Datasets:

webis

/

conclugen

like 1

<|TOPIC|>What Is the Best Drug Regulation System?<|ARGUMENT|>Second-hand smoking is potentially more harmful to society than hard drug use induced violence. However, tobacco remains a legal drug.<|ASPECTS|>legal drug, drug, harmful to society, violence<|CONCLUSION|>

Alcohol and tobacco induced illnesses cost society billions of dollars per year.

67698214-60e8-4370-8036-167833d3a57a

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Eye floaters are black spots or various shadows you see on your eye. You can get them at any age. There is nothing dangerous about it, at leas the Doctors say. If you google it the first thing you are told is If you have eye floaters, don't worry about it. Here's the thing. Why is it acceptable for doctors to think this way? Just because something is not physically harmful does not mean it cannot be mentally harmful and lead to physical harm . Imagine moving black lines in your eye, every single day, every moment of your life. Reading a book, your wedding day, doing anything important or not. Constant movement of lines as you move your eye. There seems to be no consideration by any Doctors that this can lead to depression and suicide. Google it. Any organization you find is by people who have eye floaters themselves, never Doctors trying to improve the educated view of Eye Floaters. It is incredibly frustrating to describe your eye floaters to a Doctor only to have them completely shut down any debate whatsoever, describing it as normal. Well, it should NOT be considered normal, no matter how many have it.<|ASPECTS|>, depression, dangerous, eye floaters, nothing, movement of lines, mentally harmful, physical harm, shadows, moving, black lines, normal, suicide, black spots, important, acceptable, floaters, physically harmful, educated view, debate, shut, frustrating<|CONCLUSION|>

Eye floaters should not be ignored by Doctors

738a3663-b8fa-4e8f-8f4c-1379862c7761

<|TOPIC|>Is it unethical to use ad-blockers?<|ARGUMENT|>Brave browser offers an alternative that blocks ads and trackers but allows micropayments or cryptocurrency contributions to websites that the user visits most frequently.<|ASPECTS|>cryptocurrency contributions, blocks ads, micropayments<|CONCLUSION|>

There are means of avoiding ads online that are ethical.

79ffb04f-0d56-4166-a8d7-740dc64eb3c9

<|TOPIC|>Compulsory Voting<|ARGUMENT|>Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet voting becomes available in a few years everyone will be able to vote from their own home.<|ASPECTS|>vote, postal, internet voting, voting, busy<|CONCLUSION|>

Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet v...

ec9e8ef4-90cf-4341-a6e2-882bc4f86121

<|TOPIC|>Global overpopulation is a myth.<|ARGUMENT|>More people fills the Earth with more labor and ideas. This is so valuable that it rises the optimal number of people acceptable on Earth, despite the negative aspects of our high population.<|ASPECTS|>labor and ideas, optimal number, people acceptable, negative, high population<|CONCLUSION|>

There are possible solutions that would allow us live sustainably without the consequences of the high population level.

4cc2458f-593b-408a-b20e-ed9bc4f9a0d5

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When I registered to vote at 18, I registered as a democrat without being fully aware of what the party platform was, and its recent history. I knew I agreed with democrats more than republicans, and decided I was a democrat. I'm 24 now, and have learned a lot since then. I have also realized since then that I am very far left of the Democratic party. Democracy should be about having a voice for your opinions, and having a two party system keeps many people voting for what they would consider the lesser of two evils instead of voting for someone they actually agree with. I'm far left of the Democratic party, and think Hillary Clinton is doing a lot of things I find morally wrong. I have read through her website multiple times, and disagree with a lot of what she wants to do and why she wants to do it. Donald Trump seems like he would be a horrible president, and is way too vague when it comes to what he wants to do. Even with the vagueness, I strongly disagree with his plans if he becomes the president. Democracy in the US has been a two party system for almost its entire history, and I think that's horrible. I'm far left of both parties and would rather vote my conscious with someone that has a political stance closer to mine. Most people's argument against this is but imagine TRUMP as president Yes, I agree that would not be a good thing, but I also feel that Hillary would not represent me or my beliefs. Although I would consider Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils only by a little , she is still far right of what I would want in my president. Edit Thanks for all of the responses, this is a great community subreddit. I'm trying my best to get to each comment, but you guys are posting a lot faster than I can read and reply, especially with all of the well thought out and detailed replies. Seriously though, thank you for the great conversations. Edit 2 To clarify something, I don't expect any third party candidate to win. Voting third party would just be a vote for someone I believe in, which is part of democracy. Edit 3 Not too relevant in the overall discussion, but I saw a few comments saying that my views are center right. It's 9 40am and I haven't gone to sleep yet, so I'm going to go to bed. I'll read more responses later. Thank you all for the great discussions, even though I wasn't a part of most of them FINAL EDIT MY VIEW HAS CHANGED Mostly thanks to u RogueLeaderJ and u tigereyes69, link to comments here and I highly recommend reading them. Thanks everyone for the input.<|ASPECTS|>lesser, left of, input, horrible president, voice for your opinions, voting, learned, great conversations, sleep, vote my conscious, final edit, party, community subreddit, two, democracy, views, far right, third party candidate, plans, democrat, detailed, morally wrong, democrats, two party system, horrible, political stance, two evils, third, system, vague, represent, center right, agreed, faster, vote, far left of the democratic party, disagree, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>

I would rather vote for a third party candidate that is closer to my political standings rather than "the lesser of two evils"

03ea5eec-5d41-4bb4-a70f-021949dba384

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I always hear that socialism will never work due to human nature. Apparently, human nature is a idea that the reason why there is so much evil in this world is because that humans are naturally evil, and they will always be evil. I never believed human nature because I always found society to be the culprit here. Come on, humans weren't that greedy in the times of feudalism. You know, where the peasants could never be kings and queens? In the times of capitalism, however, since more money equals more power, people started getting greedier. The reason why all people want to be rich is because the rich glorifies being, well, rich. The rest of the world who aren't rich sees the rich have things that the rest of the world want, like turkey, yachts, and pool tables. The reason why they want it is because it makes them feel good and rich, therefore greed happens. All of this because of capitalism pretty much glorifying being rich. The reason why most of the socialist states collapsed is because many people never got used to socialism. If you think that's human nature , let me tell you that many people never did want capitalism to destroy feudalism, yet many people got used to it. Also, not everyone wanted socialism dead. For example, the poor never wanted socialism to collapse. If you think that's also human nature , let me tell you that the people who hated the fact that people who are ranked high than the peasants got screwed over while the peasants themselves celebrated. We got used to capitalism after feudalism collapsed, now we need to get used to socialism when capitalism collapses. Back on topic, the reason why there is so much evil in this world is because society glorifies evil. For example, people glorify war because, well, for many reasons. The enemy may be a dictatorship, the enemy probably threatened us, or even we think war is cool. Why does the third reason exists? Because society glorifies war like it's a good thing. We have support our troops lighters, hot girls in solider outfits, camouflage colored towels, and video games which makes war look like a good thing. Please .<|ASPECTS|>threatened us, support our troops, glorify, money, collapsed, socialism to collapse, feel good and rich, greedy, peasants, capitalism, glorifies, society, wanted, human nature, work, capitalism collapses, socialism, screwed, socialism dead, power, dictatorship, evil, greed, kings and queens, humans, destroy, greedier, third reason, socialist states, war, rich, poor, feudalism, pool tables, enemy<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't think human nature exists.

b661008f-c417-40b0-a3fa-3cf193cd229b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Some of the things which can be logically deduced to exist from the axioms of Mathematics All of the integers, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. Every possible valid mathematical equation and expression regardless of it's usefulness, beauty, or ability to describe the real world. Every possible mathematical concept e.g. Calculus, Trigonometry, Statistics etc. Some of the things which can be logically deduced to exist from the axioms of natural language by which I mean human language eg. English, Spanish, etc. Every possible noun or thing that can be given a name. Every possible verb or action that can be given a name. Every possible valid syntax or grammar. Every possible meaning that can be expressed by a word, phrase, sentence or sequence of sentences. If mathematics was a discovery then so was natural language because they are both based on their respective axioms. Thus if Pythagoras' theorem was a discovery and has valid meaning in mathematics then Alice in Wonderland was also a discovery because it has valid meaning in natural language. Note I have no clue what the axioms of natural language are.<|ASPECTS|>mathematical equation, valid syntax or grammar, valid meaning, beauty, mathematical concept, discovery, name, usefulness, verb, world, natural language, meaning, expression<|CONCLUSION|>

If mathematics was discovered then so was Alice in Wonderland.

e4a0668f-d8b8-4c0c-bfab-d0ba9ab097f0

<|TOPIC|>Is the world of Harry Potter really the place to be?<|ARGUMENT|>The wizarding world's failure to aid the Muggle world shows a systematic callousness and refusal to care about the plight of vulnerable people. This makes it an undesirable place to live.<|ASPECTS|>plight, undesirable place to live, systematic, vulnerable people, callousness, refusal<|CONCLUSION|>

The wizarding world displays immense moral negligence by refusing to help solve the problems of the Muggle world.

2bce2787-1843-414c-8c6a-69e8a864da5e

<|TOPIC|>Mini-nukes<|ARGUMENT|>George W. Bush’s signing of the Moscow Treaty in 2002 which requires the USA to cut its strategic nuclear arsenal from 6,000 to 2,000 weapons by 2012 shows that the US is not bent on nuclear aggression, simply an arsenal which is relevant to today’s threats. While the development of mini-nukes may well breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ultimately the states that are likely to threaten the US either do not care about international arms treaties such as North Korea or Iran or have already developed enough weapons that they can keep these treaties without their security being put at risk Russia or China are both thought to already possess tactical nuclear stockpiles. While it is obviously important to try and stop other states from developing nuclear weapons, it should not stop the US from being able to defend itself. It was for that reason that the US broke the Anti-Missile Defence Treaty and mini-nukes should be no different.<|ASPECTS|>nuclear weapons, defend, mini-nukes, nuclear aggression, security, defence treaty, threats.<|CONCLUSION|>

George W. Bush’s signing of the Moscow Treaty in 2002 which requires the USA to cut its strategic n...

8ea001f9-f994-4bdc-8cdc-62361aa37dbd

<|TOPIC|>Is chivalry sexist?<|ARGUMENT|>Chivalry implies some favour or deference the strong or those who perceive themselves as bestow upon the weak - not something the "weak" requested, or even needed. As such, at the very least, Chivalry is a discourteous mode of behaviour. Just be polite and mindful to all.<|ASPECTS|>chivalry, deference, discourteous mode of behaviour, mindful, favour, polite<|CONCLUSION|>

The behaviors considered as "being chivalrous" are really just being courteous. Placing them under the label of chivalry implies only one gender or sex should, can or actually does these things.

9c5a9ac7-e7f0-4fbb-af1e-001b90a68464

<|TOPIC|>Should vegan/vegetarian parents feed their kids the same diet?<|ARGUMENT|>Thousands of parents make the decision to feed their kids meat and dairy every day, this has been normalised in many western cultures but it still doesn't make that child's diet any less forced. so parents making a decision to feed their kids a vegan diet is no different, they are two sides of the same coin.<|ASPECTS|>diet, coin, vegan diet, meat, forced<|CONCLUSION|>

Vegan/vegetarian parents should feed their children the same diet.

e3a1f58f-e954-4c86-8300-7171306352d1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I can't stand techno because of a few reasons and my friend thinks that I should start listening to it. However, some of those reasons are All electronic techno music sounds the exact same to me It's loud noises that bother my ears I enjoy guitar and drums far more than wubs and other techno sounds I feel like metal takes more talent to produce I will say, I like Daft Punk's newest album, but I'd much rather listen to Black Sabbath or Deep Purple Also, the only time I actually listen to techno is when I'm carpooling to college and my friend is the one that's driving. which is every day And even though I've been listening to nothing but techno on the way to school and back every day of the week for about 4 5 hours, I still cannot stand the noise that it produces. So I come here, to r changemyview, to see if there's something someone can say or do that can help me enjoy techno a bit more. Thank you<|ASPECTS|>noise, enjoy, talent, techno, loud noises<|CONCLUSION|>

I enjoy the Metal genre far better than Techno in every way. , anyone?

40c7e289-f315-4a47-9f58-ad3fc521d5a0

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I keep hearing about how sushi chefs must go through potentially decades of training, sometimes years of menial tasks such as washing rice and that in japan sushi chefs are by far the most prestigious. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate that top sushi chefs are very talented but I fail to see what's so difficult about making even the best sushi. While a professional can obviously work much faster, what exactly do they do that makes their end result any better? I have seen pastry chefs make complex dishes that require incredible dexterity yet the most complex of sushi still seems like nothing more than combining cold ingredients step by step so what am I missing here?<|ASPECTS|>dexterity, work much faster, ingredients, prestigious, end result, talented, decades, training, complex, menial tasks, incredible, difficult<|CONCLUSION|>

Sushi chefs are highly over rated and anyone with moderate cooking skills can make equally high quality sushi.

d4a2f285-7b7e-4d39-8873-74321720a757

<|TOPIC|>Should legacy be a factor in college admissions?<|ARGUMENT|>Elite universities have an extremely high number of yearly applicants because of their prestige, ranking and exclusivity.<|ASPECTS|>yearly applicants<|CONCLUSION|>

Elite universities require exceptional academic records because of the extremely high number of yearly applicants.

39ded189-6cac-42bb-88ef-40cdf6fa6781

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here are a few articles that can help clarify things. The technology and process of creating Nuclear Weapons is out and will always be out. Nations like North Korea and Iran insist on holding the capability to launch missiles. Even if the US, Russia, India, Pakistan, UK, France, and Israel all disarmed entirely, NK and Iran might just continue on to finish their programs and build these weapons. And we have nearly no way to stop them. Thus, the only way to create a balance of power is to hold enough nuclear capability to dissuade these rogue states A different scenario is global hotspots India and Pakistan have been historical rivals and both developed greater and greater nuclear capability to challenge the other. Unless RADICAL change comes to their national relationship, there seems to be no other way to maintain peace besides the fear of nuclear retaliation. Israel is another scenario Surrounded by enemies , Israel has been perpetually threatened by the Mid. East region. Not that they have been lovey dovey angels. Whether or not you believe Israel has a right to exist, IT DOES and it possesses nuclear weapons. Being a smaller and less populated nation compared to it's neighbors, only Nukes seem to be able to prevent a seemingly inevitable conflict that might escalate to envelop the entire Middle East and maybe even the world. <|ASPECTS|>stop, technology and process, weapons, maintain, balance of power, nuclear weapons, rogue, lovey dovey angels, historical rivals, global hotspots, enemies, clarify things, fear, nuclear retaliation, nuclear capability, peace, threatened by the mid, inevitable conflict, capability to launch missiles, finish, perpetually, israel, dissuade, disarmed entirely, right to exist<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe Nuclear Weapons make for a safer world.

3184bd4e-082c-463a-8518-7ff065c73c7a

<|TOPIC|>Should private education be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Parents often enroll their children in private schools to give their children an edge over their peers in public schools. If private schools are somehow superior, then we need private schools to continue to raise the bar so the public schools are motivated to compete and raise their bar as well. Without this competition, the quality bar is likely to fall not rise.<|ASPECTS|>superior, raise their bar, edge over their peers, motivated, quality bar, raise, compete<|CONCLUSION|>

Parents would not willingly send their children to a failing school when a better option is available. The profit motive forces private schools to provide better education than their competitors or lose profits.

51b36ca8-c86b-40e1-a52f-23b4ef36e65c

<|TOPIC|>A society with no gender would be better<|ARGUMENT|>Vaginoplasty does not make an exact duplicate of a vagina, but an opening that requires regular maintenance and external lubrication to function and not heal closed.<|ASPECTS|>heal, maintenance, external lubrication<|CONCLUSION|>

Gross surgical alterations do not change biology, just its appearance.

b84e8fd2-ced1-487d-9657-162e1ae20e55

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Humans make decisions as if it's meaningful for us to do so and as if we have a choice. Other than giving people an excuse to justify being an asshole which humans are already good at justifying anyway not believing in free will isn't going to actually change anyone's psychology or change their thought process they use to make decisions. I think I can say I don't believe in free will but there's not really a point for me to worry about the issue because it won't actually change the way I live my life. <|ASPECTS|>decisions, psychology, change, meaningful, thought process, free, choice<|CONCLUSION|>

Humans cannot believe they do not have free-will on a fundamental level.

40ec0cd9-9d15-4e25-8627-53caffb3c401

<|TOPIC|>Should Governments Ever Limit Free Speech?<|ARGUMENT|>These policies just emphasis the human error seen in some forms of speech as opposed to addressing the root of the problem, which is a lack of community.<|ASPECTS|>community, lack, human error<|CONCLUSION|>

There is not enough harmful speech to justify the government limiting it.

fc3f5e68-339f-4c81-b07b-7df15b5d27cd

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My is based on a hypothetical situation in which I cannot purchase a piece of software, book, or movie. This could be due to any number of reasons region lock, lack of funds, whatever , but it is enough to say that no matter what, I cannot purchase this item. There are several factors that make me think that downloading this item for free from a P2P site is a net gain to the producer It increases the number of seeders snatchers leechers on the P2P site. This is free advertising. It increases the chances that I will purchase a product from the same producer, especially if the media is good. It increases the chances that I will speak about it to people I know. It gives the producer more information than simply not buying it. This could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution. It keeps me engaged inside a production environment at which the producer is an expert. For example, if I was a PC gamer, I would continue to be a PC gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby. Please convince me that in a situation in which I can't buy a game book movie, that ignoring that game book movie benefits the producer more than pirating it.<|ASPECTS|>production environment, region lock, producer, benefits the producer, seeders snatchers, information, pc gamer, speak, pricing or distribution, media, chances, free advertising, purchase, new hobby, lack of funds, net gain, hypothetical situation, expert, game, leechers<|CONCLUSION|>

If I cannot purchase media, pirating it benefits the publisher

5aed0714-db2c-4002-b40b-239737d61102

<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>In a recent survey of sex toys, there was an even split of buyers between men and women. This implies that women feel just as able to buy as men, rather than there being a notable gender divide - and theoretically, this could extend into larger cutting-edge sex toys like sex robots.<|ASPECTS|>cutting-edge sex toys, split, buyers, able to buy as men, gender divide<|CONCLUSION|>

Only insofar as the sex industry does - and this is becoming increasingly less true. Women are becoming steadily more involved in, and catered for, in the sex industry. Sex robots may prove themselves positive influences in combating what remains of misogyny in the sex industry.

2e78347f-9018-4f16-84a6-1f34db4ca5fa

<|TOPIC|>Are all our actions selfish to some degree?<|ARGUMENT|>Choices/ actions that are based on morality charity, 'good deeds' are usually ultimately about what kind of person we wish to be, or to be perceived as being.<|ASPECTS|>morality<|CONCLUSION|>

Our only way of thinking about the world is through perception, inextricably linked with our sense of self. This colours all actions with a degree of selfishness.

7eac601f-bd3e-4ef9-8444-cdfda4843395

<|TOPIC|>Omniscience is the only logical power god could have<|ARGUMENT|>According to John 3:16 God loved humanity so much that He chose to send Jesus to Earth so that mankind could have eternal life.<|ASPECTS|>god loved humanity, eternal life<|CONCLUSION|>

It is stated throughout religious scriptures that God is omni-benevolence all-loving.

20b26cda-4ef8-4adb-a2fa-d3cddf12be1f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Once people reach the max wealth, anything they obtain over that amount should go directly back to either their employees, the poor, the common wealth for infrastructure, education, etc. . Even if your invention is fantastic, why would anyone need a billion at one time? They can spend it and earn it back to this max but nobody needs 100 trillion and it's bad for the world economy and society to let 2 hands hold onto that amount of wealth and not circulate it. Having that much money also leads to power control like dropping millions to influence elections and laws that govern millions of people who don't have as much of a say vote. Money is power so should we limit the amount of power one person can hold? Edit I've read the responses, the strongest argument that I keep reading is inventions which yes one should be rewarded for good inventions, rewarded enough to retire and keep inventing. I don't think one needs a billion dollars to do so. People simply don't need that much money even if all they want to do is sit on their ass or play golf the rest of their life, they still wouldn't need that much money. To people saying billionaires did earn it, you're wrong, their employees earned it, their underpaid manufacturers in other countries earned it by being paid so little to manufacture a good sold at a huge markup, or they're simply good business men like Martin skrelli or however pharma bro's name is spelled. That's what being a good business man looks like. That's how you get rich. I wouldn't call that earning it. Best reply so far which addresses my issues is to greatly increase taxes on large earnings so that there's still incentive to earn but we all benefit from it including of course an individual gain for the creator. Edit I've decided 100 million is maybe low so I've been throwing around 500 and 900 and I think I'll just stick with 999 million. Stating that going over a billion should be reinvested in society. We don't want so much of the world's wealth just sitting around in bank accounts when it could be circulated to the benefit of economies and societies. If you're idea or invention is worth ongoing income, this should simply encourage you to invest your money, spend it on things putting it back in circulation or support ideas charities, technologies, companies, movements that you want, just don't hoard so much of the world's wealth in a box where it doesn't reach anyone. Send that shit around so we can move forward, progress. Holding so much power and money and hiding it away is impeding progress. Final edit my point is that there must be a max value for one person to hold. If 1 person owned 99 of the wealth for the entire world, would y'all still be arguing that they earned it, and the rest of the world hasn't earned their share?<|ASPECTS|>low, underpaid manufacturers, bad, money is power, influence elections, spend, ongoing income, hiding, money, inventions, economies and societies, limit, rewarded enough, get, good business men, increase, max value, economy, good business man, impeding progress, support, wealth, paid, billion dollars, inventing, move forward, taxes, individual gain, power and money, common wealth, invention, power, retire, earning, rewarded, reinvested in society, fantastic, earnings, benefit, incentive to earn, earned, power control, rich, progress, earn<|CONCLUSION|>

There should be a maximum amount of wealth 1 person can be entitled to.

e56c2781-2ac9-4985-b7b2-196806f20c26

<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>At the time Fairytale of New York was written, the F word was a common slur<|ASPECTS|>common slur, f<|CONCLUSION|>

The song, Fairytale of New York includes a homophobic slur "f*****".

3a5e11d8-576b-4274-9667-68238fd7770e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This maybe specially dealing with Indian movies but I feel it must be true everywhere. I am of the opinion, that a movie must be judged based on how it makes you feel watching it, like any art form. If it invokes the certain feeling it is supposed to, it should be a good movie. But the movies are judged on some of the logical aspects. Indian movies generally don't care about the logic's of physics in some instances , there are somethings which invoke a certain feeling in the viewers even if its not logical, and this is something I feel is good, movie is fiction, its not real.<|ASPECTS|>fiction, indian movies, feeling, logic 's of physics, true, logical aspects, certain feeling, good movie, judged<|CONCLUSION|>

Movies are not supposed to be logical

df6dc3bb-11aa-463d-b648-f1bd317305f6

<|TOPIC|>Cuba, Dropping of US Sanctions<|ARGUMENT|>Sanctions are pointless and counterproductive. They’ve made no political difference in the last 43 years, why would they now? They mean that the US can be blamed for all the failures of the Cuban economy and to justify repressive measures for security, and therefore encourage the retrenchment of both. President Bush claims to want to empower civil society in Cuba but in 1998 he argued that the best way to achieve this in China was to trade and spread ‘American values.’ Cuba’s geographical and cultural proximity makes it very likely to change fast when given access to Americans and their wealth.<|ASPECTS|>empower, counterproductive, wealth, pointless, americans, retrenchment, trade, civil society, repressive measures, failures, security, change fast, political difference, cultural proximity, american values.<|CONCLUSION|>

Sanctions are pointless and counterproductive. They’ve made no political difference in the last 43 y...

43e0b470-a93b-400d-a522-a762c88f9276

<|TOPIC|>How should society deal with convicted pedophiles?<|ARGUMENT|>Governments create laws through consultation with a variety of stakeholders and experts, including scientists, experts and lawyers. The average person assumes these people have a better understanding of the issues at stake than they themselves do.<|ASPECTS|>issues, understanding<|CONCLUSION|>

The majority of people internalize legal norms, because they feel that they should obey the law.

7faf8919-39b2-4a8e-8497-2fd4256978d8

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A Korean war will not occur within the next two years for multiple reasons 1st They are the biggest paper tiger on the earth of the planet. The whole Year of re unification claims are a hoax their rhetoric is false and is just used to force countries around the world to give them aid because their food security is in danger. This same event has occurred many times in the past and just like then a nuclear war will not occur. gt 2nd Kim isn't a madman. He is in power for a reason. He is smart enough to know that a South Korean war would embolden nuclear powers such as the US and lead to their eventual destruction. The only counter argument to this is that China also has their backs, but they don't. gt 3rd Winning foreign aid, in North Korea's eyes, outweighs the risk of war. They, as i said above, are only using this war rhetoric to get aid because of their sparse resources.<|ASPECTS|>, korean war, aid, backs, madman, china, nuclear war, embolden nuclear powers, eventual, destruction, paper tiger, outweighs, rhetoric, risk of war, war rhetoric, power, danger, foreign aid, sparse resources, food security<|CONCLUSION|>

A Korean nuclear war is unlikely to occur.

4be11b81-0e62-4066-89a4-ce90e922e0ab

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>From wikipedia The whole United States of America is projected to become majority–minority by 2043 if current trends continue. 13 With alternate immigration scenarios, the whole United States is projected to become majority–minority sometime between 2041 2046 depending on the amount of net immigration into the U.S. over the next 35 years . that being said, places like California, Texas, and New York, and probably many urban areas, already have less than a 50 or 60 white population. And yet, either in common conversation, news articles, or fiction, people's ethnicities are only specified if they are not white. Reading this article is an example, although possibly not the most demonstrative of my point. Here's one passage gt Finally we hired a silver haired woman to assess Jack. . . The silver haired woman connected us with Oliver, another little boy in the neighborhood fluent in supernovas and subatomic particles. His mom, Kristen, and I set up weekly play dates, thrilled to find someone else in the same boat. gt A bearded man at the podium was detailing Dr. Harrison’s curriculum vitae. Then gt In the lobby on the way out, a stocky Asian man stopped us. You can see the discrepancy. People's distinguishing features are allowed to be non ethnic unless they're Asian. I don't think it would be that hard to find examples where black people's blackness is singled out. I recall in the first Harry Potter book, nobody's ethnicity is mentioned until Dean Thomas, who is described as Black. Yes, the Asian man is also described as stocky, but my point is why are none of the other people described as white or black or Hispanic? Asian certainly is a descriptive adjective, and fair game but especially in places like California the article was set in Palo Alto , where whites are statistically not the majority demographic, there should be no more default ethnicity. Either the Asian man is an Asian man, but the silver haired woman is a silver haired white woman. Or, the Asian man is a stocky man, and the silver haired woman is just that too. It's a double standard post, so I'll clarify that my view that either of these is acceptable. that the original article's wording is correct in places like Palo Alto. Obviously it would make sense in places like Scandinavia. <|ASPECTS|>demonstrative, curriculum, play dates, black people, white, ethnicities, correct, non ethnic, white population, blackness, majority–minority, distinguishing features, default ethnicity, double standard, fair game, make sense, acceptable, supernovas, stocky, subatomic particles, net immigration, assess jack, nobody 's, stocky man, ethnicity, discrepancy<|CONCLUSION|>

Given the US is not far off from becoming a "majority minority" country, and in places in which that's already true, it should be poor manners to only specify non-white people's ethnicities

c9e06ce8-c41c-48a0-b390-b38a56a8c777

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The theory explained in more depth here suggests that there may never have been an actual person named James Bond and it is mostly an identity fabricated and used repeatedly by MI 6 agents. From an in universe strategic standpoint, James Bond is a common enough name to be real, so even if a bad guy knows there's a spy named James Bond, they can't necessarily be sure it's spy. Furthermore, this is similar to Seal Team 6, which was a false name given for the original Navy Seal team to imply there were far more teams than they had. It would obfuscate who their agent actually is making targeting the agent more difficult , and using that identity knowing the target might recognize it could prompt them to make a move, giving it strategic value to reveal your identity as Bond frequently does, with aplomb. On the real practical side, it would make recasting far easier to explain, and reboots to the franchise less necessary. Furthermore it might make casting easier as it would no longer be necessary to tie actors down with onerous contracts spanning years. Knowing you can explain a change of actor means that you can plan to carry a story arc beyond that of an actor's contract something Doctor Who has benefited from. Lastly it also does away with needing to explain or ignore the fact that this agent has been around for decades of movies. edit To clarify, I'm talking about going forward, not retroactively making this fit. edit2 I made no mention of Marvel, or a cinematic universe. If the studio wants to do that, fine but that's in no way a requirement.<|ASPECTS|>marvel, ignore, targeting, identity fabricated, cinematic universe, movies, recasting, going forward, requirement, obfuscate, teams, reboots, 's, decades, strategic value, story arc, change of actor, spy, necessary, retroactively, easier to explain, casting easier, onerous contracts<|CONCLUSION|>

The Bond films should embrace the fan theory that James Bond is a code name/identity assigned to 00 Agents

29d6e7fb-d08c-460b-ad6c-52a118f00ac4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Determinism negates the idea of free will. We are nature, nurture and that's it. Our conscious minds have unconscious origins that we have no real control over.<|ASPECTS|>unconscious origins, conscious minds<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't believe in free will

2de2c4c7-943f-4cf5-8fa3-6a3e3d91d8a3

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Before starting I should clarify that I'm a man and I'm not a feminist in the modern sense. Modern feminism is based around a perceived victimhood of women and desire to subvert patriarchy. Matriarchy by contrast is about women being in traditional roles of authority. I am using the term to refer to actual societal structures commonly called matriarchy, which are typically more gender equal than the name suggests, the presence of matriarchs moreso than the absence of patriarchs is what makes anthropologists consider a culture a matriarchy. I believe actual gender swapped versions of patriarchy where only women have any roles of authority are impossible and even worse than systems where only men have roles of authority. A more wordy explanation of how I use the term matriarchy is traditional systems of authority under which men and women have roughly equal power, and this power is seen as gendered with masculine and feminine authority being related to fatherhood and motherhood respectively . x200B I think that these types of traditional institutions are less prone to being conflict driven and thus are better able to sustain a traditional conservative society, because there will be less incentive by marginalized groups to try to destroy the systems, and a greater stability because most people will have a moderate degree of restrictions on them x200B Someone like Phyllis Schlafly represents matriarchy more than someone like Anita Sarkeesian. She is an old women telling young women and men what they can and cannot to with their bodies. x200B Care based morality like that of Carol Gilligan would be dominant in such a society. But it will be a very well established conservative morality like Confucianism rather than like modern feminism. x200B I think that from the historical accident of Classical Greece and China, two quite patriarchal societies having large influence on the modern world we see relatively few advanced matriarchal cultures. I think that the patriarchy of Islam has Byzantine origins but this isn't extremely important to my actual position and could quite easily have come from. I think if cultures such as Kofun Japan or Scandinavia or Celtic cultures became the cultural basis of modern civilization we would see matriarchy being dominant and no feminist or meninist movements would happen, nor would a sexual revolution had happened, but there would still be industrialization like happened in our timeline. I don't think patriarchy contributed to influence of Classical Greece and China, just geographical and historical luck made them influential. I don't know if matriarchy is obtainable in the short run from modern civilization. Edit giving more information on how I envision this system Either men inherit their surnames from their fathers and women inherit them from their mothers, or everyone gets their surname from their mother and men may change their surnames to their wives surnames When men get married they move in with their wives family. The priesthood is generally dominated by women and has a high degree of societal influence. Monogamy is the social norm but virginity isn't especially valued. Men still have some high ranking positions especially in military and politics and entrepreneurship. Fertility is strongly valued because it is seen as the root of female power, and a woman being childless will make her be shunned. If there is voting both sexes will be able to vote. There will be no victimhood narrative for women and people like Anita Sarkeesian would be seen as whiny and condemned by the priestesses, the female authorities will be very conservative to complement the lack of risk taking in female temperament as opposed to male temperament, men will be seen as more risk taking so men will be more present in risky careers. Men and women will split childcare about equally.<|ASPECTS|>cultural basis, virginity, feminist, conservative morality, victimhood narrative, social norm, valued, able to vote, societal structures, shunned, voting, roles, fertility, matriarchy being dominant, inherit their surnames, military, patriarchy, societal influence, women, movements, gender swapped, matriarchy, authority, byzantine origins, sexual revolution, dominated by women, victimhood of women, monogamy, patriarchal societies, industrialization, gender equal, systems, high ranking positions, incentive, stability, childless, subvert patriarchy, influence, traditional roles of authority, patriarchs, female power, split childcare about equally, less, equal power, care based morality, influential, advanced matriarchal cultures, entrepreneurship, risk taking, marginalized groups, man, risky careers, geographical and historical luck, old women, conflict driven, restrictions<|CONCLUSION|>

It was an unfortunate historical accident that Patriarchy rather than Matriarchy became globally dominant

e2f09f51-3aac-4e45-bb7a-86934ba68d3e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have moved in a new city and I have encountered, on road with sparse traffic, especially in residential areas, 4 ways intersections with Stop signs for all incoming roads. It was new to me, as I am more familiar with no sign setup, where you have to yield to cars on your right only. To clarify the 2 setups in a 4 Stop signs setup you have a Stop sign for every incoming road. If there is more than one car at the same time at the intersection, the right of way is established by the 1st come 1st served rule. in a no sign setup, every car must yield to the cars on its right, regardless of the order of arrival. I think that the 4 Stop signs setup is much more confusing for the drivers and less efficient for traffic. if there is only one car at the crossing, you still have to stop at the intersection, leading to a more irregular driving, with a lot of 'stop and go'. Also, your attention is divided between the three others roads for incoming cars, whereas with the no sign setup you have to focus on one road only. if there are two or three cars at the crossing at the same time, there is no apparent order of priority between the cars, because the chronological order may be difficult to judge or remember. If you give priority to the car on your right, there is always a clear order, apparent to all drivers, even if do not know when every car arrived. if there is four cars at the same time, the no sign setup is still superior because you only have to decide which car goes first. After that the right of way is clearly attributed, whereas in a 4 Stop signs setup the chronological order rule is much more ambiguous and more difficult to agree on for all drivers at the intersection.<|ASPECTS|>attention, sparse traffic, sign setup, confusing, go, order of priority, right of way, efficient for traffic, clear order, focus, incoming cars, yield, yield to cars, ambiguous, irregular driving, right, less, difficult, superior, order, stop sign, goes, road, chronological order<|CONCLUSION|>

In a 4 ways intersection, the 4 Stop signs setup is inherently inferior to the no sign setup.

61c1ecf6-f3cc-4188-ba21-733eb00748f0

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I thought it would be pretty fun to try to do a that is unrelated to current politics, so here we go. When we think labour camps, we often think of 20th century gulags or North Korean three generation camps, and thus retreat into the belief that labour camps are a dark facet of humanity, being a subset of slavery and a violation of human rights. However, I believe we as a society are forgetting two things. One, labour camps already exist in small scale, the most notable being penal labour where prisoners are subject to various forms of labour while they are serving their time. Two, there is no real reason for labour camps to be oppressive or brutal in nature similar to how prison systems does not have to be oppressive and can, in fact, be quite luxurious, I believe labour camps can both require some work, and be accommodating at the same time. My proposal is that voluntary labour camps similar to larger prison facilities should be implemented at a larger scale in a society, which accommodates prisoners, the disabled, and those in poverty or unable to find work. Such a system would bring several benefits Provide a regimented system for those who are unable to motivate themselves to work. For instance, there are a lot of people who find playing games to be more meaningful to their lives than finding work, or simply do not have the discipline to quit playing games all day and find work think hikikomori. Telling these people to get a job, hippie is most likely going to be ineffective and probably induce more unhappiness, leading to greater addiction to games and detraction from society. To these people, a regimented lifestyle where their time is controlled much like a prison, school, or army may be more suitable. This way, those who deem video games or some other hobby as their purpose in life are able to enjoy that life while still contributing to society and fulfilling basic needs those who play video games due to some downward spiral of depression or lack of discipline are able to have a moment to take a break, reflect on their lives and receive education if labour camps have a library as major prisons do while they still have their basic needs met and again contribute some form of labour and productivity they would not have done otherwise. Provide a form of shelter for those unable to find work. We often hear news stories of how the impoverished willingly commit crimes to be sent to jail and receive amenities food, shelter, etc. There are also a lot of people who complain about how prisoners are better treated than the poorest of the poor in today's society. My question is why society does not create a separate facility where those who are unable to afford basic food needs can voluntarily sign up to be subject to labour while at the same time receive the same amenities of the prison system. This way they can spend their time finding a job while not starving to death i.e. lift the burdens of immediate need of money. This can also apply to a portion of the disabled, who are also unable to find a job or are exploited to work while being paid pennies the labour camp system can take care of them if they can find an appropriate job for these people. Allows for an improvement in prison conditions. The initial proposal was that both voluntary members and prisoners would have access the same facilities although prisoners may be separated to an extent due to potential for harm. In this case, better facilities e.g.opportunities for education, leisure, or upward mobility for voluntary members directly equate to better facilities for prisoners and leave them better adjusted for society. Potentially allows for a profit, giving a larger budget to the government. Greater incentives to abolish the death penalty and instead serve them life sentence to gain the most productivity out of each prisoner. Here I assume that the judicial system is separate from the government such that they don't give everyone life sentences if the government gets greedy. Of course, labour camps can spiral downhill very quickly if human rights and labour rights are not guaranteed. However, in most developed countries where this is guaranteed, I see no reason why labour camps cannot become another social program that benefits those in need.<|ASPECTS|>depression, voluntary labour camps, appropriate job, finding a job, upward mobility, violation, basic food needs, burdens, commit crimes, forgetting two, regimented system, facilities, time is controlled, benefits, harm, poorest, unhappiness, oppressive, shelter, human rights, greedy, budget, current politics, luxurious, basic needs, unable to find, life sentence, incentives, spiral downhill, impoverished, unrelated, separate from the government, addiction to games, discipline, forms of labour, exploited to work, better adjusted for society, potential, life, regimented lifestyle, penal labour, leisure, work, productivity, amenities, small scale, slavery, brutal, better treated, dark, labour rights, improvement, labour camps, profit, finding, enjoy, labour, social program, form, life sentences, disabled, accommodating, prisoners, contributing to society, immediate need of money, prison conditions, motivate, humanity, meaningful, voluntary members, separate, judicial system, education, poverty, starving to death, lives, better facilities, detraction from society, death penalty, larger, ineffective<|CONCLUSION|>

Labour camps should become an integral and accepted part of society.

c765a5b8-0c62-4121-b65b-d9c367ecd668

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In my mind there are two types of racism, overt conscious racism or the Klan is a good example of this . This is not what I am referencing when I say everyone is a little bit racist the type of racism I am talking about is the subconscious type. In essence the brain is hardwired to generalize about everything. It is how humans deal with the metric crap ton of data we consume every second. Our brains do not have the capacity to digest all of the details so it picks out a few key details, categorizes things we see hear touch smell taste, makes connections about them and then moves on to the next stimulus. This applies to humans as well, and is the basis for what I call unconscious racism. Race, is a reeeaally easy short hand for our brain to use, it is obvious, and comes with so many easy possibly wrong connections that it is a way for our brain to be lazy, and we are generally hardwired to do as much as possible with the least amount of energy read we are hardwired to be as lazy as possible because of this humans will always be a little bit racist and there is nothing we can do to get rid of it. just a note, I am not saying it is right or good, just that it is and always will be<|ASPECTS|>metric, racist, generalize about everything, subconscious type, lazy, digest, unconscious racism, conscious racism, data, brain, racism, connections, hardwired, easy short, right, capacity, good, easy possibly wrong connections, consume<|CONCLUSION|>

I think everyone is a little bit racistt, that it is a natural part of the human condition, and that it will never end

9cc2f782-4cb8-41ff-828d-417f116acb2a

<|TOPIC|>Bigfoot exists.<|ARGUMENT|>Many highly unlikely things are factually true. An Australian man, Bill Morgan, who was clinically dead for 14 minutes, then was in a coma. He was said by doctors to have zero chance to live, but he woke up miraculously, found a wife and won a car in a lottery. While being filmed about it for tv, he won again, on camera, $250,000 AUD. Source<|ASPECTS|>chance to live, coma, highly, clinically dead, factually true, wife, unlikely things, zero<|CONCLUSION|>

Many extraordinary things are factually true and it takes time for the majority to come around before any paradigm shift.

e2c970ce-3639-446b-855a-614d0bae5e60

<|TOPIC|>Is being asexual/aromantic inherently under the LGBT+ umbrella?<|ARGUMENT|>A number of gay bars across America have been the sites of racist and transphobic incidences.<|ASPECTS|>racist and transphobic<|CONCLUSION|>

The LGBT community has not been devoid of racism and other forms of exclusion.

81fd1dc3-3df0-483a-b5ec-6574a674b3cd

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that everyone wants colleges to be an open space of intellectual diversity but I don't see how having people that espouse socially conservative views can not be at direct odds with any college that values a college that looks to foster an environment that is non hostile to people that aren't cis white males. I'm also not saying that all right wingers can't speak at colleges. I wouldn't mind libertarians speaking at college campuses. For example, I know that being against LGBTQ rights is a standard plank of American social conservatism but how can a university allow that individual to express his her viewpoint while promoting tolerance of people in the LGBTQ community? If that person can be allowed to speak then why not a racists like David Duke or Richard Spencer?<|ASPECTS|>right wingers, tolerance of people, libertarians, intellectual diversity, campuses, racists, lgbtq rights, conservatism, speak, conservative, non hostile<|CONCLUSION|>

Social Conservatives shouldn't have a place in the intellectual discourse on college campuses.

1d53c552-52ff-4849-b752-0865701dd56c

<|TOPIC|>Should martial arts class be compulsory in school?<|ARGUMENT|>When practicing martial arts, people are role-playing various self-defense scenarios. When practiced enough, students can recall and instinctively respond if they finds themselves in a dangerous situation.<|ASPECTS|>role-playing, dangerous situation, self-defense, recall, instinctively respond<|CONCLUSION|>

By having the knowledge on how to fight, students can pick the approach that cause the least amount of damage in a physical altercation.

7240250e-a76d-4cae-b2ba-b90462d5cb9f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What I mean by this is that I disagree with laws that ban assault weapons and large magazines. Most murders are not large scale shootings and it does not take am assault rifle to kill someone. Clearly, this logic has a limit and I do not mean for it to apply to bazookas or anything crazy but I do not understand why it is normal to ban guns or bullets and magazines based on what type they are.<|ASPECTS|>assault, murders, assault weapons, large scale shootings, kill someone, limit, disagree<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that it is ridiculous to ban certain types of guns and not others.

471dbdd6-c327-4aa6-a073-fe63998bed0d

<|TOPIC|>Is the UN a force for good?<|ARGUMENT|>Without the UN as a place for nations to discuss the issues with their allies and enemies, more chaos is likely to ensue.<|ASPECTS|>chaos<|CONCLUSION|>

In a world with almost 200 nations, an organization that gathers nations is needed.

de6a66db-cb02-4fd7-b772-1618adc70bf4

<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>6 out of 10 people who get abortions already have children, and many feel they need to dedicate their time and resources to the children they already have, rather than having another.<|ASPECTS|>time and resources<|CONCLUSION|>

Bringing a child to life has consequences not only restricted to the moment of birth but for the rest of the mother's life and for all the people around them.

742ab752-563b-403d-a794-39decbf2e0a4

<|TOPIC|>Was Barack Obama a good President?<|ARGUMENT|>According to some economists, Obama's stimulus package led to the weakest recovery from a recession in history.<|ASPECTS|>recovery, recession, weakest<|CONCLUSION|>

Obama's economic stimulus package was unsuccessful in bringing about a sustainable, strong economic recovery.

ec4746e4-5e0d-4dfe-a433-62789fafd21e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is just thought experiment, feel free to shoot holes in my theory. I know there are no guarantees in life and that individuals are different. But never at any point in history or in any culture could a woman be as guaranteed as a man to have a good, or even mediocre time during her next sexual session. Sex for women is, pretty likely, high risk low reward, while for men it’s the complete opposite. When studying a sample of one night stands, around 80 of men got an orgasm compared to 10 of women. In relationships I think the ratio is something like 95 for men and 35 for women, but the overall issue remains. 10 of the women of the world has never had an orgasm. Just think about how bad sex for women must’ve been centuries or even only decades ago The amount of “he didn’t care about me, he just wanted to get off” and “I don’t bother with one night stands because there’s such a low chance that it’ll be good at all” posts I’ve seen in subreddits like r askwomen is too many to count. That’s not even factoring in the fact that vanilla, mainstream, call it what you want sex can be outright painful for women, but almost never is for men. Or the risk of pregnancy or violence by the man. I think most societies’ entire view of sexuality and dating would be very different if we somehow encouraged both men and women, but especially men, to be better lovers. I think things like the man being expected to be the proactive part, men being stereotyped as hornier, women being sexualized way more etc. would change completely.<|ASPECTS|>bad sex, thought experiment, change completely, women, outright, high, guarantees in life, violence, proactive, guaranteed, risk, orgasm, shoot holes, stereotyped, hornier, ratio, mediocre time, better lovers, painful, pregnancy, sexuality, individuals, low reward<|CONCLUSION|>

Making sex better for women would probably revolutionize our entire dating culture

778e6d1d-b18a-4d20-a10c-56e079e79bb5

<|TOPIC|>Should Turkey acknowledge the Armenian genocide?<|ARGUMENT|>If they were not in the single market, Turkey would be free to negotiate its own trade deals with other countries while still benefiting from its customs union with the EU.<|ASPECTS|>customs union, trade deals<|CONCLUSION|>

Turkey would be better off economically outside the Single Market.

d975c1c9-66bb-408a-a736-64e1025ee9c7

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is not to say I'm against the legalization I'm happy it is. But a lot of people are going a bit far, in my view, calling this a major civil rights milestone victory landmark. Civil Rights Act or the passing of the 13th 14th amendments were several orders of magnitude more important, and more vital, than whether or not homosexuals can file a joint tax return or inherit without a will. 6 26 isn't the most important historical event of our lives. It isn't the most important historical event of this year. It's not Roe v. Wade. It's not forced integration of schools. It's a minor issue, in the grand scheme of things. All this patting of the back by people is a bit cringey I don't begrudge that a lot of gay couples should be very happy, but beyond gay couples why does this matter? On Facebook and on Reddit, I see a lot of straight allies playing this up. Am I crazy? I just don't see why this is as big a deal as is being made out. It isn't the most important civil rights issue we're even confronted with in the USA. Again, I'm happy it passed, but more as an afterthought. Oh, that's nice . It seems to me that millenials especially are so invested in becoming a part of history ironically, like the baby boomers they hate so much that they're just blowing this out of proportion.<|ASPECTS|>civil rights issue, important, crazy, forced integration of schools, happy, homosexuals, roe v. wade, civil rights, cringey, historical event, couples, joint tax return, history, minor issue, deal, straight allies, civil rights milestone victory landmark, afterthought<|CONCLUSION|>

Gay Marriage isn't that huge a deal

dcaadeef-d3c1-4b22-acee-12b98b4e178e

<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>Based on the assumption they are plasma weapons, their range would be extremely limited. Plasma will dissipate in the solar wind, not to mention has a tendency to want to expand, and it will cool quickly. Even magnetic containment to stop dissipation will not protect and stop it cooling in the cold vacuum of space. This would make its maximum range quite short, and its effective range shorter still.<|ASPECTS|>, plasma weapons, maximum, limited, protect, cooling, range, cool quickly, effective range shorter, expand, dissipate, dissipation, magnetic containment<|CONCLUSION|>

The Star Wars weapons "Turbolasers" are simple plasma weapons, which would have limited range and are manually targeted. Additionally they do not show any on screen or provide any visual evidence to back up their power levels.

1f51d89c-a264-4cba-9147-d2df26c9caff

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have heard every argument against gay marriage that I think ever exists due to living in one of the most red states possible. However, any good or compelling ones come from a religious backing. Are there any real sociological, psychological or any other good argument against gay marriage. I also don't want to hear about marriage being a religious ceremony, it now involves the state and thus they need to be equitable or they are violating many different statutes.<|ASPECTS|>religious backing, red states, statutes, sociological, gay marriage, psychological, religious ceremony, equitable, argument<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't believe there are any good arguments against gay marriage that don't have religion in them.

0e1586dc-be8b-496a-a3c2-6c31d4236a73

<|TOPIC|>Should Whaling Still be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Whales have a very important role in the ecosystem. Their poop for example is the basis for growth of krill and plancton. Since we are already over the edge on whale numbers, we should stop completely. Whales in ecosystem<|ASPECTS|>important, ecosystem, whale numbers, plancton, poop, growth<|CONCLUSION|>

Whales are of great importance for the ocean's ecosystem.

d79b6a2b-07de-4c6b-bff3-345381aeda6b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not that it is a bad thing. But, yes, we dress up in nice clothes so that we meet certain standards expectations, set by others the society. If I did not care about what others thought about me, I would have worn whatever was comfortable to me, and perhaps, nothing at all I am aware that it would be exhibitionism which is illegal almost everywhere. But I am just being obtuse to propose a view. Every situation where you dress up weddings, balls, proms, costume party, conferences, meetings, dates you want to look good, which means, you want to look good in the eyes of others. Note I am not talking about attire that is functional like spacesuits, scuba suits, military gear, mountaineering gear etc where your safety is in the line. First . Thanks for the participation. I liked the discussion. I learned that, although I can argue a view verbally, I still have to learn to articulate my thoughts coherently. <|ASPECTS|>safety, bad thing, participation, discussion, standards expectations, comfortable, obtuse, illegal, look good, exhibitionism, articulate my thoughts coherently<|CONCLUSION|>

You dress up in nice clothes for others.

61f2d484-6aa9-4c7e-a10e-35be0708c9f0

<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>If there are two wills there are more than one, so it wouldn't be one God. So pantheism would not be a good explanation.<|ASPECTS|>pantheism, one, god<|CONCLUSION|>

There is no sense in God hurting himself. There should be at least two different wills.

cfa125e2-8ae3-4dc8-8340-e344bb19aeef

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is something I came to believe while I was in the military. It didn't take me long to observe that people who did the best work were not always rewarded, but people who made the biggest show out of the things they did usually were. While the US Military in particular is meant to be a meritocracy of sorts this has not always been the case, historically speaking , I couldn't help but notice that individuals in leadership positions who were constantly making a show of what great leaders they were to THEIR superiors were usually the ones who fostered the expansion of this environment these were the Staff NCO's who had a working party out sweeping off a road in the middle of the desert because the General was coming by and other things of that nature . But I digress. This is why I view this as a bad thing Increasingly, the people who would get promoted, get awards, leadership billets, or go up for meritorious boards, were people who had no qualms screwing their peers or their subordinates out of things that could help their careers. While we preach that this kind of selfishness constitutes poor leadership, it was rewarded EVERY TIME. After a time, I ascribed this to a broken promotion system, and got out. Since returning to the civillian sector, I have discovered that this same problem exists, but only in professional academic environments that offer similar incentives scholarships, coveted paid positions, etc, . This leads me to believe that any organization that has a similar system is discouraging teamwork and encouraging people to just be shitty to each other in general. I would like this view changed because I have a certain level of cognitive dissonance on this issue, because I think that people with exceptional abilities who do good work SHOULD be rewarded. I've observed this happening again and again, so I don't think it's just a single bad experience. What am I missing?<|ASPECTS|>cognitive dissonance, positions, incentives scholarships, exceptional abilities, poor leadership, bad experience, expansion, leadership billets, broken promotion system, teamwork, meritorious, academic, help their careers, meritocracy, shitty, discouraging, rewarded, selfishness<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that publicly dangling performance-based incentives in front of people in the workplace and having them compete for it is harmful to a good working environment.

36946fb0-dfd1-4cde-a7cb-5adc49d68d74

<|TOPIC|>Can Religious Faith and Science Co-exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Before science, the Bible knew each star was different: 1 Corinthians 15:41 'There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.' The Bible confirmed this before science confirmed it.<|ASPECTS|>glory<|CONCLUSION|>

Science provides tangible evidence for what the Bible and other religious texts have already considered as true. Therefore, they can both co-exist.

6fbdcf06-80db-4359-a60e-4deb2e9a16b8

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was recently informed that I have been banned from r OffMyChest for saying something on r The Donald. I am not even a Trump supporter. I was just asking a question in the AmA. I got a message from r OffMyChest saying that I am banned for participating in a hate subreddit. This is absurd. They shouldn't be able to ban me for something I did on another subreddit. I think reddit should make this against the rules. If the subreddit was an actual hate subreddit, reddit probably would have banned it. It's still up for a reason. Reddit hasn't even quarantined it. I don't even go on r The Donald because I am not a Trump fan. I honestly get tired of seeing the spam on the front page. However, I think it's unfair to not allow Trump supporters on r OffMyChest. Lets say the r offmychest mods were Trump fans. Would they be allowed to ban me for participating on r SandersForPresident? If this becomes a trend, it could really reduce the quality of reddit. Lets say if I make a post on r HipHopHeads and I get banned from r Music because the mods on music dont like hip hop. That is really unfair and causes me to have to limit my experience on reddit. I should be able to participate on any subreddit I wish, without the fear of mods from another subreddit banning me. What if more subreddits banned users from r The Donald? This would literally limit subreddits that users could use. It also encourages people creating other accounts to circulate subreddits that they are banned from which is technically against the rules. In conclusion, I think that this is really bad for reddit. Mods shouldn't have the power to limit what subreddits the users of their subreddit can go on. Reddit needs to ban this because if this trend catches on, reddit will really go down in quality and it will cause users to not be able to use a large variety of subreddits.<|ASPECTS|>limit my experience, quality of reddit, bad for reddit, circulate subreddits, power to limit, the rules, banned users, quarantined, trump supporter, ban, absurd, spam, trump fans, hip hop, trump supporters, trump fan, unfair, banned, quality, fear of mods, limit subreddits, reduce, hate subreddit, subreddits<|CONCLUSION|>

Reddit should make a rule prohibiting mods from banning people from their subreddit for participating on another subreddit.

7db448e9-f571-4799-8c2c-7d9eddb32809

<|TOPIC|>Affirmative Action: Useful Once, Outdated Today?<|ARGUMENT|>Affirmative action is no longer needed because it's already illegal to deny services based on race, gender/sexual orientation, personal/political beliefs etc.<|ASPECTS|>deny services, race, personal/political beliefs, illegal<|CONCLUSION|>

In principle, the government should not endorse policies that treat people differently based on their race.

7e05657e-0f2b-4fad-ac10-ec6b0d6fa3d4

<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In Sweden, 31 of the 50 biggest owners of arable land still belonged to the old nobility in the 21st century Bengtsson et al., p. 17<|ASPECTS|>old nobility, land, owners<|CONCLUSION|>

Swedish nobility still, according to most recent research, occupies many prominent positions.

909d4977-5e6f-4a67-a193-d23f9c3d9f22

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I attend a 4 year school that offers a BA in Dance. I don't see dance as a academic discipline, and don't think my school should offer degrees in it, of that people should pay Tuition to Study Dance To me, when someone says to me Im a dance major would be like someone saying Im a football major . The majority of dance classes at my school are physical conditioning practicing dance. I see no academics, in the way the other arts Theater, Literature, Photography, Film, ect have academic sides. A BA in Dance is also among the more useless degrees, as it qualifies you to do nothing but teach dance. Professional Dancers don't have college degrees in Dance, and the Dance Students here are throwing away any shot they have of a Professional Dance career by spending 4 of their prime years in school instead of out in the world dancing. Should my school have a Dance Team? Sure, we have Soccer, Baseball, Field Hockey, Cheer leading, ect, why not dance? Should my school offer for credit classes in dance? Sure, we offer for credit Phys. Ed classes, and for credit arts classes, painting, drawing, photography, ect. But I see no basis for a BA of Dance, there's just not enough coursework or anything resembling academics there to justify a Degree Path. So <|ASPECTS|>credit classes, ba, coursework, arts, physical conditioning practicing, useless degrees, professional, teach dance, career, academic sides, dance, cheer, academic discipline, degree path, college degrees, academics, dance team, credit phys<|CONCLUSION|>

Dance is not an academic discipline, and there should not be college-level degrees offered in it

478de6d7-64d7-49b8-aec6-33e436fbfc4a

<|TOPIC|>European Monetary Fund<|ARGUMENT|>Matthew Saltmarsh. "Proposal for European Monetary Fund Meets Resistance." New York Times. March 2010: "'It does not appear to me to be the absolute priority in the short term,' Ms. Lagarde said on the sidelines of a banking event here. 'If it is simply meant to strengthen the European mechanisms already in place to govern finances, then it is not helpful, in my opinion, to stir up the polemic.' That sentiment was echoed by Axel A. Weber, the chief of the Bundesbank, or German central bank. 'It’s not helpful to talk about ways to institutionalize help when the question is how to implement the budget reforms,' he said, according to a Reuters report from Frankfurt."<|ASPECTS|>european mechanisms, absolute priority, institutionalize help, budget reforms, resistance, meets, finances<|CONCLUSION|>

EMF is not a short-term solution to immediate crisis

0d7f46e1-adba-41f7-9311-0b2aef4035ea

<|TOPIC|>Is citizen science beneficial to science?<|ARGUMENT|>Already science denial climate change, evolution, young earth creationism, etc. is rampant. We need to strengthen the belief in science, not allow the foundations of science to weaken.<|ASPECTS|>foundations of science, belief in science, science denial, climate change<|CONCLUSION|>

By legitimizing citizen science, people will associate professional science with it and thus science as a whole will lose legitimacy.

7b3bb1c1-8b8f-4e5b-8b4b-722e8bfdd150

<|TOPIC|>What Is the Best Drug Regulation System?<|ARGUMENT|>When drug possession is criminalised, being an addict or even using drugs casually can lead to prison. There, ordinary citizens are likely to engage in more criminal behaviour.<|ASPECTS|>addict, prison, criminal behaviour<|CONCLUSION|>

A drug policy like in the Netherlands that decriminalizes marijuana, supports addicts of all drugs, but punishes illegal trade severely.

940366e9-4662-47f7-975c-a922d046ec9d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While the winter of 1943 gave the Red Army an advantage and led to the turning point of the Eastern Front, that alone was not responsible for Germany's slow retreat in the years afterwards. The rate in which Soviet industry was growing and the resultant huge increase in wartime munitions was the reason why the Soviet advance succeeded. The Italian Campaign and the Allied Invasion of France drew the attention of many German forces, but the depletion of those from the Eastern front was not significant enough to be the deciding factor for a Soviet victory. The Allies only fought 20 of German forces, while the Soviets faced 80 . Have those Russian spies finally got to me? Change my view, and potentially save me from Soviet propaganda.<|ASPECTS|>wartime munitions, slow retreat, fought, turning, soviet, save, soviet industry, depletion, soviet victory, advantage, eastern front, german forces, russian spies, soviet propaganda<|CONCLUSION|>

The USSR could have defeated Germany without the Allies; the war just would've taken longer.

21e519bb-39a6-4e05-828a-a43e083c987d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While I am not part of the 1 , I make a very good living for myself. Enough that under Bernie's plan, I would have over 500,000 less of disposable income. Now I don't know the specifics of Hillary's plan, but I imagine it to be something like what we have now. Don't get me wrong, I think Hillary is a shill. I think she is the quintessential pandering lying politician. However, none of these things affect me. At the end of the day, all I care about is the money in my pocket, the things that that money pays for, my family, and instituting liberal social policies gay marriage, abortion, war on drugs, etc . Now I know she isn't perfect on all of these, but as far as social policy is concerned, she seems to be on board. Add to that that her economic policy would benefit me more, and I don't see why I shouldn't vote for her. I realize this is an extremely selfish view, and I'll own up to that. But that doesn't change how I feel. I like Bernie. I do. I like that he's the first honest politician in a while, and I truly believe that he has mine and the American people's best interests at heart. But I am not willing to pay over 500,000 more dollars a year not including other taxes for those interests. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>social policy, view, money, honest politician, pandering lying politician, good living, war on drugs, affect, hillary, perfect, taxes, selfish view, economic policy, shill, like, best interests, liberal social policies, less, benefit, feel, disposable income, specifics<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't like her, but a Hillary Clinton presidency would be more beneficial to me than a Sander's one.

3a4e5f6c-6ec9-4877-a463-ccc8fa8d1945

<|TOPIC|>Global overpopulation is a myth.<|ARGUMENT|>The rapid loss of species 1 2 we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.<|ASPECTS|>natural extinction rate, rapid loss of species<|CONCLUSION|>

Food production and greenery are not the only elements of the environmental issue: we also have a rapid loss of biodiversity.

31c1e918-8925-4de6-924b-5024fd5bf261

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>That is to say, not well at all. The gun controversy is back in the news and I've seen a lot of people who are against the war on drugs speak out against the lax gun laws. Which I think is slightly ironic. I'm not speaking on the merits of such a ban but more on whether of not it will work or if it is even feasible. Which I think is slightly different from the other s on this subject. The proliferation of guns and drugs as well as the porous borders of the United States make banning things of the sort nearly impossible. Again, I wanted to make clear that I don't want to talk about why guns need to be banned but rather talk about how the country would go about it in a population not willing to voluntarily give it up. The only thing in my mind that could make a gun ban work is door to door confiscation which violates many more rights than the 2nd amendment.<|ASPECTS|>ironic, guns and drugs, banning things, well, rights, proliferation, gun controversy, war, feasible, different, door, voluntarily give, lax gun laws, confiscation, porous borders<|CONCLUSION|>

A gun ban would work just as well as the War on Drugs

f74fe8ef-7de7-4eec-b166-83f0e6bffb7c

<|TOPIC|>Should You Confess to Cheating After a One Night Stand?<|ARGUMENT|>Women who have experienced a partner's infidelity are more likely to suffer from depression during their lifetime.<|ASPECTS|>depression, infidelity, suffer<|CONCLUSION|>

It can cause insecurity and anxiety for the partner, which is likely to destroy the relationship.

a4379012-df99-41a0-bd09-3429a794a8c4

<|TOPIC|>Did the US have to use nuclear weapons to achieve Japan's unconditional surrender?<|ARGUMENT|>Although not used, the weapon can get employed as a tool of deterrent or threat.<|ASPECTS|>deterrent, tool, threat<|CONCLUSION|>

Developing a weapon does not automatically mean a necessity to use it.

5632e2ff-4257-47e1-8524-75e148ade869

<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>"Twain may have meant to shock, but I don’t think he ever intended for the word to completely swamp the reader’s emotional reaction to the book. Today, though, that’s exactly what it does." Drum 2011<|ASPECTS|>shock, emotional reaction<|CONCLUSION|>

Given the increased awareness of what an intensely offensive word the N-word is, the bowdlerized word "slave" might more accurately convey the level of shock Twain intended

e5501470-0acd-4ecf-84ca-620e242aff6d

<|TOPIC|>Should India have a UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>Approximately 220 million people in India live in poverty. If we give $25 a month to each one, it requires 66 billion dollars a year. The government simply can't afford it. UBI is infeasible. nytimes.com<|ASPECTS|>afford, ubi, requires, poverty, infeasible, billion dollars<|CONCLUSION|>

If UBI tries to provide even decent standard of living it would be unaffordable and will lead to deficits.tinyurl.com

4c2cc9fd-8f5f-478a-b594-9c9c3754bd17

<|TOPIC|>Does Feminism Strive For Equality?<|ARGUMENT|>Feminism has yet to speak out about the underrepresentation of women in less desirable jobs. It would stand to reason, then, that it only strives for equality deemed beneficial specifically to women.<|ASPECTS|>women, underrepresentation of women, equality deemed beneficial, less desirable jobs<|CONCLUSION|>

Feminism is a set of ideologies for promoting female privilege.

8b42270e-e3b1-40d8-959f-bcbcdbc32ed2

<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>The problem with the supposition of the "OmniGod" is that it leaves no wiggle room for God to act in anything other than a single prescribed course. What about a non-interfering God? Or one who uses this world to test or forge people into better people? What are we calling evil? And is evil everything that causes humans pain? Or is evil a directed act of harm? Maybe an OmniGod created the conditions for utopia to watch what his creations did and maybe "evil" is a word thrown around too lightly.<|ASPECTS|>utopia, pain, god, directed act of harm, test, room, better people, evil, non-interfering god<|CONCLUSION|>

Monotheism does not preclude the existence of evil, insofar as some of the features of the traditional conception of God can be abandoned without rejecting the traditional conception of God in toto in its entirety.

9a6cb8df-f844-4365-bc88-a8b78823b4da

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Here we have the tale of a man who has suspected his children are not his. It got me thinking. Assuming that paternity tests are cost effective, or could be made so if they are not already, why don't we simply require them at birth? There is no harm to the infant. There is no harm to the mother. Unless, of course, our goal is to push men into raising children they think are theirs but truly aren't. With all this DNA testing being widely available now, paternity fraud is basically a ticking time bomb that can be set off at any time. Why wouldn't we take such a small measure to avoid those kinds of surprises and the destruction they can foster? A man finding out years into thinking his children are his, for example, who then understandably cuts ties why do we risk subjecting children to such a painful scenario? And in the event the paternity test shows the putative father isn't the father, it's not like there isn't a father to go after support for. There is. The mother in such a case just put responsibility on someone who isn't the right person to do so. It can be corrected.<|ASPECTS|>paternity fraud, father, tests, painful scenario, surprises, destruction, suspected his children, harm to the mother, putative father, ticking time bomb, men, raising children, ties, harm to the infant, responsibility, thinking, right, corrected, cost effective<|CONCLUSION|>

Paternity tests should be required at birth

8cb0b55f-ecbd-4724-889f-2d2916d1a592

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now, The Shawshank Redemption is one of my absolute favorite movies, and I know what an excellent actor Morgan Freeman is. However, something changed with The Dark Knight movies it seems like now every pimply nerdling moviegoer wants him in every mediocre sci fi or action movie just because Mr. Freeman has a cool voice and freckles. I mean, just going back three years Conan the Barbarian 24 RT Olympus Has Fallen 48 RT Oblivion 54 RT Now You See Me 50 RT Transcendence 19 RT And don't get me fucking started on Lucy . It's appalling. For every Batman or LEGO Movie he gets, they put him in three other lame flops that really just waste his talent. He's become the sriracha of actors putting him in your food doesn't automatically make it taste better. More often than not, you're wasting a great ingredient to mask your sad lack of flavor.<|ASPECTS|>flavor, sriracha, lack, taste better, lame flops, excellent actor, cool, freckles, ingredient, appalling, waste his talent, mediocre, wasting<|CONCLUSION|>

Morgan Freeman is the most overused actor in Hollywood.

29c9c871-8e0b-45fc-9b35-af47bb3a3a8c

<|TOPIC|>Impeachment proceedings won't hurt Dems, and do NOT help GOP in 2020.<|ARGUMENT|>Trump asked Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, in a July 25 phone call. Foreign powers are never involved in integral domestic democratic processes such as elections.<|ASPECTS|>integral domestic democratic processes<|CONCLUSION|>

Trump has abused his powers to goad foreign leaders into persecuting his domestic rivals and improve his political standing. Involving foreign leaders in essential democratic affairs undermines the autonomy of the country.

dfc931bf-a8a5-4448-8b04-32abb1a50790

<|TOPIC|>Is Classic World of Warcraft better than Retail WoW?<|ARGUMENT|>In Classic chat in e.g. world chat is meaningful as you sometimes have to post to form a dungeon group, while with Retail LFG made this superfluous.<|ASPECTS|>superfluous, chat, dungeon group, meaningful, classic<|CONCLUSION|>

WoW Classic requires more social interactions to successfully play the game.

dc640f14-9111-4310-8414-0ceda6f7a561

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a frequent gamer, and I enjoy a wide variety of titles and series. Including Bioshock, Dwarf Fortress, Mass Effect, Crysis, GTA, and many others. I always see a lot of hate towards the COD franchise, claiming that it has sold out, and that every game is a carbon copy of the last with minor changes. I think these games are always great and always a load of fun. The multiplayer is always going to be twitchy and overstimulated, however I think that's where all the fun is. It's fun because it's easy, over the top, and satisfying. I think each new game has plenty of new content to warrant a purchase, and they are always well polished. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, load, twitchy, well, variety, hate, satisfying, fun, minor, new content, view, polished, multiplayer, easy, gamer, overstimulated, titles and series<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe the Call of Duty games are and always have been fantastic.

27233637-461c-4b9a-a82b-30ac997275a1

<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>For example, adding the idea from Plato philosophers brought in the idea of eternal torment from neoplatonic thought. Which caused deleterious effects later: the nastiness in the Crusades. The monk Arnold Amalric was the first to say "Slay them all, God will recognize His own" during the Albigensian crusade.<|ASPECTS|>, eternal torment, deleterious effects, nastiness, god will recognize<|CONCLUSION|>

Religion should not be blamed for its intentional or unintentional misuse.

fa191181-57de-4b32-9121-f7d2374bab30

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I'm scared of spiders and whenever they creep up in my room, I feel conflicted about killing it. It doesn't stop me from actually killing them, but I can't help but feel a slight sense of guilt, knowing that I killed it for my own convenience and without good reason. I think about the life that exists in each living, conscious thing whether it's humans or animals, and knowing that I'm taking away a life every time I kill a spider or other bugs makes me question whether I should always avoid killing them Depending on how lazy productive I feel, I sometimes take the effort to release it outside . For many people, I sound ridiculous that I should care for the life of an insect, and am looking for reasons to stop caring.<|ASPECTS|>conflicted, care, scared of spiders, killing, stop caring, convenience, guilt, release, life, life of an insect, avoid killing, lazy productive<|CONCLUSION|>

It is wrong to kill bugs on a whim as their lives are as precious as animals'.

c7645ff1-8e78-407a-80a8-2389e78a8a18

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We seem to be on more of a strive now than ever to push millennials to vote. This seems like the most direct and efficient method to get as many individuals as possible registered to vote, exposing them to the importance of it. Furthermore, in fairness and similarity, men are ineligible to file FAFSA if they have not signed up for the Selective Service, so why can’t we implement the same system for each student of age? Seems like an extremely easy fix. Conclusively, even if students decide not to vote that specific year, at least when the time comes, he or she will be prepared with the proper documentation to do so. This is a really great first step to reach the masses.<|ASPECTS|>documentation, system, similarity, ineligible, fairness, registered to vote, direct, easy fix, millennials to vote, importance, efficient method, reach the masses, proper<|CONCLUSION|>

Students should be required to register to vote to file FAFSA.

8f16e123-7daa-410b-a526-567cd255b16b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I do not disagree with the idea that there should be gender equality. However, I believe feminism outside of academic circles has become, to put it bluntly nothing more than an anti male circle jerk. Particularly guilty of this, are feminism circles that operate online. I think everyone can agree that places like r MensRights are detrimental to the discussion on gender equality. Not because their points are invalid, but because they go about it the wrong way entirely. If MRA's can't be taken seriously in the discussion of gender equality, why should feminists that act in the same manner be treated differently? Before the hate rolls on in I want to be VERY clear. I'm not saying that the idea of feminism is inherently wrong. I am all for gender equality, however I believe that the majority of feminists and MRA's are not concerned enough with actual gender equality, but rather lessening the disadvantage that their respective genders are burdened with. This has led to an us vs them stigma which discourages positive discussion on the topic.<|ASPECTS|>stigma, gender equality, detrimental, hate, positive discussion, inherently, clear, wrong, feminism circles, feminism, disadvantage, invalid, differently, anti male circle<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that the feminism movement has been derailed, and is no longer helpful to the discussion of gender inequality.

d9bea705-e94a-4632-9295-4aaf12a78f87

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think sex is a natural expression of love toward one another and should be considered sacred, but not enough to have to wait until marriage. I believe marriage is almost like a agreement to take care of each other and your loved ones, including potential children. I believe if you're not married and you have children, the chances of breaking up are only larger considering it does not require you to fill out break up forms and take one anothers' possessions. Also i believe that children are better off having two parents, as it is not only natural to have both, but better for their development. . edit I'm sorry folks, maybe i should've specified that this view is only applicable if both partners are fit to be decent parents for a child able to nuture a child well enough. I understand there is such thing as being a bad, or a terrible, parent, and this view was only towards fit couples who are not married. edit2 eloping is also an option.<|ASPECTS|>two parents, parent, bad, children, eloping, better, agreement to take care of, terrible, potential children, break up forms, natural, breaking, chances, possessions, sacred, nuture, edit2, development, decent parents, fit couples, love<|CONCLUSION|>

I think that sex shouldn't have to wait until marriage, but having children should.

e05761c3-639b-4556-b754-eb815d80d6bb

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have such a pessimistic view of humanity and life on earth in general. First of all I realize that not all humans are bad. I love seeing a mothers love for her baby. I love seeing a fathers willingness to sacrifice for his children. I love seeing tight knit families who care for each other. I love seeing friends smile and laugh with each other. I love seeing brothers and sisters support each other. I love how humans care for animals and the poor even though they don't owe them anything. This is all so beautiful to me. It's amazing what kind of love we are capable of. But at the same time I can't stand the thought, no the knowledge, that someone somewhere is being held in a dark room right now gagged, beaten and raped. Some poor girl in Brazil has been kidnapped and is being sold into sex slavery. Some poor teenager in Mexico is being tortured as we speak for not complying with the cartels. Some poor mother is watching her children be beheaded in the middle east. Some slave is collapsing of exhaustion and beaten for it in labor camps spread throughout North Korea. Some poor African is working 17 hour days 7 days a week in the mines so his family can eat. Some poor baby in Palestine is dying from injuries sustained in an Israeli airstrike. Some poor Israeli child is on life support because of injuries sustained in terrorist attacks. People are dying right now trying to immigrate to countries where they will be met only with hostility, but they put up with it because it sure beats dying. Young men are being drafted into wars right now, brainwashed into hating the enemy when in reality the enemy is their corrupt governments. Billions of people live in conditions you wouldn't even believe. Shanty towns made of metal shacks where drug lords rule. Life in the third world is hard, super hard. The poor live in ways we can never imagine. Well I was born in a third world country but luckily my parents obtained Visas to work when I was a child. Work like dogs for chump change but it sure beats living in a village with no future whatsoever. All of this is happening in real time and it's not like external forces are doing this to us. It's not like someone is oppressing us. We are oppressing ourselves. For many reasons but 90 of the time it boils down to money and intolerance. Those two things are responsible for so much suffering. I don't understand how people mentally justify ruining other people's lives for little pieces of paper. No matter how poor you may be. I don't understand how people can kill other people because they are a different skin color, or don't worship your God. I don't understand how people can sign up for wars and happily drop bombs on people. I really don't. I don't even think I want to understand, this is just outrageous. I'm sick of these phony politicians acting like they care about the public. They do not people. They care about their bank accounts. I just watched some Fox news Judge Jeanie or whatever her name is, on You tube spread fear mongering propaganda about Muslims. This only serves to divide people even more, and the comments are SICKENING. Talking about killing rag heads for fun, talking about bombing goat fuckers. That is so despicable. I will never understand how people are so misguided by patriotism and pride to the point of evil. No one is exempt from this. No country whatsoever. No offense, no even the USA. Some usa citizens are beyond ignorant and hateful in ways that would make Satan blush. This just baffles me to no end Edit My view hasn't been totally changed just yet but you guys have made me feel a bit more positive. I will definitely apply the advice I've gotten in this thread. Thank you guys so much<|ASPECTS|>, bad, corrupt governments, hard, sacrifice, friends, poor baby, wars, sex slavery, life, super hard, care about the public, despicable, dark, eat, complying, color, laugh, kill other people, drug lords, slave, drop bombs, mothers, hostility, external forces, poor african, mentally justify, brainwashed, terrorist attacks, care for animals, positive, future, people, oppressing, oppressing us, willingness, care, visas, real time, tight knit families, evil, beheaded, humans, humanity, country, metal shacks, fathers, killing rag heads, injuries, owe, cartels, money, outrageous, kidnapped, misguided, ruining, satan, smile, worship your god, divide people, intolerance, poor teenager, hateful, collapsing of exhaustion, poor, pride, shanty, fear mongering propaganda, ignorant, love, beaten, immigrate, advice, life support, dying, chump change, conditions, beautiful, pessimistic view, hating the enemy, support, family, bombing goat fuckers, tortured, suffering, live, poor mother, patriotism, bank accounts, exempt, lives<|CONCLUSION|>

Can you guys please cheer me up? This view is driving me into depression.

1c8c6b73-cf81-4d26-a1cd-b5b0b6f26354

<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>There are a lot of social implications for the mother to choosing adoption. She would be visibly pregnant to her family and peers and be judged and constantly have to explain herself, as well as having to go through the unpleasant experience of pregnancy with no good outcome for her.<|ASPECTS|>unpleasant, outcome, social implications, judged, explain, visibly<|CONCLUSION|>

Adoption is not a reasonable alternative given it requires women to go through pregnancy and childbirth, and bring a genetically related child into the world.

6b0696aa-5668-4738-bae6-f3f765d87f1e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A few days ago someone posted a spoiler about the new guardian of the Galaxy movie. I told him how it was an asshole move, the dude was actually really nice and apologized, but everyone replied saying how I was an asshole and how the movie came out a few months ago, aeveryone should have had watched it. Now, no one has an obligation to not spoil things, but it's called being nice not to, the argument that X came out Y years ago, you should have watched it should really not be used because 1. people can be busy, they don't always have time to watch movies 24 7. Maybe I was born after said movie came out, or I didn't really notice it coming out. If I were to watch every series movie on Earth I would never have enough time, there's probably tens of thousands of them, same goes for series. What do you think? I got down votes quite a lot and it happened more than one time, I am not saying I care about being down votes , I'm just saying a lot of people disagrees with me. Thank you for reading<|ASPECTS|>votes, apologized, asshole, nice, busy, spoiler, obligation, notice, the galaxy, spoil things, disagrees, time<|CONCLUSION|>

Movie/Series spoilers are always a bad thing no matter when the movie came out.

5a7c9188-4c58-4837-9051-e195be1661a0

<|TOPIC|>Should society utilize motorbikes instead of cars?<|ARGUMENT|>If more people used motorbikes instead of cars, less space would have to be allocated towards parking spots.<|ASPECTS|>less space, parking spots<|CONCLUSION|>

A motorbike is better because it is easier to park.

90c6c2bb-700e-47da-a21b-7c636f62a7d4

<|TOPIC|>Should public nudity be legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Currently in our society where accidental touching, manspreading and comments have been interpreted as sexual harassment, legalising nudity will most likely exacerbate sexually related conflicts.<|ASPECTS|>exacerbate, sexual harassment, accidental, sexually related conflicts<|CONCLUSION|>

Legalizing nudity may lead to more sexual harassment and even sexual assaults.

a3d452fd-0b29-4b20-8b40-beea39a64bcf

<|TOPIC|>Should all major political decisions be made via public referendum?<|ARGUMENT|>The 1986 Irish referendum on divorce resulted in a surprising defeat, largely due to the ability of interest groups to raise sufficient concerns over the plight of married women whom they claimed would be cast aside if divorce was introduced.<|ASPECTS|>plight, sufficient concerns, married women, defeat<|CONCLUSION|>

Weak campaigns by mainstream parties can leave a vacuum ready for interest groups to influence popular opinion and decisions in referendums.

55cc3d4a-b173-4ba8-84ec-6a182e04ab40

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While there are certainly some negative aspects to fracking, the contamination of ground water being the most concerning, I think that fracking is a good option for domestic energy production. My main support for this idea is that energy must come from somewhere and the natural gas that is produced through fracturing is much cleaner and produces energy much more efficiently than coal or oil. Fracking is also being done on US soil, which has positive implications for the economy and gives the public more over site. A lot of environmental degradation is outsourced to other countries so that the US can benefit from the energy that is produced. While I know that the US is a beautiful country and I do not want to so it destroyed, but the US also has some of the strongest environmental laws in the world. I like having resource extraction on US soil because it means that the extractors are subject to US laws. Now I know fracturing does cause some environmental problems, but I think this could be minimized by stricter regulations on the mixtures that are going into the ground. I consider ground water a very valuable resource and if fracturing is causing contamination then steps should be put in place to minimize those leaks. This may mean that fracturing cannot be done everywhere, but there are certainly places where it is a good option. 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|>contamination, environmental laws, energy, domestic energy production, leaks, energy must, remind, resource extraction, fracturing, popular topics, implications, contamination of ground water, positive, beautiful, stricter regulations, valuable resource, economy, fracking, minimize, concerns, effective, downvotes, us laws, environmental problems, happy cmving, efficiently, environmental degradation, negative aspects, message us, change, option, downvote, questions, cleaner<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that fracking is a good option for energy production and should be pursued. I consider myself an environmentalist.

10d322aa-907d-46c2-97f3-1b7e3caac169

<|TOPIC|>Big government<|ARGUMENT|>"The Case FOR Bureaucracy." GovernmentIsGood.com: "Conservatives like to play on this popular prejudice by constantly equating government with bureaucracy. The comments of Charlton Heston are typical: 'Of course, government is the problem. The armies of bureaucrats proliferating like gerbils, scurrying like lemmings in pursuit of the ever-expanding federal agenda testify to that amply.' Once government is thought of as “bureaucracy,” the case for reducing it becomes obvious. Who could complain if Republicans want to get reduce these “armies of bureaucrats”? Everyone knows that we would all be better off with less bureaucracy and fewer bureaucrats in our lives. So when conservatives want to make shrinking government sound attractive, they say they are cutting 'bureaucracy' – not 'programs.' Most people value government programs – especially in the areas of education, health and the environment – and do not want to see them reduced; but everyone hates bureaucracy. Using the term 'bureaucracy' in this way is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that obscures the real costs of cutting back on government programs."<|ASPECTS|>less bureaucracy, bureaucracy, fewer, popular prejudice, armies of bureaucrats, attractive, sleight-of-hand, costs, real, hates, federal agenda, bureaucrats, shrinking government, value government programs, government, armies<|CONCLUSION|>

Idea of govt as "wasteful bureaucracy" is mostly a myth

cb390ff4-3345-4722-bbd4-2e07f062719e

<|TOPIC|>A "liquid democracy" where individuals digitally vote on policy would be worse than a less representative form of gov't.<|ARGUMENT|>Under a liquid democracy, voters can vote on each topic individually and ensure that their preferences and concerns are represented in a more nuanced and accurate manner than if they just elected a representative to do this.<|ASPECTS|>accurate, preferences and concerns<|CONCLUSION|>

Because voters would be able to vote exactly the way they want on every topic, they wouldn't have to compromise on any of their political views.

4a49de58-3a1a-4332-8498-e2ec78059b38

<|TOPIC|>Is the world of Harry Potter really the place to be?<|ARGUMENT|>The wizarding justice system supports punishments that the Muggle world would easily classify as 'cruel and unusual'.<|ASPECTS|>justice system<|CONCLUSION|>

The justice system in the wizarding world is worse than that of the Muggle world.

60859da0-629c-40d5-ac46-c32c03d293a4

<|TOPIC|>Cruel and Unusual: Should Capital Punishment Hurt?<|ARGUMENT|>In the United States, the states that impose the strongest restrictions on gun owners have the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.<|ASPECTS|>gun-related deaths, rates<|CONCLUSION|>

More access to guns and leaner restrictions on gun-owners causes more firearm murders.

36cfc5e3-e822-4500-885c-0317362e825e

<|TOPIC|>Should "women-only" spaces be open to anyone identifying as female?<|ARGUMENT|>Transgender people face a high risk of prejudice and mental health problems: approximately 41 percent of trans people in the U.S. have attempted suicide according to a 2010 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.<|ASPECTS|>prejudice, suicide, mental health problems<|CONCLUSION|>

True, but in many societies, even developed/mature ones, doing so publicly still often comes with personal sacrifice.

041205b7-be6a-46c5-8a9d-f921965fe549

<|TOPIC|>Is Michelle Carter criminally responsible for Conrad Roy’s Death?<|ARGUMENT|>Roy had already attempted to end his life prior to his ultimately successful attempt, so this was not Michelle Carter's fault.<|ASPECTS|>life<|CONCLUSION|>

Regardless of what Michelle Carter told Conrad Roy to do, it was ultimately his choice to commit suicide.

3445de29-b14f-4b7d-888b-a6d0691daaf2

<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>In the long run high marginal tax rates have a negative impact on the supply by discouraging work, saving, investment, and innovation.<|ASPECTS|>supply, marginal tax rates, discouraging, negative impact<|CONCLUSION|>

A UBI might require higher taxes, which would hurt the economy.

dc781e41-b526-48b5-83ba-91376f5fd907

<|TOPIC|>The Rebel Alliance would defeat the United Federation of Planets in space combat.<|ARGUMENT|>Star Trek has access to metaphasic shield technology, developed by the Ferengi scientist Doctor Reyga TNG: Suspicions. They used this to hide in the corona of a star for over an hour. TNG: Decent Part II. As the corona of a star is mostly plasma, and turbolasers are plasma weapons, it stands to reason that metaphasic shielded ships could withstand bombardment from them for at least an hour, if not several.<|ASPECTS|>metaphasic shield technology, plasma weapons, hide, withstand bombardment<|CONCLUSION|>

The Federation's shields are vastly superior to those of the Rebel Alliance.

5ac02958-277e-4023-b857-25f6dd9dc748

<|TOPIC|>Should Inheritance Be Minimized to Create an Equal Outset for Everyone?<|ARGUMENT|>People are entitled to what they earn, as they gain ownership over the money through their work.<|ASPECTS|>ownership over the money, entitled<|CONCLUSION|>

It is unfair to remove somebody's life work and earnings.

6ee10519-8261-4cd8-b24a-c76484163328

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've always been led to believe that college is necessary to succeed and a must if i want to become somebody . My teachers, my parents, and my friends all have engraved this idea into my brain for as long as i can remember. I am in my Junior year of High School and i have decided that i will not go to college to focus on what i love to do programming. I have a passion for technology and learning, but i believe the education system is holding me back immensely. I live in one of the wealthiest counties in NoVA, so it's safe to say i go to a very good school. However, they do not meet the standards i have set for myself. For one, the teaching is horrid. For the past two years, i have developed a habit of teaching myself almost everything i know through using the internet to my advantage. At this point, the only thing a school provides for me is a syllabus, and i pretty much do the rest. So, i ask, why would i waste 15,000 to do something i could do on my own? That is exactly why i do not want to go to college. There is nothing stopping me from learning to program online and get better. Why waste four years of my life and pay for classes i do not need when i could spend two of those years working on projects and working towards what i really want to. In those two years, i plan to learn as much languages as i can and do as much side projects to get better and build up my resume in the process. Times are changing. To me, a technology enthusiast who loves programming does not need college. I understand why doctors, lawyers, chemists, etc. need college, but i do not see why i do. I do not need a college campus or college degree to learn. Will a company value my degree over my experience and what i could potentially bring to the company?<|ASPECTS|>good school, resume, necessary to succeed, education system, standards, waste, languages, everything, side projects, get better, value my degree, college degree to learn, experience, horrid, syllabus, teaching, college campus, technology and learning, learning to program online, pay for classes, back, changing, wealthiest, loves programming, learn as much, times, college, passion<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't want to go to college, i think it's a waste of time.

9401871f-953f-4a53-ab61-228ff8743c80

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, i've seen this argument come up quite a few times in discussions about gun regulations and the second amendment, but i never understood how anybody could get convinced by this. The reasons why i dislike this argument are these It's improbable that it would work In the case of a civil war of the people against the government , it's highly unlikely that the normal guys with guns would win. Policemen and soldiers are better trained, better equipped and better organized. The revolution would be crushed pretty quickly unless somebody stores ground air rockets in his house. It's unreliable One of the advantages of having separation of powers and an constitution instead of an dictatorship or ochlocracy is that it works pretty reliable. You know the rules, if you follow them everything is okay, if you break them you get punished. Decisions get made, sometimes they aren't perfectly good, sometimes they are unjust, but at least they are comprehensible. Groups of people with guns that make decisions without being bound by laws don't have this advantage. They may create false positives rising up even if the government does nothing wrong and false negatives doing jack shit even if the state turns into a fascist dictatorship It sends the wrong message This one is connected to the last point. Why would i trust the people , a big group of people with no credentials other than living in the same geographic area, over the government , a smaller group of democratically elected or appointed by democratically elected people, who are sworn to the constitution and already have their power limited by the separation of powers and checks and balances?<|ASPECTS|>trust the people, decisions, separation, unjust, comprehensible, false negatives, better trained, improbable, wrong message, separation of powers, better equipped, works, quickly, advantage, bound by laws, crushed, power limited, punished, ground air rockets, okay, revolution, false positives, better organized, reliable, civil war, unreliable, fascist, gun regulations<|CONCLUSION|>

"The right to bear arms is needed to protect the people from an oppressive government" is a bad argument.

c2eb9e27-fcc0-4b77-8f7f-66770b7d3aa5