argument
stringlengths 116
44.5k
| conclusion
stringlengths 8
1.16k
| id
stringlengths 36
36
|
|---|---|---|
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been scripting on three different platforms for a couple years now. Android, Linux, and Windows. Fristly, I'm in no way a pro programmer. All i have experience in really is the above and Python and Javascript. So, take my words with some salt. I've found that Powershell is by the the easiest to maneuver through and by god the whole PS Object system is a god send for time management. Granted, Linux Android have a massive set of cli tools that outshine any tool on windows in a glorious way. But, nowadays, I do think that is starting to change. Powershell is beginning to become very, very, very robust and fleshed out, even based on the few years I have under my hat. To accomplish many of the things I can do in PS native, I have to hop into Python and back again in shell. So . I'm a noob. I might even be wrong about PS even being a native application. I remember reading somewhere that CMD is the actual bread and butter. Anyways, I want to know what I'm missing with shell. <|ASPECTS|>, change, fleshed, missing, cli tools, cmd, hop, native application, outshine, pro programmer, bread and butter, scripting, time management, experience, robust<|CONCLUSION|>
| Powershell is Superior to Bash/Shell.
| 0500ee54-a0c4-441b-9bf6-377ee6914d20 |
<|TOPIC|>Are programs like Alcoholics Anonymous the best way to battle addiction<|ARGUMENT|>AA groups in Australia and the UK have taken action on the issue of sexual predation, by publishing guidelines on banning members from the group who engage in sexual or other kinds of predatory behavior, and having a strict code of conduct on harassment and violence. These measures ensure that safety is not compromised in an attempt to protect anonymity.<|ASPECTS|>safety, anonymity, sexual predation, harassment, predatory behavior, violence<|CONCLUSION|>
| AA groups around the globe are beginning to take a stand against sexually predatory behavior.
| b9c78653-628a-4bd4-a7f5-a56a4fd1399d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>1 Why is it so bad that the great african asian black white giant super endangered albino animal I give two hoots about is dying out? Over the millions of years countless species have been going extinct and new ones have been evolving. This is part and parcel of nature. I could not be fucked to care about or worse spend our scarce resources on some other species suffering when there is already so much to do and fix about our own species poverty, hunger, human rights abuse etc. 2 It is almost egotistical to think that we humans can destroy our planet. The earth is fucking over 4 billion years old. Humans even if we count our ancient ancestors are at most 2 million years old? someone correct me if I am wrong here which is at BEST a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. Modern civilization is at best a true jiffy for the earth. Yes things may be bad while humans are still around. But in no way or another are we able to destroy our planet till it cannot recover Things might be shittier for the future generations due to pollution but that is not the argument here. Environmentalists cry for the damage we do to the earth not the fact that we are going to leave a temporarily shittier earth for future generations For goodness sake, the earth has been through MUCH MUCH MUCH worse things google extinction events and have come out on top.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, true, bad, species, ancient ancestors, earth, animal, jiffy, parcel of nature, dying, human rights abuse, scarce resources, going extinct, hunger, destroy our planet, egotistical, extinction events, years old, shittier, damage, evolving, new ones, humans, part, pollution, endangered, old, poverty, fucking<|CONCLUSION|>
| I honestly dont care about the environment nor any wild animals not PETS
| d9ec9d7e-b020-4def-ad4a-ba05e5732ec6 |
<|TOPIC|>Ethereum and Programmatic Proof-of-Work ProgPow<|ARGUMENT|>All Eth miners invested in ASICs mining will be quite unhappy with their sunk cost being for nothing, if ProgPow is introduced, and counted on letting their mining rigs run for much longer.<|ASPECTS|>sunk cost<|CONCLUSION|>
| ProgPow may cause part of the community to hard fork a non-ProgPow ETH.
| 0ae22834-a4e5-43c9-a56b-50fa6041dbe1 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In most of the growing states and cities in the U.S., there are a number of natives who decry the other people moving in, crowding them, and making their areas less affordable. These people are hypocrites because unless they are actual Native Americans, its more likely than not their ancestors came into the area and did the same to the people living there, and often in much more violent, underhanded and coercive ways. The land they settled in was usually taken by force. In modern times, at least money is exchanged voluntarily for the property most of the time. The people whining about transplants now didn't seem to care about the forces that have allowed them to settle the areas they reside in now, and everyone else should just stay where they are. It seems hypocritical. <|ASPECTS|>hypocrites, , less affordable, underhanded, hypocritical, violent, taken by force, decry, money is exchanged voluntarily, transplants, coercive, settle, forces<|CONCLUSION|>
| People in the U.S. who hate the transplants moving into their cities and states are hypocrites
| 216811af-8b22-442f-9281-f6b10e1c606a |
<|TOPIC|>What is the best "solution" to the Israel/Palestine conflict?<|ARGUMENT|>Considering legal precedent a disengagement of the West Bank would be too costly in terms of monetary compensation<|ASPECTS|>costly, monetary compensation<|CONCLUSION|>
| Israeli settlements would have to be evacuated in order to create a viable Palestinian state.
| 98ed66a1-497a-4a7a-aeb2-da7ecbc22684 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There has been a lot of talk lately about Day Above Ground's song Asian Girls I agree that the song is highly racist but I fail to see how it is any worse or more offensive than other songs that portray women of different ethnicities in very stereotypical ways. I have even heard the argument that the song violently promotes sex with minors. Although it is racist, I fail to see how this song promotes sex with minors and especially violence in the slightest. Although I agree this song is highly racist, I believe it is no worse than other pop culture songs. <|ASPECTS|>racist, offensive, sex with minors, promotes, violence, stereotypical, violently<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't think Day Above Ground's "Asian Girlz" song is any more racist than lots of other mainstream media.
| 7ea80575-4015-4b5b-b678-3564f8604df6 |
<|TOPIC|>Should high-income countries take in refugees?<|ARGUMENT|>The lower social capital and inter-personal trust that has been found in heterogeneous communities can be linked to the prejudices of majority members e.g. Whites in America.<|ASPECTS|>lower, social capital, prejudices of majority members, inter-personal trust, whites<|CONCLUSION|>
| Xenophobia is the real cause of friction between culturally diverse groups.
| 635fc2b2-c4ae-4fca-ac9d-ad99d4f37e0b |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Backstory my supervisor, coworkers and I went out to eat on the last day of school I work on campus . So there are 7 people at the table waiting for the waiter to come and bring us our drinks. There are several small conversations going on at the table when I decide to look at my phone and quickly fill out a survey for an event so I wouldn't forget. It would take 2 minutes. Mind you no one was speaking to me prior and no one was trying to get my attention either. All of a sudden my coworker tries to nudge me in a funny way. That is when I realize my supervisor who is sitting across from me is GLARING at me because I am looking at my phone. Mind you, she was in a conversation of her own so she must have noticed, stopped, and glared. In this situation I feel her response is unwarranted, mainly because my supervisor was not trying to engage me before my cell phone was out. It didn't become negative until she decided to stop and glare at me. I don't think people should take it personally if someone checks their phone in group setting such as that. Although technology should be limited in some areas I believe people have chosen to be overly offended at its use.<|ASPECTS|>get, survey, offended, attention, limited, glaring, take, phone, negative, group setting, small conversations, nudge, unwarranted, technology, personally, glared, response, overly<|CONCLUSION|>
| People being offended or even victimized when others choose to engage in technology mainly cells phones is uncalled for.
| f20eac94-3d7a-4840-87a5-0f70742e2816 |
<|TOPIC|>South Korea should abandon its goal of unification with North Korea<|ARGUMENT|>The income gap between North and South Koreans is staggering, estimated at 29,000 USD, as well as a population of 25 million. This means it has extremely cheap labor.<|ASPECTS|>income gap, cheap labor<|CONCLUSION|>
| Cheap NK labor will be exploited by wealthy domestic and international companies.
| ee9e6d6b-906e-452f-9094-6565be9a9d5f |
<|TOPIC|>Is meat eating immoral?<|ARGUMENT|>This means that we become implicated in the killing of so many sentient beings which is immoral.<|ASPECTS|>sentient beings, immoral, killing<|CONCLUSION|>
| We kill more than 58 billion animals a year worldwide for the production of meat.
| 46612cf0-9e9d-4530-aced-220f6e696d95 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don’t think the events where a well trained animal is performing tricks or stunts, like barrel racing and trick riding, are necessarily inhumane. I am talking about riding a bucking bull or bronco, roping, wrestling, etc. From my view in the stands, it is clear that the animal is an unwilling and unrewarded participant, and that the acts being performed on the animal are abusive. These animals can easily become injured or killed, and for no reason other than entertainment. I think these parts of the rodeo should be illegal, with the entertainment being limited to performances from well cared for, highly trained animals. Some sites explaining my views more clearly The Case Against Rodeos Wikipedia Animal Treatment In Rodeo I recommend the “positions of animal groups” section . Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>unwilling, positions, entertainment, abusive, become, view, highly, performances, unrewarded participant, animal groups, illegal, inhumane, injured or killed<|CONCLUSION|>
| Many events in rodeos are inhumane and should be illegal.
| dbc5b707-b512-4041-8958-ce8e6f372b90 |
<|TOPIC|>Unhealthy Food Should Be Banned From Schools<|ARGUMENT|>Schools can play an important role in combating obesity as people tend to get into habits about how they eat when they are young. Schools can help to make those habits healthy ones. If you don’t eat fresh food and vegetables at home, you might not get to try them and then you are unlikely to cook them for yourself later. Schools can introduce young people to healthy food.<|ASPECTS|>healthy food, healthy, combating, young people, obesity, fresh food, habits<|CONCLUSION|>
| Schools can play an important role in combating obesity as people tend to get into habits about how ...
| 74514f49-cc49-45d4-84ec-a5366c3d872f |
<|TOPIC|>Is Daenerys Targaryen the Prince/Princess that was Promised?<|ARGUMENT|>There is textual evidence of an affair between Aerys II and Joanna: ". the marriage between Aerys II Targaryen and his sister, Rhaella, was not as happy; though she turned a blind eye to most of the king's infidelities, the queen did not approve of his turning my ladies into his whores. Joanna Lannister was not the first lady to be dismissed abruptly from Her Grace's service, nor was she the last".<|ASPECTS|>whores, infidelities, textual evidence<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is also possible that Tyrion is a secret son of Aerys II.
| 658b8bf9-41d3-46bb-a5b1-d58f5a2b5cd1 |
<|TOPIC|>Should religious education be compulsory in public schools?<|ARGUMENT|>It is impossible to state what actually should be the result of religion education. It is impossible to measure belief.<|ASPECTS|>religion education, impossible, measure belief<|CONCLUSION|>
| Religion as a required course causes conflicts in the classroom.
| 4babce37-a9a8-4d3e-b916-22b9a16cc540 |
<|TOPIC|>We should ban private military companies<|ARGUMENT|>private military companies give rise to some unethical practices as they are not under the same scrutiny as government military.<|ASPECTS|>unethical practices<|CONCLUSION|>
| Private military companies are less ethical and violate rights or commit crimes
| d57125cc-9ab8-401d-9443-4ec75157aba8 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Cloning Animals Ethical?<|ARGUMENT|>Cloning animals reduces life's value only to functioning, while most of us humans seek something greater in life than just performing our function, so we shouldn't enforce it on other living creatures as well.<|ASPECTS|>life 's value, functioning<|CONCLUSION|>
| Cloning animals is intervening in natural processes, which humans shouldn't be doing.
| 9b05a827-6f90-49dc-850d-da466adabd71 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I read an article about a family living together in a house in Connecticut. 3 couples, 3 children, and 2 single people who consider themselves a family though they are not related by blood. The city issued a cease and desist order saying they had to leave their house. It looks like they might lose the case. I honestly don't understand why this group of people should not be allowed to co habitate. I come from a large extended family and have lived in a household with close family friends who weren't relatives. I don't really see how this is any different. The article doesn't say anything about this group of folks disrupting the neighborhood. I think that a. this group of people are a family, and b. they should be allowed to stay in their home. Why might I be wrong?<|ASPECTS|>family, leave their house, extended family, co habitate, stay, lose the case, family friends, family living together, related by blood, disrupting the neighborhood<|CONCLUSION|>
| Adults should be able to create families as they see fit as long as human rights are respected
| 3e69192d-3176-499f-8e4b-1a1ba07a3dc5 |
<|TOPIC|>Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence<|ARGUMENT|>assisted suicide should not be an option just because people are in pain as there are other options to help with this<|ASPECTS|>pain, suicide<|CONCLUSION|>
| Assisted suicide should not be allowed because many times people can still get better
| 1c85ed69-2e6d-4de3-8c33-fd3d332a85b6 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The idea that we may possibly defeat death one day and obtain biological immortality is something that I hope for. I can't stand the pro death crap that deathist will spew out about why death is a good thing and we should leave our lifespan alone. These people to me obviously don't have a strong will to live. If death is a good thing then why have hospitals and modern medicine. Why save somebody from death if it is such a good thing. You either want to live or you want to die. You can't want both. But there is one argument by deathist that I have no answer to and it makes me wonder if the deathist maybe are right. If the old generation never dies off and be replaced by the next generation, culture and progress would stagnate. Imagine if the people who burned witches were still alive today. Or the slave owners in American history still existed. People like them will never change their views and if they were immortal than society will not progress. There will be no social progress. The old will keep positions of power due to their experience and the young will be left with nothing in their shadow. Entertainment will not change, If we achieved immortality in the 30s, then today we would all be listening to 30s music. I have long ridiculed many arguments that deathist make on why death is good. And the majority of their arguments are indeed idiotic my favorite one is that death gives us motivation LOL But I think they actually have a point here about cultural stagnation. And it makes me wonder if death, while tragic and terrible, may possibly be a better alternative to stagnation of humanity.<|ASPECTS|>death, positions of power, entertainment, nothing, alive, culture and progress, death is good, immortal, cultural stagnation, defeat death, tragic, want, biological immortality, modern medicine, society, shadow, change their views, still, slave owners, die, strong, social progress, save somebody from death, motivation, deathist, generation, lifespan alone, good, stagnation of humanity, pro death, live, to live, immortality, stagnate, progress, witches, alternative<|CONCLUSION|>
| Indefinite lifespan will lead to cultural stagnation.
| 0a3135ce-6f44-4fb0-aedf-e18bc9666f3d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It is wayyyyyy easier for a woman to find a boyfriend than for a guy to find a girlfriend. It is a lot harder for men to find a girlfriend, unless you are James Bond, famous, tall look like a model, and so forth. Even if a girl is ugly, she still has an easier time looking for a boyfriend. As a male who is 5'5 who is considered somewhat good looking by the opposite sex, I sure do have a hard time finding a girlfriend although I am currently in a relationship now . One case that proves my point is dating websites. Even if a woman is considered not that pretty ugly, the politically incorrect term , they still receive loads and loads of messages while guys struggle. There are 73 guys for every 21 woman on online dating websites, OkCupid being one example I met my girlfriend on OkCupid and she actually agrees with me about the difficulty of males finding finding their significant other. We even see this in the animal kingdom a lot, males having a harder time finding mates, females are just biologically more selective. One theory states they are because they have a limited number of eggs while men having an almost unlimited number of sperm. My case can be proved easily and it seems like biology backs me up. If you have ever noticed, how come it seems like woman never find themselves at the bad end of the friendzone? Here is a great video proving my point as well I would love to hear rebuttals and I am opened to you all changing my view. EDIT 1 I do have to admit, it is really hard to use sources and studies on this. Even researching this on Google did not yield results that backed up my point clearly. EDIT 2 No one has changed my view yet. Any mathematicians here or anyone really proficient with math? If I see a proof I would consider.<|ASPECTS|>finding finding, finding a girlfriend, eggs, studies, proficient with math, easier time looking for a boyfriend, finding mates, dating websites, messages, good looking, unlimited number of sperm, wayyyyyy, boyfriend, biology backs, ugly, bad end, friendzone, easier, harder, hard to use sources, rebuttals, proof, proved easily, find, difficulty, significant, biologically more selective, girlfriend, limited number, struggle, results, changed my view<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is a lot easier for a girl to find a boyfriend than for a guy to find a girlfriend, even if the girl is not good looking
| 091d420d-bf1f-4de0-ab3a-28c05e377368 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Daenerys Targaryen the Prince/Princess that was Promised?<|ARGUMENT|>According to Stannis Baratheon's maester, Dragonstone is "a lonely citadel in the wet waste surrounded by storm and salt", which sounds a lot like smoke and salt.<|ASPECTS|>smoke, wet waste, storm and salt, lonely<|CONCLUSION|>
| Daenerys was born on Dragonstone, a volcanic island smoke in the middle of the sea salt.
| 0294a5fe-a68a-4834-bb58-8edee04298b9 |
<|TOPIC|>Should every country, that operated nuclear facilities care for its own nuclear waste?<|ARGUMENT|>Nuclear waste, if not dealt with, is extremely damaging to the environment. If countries are not made to take care of their nuclear waste then this waste may end up being damaging to the environment.<|ASPECTS|>environment, waste, nuclear waste, damaging, <|CONCLUSION|>
| Every country, that operated nuclear facilities should care for its own nuclear waste.
| a780f326-b1c7-4066-a400-90fa8ac7251e |
<|TOPIC|>Should Hunger Games-Style Tournaments Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>In particular, children are looking for heroes or role models to look up to, both in the real world and increasingly in the mediated world. As they are in the process of developing their own identities, adolescents are likely to look for role models with whom they can identify Konijn, Bijvank, Bushman, p. 2<|ASPECTS|>heroes, role models, identities<|CONCLUSION|>
| The tournaments would elevate these destructive and dangerous individuals from outlaws to influential stars; they could then become role models in a negative way.
| 642c2561-cbb1-44ba-a7bb-242a7b62b5df |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As someone who has spent some years studying communism in its different forms and ideologies, I have come to the conclusion that a world revolution isn't just possible, but is necessary in order to maintain a peaceful existence on earth. Lenin, in his short time as head of the USSR, may have been the only man ever to make communism work the way it was supposed to. To find a leader like Lenin, would mean the greatest of all revolutions. <|ASPECTS|>greatest, communism work, leader, revolutions, peaceful existence, world revolution<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that the world needs a Leninist Revolution.
| 31718ca4-5f8f-4c50-a107-d0c6912da41e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The FDA doesn't approve of little tested substances. People act like these alternative meds come out of the blue and without any history. Little tested by our white man 1st nation approved science labs yes true. But these substances have been tested by humans, sometimes for centuries and millenniums. Sort of the same way animals know what not to eat in the wild. Science is a good objective tool, but could only gain from shedding this ignorance of its environment. Still pretty naive in that aspect IMO, and I think it has a lot to do with the monetary dark ages we're going through. Yes we're seeing more breakthroughs than ever before, so why call dark ages on this one? Well okay let's call it the dim ages instead, to be more precise. This pointing directly at the science for hire, and propaganda from big industries. It fucks good things up, and leads us into the wrong paths, and only a few brilliant minds can sometimes come alone and suggest hey wait, where the fuck are we going? It's actually this way Come on . EDIT Well it was fun getting downvoted and all, but life must go on for me. Thanks for all the info I have been enlightened on many things here. Too bad I get negative response for simply being present in the conversation, trying to extract a little bit more out of some of these responses.<|ASPECTS|>approve, alternative meds, little tested substances, science labs, history, go, naive, tested by humans, downvoted, monetary dark ages, dark ages, ignorance, negative response, tested, life, breakthroughs, animals, brilliant, to eat, little, dim ages, science, environment, know, fucks good things, fun getting, wrong paths, propaganda, objective tool<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that alternative meds are under too much flack from medical practitioners.
| dd04367c-3541-403b-8aa7-2f129e583bcb |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I did UTSE and there is an almost identical topic, but frankly the reasons given didn't go as far as I'd like because OP changed her mind rather quickly. Edit Let's take mothers out of the discussion. That part has been changed to whoever has provided the most best care for the child. I still would like to see something that justifies daycare. I'm reading through replies right now. Edit 2 Delta for showing a significant financial example. If you were to lose out on a lot of money that could benefit the child later in life then the trade off is probably worth it, if there even is a trade off which has yet to be proven. Edit 3 I think we're done here. Some good studies were provided that showed that there was no benefit to having a parent stay home versus daycare, although it seems that this is only true if the daycare in question is a good one. Thanks again to everyone who participated and I really appreciate it as this will shape my views on education going forward. Also, I just want to say that I'm honestly disappointed in the crowd today rolling in and downvoting things for whatever reason. I'm only presenting logical arguments. I've openly renounced some of them upon further discussion. Thank you to those who have participated in a meaningful conversation, and fuck the rest of you. Some context I'm a single male in my 20s. Strongly opposed to having kids, so I don't really have a dog in the fight. So, my view is specifically in the title, but I want to add a couple of points here so we're clear on what my view is When financially possible sound. If losing the other income would make little difference in the child's future then I think a parent should stay home. I believe staying at home is ideal because I think it's important for a young child's development. I've studied the subject as a teacher. Particularly in the formation of language skills, I think it's crucial. A mother parent that talks and reads with their child is going to improve the child's language skills more than a class at age 2 4. I believe daycare is an inferior educational medium because I know how frustratingly stupid education systems can be. And I see a lot of daycares where kids just run around and play, which is healthy, but it can't effectively teach because the children are spending more time interacting with people on their undeveloped level, and not with a fully developed adult. It's just basic math, a 1 1 ratio should be better than 1 10. This is why people pay a private tutor. Plus very young children just aren't mentally developed enough for a traditional educational environment, and I don't know of a model that could be effective at holding a young child's attention without a very high ratio of teachers to students, and that's just not economically viable. What would change my view Basically I want to know if daycare can beat mom a parent at home. I realize not all moms parents are the same, but neither are all daycares. And I believe, though I would love to know if I'm wrong, but the most effective daycares are probably expensive to the point where mom the parent wouldn't have to work anyway. That's all, I'm genuinely curious about it because I debate whether national free health care would be good for society or not, so macro scale arguments matter as well.<|ASPECTS|>frustratingly, , mothers, beat mom a parent, economically viable, discussion, money, best care for the child, inferior educational medium, free health care, ideal, child 's future, basic math, daycare, disappointed, 's attention, identical topic, financial example, mentally developed, child, improve, meaningful conversation, effectively teach, done, language skills, views, young child 's development, subject, renounced, opposed, formation, good for society, trade, take, logical arguments, moms parents, downvoting, play, studied, single male, justifies, daycares, replies, private tutor, stupid education systems, healthy, teacher, financially possible, income, benefit, crowd, arguments, parent stay home, education, expensive, interacting with people, dog<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think mothers should stay at home with their children until they are in elementary school, in lieu of day care
| 8f027abe-81e9-4f5b-b6b8-3c98def73745 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>gt Hello, users of This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing Reason 1 Voting is an act of hiring for a paid position. To vote for someone because they are a certain race, or sex, or sexual orientation, is necessarily to hire them because of their race, sex, or sexual orientation. Reason 2 If we do not believe it is wrong to discriminate when we vote, then we necessarily do not believe it is always wrong to discriminate when hiring. Therefore, we would need a reason to criminalize discrimination in hiring outside of government, and that reason cannot be because discrimination is wrong . Reason 3 If there are substantial negative consequences caused by discriminating in hiring for even the most menial jobs, then surely there are even greater negative consequences for discriminating in hiring for jobs with immense amounts of power. Occupations such as lawmaker, judge, sheriff, President, and Governor provide immense amounts of power. Reason 4 The reason black people faced the high degree of discrimination in the South is because elected officials in local governments created policies and engaged in actions that inhibited their prosperity. City inspectors would fine business owners who hired black people, not for hiring them, but for supposedly violating codes. Police officers would turn a blind eye to damaging the property of black people, making it next to impossible for a black person to maintain a business and work independently from white people. Thus, people in government intentionally restricted the economic freedom of blacks. Reason 5 Although not employer employee relationships, friendship, dating, and marriage are relationships in which people discriminate constantly, yet this is not causing any social problems because government officials do not attempt to encourage or discourage this discrimination. Everyone is free to choose for themselves and regulate their own friendships and romantic relationships. Edit After discussing this with others I realized that I should use the word electing rather than voting as a synonym for hiring . If it is legal to elect someone for et cetera, et cetera, then it should be legal to hire someone for the same.<|ASPECTS|>independently, discriminate constantly, regulate, wrong, hiring, black people, economic freedom, voting, remind, negative consequences, popular topics, happy, race, romantic relationships, paid, fine business owners, legal, concerns, legal to hire someone, effective, damaging the property, prosperity, discrimination is wrong, free to choose, downvotes, discriminate, elect someone, friendships, amounts, power, social problems, change, downvote, electing, blacks, sexual orientation, violating codes, questions, discrimination, synonym<|CONCLUSION|>
| If it is legal to vote for someone because of their race, sex, or sexual orientation, then it should be legal to hire someone for the same reason.
| 01cdea69-e044-4d3d-b426-42066493953b |
<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>According to the Christian Bible, God does not need our praise. However it is the right response when we understand who we are in relation to God and what he has done for us. See Acts 17:24-25<|ASPECTS|>praise, god<|CONCLUSION|>
| Classical theists would not say that God "needs" praise, but is utterly self-sufficient.
| cfa84d9c-0a06-429b-a4d3-43c430a7275e |
<|TOPIC|>Should There Be Religious Exemptions To The Law?<|ARGUMENT|>The picture on a license has to show all of a person's face and hair so they can be fully identifiable.<|ASPECTS|>fully identifiable<|CONCLUSION|>
| This is not harassment, but rather a requirement for overall public safety.
| f1b624c7-5802-47c3-aafa-cad995fb8226 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm mostly talking about majors. For a person like me who is going into undergrad and choosing a major, a foreign language major has better career prospects than a mathematics major. Outside of actuarial science, which has very saturated entry level prospects, there is little that directly relates to a mathematics degree. A foreign language degree, however, provides a path into translation, which has one of the highest growth rate of any occupation and is more open to self employment. And I realize that there are income pay discrepancies, but that's not my focus really. My focus is more on employment ie not being unemployed or underemployed and on America. I know, I know, STEM is good , but I really think translation is an under promoted career so there's a good side to America's poor foreign language education D<|ASPECTS|>unemployed, entry level prospects, growth rate, mathematics degree, translation, employment, career prospects, better, self employment, career, america, poor, underemployed, majors, income pay discrepancies, stem, foreign language education<|CONCLUSION|>
| A career in translation has better employment prospects than a career in mathematics
| 16d228c1-6daf-4193-b896-8fc4a2f5a8dc |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ever since I was a kid I questioned more or less serious if everything is actually real or just some kind of dream. I'm not one of those paranoid people who actually believe that and go crazy, I just love sci fi and philosophy and am wondering if there is an argument good enough to convince me that I'm actually awake. Being in some simulation like in the Matrix movie is a whole different matter to me and is not supposed to be be part of this discussion, this is all about being awake dreaming. I know that dreams are usually very vague and some people claim to not feel their feet while dreaming or pinch themselves to wake up but what if what we consider being awake is just as vague and hazy compared to being ACTUALLY awake?<|ASPECTS|>feet, vague, sci, awake dreaming, awake, real, paranoid, dream, philosophy<|CONCLUSION|>
| I'm asleep, this is all a dream, none of you are real.
| 4e3f4b2b-45ad-4315-816e-aef56a1e0481 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Just to be clear, Im not a Trump supporter. I am just talking about strategy. I think Donald Trump should outright refuse to participate in the debates unless Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are also included. My logic is simple, Donald Trump would benefit because of the following reasons 1 he does better in polls when Johnson and Stein are also included, and the more chaos there is this election, the better chance he has to win, 2 he would speak for less time, making him less likely to make a total and complete ass of himself, 3 he would get the benefit of other people hating on HRC, since Johnson and Stein would likely attack the frontrunner plus, she has policies to attack, he doesn't know anything, so it makes the people attacking her seem more grounded in policy if they do it legitimately , 4 he could use the advocacy of Stein and Johnson as the legitimate basis for a claim the system is corrupt, saying it's not a real democracy unless more voices are included, 5 Trump's only real path to victory is to get a significant portion of the independent vote, what better way to get credibility with independents than to give the third party candidates a platform, 6 he claims he wants to shake up the system, here is his best chance to prove he is not just hot air, 7 he hates the Republican party as much as anyone, so fuck them for rigging the system with the dems to keep the third parties out. 8 it couldn't possibly harm him, considering he is going lose if he doesn't. Change my view. why would it be bad for Trump to refuse to debate with HRC unless the third party candidates were also included.<|ASPECTS|>strategy, bad, outright refuse to participate, trump, view, refuse to debate, harm, lose, trump supporter, third<|CONCLUSION|>
| Donald Trump should refuse to debate HRC unless Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are also included.
| 43e04d12-eb10-46bf-b063-7cb0d9e9a6b8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am deeply opposed to this move by Republicans, as I feel it will incentivize invasion of every citizen's privacy for material gain, but it is only the beginning. Beyond potentially illegal acts, such as companies purchasing users' internet histories to market to them in a form of implicit blackmail, it is also likely that opposition research firms will begin purchasing individuals' histories as well, in order to damage any person they are hired to attack. Lastly, if this information was available to the public, it would certainly also be open to abuse by governments and their allies, whether to attack political rivals, journalists, or persons who accidentally fall into the spotlight. Honestly I do believe that this policy to violate privacy for profit is indeed repugnant and could become very dangerous to our free society. However, I am curious to see if any non libertarian Republicans are willing to come forward and make an honest case for how this is better for American internet users, or for our society. Have at <|ASPECTS|>dangerous, invasion, repugnant, society, damage, better, privacy for profit, free society, material gain, blackmail, violate, illegal, citizen 's privacy, political rivals, abuse, american internet users<|CONCLUSION|>
| Senate Republicans voting to allow telecoms to sell users' internet history is a bad development for ordinary Americans.
| 5a7dd78f-d158-4051-a55e-7c0c5086db65 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>The fact that there are so many guns in circulation is one of the reasons that law enforcement officers are paranoid about traffic stops and makes them more trigger happy. Fewer guns mean police officers don't need to fear for their own safety during a routine stop.<|ASPECTS|>trigger happy, traffic stops, safety, fear, paranoid<|CONCLUSION|>
| The quality of policing would improve if the prevalence of guns were lower.
| 8f5305c0-9e14-48db-aad9-790090ef494e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I will first and foremost admit I am not the most educated on this topic. I am not a chemist nor biologist nor an endocrinologist. However, I hear that steroids can cause many problems including roid rage. I don't trust that in the pursuit of vanity people will do them wisely. There is a good reason they are banned in the United States and that's because it'll create much damage to our bodies when unsupervised. Despite what the community thinks no one can replace a legitimate medical professional. The next logical question would be should all substances that cause some potential damage be banned, and my response would be yes. If you look at death rates for alcohol and tobacco they are astronomical. It would be wise of our country to inhibit the consumption of these substances.<|ASPECTS|>endocrinologist, vanity, roid rage, death rates, wise, replace, potential damage, create, consumption, problems, legitimate medical professional, unsupervised, educated, damage to our bodies, inhibit<|CONCLUSION|>
| Steroids should be illegal since they are dangerous to people.
| 2c0c9f43-dad6-4e10-9205-e3531df05c25 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the Bible be considered a historical document?<|ARGUMENT|>King Benjamin explained the importance of the preservation of events and artefacts in the following words: “were it not for these plates of brass, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.”<|ASPECTS|>artefacts, mysteries of god, ignorance, preservation of events<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Book of Mormon testified that record keeping is critical, particularly in the development and preservation of a civilization. Therefore, the people at that time from 2200 BC to AD 421 were aware of the importance of record keeping and preservation.
| dab8912a-bb75-4a14-b4d3-de1fada75157 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Torture is first of all a violation of human rights. Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights says quite simply, No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There are no exceptions. Torture is also not very effective since the ones being tortured will confess to anything to stop the pain. it is also morally wrong and the evidence gained from it can not be used in legal proceedings. These are the three bases of which anti torture stands. Torture is always wrong Torture must be banned by law unconditionally Not all torture decisions should be morally codified.<|ASPECTS|>stop, wrong, violation, evidence, pain, effective, inhuman, punishment, cruel, degrading treatment, morally codified, torture decisions, morally wrong, torture, anti torture, human rights, exceptions<|CONCLUSION|>
| Torture is Ineffective, Illegal, and Unprincipled.
| 7c6eb23c-57c1-466d-b2f5-05afcc59c2f9 |
<|TOPIC|>Are Men the Biggest Problem Mankind Faces?<|ARGUMENT|>In many countries the practice of religion have drastically reduced over time Each generation is less religious than the former, this will continue until religion is only practiced by minorities in the world.<|ASPECTS|>religion, religious, practice, minorities<|CONCLUSION|>
| Religion and culture will eventually disappear, and so will the need to conform to such strictures.
| 123e7975-0c5d-423a-9bc1-82e55c7d0e2a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To refine this idea In my opinion subreddits particular ly political ones which actively ban or delete user contribution which challenge the ideas espoused by it do more harm than good by creating echo chambers in which missinformation is more likely to spread. Missinformation and echo chambers can cause harm, primarily through causing people to vote and see the world in a way that is not supported by facts and bringing in candidates who platform on falsehoods. Furthermore missinformation and fake news can cause real harm in some extreme cases such as the debunked pizza gate incident where a man shot up a popular pizza restaurant under the false belief that he was saving children trapped in a sex slave ring. Obviously subreddits should have moderation, but I personally feel this should be limited to removing obvious troll and unconstructive posts. In some political subreddits, stating factual information which happens to highlight flaws in ideology or simply fails to tow the party line within the subreddit can warrant a ban because the subreddit is meant to be a safe space and contradictory information is unwelcome. By banning users who attempt to correct or debunk falsehoods which further the subreddits agenda, the subreddit gives a platform for fake news and missinformation to spread and cause harm. Furthermore, I am of the opinion, that if you are secure in your beliefs, then surely you should be secure enough in them to defend your worldview from opposing viewpoints. Hopefully this doesn't come back to bite me in an ironic way. Banning silencing people presenting reasonably backed up contributions which challenge your viewpoint is something that should be relegated to an Orwellian dystopia, not a platform for free speech and open sharing of information such as Reddit.<|ASPECTS|>contradictory information, saving children, sharing of information, safe space, harm, dystopia, fake news, bite, secure, free speech, sex slave, unconstructive posts, cause, flaws in ideology, contributions, user contribution, opposing viewpoints, worldview, moderation, missinformation, obvious troll, echo chambers, falsehoods, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>
| Safe Space subreddits do more harm than good.
| 45d1b1a0-faaf-4037-8e3b-f3bf93025216 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Conduct in Virtual Reality be Subject to the Laws of the Real World?<|ARGUMENT|>Threatening, intimidating, and emotionally abusing are just a few of the actions that can lead to a domestic violation charge, despite no physical harm being committed.<|ASPECTS|>emotionally abusing, domestic violation, physical harm, intimidating, threatening<|CONCLUSION|>
| Many actions without any physical effects are already crimes that are enforced.
| 5cb92b7c-ac9c-4691-bdc3-6bc9f613e04a |
<|TOPIC|>Harmonisation of Taxation within the European Union<|ARGUMENT|>Environmental taxes e.g. on fuel, energy, emissions, etc. and pro-health taxes e.g. on alcohol and tobacco will only be effective within the single market if their levels are harmonised in the cause of the common good. Currently, governments’ attempts to meet their Kyoto targets and to improve the health of their citizens are undermined by cross-border tax competition. This is especially obvious near borders between EU countries, e.g. Northern Ireland and Eire petrol taxes, Britain and France petrol, tobacco and alcohol taxes.<|ASPECTS|>taxes, single market, cross-border tax competition, effective, harmonised, improve, emissions, kyoto, health, pro-health taxes, common good, environmental taxes<|CONCLUSION|>
| Environmental taxes e.g. on fuel, energy, emissions, etc. and pro-health taxes e.g. on alcohol an...
| 42ad3da7-6180-45ff-ba77-6c12278f971e |
<|TOPIC|>Populist results, such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, are signs of a healthy democracy.<|ARGUMENT|>Many sources have reported that the Brexit campaign was founded on the basis of lies and deception. This was not an informed vote, but a maliciously misinformed vote. This is not what populism should be, as it does not allow people to demonstrate their sentiment on issues based on factual, accurate campaigns for each side of the vote.<|ASPECTS|>sentiment, misinformed vote, informed vote, deception, lies, maliciously<|CONCLUSION|>
| Populism is founded on poor political practices such as scare-mongering and fake news. Democracy cannot function under these conditions.
| e8ea6f6c-ee12-4b29-a43b-9d4bed3d55fc |
<|TOPIC|>Ground zero mosque<|ARGUMENT|>"what about the feelings, and for that matter the rights, of America’s Muslims—some of whom also perished in the atrocity?"<|ASPECTS|>atrocity, feelings, perished, rights<|CONCLUSION|>
| Feelings of 9/11 victims important, but what about Muslims?
| 0887bbf9-361b-433e-8fec-128851a4a0a3 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me begin by stating the I don't believe human beings have any inalienable rights. There is nothing special about Homo Sapiens. We are just an advanced breed of monkey on a large rock in a universe of incomprehensible volume. That is not to say that life is worthless, after all, I am writing this post. But rather that life has no intrinsic value. nbsp Humans are quite simply a product of 4 billion years of evolution by natural selection. This process did not have any respect for so called moral rules, nor any compassion for the weak. The result of this was the development of the most complex thing in the known universe the human brain. nbsp In our modern society, natural selection is no longer a signifigant factor that affects which individuals are able to reproduce. It is true that there are people who die from genetic defects before the age of sexual maturity, but these are the exceptions, rather than the rule. nbsp With no selective factors to limit breeding, human beings are free to breed as often as they want, with whomever they want. The problem with this is that human beings of lower intelligence tend to reproduce at a higher frequency than those with higher intelligence. This is virtually undisputed in the scientific community. This will unquestionably lead to a general decline in the average intelligence of humans. This selective factor in favour of lesser intelligence will likely lead to an devolution of our brain. Just as tapeworms devolved their digestive tracts because they weren't needed, human beings could devolve their intelligence if intelligence is not of benefit to our reproductive success. nbsp In order to prevent this, in the name of building a better society, we must implement restrictions on reproduction. I do not argue for killing anybody. I do not believe that a society conductive to happiness is one where the state has the right to kill its own citizens. Rather, I support a system where certain individuals with undesirable genetic traits are prevented from reproducing in the first place. nbsp Many people may claim that the state has no right to restrict the freedom of an individual in that way. I, however, would object to the notion of human rights all together. Human rights are the result of a social contract. We do not murder because we do not want to be murdered. Therefore, it was conductive to the success of individuals to form moral rules such as thou shall not kill . If it was beneficial to the success of society, and the individuals who are therein united under it, moral standards could change. nbsp There are two reasons most people have such a strong objection to Eugenics. First, it is the association of Eugenics with genocide. I do not support genocide. In fact, I do not even believe in the death penalty. The reason most people associate Eugenics with genocide is because of the association between Eugenics and Nazi Germany. While it is true that Nazi Germany practiced Eugenics, this is not to say that Eugenics entails killing anyone, let alone entire races. nbsp Second, the impact of Christianity on our morality is alive and well. Christianity preaches an outdated moral code which is only kept alive by tradition and indoctrination. I rarely agree with Karl Marx, but it is true that religion is the opiate of the people. Rather than acting to build a better society here on earth, people would rather live in a fantasy world where they will receive eternal salvation if they submit to a doctrine that imposes unjustified moral rules on people. Even those who reject the Christian faith, accept uncritically its moral judgements. nbsp Other societies which were not based on Judo Christian values did not have the same qualms about Eugenics that most people have today. In Sparta, infanticide of infects who were perceived to be weak was common. Even in Athens, great thinkers did not have any objections to Eugenics. Plato himself was a great supporter of the practice. In The Republic, he outlines his ideal state, which is based on Eugenics and rule by Philosopher Kings . I remember when I read The Republic for the first time how aghast I was at some of the ideas Plato presented. Now, I can recognize the wisdom of Plato's ideas and how my previous reaction to them, and that of most people, is based on unjustified assumptions about morality. nbsp Based on this, it is clear to me that our objection to Eugenics based on religious and emotional objections, rather than reason. However, I am always open to evaluating my beliefs and adopting new ones if they are not based on reason and empirical evidence. nbsp <|ASPECTS|>, unjustified, success, life is worthless, devolution of our brain, unjustified assumptions, supporter, society, decline, scientific, life, genetic defects, moral judgements, moral code, undesirable genetic traits, murder, digestive tracts, devolved, evolution, special, genocide, morality, beneficial, nazi germany, success of society, infanticide of infects, incomprehensible volume, human rights, moral rules, selective factor, killing anyone, breeding, impact, association, devolve, alive and well, compassion for the weak, tradition, restrict, freedom of an individual, want, eternal salvation, homo sapiens, average intelligence, undisputed, argue, killing anybody, intrinsic value, respect, prevented, social contract, ideas, outdated, objections, reason, free to breed, higher frequency, values, eugenics, religion, indoctrination, opiate of the people, natural selection, death penalty, inalienable rights, qualms, moral standards, nothing, ideal state, lower intelligence, signifigant factor, intelligence, evaluating my beliefs, murdered, better society, empirical evidence, complex thing, religious and emotional objections, weak, support, reproducing, reproductive success, happiness, right, restrictions on reproduction, citizens, benefit, reproduce, selective factors, objection, rule by philosopher kings, right to kill<|CONCLUSION|>
| I support Eugenics
| bc89361d-4e8d-4d49-ac5f-d22b1709a4b7 |
<|TOPIC|>explore the universe<|ARGUMENT|>Since Sputnik was launched in 1957, the space race has given rise to an infrastructure, particularly in the United States and Russia, which can be exploited for economies of scale. The cost of developing shuttles and training astronauts is far cheaper in Cape Carnarvon where the necessary equipment and skills lie to do so. Furthermore, the International Space Station costs upwards of $100 billion, however it serves as a terminal where shuttles can thereafter be pointed to any corner of the universe1. The potential therefore is to save costs by using the existence of the ISS as a stepping stone to elsewhere. To not use fifty years of space development and technology is to render all that investment meaningless. 1 Kaku, M. 2009, July 16 The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes improve this<|ASPECTS|>meaningless, equipment and skills, cost of space exploration, cost, costs, investment, exploited, save, economies of scale, cheaper, infrastructure<|CONCLUSION|>
| State-sponsored space programs can utilize the infrastructure built up in the last half-century, and therefore be substantially cheaper
| 79d2090a-8de9-4d3f-b214-4fbe7f243bd1 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Background In episode 1312 of the JRE podcast Ms Pat admits to having hit her kids I slapped all of 'em at the same time and threatened physical violence I told 'em I was gon' fuck 'em up DISCLAIMER 1 I haven't watched the entire episode, just bits of it. If there was anything said that puts the 'hitting her kids' stuff in another light then I apologize. DISCLAIMER 2 Some may think this is a very strange and that my view is completely uncontroversial. That is wrong I posted my doubts about Ms Pat hitting her children on the Joe Rogan subreddit and was downvoted, cussed at, and told that I should be slapped. Obviously I have a controversial view here so I am looking for people to show me how I could be mistaken. For the sake of clarity I am not claiming that Ms. Pat is a bad person, or that Ms. Pat does not love her children. In fact, I think Ms Pat is generally an awesome person. I am only claiming that Ms Pat should not hit her children or threaten them with physical violence. I have two main arguments for my position Hitting children generally has more negative consequences than good ones. Any reasonable aim that Ms Pat sought to achieve could have been achieved in a non violent manner. Furthermore, I believe that my first point is the consensus opinion among psychologists experts in child development – but I have no evidence for that belief at all.<|ASPECTS|>downvoted, reasonable aim, love her children, negative consequences, non violent manner, hitting her children, consensus opinion, physical violence, awesome person, cussed, kids, bad person, controversial view, uncontroversial, strange<|CONCLUSION|>
| Ms Pat should not hit her children or threaten them with physical violence.
| 585cbae9-305d-4275-8fbe-e4ec02791d51 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel that with everything we don't understand on our own planet and with all the problems we continue to have on our own planet, it is unnecessary and wasteful to have the government spend money on space programs. I think that the resources used for space exploration could be better used to help fix some of the problems on our own planet, or fund scientific research for things on Earth that would better benefit the citizens of the world. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>citizens, programs, wasteful, benefit, fix, resources, scientific research, view, problems, fund, unnecessary<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that the government shouldn't fund space research programs.
| f4511fe5-6f17-4870-bdde-3ee8402043ef |
<|TOPIC|>Is taxation theft?<|ARGUMENT|>In 1910, a group of 10,000 farmers and other volunteers built a road spanning all of Iowa in one hour This project was completed in a non-compulsory fashion, and the benefits are shared by all of society.<|ASPECTS|>benefits<|CONCLUSION|>
| Roads infrastructure were built and maintained prior to the "legal" existence of income tax in 1913 The US Government paid for military, wars, etc. without confiscating income from private citizens.
| 594b6b19-ac80-4b95-b4a1-42eb2c6da3f1 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What does such a sentence even mean? Can I be a horse born in a human body just by claiming it? Sex is solely determined by the sex chromosome, and there isn't anything else to it. I understand if someone likes to assume roles that are not traditionally linked to their sex, or dress that way. But that's not them being a man in a woman's body or the other way around, it's society's expectations being too conservative so that it is viewed as surprising for some. Short haircut and drinking beer doesn't make you a man, having a Y chromosome does.<|ASPECTS|>, human, sex, short, man, conservative, society 's expectations, horse, assume roles, sex chromosome<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is no such thing as a man born in a woman's body
| 6f092824-576b-44d0-ab31-864446cf0744 |
<|TOPIC|>The Trilemma of the Maroons<|ARGUMENT|>As a result, we become part of slavery institutions. This means that if slavery is overthrown, then we will also be harmed.<|ASPECTS|>slavery institutions, harmed, slavery<|CONCLUSION|>
| By supporting the British, we would help prop up a regime that is cruel to a large portion of the population.
| 696ead9b-7308-456a-8380-073f9d9e788f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hip hop has become mainstream music. Songs containing some variation of the N Word routinely rank high on song charts. Drakes 0 to 100 The Catch Up got as high as 35th of the Billboard top 100 with the refrain of the song prominently featuring nigga with the second line containing the word Fuck bein' on some chill shit We go 0 to 100 nigga, real quick and the outro of the first half of the song containing nigga every other line. Kanye West's All of the Lights got to 18 on the billboard top 100, it was also nominated for three Grammys including Song of the Year and won two Grammys Best Rap Song and Best Rap Sung collaboration. It includes several uses of the word nigga and draws attention to it with emphasise in this portion of the song Something wrong. I hold my head. M.J. gone, our nigga dead There are countless examples of incredibly popular songs containing variations of the N Word, these are just two examples I pulled because everyone knows Drake or Kanye and how popular they are. I believe white people should be allowed to quote along with these songs in their entirety without censoring the portions that contain the N Word. I've been to several parties that have many people of many different races in attendance and these types of songs are played quite often. It is always odd when an entire portion of the party ceases to quote along with the song as another portion does and I believe it just draws attention to the racial divide that this word creates. I am not advocating for widespread usage of the N word. My point isn't that white people should have free usage of the N word but I do believe in the context of singing along to a song that it shouldn't be frowned upon and shouldn't be seen as offensive, especially considering how popular hip hop has become. I'd equate it to anything else that is offensive, out of context quoting a recent episode of True Detective I'll come back and butt fuck your father with your mom's headless corpse on this lawn. Out of context, telling someone you're going to butt fuck their father with their mom's head would be incredibly offensive, but in a discussion about the show or while rewatching the show with others it is perfectly acceptable to say something that would otherwise be offensive.<|ASPECTS|>incredibly, racial divide, chill, offensive, free usage, fuck, popular, mainstream music, quote, songs, widespread usage, song charts, white, white people, fuck their father, nigga, rank<|CONCLUSION|>
| White people should be allowed to say Nigga or any other variation of the N-Word when singing along with a song that includes those terms.
| 549cb635-b697-4a69-a616-2eaec313522d |
<|TOPIC|>Global overpopulation is a myth.<|ARGUMENT|>Humankind is an interesting and valuable step in the Story of Earth: First mineral forms, then organic forms, then basic living forms, then more complex living forms, then smart and creative forms such as humans.<|ASPECTS|>creative<|CONCLUSION|>
| 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.
| d4b57106-264f-4883-8e4a-b5a6ad9bba68 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okey doke. So, I'm normally extremely cautious with forming opinions on the majority of political topics, because the issues seem far too complex for me to have enough info to actually form an opinion I can personally trust. That being said, from what I can currently gather, felony disenfranchisement in the U.S. doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense What is Felony Disenfranchisement? Felony disenfranchisement for those unaware, is excluding persons otherwise eligible to vote from voting known as disfranchisement due to conviction of a criminal offence . 48 of the states in the U.S practice some form of this, ranging from disenfranchisement until incarceration is complete, to disenfranchisement until parole is complete, to disenfranchisement until probation is complete. There are several other states which have more complicated forms of disenfranchisement. You can find the complete list of which states perform which forms of disenfranchisement here Why should criminals be allowed to vote in the first place? I don't think that this is the right way to phrase the question. If we phrase the question this way, we're assuming that criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote. I think that if we're going to take the rights of a citizen away, we should provide a well reasoned argument backed by data. Voting rights shouldn't be taken away unless we can show that criminals shouldn't have voting rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that taking the voting rights of criminals without providing sufficient justification is constitutional. Plaintiffs, who had been convicted of felonies and had completed their sentences, brought a class action against California’s Secretary of State and election officials, challenging a state constitutional provision and statutes that permanently disenfranchised anyone convicted of an “infamous crime,” unless the right to vote was restored by court order or executive pardon. Typically in voting rights cases, states must show that the voting restriction is necessary to a “compelling state interest,” and is the least restrictive means of achieving the state’s objective. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that the state had no compelling interest to justify denying them the right to vote. The California Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional. On appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a state does not have to prove that its felony disenfranchisement laws serve a compelling state interest. To be fair, the SC correctly interpreted the constitution amendments, in my opinion. It isn't actually unconstitutional to bar criminals from voting without showing why, as the fourteenth amendment states that the the government cannot disenfranchise a citizen from voting, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime . However, this still leaves my question unanswered why should an amendment allow criminals have their right to vote taken from them? I think that the strongest argument in favor of removing criminal's right to vote would have to be that, by giving a criminal the right to vote, they will deliberately use their vote to worsen the state. For example, an individual convicted for dealing illegal substances will vote in favor of any laws that allow them to more easily distribute illegal substances. Essentially, criminals aren't concerned with helping the state they are concerned with making it easier to perform illegal activities. However, I don't understand why this justification for disenfranchisement is only applicable to criminals. It assumes that, because they were convicted of a crime, the decisions they make in their own self interest are deliberately performed to harm the state. However, this certainly cannot be the case, as civilians arguably also can vote mainly in their own self interest. For example, a content creator might wish to extend the length of his soon to expire copyright if he does not do so, he will not gain as much income per year. He decides to support candidates that agree with his stance. Both of these examples have an individual who supports the legalization of a practice which is currently illegal . They support these legalizations for their own self interest. However, the criminal has had his ability to vote taken away, as he has shown an abundantly clear support for this illegal practice. Why does this mean that his ability to vote should be taken away? Is violating a law evidence that one is deliberately working to worsen the state? Is supporting a currently illegal practice via performing that practice a clear effort to worsen the state? Is my analogy oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything useful to the discussion? I'm actually asking I'm confused I can't support felony disenfranchisement until I understand why a criminal's right to vote should be taken away based on the fact that they have committed a crime Anyways, I'm hoping to expand my knowledge on the topic, as I'm skeptical of how simple an issue it seems. It may appear that way to me, but that could just be my own ignorance to other factors that I haven't been able to find via light research and moderate reasoning. I could just be too idealistic, and not actually seeing any of the logistics behind allowing criminals to have rights, or I could have researched the issue too poorly to have come across data supporting felony disenfranchisement. 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|>complicated forms, crime, rights, support candidates, criminal 's, illegal, moderate, compelling, remind, harm the state, ability to vote taken, rebellion, probation, complex, committed, incarceration, popular topics, least restrictive, right to vote, perform illegal activities, rights of a citizen, ignorance, violating, felonies, felony disenfranchisement, self interest, criminal, support, voting rights, class, helping, ability to vote, complex situation, constitution amendments, concerns, easier, effective, disenfranchised, downvotes, disenfranchisement laws, happy cmving, voting restriction, unconstitutional, copyright, permanently, reasoned argument, correctly interpreted, worsen the state, individual, criminals, illegal practice, justification, disenfranchisement, easily distribute illegal substances, message us, change, downvote, income, oversimplifying, compelling interest, questions, disfranchisement, vote, cautious, disenfranchise a citizen, opinions, state interest<|CONCLUSION|>
| Felony Disenfranchisement is not sufficiently justified, as performing a crime does't render one's political views invalid.
| 310c87cb-4168-4ccf-88d6-d6ebe49df679 |
<|TOPIC|>Should governments use open source software?<|ARGUMENT|>For instance the Brazilian government’s decision to adopt open source software for its housing department in 2005 has saved it $120m a year. Given that around the world governments spend over $20bn a year on software, the potential for total cost savings is enormous. The money saved can be used to fund more important government expenditure like healthcare or education.<|ASPECTS|>money saved, fund, open source software, cost savings, government expenditure<|CONCLUSION|>
| While open source software is not always free, it tends to be significantly cheaper than closed source alternatives and can save governments money.
| 9e4317ae-b512-4426-b3e1-4897603d4234 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Born and raised American here. I'm not a vegan. I absolutely love cheese, however I find the very idea of American cheese to be disturbing and disgusting. A German friend of mine once said, leave it to the Americans to create a cheese that isn't actual cheese. This is actually completely correct. American cheese technically isn't cheese. It's a processed cheese product, meaning it has more than 51 of its constituents being additional ingredients AKA additives. Before the grilled cheese police comes through, I'd like to point out that cheddar, muenster, swiss, and provolone are all superior especially when mixed inside of grilled cheeses. Edit This post is only in relation to culinary creations trying to maximize deliciousness. If we are purposely trying to make gross food, then of course I would use American cheese over other types. <|ASPECTS|>, american, processed, additives, vegan, superior, disturbing, gross food, disgusting, maximize, deliciousness, actual, cheese, additional ingredients, completely, correct<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is never a situation in which American cheese should be used instead of another type of cheese.
| d20bf1a8-d679-4776-88c9-806e4e9186e0 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I keep hearing about people I know who create risks for themselves and do not confront the enabling conditions that could prevent the consequences. 1 My good friend is dating a woman is controlling like reading his texts and emails controlling and is likely setting himself up for a life of misery and refuses to confront his circumstances despite having a list of complaints. 2 An elderly family member is driving despite having no sight in one of their eyes. He is increasing his risk of an accident. My own grandfather drove well into his 90s and has, on at least one occasion, accidentally rear ended another driver at very low speeds, thank god . 3 I know parents who neglected and dismissed their children when they were young only to express and desire for a relationship later on and get rejected and dismissed. I believe all of these people are enabling the accidents consequences of their circumstances. I have no sympathy for anyone who experiences the consequences of their own choices. These people are all reaping what they have sown and don't deserve my sympathy for their conditions. Further, it is destructive for me to have any sympathy for them because, by sympathizing with someone who has it coming , I only set myself up for disappointment. Implicit question should I feel sympathy for these people and how would that function constructively?<|ASPECTS|>enabling conditions, relationship, , accidentally, elderly family, sympathy, consequences, dismissed, disappointment, accident, accidents consequences, neglected, risks, sight, conditions, choices, rejected, desire, risk, rear ended another, life of misery, circumstances, dismissed their children, low speeds, destructive, feel, sympathy for, controlling<|CONCLUSION|>
| People who enable their own consequences and dilemmas don't deserve sympathy
| c8e6e778-34a1-4c71-8556-2bb6c5b2998e |
<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>Terms like "white supremacist" can be interpreted in both stricter and broader ways. Even if now there are only true neonazis being silenced, the censorship could expand to other groups which don't directly advocate hate against racial minorities.<|ASPECTS|>white supremacist, racial minorities, hate, censorship<|CONCLUSION|>
| White supremacists, like followers of any other political ideology, deserve to have their voices heard.
| 81cbb686-dcdd-4858-82ce-f4e88b326dea |
<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Moral judgments are sometimes conflicted. It is possible to feel a strong emotional compulsion to reject a duty.<|ASPECTS|>moral judgments, emotional compulsion<|CONCLUSION|>
| Moral judgments aren't necessarily emotional judgments made in the moment.
| e0632c76-9893-4529-9e77-f0d01a0d03e0 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Hunger Games-Style Tournaments Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>This is particularly harmful as not everyone who wants to compete will necessarily be able to. Thus some of these people will take their violence out on regular people on the streets.<|ASPECTS|>harmful, violence<|CONCLUSION|>
| We would not want role models who encourage violence in society. This will cause more people to lead a violent lifestyle.
| 37702d5c-2463-440c-81e4-1bc9bcc1d688 |
<|TOPIC|>Is genuine belief unnecessary in worship?<|ARGUMENT|>Constant worship of God is what creates true belief in God's existence, not vice versa.<|ASPECTS|>god 's existence, worship of god<|CONCLUSION|>
| Action and experience precede belief. Reversing this order is not possible.
| 4c46f5eb-60b4-4f94-8af9-61701f969bdc |
<|TOPIC|>Should Zoos Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Enjoyment on its own cannot justify anything. Many people enjoy taking drugs but this can't be the reason to generally let them do it.<|ASPECTS|>enjoy taking drugs, justify, enjoyment<|CONCLUSION|>
| Human enjoyment is not a justification for particularly cruel practices.
| ea62b48c-aba4-481f-9ba6-5f4b4468d11a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My girlfriend told me that she can't develop a normal self esteem when I'm constantly criticising what she does. I am in fact telling her how she could do things better very often. Things I would say are Why don't you just hold it like that? or Why do you do it like that? You could do it like I am also kind of an asshole when she does something wrong that affects our situation negatively. I will make her feel bad about it and then I realize that she suddenly gets really small and silent and then it tears me apart when I realize that I hurt the person I love the most again. And then an hour later I have done it again. I feel like I'm kind of lying when I don't point out that I realized something negative. If I did it feels like I'm just ignoring the negative part and celebrating the positive part but that pretentious isn't it? I think so about my own actions too. I always tell a friend when I fucked something up because it would feel like lying if i didn't do so. I realize that it makes my girlfriend feel really bad about herself and we would have a much nicer relationship if I wasn't like that. I also see that what I do is not neccessary. When I was with my friends recently I realized that I'm not only like that when I'm with my girlfriend. I criticise my friends pretty much too. They just don't mention it and I guess it doesn't bother them so much because they aren't around me all the time. I often have fights with my mother where I get loud fast and I guess others would say I get aggressive. I think because I feel like I can't defend myself when I don't get big and loud. I think I'm actually really scared of what will happen when I don't act like I do. Maybe I fear to lose control? Please help me to change my view and the way I act . Edit formatting. Edit 2 I am 20, my girlfriend is 19. Edit 3 Thank you all for your answers and efforts. They helped a lot more than I expected. Edit 4 I think I should mention I didn't do so already to protect the privacy of my gf that my girlfriend has got an eating disorder and is very sensitive when it comes to criticism. I am not an abusive monster. Although I think the people who said that I act abusive are right<|ASPECTS|>eating disorder, protect, answers and efforts, actions, asshole, loud fast, ignoring, negative part, affects, pretentious, bother, things better, act abusive, nicer relationship, lying, fear, lose control, negative, positive, neccessary, normal, criticism, privacy, abusive monster, criticising, situation negatively, edit formatting, scared of what, hurt, change my view, criticise my friends, aggressive, sensitive, feel really bad, girlfriend, defend, small and silent, fights, helped, self esteem<|CONCLUSION|>
| I feel like I'm lying when I don't criticise things.
| d6955910-95ac-48d0-8e5f-7854e0f21e22 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think we all come with an ingrained and learned tribal herd morality that persists because it makes us more likely to thrive. I personally find rape, murder, c abhorrent. Living in line with the morality I've been taught makes me happier, but I believe this is because I have been conditioned to do so. But I don't think there's something objectively wrong with anything we find bad.<|ASPECTS|>objectively wrong, conditioned, rape, morality, murder, happier, tribal herd morality, abhorrent, thrive<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't believe in any objective morality.
| 893ff5b8-67f7-48ba-95cf-f09ef5f7d7d2 |
<|TOPIC|>Should selective breeding of animals be prohibited?<|ARGUMENT|>Puppy mills often do not remove sick dogs from their breeding pool, which means that puppies from these types of breeding facilities are prone to congenital and hereditary health conditions<|ASPECTS|>congenital and hereditary, sick dogs, health conditions<|CONCLUSION|>
| Puppy mills are only focused on making a profit and have little regard for the health of the resulting dogs.
| 115fd85e-726e-42c1-aebb-d5d0292eb879 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Religious Exemptions to Discrimination Laws Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>Women commonly strive to create exclusive environments in their workplaces. Examples are women-only networking and all-female co-working spaces If women-only work environments and associations are acceptable, ones that discriminate against them should be as well.<|ASPECTS|>work, women-only, discriminate, exclusive environments<|CONCLUSION|>
| Other groups also protect and celebrate their group identity by excluding individuals whose presence could be considered invasive, wrong or dangerous to the group.
| 25b76bd9-826c-4176-94e4-5baacca13e58 |
<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>Donors are often attracted to charities with a royal patron, as it increases their chances of meeting or being affiliated with members of the royal family.<|ASPECTS|>family, charities, chances, affiliated, patron<|CONCLUSION|>
| Royal patronage of an organisation can lead to a growth in public support and fund-raising.
| cf9e47f5-f62b-4bbc-96e4-468a15251e4d |
<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>Other factors are needed to bring about authoritarianism, such as "freedom to create opposition political parties or other alternative political groupings with which to compete for power with the ruling group is either limited or nonexistent in authoritarian regimes.<|ASPECTS|>authoritarianism, authoritarian, freedom to create<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are many contributors to authoritarianism; political correctness does not carry that full load.
| cbce6a33-353f-4609-932a-1d9bd89b9b71 |
<|TOPIC|>Does Science Leave Room for Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>The concept of free will in itself is socially learnt. Your will is free in opposition to certain constraints you perceive to have. But what you perceive to be a constraint is defined by the environment you grew up/live in. And you will also oppose these constraints only in ways you know exist e.g. your travel issue cannot at this stage be solved by teleportation although a century in it might be thus allowing for free will to be predicted. And is it really free if it is predictable?<|ASPECTS|>oppose, predictable, travel issue, socially learnt, free, constraints, constraint, teleportation, environment<|CONCLUSION|>
| Scientific and serious research done by Behaviour Analysis confirms that we respond to the world, thus proving that free will doesn't exist .
| c3ffbe96-0056-4449-8b55-2b22de3e6fd0 |
<|TOPIC|>Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism<|ARGUMENT|>As creationism does not fit the definition of "science", it is not even addressed by the law cited in the introduction to this discussion. The act specifically allows to discuss "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories". It is a very false conclusion that because evolution is both scientific and a hypothesis, any other hypothesis must be scientific as well. Creationism is lacking the key point of anything that could even remotely be called science, namely testability and falsifiability. Evolution posesses this property: There may one day be actual evidence that the theory is incorrect, such as a modern human fossil being found in a layer of soil that dates back aeons. Given enough such incidents, one could reasonably claim that evolution has been disproved and that there must be a better model to approximate reality. This is what commonly happens in the world of science. As a prominent example one may cite our views on atoms: They have been refined from "they are tiny multi-symmetrical grains" to the detailled analysis of sub-atomic particles we see today. This took innumerable steps, and yet we know for sure that our theories will never be accurate enough to describe reality. However, such a process is impossible with creationism, as it is based on a belief. In theory, it could very well be true - God could have created C14 signatures in such a way that they would appear billions of years old to a modern researcher, and we could never know. This may be applied to each and every other aspect of research on the foundations of our universe. But excactly because we can never know, creationism can never be subjected to scientific analysis, and thus cannot qualify as scientific or science. It can only be subject to belief: You may well chose to believe that the creation happened excactly as described in the bible, as an omnipotent being would surely have the power to defy the laws of physics and just 'make things be'. Thus, in theory, any contradictory evidence such as the C14 signatures may be dismissed based on belief in an omnipotent being, whose non-existance may never be disproved either due to the laws of logic. For this reason, creation may never be falsified, cannot be called a scientific theory and is not addressed by the law cited above. Hence, its discussion should not be supported by the state.<|ASPECTS|>particles, describe reality, disproved, falsifiability, defy, signatures, scientific, non-existance, things, falsified, scientific strengths, creation may, accurate, testability, evidence, creationism, science, scientific analysis, scientific theory, old, scientific weaknesses, approximate reality, better model, evolution, belief<|CONCLUSION|>
| As it is not science creationism should not even be covered by the Tennessee law
| 3ba66c75-683c-44a9-80a1-08590b89b482 |
<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>If we assume that these correlation effects are due to personality traits and not environmental factors. With for example high level of neuroticism. Then anything that triggers negative emotions or interpretations will do so. Without it necessarily having to be due to discrimination or racism as reported in the study.<|ASPECTS|>environmental factors, personality traits, correlation effects, racism, neuroticism, negative emotions, discrimination, level<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is just speculation to assume that revisiting an experience, would be deepening the supposed adverse effects of the real experience.
| 58943ff0-b11e-4b61-963e-7ee70f27c289 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you take the question literally, the first egg predates the chicken by approximately 300 million years Amniotes, which includes the ancestors of the chicken, evolved the ability to lay eggs as a way of producing young outside of water bodies. Chickens, however, are a species that were first domesticated approximately 6000 years ago If that's not enough of a time gap, you could argue that the first egg cells arose sometime around 1.2 billion years ago but that stretches the definition of an egg beyond what the question would make most people think of. If you want to change the question to be specifically a chicken egg, I would argue that the first chicken egg would be the first egg to contain a chicken. Speciation is a gradual process over many individuals and generations, so it's not possible to define a single organism as the first chicken. Even if it was, I still believe that it would have come from a chicken egg, even if its parents aren't considered true chickens. The first egg that chicken lays would be the first chicken's egg but not the first chicken egg. This question may have been a paradoxical metaphor for infinite regression when it was created, but I believe that a clear answer has been demonstrated by evolutionary biology and the processes of speciation.<|ASPECTS|>time gap, gradual process, true chickens, lay eggs, infinite regression, 's, chicken egg, domesticated, producing young, chicken, single organism, egg cells<|CONCLUSION|>
| The egg undoubtedly came before the chicken
| 4bd566a1-999b-48e4-a427-e8e052d8a998 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I'm aware that outliers exist, I'm not claiming that all pro choicers are like this. But I've noticed that whenever the topic of abortion comes up and pro lifers try to speak up, they're drowned out by a locust swarm of logical fallacies, blatant insults, and mob mentality delivered by the pro choice crowd. I was reading this bestof thread and gt 75 of the comments treat pro life people as Nazis incarnate. I'm willing to bet 90 of the 'just HAVE the baby and give it up ' whiners have never given birth. anti choice folks ITT Entitled, misogynistic men who will never be pregnant but have an opinion about a woman should do with her uterus anyway Her body, her choice. We're not living in the 1930s anymore, get the fuck over yourselves. pro lifers oppose the entire concept of a minimum wage, as well as things like progressive taxation, union membership, universal healthcare, and public education You don't like abortion? Don't get one. What anybody else may choose to do or not do is none of their god damned business. Anti choice men come off as very predatory, self entitled, and unempathetic to anything that hasn't got a penis Wow, I had no idea there were so many anti choice neanderthals skulking around Reddit. These are all top level comments as of now. I've noticed this exact trend whenever abortion is brought up. It stifles any meaningful debate and scares away pro lifers, who know that if they voice their opinion they will be crucified and downvote hammered into oblivion. I admit that I'm pro life, so I may be biased. To get a better understanding of the other side, I have posted here. Change my view of what I see as the extremely uncivilized behavior by pro choice people on this site. TL DR Not only is the attitude of most pro choicers on Reddit extremely rude, it stifles any meaningful debate on core premises of the abortion issue.<|ASPECTS|>, progressive taxation, public, pro life people, business, uncivilized behavior, core premises, self entitled, unempathetic, pro life, logical fallacies, union membership, crucified, oblivion, 1930s, predatory, outliers, universal healthcare, misogynistic, insults, meaningful debate, mob mentality, biased, stifles, pro lifers, top level comments, downvote, give, nazis incarnate, better, trend, scares, the baby, understanding of the, extremely, choice<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Reddit pro-choice crowd is completely disrespectful and rude, and this stifles any meaningful debate on the fundamentals of abortion legality.
| 041379ac-a01a-4cf1-88d8-db7fd6bc3622 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT u SalamanderSylph mentioned something I hadn't considered in saying that logistically, individual sports can more easily have multiple events than team sports, and thus events such as hockey and curling tend to be limited to one single variation. Thanks for changing my view D In looking through the topics in this subreddit, I've seen a few s dealing with how X should not be an olympic event. I'm not talking here about whether the individual sports themselves should be included, but rather about the fact that, in my opinion, there are far too many disciplines involved for many of the sports. For example, there are 12 different cross country skiing events We can reduce this to 6, considering the redundancy of the separation of genders for some of these events. There are relays, individual events, events with mass starts, etc, and it is my opinion that these have become so numerous that it cheapens the individual events, and seem contrived for the olympics with no other purpose than creating more opportunities for medals. The events which get it right, in my opinion, are those which are regulated and commonly played competitive sports which exist outside of the olympics. In the case of these winter olympics, specifically ice hockey and curling. To use hockey as an example, there is men's ice hockey , and women's ice hockey . And that's the list There isn't men's ice hockey international ice size , men's ice hockey north american ice size , men's ice hockey shootout competition , men's ice hockey non contact , etc, there's just men's ice hockey. Perhaps this point of view comes from the fact that in my life I have almost exclusively competed in sports which are directly competitive hockey, soccer, curling, rugby, etc , and as a result I really don't understand the need for a differentiation between, for example, a short and a free figure skating event, but it really seems excessively redundant to me, and I'd love for you to so that I can perhaps pay more attention to these events I typically dismiss because of their apparent redundancy.<|ASPECTS|>variation, competitive sports, redundancy, individual events, separation of genders, opportunities, regulated, mass starts, medals, individual sports, winter olympics, cheapens, commonly played, multiple events, redundant, olympic event, disciplines<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are too many olympic events,
| 4af6ab24-a6a6-4f59-80ad-67c0b08e9cb6 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Sparked by a conversation I had with my friend over the To Catch a Predator A disorder is something that significantly and consistently impacts a person's life in a harmful way. Pedophilia fits this description both for the pedophile themselves, and for their victims. Because pedophilia is a paraphilia, it is virtually impossible to envision the 'perfect pedophile' who has 'never once acted on pedophilia'. because of the nature of human beings and the hedonic treadmill at some point, a pedophile has seen an opportunity to, in some way, have some form of action and in the age of the internet and tor especially this is getting even more prevalent , many of these 'pedophiles who don't do anything' are steps away from doing something. There's stuff written online by people who call themselves pedophiles, and they say that it's very intrusive, and most of them can't jerk off in a way that's satisfying without thinking of kids at least, and most of them have a very short reign on their desires and loathe themselves. This self loathing and the shunning and shame associated with pedophilia on a personal level affects a pedophile negatively and causes low self esteem and disordered interpersonal interactions. Even if you consider pedophilia to be a 'sexual orientation' which I do not, because it is a disorder, and therefore cannot be a sexual orientation, but to go along with that argument I would then compare married pedophiles to gay guys who are married to women and have families and end up coming out later in life. The pedophile's first and most natural choice is a child, just like the gay man's first and most natural choice is a guy note I am NOT comparing pedophilia to homosexuality, which is something I consider damaging and harmful to the LGBT community, but the idea that a pedophile has a paraphilia that prevents a satisfying homo heterosexual adult relationship, the way a gay man can't have a satisfying heterosexual relationship because he is not heterosexual . They probably have 'outlets' for that desire that allow them to have a semi functional sexual relationship outside of that. Because that outlet is a child, who can't consent, the pedophile is restricted from ever acting on those urges. Without those outlets, their sex life would probably suck unanimously, which is harmful to the pedophile even if they never physically act on it. Due to these reasons I think being a pedophile is a disorder even without acting on any urges, mostly because I am skeptical that pedophiles will go their entire lives without acting in some way even just watching child porn is acting, chatting up underage girls online is acting, etc , and even if they don't, being a pedophile is still harmful to the pedophile. .<|ASPECTS|>relationship, form of action, satisfying, semi, self loathing, low self esteem, nature, intrusive, paraphilia, shunning, shame, pedophilia, orientation, loathe, damaging, suck unanimously, pedophiles, pedophile, natural choice, functional sexual relationship, disorder, sex life, impacts, disordered interpersonal interactions, desires, harmful, sexual orientation, hedonic treadmill, urges, 's life<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think that pedophilia is a disorder, and it is harmful even if you haven't acted on it.
| 6701cbc6-adf9-4a82-9561-30ea1d04f583 |
<|TOPIC|>Is it Ok to incentivise moral behaviour?<|ARGUMENT|>Not being punished for rule-breaking and enjoying the liberties and benefits of not being incarcerated are equivalent to directly incentivizing good behavior.<|ASPECTS|>benefits, rule-breaking, liberties, good behavior<|CONCLUSION|>
| All major stable societies do incentivize moral behavior by not punishing people who do comply with the rules.
| 2a702cd2-39e7-41d6-a5f4-785c199d6ab5 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think self driving cars are really cool and interesting technologically, but they also carry a lot of dangers. I am sure that in the far future maybe in 100, or 150 years there will be machines with really advanced AI artificial intelligence , but right now this is not the case you cannot simply use a software on your PC to do your office work instead of you, write your school assignment, or even chat with you convincingly for a longer time see Turing test, computers still cannot really pass it well . Of course, there are relatively good software AIs for computer games, e.g. shooter or strategy games although they can be quite stupid sometime or good chess playing AIs. But these are pretty much closed environments not too many unexpected things can happen in an online Counter Strike match or in a chess game. ► Now driving is much more an automatic task than speaking with someone the latter requires a lot of creativity , but on the road also a lot of things can happen people often drive stupidly, there can be unexpected objects or even people on the road e.g. drunken people try to cross the traffic , wild animals, and so on. It also requires a lot of creativity to handle these situations, and if you or a machines makes a bad decision, it can lead to road deaths. Yeah, human drivers also cause many accidents on the road but I think it will be a long time until self driving cars or realistic chat robots will be ready to do tasks done now by humans. ► Also, these computers can be hacked or infected by viruses , this could be also the source of deadly accidents , or even intentional murders Imagine that you go out for a drive on a sunny weekend day and suddenly your car speeds up to 120 MPH and drives into a bunch of people. If a terrorist group wants to murder a politician or businessman this would be the perfect tool for that Some related links ►EDIT clarification, added the part about hacking and viruses ☺ ►EDIT 2 Please note, that I am NOT saying that I personally want to ban the self driving cars . I am simply trying to predict the reaction of societies. I think this technology is cool, but not advanced enough yet, given the slow progress of general AI research. ►EDIT 3 Right now there are about 1.2 million deaths on the roads per year, anything less would be better.<|ASPECTS|>well, self driving cars, reaction of societies, advanced ai, pass, viruses, unexpected objects, artificial intelligence, road deaths, creativity, unexpected things, stupid sometime, cool, slow progress, chess playing ais, deaths, automatic task, intentional murders, deadly accidents, dangers, murder, cross the traffic, ai research, hacked, good, interesting technologically, hacking and viruses, terrorist group, wild animals, software ais, advanced, predict, accidents, closed environments<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think after the first deadly accident of a self-driving car e.g. Google's model the technology will be banned in most countries.
| 8a9027e7-adc0-4300-862d-928d924b5a77 |
<|TOPIC|>Should life skills be taught in K12 school?<|ARGUMENT|>Most education contains skills for life already. Teachers and other staff interact, with each other and students, often enough where they model good or at least not 'bad' behaviour for the students. All studies and interactions pose opportunities for teachers to discern gaps in their students' life skills and then help fill them in, so separate specialist lessons are not needed.<|ASPECTS|>model, behaviour, gaps, separate, life skills, discern, skills for life already, specialist lessons<|CONCLUSION|>
| Children spend a lot of their waking time at school so we owe them a proper education not a mere stuffing of facts and processes. So yes, life skills should be taught at school, but other sources should complement that learning too.
| 40a13a69-4fa9-4f7a-b723-cdd889a63834 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>An "Internet Rush Hour is a common occurrence where the presence of so many simultaneous users slows traffic across the entire network. Requiring Net Neutrality prevents companies from easing this flow via peak period fees which encourage using the internet at different times and/or could decrease overall costs.<|ASPECTS|>slows traffic, net neutrality, costs, fees<|CONCLUSION|>
| A "100GB" line only refers to the theoretical maximum bandwidth available between a network switch and a modem. Once internet traffic flows past this 'handshake' into the wider network infrastructure it is often limited by a number of other factors.
| dc90e178-b000-43d3-9be1-9d0b5da16a29 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a fanatic when it comes to very modern eco friendly cities or places. I truly feel happy mentally and physically just by looking, and being in cities like Masdar City, Songdo or Western Harbor in Sweden. Everytime I see a modern home, I get some form of happiness and peace that I cannot easily describe. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with older cities from a historical or cultural point of view, or cities that mix the old with the new, but these become very boring after a while and almost depressing, I then try and think of how much happier I would be if it was all very modern. I want to learn how to accept the old, even though we're living in let's say the year 2025 because it's not like everything will change according to my vision so soon. Please change my view<|ASPECTS|>accept the old, depressing, modern, change, modern eco friendly cities, peace, happiness, boring, older cities, happy mentally<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that I cannot truly be happy unless I live in a heavily modernized home / city.
| 8cdbde99-6f0f-49b7-97f8-9dd1d3d166ee |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nature, through the provision of water, planets, and animals, provide us with sustenance we need to survive on a daily basis. Without these things, given by nature, we would cease to exist. Without the Moon, we would have no seasons and half of the planet would be cast into darkness. Without the Sun, there is no life. Knowing these facts, I think that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to worship these phenomena of nature. Note I don't worship them myself, but I find it completely acceptable to do so. 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|>seasons, concerns, message us, change, downvote, popular topics, reasonable, effective, downvotes, acceptable, cease to exist, phenomena of nature, happy cmving, darkness, sustenance, survive, questions, life, remind, worship<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that worship if the Sun, the Moon, and the components of Nature is totally acceptable
| 4d3e20f0-6013-49d6-9d99-b34caf43151c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that ordering food to be delivered is superior to calling a place and picking it up. Reason 1 You never have to leave your home so ordering the food and waiting at home is more convenient for the customer. Reason 2 You don't have to worry about driving home the food and having it spill in your car, you also don't have to worry about getting it home quickly so it stays warm if applicable. Reason 3 If you have pets then you don't have to leave them home alone and reduce the risk that they do something that they are not supposed to. Same applies to children. Reason 4 If someone cannot drive such as a teenager or don't have a car, then they can still order food that is not already at home.<|ASPECTS|>, risk, children, superior, convenient, reduce, alone, quickly, driving, order food, warm, spill<|CONCLUSION|>
| Ordering In Food Is Superior To Picking It Up At A Restaurant.
| 306f94a8-a5f9-4b8d-9b17-6966c487e1b6 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Democracies adapt to improve?<|ARGUMENT|>There has been a groundswell for Proportional Representation be introduced instead of 'first past the post' which is used in 22 countries . In the 2019 UK election even journalists and politicians are openly discussing it. However that change in attitude follows a, generally acknowledged, period of 'Zombie Government'. One may deduce that change is only possible when the 'elite' are worried.<|ASPECTS|>groundswell, government, change, representation, change in attitude<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is phenomenally difficult to achieve a step change in Governance using evolution not revolution. The incumbents, the elites, do not easily give up their benefits. .For example in Lebanon there is an educated younger population trying to change a fixed religious divide. They have voted down every Government but still there is no dialogue on change.
| f1810f84-0540-445b-bc91-8851e1cf1bdd |
<|TOPIC|>Can God's existence be understood by rationality?<|ARGUMENT|>Humans are far from perfect and make many errors in reasoning. Humans are unlikely to be able to conceive of God or many gods.<|ASPECTS|>errors in reasoning, god, perfect<|CONCLUSION|>
| God may exist but His existence may not be knowable or inferable.
| d7dfc97f-a95f-4a41-8761-611c3c7d91ae |
<|TOPIC|>Should Democrats Cooperate with Donald Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>The less Trump seems to be someone who can get things done, the less his marginal voters will believe in him. That is the key to defeating Trump in the next election.<|ASPECTS|>get things done, defeating trump, marginal<|CONCLUSION|>
| Voters tend to attribute all outcomes, positive or negative, to the president, regardless of what actually happened. Uniform opposition to Trump makes him look weak, not the Democrats.
| 7a2a36a6-6e89-49d3-a7b9-8a8f0804bcc2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Considering that we can survive in the harshest environment, from the hottest desert to a frozen sea of ice. We now have the technology to resist even worst conditions, in a few hundred years space colonies will be a reality and in a few thousand year we will probably have mastered terraforming and will be able to gather energy directly from the stars. Lots of bad things could happen in the mean time, epidemics, floods , global warming, name it. But you have to remember that we are now over 6 billions and we use to be less than 5,000. So anything bad that happens that leaves 1 in a million of us alive means we can survive.<|ASPECTS|>survive, floods, worst conditions, resist, global warming, billions, alive, colonies, bad things, epidemics, harshest environment, mastered terraforming, gather energy<|CONCLUSION|>
| It's almost impossible for the human species to become extinct
| 006e9416-1a57-427c-a0b5-0c42bc2a4a98 |
<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>Perhaps the worse possible insult from a PC person to a person of color would be to say they are acting white<|ASPECTS|>insult<|CONCLUSION|>
| PC-proponents oppose stereotyping their protected classes. They have no problem stereotyping the straight white
| db3f9089-df67-43a7-933a-e2224d7c0e1c |
<|TOPIC|>How should we decide whether a single-winner voting system is fair?<|ARGUMENT|>TWO PARTY Some voting systems allow two parties to dominate. This is bad and those voting systems should not be used.<|ASPECTS|>voting systems, two parties<|CONCLUSION|>
| Vote splitting makes it much easier for two parties to dominate elections.
| 5a1659e7-be06-4233-b269-0eb9465ebd75 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First some background I am a 27 year old unemployed male who lives with my parents and has no Facebook account. I am a stereotypical nerd, although I like to think I am better looking than most nerds on tv. I recently realized that I have to stop wasting my life. I have been semi self employed for about 3 years, but I only make about 1 3rd of an average salary, so it is not enough to live off if I wanted to move out. Most of my time I spend playing games and watching tv shows, movies and browsing reddit and twitter. I have no real friends and I don’t spend any time going out and socializing. My goal is to transform my life in the following ways I want to get a real 40 hour a week job. I want to have a few friends, even if we are not close friends I would just like to know more people. I want to maximize my chance of finding a long term girlfriend. I want to get more involved with the community by volunteering and participating in events. I want to move out eventually, although I might be willing to stay for a while and save money. The economy is looking decent at the moment in my country area so I think there is a pretty good chance I could find a job in a few weeks once I start sending out CVs. If I get a real job again it will mean that I will be more socially active with my workmates which would be good. My dilemma is whether or not I should make a Facebook account. On the surface it seems like a beneficial thing to do. But then I started thinking about it more. I realized that there are only three people in my life that I could be friends with on Facebook and they are all family. There is no one else who I know well enough that it wouldn’t be weird. I mean there’s one guy who shared a hobby with me, but I haven’t spoken to him in over a year and there is another guy I used to work with who I was sort of friends with, but I haven’t spoken to him in 3 years. So I wouldn’t really be comfortable adding either of them as friends. But even if I did that would only bring the total to 5. I am looking at this from a game theory perspective. I don’t want to appear socially inept or awkward to potential friends if I can help it. My thinking is that not having many friends on Facebook would be more socially awkward than not having a Facebook account at all. Some potential friends or potential girlfriends might be turned off by my low friend count on Facebook. Of course if I don’t have one at all then that could also be a major signal that I am socially inept, but it could just be that I don’t like Facebook, so I feel like it would be the better option. My current plan is to not make a Facebook account and then wait until I have at least a handful of real life friends. Once I feel I have a sufficient amount, I will make a Facebook account and invite them all to be my friends. I told a family member about my dilemma and they said I am making way to big a deal out of nothing. Perhaps that is the case, but it certainly feels like a big deal to me. Please convince me that I should just go ahead and make a Facebook account. Or if you don’t think I should then I would also be interested in hearing your reasoning.<|ASPECTS|>, semi self employed, low friend count, beneficial thing, socially inept, know more people, better looking, game theory, dilemma, chance, unemployed male, facebook account, weird, socially awkward, stereotypical nerd, job, friends, involved with the community, big, economy, deal, socially active, hearing, playing games, family, wasting my life, save money, comfortable, finding, total, long term girlfriend, socializing, participating, live, awkward, real life friends, reasoning, transform my life, volunteering<|CONCLUSION|>
| I should not make a Facebook account so long as I am in my current life situation
| 7555410d-3a12-405a-9d23-0880dfd1c8cc |
<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In modern European countries there is no way for monarchs to influence the process of law-making.<|ASPECTS|>influence, process of law-making, monarchs<|CONCLUSION|>
| Modern European monarchies are not forms of government, but merely symbols.
| 2eab6fb8-8fcd-49ee-9d05-d61a3a51ce81 |
<|TOPIC|>Do we exist within a Simulated Reality?<|ARGUMENT|>If the parent reality created the simulated reality to be self-learning and self-evolving, then it is possible for the simulated reality to, one day, be more complex than its parent.<|ASPECTS|>self-evolving, complex, self-learning<|CONCLUSION|>
| You can't assume that the parent reality would automatically be as complex as ours. Maybe it's simpler.
| bd128178-71d9-4e3c-bb52-e391283fb456 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reading a few books on this subject, and a few really enlightening TED talks 1 2 I now believe that intellectual property is causing such tremendous damage to our economy, and our society, that IP laws have to be repealed immediately. First off, let's start with the justification for intellectual property law. The justification is, roughly, that without IP law, people wouldn't produce . But this simply isn't true. A quick look at the fashion industry, an industry which has no real IP law save trademarking i.e. you can go into a Chanel store, today, and copy a purse stitch for stitch, and sell it yourself under your own name reveals a business which is slavishly subservient to consumer demand, and highly profitable , more so than IP related industries see Ted 1 . So if this claim isn't true, we have lost all justification for intellectual property law. People still produce, and compete even more heavily, without these laws. Your insistence on owning an idea, is a recent legal construct, that hadn't ever existed in prior world history. What's more, this abstract legal construction really just limits what others can do with their real property. Some of the greatest offenders in peoples minds Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big this, Big that are allowed to exist entirely by recourse to these laws. IP concentrates wealth and power unnecessarily, exacerbates regulatory capture, and monopoly, and nearly everything we think is bad in the world. One of the greatest nightmare scenarios in the tech culture, is that one day, software robotics will exist, that are so powerful, that only one person can own them, and all else will be subservient. This is entirely a product of intellectual property law . If anyone can own the code, or the schematics, and can simply build a robot for themselves , at the price of raw materials, we will avoid the increasingly problematic wealth equality problem. None of this is to say that there aren't other problems. I believe government support for banks, as well as government involvement in currency itself, is another obstacle to wealth building. But intellectual property is something we can kill right now , through the courts, and better the world in which we live. ?<|ASPECTS|>ip laws, highly, consumer demand, problems, owning an idea, software robotics, abstract legal construction, wealth and power, monopoly, wealth equality problem, construct, kill, produce, government support, profitable, nightmare, economy, compete, world, regulatory capture, intellectual property law, real property, damage, heavily, intellectual property, offenders, government involvement, entirely, justification, wealth building, better, subservient, exacerbates, ip, limits, ip law<|CONCLUSION|>
| Intellectual property laws are the #1 cause of wealth inequality
| cf4e8bc1-7aca-4037-824d-b7baaaff4caf |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I see a lot a lot of posts from laypeople on r feminism or r twoxchromosomes where somebody posts is this rape and they proceed to tell a story involving alcohol, lack of memory, feeling confused, etc. x200B Many of the replies i see are yes you were drunk, it was rape or if you were intoxicated, it's rape or he got you drunk, it's rape . x200B My point of view is rape occurs when somebody is unable to give consent. For alcohol, this means somebody is incapacitated. Some signs of being incapacitated unable to stand up on your own, unable to form sentences, unable to stay awake. If somebody is in this state and you have sex with them its rape. x200B however, intoxicated people even black out drunk people may not be forming short term memories but are fully capable of dancing, talking having conversation albeit with slurred words , understanding the responsibilities of their actions don't drink and drive , and consenting enthusiastically or even initiating sex. x200B If somebody is blackout drunk but otherwise is moving around, awake, and able to understand what's going on around them, that's consent. x200B one thing that won't change my view if a man is feeding a woman alcohol or shots. As long as she is consuming the alcohol willingly i.e. he's not having her tied to a chair and waterboarding her with a bottle of vodka , that doesn't change anything. the Intoxicated vs Incapacitated distinction still holds. x200B Also, let's not get tied down with violence, stealthing, coercion, fraud deceit, or age statutory complications. Those things are all still valid criminal statutes. I'm talking about specifically the factor of alcohol x200B one final note. I understand law varies state by state country by country. In my opinion and estimation US citizen , this is how i think the standards should be applied.<|ASPECTS|>, awake, incapacitated, lack of memory, consent, standards, criminal statutes, factor of alcohol, understand, coercion, incapacitated distinction, short term memories, responsibilities, violence, unable to give consent, age statutory complications, waterboarding, rape, fraud deceit, alcohol, feeling confused, law varies, stealthing, form sentences, consenting enthusiastically, valid, consuming, dancing, intoxicated vs, blackout drunk, unable, feeding, intoxicated<|CONCLUSION|>
| Blackout Men and Women can consent to sex - it's not necessarily rape
| 1b248cb4-119e-467c-bd71-64e27220d2d9 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Foundational premise Conservative movements are galvanized by the scapegoating of the other. The rhetoric of the right props up a stereotype and hatred of a group of people and uses that hatred to mobilize, spread fear, and enforce group mentality. Examples Race based and Nationalist enemies of conservative movements and moments include McCarthyism's Red Scare, Reformation America's Jim Crow Policies, Contemporary Conservative's Islamophobia, and Nazi isms Anti semitism. Prediction Rhetoric and actions of contemporary conservative movements are moving from picking on racial identifiers or national identifiers, towards viciousness against political opponents themselves. SJWs and Libtards are attempts at describing a group of people as necessarily vile or contemptible beyond what is their actual position. As the generation that is growing up on the Internet matures, the younger conservative movement will not want for a scapegoat based on anything more than disagreement with their world view. To change my view, challenge my foundational premise, challenge an example, or challenge my prediction by proposing a convincing alternative. <|ASPECTS|>contemptible, group mentality, fear, viciousness against political opponents, race based, stereotype, nationalist enemies, scapegoat, view, scapegoating, younger, spread, anti semitism, islamophobia, vile, racial identifiers, foundational premise, convincing alternative, hatred<|CONCLUSION|>
| Conservative movements are reaching their final scapegoat.
| 154a8776-1f9b-4a40-b605-62ced4f2a1dc |
<|TOPIC|>Children Voting: Should the Minimum Voting Age be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>In most countries, the access to classified information is restricted by law or regulation. Information classified ‘For Official Use Only’ is not accessible by the wider public.<|ASPECTS|>restricted, classified information, accessible, access<|CONCLUSION|>
| Politicians have access to research and information services that ordinary citizens do not have.
| a0328a74-1649-4d7b-bc7d-81e218dcd8b4 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a pragmatist. When I vote, I vote for things I see as useful, and my personal standpoint is that any law is going to always negatively impact someone. I especially don't like to waste my time playing the comparative pity game. I believe that all bad situations are relative and that all walks of life, even the extremely sub 1 privileged walks of life all have their drawbacks relative to other walks of life in my acceptance that the world is not perfect, and that furthermore the government is a machine to make my life better. An altrusitic vote does not exist, whatever you vote for either benefits you materialistically or helps you sleep at night there is no in between, unless you are consciously discarding your vote in an act of complete randomness. All that being said, having Morals Empathy and Ethics are a detriment in a society that utilizes them, and that separating yourself from any combination of the three gives you clarity, objectivity and an edge because you are going to be better able to play the game of life by the actual rules, than the rules and boundaries you put in the way of your own two feet by adhering to any of the above. Everything should be a basic cost benefit for your situation and that should be the entire factor of decision making and nothing else. If something is good for you, it's best to pursue it and weather or not it is to the benefit or detriment of others is inconsequential, because your baseline assumption is that others will act in line with their own best interest, and that even if they do not your acting in your best interest while selfish, is not any more selfish than others doing the same. To Change My view, you have to prove in some conceivably objective capacity their is value for any of these things in a society that values them. My view is contingent strictly on not valuing these things in a society that values them. I understand that if everyone acted without Morals, Empathy and Ethics we'd be in a different circumstance, and so my view is not contingent on a Well if everyone behaved like you. point of view because nowhere near 100 of people do, which is why it's to the advantage of someone without these things. <|ASPECTS|>pragmatist, well, life better, bad situations, objective, benefits, waste, valuing, useful, objectivity, cost benefit, randomness, negatively impact someone, machine, advantage, different circumstance, materialistically, game of life, inconsequential, values, value, comparative pity game, benefit, decision making, selfish, best interest, clarity<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is more beneficial to be without Morals, Empathy or Ethics in a society that thrives on them.
| 426e422c-fbf5-407f-b7da-a6a76c4ecab5 |
<|TOPIC|>Should We Ban Symbols of Communist Regimes?<|ARGUMENT|>The Communist manifesto Marx insists that its implementation must be by violent revolution. This is still how many advocates of Communism envisage its introduction. Communist symbols are used as rallying points for this unacceptable notion and should be removed as they are likely to incite hate, division and fear.<|ASPECTS|>rallying points, division, fear, hate, communism, unacceptable notion, violent revolution<|CONCLUSION|>
| The history of communism has caused for its symbols to be heavily associated with morally questionable ideals such as violence and totalitarianism, which should never be tolerated.
| 13dfe823-0e28-4134-9ee3-93a414b7ab06 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Information warfare more ethical than conventional warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>The US has spent $5.9 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001.<|ASPECTS|>wars<|CONCLUSION|>
| Conventional warfare costs a significant amount of money that could be diverted for other efforts.
| 33734040-57d3-48e6-abc8-2ab420c334a7 |
<|TOPIC|>there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held by public bodies<|ARGUMENT|>It is a misnomer in many things that more is necessarily better but that is, perhaps, more true of information than of most things. Public bodies produce vast quantities of data and are often have a greater tendency to maintain copious records than their private sector equivalents. US government agencies will create data that would require “20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled with text,” over the next two years.i Simply dumping this en masse would be a fairly effective way of masking any information that a public body wanted kept hidden. Deliberately poor referencing would achieve the same result. This ‘burying’ of bad news at a time when everyone is looking somewhere else is one of the oldest tricks in press management. For example Jo Moore, an aide to then Transport Secretary Stephen Byers suggested that September 11 2001 was “a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” Suggesting burying a u turn on councillors’ expenses.ii For it to genuinely help with the transparency and accountability of public agencies it would require inordinately detailed and precise cataloguing and indexing – a process that would be likely to be both time consuming and expensive. The choice would, therefore, be between a mostly useless set of data that would require complex mining by those citizens who were keen to use it or the great expense of effectively cataloguing it in advance. Even this latter option would defeat the objective of greater accountability because whoever had responsibility for the cataloguing would have far greater control of what would be likely to come to light. Instead ensuring a right of access for citizens ensures that they can have a reasonable access to exactly the piece of information they are seekingiii. i Eddy, Nathan, ‘Big Data Still a Big Challenge for Government IT’, eweek, 8th May 2012, ii Sparrow, Andrew, ‘September 11: ‘a good day to bury bad news’’, The Telegraph, 10 October 2001, iii Freedom of Information as an Internationally Protected Human Right. Toby Mendel, Head of Law at Article 19.<|ASPECTS|>bad news, expenses, accountability, time consuming, complex mining, transparency, cataloguing, reasonable access, information, right of access, indexing, useless, poor referencing, data, control, misnomer, expense, expensive, right, copious records, masking<|CONCLUSION|>
| Considering the amount of data governments produce, compelling them to publish all of it would be counterproductive as citizens would be swamped.
| 7ec6b374-02e4-44c9-b315-14472543dfe7 |
<|TOPIC|>Death penalty, Debate on Capital Punishment<|ARGUMENT|>It is not proper to conclude that more executions cause higher crime rates with the limited information available. At a minimum, the issue is too contested to base any policies on the conclusion that the death penalty "deters crimes".<|ASPECTS|>crime rates, death, deters crimes, higher<|CONCLUSION|>
| "Deterrent-effect" of executions is too controversial to justify policy.
| 27cbeefa-ce7e-4af6-a60f-d4a95f91e00f |