argument
stringlengths 116
44.5k
| conclusion
stringlengths 8
1.16k
| id
stringlengths 36
36
|
|---|---|---|
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Clarification I'm not talking about patterns in art, such as a floral pattern, but rather things in nature, such as seasons, the tides of an ocean, the cycles of the moon, etc. If we rolled a die one million times, and four consecutive numbers were 1212, would that be a pattern? An argument could be made either way. There's a repetition, so a pattern is in place, however, four out of a million numbers is such a small sample that the repetition is more of a fluke. The pattern would be in the eye of the beholder. The universe is over 13 billion years old, and will last much longer. According to astronomers, most of the time the universe exists, there will nothing. No stars, planets, black holes nothing. Nothing may be the only true pattern. Everything we call a pattern happens for such a profoundly tiny amount of time, that my million die roll example is absurdly generous. Even if the sun sets for a trillion years to come, this is just a blink of the eye. Social constructs can be very handy. Patterns are a very useful construct. I don't think we need to abandon them, I just don't think they're real, but I have some doubts.<|ASPECTS|>, handy, tiny, last much longer, black holes, true pattern, nothing, universe, pattern, fluke, old, cycles, blink, useful construct, repetition, generous, planets, social constructs, patterns, abandon, eye of<|CONCLUSION|>
| patterns are strictly social constructs.
| d3d89ad7-c58a-45e0-b1fb-8611917bed65 |
<|TOPIC|>Should society work towards becoming "colorblind" in regards to race/ethnicity?<|ARGUMENT|>What race you are is about as important as what hand you use to write with. Being left-handed used to be all the proof needed to prove you were a witch and have you publicly executed.Read this about being left-handed. The reason it isn't an issue today is that people realized there was nothing wrong with it and we have moved past it as a society. You don't have to ignore what race you are the same way you don't have to ignore what hand you write with, it just shouldn't matter to you.<|ASPECTS|>ignore, proof, left-handed, publicly<|CONCLUSION|>
| If society was "colorblind" in regards to race, we would treat each other truly as equals and individuals, rather than as categories.
| 841160be-1e69-4c95-8cd9-6fbcd5d5c3fa |
<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>There is growing evidence that harmful traditional practices - such as the preference for a son in many societies, or early and forced marriage of girls - can be one of the root causes for discrimination and violence against girls. UNDAW, 1 If states want to enforce their national and international obligations, namely to eliminate all forms of discrimination based on sex, they need to intervene, regulate or prohibit these practices.<|ASPECTS|>violence against girls, sex, obligations, harmful traditional practices, discrimination, discrimination based<|CONCLUSION|>
| If a cultural practice constitutes a threat to humans or animals, the government needs to intervene and prohibit it.
| 9adf0193-0f37-4683-aa2b-0acc9cf62230 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Bottled Water be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Some plastic bottles contain traces of the chemical BPA which has been linked to increased risk of cancer and miscarriage, and changing levels of natural hormones such as testosterone. Reusing BPA-containing bottles may lead to small amounts of BPA leaking into the liquid being drunk from them.<|ASPECTS|>risk, cancer, miscarriage, natural hormones, bpa leaking, bpa-containing, small<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are some health risks associated with using a reusable water bottle as opposed to buying single-use ones.
| 9159c4e5-2f48-4489-b617-b762752e091d |
<|TOPIC|>Should You Post Images Of Your Children Online?<|ARGUMENT|>One site offered at least 45 million images, half of which were photos of children taken from social media accounts. The photos were of everyday family activities, but were accompanied by inappropriate comments.<|ASPECTS|>inappropriate comments, everyday family activities, photos of children<|CONCLUSION|>
| Photos and videos of children shared by their parents on social media sometimes turn up on disturbing websites and forums, some of them dedicated to child pornography
| ba0d04a6-3eff-4ad3-8543-bd51abded49d |
<|TOPIC|>allow voting at 16 in European Parliament elections<|ARGUMENT|>The European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European Parliament it is up to each member to decide the form of the election within certain ground rules.1 In this case the interference would not be direct; the European parliament would not be passing any legislation saying that national and regional parliaments must allow votes at sixteen because they don’t have the power to do that but by allowing voting at sixteen they would be making national elections look inconsistent. It would quickly be seen as illegitimate to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote in some elections and not others without a good justification. As the level of election that is most distant from the individual if there were to be a discrepancy in voting ages it should logically be the other way around with the most abstract vote being granted last. 1 European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, accessed 3 May 2013<|ASPECTS|>interference, individual member ’, electoral systems, inconsistent, voting ages, abstract vote, illegitimate, form, elections, election, ground rules, interfering, discrepancy<|CONCLUSION|>
| A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes
| c542cf06-7eee-48fa-93bf-73074b05b5f8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The 2016 US presidential primary race is well underway, and the large pool of candidates in both major political parties is exposing a significant gap in the nominating process. Some of the leading candidates are of questionable party affiliation e.g. Donald Trump is now a registered Republican but has faced criticism for switching parties throughout his lifetime Lincoln Chafee was a Republican while serving as a Mayor, Senator, and Governor, and only became a Democrat in 2013 or are unabashedly independent of any party affiliation Bernie Sanders is not a registered Democrat but still running for the Democratic nomination . This has led to a lot of controversy on both sides about throwing the weight of the party behind someone whose allegiance to the party is questionable, and with good reason. For the following reasons, I believe that by law only registered members of a political party should be able to seek and obtain that party's nomination for elected office. 1 Parties spend a substantial amount of resources to try to elect their nominees. These resources often come from contributions in terms of money, activism, work hours etc governed by election law made by party members or supporters to support fellow party members. It is inappropriate to allocate these resources to someone who, despite achieving the nomination, is not even a member of the party in the first place. 2 Many third parties with access to general election ballots often nominate the same person, which causes that individual to appear on the ballot several times for the same position. This duplication is unfair to candidates from other parties especially third parties who may only appear on the ballot once. For the purposes of the official ballot, parties should only be allowed to formally nominate their own members, or no one at all. 3 The members of a political party's presidential ticket are the de facto leaders of their national party during and if elected after the election. The same principle applies for nominees for Governor at the state level, Mayor at the municipality level, etc. Nominees' political positions are often absorbed into the general party platform, which can impact elections and party voter turnout elsewhere. It is nonsensical, and unfair to party members, for their de facto leaders to be from another party or no party at all, especially given that nominations are mostly a function of popular vote. Tangentially, I am also opposed to open primaries where voters who aren't registered members of a political party can still vote in that party's primary election, but I suppose that's a topic for another post. And of course, it should continue to be against election rules to be a registered member of more than one political party. 4 There is nothing wrong with or prohibitive about running for office as an independent. Ross Perot staged a pretty successful third party run for president in 1992. Sanders is the longest serving independent in the Senate. Many other people have been elected to political office at various levels of government without obtaining a major party nomination. Our political system does not preclude independents from winning elections, so any argument that an independent's only real chance of winning is to seek the nomination of a party with which s he does not formally affiliate is historically and demonstrably invalid. . Edit I understand a lot of people on reddit are Bernie Sanders supporters, and that my view might argue against his candidacy in the Democratic primary. For the record, I am not a Clinton or a Trump supporter nor am I decidedly against Sanders as a candidate if he makes to the general election. I hope my replies are not being downvoted against this sub's rules because I am not 100 in favor of Sanders.<|ASPECTS|>leaders, elected office, longest, independent, democratic, spend, money, de, successful, activism, gap, elected, winning elections, work hours, downvoted, election rules, questionable party affiliation, open primaries, election law, impact elections, third party run, resources, political office, process, party, nominate their own members, questionable, nonsensical, formally, invalid, facto, political positions, contributions, controversy, nomination, nominate the same person, voter turnout, unfair, switching parties, weight of the party, sanders supporters, allegiance, bernie, major party nomination, support fellow, prohibitive, popular vote, serving, independents, registered members, duplication, allocate, inappropriate<|CONCLUSION|>
| Only registered members of a political party should be permitted to seek and obtain that party's nomination for elected office.
| 63c1955d-c943-44f1-92fb-0fd4f6460f6b |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Laws against drinking and driving reduce the number of traffic fatalities, this makes driving a safer experience. Laws against drinking and driving exist to restrict people from partaking in such an activity. Drinking and driving is something that some people want to or enjoy doing, even if they understand the risks involved to themselves and others. The two most relevant definitions of freedom are the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action unrestricted use You are equally free to choose to drive with or without drinking and driving laws. You may choose not to because it is less safe in the absence of drinking and driving laws, but you are not coerced or constrained from driving. You are not restricted from driving. Drinking and driving laws do however coerce someone to not partake in that activity. The activity is also restricted. Drinking and driving laws therefor limit freedom but increase safety. To argue that drinking and driving laws make me more free because are intellectually dishonest, since you are equally free to drive with or without the additional risk of drunk drivers. Your perception of risk does not make you more or less free. The use of freedom in these arguments is dishonest. Since you are equally free to drive either way, but drunk drivers are not equally free to choose to drive while drunk. edit we're done here folks. Turns out this is a debate between liberty now. gt Freedom in America comes from a distinctly negative connotation, and as a nation we are negative freedom oriented. But this specific scenerio is in fact a situation of positive freedom. The conflict really arrives out of the fact that in a negative nation, something that is positive really creates a neutral scenario of sorts and the language becomes muddled because of this.So this does in fact become a different debate I've issued a delta to the person that pointed this out .What this is really about is that America is a negative freedom nation and that DUI laws are a positive freedom scenario. So the use of the word freedom in here is well odd. I'm not sure it's right or wrong yet, but it's certainly atypical because it is an atypical alignment of freedom for our nation .Certainly drinking and driving laws violate the ideas of negative freedom and our nation is oriented to such a predilection. So the introduction of positive freedom usage is at the very least non traditional.<|ASPECTS|>drunk drivers, partaking, less safe, positive freedom, restricted from driving, safer experience, intellectually dishonest, coerce, risk of drunk drivers, necessity, risks, restricted, increase, liberty, drinking, constrained, restrict people, free to drive, negative freedom, positive freedom usage, traffic fatalities, coercion, perception, neutral scenario, freedom, non, risk, limit freedom, free, free to choose, constraint, negative freedom nation, free to choose to drive, activity, dui, positive freedom scenario, negative connotation, safety, driving laws, dishonest, coerced, negative freedom oriented<|CONCLUSION|>
| Arguments that laws that make people more safe DUI laws, Statutory Rape etc also make people more free are intellectually dishonest.
| 5d5ccf91-0d5f-487f-aede-09fbee698603 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Mother Teresa have been canonized?<|ARGUMENT|>Indian officials have criticized Mother Teresa for publicizing a stereotyped and inaccurate image of Calcutta as a city of poverty and suffering.<|ASPECTS|>poverty and suffering<|CONCLUSION|>
| Mother Teresa is a symbol of racism of a white woman swooping in to "rescue" people of colour.
| 53aec033-25a4-4bb3-94bc-fa5d2d7aba73 |
<|TOPIC|>Gay adoption<|ARGUMENT|>What children need first is love, compassion, and care from their parents. In addition, children are highly influenced by their social environment as much as their parents, making it unreasonable to place such a high importance on the attributes that parents display.<|ASPECTS|>social environment, compassion, care, parents, influenced, attributes, love<|CONCLUSION|>
| Children do not need distinct male and female parental role-models
| fcd78e81-04b8-4063-9b88-aa57c800e55b |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Most of the time, when I see this subject brought up, there has to be one guy that argues that everything about this story is about misoginy. The 2 main arguments are if you got it and the blame should be on the reviewer . Now, for the first one, I don't think anyone denies that gamers aren't exactly popular with the ladies. Hell, a ton of guys would jump at any opportunity at sexual contact with a woman. And don't get me wrong, I don't think sex is a bad thing. I understand that some people enjoy having sex with multiple parteners and I think it's their bussiness. But when the relationship of two people interferes with their jobs, then it is a public problem. When a woman chooses to have sexual relationships with many guys in a position of power, it becomes a public concern. And when she starts getting special threatment because of it, it becomes unnaceptable. For the second argument, I don't think people realize one thing about this certain case. This is a woman who slept with several guys. Yes, they were reviewers and expected to be professionals. Yes, she is a woman. But really, how do you expect any of these guys to hold more fault in this problem than the woman who did them all? Again, these guys aren't choosers. They take everything that comes at them. And Zoe Quinn came or not at each and every one of them. If a male model slept with 5 female journalists in order to be praised, I don't think anyone would be yelling BLAME THE WOMEN<|ASPECTS|>bad thing, slept with several guys, woman, popular with the ladies, jobs, interferes, gamers, sexual contact, take everything, blame, unnaceptable, professionals, multiple parteners, bussiness, reviewer, sexual relationships, fault, enjoy, public problem, misoginy, sex, threatment, public concern, praised, choosers, realize one thing, reviewers, expected<|CONCLUSION|>
| Everyone who thinks the Zoe Quinn subject is a whiteknighting moron.
| 096c927d-a6b3-41c7-a348-7af406559d73 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I usually agree with most of John Oliver's points, but I don't think that using a song at a political rally is stealing an artist's music like he makes it out to be. I think it is a slippery slope and contradicts the idea that those rendering a service should not discriminate against those utilizing a service gay couples not being able to use a certain wedding venue or bakery because of political reservations . I know that laws on copyright and publishing rights complicate things, but I don't think we should spotlight any legal claim that entertainers have to limiting an organization from using their product based on political differences. I would be willing to change my view if presented with contradictory legal precedent or if I am engaging in illogical conclusions. I recognize that artists saying that they disapprove of their song's use may just be the artist distancing themselves without making a realistic effort to limit the use of their songs. I'm not referring to this phenomenon but rather the genuine push for artist's rights to deny use of their products when politics do not align. The John Oliver bit I am referencing<|ASPECTS|>artist distancing, artist 's rights, political reservations, disapprove, claim, use, artist 's music, contradictory legal precedent, complicate, political differences, illogical conclusions, limit, stealing, slippery slope<|CONCLUSION|>
| John Oliver was wrong to support musicians by spotlighting how political parties utilize their songs at rallies
| 4d49cbb8-9ee9-43bd-9f62-f383c0ef8190 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Censorship of films or TV shows, fitted for time and content on Television, is NOT right. Parents of children who may see this violent, sexually explicit, or profanity heavy content are to blame for the child's viewing, and the company that airs the media is not responsible, nor is the creator of said show film. Basically, the only good censorship is self censorship. I am wondering if there is a good argument for WHY censorship is a good thing, or at least good for our current societal views. It just seems that the content deemed age inappropriate shouldn't have to be taken out for the good of the children . Much of European society seems to be okay with what would be called a bit sexually explicit in American media. Here in America, we're a lot more okay with violence than eastern countries seem to be. I think both are okay, and that as long as they are put on channels that are open to such material AMC why is there a problem beyond that?<|ASPECTS|>censorship, time and content, self censorship, profanity heavy, responsible, violent, societal views, good of the children, material, age inappropriate, sexually explicit, violence, child 's<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that the censorship of dialogue or content changed against the will of the creator is inherently morally wrong.
| 444d84c8-5cf5-4f79-a321-d0205db76da6 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Antinatalism, which enjoys its own semi flourishing subreddit on this site, is the philosophical view that assigns a negative value to birth. I'm sympathetic to antinatalism. Life sucks. A lot. Life is very sincerely bad for a lot of people, a lot of the time. And even among the lucky few for whom it is not often that bad, it is still 99.99 guaranteed to be very bad at least some of the time. This seems like a pretty good argument for antinatalism. Suffering sucks and every time a new baby is born it adds to the suffering in the world. Thus we should prevent babies from being born. That's a pretty straightforward view. However I think such a position itself suffers from a flaw in its account of suffering, at least in a cosmic context. Put roughly, my view is that suffering is a natural phenomenon. It emerged from nothing in the same way all animals emerged from nothing over the course of billions of years of mechanistic biological contingency. In this sense, suffering, like life itself, is part of the naturally evolved furniture of the world. It afflicts all naturally evolved sentient beings, among whom humans are a minuscule minority. I don't see any reason to believe that if every single human being stopped reproducing that suffering would cease to exist, or even decrease. In fact I am inclined to think the opposite would happen. Suffering, to the extent it can be quanitified, would actually increase. This is because, at least as far as we know, human beings are unique in one capacity which separates them from the other suffering beings a capacity to ameliorate suffering. Humans are not capable of obliterating suffering, but they are capable of sometimes making it slightly less bad . This is important when considering antinatalism, because to imagine a world in which every human is an antinatalist is to imagine a world voluntarily ceded back to brute biological contingency, a world teeming with beings who suffer vastly, but are incapable of any amelioration of that suffering. It is also to imagine a world which could once again evolve another wretched suffering species similar to humans, who could, in the blink of an eye, talk themselves back into antinatalist philosophy, once again giving up on their ameliorative capacities and voluntarily causing their species to die out, once again ceding the ground back to brute evolutionary contingency, again and again ad infinitum. This is what I see as the fatal flaw in antinalism. But like I said life sucks pretty hard, so maybe I'm wrong. . <|ASPECTS|>, birth, minuscule minority, antinatalist philosophy, bad, antinatalism, nothing, life sucks, cease to exist, natural phenomenon, antinalism, ameliorative capacities, naturally evolved sentient beings, ameliorate suffering, less bad, fatal flaw, amelioration, life, naturally evolved furniture, guaranteed, straightforward view, afflicts, obliterating suffering, account, suffering, prevent babies from being born, negative value, sincerely bad, biological contingency, decrease, suffering species, wretched, quanitified, sympathetic, opposite, flaw, evolutionary contingency, unique<|CONCLUSION|>
| antinatalism has a fatal flaw
| 45247ff2-ab25-48c6-a079-36e2f670ced9 |
<|TOPIC|>Should U.S. Presidents Have the Power to Issue Pardons?<|ARGUMENT|>If Presidents could not pardon individuals for committing acts of injustice, both innocent and guilty people would face the same consequence, and the effect after would depend on the overall social stability.<|ASPECTS|>social stability, injustice<|CONCLUSION|>
| U.S. presidents should not have the power to issue pardons.
| 1da65b94-8af9-45d3-b7a4-332e756e1356 |
<|TOPIC|>Should We Colonize Venus Before Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>Venus does have a slight magnetic field due to the interactions between the Venusian atmosphere and the solar wind<|ASPECTS|>magnetic field, slight<|CONCLUSION|>
| Venus has no magnetic field to protect from harmful radiation.
| edfe0298-36d2-4363-a463-1b340d6902c3 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>FORWARD Maybe I worded it poorly because I've gotten a lot of this argument. I will update the OP. I'm not saying to just drop these campaigns, if your goal is to keep animals from choking to death then straws are an excellent place to start. What I'm saying is that my government is using climate change as an excuse to wring more money out of the end user and pretend they are helping. FOREWARD I think individuals should do best to try to limit their usage and if a corporate entity decided to eliminate these products on their own I'm all in. However, the overwhelming majority of human waste products come from parts of industry with which humans don't interact. We all remember the plastic straw campaign, but actual numbers indicate that even if straw usage was five times what it was in 2016, eliminating them would have a marginal impact on trash accumulation and zero effect on climate change. Same goes for automobiles. If I had Thanos' Infinity Gauntlet, snapped my fingers, and eliminated all of the personally owned automobiles, it would not come close to the change required in the next 50 years to prevent the 2 degree change that could wipe out humanity. This isn't a let it burn argument. I don't think we are beyond saving. However, most individuals aren't wealthy enough to uproot their entire lives to go green. I believe forcing corporations many of which can afford it to get their act together 1 and new regulations on how we source our electricity 2 would get us close enough to the place we want to be that the whim of the market becomes irrelevant. FOOTNOTES Mandating a switch to more environment friendly modes of production, reducing the amount of pesticides used on food, subsidies for worker co ops, etc. I reccomend instituting a WW2 style command economy driven toward switching from oil and gas to hydro, solar and geothermal. I would also like to chill out on the nuclear energy. We have done a wonderful job at recycling the waste but I personally believe the risk isn't worth the reward. In the words of T1J, DasJusMeTho.<|ASPECTS|>chill, the market, wealthy enough, energy, money, limit their usage, go, environment friendly modes, green, interact, command economy, marginal, uproot, automobiles, user, choking to death, wring, update, subsidies, pesticides, risk, reward, saving, climate change, burn argument, irrelevant, recycling the waste, argument, humans, change, afford, trash accumulation, human waste, wipe out humanity<|CONCLUSION|>
| Bans on plastic bag bans, Styrofoam cups, plastic straws, one-use packaging, etc. are a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
| cf8d558a-f6d7-4b65-8409-25013524a7c3 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that capitalism has the power to do the most good for the most number of people. To keep this discussion centered, here is the definition we'll use for capitalism, per Wikipedia Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and items are brought to market for profit. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged. I want to define quickly what I don't consider to be capitalism and which I am not arguing in favor of Crony capitalism A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives. i.e. the Koch brothers Three key features of capitalism Effeciency Efficient allocation of resources In a market system, firms have incentives to be productively efficient – cutting costs to improve competitiveness and productivity. If firms don’t remain productive and efficient they will go out of business. Efficient production In a market system, firms have incentives to be productively efficient – cutting costs to improve competitiveness and productivity. If firms don’t remain productive and efficient they will go out of business. Dynamic Efficiency This is efficiency over time. Firms in a capitalist system need to respond to changes in consumer preferences and respond to new consumer trends. Incentives Evidence suggests that people work hardest when there is a personal financial incentive. E.g. entrepreneurs only take risks in setting up businesses because of the potential for large financial reward. If this scope for private profit is absent then new firms won’t be set up. Competition A market system helps produce products most in tune with consumer's needs and equalize prices because a business will go of business if it does not create products that consumers want and at prices they are willing to pay. Here are some of my rebuttals to arguments that are likely to be raised Capitalism does not lead to greed. Greed is a product of human nature, not of any one economic system. Any economy regardless of whether it's capitalistic, socialist, communist, or some combination thereof, will manifest greed amongst some people. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. For someone to win, it does not require someone else to lose. It is easy to observe a person who has done well and assume that there must be persons elsewhere who had to lose something in order for this person to have gained. That is true of every political system and many simulated scenarios like sporting events, but nothing could be further from the truth in a market. When exchange takes place in a free market, both parties trade something they want less for something they want more. Of course, either may change their mind later and regret the decision, but at the time of the trade both parties valued what they got more than what they gave, otherwise they would not have traded. It is easy to see how value is created on both sides because economic value is subjective , and how there was no loser. Beyond this simple illustration, over the long run the wealth generation of capitalist trade grows the overall pool of valuable resources and increases choice for all involved. This means the potential for more and bigger wins as time goes on and specialization and trade increase. Wealth is created, not distributed. Capitalism is not for the rich. If there's any class or group that benefits more from capitalism than any other, it's not the rich, but the consumer. Of course all of us, rich and poor alike, play the part of the consumer at various times. But it is an inescapable fact that in order to succeed in a market, you must create value for consumers. Ludwig von Mises sums this up nicely The riches of the rich are not the cause of the poverty of anybody the process that makes some people rich is, on the contrary, the corollary of the process that improves many peoples want satisfaction. The entrepreneurs, the capitalists and the technologists prosper as far as they succeed in best supplying the consumers. The rich do not live at the expense of the poor, nor do the rich feel particularly secure in a free market they often seek government intervention to protect them from competition. But any gains to the rich not only are the result of creating value for the consuming public, they often lead to direct benefits for the poor over time by way of lower prices and access to new technologies. Even the most selfish, peasant hating rich person wants to buy fancy new luxuries. Whether they like it or not, being early adopters of such goods helps fund the continual production, research and development of new technology and can bring the cost of production down over time. There is not a modern convenience in existence that did not begin as a plaything of the super wealthy. TVs, cars, washing machines, cell phones, etc., ad nauseam. If there were no wealthy customers around to purchase these impractical items, it would have been nearly impossible for producers to continue to refine them and lower the cost of production. Rich and poor can certainly dislike each other in a free market, but they cannot avoid helping each other.<|ASPECTS|>, inescapable, technologies, financial reward, subjective, favoritism, prices, equalize prices, capitalism, productively efficient, valuable resources, cost of production, human nature, dynamic efficiency, work hardest, free market, efficient production, fancy new luxuries, super wealthy, greed, impractical, plaything, peasant, selfish, choice, large, private profit, efficiency over time, wealthy customers, of business, incentives, wealth, productivity, lower prices, close relationships, create, competition, economic system, modern convenience, market for profit, distributed, personal financial incentive, poverty, avoid, productive and efficient, lose, production, market system, loser, benefits, wins, zero sum game, win, want, business, competitiveness, specialization, trade increase, risks, costs, secure, direct, expense, wealth is created, cutting, trade, done well, power to do the most good, consumer preferences, value, part, lose something, capitalist society, consumer, else, lower, best supplying the consumers, allocation of resources, poor, increases, new consumer trends, valued, public, privately owned, truth, dislike each, value for consumers, capital assets, require, play, economic value, want satisfaction, helping each, rich, regret<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that Capitalism is the most universally effective economic system.
| ce9d89ff-c40a-429d-9ef0-9c59592b64f9 |
<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>The studies showing that researchers can predict decisions 7 - 10 seconds in advance report a success rate of 60%. That is not much better than a fair coin. Secondly, the subjects were asked to select at random meaning that they had to track what they had chosen before. The detected activity is not likely to have indicated a decision but the calling up of the previous choice. It is also likely that subjects were slightly biased towards one choice, explaining the slight advantage over the coin.<|ASPECTS|>success rate, slight, predict decisions, decision, track, detected activity, fair coin, biased towards one choice, advantage, select<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are flaws with all these studies, both in methodology and the interpretation of the results.
| 2e093b5a-eeca-4e4e-87e5-76a583f6986a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Myself included I've made my life sooooo much more enjoyable over the last 2 years. Lost 120 lbs. Got a car. Got health insurance. Moved up at work. Got a gf who makes me happier. Here's the thing though. Since I was about 19 everything that happens in my life, good or bad I always think well it doesn't matter, we all die eventually and nobody will remember this or know about it. That's an inescapable fact. It just is. And I focus on it at least once a day. It takes the sting off of bad things, and the spark out of anything good. With that said, you can't change the universal truth of death. So unless you can get me, and others alike to focus on it way less, there will always be an underlying sense of pointlessness.<|ASPECTS|>remember, spark, pointlessness, enjoyable, inescapable fact, focus, bad things, at work, health insurance, universal truth of death, life, happier, sting, die eventually<|CONCLUSION|>
| A large portion of depressed people have no hope for sustainable happiness regardless of treatment
| 010b95c9-2207-42bf-ace6-a1e0bc4a842f |
<|TOPIC|>US and NATO Should Withdraw from Afghanistan<|ARGUMENT|>President Ashraf Ghani has been accused of being autocratic, intellectually arrogant, disrespectful of local political culture, and of centralising decision making far too much in his own hands, bringing many government functions to a stand still. This has led to considerable opposition and defections, threatening to dissolve the government and create instability in the country.<|ASPECTS|>political culture, decision making, defections, dissolve, autocratic, intellectually arrogant, opposition, instability, disrespectful, government<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Afghan government itself is divided and fragile An outbreak of violence between the various factions involved is likely, especially if the US leave and the security situation deteriorates.
| 8576273f-d3aa-4370-becb-7b47bb445380 |
<|TOPIC|>condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available to the general public<|ARGUMENT|>The developer of a new idea, theory, technology, invention, etc. has a fundamental intellectual property right. Academics in universities, through deliberate effort create new things and ideas, and those efforts demand huge amounts of personal sacrifice and invention in order to bear fruit. State funding is often given to pioneering researchers who eschew traditional roads in pursuit of new frontiers. Often there are no obvious profits to be immediately had, and it is only because of the desire of these individuals to expand the canon of human knowledge that these boundaries are ever pushed. It is a matter of principle that these academics be able to benefit from the fruits of their hard-won laurels.1 The state stripping people of these rights is certainly a kind of theft. Certainly no amount of public funding to an institution can alter the fundamental relationship that exists between creator and the product of their endeavour. The state-funded University of Illinois, for example, has led the way in many technologies, such as fast charging batteries, and has spawned dozens of high-tech start-ups that have profited the university and society generally.2 The state can easily gain a return on its investments in universities by adopting things like licensing agreements that can provide the state with revenue without taking away the benefits from the developers of research. Furthermore, this policy strips control of researchers’ control over their works’ use. State funding should obviously come with some requirements in terms of some sharing of revenues, etc., but it is also important to consider the extent of the impact work may offer the world. For example, the team that produced the atomic bomb at the University of Chicago became extremely worried after seeing what their invention could wreak, yet the power over their invention was taken over entirely by the state.3 Certainly that is an extreme example, but it highlights the risks of stripping originators of control over what they produce. 1 Sellenthin, M. 2004. “Who Should Own University Research?”. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies. 2 Blumenstyk, G. 2012 “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle. 3 Rosen, R. 2011. “’I’ve Created a Monster!’ On the Regrets of Inventors”. The Atlantic. <|ASPECTS|>fruits, rights, stripping, worried, return, benefits, canon of human knowledge, inventions, traditional roads, originators, society, risks, pioneering researchers, regrets of inventors, revenue, agreements, control of researchers, intellectual property right, investments, personal sacrifice, theft, profited, control, invention, power, profits, funding, earnings, fundamental, benefit, high-tech, hard-won, eschew, fundamental relationship, impact, new frontiers, sharing of revenues<|CONCLUSION|>
| A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts
| 436ce979-fc31-41d7-8a09-15c66440ffaa |
<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>The global percentage of the primary sector of which meat production is part of, declines drastically on a global level.<|ASPECTS|>declines drastically, global percentage<|CONCLUSION|>
| Meat production is economically irrelevant in most national economies. Thus, impacts on farmers are easy to mitigate.
| c14e529f-45f7-4cb9-8dc0-8a64d063c6f4 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is a show that is regularly lauded as some of the best work that television has to offer. It is so boring. I've only seen the first 4 episodes. The whole show is just a scripted reality television show affairs and partying, i.e. shallow problems with the novelty of how business was done in the early 60s, e.g. look how difficult filing and using a typewriter is The novelty wears off really quickly and the rest of the show is just mundane white people problems with no convincing conflict or drama. There is decent acting, but story wise, Mad Men sucks.<|ASPECTS|>, affairs, conflict, white people problems, novelty, business was done, drama, best, partying, story wise, boring, decent acting, work, scripted, mundane<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think Mad Men sucks.
| 043d6ac3-59fc-4aaa-b6c4-26464ed526d1 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I work in a hospital and usually when this time of year comes around i can sign a waiver saying i dont want the flu shot, however this year they are requiring it or i have to wear a mask when i work. I have never gotten the flu myself, and i have never received the flu shot either. I can see that statistically people with the flu shot have a lower chance of getting the flu when they get the shot, i just dont want it. I am also objective to the fact that i am required to have a something injected into me. I dont mind getting shots, i just think im better off without the flu shot seeing as i have not contracted the flu and ive never gotten the flu shot. edit i have decided to get the shot, i overlooked the ability to carry it to the patients. thanks reddit<|ASPECTS|>carry, the patients, flu, lower, ability, chance, getting, flu shot, something<|CONCLUSION|>
| I dont want to get the flu shot,
| 310fc130-7764-469e-ad08-9b93c5b7e953 |
<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Religion may not be the "objective" truth, but if properly done, it sure is a subjective truth. Religion and God have been the most misunderstood things in this world since time immemorial. What people see today that makes them lose their faith is the disgusting and sinful behavior of certain clergy members. That still won't deter a sincere seeker. There is too much information on God and our relationship with him, you just need to know where to look. There is genuine experience beyond doubt.<|ASPECTS|>religion, objective, faith, god, genuine experience beyond, disgusting, sinful behavior, subjective truth, misunderstood, information on god, sincere seeker, lose<|CONCLUSION|>
| The worst outcomes of religion are often due to the failure of its adherents to understand and apply the tenets of the faith rather than the accurate expression of the tenet as intended.
| 668549c7-43d0-4ce3-b2ac-0c5a643c8c73 |
<|TOPIC|>United States mass shooting extensiveness and underlying causes<|ARGUMENT|>Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the Australian ban of guns, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates.<|ASPECTS|>rates, sexual, manslaughter, unarmed robbery<|CONCLUSION|>
| Nations with higher legal gun ownership have lower crime rates.
| 10d063ce-3975-4066-8c22-59b7e55f2cc3 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll start this post by saying Not All Furries isn't a proper argument. It's obvious not all furries live their sex life fantasies through anthropomorphic animals. There is no need to state that passing judgment on an entire community as huge as the furry community would be an awful generalization. What I argue instead is that, with consideration of exceptions, the furry community vastly tends to become sexually active through this anthropomorphic taste . This can be exemplified by the following Most furries will state that they just enjoy anthropomorphic art. However, from a general perspective, there is much more anthropomorphic porn hentai than there are other forms of anthro media which are not sexual. Furthermore, when such a form of anthro media is produced, the furry community tends to sexualize it one way or another that much happened with Zootopia as the creator even had to ask these people to stop sexualizing a movie that was never intended to aim for such characteristics . We're euphemizing. A lot. Furry conventions are many times forbidding of kinks those who aren't, though, are plagued with fetishists. You might say, Well, of course, there's going to be fetishists if they're allowed. . True, if you make a convention that allows fetishists, you're going to be enjoying quite a lot of them. Rainfurrest, for example, is a huge furry convention not just for fetishists, but for the whole furry community as a whole. This convention also allows fetishists, and such liberalism in their rules prompted a hotel demanding reparations. Not too soon after, Rainfurrest would be discontinued. From their last convention, we get many stories most of them of disgusting nature. You can look at the whole album here Note this is only part one. When a huge convention grabs the attention of the entire furry community, shouldn't it be more balanced? Shouldn't there be enough civic furries to compensate for the supposed minority that are the fetishists? Are they really a minority, or are they the overwhelming majority they seem every time you allow them to attend a convention that allows fetishes as an addition and not as a central topic ? It is very common to see furry servers, may it be on Discord, Telegram or wherever, filled with innuendos or provocative roleplay. Alternate scenarios include purrplay or basically roleplaying as if you were a pup playing around with another pup. Furthermore, it's also fairly common to see draughtsmen in these servers accepting commissions which, very frequently, are NSFW how NSFW they are, depends on the server. Some pieces can be sold at thousands of dollars, believe it or not. Well, am I wrong when I say furryness , though not always sexual, definitely has a tendency towards sexuality, and from there, in some cases, to a certain degree, zoophilia?<|ASPECTS|>enjoying, innuendos, euphemizing, overwhelming majority, anthropomorphic porn, fetishists, rainfurrest, anthropomorphic art, anthropomorphic animals, awful, community, purrplay, commissions, furry servers, provocative roleplay, furry convention, forbidding of kinks, sex life fantasies, sexually active, supposed, thousands of dollars, roleplaying, enjoy, civic furries, sexualize, reparations, zoophilia, minority, live, generalization, anthropomorphic taste, sexual, proper argument, accepting, balanced, passing judgment, sold, liberalism, sexuality, disgusting nature, fetishes<|CONCLUSION|>
| Being a "furry" is a fandomized fetish which, although not always sexual, tends to become sexual one way or another due to its inherent kink nature.
| b971e4ce-01e5-4091-9790-2afc2fc8b7eb |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Our budget for Halloween is to spend less than 20 on candy this year, since I have a tendency to go overboard, but the point still stands I can also get bulk lollipops and other cheap candy for much less than chocolates and other fancier candied like dots and skittles If I mix the chocolates and the lollipops, the kids get picky and get pissed it I don't give them the chocolates choice candy. If I let them pick out their own candy they take handfuls. I have a philosophy that more kids getting candy is better than fewer kids getting better candy. The reason is that there are always a number of kids who's parents work late and can't go trick or treating until later at night, and they often have little candy in their bag. If there's more candy, I can snack for longer when I'm giving the candy out. I have neighbors that give out chocolates and large lollipops to the kids they know, but I feel that is unfair to the kids that come from bad neighborhoods. I'm not the type to give out raisins or cheap health food Tl dr My attempt at a Halloween based . I should buy more cheap candy. Give me an alternative solution.<|ASPECTS|>unfair, choice candy, work late, better, cheap, picky, cheap candy, bad neighborhoods, cheap health food, alternative solution, bulk, snack for longer, little candy, handfuls, candy<|CONCLUSION|>
| I should get more cheaper candy than fewer more expensive candy
| 754775ba-187a-4812-8113-da0d802e0a2b |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, while I'll admit right off the bat that I don't know much of anything about the specifics of these laws, I'll mainly talk about the laws I've heard of that attempt to stop employers from discriminating during the hiring process based on whether a woman is or is soon likely to be pregnant and therefore require a maternity leave during which the company will have to make alternative arrangements . For the sake of argument, I'll assume that these laws can be effectively enforced. Among many other things, I'll award deltas if people can show with sufficient depth how other aspects of these laws which, again, I don't know much about can counteract the problems I bring up here. My view kind of simplistic is this I don't see how saying that women should be considered for a position, regardless of whether she will require leave for a pregnancy , is fundamentally different from, say, someone being considered for a manual labor position, who comes into the interview with a cast on, and says he does dangerous stunts for fun on the weekends, and expects to be considered for the position just the same as anyone else, regardless of the stunts. I think the crux of it is this you don't have to be pregnant. You can choose to do that if you are prepared to take the long term financial hit of it, but I don't agree that you should somehow be exempt from the consequences in the workplace of your decision. The fatal flaw in my position will probably be that women are the only ones who can make that choice, and I'm open to discussion about that, because that might have some undesirable consequences. But I don't know about that either. Hypothetically, if there were something that took away from long term financial gains, that only men could participate in, I would be against compensation in terms of enforced hiring equality for that too Edit 1 I'm predicting that people will want to know, even though it shouldn't theoretically matter, so FWIW I'm a man. Edit 2 Going to work at time of this edit, but will try to keep up with responses.<|ASPECTS|>financial gains, effectively enforced, fatal flaw, undesirable consequences, laws, counteract, consequences, responses, discriminating, alternative arrangements, compensation, hiring equality, financial hit, problems, dangerous stunts<|CONCLUSION|>
| Pregnancy protection laws aren't fair for anyone involved.
| 5af23a99-f4ec-480d-9afa-d9ac58e69039 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Despite living in Toronto, Canada for 35 years, my constant cavilling and grousing every winter of Toronto’s frigidity proves my loathing of it and physical inability to acclimate. I suffer from 1.1. Seasonal Affective Disorder I feel more languid, listless, sluggish in the winter, and sorrowful and wistful of Ontario’s warmer seasons. 1.2. skin conditions only corroded by Toronto’s dry frigid air that chap, crack, pain, and sting my skin whenever I’m outside in the winter. I loathe the greasily, slick feeling from using skin products like moisturizers or lip balms. Changing in my lifetime nature or my physical reactions likely impossible, I believe the lack of any other solution but to move somewhere warmer in Canada e.g. Vancouver . <|ASPECTS|>skin conditions, corroded, languid, lifetime, frigidity, loathing, pain, dry frigid air, slick feeling, physical inability to acclimate, seasonal affective disorder, greasily, listless, skin, sorrowful, sting, physical reactions, sluggish, crack, suffer<|CONCLUSION|>
| I can’t acclimate to and live comfortably in Toronto's frigid winters, and so must move somewhere warmer.
| 6825f3ac-2108-4476-8970-a639c43795da |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay first of all I I am not well versed in politics and I'm writing this post on my phone so my response and explanation may be brief until I get to a keyboard. I simply wanted to get a conversation started about my idea on the votes. Basically I don't understand what the point is for voting independent when you know that they didn't have a chance to win and this election was very important. Some people didn't want to commit to either Trump or Hillary because it was a lot safer to claim an independent vote so that way you wouldn't get any backlash from family or friends for choosing either Republican or Democrat. Like I said I just wanted to get the conversation going. I hope what I'm saying kind of makes sense<|ASPECTS|>, politics, independent vote, voting independent, brief, idea, chance, conversation started, backlash, response, safer, conversation going<|CONCLUSION|>
| cmv: I think that during the election those who voted independent were irresponsible with their vote knowing those candidates wouldn't win.
| 4ade054d-66d3-40ee-b40e-33ee21ddbf8c |
<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>"Mississippi appendectomy refers to hysterectomies/ tubal ligations forced on poor women in the US South during the height of the American Eugenics movement, against their will and often without their knowledge.<|ASPECTS|>poor women<|CONCLUSION|>
| This has often taken the form of forcible interference with reproduction. For example, there are many instances of forcible sterilization of women, often without their knowledge or consent.
| 0d1c5cb6-3ead-40b1-b0bf-be9ac2ddbeeb |
<|TOPIC|>The Trolley Problem: What's the Right Solution?<|ARGUMENT|>Without "massproduction" there would still be enough food worldwirde, if food was distributed fair and equally.<|ASPECTS|>food worldwirde, massproduction<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is not about producing food "for need" as most of it is thrown away.
| c5a73c5c-2746-480f-88c3-2925bc905a35 |
<|TOPIC|>Supply side economics looks like it is fueling the self-destruction of capitalism in America.<|ARGUMENT|>Probabilistic and uncertain factors such as severe illness, disabling accidents, and being victims of others who succeed through fraud, are perhaps unlikely, but possible and potentially critical to success. These can work positively too, such as being at the right place at the right time to catch an opportunity.<|ASPECTS|>disabling accidents, success, critical, fraud, severe illness, uncertain factors<|CONCLUSION|>
| The odds of success in capitalism depend partly on dumb luck.
| 3d4155f9-2f34-48bd-a6ef-3be8dc0208ce |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Most of the people I talk to think I'm a flaming liberal, but the other day I had a long talk with a friend of mine who is an ardent supporter of the GOP and by the end of it I think he was a little bit afraid at how much of a right wing republican I really am. Basically I believe that by virtue of my birth I am entitled to 1 ~7billionth of every resource and commodity on the planet. Either this should be given to me immediately, or my counter proposal is that I will take it by any means necessary and I might not stop after I've used or accrued my fair share. I further believe that this is inherently the state of nature for all mankind and that regardless of rhetoric it's how everyone lives their lives. Coming to the idea of political states and social contract it is therefore my belief that the only way a group of humans can ever co exist in a society is to put the needs of the state or collective ahead of their own individual needs. This is essentially republicanism. The result of this is that I have very little problem with American foreign policy over the last century, and will only comment that perhaps the state of the geopolitics could be better had a different approach been taken by President Wilson. However, in the wake of the post Wilson years the United States became committed to the ideology and you have examples of this cropping up in all sorts of different contexts from Turkey to Israel to Korea to Vietnam. In retrospect , I think the US may have benefited more from neutrality and a sort of isolationism but I firmly believe that once the decision was made to intervene internationally that it would be more catastrophic to abandon these policies than to continue them. For example, look at the Arab Spring. It is unfair to say that it happened because of GWB or Obama, but I don't feel that it's unfair to say it was the result of decades of economic warfare and isolation which resulted in those countries being forced to become more authoritarian in order to maintain power which ultimately culminated in the events that we all saw. I take the same approach towards the wars in the Middle East, and will only comment that my main grievance is that Saddam was not toppled in the early 90s. I take exception to how our plans were executed, not with the goals trying to be achieved if that makes sense? Furthermore, in a true republican sense, I fully support initiatives such as public healthcare, welfare, unemployment, and would be very open to discussing how to implement a basic income initiative similar to the system that the Swiss are proposing. I support these ideas because I believe they will make the state stronger. In the same vein of logic I don't have much of a problem with the NSA and meta data, at least from a constitutional approach. I'm not saying I support what they're doing, or that what they're doing is effective, or that our constitution shouldn't be changed to prevent them from doing it but as our constitution stands today I don't see much of a problem at all with it, and don't see how the argument can be made that the founders would have had a problem with any of this From healthcare, to welfare, to spying, to intervening internationally. I see our country and constitution functioning as intended by the founders with few exceptions which are essentially irrelevant to the larger argument I'm making e.g. judicial activism, etc. At the end of the day the term statist is more accurate to my beliefs. I believe in the legitimacy of the state vis a viv the application of sovereignty, and feel that the US constitution gives the state rights just as much as it outlines the rights for the people. To be very clear I am not a nationalist. I feel that if the state begins to behave in a way in which I find morally reprehensible that I can simply leave and go find another state that is more aligned with my interests. Anyway, .<|ASPECTS|>statist, political states, right wing republican, entitled, spying, activism, republicanism, isolation, goals, grievance, nationalist, catastrophic, individual needs, meta data, authoritarian, isolationism, legitimacy, unemployment, wars, intervening, fair, accurate, constitution functioning, state, ideology, welfare, saddam, effective, plans, social contract, arab spring, rights for, behave, geopolitics, nsa, flaming liberal, morally reprehensible, irrelevant, basic income initiative, economic warfare, country, neutrality, sovereignty, state of nature, needs, foreign policy, resource and commodity, lives, stronger, state rights, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>
| I'm a hardcore right-wing NeoCon.
| 5f66e0a7-54a2-4837-8d76-4081d3857973 |
<|TOPIC|>Same sex relationships should have the same legal status as heterosexual relationships under EU law<|ARGUMENT|>Marriage is an oppressive social institution which damages those within it and harms the children whose parents are married. Marriage, however, is also an institution which is continually changing with society's changes. If homosexuals were able to marry, their marriages would be more akin to gay and lesbian relationships in their current form than an oppressive traditional marriage. By allowing more homosexuals who are naturally more liberal to marry, they might be able to change social attitudes and practices towards, and within the institution, strengthening it and making it healthier both for society and those who are married. For this reason, we should grant homosexuals as well as heterosexuals the right to marry in order to change society for the better.<|ASPECTS|>change, harms, changing, institution, damages, oppressive social institution, society 's changes, right to marry, change society, gay, oppressive traditional marriage, healthier, social attitudes and practices, relationships<|CONCLUSION|>
| Homosexuals would Change the Institution of Marriage for the Better
| 997fcb1d-2cc3-44c7-bf60-298453206689 |
<|TOPIC|>Tiger parenting does more harm than good<|ARGUMENT|>Children forced into high-value careers such as law or medicine will often resent their parents if those careers make them unhappy.<|ASPECTS|>high-value, unhappy, resent their parents<|CONCLUSION|>
| Tiger parenting harms the ability of children to form meaningful and lasting relationships.
| b7938977-d8bf-4cf5-ae89-9b870c751af7 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are entire fields of thought dedicated to understanding economies, so I find it hard to believe that individuals that have only ever balanced their own checkbooks should be speaking about how it should be run. And they wouldn't if it weren't for conservatives constantly using it as a political talking point. I think they know full well that the deficit isn't a big deal at the moment but they need you to feel afraid, they might as well be saying the Tower of Pisa could fall any second and if they're voted in they'll stop it since no one else seems to care enough. I also notice that ever since Reagan was in office when republican presidents are in charge one of the first things they do is spend all the money. Then they all point to whatever democratic president comes in after and says it's all their fault and they're not fixing it fast enough. IMO it's scary to have people like that in charge, it makes me wonder what the real agenda is, so far it seems like whatever they feel like doing. <|ASPECTS|>fault, feel afraid, care, democratic president, fixing, tower, money, conservatives, spend all, political talking point, agenda, understanding economies, scary, deficit<|CONCLUSION|>
| The right uses the deficit to win votes by implying that the economy and a household budget are similarly structured.
| b0418096-16c6-4836-9538-f81d3bcaf145 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I realize that favoring one movie over another is largely subjective, so I'll try to frame this in such a way to emphasize the least controversially bad parts of the movies. I'd discuss the good parts, but this is already going to be long. Plotholes, cheating, and general stupidity Iron Man 1 First of all, the Jericho missile's effectiveness as a weapon of war is never established. The one time it is used in battle is against some mountains. Do you know who lives in mountains? Insurgents. Why would they ask Tony to build them something they're going to immediately waste? Wouldn't it be better to build something they can use repeatedly like a anti air missile launcher or something that can destroy tanks? When Tony gets busted not building the missile, Raza gives him a day, knowing full well that is not nearly enough time to start from scratch to create a missile. Why? So he can finalize the plans for his escape? Skipping ahead a bit, what is Obadiah's motivation? He's trying to kill Tony so he can take over the business, obviously, but why the rant about maintaining the balance ? He's maintaining the balance by selling weapons to terrorists ?? And how about Raza's plan to beg Obadiah for Iron Man suits after Obadiah tried to screw him out of the bounty for stark? Now he's just going to trust Obadiah to give him enough weapons to conquer the world? And finally, at the end. How does Tony survive? He is closer to the arc reactor explosion, yet he is blown away and Obadiah is killed. More importantly, the upgraded portable arc reactor in Obadiah's suit was destroyed, while Tony's original was exhausted. What did Tony do about his heart? Did he have time to craft another? Or are we to accept that emergency backup power otherwise known as 0 will last exactly as long as is necessary? Iron Man 2 Being as I think this is the superior movie, I have much less to say about it. I will admit that details of Tony's new element are horribly convenient and hard to believe, but they don't break any rules at least. And before anyone mentions it, when Jarvis says it is impossible to synthesize , he means there are no known ways to synthesize it, and Tony invents a new one, because he's Iron Man. Also, I don't get what advantage the whips give considering they can't cut through Iron Man armor for some reason, but whatever, every movie is equally bad about weapons able to penetrate the armor when it counts. Iron Man 3 I have a really hard time buying that Tony has PTSD from the events of the Avengers. If anything it would have been his time in captivity, or nearly dying from his own bombs. Waking up in a terrorist video is every American's nightmare. But no, a little jaunt in the wormhole followed by a quick nap, that's just too much for Iron Man to take. And doesn't PTSD require a trigger? It just seems to happen at random. The times you would expect it to happen, like say during a fight, it doesn't. So uh what was the point? Did killing a bunch of people cure his PTSD? My next main problem is with the Extremis soldier on the plane. It is established earlier that Extremis soldiers are fireproof. and Iron Man kills him with fire ?? And the skydiving scene was a complete cheat. I'm going to electrify your arm ??? Yeah, I think we have a word for that. Electrocution. And even ignoring that Tony's suit is suddenly as versatile as Batman's utility belt and assuming that these people won't be charred husks by the time they reach the ground, the people on top are carrying the weight of 13 people beneath them with just their fingers and their clothes. If their fingers don't break, the clothes sure will. And other people have mentioned this of course, but why didn't Tony use his army of Iron Man suits during the attack on his home? Might've been a great way to find the Mandarin really fast by capturing one of the helicopters with his army of Iron Men. How does Tony summon parts of the Iron Man suit while his hands are tied up? He required very exaggerated arm motions to summon them in the beginning, and he can't move his wrists. Where did he learn to shoot? He has advanced targeting weaponry in the Iron Man suit, he's never had to aim before in the entire trilogy, suddenly he's as accurate as Hawkeye? Why does Killian decide to torture Pepper by giving her super powers? Why doesn't he just torture her with torture? It is established that Killian can cut through Iron Man armor at will, how does he get trapped in the Mark 42? The Iron Patriot is hijacked and remote controlled to get the President off of Air Force One, how does Rhodes take command of it? If Jarvis can control an army of Iron Man suits all by himself, wtf do we need Tony Stark for any more? And on that thought where is Jarvis? Tony's house is completely destroyed. Jarvis was presumably on the Mark 42, but that was destroyed along with every other Iron Man suit. So where is Jarvis? Did Tony just murder him to impress his girlfriend? Why on earth does reddit like this movie, but hate on Iron Man 2?<|ASPECTS|>, known, superior movie, emergency backup power, subjective, craft, terrorist video, hate, nightmare, accurate, arm, motivation, fingers, tony, destroy tanks, kills, effectiveness, murder, time, exaggerated, terrorists, weapon of war, president, missile, balance, advanced targeting weaponry, iron man armor, obadiah 's, escape, rules, extremis soldier, immediately, learn to shoot, synthesize, torture, torture pepper, random, clothes, remote controlled, break, insurgents, captivity, impossible to synthesize, obadiah, cheat, electrocution, trigger, electrify, control, hijacked, horribly, selling, finalize, battle, super powers, conquer the world, weapons, cut, waste, trust, mountains, controversially bad, stupidity, weight, arc reactor explosion, portable arc reactor, 's, cure, mandarin really fast, less, fireproof, iron, iron man suits, bombs, long, jarvis, heart, survive, kill tony, arm motions, ptsd, dying, cheating, summon, advantage, impress, destroyed, bounty, plans, convenient, maintaining, girlfriend, versatile, charred husks<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think Iron Man 2 was the objectively superior movie of the trilogy.
| ec46abb8-8125-4afb-ab33-099ccae5095b |
<|TOPIC|>Compulsory Voting: Should Voting be Mandatory?<|ARGUMENT|>Making voting compulsory and imposing a fine for defaulters would make it an oppressive institution where the individual has no choice to disassociate from the current electoral system and re-imagine and work towards another model of democracy.<|ASPECTS|>democracy, disassociate, oppressive institution<|CONCLUSION|>
| The right to vote in a democratic society also extends to the right not to vote.
| bad995d2-0bd0-4450-b443-7ba0b80235c1 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel as though half of these kids are homeless by choice. The way they shamelessly taunt you for NOT donating shows that they're really not hurting that badly or at all ashamed of the fact that they are indeed homeless. Part of me wants to say in response to their jeers you probably still have parents that love you. Go home . I totally understand the On The Road experience of traveling and relying on the goodness of others but something about them really rubs me the wrong way. Others including an alderman from my hometown agree I also understand that some of the year round gutter punks like the ones found in Portland and Venice are just hopelessly addicted to narcotics and found their way to warmer climates in an effort to continue actually LIVING. I feel like the gutter punks found in Chicago Wicker Park , NY Brooklyn , Philly Fishtown are not actual homeless people. I also am being nonspecific by saying Wicker Park, Brooklyn, and Fishtown but those are the only neighborhoods where I've seen them on multiple occasions in those cities. They might exist in other parts of the cities but those places are the only places where I've seen them more than one year in a row.<|ASPECTS|>shamelessly, badly, ashamed, homeless, goodness of others, addicted to narcotics, parents, gutter, warmer climates, nonspecific, neighborhoods, gutter punks, living, hurting, homeless by choice, homeless people<|CONCLUSION|>
| We should not give money to crust/gutter punks as if they're actual homeless people.
| b4b77998-0b8d-4aab-a605-2b7096b71a5d |
<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Given that there is usually no clear way to identify which students are at college due to affirmative action, this stigma applies to all students belonging to that identity group.<|ASPECTS|>stigma<|CONCLUSION|>
| The success of minorities in gaining college admissions is perceived as deriving from affirmative action rather than individual merit.
| 9fd9f737-58eb-4720-af4e-4d73298e2cb9 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm all for equality. I support equal rights, pay, opportunities for women and homosexuals. That's not what this post is about. Nearly every feminist queer scholarly article that I've read is ripe with confirmation bias. They see a knife in a movie, it represents a penis. They see a potato, it must be equated to a societal preference for masculinity and heteronormativity. Every article seems to simply say that white males are evil and every product of society is a sign that that is the case. I think that this is nothing but confirmation bias. Feminist queer scholars don't conduct quantitative or qualitative research to ground their theories. They begin with a conclusion and find evidence to support their heuristic. Any attempts to question their methodology is met with a critique that empiricism is yet another example of hegemonic masculinity, which I think is yet another example of their own confirmation bias. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>feminist, penis, equal rights, view, quantitative, theories, queer, confirmation bias, society, societal preference, hegemonic masculinity, qualitative research, heuristic, homosexuals, evidence, heteronormativity, opportunities for women, masculinity, ground, evil, pay, white males, equality<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that feminist/queer scholars see through a lens thick with confirmation bias. They see only what they want to see.
| 50d17970-5bc8-4be5-8c60-e14299699d2a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obviously some words from some people will hurt you. If family, friends and or lover said they have always secretly hated you then the natural response would be painful. But in the context of random things that random strangers say, you shouldn't let it get to you. There has always been and will always be people that unreasonably think less of you personally or people like you. People have the right to free speech, so as long as they aren't inciting violence and or advocating unequal unlawful treatment, they are naturally free to express themselves. If it upsets you, then that is something you should work on for yourself, not everyone else's responsibility to cater to your desires. EDIT I should define my terms better. By random things that random strangers say I mean offensive language. Using various slurs or swearing, cursing etc. by people whom you have the option to avoid and or block. There is a difference between people on a messageboard calling each other names, and bullies whom you can't avoid constantly targeting you for harassment.<|ASPECTS|>think less, slurs, block, random, terms, natural response, free to express, violence, bullies, upsets, random things, cater, hated, hurt, offensive language, unequal unlawful treatment, unreasonably, cursing, random strangers, right to free speech, option, painful, desires, secretly, avoid, harassment<|CONCLUSION|>
| "Stick and stones may break your bones but words should never hurt you"
| 4e74c4cb-5382-4fbd-a2d3-804417609e4e |
<|TOPIC|>Should Commercial Surrogacy be Legal in Liberal Democracies?<|ARGUMENT|>In democracies the will of the populace is the least corruptible form of decision making.<|ASPECTS|>decision making, corruptible form<|CONCLUSION|>
| Government policy should enforce the beliefs of the majority of its populace.
| 8cc4fbf8-6546-4b2d-a182-bbbb11172cf8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Some things I want to be clear about right off the bat When I say women have more of it I mean existing women. I do not mean that there's something necessarily inherent in the female sex genetically that provides I do believe that's true as well, but this wouldn't since I'm not talking about genetically I'm talking about the current situation which includes every living person most of whom have been affected and shaped in part by not strictly biological external influencers. When I use the word intelligence I don't mean the standardized tested version that actually doesn't test anything about a person's awareness of ability to accurately read signs of emotion. I mean specifically such abilities, even if intelligence isn't the right word to describe this, it's just among the more common ways to refer to such so I used it in lieu of a better option that I'm aware of. The reason I've come to hold this view is experience with male and female therapists. Male therapists have described me as having a poker face or being blank or neutral. I've only had one female therapist, but she often surprises me in noticing emotional shifts. And while that's an incredibly small sample size, I have a vague sense that overall my interactions with men and women suggest this more generally. Lastly, looking at more scientific ways of judging it, or rather referencing scientific claims, it seems women had more reason to be concerned with emotion historically evolutionarily. I take evolutionary psychology with a large grain of salt, but it does make sense to me that being able to judge emotional states of other people would be more important in mothers the physically weaker sex. I don't really know where I stand in regard to such an intelligence, I used to think it must be low but I'm not as sure anymore one thing I'm curious about is the difference between noticing these things and having a willingness to respond to them. I often suspect I read certain emotional responses in people, but rarely bring this up or act on them. Perhaps there's something about men masculinity and their socialization that suppresses not the ability to read this things, but the inclination to react to them. I'm doubtful but it's one uncertainty where there's some room for persuading me I think.<|ASPECTS|>low, neutral, inclination, male and female therapists, abilities, interactions, biological external influencers, intelligence, blank, emotional responses, emotion, react, persuading, existing women, emotional states, experience, noticing, poker face, masculinity, room, accurately read signs of emotion, socialization, willingness to respond, better, emotional shifts, judge, men<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is such a thing as "emotional intelligence" and women have more of ittypically and on average
| 1c2236bf-8001-48e9-85b9-bfd6a37de10f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have always held this opinion, and it tends to make some people angry, but I haven't really been satisfied by counter arguments I've been given. Now, I do acknowledge that people can work on their singing ability and practice hard, but in general I just see people getting praised for the sound of their voice. They didn't choose or work for their natural voice, but all the praise they get makes it seem that way. It seems to me that it's something you're born with, and not something that requires skill. For instance, if a little girl does a talent show at 8 years and has a decent voice, she will be treated like she's mastered a musical instrument. She can't change the way she sounds, she was just lucky to have a nice sounding voice. Compare that to practicing guitar all day every day, learning music theory deeper than just scales, and the technicality required to actually play an instrument rather than just using your own voice, and I feel like singers don't deserve the spot of generally being the one most recognized for their talent in a band. To me it just doesn't seem like a skill, if you have a nice voice you can sing, whereas with other musical instruments you have to actually work to get good. ?<|ASPECTS|>mastered, nice sounding voice, technicality, praise, requires, sound, talent, angry, natural voice, work, skill, musical instrument, good, practice hard, decent voice, counter arguments, music theory, singing ability<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't think singing takes talent or deserves the praise it gets.
| 0832c116-51c2-4f6c-8576-aa49c33d0d84 |
<|TOPIC|>Is the minimum wage good for the economy overall?<|ARGUMENT|>People used to be hired to knock at people windows in the morning. This has been replaced by alarm clocks. This is not a bad evolution.<|ASPECTS|>alarm clocks, windows<|CONCLUSION|>
| People have been replaced by machines and it is not a bad thing. For example telephone operators have been replaced by more efficient phone systems.
| d8332c2c-541d-46df-b52c-8129255a0873 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Pluto a planet?<|ARGUMENT|>"Clearly, Pluto is a different type of object than the 8 solar system planets in the official IAU definition. But if we look at those 8, we see an extreme range of diversity as well. Mercury and Jupiter differ in mass by a factor of 5,750, and in volume by 25,000. Their compositions could hardly be more different. Jupiter's composition is more like that of a star; it's a giant ball of mostly hydrogen and helium. It also has a family of at least 63 moons, and several tenuous rings. In contrast, Mercury is a ball made of heavy elements, with no appreciable atmosphere and zero moons. Mercury is more than 13 times closer to the Sun. About all that Jupiter and Mercury have in common is that they are spherical objects orbiting the Sun. So if astronomers are comfortable lumping Jupiter and Mercury into the same category, it's not at all obvious that Pluto should be excluded from this club.If Mercury and Jupiter are considered similar enough to fall under the same category, it's not crazy or unscientific to think that Pluto should also be included, especially since Pluto shares the same properties with Jupiter and Mercury that give these two objects their commonality."<|ASPECTS|>, spherical objects, compositions, range, different type of object, hydrogen, volume, heavy elements, diversity, different, appreciable atmosphere, differ, mass, composition, rings, commonality, zero<|CONCLUSION|>
| Pluto's planetary characteristics diverge in just the same way as other planets.
| 0dc0b0b2-d173-4248-b1ba-e0dd5b9e58c0 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Shark Culling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Sharks serve as apex predators in the ecosystem, and their diets are varied which allows them to switch prey species when certain populations are low maintaining balance in the eco-system.<|ASPECTS|>balance, diets, apex predators<|CONCLUSION|>
| Sharks help remove the weak and sick species which in turn helps keep the ocean ecosystem healthy.
| db008513-a417-486d-a3d7-2513c109775e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was having this feeling see title before. But today I went to MixMag site, scrolled through their newslines, and all of them, or 90 percent of them contain photos of producers that look 40s to 50s. Stories like this dude hasnt released anything since 2001 but now he's back to show everyone what the real rave should be like are also there. I looked at who shared these stories on social networks same thing people in their 30s or closely approaching their 30s, or older. I thought a bit about it and here is how I see it Younger people 14 25 are more fond, generally and majority of them, of EDM future bass, bass house, electro house, trap, future house, you know all that and lean to the EDM scene, talking about electronic dance music I know what EDM means, but by EDM I am specifically designating the chart topping, overly compressed, short buildup drop buildup drop end type tunes, you know what I mean . Older people prefer the elitist scene techno, dubtech, modular techno of all sorts, tech house, microhouse, dub deep, dark techno, industrial EBM raw techno, raw acid and so on. You know, all this i am cool, hipster and I probably still release on physical media too scene similar to Berlin techno house scene. And younger people dont listen to that techno stuff. I was getting the same impression from the techno events I attended. People at those events were usually 25 60, office type dudes you know today is friday so I am having good time at the club listening to some artsy hipster modular stuff built entirely from sinewaves . There were NO teens or younger people there. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, impression, artsy, listen, techno, elitist scene, producers, sinewaves, hipster, younger people, see title, view, teens, rave, cool, media, photos, techno events<|CONCLUSION|>
| Younger people dont listen to techno
| 0225c0dd-9329-4a13-9db0-a659110256f4 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What do I mean by this? I mean that it is increasingly the norm for both men and women but especially women to wear increasingly revealing clothing. And with the topless movement making big gains in Europe and a little bit in the US as well , I as a socially conservative person cannot stand looking at someone with almost all of their body exposed, even if the look happens to be accidental. I want to have kids in the future and I do not want my kids to be looking at that stuff either, especially at that sensitive age. Thus, given my principles and the desire to have kids, I should move to a non Western country in the future. Edit A lot of people are looking to change my principles and what I believe about how much people should cover. I really liked u Rockmar1's rather creative compromise and it wasn't something that I thought of. Edit 2 Keep the downvotes coming, people. One thing that I have noticed on this sub is that any viewpoint which goes against the popular culture is immediately downvoted to oblivion. Edit 3 I have to do some hw, but I'll be sure to respond to a few comments tomorrow. <|ASPECTS|>topless, downvoted, oblivion, non western country, downvotes coming, comments, socially conservative, accidental, creative compromise, revealing clothing, viewpoint, cover, kids, change my principles, sensitive age, body exposed<|CONCLUSION|>
| I will have no choice but move to a non-Western country in the future because of increasing nudity.
| 16b14044-eb31-426c-bbbf-918c1f057d55 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US remove Confederate memorials, flags, and monuments from public spaces?<|ARGUMENT|>The question of public memorial is one of honor not of history. History, whether good or evil, is preserved primarily in books and other records. If an aspect of history is offensive it should absolutely be taught in schools but should not be honored with a statue.<|ASPECTS|>taught, offensive, honor, public memorial, history, preserved<|CONCLUSION|>
| Statues that go against American values should not remain standing.
| aad2449d-881e-44db-be03-ebf6c27a7663 |
<|TOPIC|>Should creationism be taught in schools?<|ARGUMENT|>Beliefs are primarily formed as a response to experiences. Thus, experiencing things that contradict or challenge what one believes in can lead to people changing their beliefs.<|ASPECTS|>changing their beliefs, contradict, response to experiences, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>
| Children form many beliefs and views on the world which often are unsupported by science. These views can change over time.
| 0cf4ad18-c102-463b-817a-eced60768099 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Couples Sign A Prenuptial Agreement Before Marriage?<|ARGUMENT|>If all parties must be fully forthcoming about their financial status then their spouse cannot later be blindsided by debts they were not made aware of in advance.<|ASPECTS|>financial status, debts<|CONCLUSION|>
| Talking about money before getting married means the issue is less likely to destabilise the marriage later on.
| 014e36fd-345d-414e-bc54-5d869094c3c4 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let's say we raise the minimum wage to 15 hr. Hooray poverty is solved But wait What's to stop landlords let's picture them as Mr. Burns from calculating exactly how much extra everyone can pay now? Wouldn't the new cheapest place to rent be the maximum that a 15 hr wage could afford? I think people saying there would be less jobs is just fear mongering, but I would argue people making minimum wage would be no better off than they were before due to inflated costs of living if there are no limitations on those who set prices. And how fucked would you be if your current standard of living is based on making 16 hr, and suddenly rent prices raised like this? You'd go from double the minimum wage to basically at the minimum wage . If instead, we set regulations on necessary commodities stuff you require to live like shelter as a percentage of the wage of a minimum wage worker, wouldn't that make more sense? Free market works great for things people want, but not so well for things people need. For example, if the price of an Xbox exceeds what I think it's worth, I can simply live without one, demand will go down if they're priced too high, eventually the price will stabilize. But what am I willing to pay for a roof over my head? Heat in my apartment? Food on my table? Even if the price far exceeds what they cost to produce, I can't just decide to not pay for these things, so without limitations on what can be charged, what's to stop prices from going up indefinitely? Looking at the US healthcare system, the answer seems to be nothing Last, but not least, does raising the minimum wage perhaps discourage skilled labor? If you're a person who's worked hard or went into student loan debt in order to attain a 15 hr job, isn't this the rawest deal possible for you? Suddenly everyone is making the same as you, minus your debt payments, having done none of the hard work you did? Suddenly you went from middle class to the worst off of anyone, all because you worked hard got skills in order to get a better job. I don't have a 15 hr job, but I know a lot of people who are in this situation So, what am I missing here? Would greatly value input of anyone with education experience in economics, since honestly, the reason I'm asking this question is because I have very little knowledge in the area. TL DR I think raising the minimum wage would simply result in the cost of living raising to match, leaving minimum wage workers no better off and middle class folks worse off Change my view Educate me<|ASPECTS|>, middle class folks, rawest deal, middle class, skills, cheapest place to rent, debt payments, hard, roof over, prices, student loan debt, price, demand will go, standard of living, skilled labor, costs of living, stabilize, fear mongering, discourage, free market, worked hard, little, heat, landlords, knowledge, live, pay, necessary commodities, cost, value input, better job, cost of living, poverty, regulations, inflated, food, rent prices, less jobs<|CONCLUSION|>
| It would be better for the US to regulate prices of certain commodities e.g., rent, food than to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr.
| f98ad9dd-cefe-4d48-9244-e01df941dab3 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I see people use the expression I choose to believe all the time. But belief is not a choice. Belief is a reaction to something. I am looking at my bed right now and I can see that it is blue. As a result, I believe that it is blue. I have not 'chosen' to believe that it is blue. I have absolutely no choice in the matter I cannot just 'choose to believe' that it is red. I can say to myself the bed is red , but there is no way for me to choose to believe it is red. I have no direct control over the instant reaction of belief which is an internal disposition and not a decision. What we can change, however, is our stimuli. I may not believe in the existence of the loch ness monster and as a result I cannot choose to believe in the loch ness monster but I can choose to read a book about the loch ness monster, which might convince me that it exists. So my belief can be changed by some other factor, but this still isn't me directly choosing to believe one thing or another this is me choosing to do something in this case read this book that will change my belief. In a similar way, thinking something over is the same principle. So when people say that they choose to believe something, what they really mean is that they choose to express to us that they believe . The belief itself is not a choice. If belief were a choice, I would never be unhappy again, because I would just choose to believe I was happy all the time. I can choose to play Skyrim, and that might make me happy, but I cannot choose to believe I am happy directly.<|ASPECTS|>instant reaction of belief, unhappy, choose to believe, believe, monster, bed, happy, blue, thinking something, internal disposition, skyrim, reaction to something, stimuli, red, choice, belief<|CONCLUSION|>
| Belief is not a choice.
| 983ec234-0092-47a5-b021-3e0d9cd37de0 |
<|TOPIC|>Algae biofuel<|ARGUMENT|>"Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "you have to build an array of structures in algae biofuel bioreactors: the glass or polycarbonate containers themselves, the metal frames, the greenhouses. The production of all this equipment might consume less energy and money per square meter than the production of solar panels, but you need much more of it because algae are less efficient than solar plants. Moreover, in closed bioreactors, CO2 has to be added artificially. This is done by bubbling air through the water by means of gas pumps, a process that needs energy. Furthermore, the containers have to be emptied and cleaned regularly, they have to be sterilized, the water has to be kept at a certain temperature, and minerals have to be added continuously because also here, just as with cellulosic ethanol, "waste" materials are being removed. All these processes demand extra energy."<|ASPECTS|>cleaned, minerals, less efficient, leave, energy, less energy, bubbling air, money, demand, sterilized, needs, waste, extra, added artificially, algae alone, co2, structures, consume<|CONCLUSION|>
| Hi-tech algae biofuel plants require too much energy/money
| 03b47207-7603-4c40-95c9-d39867a689be |
<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>Political correctness is basically a secondary organizing rule below legality, thus it is a form of etiquette and can be beneficial, like "help the elderly". For example, talking rude to old people would be equivalent to violating PC.<|ASPECTS|>beneficial, help the elderly, violating pc, secondary organizing rule, political correctness, etiquette<|CONCLUSION|>
| A civilised society requires some level of established political correctness, and a civil society is better than an uncivil one.
| 3e86c330-f403-4bc6-a6ab-95db29034b9f |
<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>The existence of unbounded evil is not necessary to create the possibility of choosing evil. For example God could have engineered the world where pedophilia was physically/biologically/cognitively impossible but still allow other evils so free-will or choice could be tested.<|ASPECTS|>unbounded evil, free-will, choice, pedophilia, choosing evil, evils, impossible<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is possible to create a world with free will but no evil.
| 2f42ff63-81a4-411d-b4a2-fbff267e3940 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I hate North Korean leadership. I despise the development Iran has gone through since 1979. But. I believe they should have the right to build nuclear weapons, if other already existing nuclear weapon nations don't ban and destroy theirs. The best argument against this has always been that the North Korea uses nuclear power to threaten, unlike the US, Russia or France etc. Please explain the logic behind this please. As if just having nuclear weapons is not a threat. Alright, it's of course different if a country just has weapons compared to if they say they're going to use one. But if my neighbour walks on his yard with a gun and he has used the gun in the past , should I be blamed if I buy a gun for myself? Same logic applies, or well, applied with Russia's defence strategy. The United States was FAR more aggressive with their firepower than Russia for decades, yet Russia has always been blamed for being the aggressor. Even though I'm Finnish and we've had our problems with Russia, I can't oversee the hypocrisy. US spends somewhat 10 times more money on their military than Russia and has far more bases overseas. This symphaty changed after Russia invaded Crimea, mainly because that changed Finland's geopolitic situation and I'm biased on anything conserning Finland. Why are some nations entitled to do build weapons of mass destruction while some aren't? Are we delegating the possible destiny of humankind to people like Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump? Why aren't the nuclear power countries slowly and safely denuclearizing themselves? Then they could demand the same from everyone else. I know it's a rule, but I'll say it anyway I am open to change my mind. I'm relatively ignorant on the subject anyway. E Stupid grammar.<|ASPECTS|>weapons, change my mind, slowly, nuclear weapons, money, blamed, development, destiny of humankind, hate, threat, threaten, far, symphaty changed, ban, logic, aggressor, defence, biased, weapon, despise, stupid grammar, aggressive, firepower, hypocrisy, demand, weapons of mass destruction, bases, different, right to build nuclear weapons, geopolitic situation, north korean leadership, ignorant, safely denuclearizing<|CONCLUSION|>
| Other countries should not be restricted to build nuclear weapons by already existing nuclear weapon nations
| c5a6502d-5143-48fd-b89f-b9550264070a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Forgive me if this is not the Right Subreddit, I have come across a topic with some friends that always interested me, and I was curious to hear your thoughts. Some friends and I were talking about The Great Gatsby and one of them told me he did not like the book due to the Authors Sexist Nature, and how he beat his wife. Now, it's understandable to dislike something for own personal views, but can you dislike something just because of the way they were raised? Many Generations before have always had a Gender Role Society, and it was rather common at least from what I can tell to be sexist. Can you blame a society for the way they acted, based off of how society is today? I am of Portuguese Descent and my Grandfather still has that expectation of Dinner being ready when he comes home. If that was how he was raised, and led to believe it was the way, can someone truly judge them? I'd like to hear your points and counter points. I'm sorry for the Long Post, I hope to read your thoughts on this topic. <|ASPECTS|>portuguese descent, personal views, dislike something, blame, society, expectation, thoughts, gender role society, judge, nature, dinner being ready, dislike, beat his wife, counter points, read your thoughts, sexist<|CONCLUSION|>
| You Cannot Blame a Generation for how they Act
| 9047d192-2504-4bd3-9464-f2bac27f5512 |
<|TOPIC|>Is the world of Harry Potter really the place to be?<|ARGUMENT|>A lot of people are not able to pursue their fields of interests due to financial or familial pressures while growing up. An infinite time to pursue interests would give people the time to fulfill those obligations before moving on to something that truly makes them happy.<|ASPECTS|>fields of interests, obligations, pursue, happy, financial, time to pursue interests, familial pressures, fulfill<|CONCLUSION|>
| A person could spend an infinite amount of time pursuing their dreams or doing what they love if they had the opportunity to live forever.
| a2b6bc67-3b49-4788-b23c-9172ab42f51a |
<|TOPIC|>Does Social Media Exacerbate Eating Disorders?<|ARGUMENT|>Some influencers and models are leading the body positive movement on social media, encouraging people women especially to love their bodies the way they are and reject traditional beauty standards.<|ASPECTS|>love their bodies, beauty standards, body positive<|CONCLUSION|>
| Body positive influencers can talk about their own experiences with learning to love their body which can help to inspire others.
| 6d48a8a5-50ee-45c8-896f-9b3d02b1b560 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Toy Story 1 through 3 constituted a perfectly bookended story. Every character's development came to a satisfying end. Every possible good idea for the franchise was had and executed perfectly. Nothing was out of place. But now they're jamming a cynical, gratuitous film onto the end, with the sole purpose of making cash. I guarantee that it will suck, for the aforementioned reasons there's nothing more to do or say. Pixar really are going to destroy their perfect story just for some extra cash. .<|ASPECTS|>destroy, perfect story, nothing, cynical, bookended story, good idea, suck, gratuitous film, making cash, satisfying end, of place, development, executed perfectly<|CONCLUSION|>
| Toy Story 4 shouldn't be being made.
| 98b72d10-11b2-43e8-947d-8c21b636faf1 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I would ultimately call transgenderism an abnormality keeping in mind that normalcy is subject to change and is culture specific. In the same way, I would call blue eyes and homosexuality an abnormality. None of which, in this day an age, negatively impact these people's outlook of life and how happily they could live their lives ignoring reactions from social responses of being transgender gay blue eyes . My flow of logic is as follows An abnormality is something that differs from what is usually observed in any life form. If in a perfect world, all humans primarily use right hands over left, then a left handed person would be abnormal but still able to live just as easily as any right handed person. If in this nonperfect world, a life form's goal is ultimately to survive and procreate for future generations then something that inhibits this primal goal would be a negative change. Living in the world that we do, our goal as a species is not to procreate as much as possible, because we do not require it for survival of the species. More so the goal changes simply to be as happy as we can be. If a human who lived in our early stages as humans was 100 homosexual in a world mostly heterosexual, a homosexual would have difficulty passing their genes along to future generations. In early stages of human life, homosexuality was a negative change from normality because it disallowed the life form to bare more life. In 2015, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is. Therefore, being homosexual is no longer a negative change, simply an abnormality. Being transgender is a 'disagreement' between mind and body. In early stages of human life, a human that thought it was not human ie a plant or a fish would have a very difficult time achieving it's specie's fundamental goals. In 2015, we no longer have these fundamental goals, because instead, being comfortable and happy is what we desire. A homosexual or transgender is a person with an abnormality that at a point in time would negatively impact their ability to survive and procreate, but has 'no' impact on their ability to be happy. Also, I would say if modernism has a way to remedy the abnormality to allow the abnormal being to still be happy, then it ought to be remedied. The easiest way to change modernism to allow all peoples to be happy is to change our view of how we perceive them in a similar way we do not hate people with retardations because in a point in time it was okay to allow those who cannot survive and procreate to die off. But as I have said, ability to survive is not something we restrict happiness to. If a person 'chooses' or not chooses to live happily in a way that defies the necessities of survival that person ought to be respected nonetheless. But social variations that directly go against how we were 'designed' to live are abnormalities. A transgender person is abnormal, but not lesser. A homosexual person is abnormal, but not lesser. A blue eyed person is abnormal, but not lesser.<|ASPECTS|>survive, culture specific, survive and procreate, negatively, restrict, ability, procreate, fundamental goal, retardations, subject to change, fundamental goals, respected, happy, necessities of survival, homosexual person, abnormality, blue eyes, future, bare more life, comfortable and happy, normalcy, negative change, ability to survive, goal, normality, social, abnormal, happiness, survival of the species, form, easily, homosexual, transgender person, transgenderism, outlook of life, disallowed, abnormalities, live, live happily, ability to be happy, homosexuality, difficulty passing their genes, remedy, mind and body, hate people, social variations<|CONCLUSION|>
| About Transgenderism, sincerely please
| 1036df98-a6a5-40d0-8ba6-b4d9ca0cbdd2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In Israel, they keep their people safe by “Catching the bomber, not the bomb”. They investigate the people likely to be bombers more than other people. In America, we look for the bomb so we have to investigate everyone. What a waste of time and money. I propose that people who are in high risk groups should be identified and required to go to the airport earlier than the other passengers. The important point here is that these high risk individuals must be seen as good citizens doing their civic duty. Because by submitting to being profiled, they make travel safer and easier for everyone else. This should be seen as on par with working at a soup kitchen for example. EDIT Change of opinion Here is my new plan. The TSA for free designates who ever wants it and can pass the screening as a non terrorist. These people can be processed more quickly. Everyone else must go through “regular”processing which takes much longer and will require these people to go to the airport earlier than those designated as non terrorists. It’s almost the same thing as my original proposal but more politically correct. Instead of the government choosing who is possibly bad racial profiling the government chooses who is good. EDIT 2 So many Ad hominem attacks. Or to put it another way “Did you just assume my race?”<|ASPECTS|>processed more quickly, bad, keep their people, politically correct, waste, change of opinion, safe, par, identified, high risk groups, non terrorist, bombers, time and money, bomb, race, free designates, travel, high risk, easier, good citizens, ad hominem attacks, good, catching the bomber, ” processing, civic duty, investigate everyone, safer, assume<|CONCLUSION|>
| America should use racial profiling against terrorists.
| c39b6c6c-93bf-4472-81c4-7d3a55e14ce1 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Nine out of ten Black Americans see discrimination in the US against their own; most experience discrimination themselves. Half say they did at the hands of police or when trying to find housing, through slurs or offensive comments or assumptions about them NPR, p. 7, 9 This experience is most likely less prevalent for citizens of African countries.<|ASPECTS|>discrimination, offensive comments, less, slurs<|CONCLUSION|>
| The disadvantagement that Black Americans experience puts them, by some measures, in a position that is worse than the position of citizens of many African countries.
| a8f0e694-cab4-42f2-abf3-72a54f89e598 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have thought this for a long time, because I have known a lot of shitty people and a lot of them should never have had children. I realise that it is a human right, and that no one should be able to take it away, but at the same time, if you're going to be a parent you should at least be a good one. Personally, my mother is great for caring for me with money and not so much love or affection. My father is a paranoid and a bit of a shitty parent, but they still did a good job at raising me. I think if someone was there to tell them what they could do to be better parents then I could be a better person because of it. I'm not saying it should be hard to get the permit I'm saying that people should be vetted before having a child to make sure than child will be safe in the environment they grow up in.<|ASPECTS|>better person, shitty parent, money, caring, better parents, human right, paranoid, safe, affection, shitty people, environment, love<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe all people who want children should have a permit to do so.
| 4baeae0b-b230-4dc9-bee5-e0c904824abe |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that having sexual relations with a child harms the child both mentally and physically, and that because of this it is an inherently selfish act. I believe anyone who feels sexual urges towards children and chooses to act on these urges is exhibiting psychopath behaviour lack of empathy, lack of self control of their behaviour towards others . I believe that children are not mentally mature enough to understand what marriage is and what it requires. Because of this, forcing a child into marriage shows an extreme lack of concern for the well being of the child. As far as I know, there has never been a human being who has reached both full mental maturity by the age of 6 when they married , and full sexual maturity by the age of 9 when they had sex . I'm curious about how Muslims deal with this issue. Is there reasonable justification? Are there Muslims who think it was wrong? I have some Muslim friends, but I'm always afraid to ask them this.<|ASPECTS|>sexual urges, psychopath behaviour, self control, reasonable justification, well, concern, sexual maturity, children, muslims, lack, child, wrong, muslim friends, mentally mature, afraid, mental maturity, empathy, harms the child, selfish act, full<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that it was wrong for Muhammad prophet of Islam to marry and have sex with a 9-year-old girl.
| 441f1928-9534-47ca-bdfd-cda388e84c0d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe it's impossible to ignore preference when it comes to race for the simple reason that we as humans have preferences about all sort of things. Just as we prefer blue over red, football rather than tennis, sea food rather than fried chicken. I don't see a way where we could just ignore certain features for fear of being labelled as racist. So I don't think is racist when someone prefers to date a white person over a black fellow. Or as someone I know said My daughter can date anyone she wants, it's her life after all. But if I get to choose I choose choose a white folk over a black one . So I think it would only be considered racist when it affects their rights human rights, workplace rights, etc or when they think a skin colour means more than just that prejudicing, stereotyping Disclaimer This question is 100 objective in a bio psychological kind of way, I don't believe any race is superior over any other nor I share the preferences I used as example. Edit To avoid misleading of this you can think of preference as you're more likely to be attracted to than .<|ASPECTS|>racist, preference, attracted, black, rights human rights, date anyone, superior, ignore certain features, workplace rights, sea food, stereotyping, race, white, ignore preference, life, white folk, preferences<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think racial discrimination is ok to some extent
| cec71a0b-152a-4be2-9dbc-6ab2b97be219 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If the government is going to be involved in issuing and recognizing unions between two people which it really shouldn't but that's an entirely different , then this social contract and the benefits it carries should be available to ANY two consenting adults. Any two adults should be allowed to join together in a domestic partnership for mutual benefit, be they a romantic couple, friends, siblings, parent and child, etc. The romantic and sexual aspect of a marriage should be irrelevant in the eyes of the state. It is simply two people who for whatever reason decide to face life together and form a partnership to help, support, and prosper one another. Aside from the fact that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, I really don't think there is any argument that can hold up against the fundamental injustice of allowing this benefit for some and not for others.<|ASPECTS|>unions, help, prosper, adults, social contract, partnership, romantic and sexual aspect, mutual benefit, marriage, benefits, life together, support, domestic partnership, fundamental injustice, romantic couple, irrelevant<|CONCLUSION|>
| The social contract of marriage should not be limited to romantic/sexual relationships.
| d194d681-3446-4a0d-b246-1a4671868844 |
<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>The 5th paragraph of Barnes' commentary given here highlights that there has been debate about this: "There has been no little diversity of opinion among critics whether this phrase is to be taken in connection with the preceding, meaning that "the church" is the pillar and ground of the truth; or whether it is to be taken in connection with what follows, meaning that the principal support of the truth was the doctrine there referred to - that God was manifest in the flesh."<|ASPECTS|>, diversity of opinion, god was manifest<|CONCLUSION|>
| There has been some debate among critics as to whether "the pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15 refers to the church or to 'the living God'.
| 16edd859-cdbf-4e4c-b80f-0f730ae19458 |
<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>When comparing the average price of non-animal protein with animal protein especially beef, vegetarian products tend to cost less<|ASPECTS|>price, cost less<|CONCLUSION|>
| Unprocessed vegetarian products, which can be used as meat replacements, are cheaper than meat itself.
| 6eb5de3e-a3d9-4ac3-8468-1a3aa45c669b |
<|TOPIC|>Does Science Leave Room for Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>Only when science can validate by observable methods a 100% accuracy rate on determined events can the claim be true. Therefore the claim is currently untested and invalid.<|ASPECTS|>events, invalid, untested, accuracy rate<|CONCLUSION|>
| The scientific world view has not succeeded in ruling out a libertarian conception of the free will.
| 28bc6f68-4b1d-48bf-b894-3b21b7d7b0ab |
<|TOPIC|>AIDS Drugs for Developing Countries<|ARGUMENT|>The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws of the market should tell you that the reduced profit for drugs like AZT and Nevirapine will be recouped from the fact that the drugs will suddenly become affordable to a market of millions of sufferers, many of whom will be using products like AZT for the duration of the disease, so it would not be a case of the companies losing money in making the drugs cheaper after all.<|ASPECTS|>medicine prices, loss, losing money, affordable, reduced profit<|CONCLUSION|>
| The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws ...
| 0b054359-d287-4b65-aa36-319f43e7249a |
<|TOPIC|>Should All Drug Trial Participants Be Chosen By Lottery?<|ARGUMENT|>People in desperate need of money from the trials have an incentive to lie and/or exaggerate symptoms in order to get selected and continue to receive money from the trials. A random selection would eliminate the possibility of the trials being corrupted in that way.<|ASPECTS|>incentive, corrupted, trials, exaggerate symptoms, money, random selection, lie<|CONCLUSION|>
| Mandatory participation in drug tests would improve the quality and utility of medical trials.
| 020eacba-cfce-4402-b1e2-6703afcf625f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have recently seen a troubling trend in argumentation regarding LGBT rights. The same arguments being used in favor of discrimination in the past century are being applied essentially unchanged to this issue. for example, if you look at this thread is pretty much identical to objections to the civil rights act brought up by vermont senator George Aiken when he insisted the bill would infringe upon a business owner's right to select the people they serve A common argument I hear involves wedding businesses such as wedding planners, bakeries, flower shops, etc discriminating against same sex weddings due to religious beliefs, and the idea that this practice should be protected. this is pretty much identical to the following argument “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” — Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959 I'm starting from the position that the civil rights act of 1964 was necessary and positive, a view that i do not intend to change.<|ASPECTS|>lgbt rights, interference, mix., protected, religious beliefs, civil rights, positive, marriages, arrangement, discrimination, business owner 's, races, separate continents, right to select<|CONCLUSION|>
| The arguments against nondiscrimination bills for the LGBT community in the US right now are functionally identical to the arguments against nondiscrimination bills for racial minorities in the past.
| af213b6f-2cf4-420e-bcab-62cd812545dc |
<|TOPIC|>Should we Have a 100% Inheritance Tax?<|ARGUMENT|>People who become wealthy tend to invest and spend while people who inherit wealth tend to hoard it.<|ASPECTS|>invest, wealthy, spend<|CONCLUSION|>
| There should be a 100% inheritance tax on all inherited wealth above 1 million Euros.
| 8bdb91c1-dae8-48f9-9a32-39db1c5ac008 |
<|TOPIC|>Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>The Bible shows that God felt all human lives should be protected, including those in the womb.<|ASPECTS|>protected, lives<|CONCLUSION|>
| Some religious values and beliefs support the view that abortion is immoral.
| 7915524a-d0f9-4750-979b-0507ce9c5a0d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>None of my arguments apply to wearing jeans for a strenuous and physical job. The pockets are seemingly designed to be as inaccessible and ill fitting for anything to go in them as possible. If you compared how easy it is to get something from the side pockets in chinos while sitting down compared to jeans, it is exponentially easier in chinos. Phones fit into chino pockets easily. That might make it slightly harder for someone to pickpocket you, but if someone wants something, they can still take it if they are bigger than you. The material is extremely rough and uncomfortable compared to the material of all other common forms of bottoms. Denim is rough, coarse, and uncomfortable against the skin. The common trope oh you just have to wear them 10,000 times for them to get SUPER soft then they are amazing is stupid. I can buy regular cotton or wool pants that are comfortable immediately and arguably more comfortable than jeans ever would be , and do not require any self torture for their state to improve. They are not as widely usable as other forms of pants. I can wear the same chinos with a t shirt, or a sport coat, or a button down, or a polo and it makes sense. With jeans, one typically has to go darker with more formal clothes, and maybe lighter with more casual clothes. Summary If you are wearing pants, you couldn't pick a worse widely used type of bottom, and it ISN'T EVEN CLOSE. <|ASPECTS|>inaccessible, worse, ill fitting, widely used type, side, uncomfortable, denim, comfortable immediately, coarse, strenuous, rough and uncomfortable, easier, lighter, comfortable, amazing, rough, physical job, bottom, darker, stupid, pickpocket, soft, chino pockets easily, widely usable, self torture<|CONCLUSION|>
| Jeans are the worst
| bbc35041-9e34-4db8-8d27-056119046288 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In this case, I define oligarchy as a system where decisions are overwhelmingly made by and in favor of a small elite group, elected or otherwise. I am influenced by Robert Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy Germany, 1911 . Notable cases include present day America as per Jimmy Carter Post Soviet Russia the ancient Roman Republic the UN via Security Council, traditional corporations, and most mamals via their brains . Now, this isn't to say that oligarchy is inheritently bad . I am inclined to believe that most oligarchies are functional necessities. As the United States discovered during its first Confederacy pre Constitution , some decisions and dispute resolutions should be handled by a central authority, rather than a collective entity. I believe that this inevitability extends to organizations with both monocratic and democratic roots, simply due to the tolls of complexity and threaat of competition. Central authorities cannot function without advisors. Democracies cannot function without experts. Anarchies evolve into a collection of unsanctioned local governments and small autocracies. The only cases I could see would be where an oligarchy might not be inevitable might be in a suitably simple environment with no competition like a utility monopoly or a thoroughly randomized government<|ASPECTS|>decisions, authorities, complexity, dispute resolutions, tolls, democratic roots, function without, central authority, inevitability, threaat of competition, inheritently bad, simple environment, randomized, oligarchy, functional necessities, small elite group, iron law, democracies, small autocracies, competition, experts, unsanctioned local governments, anarchies, advisors, traditional corporations, collective entity, monocratic<|CONCLUSION|>
| As an organic organization evolves and grows in complexity and membership, oligarchy becomes inevitable.
| 878bd90b-fa94-413d-8ac1-c2051805b46f |
<|TOPIC|>Should people have the right and means to end their lives?<|ARGUMENT|>Where a right to die exists it has been used in cases of non-terminal illnesses, for example in the case of a 24 year-old who desired euthanasia because of her depression.<|ASPECTS|>right to die, depression, euthanasia, non-terminal illnesses<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is a danger that non-lethal sicknesses or difficult times encourage a decision to die; people with these conditions would then choose to die, which is bad.
| 2e95b49a-e645-44bb-bd2b-f3370dd01253 |
<|TOPIC|>Health insurance cooperatives<|ARGUMENT|>While it is entirely true that co-ops are a great option, and should be encouraged, they are not a substitute for a national insurance plan. This has a lot to do with the fact that co-ops simply cannot scale as well as public insurance to solve the problem of millions of uninsured Americans. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Calif. said in August of 2009, "If someone thinks a co-op can work for their state, let them go and do it. But, they are no substitute for public insurance."<|ASPECTS|>state, option, national insurance, co-ops, substitute, public insurance, work, scale, uninsured americans<|CONCLUSION|>
| Non-profit co-ops are great, but no substitute for public insurance
| 9288f080-33ed-4c1b-affa-7412f93d7f25 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The short and long term human affects of nuclear war are clearly terrible. I think it could plausibly drive humans and many other species extinct, or nearly so. At the minimum Hundreds of large cities are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles kilometers. There would be rapid cooling of more than 20°C 30°C over the combatant countries. 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years. Nightly killing frosts would occur and prevent food from being grown. Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45 due to the prolonged cold. A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth 70 of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight . Source Since the consequences of all out nuclear war are so awful, we should carefully weigh the pros cons before acting. I believe that preserving territorial integrity, preserving a system of government, and preserving a way of life for a given population are all grossly inadaquate reasons. In the larger picture, all of those gains are temporary. Systems of government, ways of life, territorial integrity all of these evolve every few hundred years. But the effects of nuclear would extend far beyond that, and affect all of humanity. In fact, I can't imagine a situation in which an all out nuclear attack is justified. I would much rather an immediate surrender, then a full fledged nuclear response. While I firmly reject an all out nuclear attack, I can imagine justifying limited, tactical usage, but only in a very limited circumstance. If a madman, who has no interest except destruction, takes over a nuclear arsenal and launches an all out attack, then perhaps the only defense is to use nuclear weapons. But only against military targets, and only with the aim of preventing further strikes. And only if immediate surrender doesn't make it stop.<|ASPECTS|>territorial integrity, surrender, nuclear weapons, temporary, nuclear war, consequences, global precipitation, destruction, preventing, immediate, freezing, nuclear attack, system of government, plausibly, prolonged cold, gains, affect, prevent food, minimum daily temperatures, strikes, nightly, killing frosts, rapid cooling, grown, drive humans, justified, ways of life, limited, military targets, smoke, inadaquate, terrible, way of life, species extinct, species became extinct, immediate surrender, tactical usage, burn urban areas, mass extinction event, humanity, effects, systems of government, defense, firestorms, nuclear response, massive, human affects<|CONCLUSION|>
| No matter what has just occurred, no country can ever morally justify a full-fledged nuclear attack.
| cb8f7bbf-757c-49fb-ad64-e3c60caba4c3 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Oh boy. To be honest I love this sub. I can share my dumbest thoughts and expect that people might clarify it to me. But going to what matters I always hated history in high school. Because I always got bad grades and failed every exam felt that was useless. However , after some years, now that I am a mature and enlightened adult not really , I understand that these classes helped me to understand the world that we live. It was not a subject that made me get all the jobs, but now well, I have some idea about why some countries are fucked, while some are rich and etc. History was good after all But here is the thing. What is the point of someone who chose to do a history major? Study history for 4 5 years. That is the question that I always had but never asked anyone. Cool, now you know every detail of how America was colonized. So what? How this people can help the society? How he or she can help a company? What is the point of studying deep of Aztec civilization besides omg culture and create museums or trivia facts? Why I want to know how a family in the Egypt lived 3000 years ago? I mean, yes, humans are moved by curiosity and want to learn new things, but is that really useful? The government spend money on this, and where is the return? History is only a entertainment area, for the sake of museums and documentaries? My views about this subject is so limited, that almost everything that I know about it is my own assumptions. So this is more like a Give a View than . Edit I am not from USA. People are saying that the major in history helps you to work in business or law. WTF, in my country, we have business and law majors. We don't have that majors in America?<|ASPECTS|>, curiosity, understand the world, museums, return, lived, business and law majors, jobs, help the society, history, entertainment area, assumptions, dumbest thoughts, business, useful, sub, years ago, useless, fucked, hated history, majors in america, views, work, trivia facts, learn new things, family, limited, america, study history, give a view, clarify, spend money, colonized, help a company, rich, civilization, usa, bad grades, love<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that studying history in an advanced level is useless.
| 5a74414a-d43d-4d1b-9d60-dfb15e787463 |
<|TOPIC|>The fewer languages there are, the better the world is.<|ARGUMENT|>We still don't know much about the history of the human, and being able to understand only one language means there won't be everything understood.<|ASPECTS|>history of the human, one, everything understood<|CONCLUSION|>
| The more languages people know and learn, the more we understand history.
| fa551b45-79c8-4028-bf1a-06d09fc3e08a |
<|TOPIC|>Is Narendra Modi good for India?<|ARGUMENT|>The Modi government's argued against the right to privacy as a fundamental right in the Supreme Court.<|ASPECTS|>fundamental right, right to privacy<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Modi government is turning India into a surveillance state.
| 25780c3c-7a4d-45e5-b1cf-59caf57bf73e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start, I'd like to do some housekeeping and defining. First of all, I'm in the United States, so my posts will be from a US perspective, but I think this could apply to any government. Second, when I say sterilization, I don't necessarily mean perminant sterilization. I mean vasectomies for men reversible and something like an IUD for women lasts for many years . I'd also like to say I do not agree with forced sterilization. Only the person getting the procedure done should have the final say. Finally, along with this incentive, we should make freely available birth control and education so that this option does not have to be necessary in the future. Okay, now that all that is out of the way Why go this route? 1 People on government assistance get more money when they have more children, and often times children are the only qualifier for some grants California welfare and low income healthcare gets expanded when you have children for example . Therefore we are currently incentivizing people to have children that they can not afford. Instead, I would propose that we should not offer welfare to people who have more than two children unless they get a long term birth control solution implemented, and offer to pay for these long term forms of birth control. For example, if you have a third child, either your welfare is cut off or you get the birth control. This economic pressure incentivized the reverse of he current system, a monetary reason to not continue to have children that the state supports. 2 Even if someone is not on welfare, unwanted children are a burden on the state. Unwanted children are more likely to be low income, more likely to be invoked with drugs or crime, and more likely to be on social programs. People should prevent unwanted pregnancies, and a way to do that is to pay people a nominal amount, say 300 plus get the procedure for free, to undergo sterilization. Providing financial incentive would encourage people who would otherwise be indifferent to preventing unwanted pregnancies especially men who would ditch out in the event of a pregnancy would be very helpful. 3 The prevention of unwanted pregnancies would lower costs over time and reduce abortions. In the same way unwanted children are a negative, no unwanted children will be a positive. Otherwise would be parents can focus on improving their own living conditions and investing in themselves, so this would be a plus for them. Plus, young or irresponsible people who would make poor parents are never put into that position. Overall, the net benefits of these ideas would greatly improve quality of life for people who would otherwise be parents of unwanted children, would lower the burden on the state, and prevent unwanted children from being put in foster care, where many of them will be until they are 18 and have few prospects. It wouldn't cost much to do either, and it's essentially voluntary. There are some criticisms of these ideas, which I would like to address upfront. This is eugenics. Not really. Eugenics deals with selecting people for breathing or preventing people from breaking to improve the gene pool. It is not optional. My idea is completely unrelated to the gene pool, and does not discriminate based on race or or disability. Only financial ability to be a good parent. It is completely optional except for pressure to have it done if you want to continue to receive welfare and have children last three kids . It will disproportionately affect minorities. This is not driven by race, it is driven by economics. I have no interest in someone's race, only their ability to raise a child responsibly. Other people will make it about race. Well, that's about all I got. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>birth, , optional, poor parents, crime, financial ability, irresponsible people, birth control and education, view, disproportionately, low income, prevention, social programs, money, pressure, government, drugs, freely available, receive, welfare is cut, costs, improve, unrelated, housekeeping and defining, burden, disability, child, negative, positive, economics, unwanted pregnancies, race, improving, reverse, incentivizing people, quality of life, voluntary, financial incentive, welfare, prevent, perminant sterilization, reversible, affect minorities, breathing, 's, discriminate, selecting, living conditions, young, reason, cost much, good parent, forced sterilization, sterilization, criticisms, eugenics, economic pressure, low income healthcare, children, afford, lower, reduce abortions, responsibly, gene pool, unwanted children, us perspective, investing, preventing people, final say, vasectomies, driven<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe the government should use financial incentive and/or pressure to encourage low income people and drug users to be sterilized.
| 37f450b0-40c0-4eae-b9bd-784b16617611 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There's a lot of speculation on both sides that Epstein was murdered and didn't kill himself. However, we know the following information Epstein was a billionaire who went through a drastic life change from yachts and private jets to prison and would have been one of the most hated people in America had he not killed himself. Epstein was taken off suicide watch before killing himself, and hadn't been checked on in 3 hours. Epstein did not have a bunk mate at the time and killed himself using the beds and the sheets, rather than needing a rope. Epstein tried committing suicide previously in jail. Epstein signed a will 2 days before he died.<|ASPECTS|>tried, murdered, kill, life change, speculation, hated people, committing suicide, killed, suicide watch, mate<|CONCLUSION|>
| Epstein committed suicide and was not murdered.
| e0c7c92c-f9fc-4207-ac54-ca5984656890 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>With the most recent episode of Last Week Tonight making its way to the front page, I've been introduced to the idea of civil forfeiture. Based on the clip, it seems pretty cut and dry that it's too easy to abuse and is an absurd practice that should be changed dramatically. However, it seems too obviously wrong based on the video for that to be the whole story, and I'm always skeptical when I hear outrageous anecdotes like the ones in the clip. I am interested in hearing arguments as to why it's a thing, and what's stopped people from trying to change it.<|ASPECTS|>hearing arguments, wrong, practice, changed dramatically, easy to abuse, anecdotes, civil forfeiture<|CONCLUSION|>
| I am against the practice of civil forfeiture.
| 0307da59-6561-4885-87a4-436632d54a44 |
<|TOPIC|>Should The Catholic Church Publicly Elect Its Leaders?<|ARGUMENT|>A good Pope is one who is able to unite people under his leadership. But the Pope’s liberal attitude towards religious matters has left the Catholic Church bitterly divided.<|ASPECTS|>religious matters, divided, liberal attitude, unite people<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Pope's popularity with the general public comes at the expense of having alienated many of the world's conservative Catholics.
| d9bf8888-9196-4d23-874b-8c1410d65293 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, to clarify, I believe that both male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation are absolutely horrid, barbaric, archaic practices at least when done on non consenting babies that shame the concept of consent. If you want to do it as an adult or a teenager old enough to consent, then that's your choice, and I suppose it's not my place to care comment but it's wretched to do on a helpless and dependent baby that can't do anything about it. So, why is it that slicing off a third to a half of the tissue of the penis which yes, I've verified this, is a genital is called circumcision and is not called male genital mutilation But doing the same to a female is called female genital mutilation ? Compare the terms. Female genital mutilation is a much more vicious sounding term that circumcision even though male genital mutilation is a completely accurate and literal description of circumcision. It is my honest opinion that male disposability the idea that women are sacred and need to be protected a remnant of 1500s 1800s chivalry chauvinism is being heavily implied by this term not that everyone who says it believes it, but that the contrast of the terms can be chalked up to this . In the west at least, FGM is widely regarded as a horrid practice, but circumcision isn't quite there yet. So let's be fair here. Let's not be sexist. Let's ensure both genders are treated equally. We should either Rebrand circumcision as MGM Male Genital Mutilation so that it gets the vicious name it deserves to make people more aware of it's horror Rebrand FGM as female circumcision so that we stop implying female importance here Now all in all, I would greatly prefer going with the former because I do not agree with either practice, but I'd rather go with the latter than keeping things as they are now. Circumcision is an absolutely horrible practice, and independent of the contrast between the naming of it and FGM, I still believe that it should be renamed in the interest of it getting the bad perception that it deserves. I think that calling male genital mutilation circumcision is part of the reason why circumcision isn't as badly received as it should be. EDIT I fully concede that FGM is much more heinous compared to male circumcision, but that does not excuse the immorality and non consent aspects of circumcision. I believe in spite of it being less heinous, circumcision, because of how bad it is in it's own right independent of FGM comparison , should be labeled male genital mutilation. It deserves the vicious sounding name still<|ASPECTS|>vicious sounding name, circumcision, consent, male disposability, horrid practice, non consent, sacred, mutilation, women, bad perception, archaic practices, chauvinism, male genital mutilation, helpless and dependent baby, female, fair, female importance, treated equally, chivalry, horrid, male, fgm, protected, badly received, immorality, sexist, barbaric, horrible practice, vicious<|CONCLUSION|>
| In the interest of not being sexist, either circumcision should be rebranded as "male genital mutilation" and also to give circumcision the frightening name it deserves, or FGM should be rebranded as "female circumcision"
| 17dcf76d-bba5-479e-a37c-1a46a244f0da |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The view that I want changes is simple that the answer to bad speech is more speech is not absolute. Like almost all libertarian ideas this is a claim that I really want to agree with, but when it's accepted as an absolute truth and not as a guideline it's easy to see where it can lead. The reason I'm asking the founder of Gab.com used this line in response to his service being de facto shut down by it's hosting providers as a result of media covering the fact that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter used the service to essentially post his intent before going in. I'm not making an argument about the value or ethics of Gab , so please don't waste time defending or attacking it unless it's required to . I'm also not arguing for government imposed limits on free speech . I'm arguing that his claim is only true insofar as parties are willing to speak and listen to each other in good faith. And in America we just don't have that. x200B I think there are a few points at which the answer to bad speech is more speech fails The speaker of the bad speech isn't willing to listen. They're in an information silo that has an immunity to opposing facts and opinions. Example those who only consume Fox News. The speaker of the bad speech isn't arguing in good faith. They'll listen and debate, but will intentionally lie to win the argument. Example Claiming the cavaran from Honduras contains Islamic terrorists without evidence. Claiming you actually are protecting Medicare and Social Security while your name is signed to lawsuits that would reduce or eliminate those programs. The speaker of the bad speech is done talking, and is acting on their bad speech. Example Pittsburgh mass shooting. The speaker of the bad speech is actually relying on your absolute protection for free speech to spread bad, dangerous, or violence hate promoting ideas. Example enemies of the United States within and without that use our passion for the 1st Amendment against as well as our own infrastructure to sew discord within our country. So change my view. Make me believe that there is no situation in which a bad idea will prevail so long as a better idea is available to overtake it. x200B Edit 1 giving a delta to u huadpe. He and others made me consider the second order effects of better speech. I remain unconvinced that more speech is universally helpful in any of the four scenarios I described in relation to any specific speaker, but considering the impact on others that might hear your better ideas matters.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, social security, immunity, bad, speech, waste, absolute truth, consume fox news, enemies, delta, intentionally, 1st amendment, mass shooting, free speech, lie, protecting medicare, bad idea, listen, overtake, ideas, better speech, better idea, ethics, protection, islamic terrorists, pittsburgh, second order effects, discord, opposing facts and opinions, violence hate, bad speech, value, debate, programs, good faith, universally helpful, reduce, impact, intent, imposed limits<|CONCLUSION|>
| The claim "The answer to bad speech is more speech" has limits
| 57e5fe5b-8773-4fe0-8696-539ccdcd46d9 |
<|TOPIC|>All evidence gathered by intelligence agencies should be admissible in courts of law<|ARGUMENT|>The plan would increase the available pool of information that can be used in courts of law. In the times of actual threat of terrorism, intelligence agencies gather much information. With the introduction of the Patriot Act in the US after 9/11, increased scope of action for Australian intelligence after bombings in Bali, strengthened intelligence in Spain after terror acts in Madrid, and other cases, intelligence agencies have information that can and should be used as evidence. We believe that it is clear that more sources of information that is relevant to the cases can only lead to more correct decisions in the court. More evidence can help both the prosecuting side and the defendant, thus the likelihood that the court will arrive to correct decision would increase. Let us elaborate more on correct conclusions. For example, drug lords are very hard to prosecute, because without information obtained by intercepting communication channels, using bugs to record sound, and infiltrating people into organization the cases can hardly be solved. Moreover, if we do not allow intelligence information to be used in courts, we might end up in situations where criminals caught right before committing a felony can be accused of little more than illegal possession of weapons. Terrorist organization, plotting a new 9/11, could not be prosecuted since the evidence is not admissible in the courts of law. We see that intelligence information is generally helpful in many cases. There are plenty of instances where intelligence evidence was of some help for convicting criminals. For instance, convicting the people who wanted to blow up commercial airliners several weeks ago Intelligence information is of help in many cases, both widely known Godfathers of New York mafia and other cases This is not only a collection of random stories. Responsible authorities usually conclude that more admissible evidence would increase the likelihood of conviction for the criminals. For instance, Canadian government's report on electronic surveillance reaches these conclusions The correct outcome is when people who threaten the stability and peace of the society get adequate punishment. It is just common sense to use information which is already gathered by intelligence agency.<|ASPECTS|>threat of terrorism, common sense, cases, correct conclusions, available, intelligence, hard to prosecute, pool of information, correct decisions, scope of action, conviction, helpful, intelligence evidence, evidence, information, stability, likelihood, peace, convicting criminals, correct decision, illegal possession of weapons, criminals, solved, help, drug lords, adequate, punishment, intelligence information, terrorist organization, terror, random stories<|CONCLUSION|>
| More evidence in courts of law would help to fight terrorism and organized crime
| 8bb22934-0c86-4317-883d-81f061809ab9 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the president of the European Commission be directly elected?<|ARGUMENT|>The candidate would have to get votes from across EU, whereas members of the European parliament have to appeal only to the residents of their country. This would reward politicians who come up with proposals that have support across EU, and punish proposals that reward one country by the expense of others.<|ASPECTS|>reward, votes, expense, support, punish, appeal<|CONCLUSION|>
| The President of the European Commission should be directly elected by a popular vote.
| 7d236e10-23af-482d-8fe6-e4c5d5251450 |
<|TOPIC|>Should citizens be able to crowdsource laws?<|ARGUMENT|>Github has tools that could be used to adequately promote quality policy, resolve conflict, and support continual improvement, revision control, and group decision making. Each of their high quality open source projects is a testament of the ability of crowd sourced projects to produce quality.Democracy Earth is a Github project<|ASPECTS|>quality, resolve conflict, continual improvement, revision control, group decision making, quality policy<|CONCLUSION|>
| Many of the people involved in that crowd-sourcing effort would also be professionals at drafting implementable legislation. In the same way that open-source software results in more stable, more secure programs, open-source democracy could result in laws that are more implementable than the traditional approach.
| 23bffcfe-0c41-4cb2-aca4-0917709dd8a2 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Developed Countries Reduce The Working Year?<|ARGUMENT|>A substantial proportion of these Americans who want to work less substantial cannot do so because their employer would not allow them to reduce their hours Rose, p. 9<|ASPECTS|>reduce their hours<|CONCLUSION|>
| Over 80% of Americans working more than fifty hours per week would prefer to work shorter hours Rose, p. 9
| 985d532b-a87f-48f4-8349-04370c90852d |
<|TOPIC|>Should Referendums Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>Research indicates that even the results of college football games can influence voting behavior, with wins leading to increased support for incumbents.<|ASPECTS|>voting behavior, influence, support for incumbents<|CONCLUSION|>
| Voters are susceptible to influences in their decision making that make it difficult to perceive them as rational.
| 32764b3e-bc16-4eb9-8784-435c9f674cf3 |