tiny populations of super rich people control the planet's resources and govern with total lack of long term insight. Fascism, late stage capitalism, climate change, hatred and racism are setting the stage for an apocalyptic end to humanity. In my view, this apocalypse will devastate the next or next next generation of humans. Life will be torture. If you intentionally made a baby in the last five years, or plan to in the next five, it is my view that this act is totally self centered, and after you die your children will suffer in the ashes of the world our generation failed to save.<|ASPECTS|>apocalyptic end to humanity, long term insight, capitalism, self centered, apocalypse, torture, lack, resources, global, devastate, environmental disaster, ashes, control, racism, super rich people, climate change, life, breathe the air, hatred<|CONCLUSION|>
| Having a baby right now is an act of narcissism, ignorant of the impending disaster that awaits humankind.
| 1d407256-ac9a-4008-94fd-11ccc1d4f58e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be clear, I would not personally directly gain by a change in this policy. However, my son will be college age in 7 years and it saddens me to think that I don't believe in the value of higher education anymore except for the fields that have a stranglehold on the higher ed requirement for their professional accreditation . And it saddens me to hear the remaining kool aid drinking people of my age ~50 that defend the institution. So please and make me comfortable with the upcoming gouging. I believe that the outrageous inflation of tuition prices is a direct result of the easy access to money that students are given. And hopeful, success chasing, 18 year olds are an easy bet for money lenders when their debts can't be wiped away by bankruptcy. They're likely to over indulge in their borrowing but they exhibit the basic responsibility of being people that invest in their future. This allows money to pour into the system and colleges to take advantage of that surplus of money. By making bad student debt the same as other debt, lenders would be forced to get more involved in the risk assessment process of these loans as they'd lose a major part of their own safety net student loans can't be written off by bankruptcy . This special consideration of student loan debt is unjustifiable and reflects the corruption of politics that it was created to serve a paying lobbying clientele. And I welcome the College education is worth a million dollars over your working career argument. I find it specious for the following reasons correlation doesn't imply causation. Why don't people ever mention this? College goers surely skew self investing and we shouldn't be surprised that self investors should be more successful as a group than those who do so less How well does a college education serve when you exclude the professions that REQUIRE a college education? I accept that professions that require a college education skew better paid. But that's cheating the stats. How much money would you have over the course of your life if you'd invested that college fund instead for 40 years instead of planting it in a college? Frankly, it makes me angry just writing about it. I find this to be the biggest injustice in society today competing with our victimless drug possession laws . d So please change my view. Teach me why college tuition isn't an abuse of the optimism of our next generation.<|ASPECTS|>, lobbying, professional accreditation, victimless drug possession laws, institution, easy access to money, view, money, successful, inflation, value of higher education, student loan debt, student loans, indulge, angry, college education, future, optimism, saddens, college fund, tuition prices, college age, self investing, self investors, better paid, causation, borrowing, kool aid, comfortable, upcoming, dollars, correlation, student debt, risk assessment, unjustifiable, personally, higher ed, bankruptcy, safety, gain, defend, cheating the stats, career, money lenders, college, responsibility, surplus of money, injustice in society, debts, abuse, college tuition, worth, gouging, corruption of politics<|CONCLUSION|>
| American higher education debt must be solved by allowing student debt to be written off by bankruptcy
| df270251-f10c-4028-b51c-5fdf8b95816e |
<|TOPIC|>Should the use of 'chosen' or gender-neutral pronouns be mandatory?<|ARGUMENT|>Freedom of speech is not absolute. Between private citizens one can offend another and face repercussions in the form of libel, defamation or calumny.<|ASPECTS|>freedom of speech<|CONCLUSION|>
| How private citizens interact with each other is indeed regulated. One cannot make false statements about someone else, for example.
| 23123da9-0ac6-4cf1-b80f-0ef1ff19dcb5 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that the republican party should begin to advocate for the legalization of marijuana, and say it will support veterans. They aren't going to lose any significant amount of voters based off of this, because the people who are strongly for marijuana decriminalization are normally fine helping out out vets, and they would have no one else to vote for. The green party supports legalization, democrats normally support legalization, and libertarians supports legalization. This will get the Republican party at minimum a decent number of crossover votes, and it will get more support for the party itself. So, Change My View. <|ASPECTS|>, fine, libertarians, crossover votes, support veterans, change my view, support, democrats, amount, lose, voters, republican<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Republican party should support Marijuana legalization, saying it will help veterans.
| 5cc05af2-fa45-4310-bd54-4fadc224a12b |
<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Cutlery is useful, but not strictly necessary to eat food. We could instead use our fingers.<|ASPECTS|><|CONCLUSION|>
| Just because something is useful does not mean that it is necessary in any way.
| e3690ac1-b28c-4335-a709-8894c6a55fd7 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To begin with, education is effectively forced upon us if we want to amount to anything. I could not possibly get a well paying job without having to go to university whether I want to or not. If I do not go to university, I could only be stuck getting entry level jobs unless I have connections but I personally don’t and never or very slowly getting increased wages. People always say money can’t buy happiness, but I think this is a statement that isn’t telling the entire truth. Money may not buy happiness, but it sure allows people to be happy. This ties in with the education part, because I essentially have to stay in education to get enough money to live comfortably. I am not happy in education but I will be even worse off if I don’t get an education to increase my job opportunity. Additionally, we get essentially no time to do anything anymore, as retirement gets pushed further and further into old age and the majority of our lives is spent working in jobs we don’t enjoy. Of course, this isn’t always the case, but for the most part, people don’t enjoy their jobs. There is no other choice than being in education into the 20s, and then working for around the next 50 years, essentially missing out on the most important times of our lives, where we are still physically and mentally able, only to retire at an age where the free time is essentially meaningless as by that point you’re too old to enjoy it anyway. Life provides very little enjoyment for how much stress and pain is involved. I truly feel that people who are content with life haven’t thought about it enough. I literally cannot see how people can be happy with working the majority of their life and spending their healthiest years with no free time or freedom to do what they want. Please change my view.<|ASPECTS|>meaningless, effectively forced, money, view, thought, content with life, old age, happy, live comfortably, job opportunity, enjoy their jobs, free time, healthiest years, buy, retirement, freedom, buy happiness, little, happiness, well paying job, time to do anything, mentally able, amount, enjoyment, increased wages, education, entry level jobs, stress and pain<|CONCLUSION|>
| Life isn’t worth living.
| 8fac17cc-8c17-4dd1-8435-fd911caad0a6 |
<|TOPIC|>Is the Star Wars series going in the right direction under Disney?<|ARGUMENT|>Many characters presented in Star Wars are political and/or influent people as examples : Princess Leïa, 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.<|ASPECTS|>position, political and/or, influence the galaxy, influent people<|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.
| 3c6a9117-bfc7-47d6-93bf-fc5ddce3c773 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a white, non religious, female european who's planning on going to the US legally, I don't think Trump's immigration will affect me. Here's Trump plan on immigration Most of what he proposes focus on illegal immigrants or immigrants who commit crimes. If you are thinking about going into the US legally and you come from a low risk country, such as an european country, Trump's policy on immigration won't have any effect on you. The only measurements that could put immigration at risk are gt Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first. However this already happens. I.e., part of the process to get accepted to a work visa is to prove that the position you will occupy can't be occupied by an american worker. gt Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place. This obviously doesn't apply to any european country. Actually by reading this gt Protect the economic well being of the lawful immigrants already living here by curbing uncontrolled foreign worker admissions I get the impression Trump's plan actually benefits legal immigrants. Therefore, for those who wish to go in legally, a Trump's nomination doesn't have much of an impact.<|ASPECTS|>uncontrolled foreign worker, open jobs, vetting mechanisms, effective, position, adequate screening, immigrants, immigration at risk, trump, economic well, benefits legal immigrants, commit crimes, immigration controls, european, low risk country, impact, american worker, boost, immigration, illegal immigrants<|CONCLUSION|>
| For legal immigrants, a Trump presidency won't have any detrimental effects.
| c5e6bc9c-2df8-4bb4-aee6-e1f6c9db09b0 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The important word in pro choice is choice. In other words, the woman who gets an abortion chooses to do so. Unless you're tying to argue that a black woman who gets an abortion has some sort of self hating ingrained racism against herself, the argument that a high black abortion rate makes abortion racist makes no sense. The abortion rate isn't high among blacks due to some kind of racism built into abortion it's higher because poverty is high among the black community and sex ed is poor in most schools in predominantly black areas. It's high because in predominantly black areas access to contraception is less and there's a cultural aversion to using a condom, and because the teen pregnancy rate is higher, along with the rate of pregnancy among women who aren't married. Now this is probably where you bring up Margaret Sanger's support for eugenics. This is also where I paraphrase an argument made on r Catholicism re reasons why the Irish are abandoning the Catholic Church the fact that one proponent or a handful of proponents of an argument were assholes has absolutely nothing to do with whether the argument is right. Whether Margaret Sanger supported eugenics has absolutely nothing to do with whether a woman should have a right to choose. Tl Dr to say abortion is racist because the abortion rate is high among the black community is nonsensical because there is no invisible force mind controlling black women into getting an abortion the decision is made freely and out of their own free choice. You can argue the economics and the effect systemic racism might have, but abortion itself is not racist. <|ASPECTS|>contraception, catholic church, invisible force, sex ed, abandoning, chooses, economics, nonsensical, free choice, support, access, self hating ingrained racism, freely, teen pregnancy rate, racist, eugenics, abortion rate, rate of pregnancy, rate, systemic racism, black abortion rate, poverty, racism, poor, right to choose, cultural aversion, choice<|CONCLUSION|>
| The argument that the high abortion rate among poor blacks makes pro-choice advocates racist makes no sense
| 1375a7d5-1b35-4881-94d5-ad7e4c1c2f7a |
<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>In the long-run, competition under capitalism is defined by who can discover new technologies and business models, thereby expanding the range of available products, changing daily life and destroying existing industries.<|ASPECTS|>new technologies, destroying existing industries, available products, changing daily life, business models, competition<|CONCLUSION|>
| Disruptive innovation, which sustains economic growth often leads to creative destruction. That's just a part of human and economic progress.
| ceaf8223-6fb1-4f63-b587-ac4f1f2974d0 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Feminism a Force For Good?<|ARGUMENT|>The concept of equality is unfair to the individuals whose greater needs or merits aren't recognized.<|ASPECTS|><|CONCLUSION|>
| Equality is not a desirable goal as men and women are different.
| 897c06f5-7f53-4296-a6ed-452e119a4491 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>On social media like Twitter and Facebook, I see so many relatives and friends who had never been vocal on same sex marriage or political before adding a rainbow to their profile pic and hashtagging Love Wins and the like. When all of your neighbors are doing it, it becomes and obligation and a matter of why didn't you if you don't do it. I think there's a small stigma toward supporting gay rights unconditionally. Before the SCOTUS ruling, only LGBT activists and LGBT people did it. Particularly, plenty of rock and punk bands like Blink 182 and the Misfits are doing it just now. Why not 5 years ago or even 1 year ago? They're punk bands. They have a history of pushing boundaries and taking risks. Come on.<|ASPECTS|>stigma, punk bands, lgbt activists, becomes, misfits, love wins, risks, rock and punk, taking, lgbt people, obligation, pushing boundaries, gay rights, small, sex marriage<|CONCLUSION|>
| So many people on social media are only supporting Gay Rights now because it's the trendy and "safe" thing to do.
| 1fad8457-3dc5-4e51-b0dd-87ff04232844 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was recently on a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt to Chicago and noticed many times where people would get incredibly mad at the others in front of them for reclining their seats. The flight attendants actually asked a couple people to un recline their seats. Sparked by discussion in this thread as well, it seems many people on reddit are under the assumption that reclining your seat makes you an asshole. I feel that I paid for a seat that reclines, and I also paid to sit in a seat where the one in front of me reclines as well. Everyone else in economy on this flight did. Getting mad at someone and calling them an asshole for using the seat reclining feature they paid for is uncalled for. Yes, economy is cramped, especially on Lufthansa, but if you wanted more room you should have paid for a better seat such as first, business, or economy plus . <|ASPECTS|>cramped, reclining, asshole, reclines, mad, better seat, economy, uncalled, paid, recline their seats<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't think there is anything wrong with reclining your airplane seat in coach.
| 205755fa-8877-4a23-914e-cb99fdb91046 |
<|TOPIC|>The parties participating in elections for the European Parliament should hold primary elections<|ARGUMENT|>Since primaries happen on a lower level than the current EU elections, they might provide an entry point for people to get interested in and familiar with European politics.<|ASPECTS|>point, familiar, european politics<|CONCLUSION|>
| The other way around, primary elections might increase the desire to learn about the complexities of the system. Voters might therefore come to understand it better.
| 7799edd4-7793-4949-a180-795da4fb7501 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Trump be impeached?<|ARGUMENT|>The appointment of multiple justices during his term can have an enduring andirreversible effect on the country in the future, even when he doesn't get reelected.<|ASPECTS|>enduring, irreversible effect<|CONCLUSION|>
| Impeachment is the only way to stop Trump from taking future actions that could be damaging.
| f162e40f-7405-4dcf-b664-ec5c38085386 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Democrats Cooperate with Donald Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>One of the major sources of Trump's support is the fact that he is anti-establishment Co-operating with the Democratic establishment is not in his self-interest.<|ASPECTS|>anti-establishment, self-interest<|CONCLUSION|>
| Any legislation which Trump supports will always be in line with his own ideals.
| a0e92811-b3a8-4212-ac85-c2a19f4cc673 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Feminism a Force For Good?<|ARGUMENT|>Professor Jordan Peterson suggests that foundational postmodern philosophers like Jacques Derrida attack the fundamental aspects of western civilization, endangering the stability of our societies and even attempt to undermine the ideas of truth and logic.<|ASPECTS|>endangering, fundamental aspects, stability of our societies, truth and logic<|CONCLUSION|>
| University departments and professors teaching degrees which promote feminist activism, such as gender studies, draw heavily on critical theory. This is a postmodernist set of ideas, spreading falsehoods and containing harmful assumptions.
| 1cd50f52-62d1-4f86-9803-bc80d88ff992 |