argument
stringlengths 116
44.5k
| conclusion
stringlengths 8
1.16k
| id
stringlengths 36
36
|
|---|---|---|
<|TOPIC|>Feminism & sex for fun: does hedonistic sexuality benefit feminism?<|ARGUMENT|>The idea that women's bodies should only be used for reproduction has been a tool of oppressing women. Sexual liberation is therefore a strong step away from such norms.<|ASPECTS|>norms, oppressing women, sexual liberation, reproduction<|CONCLUSION|>
| The woman's rights over her own body is part of feminism. Free choice of sex partners is thus a part of feminism.
| cd44ce9e-80b3-49a0-8960-364a1b6807ed |
<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>Travel to Europe is extremely popular for UK residents, 11 out of the 12 top visited countries are in Europe Of those top 12 countries, Europe accounts for 92.9% of travel.<|ASPECTS|>travel, popular<|CONCLUSION|>
| A hard Brexit would end Freedom of Movement, and all the associated benefits it brings.
| 963346f3-4942-4f1d-a545-817fd46d4b75 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think gay people should have the right to be together and have the same benefits that come with legal marriage. For all the talk and news stories I see, I can't seem to understand why gay people insist on having the spotlight thrown on them. This is the more controversial part. I feel that homosexuality's time in the spotlight has had a deeper effect than we realize. I think that in the future the lines between the two sexes will continue to blur and we will eventually become one indistinguishable sex.<|ASPECTS|>controversial, right to be together, homosexuality, benefits, deeper effect, gay, indistinguishable sex, spotlight thrown, gay people<|CONCLUSION|>
| Gay Marriage is not a big deal.
| 2e0b933f-f8e5-4d33-90b8-aa36e380a0a2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Subjective sports cheapen Olympic medals, in an objective sport, the first person across the line of the team with the most goals wins. In a subjective sport, judges cannot help but be biased towards people that they perceive as being good, or from countries that they like. It's a psychological thing. On top of that, Equestrian isn't a contest of skill, but rather a contest of bank accounts. List of subjective Olympic sports Gymnastics Rythmic Gymnastics Equestrian figure skating ice dancing Freestyle Skiing snowboarding synchronised swimming Trampoline<|ASPECTS|>contest of bank accounts, psychological thing, sports, equestrian, olympic medals, biased, contest of skill, cheapen<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't believe subjective sports should be allowed at the Olympics,
| 12ed193b-41f1-4588-970f-46b504e2f1b6 |
<|TOPIC|>Should governments pursue predictive policing technology?<|ARGUMENT|>Observations by police officers on patrol in random neighborhoods are taken into account to accurately determine the location of a future crime.<|ASPECTS|>future crime<|CONCLUSION|>
| Predictive policing algorithms take several factors besides reporting into account when determining crime hotspots.
| a204880d-13ab-47c0-aca5-dcfbb7bcc217 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi r cmv, This is a throwaway for privacy reasons. I'm 21, male sorry guys , gay, single and thinking that getting into a relationship is likely not worth it. First of all, finding the right person is very unlikely for me. I'm a student and very successful academically, be it at school or at college. I've been labelled gifted as a child and I have a wide range of interests I actively pursue, be it my major a STEM field , five languages I speak proficiently, or hobbies such as the piano which I play quite well, even though I'm not a virtuoso . This is in no way meant to show off I don't care about that stuff and I don't think it makes me a better person in any way. It's just that my interests and those of most people I've met, even in a rather academic environment, rarely match up. I like literature, poetry, classical music, science and cooking, while I have little to no interest in what is popular or at least common among my peers like TV, pop music, sports etc. or in what falls under the label college life , like partying and drinking drugs in general. I feel like this really narrows down my dating pool since I get along best with people who are similar to me in that regard. The details may differ, but I've not had a single friend that wasn't also very intellectually minded that I've kept in touch with for more than a few years. I do have close friends, though. But I would never date, say, a football jock, and by never I mean that the likelihood of this happening is so small you'd need a microscope to perceive it. Furthermore I'm rather introverted. I do go out with people and I can have a good time with them, but I find it difficult to really connect with people here I moved here and there are certain cultural differences people are quite reserved here . I have rarely succeeded in getting to know people to a level where we would hang out outside of college. Most of the friends I have met at college have moved away. So even if I did meet somebody, I wouldn't know how to pursue it further. So far I have met a total of two people whom I could imagine dating more if you include straight men , but both times it didn't work out, and I have the feeling that this is because I am too straight acting and do not engage people enough to convince them otherwise if I wanted to, even though I'm trying to. So far I technically don't even know that they are gay, but I'm very, very sure they are. One reason for this issue is that my family is mainly homophobic or at least awkward when it comes to that topic, and I do not intend to out myself to most of my closer relatives the consequences would be severe . I grew up in a way that made it natural for me to try to act as straight as possible, and very few people know that I am gay, especially here at college where I haven't outed myself to anybody in the span of four goddamn years. The topic never really came up in a way that forced me to do so, and I just kept a neutral stance. Now outing myself to anybody would feel really awkward, and it would be necessary if I happened to be in a relationship. Furthermore, this way I cannot really signal to potential love interests that I'm one of them . One guy who had a crush on me later on told me he thought I was straight. I had to correct him, but I was not really into him and besides, he had moved away by that time. Oh, and I tend to have issues with opening up to people which is why this place is a blessing for me, thank you guys . Even with my close friends I rarely talk about my personal feelings in person because I tend to get into some kind of social mode when I'm around other people where I am unable to deal with anything negative, be it personal or political talking about war, for example . I just put on a very calm and neutral persona. The thought of getting intimate, especially physically intimate, with somebody honestly scares me. I had one or two one night stands in my life and I didn't enjoy them at all. Sex is not really the most important thing here, I'm perfectly fine with not getting laid on a regular basis. Those are reasons why it might be a hassle to get a boyfriend. I also think it would probably not be worth it. I'm pretty content with my life and I'm used to spending most of my free time when I'm not at college or partaking in social activities alone. Sometimes I do get kind of depressed, mainly in times where this very issue is very present in my mind see the family part , or thinking about what I want to do in the future, but being in a relationship will not really help me figure out my life and those episodes tend to go away after a few days. I feel like the concept of having that one person is a very cultural one and that it is perfectly possible to live your life without the idea of divine eternal all encompassing monogamous love. However, I also feel like this may just be something I tell myself in order to deal with the reality of this topic. I've been blessed with a good life so far, and my sexual orientation and the complications it brings is really the only thing in it that affects it negatively in a fundamental way. But I'm sure I'm not the only person on the world who's thought about that, so bring on the arguments I will be waiting for them I'll have my stack of Deltas ready for you .<|ASPECTS|>know people, love interests, depressed, negatively, drinking drugs, student, monogamous love, moved away, consequences, along, academic environment, social activities, divine eternal, affects, straight acting, successful academically, act, dating pool, friends, straight, right person, engage people, connect, interest, neutral persona, microscope, homophobic, content with my life, complications, potential, boyfriend, life, free time, physically intimate, calm, close friends, unlikely, cultural differences, partying, likelihood, good life, enjoy, privacy reasons, introverted, cultural, gifted, virtuoso, small, better person, sex, one night stands, awkward, hassle, pursue, personal feelings, narrows, social mode, interests, reality, scares, sexual orientation, straight men, neutral stance, gay, opening up to people, popular, worth, college life, intellectually minded<|CONCLUSION|>
| I am better off without a boyfriend
| 2cf7e145-0700-48ad-9225-80ef587d1fa3 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Respect The Root Cause Of Relationship Success?<|ARGUMENT|>While true, rhetoric and interpersonal communication skills are, generally speaking, not something that most people have any true, effective, understanding of.<|ASPECTS|>rhetoric, interpersonal communication skills<|CONCLUSION|>
| This should never be the case; disagreements can always be conducted with mutual respect, even if the argument grows confrontational.
| 09377b27-bb1c-4898-bb96-df41eeefe3fd |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Since America's inception, the layperson received either first hand or secondarily his moral values and purpose in life from the Church, and more particularly from the pulpit. As society has continued to secularize, many churches and their pulpits have decided to get with the times, which in turn has meant the fleeing of the office of the pulpit from the responsibilities and stances they'd held for hundreds of years. Rather than being a moral authority and bastion of doctrine, the pulpit in many cases is now little more than a bad TED talk. There are things that need to get defined and elaborated on, but I will leave them for the discussion as they arise.<|ASPECTS|>defined, responsibilities and stances, discussion, doctrine, moral authority, purpose in life, ted talk, secularize, moral values<|CONCLUSION|>
| America's deteriorating social and political climate can, in part, be traced to the superfluity of the Christian Protestant pulpit
| 497513ec-e958-4dad-a046-f47f998f399b |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I recently saw a few debate and arguments about objective morality that put my previously strong belief that Morality is subjective into question. I want to see if maybe my views are wrong. So, first of all, as an athiest, any arguments hinging on a deity or the like would fail to convince me full stop, not that I think a diety's existence helps the objective morality argument. Secondly, the main argument that made me question my views came originally from Sam Harris though, it was really from a podcast debating his views on Morality. This view stipulates that all forms of Morality share the common assumption to promote well being, and because of that Moral Objectivity exists. This view is likely to be the best way to convince me to change my view, but if you think you know a better way, be my guest. Let me outline why I am not convinced from this argument yet 1 I am still doubtful of the idea that all morality has the common aim to promote well being. I think this way for two reasons. First, I feel like much of religious morality hinges on doing what God says not what promotes human flourishing. Second, I feel that this view relies on a subjective claim, rendering it all completely subjective. That is to say, there is no way to claim objective morality exists by making a subjective claim to support it That human well being is a good aim . 2 This part of my disagreement is much more strong than the above I think even if we agree that all morality is based on human well being, it too cannot be objectively measured. For example, two people may argue whether freedom or security are more valuable to human well being I dont think these two values are inherently in opposition, but such values can be, thats why i mention it . If two people disagree on this claim, there is no way to objectively measure which is true. If one person thinks freedom is the pinnacle of human well being, and other security, how could we even pretend there is an objective way to weigh this discrepancy. There are too may assumptions in morality that are subjective like this case of Freedom vs Security, or absolute fairness vs equality etc. Since these views rely on subjective judgment then even if human well being is the objective aim of Morality, it still cannot be called objective. So if you want to convince me that morality is objective, you would have to prove in theory that we could argue that Freedom or Security is more important. Good Luck, if I made an typos I apologize and will edit them as soon as I see them.<|ASPECTS|>objectively measure, well, wrong, morality, objective, view, god, subjective, edit, assumptions, discrepancy, human well, common assumption, promote, freedom or security, views, human flourishing, objectively measured, freedom, fairness, religious morality, valuable, change, subjective judgment, subjective claim, better, objective morality, moral objectivity, security, equality<|CONCLUSION|>
| Objective Morality does not exist.
| 90e7381c-3e43-4003-8040-9381ecc3af29 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The most important determinant of a country's standard of living is productivity. Since I've so commonly gotten this response, I want to dispel the notion that wealth is determined by relative skills and represents some finite pie to be divided in different ways wealth is not a zero sum proposition. While relative skills determine the proportion of the pie you receive, it has no bearing on the total size of the pie. Therefore, if more people were highly educated, a highly educated worker may not receive high wages relative to the average citizen, but those wages would buy significantly more because the workforce would be hugely more productive and efficient. Let's start with the low hanging fruit. I think the easiest way to increase productivity is to help computer illiterate people. How many people waste time each day typing out 10 emails instead of creating a group that automatically sends it out to a predefined list? How many people even use email filters? Given that the average person spends a few hrs per day going through email, I think teaching the less tech savvy some shortcuts could realistically allow them to do in 2.5 hrs what they previously did in 3 hrs. Simple computer skills that could be taught in a three day seminar and easily save millions of people 30 minutes a day are not being taught. Instead, we are asking workers who may already be overworked to spend money and time doing something they may not even be sure has value. What if we pay these workers to get basic computer certifications or at least cover their tuition costs? Let's say we pay these workers 1,000 for a week long course on some basic computer literacy. What's the ROI on that? Well, if they can spend 30 min less per day going through email b c they know how to do some advanced queries, filter incoming emails, and automatically assign labels depending on who that email is from, that is their wage x money saved. If their wage is 10 hr, that generates an ROI in the first year alone 5 per 30 min x 300 working days yr 1,500 . This efficiency will continue to pay dividends throughout that person's working life. Let's say it would have taken 5 yrs for this person to learn these basic habits on their own we will have increased productivity by 7,500 in that time 1,500 x 5 yrs by intervening and paying them to learn to be more productive. This basic logic applies to areas where there are shortages of workers. Why aren't we paying people to learn computer science? Or nursing? Let's say it costs the government 100k to finance the degree. If they were previously making 50k yr and now are making 70k yr, they are generating 20k more per yr. If they have a 30 yr career in this field, they will add 600k to the economy over the course of their career. That's an easy investment to make and a noble one educating and empowering the people through education.<|ASPECTS|>labels, increased, spend, money, computer illiterate people, shortages of workers, roi, total size, computer skills, learn computer science, standard of living, basic computer certifications, increase, high, economy, nursing, people, paying people, simple, waste time, wealth, buy, basic habits, productivity, efficiency, noble, less tech savvy, generating, email filters, overworked, easily, costs the government, empowering the people, pay dividends, advanced queries, relative skills, easy investment, finance, productive, low hanging fruit, tuition costs, help, value, predefined list, basic, filter incoming emails, money saved, computer literacy, education, save millions, productive and efficient, determinant, educating<|CONCLUSION|>
| The government should fully fund continuing education and certain degree programs that increase productivity.
| 8d768a27-1430-4045-a361-471ad9597a28 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I was born in 1993. I'm a straight white male from a two parent home. Not filthy rich, but more privileged than others. Here are the views I've caught myself incorrectly having Slut shaming I've caught myself looking down on women who have a lot of sex. I personally would not want a partner who has had 50 partners compared to somebody who has had 15 20 partners. After some conversations online, it's been made aware to me that my view points are damaging, are dying according to the Internet , and shouldn't be spread. This has provoked me to ask myself who am I directly indirectly hurting by slut shaming? On the flip side, am I protecting myself by not affiliating with women who fall under today's definition of a slut? At what point do women deserve negative stigma for having a high amount of sexual partners? Racism stereotyping prejudice When driving down the street, if I see a big black fat man with tattoos sagging his gym shorts in his socks slide sandals, I catch myself thinking wow I wonder if he contributes a ton to society or if he hates police and idolizes rap music about crime and gang violence. This is bad. I don't understand where this view of racism came from because my parents are not from what I understand directly racist. I don't have any negative things to say about Chinese Japanese Taiwanese Korean people. I have mild complaints that Hispanic people are typically untrustworthy loud, etc. I am failing to understand where racism begins and stereotyping based on evidence ends. Homophobia transphobia I believed for probably 15 conscious years that being gay was 100 a choice until I read that it exists in the animal kingdom naturally and it isn't because somebody watched Will and Grace growing up. I think two gay men being romantic is gross. Two attractive women being romantic is arousing, to complete the double standard. I think transphobia is some form of disease. There may be a handful of cases where people are born as the wrong gender, but I believe the fact that the media society are broadcasting its popularity is causing more sick twisted attention seeking individuals to partake. Body shaming I am personally disgusted by most fat people. If you're above a 30 35 body fat range, I'm pretty convinced that you have no self control, don't care about yourself, and are a burden to society in terms of health insurance. It blows my mind that girls who weight 250 300lbs can get dressed in cute, hot sexy tight clothes and be told they should feel beautiful when in reality they need to be told to put down the fork. Even if you make the arguments all body types are different or somebody is going through something, cut them some slack, maybe he she is depressed , I feel there should be an active effort to be healthy within 6 12 months. Being ugly is subjective. Being unhealthy and fat is objective. Sexism I don't find myself being too sexist I don't struggle with this one the most. I do catch myself judging women working in positions of power for having different management styles than men. For example, I've seen a female manager throw a hissyfit cry scream be dramatic. Do men do this too? Absolutely. But, on average, a woman being in a position of power puts the employees at a statistically higher risk of dealing with her emotions than a male. tl dr I've got some SERIOUSLY fucked up societal views. I'm only aware they are fucked up because of how many heads I have butt on reddit. Mass downvotes, being banned, etc. What's the answer? Is it that reddit is a bubble of super vocal hypersensitive social justice warriors? Am I allowed to keep my views? How many others share similar views to me? Where are they to speak up when I am getting mass downvoted on reddit? Why does everybody disagree with me online, but I lead a perfectly functional successful life in person? Are a lot of the arguments made online more theory and fall apart in practice reality? The climatic culture is changing, no doubt. If you're homophobic in 2019, it's a problem. You'll get your ass kicked 6 ways to Sunday letting people online know you're racist homophobic. What is society going to do about it? Are the views I hold and other similar views that aren't the latest and greatest 2019 supercharged climate going to make a comeback? Are they dying overtime? Am I allowed entitled to hold my views? Why do people online get to call me dumb for holding my views, believing their views are better than mine? Who gets to say who has the better opinions morals views?<|ASPECTS|>dying overtime, fat people, , bad, objective, subjective, view points, climatic culture, body types are different, society, racist homophobic, societal views, fucked, mass, better opinions morals views, ugly, risk, mass downvotes, personally, sexist, disgusted, better, racism, similar views, hypersensitive social justice warriors, choice, depressed, homophobia, slut, crime, entitled, gang violence, wrong gender, gross, downvoted, indirectly, health, partners, filthy rich, privileged, emotions, hissyfit cry, different, transphobia, romantic, arousing, fat, body shaming, slut shaming, racism begins, functional successful life, straight white male, fall apart, damaging, stereotyping prejudice, feel beautiful, theory, unhealthy, hold my views, racist, sexism, police, hurting, self control, management styles, dying according, dramatic, animal kingdom, homophobic, negative things, double standard, gay men, views, disease, affiliating, shaming, supercharged climate, sexual partners, burden to society, stereotyping based, negative stigma, be healthy, sex, changing, active, untrustworthy loud, sick twisted attention seeking individuals, protecting<|CONCLUSION|>
| Antiquated morals can't be expected to change overnight to keep up with the politically correct climate of today
| 5a64b09e-5cc9-42ba-9e4c-a16d1a23e4bc |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There seem to be two sides to the abortion debate One side says a foetus is a human being, and therefore killing it is unacceptable under normal circumstances . The other side says women have the right to bodily autonomy, therefore abortion must be permissible under most circumstances . My argument is that it’s not that simple, and anybody who thinks either view is 100 unassailable is deluding hirself. Let’s start from the assumption that a foetus counts as a human being. Killing a human being is generally not accepted. However, most systems allow killing a human being if that’s the only way to stop them from harming your body, and that probably applies here. But in most situations, when someone is harming you, they have made the decision to attack you, and have had the option to remove themselves from the situation. The foetus is totally innocent and has not had the opportunity to flee. The only people who contributed to the development of this situation are you and or the father of the child. On the other hand, there is literally no other situation where anyone is required to significantly endanger their own body in order to save the life of some other person. Even if that person is innocent, your own child, and you are responsible for their situation. If you crash a car and your child loses his only kidney as a result, you’re still not required to donate yours. The parent who does refuse to donate his kidney would be looked at as a very bad parent to say the least. And unlike with an abortion, there’s at least a possibility that the child will survive by some other means. There is no situation quite like a pregnancy. You could have a similar string of pro and contra arguments for each of the major points people who support or oppose abortion make. In the end, pregnancy is a unique situation, and the morality of aborting a pregnancy cannot be facilely derived from comparing it to some other case. Of course, it’s allowed to take a side even if a decisive argument has not been found. But both sides are wrong when they say that there is no question at all, and their own viewpoint is unquestionably right. Convince me that one side is inarguably right, because the arguments of either side have no merit, because discussing a unique situation in terms of similar but different situations is sufficient, because Please note This argument is about the morality of abortion, not about whether it should be legal. <|ASPECTS|>opportunity, counts as, survive, wrong, killing a human, morality, bad parent, bodily autonomy, killing, deluding hirself, pro, development, morality of abortion, foetus, situation, take a side, kidney, attack, save, life, simple, harming your body, human, donate, responsible, inarguably, decision, facilely derived, unique situation, decisive argument, flee, remove, right, viewpoint, unacceptable, arguments, question, pregnancy, accepted, endanger their own body, crash, unassailable, innocent<|CONCLUSION|>
| The morality of abortion is a very difficult topic and cannot be compared to any other issue
| baa281c5-2600-4f92-bf6b-faf3e722125c |
<|TOPIC|>Should we Have a 100% Inheritance Tax?<|ARGUMENT|>This would deal damage to properties and the provenance of items with immense historical value. Say, a family owns a castle, and they have been handling upkeep. The family would be forced to split ownership and handle upkeep as a cooperative. Small items of immense physical and monetary value, such as artwork, would need to be jointly owned or auctioned.<|ASPECTS|>deal, split ownership, handling, damage to properties, historical value, upkeep, physical and monetary value, jointly, handle upkeep<|CONCLUSION|>
| Family-run companies and heirlooms will not be able to be passed on to the next generation.
| 7cba7d48-3e50-4e7a-b317-fef03824c354 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is mostly a problem I have with bigger subreddits 75k subs . For example, on AskReddit, what's the scariest fact you know? gets reposted about once a week. On this subreddit, something related to feminism or college sucks gets posted three days it seems. I'm OK with reposts in general. I like seeing new perspectives on the same topics. However, there is a point where the same stuff pops up so often that it gets in the way of other content. Given the frequency of the reposting, half the time, the same stuff is regurgitated. For example, I see UVB 76 discussed in half of all scariest fact posts. As someone who's heard of UVB 76 multiple times, it is no longer interesting to me thus this detracts from my enjoyment of the subreddit. Sure, I can find other threads not related to scariest facts , but oftentimes they get squeezed out by popular reposts they are either few of them when there are many popular reposts at once or the reposts attract more commenters more than other, more unique posts. I think the best solution would be to follow r polandball. I rarely find a comic there that I don't find enjoyable. They have a strict repost policy whereby reposts are only allowed if the content in question has not been posted in the last 8 months. This strikes a balance between allowing reposts and not letting them be annoying.<|ASPECTS|>scariest facts, strict, regurgitated, subreddits, feminism, comic, content, repost policy, reposting, annoying, reposts, interesting, new perspectives, scariest fact, commenters, polandball, allowing, enjoyment, college sucks, enjoyable, scariest, reposted, frequency<|CONCLUSION|>
| For frequent browsers, I think extremely common reposts detract from a subreddit's quality.
| badbc48d-5113-411b-bee7-2aa7c332d695 |
<|TOPIC|>Do Aliens Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Essential ingredients like free oxygen, phosphorus, sugar, boron, molybdenum - for creating proteins, nucleotides, DNA, RNA - were not freely accessible on the early Earth.<|ASPECTS|>freely accessible, oxygen<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Panspermia Theory posits that life was transported to Earth on asteroids or comets and started somewhere else originally.
| b320ffa6-6c8b-4fa8-8128-06a0312f3ac0 |
<|TOPIC|>Is it ethically wrong to watch pornography?<|ARGUMENT|>Unless you are paying for porn it is highly likely that it is not ethical produced.<|ASPECTS|>ethical produced<|CONCLUSION|>
| Watching porn indirectly supports prostitution, sexual coercion and human trafficking.
| ec16fc83-4fb5-4fbe-9a52-0c6e146e9152 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, for those of you not familiar with the concept, the AI Singularity is a theoretical intelligence that is capable of self upgrading, becoming objectively smarter all the time, including in figuring out how to make itself smarter. The idea is that a superintelligent AI that can do this will eventually surpass humans in how intelligent it is, and continue to do so indefinitely. What's been neglected is that humans have to conceive of such an AI in the first place. Not just conceive, but understand well enough to build thus implying the existence of humans that themselves are capable of teaching themselves to be smarter. And given that these algorithms can then be shared and explained, these traits need not be limited to a particularly smart human to begin with, thus implying that we will eventually reach a point where the planet is dominated by hyperintelligent humans that are capable of making each other even smarter. Sound crazy? .<|ASPECTS|>smarter, neglected, theoretical intelligence, surpass humans, smart human, superintelligent ai, teaching, understand well, hyperintelligent humans, ai, intelligent, self upgrading, objectively smarter<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Singularity will be us
| 94584fa2-6b41-4b96-b124-b9efdb46abd4 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As my title says, I don't think I have a culture or a cultural identity. For the purposes of this argument I will be defining culture as, the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group and I will define cultural identity as, the identity or feeling of belonging to, as part of the self conception and self perception to nationality, ethnicity, religion, social class, generation, locality and any kind of social group that have its own distinct culture. The reason I don't think I have a cultural identity is because I do not identify with any culture in fact, I find the concept of culture to be so incredibly broad and nebulous as to be completely devoid of any meaningful content. For example, when we talk about American culture , what do we mean? The culture is primarily Western, but when you take a closer look, it fractures into many different influences and flavors such as African, Native American, Asian, Latin American, and many other cultures. Every single person you ask will define American culture differently. The same can be said of pretty much any culture. How can anyone cultivate a cultural identity with any semblance of meaning when they don't even know what it is they're really basing their identity on? People say, well, we all share the same laws, but laws aren't necessarily something we all agree on oftentimes they're things we are just forced to abide by or else we get thrown in jail. I'm also told that my decision to wear Western clothing and eat Western food identifies me as part of the culture. I wear t shirts and eat pizza because they're cheap and that's what's available. If I could get away with wearing ninja outfits and eating sushi every day would that mean I was part of Japanese culture? Please . Edit My view has been changed. I failed to take into consideration subconscious beliefs such as my expectations regarding personal space which you can read about on wikipedia here if it interests you. Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to my comments, you know, unless you were a dick about it.<|ASPECTS|>, view, cultural identity, american culture, define, meaning, nebulous, personal space, japanese culture, self conception, cheap, eating, american culture differently, jail, laws, meaningful content, self perception, beliefs, expectations, identity, western, subconscious beliefs, culture, influences and flavors, changed, behaviors, distinct<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't think I have a culture or a cultural identity.
| 972659ab-4fa4-4e70-8a78-458d6244ffbe |
<|TOPIC|>Should Australia Limit Immigration to Achieve a Sustainable Population?<|ARGUMENT|>Population increase also puts pressure on existing housing, raising prices and forcing some people out of the city because they cannot afford to live there.<|ASPECTS|>existing housing, raising prices, pressure, afford<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are massive impacts of rapid population growth that need to be curtailed.
| 0c45a6c7-4796-4e15-9a61-1277877f413c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In specific I attend a university where all students pay athletic fees in exchange for the use of school gym facilities. While I already think that this should be changed to an opt in out system I am more interested in hearing reasons why women's only hours are defensible. This renders particular pieces of equiptment totally unavailable to male students as they are only present in specific gyms for hours during prime times throughout he day. So if one is paying equal fees to all other students why is one not allowed equal access and how is this a good thing? Doesn't it simply perpetuate sexism? EDIT I appologize for the sentence where I use the term I. I am female and have taken advantage of these hours in the past I merely meant it to be sort of illustrative but it ended up being very unclear. EDIT2 Hey all this post generated a ton of great discussion and showed me a lot of ways that my view lacked nuance. My view has definitely undergone some substantial change and I'll work on awarding delta's to those arguments. Thanks all<|ASPECTS|>awarding, great discussion, perpetuate, sexism, equal access, gym facilities, delta 's, view, substantial change, lacked nuance, equiptment totally unavailable, defensible, female, athletic fees, equal fees<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that women's only hours at gyms are sexist and shouldn't exist
| b5f15e06-2c6c-462f-9956-d8d4c8ef8b40 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I used to want children very badly. I love kids and have worked them in my profession. The older I got, however, the more aware I became of my own mortality. Now, I feel that it's horrifically selfish to bring a life into this world because that life may occasionally feel joy and happiness, but it will also feel pain and hardship. Even if things are well and that child is mostly happy, it will grow up knowing that you are likely to die in their lifetime. I want to want kids again. I just can't shake the idea of how a beautiful little baby will one day learn that they will die. I spent until the age of 20 clinging to the idea that their might be some kind of life after death, but now that I'm nearly 30 and realize what a fallacy that is, I think it would only be selfish and cruel to bring another life into this world. The older I get, the more I fear my parents' death, my death, and my husband's death. I still feel joy, but it's the joy of someone who is trying to make the best of a bad situation. I'm not depressed or suicidal, but I can't help but feel that, had I been given a choice, I would have chosen never to have been born. Therefore, I cannot justify giving birth to another life that may want that same option.<|ASPECTS|>, death, badly, depressed, hardship, bad situation, pain, cruel, husband 's death, joy, love kids, fear, life after death, chosen never, happy, die, parents ' death, mortality, want kids, happiness, want children, option, suicidal, likely, selfish, another life, choice<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe it's selfish to give birth to a child, because it will eventually have to face it's own mortality.
| 913381ea-889f-4ec5-8510-17749f143f03 |
<|TOPIC|>Appointments to the US Supreme Court should be for fixed 18-year terms<|ARGUMENT|>A system in which the court has increased engagement with the elected President and Senate - because of an increase in the rate of judge re-appointment - would better reflect the will of the people and promote democratic accountability.<|ASPECTS|>engagement with the elected, democratic accountability, of the people<|CONCLUSION|>
| If judges are replaced on a more frequent basis, the ideas they bring are likelier to be more reflective of modern public opinion as opposed to the opinions of the past.
| 3c434dc3-bf8f-4ac3-b58c-bff5b26d0f45 |
<|TOPIC|>Capital Punishment in the US: Inhumane or Just?<|ARGUMENT|>The knowledge of this effect is, by itself, a serious jury bias problem. Prosecutors in capital cases try to select jurors who don't mind the death penalty, and use challenges to weed out all those who do. This is a strong bias in itself to the jury selection process; research shows that jurors who are willing to consider the death penalty are much more likely than usual to be white men - which means that jury pools in capital cases significantly underrepresent women and minorities.<|ASPECTS|>bias, jury bias problem, white men, minorities, underrepresent women, death penalty<|CONCLUSION|>
| Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.
| 5a2f0ea1-7013-4408-ae5e-2e5948e61596 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We spend to much on people who never try to find work for themselves. If they work hard and find a job, then great. If they starve and die, then great they won't have kids and that ends the cycle of poverty. Edit After reading massive walls of text, I have decided to change my view. While I still think the rich should not have to support the poor, because of certain issues such as crime and riots and other factors, cutting welfare would be a terrible proposition.<|ASPECTS|>support the poor, change, crime, walls of text, spend, view, poverty, cycle, cutting welfare, find a job, riots, work, starve, work hard, find<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe we should cut welfare and let the poor either die or survive by their own means.
| 08333609-a608-4adf-973b-1a800abb3d6f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>How can a grilled cheese be grilled if it's not put on a real actual grill? I mean honestly it's a misnomer. Some of you may say a supposed grilled cheese can be cooked on what's known as a flat top grill but I must argue instead that this is technically a griddled and again you are making a sauteed cheese. Do not deny the truth Us grilled cheese truthers know true grilled cheeses have scars I'm tired of people walking around claiming they have grilled cheeses when there's no grill marks Get your shit together people<|ASPECTS|>cooked, scars, grilled, grill, misnomer, griddled<|CONCLUSION|>
| a cheese sandwich cooked in a pan is not a grilled cheese, but instead a "sauteed cheese". A grilled cheese should be cooked on a gridiron, grill pan, or a Foreman grill
| 0a50396f-19dc-4730-8eca-826d5d7d4f12 |
<|TOPIC|>Is the U.S.A. an exceptional country?<|ARGUMENT|>Non-violent drug offenders should be released retroactively with changes in the code of law legalization of marijuana.<|ASPECTS|>non-violent drug offenders<|CONCLUSION|>
| The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world
| 2c49dd18-d4f7-4e11-88bc-84be920279c2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’ve noticed quite a few people don’t believe in this rule. If you go to someone’s place and they allow you to smoke weed there, you are required to share with them, regardless of if they have their own or not. It’s just common sense, you come into my house, you start smoking weed in my house, you better let me smoke with you or else you can go somewhere else. There is no reason someone who brings weed to your place shouldn’t share with you. It is your house, if they want to smoke in your house, they should share with you, free of charge.<|ASPECTS|>common sense, believe, free of charge, smoke, weed, share, smoking weed<|CONCLUSION|>
| If you go to someone’s place and they allow you to smoke your weed there, you should share with them for free.
| 46423a06-70b9-4693-8415-e58461e118f8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I currently live in the Denver area and rely on public transportation buses and the light rail to get to work on a daily basis. In the mornings I am constantly having to increase my window for being at the stop to about 15 minutes before the scheduled time in order to make the bus. This seems ridiculous to me. I am lucky enough to have a cell phone that can track when the next bus is coming, but a lot of people who use public transportation are not afforded this luxury. No matter how early the bus arrives at its stop, it should be required to wait until the time posted on their schedule sheets to allow for people to not miss their means to transportation. Some buses run every half hour, so if you miss your bus because it decided to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early, you are required to wait until the next one arrives which isn't guaranteed to be early. This could lead to people being late to work and potentially losing their job, or missing other important events for no fault of their own. <|ASPECTS|>, early, missing, luxury, late, miss, losing their job, work, public transportation buses, important events, ridiculous, rely, increase my window, means to transportation<|CONCLUSION|>
| Public transportation should never be allowed to depart earlier than scheduled, only later.
| c991b163-c2d8-4900-addf-9da2b12e0677 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been reading r mensrights and honestly it looks like a bunch of men who hate feminists and women, rather than a group of people concerned with social equality. It seems to me anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of history or sociology would understand that men are not disadvantaged in society in a comparable way to women. Here's a fun thought exercise Imagine a parallel universe in which the genders were reversed. That means that, in this universe, every president in the history of the United States so far has been a woman. The Founding Fathers are now the Founding Mothers. The Constitution was written 100 by women, which means, naturally, precisely zero men were involved in the drafting, debate, or passage of the founding document of the USA. Up until a few decades ago, men were not allowed to practice law or hold office, so the laws of the USA have been written, by and large, by women. In this universe there has never been a male president. Women make up 80 of congress and 95 of fortune 500 CEOs. Also, 90 percent of rape perpetrators are female. In this universe, for most of human history. men were thought of as little more than the property of women. However, a Masculinist movement sprang forth and men got the right to vote in the early 20th century after roughly 1 and a half centuries of utter disenfranchisement. Men gradually clawed their way towards equality with women, despite facing fierce opposition from women who thought men should know their place and adhere to their oppressive gender roles. Now, imagine, in this climate, in this universe with the genders reversed, a group of women form an online activist group called women's rights. What about women's rights? They would ask. How seriously would you take this women's rights movement?<|ASPECTS|>, property of women, male president, oppressive gender roles, founding fathers, group, women 's rights movement, women, hate feminists, rape perpetrators, right to vote, comparable, female, women 's rights, utter, founding mothers, laws, place, law, equality with women, ceos, reversed, disenfranchisement, disadvantaged in society, masculinist, parallel universe, men, genders, social equality, woman<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think Men's Rights Activists are just a bunch of bored white dudes who want something to complain about and don't really experience systematic oppression for their gender, save a few limited areas
| f9df55ce-60e6-47dd-880f-6c42b061d049 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Title says it, i kinda understand the mindset behind it, but why shall i have my own biological child, instead of adopting one and giving them a better one? Now i argue with most people in this one, they say “it wouldn’t be the same as your own child” i know there are some scientific evidence that there is a different “connection” between mother and child, but that doesnt necessarily means that a mother can only love her own biological child and no one else, its simply not true. And i think it’s an incredible favour to that child, if your parenting is good. Because that child would maybe never have a “better” life if no one adopted them. But your own child will always have the chance, why not make someones life “better” just giving them the chance of a “normal” family? instead, make a baby from 0 who would have a family anyways?<|ASPECTS|>normal ” family, , family, parenting, biological child, “ connection, better ” life, life “ better, favour, mindset, love<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don’t see any logic behind having your own children, instead of adopting one
| 28e98c46-2c16-4023-abce-b42a96aa64cd |
<|TOPIC|>Captive reptiles should be fed with living prey<|ARGUMENT|>A wild-caught snake or a snake that has been accustomed to live prey may have difficulty adjusting to a pre-killed diet.<|ASPECTS|>live prey, difficulty adjusting<|CONCLUSION|>
| The feeding of live animals mimics the natural cycle of hunter and hunted found in the wild.
| 462858da-f200-422b-9d1b-d27102b5a97a |
<|TOPIC|>Should private prisons be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>The private prison industry seeks, and has secured in some cases, contractual terms with governments that require prison populations be kept at certain levels, or governments can be sued and the public made to pay. The profit motive can be at odds with the goals of reducing incarceration and recidivism.<|ASPECTS|>recidivism, contractual terms, reducing, incarceration, profit motive<|CONCLUSION|>
| Private prisons being payed daily/monthly per prisoner incentivizes prisons to keep prisoners in jail for as long as possible.
| 8fcd9c89-f739-404e-8e89-b3f5a7d08241 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems like whenever an uprising creates a power vacuum, it only creates the opportunity for a murderous dictator to come to power. Examples The Bolshevik revolution just put Stalin in charge. The Chinese revolution put Mao in charge. We all know how Kim Il Sung's uprising worked out. Syria was much better off under Assad then they are now, the rebellion has been horrible for the country. The French Revolution, after much bloodshed, just ended with the rise of an emperor Napoleon when the whole point was to end monarchy. Every African civil war revolution has put a more oppressive regime into power. Egypt seemed like it would be the exception but is now falling apart. The only arguable exception is the US revolution, and even then the country was thrown into economic turmoil for years after. I believe we would have been better off just paying taxes. All this talk of a revolution in the US even if it's just talk just isn't consistent with the lessons of history.<|ASPECTS|>mao, economic turmoil, revolution, paying taxes, murderous dictator, uprising, stalin, end monarchy, apart, power vacuum, war, bolshevik revolution, oppressive regime, lessons of history, us revolution, charge, chinese, horrible, bloodshed, emperor napoleon, rebellion<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that armed revolutions never better a country and that social stability is more important than democracy.
| b9d703bf-e156-432b-9646-b3ddf872f965 |
<|TOPIC|>make fines relative to income<|ARGUMENT|>The purpose of a fine is to ensure that the offender faces the consequences of their actions. The extent to which a financial penalty feels like a negative consequence is relative to the amount of income someone has, not to the simple amount that the fine is. That is, if someone earning £200 per week is fined £100, that will feel more severe than a £100 fine would feel to someone earning £2000 per week. Therefore, if you make fines proportional to the income someone has, all people feel the impact of the punishment equally, rather than the poor facing a punishment with a harsher impact on them than on the rich.<|ASPECTS|>severe, income, harsher, consequences, punishment, fined, financial penalty, negative consequence, impact<|CONCLUSION|>
| Rich and poor now face equality of impact of punishment
| f5c28ae7-4c48-4635-9590-6222cecc0775 |
<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>Even if every single personality trait, behaviour, inclination, career was designed perfectly, it is not simple traits that comprise love; rather, it is something uncatchable and unique to that person. Robots may be able to create the perfect lover, but that does not mean they will be lovable; and sex, consequently, will only ever be mechanical.<|ASPECTS|>lovable, perfect lover, love, mechanical, uncatchable, unique<|CONCLUSION|>
| Sex robots merely replicate a particular physical sensation and cannot provide the nebulous subtle physical and psychological factors that occur during real sex. Without these factors, sex with robots would quickly become repetitive and uninteresting.
| b26947ab-890b-4808-8905-82e9112c1daa |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So now that most of Valve's third party Steam Machines have been revealed, I feel like it's safe to say that they've completely missed the point, and manufacturers are going too overboard with specs and pricing. Here's what the Steam Machine is marketed to be it's a PC for the living room made to convert the console player demographic. That being said, there are way too many options rendering it confusing. I believe that a lot of interested buyers will give up quickly due to confusion of what is right for them, especially if they already own an PS4 or Xbox One. The lowest range Steam Machine from what I've seen will sell for 499 and out perform the next generation of consoles. That's great. But what's the purpose of the Steam Machines that cost up to and over 3000? Surely people looking at high end hardware probably already own top of the line PCs, which they have built themselves, and with Valve's new OS being completely free what's the point of buying one? To top it off, Alienware just announced that their Steam Machine will be unable to be upgraded but instead will see an annual release to meet changing demands of modern gaming. Console players who skip out on PC gaming seem to have the same general consensus that PC gaming is ether A Too confusing B Too expensive Now with the over saturation of Steam Machines on the market, it certainly does not feel like the situation is going to alleviate. Thanks for reading . Edit if u GabeNewellBellevue can shed some light on this, I'd really love to hear it<|ASPECTS|>, ether, sell, confusing, is right, saturation, pricing, quickly, lowest range, steam machine, upgraded, interested buyers, options, convert, changing demands, confusion, cost, purpose, unable, console player demographic, specs, expensive<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe Steam Machines are missing the point completely of what a simple PC gaming experience can be, and in the long run they are going to negatively impact Valve.
| b7a836c1-8c1e-4d32-9dde-c2cca6e6d6e9 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>When people talk about how they are doing something successfully, I hate it. I wonder if it is just jealousy or some psychological issue. Change my view please.<|ASPECTS|>jealousy, something, successfully, psychological issue<|CONCLUSION|>
| I hate to see people other than me succeed.
| 3fe52cbb-f97e-4a47-a1df-685d419cc08d |
<|TOPIC|>Should the Legion of Honor be restricted to war veterans?<|ARGUMENT|>Giving one's life for the nation is a sacrifice like no other. This act of courage cannot be but on an equal footstep with good singers or football players.<|ASPECTS|>sacrifice, equal footstep, courage, life<|CONCLUSION|>
| Should the Legion of Honor be restricted to war veterans?
| c6d0e6b9-12bb-4aa9-9d52-8e4b4bc674d7 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>The UK unemployment is below 4% for the first time since 1975 3 years after the vote to leave the EU, confounding the pre-referendum pessimistic forecasts.<|ASPECTS|>unemployment, uk<|CONCLUSION|>
| The exceptionally strong performance of the UK economy since the Brexit vote indicates that a hard Brexit will significantly benefit the UK economy.
| 60670dd0-9f33-4bc6-95fa-2feee9e4ca91 |
<|TOPIC|>Should video game storytelling portray gender equality?<|ARGUMENT|>The game Wolfenstein: The New Order deals with an alternate history where the Nazi Regime wins World War 2 and war veteran Blazkowicz tries to stop the Nazis from ruling over the world.<|ASPECTS|>nazis<|CONCLUSION|>
| Video games can educate gamers by exploring historical counterfactuals instead of portraying historical accuracy which acts as a harmful justification for fewer female characters.
| 87aea429-dc37-46b7-9a1b-52b6732bda58 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Anatomically modern human beings have been around for about 200,000 years, and primates in general have been around for millions. Modern humans do certain things either as individuals, groups, or societies that, in such a long time scale, are relatively new. For example, writing plays people have been writing plays for only a few thousand years. Television has only been around for about a century. The internet has only been around for about 2 decades. The ideas of twerking or flash mobs are only a few years old. Sports have only been around for a few millenia. The idea of democracy, and government in general, similarly, is only a few millenia old. All these things I mentioned are relatively new, and they're artificial constructs. By contrast, hunting is something that not just humans do, but all carnivores. It's something animals, including humans, have been doing for millions of years. It's natural. Similarly, living in groups is something natural that humans and their ancestors have been doing for millions of years. So is grooming. So is finding warmth, shelter, and protection from the elements. These are natural phenomena that are an innate part of human nature. I believe that friendship and romantic relationships are relatively new, artificial constructs, and not a fundamental part of human nature. Sure, we need sex to reproduce. And in the past, humans lived in groups for protection and survival. But the ideas of making friends, hanging out with friends, dating, marriage, falling in love, and so on are relatively new artificial constructs, just like twerking, poetry, and representative government.<|ASPECTS|>sex to reproduce, carnivores, survival, government, artificial constructs, internet, shelter, grooming, anatomically modern human beings, natural, hunting, romantic relationships, human nature, democracy, television, groups, new, representative government, twerking, protection, friendship, protection from the elements, natural phenomena, sports, plays, old, warmth, animals, flash mobs<|CONCLUSION|>
| Friendship and romance are relatively new artificial constructs
| 3e3ad90b-ff97-4db8-a88f-0b3d6811eb36 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US stop trying to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear program?<|ARGUMENT|>A solid majority of South Koreans already support the introduction of nuclear weapons to their country. This latent public support might transform into public pressure.<|ASPECTS|>nuclear weapons, public support, public pressure<|CONCLUSION|>
| South Korea will experience pressure to develop nuclear weapons on its own.
| 05b6cf6d-4fe2-4502-adc2-bad147ec0d31 |
<|TOPIC|>Equal prize money for male and female athletes<|ARGUMENT|>It is not in the tournament’s interests to do this: it makes Wimbledon and similar events look bad, and over time it will only become more of an issue. Martina Hingis has suggested that women should boycott tournaments with unequal prize funds. The same applies to weightlifting, cycling etc. The quality of the competition will be lower, and the publicity will be terrible.<|ASPECTS|>boycott tournaments, look bad, publicity, unequal prize funds, quality<|CONCLUSION|>
| Wimbledon is losing face by maintaining that women should not receive equal pay:
| 2fb929d9-640c-420a-b931-355f6b1af352 |
<|TOPIC|>Electric vehicles are better than fossil fuel vehicles<|ARGUMENT|>Modern electric car batteries have not been field-tested over decades in the way gas has. We don't yet know if current batteries will last 20 or 30 years, which is well within the lifespan of a gas car that suffers minimal loss in range.<|ASPECTS|>loss in range, field-tested, current batteries<|CONCLUSION|>
| Batteries have a limited life they do not hold up well over time.
| 1c4815c1-509e-47d6-b8d9-ccc913b1f95d |
<|TOPIC|>Should short-term apartment leasing services such as Airbnb be prohibited in New York City?<|ARGUMENT|>Renting to a normal renter means a home owner has to charge a similar market price to other properties. If the property is used for tourists, however, it must only match other short-term lets, and its only barrier to entry is being cheaper than hotels.<|ASPECTS|>barrier to entry, tourists, market price, cheaper, short-term<|CONCLUSION|>
| Airbnb allows landlords to charge much higher monthly rates than in the rental markets, which creates a financial incentive to move property from the long-term rental into the short-term letting market.
| df884c14-0415-494b-ac67-f133e4f7da4c |
<|TOPIC|>Is Hamlet Mad?<|ARGUMENT|>Elizabethan society believed that people suffering from melancholy were susceptible to demonic influences often disguised as spirits. Hamlet's need to prove the ghost's tale demonstrates that he himself may believe that he is suffering from melancholy. pp.79<|ASPECTS|>demonic influences, melancholy<|CONCLUSION|>
| The fact that Hamlet continues to procrastinate his revenge against Claudius even after the appearance of the ghost indicates that Hamlet himself is unsure whether or not the ghost is real.
| 46fba2f2-8c78-4509-8aca-84b81f9f6493 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The NPVIC is a misguided effort, an unfortunate plan with serious flaws hogging the attention and straining the potential for seriously needed electoral reform to gain any traction. Why should the states wait for 270? If a state believes that the national vote really is the way to go, if that's what the people believe is right, then they should implement it right away. Why delay? It makes no sense. But worse than being philosophically unsound, the Compact is undeniably partisan. No swing state and no republican states support it, or are likely to. Add to that the fact that, if it ever does achieve 270 by some happenstance, it will be vulnerable to malfeasance so long as it does not have the explicit support of the Congress. Say the party leaders in a member state don't like the way the national vote is looking but expect a very favorable state wide vote. If they control the legislature, hey, they just might decide to repeal NPVIC. Without congressional approval, a federal judge might rule that the Compact Clause means the states can't be held to the no repeal section of the compact. Then what? SCOTUS picks the president? Based on what precent, what law? Does anyone really think jeapordizing a billion dollar presidential campaign is a good idea? No, I think the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is just a poison pill that keeps any actionable reform of the electoral college in this country off the table. We need a debate about the ways and means of reforming the presidential election, not just an argument between this proposal and the current system.<|ASPECTS|>, national vote, reforming, picks the president, partisan, control the legislature, election, misguided, delay, vulnerable to malfeasance, swing state, support, flaws, billion dollar presidential campaign, repeal npvic, actionable reform, electoral reform, debate, republican states, wait, college, jeapordizing, repeal, poison pill, philosophically unsound, favorable state wide vote<|CONCLUSION|>
| The NPVIC is the wrong way to bring about a nationwide election for POTUS
| 208aef3e-366a-494e-94d5-d04efa36e07a |
<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>If the cause of a composite thing's existence at any moment is itself composite, then it will in turn require a cause of its own existence at that moment.<|ASPECTS|>composite<|CONCLUSION|>
| Each of the things of our experience has a cause at any moment during which it exists. Everything we see is being caused as we see it
| 454a7fca-48bd-4ce4-bd48-79bdbf6ee16d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a form of democratic process, US presidential primaries appear to be better than presidential caucuses. Caucuses are related to worse demographic representation of the electorate Marshall, 1979 more hassle for the folks who show up to vote 2 3 hours for a caucus vs. 5 10 minutes to vote in a primary group think, peer pressure, other biasing group dynamics more arbitrariness in how rules pan out see the recent coin flip debacle in Iowa . I have never lived in a caucusing state, so I might be missing something about their benefits. For example, some might reasonably call what I perceive as group think peer pressure as lively engagement and debate. EDIT 2 38p EST, 2 8 16 All three of the responses so far from The Irish Fighter jkure2 and garnteller emphasize the communal benefits of caucuses and their potential benefits of group decision making. It's not just group think and peer pressure As The Irish Fighter notes, you can hear positions you might not have otherwise considered. And at least in Minnesota, you can skip through the caucusing process and vote normally. My overall opinion has shifted dramatically toward the middle. I am still worried that caucuses might indirectly lead to disproportionate representation across the electorate 1 , but am less worried about the hassle and group dynamics concerns 2 and 3 .<|ASPECTS|>lively, caucusing process, peer pressure, think peer pressure, worse, presidential caucuses, engagement and debate, communal benefits, disproportionate representation, hassle, middle, demographic representation, group dynamics, pressure, benefits, group think, opinion, vote normally, group decision making, democratic process, biasing group<|CONCLUSION|>
| Presidential primaries are better than presidential caucuses.
| 2c5af109-feba-4aa5-b1f1-cc7d85b2413e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a new grad entering the technical field software development . I have an impressive portfolio, CS degrees are statistically the highest in demand at the moment in terms of bachelor degrees at least , and when I apply directly to the companies I get interviews often. I've also spoken with MANY recruiters who contact me and say they have a perfect client looking for someone like me. These recruiters always forget to email call me back, never seem to even read my resume, these perfect jobs they talk about all want someone with WAY more experience than a recent grad. I know I've heard some people on reddit mention success stories with recruiters, but 99 of the other comments on the subject are extremely negative about their experience with recruiters. Also, I've had recruiters wanting me to change things on my resume before they send it off so its not due to my resume being bad . TL DR almost everyone I've heard mentioning recruiters has only bad things to say about them. If you have examples of recruiters being useful, please mention what field it was in. Thanks<|ASPECTS|>resume, useful, negative, success stories, recruiters, bad things, technical field, experience, highest in demand, development, change things, perfect client<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think recruiters are completely useless
| 78f59d41-770e-4f61-ac84-1bc825760d66 |
<|TOPIC|>Should UK MPs Pay be reduced<|ARGUMENT|>Ideology is bad and caring a lot about politics is bad, because it leads people to support policies on a basis like "my side supports this, so it must be good". A disinterested technocrat treats the job as a job and just tries to find the best solution.<|ASPECTS|>best solution, politics, support policies, disinterested technocrat, ideology<|CONCLUSION|>
| A disinterested technocrat who cares more about the wages an MP receives than about any ideology is the best kind of person to run a country.
| ad9515f8-926c-4cc1-8524-9bba992081ed |
<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>White supremacists have a right to air their views, but not an unlimited right to be granted every platform possible on which they can air their views.<|ASPECTS|>white supremacists, right, right to air their views<|CONCLUSION|>
| White supremacists are still free to use private platforms which tolerate their views or to create their own platforms.
| 232bb529-fdd0-47ed-b6f1-4966a1277da5 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Commercial Surrogacy be Legal in Liberal Democracies?<|ARGUMENT|>Infertility has historically been seen as women's problem and responsibility. Assisted reproductive technologies generally invented for a specific problem and then offered to any woman perpetuate this conception.<|ASPECTS|>reproductive technologies, infertility, women 's, responsibility<|CONCLUSION|>
| Laws regarding surrogacy always favour genetic links thus often using the body of a woman to support the lineage of a man.
| bdf56786-36a1-4d57-bed1-bdba0bdfea56 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I see a lot of hate for California on Reddit and social media from non Californians. Anytime California passes some law or other than the hive mind disagrees with all the hatred for California rears it's head. I've heard people comment that California is bad for business, that we have a horrible debt, that our laws make no sense and are regressive, that we have horrible problems with crime, homelessness and income inequality, etc, etc, etc. Yet I have lived all up and down California for my entire life, and travelled the U.S. and I honestly feel that CA is the most awesome place to live in the country, one of the best places to live in the world. Our beaches are amazing, our ski mountains are amazing, nature is amazing, the cities are fun and full of life and fun events every week, we have a booming real estate market, a rock solid economy with Silicon Valley and Hollywood, we provide more of America's agriculture than any other state, we are one of the only states to give more in federal taxes than we receive in federal aid, and alone we are the 6th largest economy on earth. I will admit homelessness is an issue in big cities like LA and SF, but most of that stems from those cities being the most pleasant places to be homeless in fair weather, altruistic people, lots of services, etc . California is in debt, but is paying off that debt faster than the federal government's debt and our budget has recently drawn surplus years. Sometimes our laws are wonky and make no sense, but most of the time those laws have a logical reasoning behind them or are hit with the law of unintended consequences. Yes income inequality is a problem, but it appears to be getting better every year. And crime is absolutely dropping year by year, especially violent crime. So I have to wonder why there is so much hate for California in the rest of the nation. I can only assume it stems from envy and misinformation, or simply a lack of understanding or a lack of actually visiting California. It could also stem from our smugness I mean I don't pretend not to be smug about California being awesome , but that hardly seems a reason to hate our entire state. So does anyone care to enlighten me as to why such negative views on California?<|ASPECTS|>, homelessness, unintended consequences, crime, life and fun events, nature, federal taxes, logical reasoning, bad for business, income inequality, smug, regressive, hate, dropping, fun, lack, market, altruistic people, negative views, economy, hate for california, debt, smugness, social media, understanding, law, hatred for california, violent crime, horrible, awesome, misinformation, agriculture, pleasant, surplus years, envy<|CONCLUSION|>
| Most of the hatred for California throughout the U.S. stems from either envy or misinformation.
| b4295cbc-09e8-4956-898a-3b53c17d8069 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I used to have a very anarchistic mindset, opposing the state all together. While I still believe in some what of decentralisation of power I want absolute suveillance of society. Trackable devices, DNA registries, video surveillance etc. I do mean for everyone and everywhere. I just don't trust very much in people any more. I haven't experienced any crime personally but reading all the time about what goes on in society, what people get away with. Studying how people often behave, in war and peacetime. All the atrocities going on, human trafficking, gangrapes, murders etc.etc. I don't mean absolutely, for example video surveillance or bugging peoples homes but outside in the world, streets, public places, and everywhere in nature with drones or satelites I don't want nature polluted with tech . Ofcourse we need harsh penalties for the surveillars who abuse their powers . I want very harsh penalties like in the US, and life long consequences for atrocities such as rape. I do however believe in legalisation of all drugs and until then a non surveilled internet. I understand that's very hypocritical. What I want checked is mainly physical abuse of others. I live in Sweden. Here everyone gets unlimited second chances and the possibility to become anything they want and do whatever they want with their lives while enjoying free healthcare and really free everything with great infrastructures. Still there are assholes who bitch and moan about unfairness and suck the life out of society and commit horrible crimes. Never taking any responsibilites for themselves.<|ASPECTS|>crime, hypocritical, human trafficking, opposing the state, harsh penalties, unfairness, physical abuse of others, dna registries, unlimited, horrible crimes, society, legalisation of all drugs, murders, peoples, tech, decentralisation of power, atrocities, abuse their powers, behave, video surveillance, non surveilled internet, nature polluted, peacetime, gangrapes, responsibilites, free healthcare, life long consequences, anarchistic mindset, suck the life, war, trust very much in people, trackable devices, suveillance of society, second chances, infrastructures, free everything<|CONCLUSION|>
| I have started to believe more in the need of a authoritative surveillance state.
| fbd9aa17-1999-4884-a716-8f1700c49a0e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am an 18 year old Irish woman that never, ever wants to reproduce. I never want to become pregnant, I never want to raise a child, and I never want to be called a mother. I never want to suffer the financial consequences of raising even one single child. If I fell pregnant, from this young age right up to the onset of menopause, I would do everything in my power to have a termination. Even though I am barely considered an adult, I have received incredible criticism for this opinion, both online and in the real world, particularly from older people and from family members. Instead of a great hulking essay, I will separate my opinion into points, so as to make them somewhat easier to understand. The thought of pregnancy and labour is utterly repulsive to me . I won't even entertain the thought. Nine months of vomiting, sobbing, cravings, pain, health concerns, waddling , and then what could amount to 24 hours in labour. All of the women in my family who have had children have spent upwards of 20 hours in labour. Can labour even be genetic? Ugh. I have no maternal instinct . Literally. None. I just don't have it. I've been called 'less of a woman', and told that I might as well be dead if I don't want children, but there it is. I just don't have. Bear in mind, uterus fruit is not the rent I pay to exist in the world as a woman. The financial hardship is simply not worth it. I'm an archaeology student, which means by default I'm not bound to make a lot of money any time soon. I also aspire to be a writer, which means I'm practically asking to be financially destitute after college. I grew up in a destitute working class family, and I want to live comfortably when I have the means to do so. I have a lot of people arguing, Well, why don't you wait until you have enough money and then have a child, Hagenshall? Children cost so much money , money that I won't have for a long time, and money that, when I finally have it, I won't want to spend it on a child that I don't want. I also don't want to go through the financial strain if I never made enough money to comfortably raise a child that my mother went through to raise three children in the middle of the worst Irish recession to date without any help from a deadbeat husband. I wouldn't dream of putting myself or indeed a child through that sort of hardship just for the sake of reproducing. It wouldn’t be fair to bring a child into this overpopulated world when I don’t want it and do not have the resources to give it the best life that I can. This world is bursting at the seams with people. We all know that. I won’t contribute to that by having a child just because ‘it’s what you do. Bit of an obvious one – it’s my body, and I am under no obligation to reproduce simply because I have a uterus. I mentioned earlier on that I am Irish. Traditionally, Irish families were simply enormous , both due to lack of sexual education and family planning because of the strong Catholic rule and influence in the country right up until the 1990s. My great aunt Rose came from a family of sixteen and she herself had seventeen children . Even as Ireland progresses to become more modern today, a lot of older people are adamant that all women should make it their sole duty to pop out as many Wee Baby Seamuses and Wee Baby Sinéads as their cervixes can stand. I have had family members refer to me as ‘shameful’, say that ‘you’ll change your mind’, insist that, ‘it’s what women are supposed to do always the men pushing that one on me , and even my own estranged father a misogynist, racist, and homophobe accused me of trying to ruin his family name like ‘one of those mad militant lezzer dykes.’ A lot of people hear my views and assume that I am a lesbian, or that I have no sexual drive whatsoever. I am, in fact, very heterosexual, very sex drivey, and I can think of far better ways to spend my life than with seventeen howling children clinging to my legs, thank you very much. I don’t fucking want to. The aforementioned reasons are the ones always given by women who don’t want children, and they are all perfectly valid reasons. However, I believe that children make a prisoner of a woman. I mean no disrespect to any woman that has had or is planning to have children that reads this, but it’s my opinion. You are not free to do as you please once bound for life by the responsibility that a child brings. There is so much that you cannot do. There are so many things that I want to do that would be impossible with children around. Children take away so many years of a woman’s life – at least, that is how I see it. Sex lives are ruined, relationships strained to the point of breaking, lives dominated by children. Some in the comments section are, inevitably, going to call me a selfish, child hating bitch or something to that effect. I don’t hate children. I don’t hate women who choose to have children – in fact, I applaud them for taking on something so difficult and so life encapsulating. I don’t see, however, what is so selfish about wanting to live my own life, whether on my own or with a partner husband, without that sort of burden. So, there’s my view. Now you try to change it, right? Yes, I did just refer to children as uterus fruit. If you get that reference, you’re Da Man or Woman, as the case may be.<|ASPECTS|>family planning, sobbing, hardship, pain, rent, money, view, spend, ruin, sex drivey, child hating bitch, sexual drive, irish recession, cervixes, sexual education, children make, irish, uterus fruit, genetic, financially destitute, sole, irish families, hours in labour, hate children, hate, obligation to reproduce, child, a woman, burden, financial hardship, criticism, people, live comfortably, life, valid reasons, maternal instinct, mother, termination, shameful, lives dominated by children, bursting at, financial consequences, man or woman, relationships strained, disrespect, overpopulated world, free, influence, prisoner of a woman, heterosexual, cravings, family name, life encapsulating, vomiting, destitute working class family, difficult, change, cost, children, easier to understand, contribute, dead, sex lives are ruined, reproduce, pregnancy, wants, duty, repulsive, separate, health concerns, selfish, opinion, responsibility, make, catholic rule, woman ’ s life, financial strain, impossible<|CONCLUSION|>
| I never, EVER want to have children.
| cdb70913-8c81-40e8-9bd4-f6027f2c4e8c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Sorry for the inflammatory title but that's essentially how I feel. To clarify I do not mean any specific piece of legislation ever proposed or passed, I mean the general idea that the background of aspiring gun owners should be looked into to ensure that guns are not being sold to those convicted of violent crimes or whatever other criteria law sets for gun ownership . I would understand the opposition if it was the case that people were afraid that the government could use the effectiveness of the checks to impose much stricter criteria for gun ownership. So let's just assume I understand this and let's also assume for the sake of argument that somehow we could ensure that such criteria would not become unfairly strict. It seems to me, that if the only group that were prohibited from legally purchasing guns was people who have been convicted of violent crimes, opposing background checks only serves to aid individuals who have proved to be violent in their search for weapons with which they can do more harm to society. Unless your position is that all ex convicts have reformed themselves some do, most don't or that violent offenders should still be allowed to buy guns there seems to be no good reason to oppose background checks in general. Again, I'm avoiding the subject I mentioned earlier, that background checks would allow for stricter gun laws. This is obviously true and a valid reason to oppose background checks, but I've always been under the assumption that there was something more to it.<|ASPECTS|>guns, stricter criteria, violent, violent offenders, effectiveness, ownership, violent crimes, stricter gun laws, gun ownership, owners, background checks, harm to society, reformed, unfairly strict<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe anyone who generally opposes background checks for gun purchases is a moron.
| b79c1674-2341-44e9-bce2-9da6239d3a9a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In my opinion, the federal government should only be involved in four roles 1 Protecting it's citizens from domestic and foreign threats. 2 Establish diplomatic relations, commerce, trade and treaties with foreign powers 3 Establish commerce through the states other nations. 4 Enforce the constitution For example healthcare. Let's say Vermont wants to set up a single payer healthcare system, and Georgia wants to privatize healthcare. If you live in Georgia, and do not like this concept, you can choose to move to Vermont. Or, if California has your optimal idea, you can move there. To an extent, we already have something like this, but I think state governments should get more control over their states, and the federal government should simply aid in protecting these states from outside threats. Please .<|ASPECTS|>, citizens, constitution, control over their states, outside threats, optimal idea, domestic and foreign threats, diplomatic relations, choose, healthcare, single payer healthcare system, protecting, privatize healthcare, commerce, move<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think the federal government should be involved in 4 roles, and states control the rest.
| 35d44851-e5e3-4814-8427-58d922aaf1d9 |
<|TOPIC|>Can Climate Change Be Reversed?<|ARGUMENT|>Life doesn't need to change radically, just the way we get energy: like more reusable and renewable sources like electricity instead of gasoline for cars.<|ASPECTS|>reusable, change radically, renewable sources, life<|CONCLUSION|>
| We don't have to identify mechanisms if we could just prevent them.
| 2648ed06-df30-4b12-83d1-0a44510fbc19 |
<|TOPIC|>Terrorists should be treated as prisoners of war<|ARGUMENT|>Harsh interrogation of captives is rarely effective. Those who are prepared to die to advance their cause are unlikely to yield information, no matter how much they are threatened or tortured. Where captives do provide information, they often state simply what they think that the interrogators want to hear, rather than anything that is true. In addition, given the cellular nature of many terrorist organisations, those captured often have very little useful information to begin with. Even if they have been involved in a plot, they may only have information about a very small part of that plot.<|ASPECTS|>, yield information, useful information, terrorist, little, information, die, threatened, tortured, interrogation of captives<|CONCLUSION|>
| Harsh interrogation of captives is rarely effective. Those who are prepared to die to advance their...
| 69dc53d4-4c82-41b8-85c6-d24dc0715468 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I have quite a lot of knowledge on the topic of genetics and biology. I recently have been hearing about the problem of plastic in the ocean, which is killing sea life and destroying the ecosystem. Scientists however, have recently found a certain bacteria that can eat the PET variety of plastic. This is the majority of plastic that ends up in the ocean, and is killing a large amount of sea life. Plastic micro particles are also in our food, and cannot be removed through known means, except tactics like using this bacteria. This plastic is, again, PET plastic, and cannot have good effect on our health, so it would be helpful if we could remove. The bacteria does not eat large quantities of plastic, but it can be selectively bred to eat huge amounts of plastic, which is not very hard to do and can be done discreetly. This is more of a experimental idea, and I think even if I went to jail, the jail time would be outweighed by the potential good I can do by eliminating all plastic pollution. Also, I know doing this would temporarily put a few people out of some jobs and ruin stores merchandise, but this will be negated over time as new plastics take PET plastics place. The main purpose of this is to clean up the oceans for the time being. I know this all sounds a little crazy, but it's not like the government is doing their best to stop this problem, so I think it may not be that bad of an idea.<|ASPECTS|>jobs, stop this problem, killing, government, ruin stores merchandise, genetics and biology, killing sea life, plastic, plastic micro particles, health, potential, bacteria, quantities, destroying the ecosystem, crazy, eat, selectively bred, amounts, amount, pet plastic, knowledge, sea life, clean up the oceans, jail time, plastic pollution<|CONCLUSION|>
| I should start a career in bioterrorism
| c1977dc3-ca28-4c9f-afe7-64c275ff3c13 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Scientific studies are unlike other published works in that the details are inherently crucial to the audience's understanding of the subject. A synopsis abstract is not always enough to explain the intricacies of the study the reliability of the study depends on the methodology and the conclusions drawn by the authors may not be accurate at face value. Unlike many traditional publications, scientific studies are not often consumed by in an expensive medium. With the advent of the internet, it is far cheaper and more convenient to publish articles electronically, which drastically reduces the cost to the publisher. Further, as many online newspaper and magazine companies have proven, it is entirely possible to deliver free content while covering costs. I realize my knowledge of the economic process governing research publication is lacking, but based on what I know it simply seems to me that the only reason the exorbitant paywalls exist is because they can, rather than they should.<|ASPECTS|>reliability, audience 's, crucial, cost, understanding, consumed, costs, intricacies, exorbitant, convenient, economic process, paywalls, free content, scientific studies, cheaper, accurate, expensive medium<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that scientific papers should not be restricted by paywalls;
| e02465ca-a560-4f3d-86c4-f4f2a8f27289 |
<|TOPIC|>Should there be one World Government?<|ARGUMENT|>The conflict that existed between Catholics and Protestants in Ulster simply translated into conflict between Nationalists and Unionists after the creation of the state of Northern Ireland.<|ASPECTS|>conflict<|CONCLUSION|>
| Animosity between groups can often be rooted in past conflict. This is unlikely to simply be forgotten once they are incorporated into a single state.
| 8301e5e8-ff56-42d8-ab6f-eab26b21c0b9 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For several reasons Spanking escalates No one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they're just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent. Children are a cognitively disabled part of society How can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence? Many children are incredibly young less than 3 when they start getting spanked. At this stage it's very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did. Spanking does not encourage critical thinking Child A I better not do that because daddy mommy will hit me Child B I better not do that because daddy mommy explained X will happen. Some objections I get often I was spanked and I turned out fine But if you didn't turn out fine, would you know? And what is 'fine'? I only spank when it's needed, maybe once or twice if ever. A new study on spanking, I could find the link if requested, found that when parents don't self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they'll admit to. It's human bias to think we aren't as bad as we really are. Kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline I would posit that some of the worst behaved children I've met are some of the most spanked. Spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental emotional issues. Go ahead reddit, Good luck.<|ASPECTS|>fine, critical thinking, worst, consequence, drug abuse, understand, spanking, human bias, cognitively disabled, incredibly, self report, responsible, turned, abuse their child, mental emotional issues, young, full implications, unruly, criminal behavior, children, violent, spanked, spank<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe spanking children should outlawed in America
| 19bdeae2-7376-41a4-b5be-34577cccf5b6 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The act of kneeling is typically viewed as a humble show of respect. People kneel in prayer, athletes kneel when a player is injured on the field, service members kneel before graves of fallen soldiers, etc. In fact, it was the later that convinced Colin Kaepernick to kneel in protest after a conversation with a veteran who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. The veteran told him that kneeling would be considered more respectful than sitting down. So why do so many consider kneeling to be offensive now? If he was kneeling during the anthem to honor fallen soldiers, it likely wouldn't be an issue. That leads me to believe it's not the act of kneeling that isn't palatable for so many It's the cause. Change my mind.<|ASPECTS|>respectful, prayer, graves, act, humble show of respect, offensive, soldiers, kneeling, palatable, honor fallen soldiers, cause, protest<|CONCLUSION|>
| If NFL players were kneeling for veterans, it would be a non-issue. It's not the kneeling that has so many upset, it's the cause.
| 60bb2bca-e4f0-4367-acb4-dfa0233d3076 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am not sure whether my title appropriately conveys what I am trying to say, so if there are any misconceptions I'd prefer you to refer to the post itself instead. Morality tells us how we ought to act. That is, in a given situation you can theoretically consult your general ethical views and deduce how you should act in that specific case. Morality is not a way to determine whether a person is good or bad, but whether a possible decision in a given scenario is good or bad or better or worse than the other options . Sure, you might say that someone who generally acts immorally is an immoral person, but that is outside of the core scope of morality, and it is only your own personal definition and judgement. With that in mind, there is no general, direct place for intentions in morality. There are two noteworthy cases, in which intentions have an indirect impact The intentions of others might play a role in how you should treat them. That is, someone's intention to cause what you would consider harm can make preventing them, ostracizing them, punishing them a pragmatic and moral choice. Your own intentions might in some cases play a role in how you should act. I can't come up with a good example here, though I cannot in theory deny the possibility that that is the case. The decision of whether you should proclaim that you're giving money to charity for example could be influenced by your own intention for doing so, but I am conflicted as to whether that intention can actually change what would be the right decision. In both of these cases intentions merely have an indirect influence on morality, as they're only tools to help you determine what you ought to do. Furthermore, when talking about intentions one has to differentiate between 1 what a person intends to do and 2 whether that person's intentions can be classified as harmful or benign . For the latter case, Noam Chomsky says this gt benign intentions are virtually always professed, even by the worst monsters, and hence carry no information, even in the technical sense of that term That is, talking about intentions with respect to what I described in 2 is meaningless . The only relevance that intention has is with respect to what is intended you can then judge that using your personal moral views, or what is generally accepted in a society. Counterargument 1 A person X intends to do good, but accidentally does something harmful instead. Surely, this isn't as bad as a person Y who intentionally does something equally harmful? Rebuttal The question that is posed is not clear, in particular it isn't clear what 'bad' is supposed to refer to. Taking into account Chomsky's quote, both of them likely thought they were justified in doing whatever they did. If that is the case, then according to their subjective moralities, they did what they ought were permitted to do. According to your my societies morality on the other hand, person X did what they ought were permitted to do disregarding the fact that their expectations were flawed , and person Y did something they weren't permitted to do. Lastly, this is still distinct from the question of how we society should treat X and Y afterwards it is likely morally permissible if not required to punish person Y, 1 to prevent them from doing further harm, 2 as a deterrence towards other people with similar intentions, 3 to try to change their view to accept their mistake. One could make the argument that person X should or should not bear some kind of consequence for their actions, but that is out of the scope of this post. The misconception of this counterargument stems from mixing up the judgement of an action with the judgement of the 'goodness' of a person. The former is what I just talked about and what is addressed by morality, the latter is likely what is meant with the word 'bad' in the counterargument, but it is not something that has a relevant meaning to the core of morality, i.e. telling us how we ought to act. Counterargument 2 The 'goodness' of a person determined by their intentions is an immediate moral category. That is, if I think that someone is a bad person, I have the explicit right to harm them they deserve harm , or I have less duties towards them they don't deserve my help . Rebuttal This is quite the arbitrary concept, specifically for two reasons What is the exact definition? How exactly is the 'goodness' of a person which tells me whether I should treat them with respect of with hate determined? How is it measured? Which actions and which intentions are taken into account? How far back in a person's history do you go? How do you accurately determine the intention in all of those cases? What harm is appropriate for a given amount of 'badness' of a person? Who is permitted to afflict that harm? Do you take into account whether someone has a change of heart mind? Do you have an equal duty to do good to people who have a high amount of 'goodness'? What is the justification? There is no reason to believe that 'deserve' is a valid moral concept, in particular that it is more than a mere invention of humans to justify their biological instincts for revenge, or that it is more than a coincidental tool of evolution to make humans ostracize undesired behavior. It can be rational to punish someone or cause harm to someone in order to better society as a whole, but I see no indication that it somehow has direct normative significance.<|ASPECTS|>, deserve harm, flawed, immoral person, accidentally, benign, moral choice, right to harm, morality, moral, ostracize, equal duty, consequence, history, misconceptions, harm, counterargument, accurately, intentions, punish, ethical views, act, better society, misconception, subjective moralities, hate, measured, right decision, deterrence, biological instincts, undesired behavior, judgement, definition, person 's, benign intentions, justified, bad person, morally permissible, cause, rational, indirect influence, intention, information, immorally, intentions in morality, normative significance, good, less duties, expectations, moral category, justification, harmful, change of heart mind, moral views, ostracizing, indirect impact, arbitrary<|CONCLUSION|>
| Intentions of actions in general have no immediate place in morality.
| c74d6ff5-7ef6-48fc-b2bc-5858e3eb4250 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As a teenager growing up in a small town where all the kids just sit around smoking pot because there is nothing else to do, I have decided that peer pressure isn't really an issue as much as they make it seem. Schools should be instead of telling us ways to say no can you say the word no? There you can do it , they should be spending more just teaching why not to do drugs. I'm always hearing in school about how people will pressure you to drink and do drugs, but I have never once seen anyone actually care if someone else does it. The main arguement I hear is you want to be accepted, or cool . First of all if you are actively against it, just don't hang out with those people. If you just don't want to do it and someone else, for some weird reason actually cares whether or not you do it even after you have said no, why would you even care if these people accept you? Anyways it just feels like an excuse people use. If people actually care about kids using drugs we should stop accepting it as an excuse. It really makes you look really stupid if you whine about being peer pressured. What are your thoughts? Is there things I'm not thinking of? I just don't get it. tl dr Peer pressure really isn't an issue at all and just an excuse. I personally rarely see it. If it does happen and you do it even though you didnt want to thats kinda stupid. If you don't want to do something just say no, and if someone still cares after that why would you care about their acceptance . Also sorry for the bad formatting? I swear it was normal indented paragraphs at first, but for some reason when I post on mobile it throws that all out the window so I've edited to use 2 indents.<|ASPECTS|>, peer pressured, peer pressure, thoughts, indented paragraphs, care, spending, acceptance, teaching, pressure, cool, accepted, people, stupid, say, excuse, hang, bad formatting, want, kids using drugs, accept<|CONCLUSION|>
| "Peer pressure" is an excuse, and not a good one.
| 8ca10a1d-c7c9-4ff9-8902-02b82994343a |
<|TOPIC|>Should the West arm Libyan rebels?<|ARGUMENT|>Blake Hounshell. "Should the U.S. arm the Libyan rebels?" Foreign Policy. March 26th, 2011: "the West, or the United States, will have more influence with the rebels if it is arming them than if it doesn't -- and thus may be better placed to shape events going forward."<|ASPECTS|>influence, shape events, arm, libyan rebels<|CONCLUSION|>
| West will have more influence over rebels if arming them.
| 5381f8c4-73c5-4417-9129-755b0a16328e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>From my studies of the European Union and its law, I have come to the conclusion that the Union, as it currently exists, is detrimental to the economies of small nations in the EU, such as Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, etc. While the EU has allowed for significant economic growth in some nations through subsidies, it has also stifled the fishing industry in Ireland. Granted, the EU Fisheries Policy does seem to have environmental impacts in mind, but it does not provide for the income which fishing communities have lost since the introductions of quotas. The European Union's executive and legislative bodies are also particularly unhealthy to all nations and quickly need to be reformed. However, as the European Commission holds the most power, compared to the power of the European Parliament and the European Council, we are unlikely to see any form of change. The Commission is unelected, with representatives of various countries being chosen by the Governments of these countries. This occurs regardless of popular opinion and a commissioner may be sent who is overwhelmingly unpopular. The Commission seems like an eerie gathering of powerful figures, each representing a nation but with the goals of a larger body in mind. They draft legislation which cannot be rejected by the European Parliament , only amended. The Elected body of the European Union functions as the lower house of a Westminster style Parliament, and is unable to draft its own legislation and must ask the Commission to do so. We have seen that the European Union's executive powers are being used to bring in laws that may damage Net Neutrality. These powers are held by the Commission and unlike a national parliament, they have no purpose in listening to the people of the European Union. As to why I believe the EU cannot be reformed, I believe that the European Commission would go very far out of its way to ensure that it will not lose its privileged position. Despite the possibility of losing nations from the EU, they have little or no incentive to listen to the complaints of a single nation, unless they are supported by many others. Even if a nation was supported by others, if a larger more important nation, such as Germany or France, was not involved in making the complaints, it is likely that such objections would be ignored. However, I do not think that the European Union is the anti Christ of Political Entities and it is a very good idea that has contributed to the peace and stability of Europe for the past sixty years. The Single Market and the Free Movement of Capital and Goods has allowed businesses to grow without having to deal with the trouble of tariffs caused their product being too expensive. Despite this, while the trend is towards reform, if one looks at the Treaties of Lisbon for example, the executive bodies of the EU are ensuring that they make the most of their powers while they last. If they ever have their powers taken from them, what alternative can we expect? The European Parliament is already too clogged with legislation and it takes years for them to agree on something. I do not think the European Union can survive in its current form, and I think it is for the best that it does not.<|ASPECTS|>survive, draft, amended, losing nations, agree, economic growth, grow, reform, reformed, anti christ, listening to the people, europe, environmental impacts, economies, larger body, executive powers, subsidies, rejected, unelected, fishing industry, legislation, unpopular, stifled, incentive, tariffs, detrimental, damage, net neutrality, supported, peace and stability, form, power, clogged with legislation, popular opinion, objections, nation, unhealthy, change, income, european union, lower, privileged position, complaints, powers, unable, purpose, powerful figures, expensive, alternative, entities<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that the European Union cannot be reformed and the best option for its constituent countries is to break away from it.
| 7c68f0a9-8780-439d-abfe-94efea518f7a |
<|TOPIC|>Should Zoos Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Zoos are necessarily local, so there is no danger of global competition undermining the ability of local zoos to survive.<|ASPECTS|>global competition<|CONCLUSION|>
| Zoos generate stable, long-lasting jobs, relatively safe from global competition.
| 2c780052-c1cc-4a7c-a35e-322bec18d089 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I can see that all atoms behave according to physical laws. Given any small system and enough information about said system, for example a box with 10 atoms in it with every atom's position, velocity, and acceleration at t 0, we can say what their state will be at t gt 0. I see no difference to this and our bodies and the larger universe around us. We are made of atoms and behave according to the same laws that govern every physical body in the universe. Furthermore, this means that any choices you think you make on a day to day basis are simply based off of a combination of your genetics which you have no control over and your life experiences leading up to the present which you have no control over either meaning that you have no free will.<|ASPECTS|>atoms, state, difference, free, behave, control, physical laws, choices, life experiences, larger universe<|CONCLUSION|>
| The universe is completely deterministic and thus we have no free will.
| 6d40a1df-0c0e-425d-9c8c-7416026a3001 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the United States close Guantanamo Bay?<|ARGUMENT|>No Guantanamo Bay detainees have ever been captured on US soil; the material danger these detainees pose to US citizens is there for quite small.<|ASPECTS|>material danger<|CONCLUSION|>
| Guantanamo Bay has done little to make the United States safer.
| e04cf68a-8bfe-4649-ad84-8386b12c2a92 |
<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>God knows what you dont know . so let it be because he is more wise and all knowing and has a plan that we dont know. God delivers us to good and you see that in history. It is all a test for us that is why we are here. so evil is a way of testing the people to turn back to him.<|ASPECTS|>wise, god, testing the people, test, good, evil<|CONCLUSION|>
| The existence of evil can be reconciled with an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God. God would not want to remove evil if a greater good were only achievable with the existence of evil.
| ec511b71-f39b-4199-a792-e863bd0e92cf |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yesterday, I posted a thread about Child Leashing asking why it was legal, and why it isn't considered inhumane. Unfortunately, most of the people who asked me about it seemed to people who have done it and or people who think I was a pedophile wanting to do away with a protective element that they use on their children. To me, the entire IDEA of child leashing is inhumane. First of all, it Marks the children as bad when you see them out in public, making them seem bad. Not to mention it also marks the PARENT, as weak Who's to say someone couldn't abduct a child from a weak parent? Secondly Frankly, it's just lazy. Why can't parents just watch their children when they take them out, and even if a child was on a leash they'd be able to reach out and do bad things even with in the range of their children. Some people remarked about how they can't handle children in huge crowds but, why on earth would you bring you child ANYWHERE where you can't handle them? Basically, all the Reasons that people think it's good all boil down to other issues that either have to do with laziness, greed, or outright parental stupidity. It seems like just thinking that the idea is wrong is disagreeable. JUST HOLD YOU KIDS HAND, AND WATCH THEM. I really don't understand why the idea of not TREATING YOUR CHILD LIKE A DOG is wrong. But, apparently it is. .<|ASPECTS|>disagreeable, hand, protective element, bad, watch, marks the children, lazy, idea, like, abduct a child, laziness, bad things, inhumane, idea is wrong, leashing, child leashing, greed, weak parent, treating, parental stupidity, handle children<|CONCLUSION|>
| Leashing a Child is inhumane.
| bc7d019a-2630-4a4f-aebf-ba966da8441e |
<|TOPIC|>Colonization of the Moon<|ARGUMENT|>An exception to the extreme conditions on the moon is the so-called "peaks of eternal light" located at the lunar north pole that are constantly bathed in sunlight. The rim of Shackleton Crater, towards the lunar south pole, also has a near-constant solar illumination. This would be an ideal place for a colony.<|ASPECTS|>eternal light, solar illumination, sunlight, extreme conditions, ideal place<|CONCLUSION|>
| A colony at the Lunar north pole would avoid temperature extremes.
| 5ea4faa9-7aee-4a46-93f1-80420d08aa79 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Alright, I realize there has been a previous thread in regards to this topic, but I didn't find it convincing enough to , thus I find myself posting this. In the past and today, alternatives exist to the disposable tampon hygiene pad, which incur a lower cost and are environmentally friendly. The widespread habit of flushing disposable pads tampons down toilets costs municipalities upwards of millions of dollars, already far more than the products bring in tax revenue. While not specifically about feminine hygiene products this article from 2013 cites an estimated cost of 250 million, which is reportedly on the low end according to the consulted municipal officials. Quantifying the specific cost of feminine hygiene products is difficult, but my argument is based on their contribution to the overall cost of maintenance. That money has to come from somewhere, which brings me to the main issue of the debate, the taxation. Within Alberta, according to these figures presented on the peition for 2014 individuals spent 58,025,309 on hygiene products, for a total of 2,901,925.45 in revenue. That means that between the 2,025,805 people buying hygiene products within Alberta, the cost to each individual was roughly 1.43. For the entire year. For the entire country, these products brought in a mere 36,398,387. Divided between the total number of reported individuals using these products, it was at a cost of 2.03 literally 0.13 more than a single extra large coffee at a Tim Hortons. To sum this up Alternatives exist have existed for years, making the disposable products in fact, a luxury. a Menstrual Cups b Cloth Menstrual Pads The cost to municipalities justifies the tax. The cost of the tax is insignificant compared to the cost of the damage they cause to municipal waterworks, and the environment. Thank you for reading, and I will do my best to reply ASAP to each person willing to discuss this.<|ASPECTS|>hygiene, alternatives, cost of maintenance, cost, hygiene products, revenue, costs, lower, damage, luxury, money, feminine hygiene, taxation, convincing, individuals, tax revenue, insignificant, environmentally friendly, tax, disposable products, reply<|CONCLUSION|>
| Taxing Tampons/Pads in Canada should continue, because of a myriad of costs related to disposal and clean-up, and that they're in-fact a convenience.
| 2d950a6b-ce1e-4f41-8c64-8606d98cc07c |
<|TOPIC|>Should people be free to choose the country in which they live?<|ARGUMENT|>Freedom should be the default. People who are against freedom in any instance have to show how they are right.<|ASPECTS|>freedom, default, right<|CONCLUSION|>
| Should people be free to choose the country in which they live?
| df4b54ad-4bad-4e52-b089-313cad3d96fe |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My SO has a large sexual appetite. She does not mind if I have sex with other girls which I do . But she is my primary partner and I am not eager to get rid of her for any reason. We have plenty of fun and enjoy ourselves together. We're also very kinky and go to BDSM events together so she a much more unique girl to me as she satisfies a kinky part of me that is especially hard to find with other girls. I am completely satisfied in my relationship with her, sexually, mentally and physically. I love spending time with her and dont wish for that to change anytime soon, so you can imagine I'm also quite eager to keep her from being snatched up by other guys. Though I am becoming less jealous, the other night in fact I let her make out with a guy and his partner who I was talking to not 2 minutes early a poly amorous couple , so I'm not overly protective, but I AM conscious of the health risks involved with sex and kissing others who potentially have STI's. I have made up a pros and cons list of her having sex with other guys and the cons have far outweighed the pros. This causes her to feel frustrated and dissatisfied. I believe I am insecure to her having sex with other guys and she respects that the notion makes me feel uncomfortable and refrains from doing so. However, given that she brings it up every now and then, I can tell its somewhat important for her, but I still feel like I'm going to feel upset if she were to have sex with another guy. I believe the reasons for this are I will feel like he satisfies her more thus rendering me redundant. I feel like slowly he will try to covet her or steal her away from me. I am displeased by the notion that someone else is making her his whore so to speak. I don't use this in a degrading way as she likes this form of dirty talk, but to know that someone else called her one and she gets turned on by it is deeply frustrating to me It will mean that the limited amount of time I have with her will be shared between me and this other guy. I don't know how safe this other guy will be or if he has any STI's that will be passed on to me. I have read man r sex posts of women who had sex with other guys and their SO's resented them. I don't want to end up doing this. The last time I gave her permission to fuck another guy, I was frustrated, but I wasn't as frustrated when I heard he was terrible in bed. One of my previous partners went to a sex club and had sex with 3 guys with my permission and it fucked with me so much that I resented her and our relationship dissolved. I want to be okay with this, I really do, it will require me to overcome it logically, and I understand I have a personal bias to conserve my relationship, but I'd like to see if anyone can logically convince me to rethink my position. I don't have trust issues with her yet, I deem her very trustworthy and there is no issue there. I do feel as though some might arise if she has a second SO on the side even with my knowledge .<|ASPECTS|>, frustrated, sexual appetite, relationship, upset, snatched, eager, trustworthy, personal bias, whore, safe, satisfies, kinky part, trust issues, bdsm, relationship dissolved, fun, covet, fucked, satisfied, sti, degrading, outweighed, important, sex with other girls, dirty talk, limited, steal, enjoy, feel uncomfortable, dissatisfied, man r sex, redundant, kinky, time, primary, terrible in bed, second, unique girl, frustrating, resented, health risks, insecure, large<|CONCLUSION|>
| My SO would like to have sex with other men, the notion of her doing this causes me to feel uncomfortable and I am not at all cool with it.
| f62fd5cd-e420-4b25-b3a2-6e0a5f690411 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I live in the United States, and here it's common to tip waiters 15 of the cost of the meal. I've heard people complain, mostly online, that tipping is ridiculous and should be abolished in places where it is common. Those people stand by their belief by not tipping any service workers. I know the laws around being a tipped employee. You receive 2 3 per hour, and if you do not make enough in tips to cover minimum wage, then your employer must pay you up to that amount. People debate whether or not that system is beneficial, but that's not what I'm getting at here. If someone really wanted to change the law so that tipped employees got full wages and no longer relied on tips, then wouldn't that person go make a petition or talk to their representative? Why is just not tipping a person considered a solution? Will the law change because of a single rude customer? No. The only reason I think that someone would claim that they don't tip for a some reason besides terrible service is that they are using that reason as an excuse for being a cheapskate. EDIT This isn't about why tipping is good or bad for servers, employers, or customers. I want someone to find a valid, convincing reason why someone who isn't a cheapskate would refuse to tip a server making tip wage, in a tipping culture instead of lobbying for better pay. I find that trying to be the one person, on their own, forging on bravely against societal norms is a rather immature stance to take. If someone wants change, they should actually get organized and do something, not just act rude and expect the world to change around them. gt Hello, users of This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing<|ASPECTS|>, better pay, relied on tips, world to change, beneficial, tipping, ridiculous, remind, organized, tipped employee, tipping culture, popular topics, rude customer, cost of, terrible service, service workers, person, belief, concerns, full wages, tips, effective, downvotes, laws, law, happy cmving, societal norms, immature, act rude, system, message us, change, downvote, questions, tip, cheapskate, expect<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think that people who live in a place where tipping is common but refuse to tip at restaurants are cheap, regardless of whatever excuse they may use.
| fe2560a3-c005-4fcc-9f94-05ddb0a1059d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello , For the past few years, I have heard of stories of college students majoring in liberal arts humanities social sciences majors that seem to have limited value in the marketplace. Examples Women's Studies Gender Studies Art History Studio Art Creative Writing Greek Mythology Social Justice Anthropology Dance Sociology Puppetry I noticed that when it comes to articles and videos about the state of higher education in the United States, typically conservatives point out that there are students majoring in useless majors. I think that while every degree program teaches at least some marketable skills, I do agree that some skills are more valuable in the market than others. The point I would like to add is that I think people choose liberal arts majors because they view college as an end to itself and not a means to and end. This means there are those who view college as a place to pursue your passions as opposed to preparing for a career however, that is a different matter in of itself . This can be very problematic for students who have incurred a significant amount of student loan debt relative to their future salary. Keep in mind, as of this post, student loan debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy in most cases. Can someone try to think of arguments to defend picking a liberal arts major? I have only encountered reasons online on why liberal arts majors have little marketplace value.<|ASPECTS|>end, preparing, , value, marketplace value, pursue your passions, limited, marketable skills, arguments, liberal arts, skills, valuable, problematic, useless majors, liberal arts majors, student loan debt, bankruptcy<|CONCLUSION|>
| People Should Not Major in Fields That Have Limited Marketplace Value
| 4160609c-3597-45d6-a6a6-9019b8a6519c |
<|TOPIC|>Should there be testosterone limits in women’s sports?<|ARGUMENT|>High levels of testosterone allow female athletes to train longer and harder than their low-testosterone rivals.<|ASPECTS|>train, testosterone, longer<|CONCLUSION|>
| Women with high levels of testosterone have an unfair advantage in women’s sport.
| 3221fc93-eee6-4127-b1ed-5f3b9431d5db |
<|TOPIC|>Bailout of US automakers<|ARGUMENT|>Bogdan Kipling. "Guest column: Auto bailout is a good idea". Greenbay Press Gazette. 2 Dec. 2008 - "Washington has successfully propped up the auto industry before. Car makers demanded tariff protection — and got it. Chrysler asked for a bailout in 1979 — and got it. The bailout worked. Chrysler recovered and blossomed. Harley Davidson was on the block and Washington stepped in. The totemic American motorcycle is now a legend."<|ASPECTS|>auto industry, blossomed, totemic american motorcycle, washington, chrysler, auto bailout, tariff protection, bailout, recovered, legend, propped<|CONCLUSION|>
| US has successfully aided autos before; can do it again
| 9ac7a7c6-ce3f-4f7f-9eac-4c19d1c6b478 |
<|TOPIC|>Should society work towards becoming "colorblind" in regards to race/ethnicity?<|ARGUMENT|>There is little to no scientific basis for the concept of race. Humanity should move past it.<|ASPECTS|>race, scientific basis<|CONCLUSION|>
| "Who they are" suggests that there actually are human races. But this is wrong.
| 89d15823-31c3-4a29-b97c-e415fb50bd08 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hi ya'll. I've been looking into vegetarian and vegan diets. I've discovered low affordable cost alternatives to conventional animal meat. The biggest reason I don't think I can go vegan or vegetarian is that animal fat tastes so fuuucking goooood. I cooked a lot with and without animal products and meat and the tastiest things I've made all 100 were made with animal fats like bacon grease, whole roast bird drippings, or butter. I love avocado and safflower and canola and olive oil and I use them all the time, but even when my improvised salad dressing x virgin olive oil, honey, chili flavor any preferred vehicle, cayenne is foolproof , vinegar, salt, black pepper lemon garlic to taste comes out perfect, the reaction it gets from me is at best Wow That's that's so good. So interesting. Mmmm wow that came out perfect. but when I smother my potatoes and turkey breast with the gravy I just made from the turkey drippings, It's like oooh my gooood i could diiiiie right now, you know? If you give me a vegan or vegetarian recipe with a minimal number of ingredients and steps I'm a good cook baker, but I hate unnecessary minutia and detail in the kitchen , I'll cook it, and if makes me feel as transcendentally satisfied as real animal flavor does, I'll acquiesce. I'm open to any other arguments as well. I don't claim to know why it's the case that animals taste fundamentally more delicious than plants. I love avocados and bananas and carrots, right? Eat em raw constantly. But I looooooooove bacon. None of those foods even prepared in my most favorte way can hold a candle to plain fried bacon. Like, that's magic or something, right? How can I give that up? <|ASPECTS|>animal fats, looooooooove, animal, delicious, detail, magic, satisfied, minutia, perfect, raw constantly, foolproof, eat, bacon, plain fried bacon, taste, carrots, low affordable cost alternatives, vegetarian, give, vegan, arguments, vegan diets, unnecessary, animal fat<|CONCLUSION|>
| vegan food can't taste as good as the tastiest food cooked with animal fat
| f185cda3-9e60-4729-9756-c3ded0b11a4c |
<|TOPIC|>Is Net Neutrality Necessary?<|ARGUMENT|>Removing net neutrality harms free speech, because marginal voices that diverge from what is established could be de-prioritised just because fewer people listen to them. As an example, a person running a blog about politics might get slower traffic than a popular celebrity on Facebook.<|ASPECTS|>de-prioritised, harms, slower traffic, net neutrality, free speech, marginal voices<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Internet should be free as in free speech, and the only practical way to keep it free is to treat every bit of the information transiting it — commercial or non-commercial — the same without regard to its content, author, buyer, or seller.
| 086c68e7-3c8f-4283-b8ac-8aa4aed10e0d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Often commentators and activists will point out disparities in the demographic breakdown of a company or industry as compared to the broader population, and act as if the disparity is evidence of wrongdoing or grave social ill. Examples include Pleas for more women in STEM, talk of how to get more girls interested in science. Assertions of a diversity problem in the tech industry on the basis of the relative proportions of women, hispanics, and asians in the tech industry. Expressions of outrage and shock over the gender and racial makeup of Sony's executives. To be sure I'm not saying discrimination isn't a problem. Discrimination needs to be identified and stamped out wherever it rears its head and there certainly is discrimination accounting for some of these distortions. But discussions of gender racial sexuality representations in various fields seem disconnected from any claim of discrimination. Instead the mere fact that occupational category X has a proportion of women blacks LGBTQ etc different from their representation in the population is evidence of some kind of wrongdoing or imperfection. Why? This post is partly inspired by a premise of the book Race and Culture A World View by Thomas Sowell. I haven't read it in full but Sowell summarizes some of his arguments here emphasis added gt In the early 1920s, Jews were just 6 percent of the population of Hungary and 11 percent of the population of Poland, but they were more than half of all the physicians in both countries, as well as being vastly over represented in commerce and other fields. gt In the early twentieth century, all of the firms in all of the industries producing the following products in Brazil's state of Rio Grande do Sul were owned by people of German ancestry trunks, stoves, paper, hats, neckties, leather, soap, glass, watches, beer, confections and carriages. gt In the middle of the nineteenth century, just three countries produced most of the manufactured goods in the world Britain, Germany, and the United States. By the late twentieth century, it was estimated that 17 percent of the people in the world produce four fifths of the total output on the planet. gt Such examples could be multiplied longer than you would have the patience to listen. gt Why are there such disparities? In some cases, we can trace the reasons, but in other cases we cannot. A more fundamental question, however, is Why should anyone have ever expected equality in the first place? gt gt During the decade of the 1960s, for example, the Chinese minority in Malaysia earned more than a hundred times as many engineering degrees as the Malay majority. gt Halfway around the world at the same time, the majority of the population of Nigeria, living in its northern provinces, were just 9 percent of the students attending that country's University of Ibadan and just 2 percent of the much larger number of Nigerian students studying abroad in foreign institutions of higher learning. gt In the Austrian Empire in 1900, the illiteracy rate among Polish adults was 40 percent and among Serbo Croatians 75 percent but only 6 percent among the Germans. gt Given similar educational disparities among other groups in other countries disparities in both the quantity and quality of education, as well as in fields of specialization why should anyone expect equal outcomes in incomes or occupations? The same arguments work with gender and sexuality categories to throw out an invented example, there's no apparent reason to believe the number of LGBTQ carpenters is supposed to match the number of LGBTQ identified people in the wider population, and it's not clear why it's automatically a good or bad thing if LGBTQ people are over or under represented in the world of carpentry. TL DR Why does anyone think equality of demographic groups across occupational categories is natural or even preferred?<|ASPECTS|>imperfection, , social ill, girls, equality of demographic groups, illiteracy rate, outrage, engineering degrees, educational disparities, women, equal outcomes, owned, produce, patience, jews, natural, wrongdoing, race, manufactured goods, lgbtq identified people, lgbtq, grave, distortions, german ancestry, total, diversity problem, chinese minority, output, commerce, disparities, demographic breakdown, multiplied longer, produced, studying abroad, gender and racial makeup, racial sexuality representations, shock, interested in science, quality of education, discrimination, trace the reasons, gender and sexuality, equality<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't know why it's a bad thing if the demographics of occupational categories don't match the demographics of the wider population.
| a5a1946f-8dfd-49b9-aa6b-945f4887d849 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the sale of genetically modified food be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Compulsory licencing laws would prevent monopolies or hegemony based on intellectual property rights. For example, if GMO producers had 5 years to charge what they wanted, after which any company could produce their products without the consent of the right-holder in exchange for 10% royalty. This prevents supply restriction or unreasonable mark-ups, while still rewarding investment in intellectual property.<|ASPECTS|>investment in intellectual property, prevent, supply restriction, compulsory licencing laws, hegemony, monopolies, unreasonable mark-ups, intellectual property rights, royalty<|CONCLUSION|>
| Safeguards and laws can always be put in place to prevent this from happening.
| a1307158-b72d-4c65-ac24-86844c288fbc |
<|TOPIC|>The US should adopt a better voting system for elected bodies<|ARGUMENT|>Changing to reweighted representatives would be much more cost efficient than some of the other proposed changes as it requires no change to be made to the current way that Americans vote.<|ASPECTS|>cost efficient<|CONCLUSION|>
| Reweighted Representative: Gives Representatives unequal vote strength in the house proportional to the share of the vote they received.
| c39ad08e-2a9d-4f95-85a7-fca2d50ea5e2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>100,000,000 is somewhat arbitrary but I mean a tiny fraction of what is on earth now. This is for many reasons, mostly environmental but also because human suffering for living In crowded dirty conditions. At this rate exactly 0 humans will enjoy the beauty of living on earth. Additionally, less population may lead to less chance of violent conflict en mass. I might be convinced the number should be lower, but I don't see it being much higher. This is obviously a statement of a future that would take hundreds of years to achieve and I make no argument about how to make it happen other than I think it can be done via peaceful means but possibly displacing ones to be sure I think most humans would choose to explore space and only be allowed on earth for temporary passes. Some could chose to revert to low tech tribal societies like Amazon rainforest dwellers but would be monitored to ensure they are not creating cancerous or toxic growth. This is not included in the 100 mill but I think it would naturally cap itself Even the ones living on earth in unlimited tech societies would have to have some reason to stay related to stewardship, cleanup, research or betterment of the human condition. But those who live on Earth should see it as a privilege, not a right. Edit Thank you everyone for posting. I have been writing like a mad man on this in more ways than one. Sorry if some of my responses got a but too heated and I think a few insults slipped in. Sarcasm is how I argue when I am stressed. I wrote this question quickly while waiting in the hospital and for some reason it has been dominating my mind for the last few days as I deal with a lot of crap in my life But I do strongly believe that we need to adjust the target of human population growth to drastically low in the long term this thread really helped me hash out some of these thoughts EDIT 2 here is a good summary of my position. Thanks u anxiousPolitics for helping me get there. gt The question is 100,000,000 population on earth. Thats the goal. Some can go elsewhere, we can have less babies, but I think sticking to a perhaps unreasonably low number goal is much safer than either gt 1 assuming we can go as high as we like and technology will fix it gt 2 just not caring or saying we can do what we like because it is our right gt 3 trying to thread the needly by sticking to something that is close to the max that we cannot be sure about but just back it off a little bit. unstable<|ASPECTS|>low tech tribal societies, beauty, human condition, cancerous, heated, technology, research, peaceful means, betterment, cleanup, cap, stewardship, toxic growth, dominating, less babies, future, sarcasm, mad man, crowded dirty conditions, argue, human suffering, like, insults, enjoy, crap, less population, human population growth, right, number, violent conflict, displacing, higher, explore, lower, population on earth, privilege, temporary passes, stressed, arbitrary, goal, safer<|CONCLUSION|>
| Future I believe 100mil should be the maximum population of technologically unlimited human civilization allowed on the surface of the earth
| 57d3cf7c-6186-42f2-9a5e-d29d3c5c3cee |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a girl. I have a little sister. I have babysat and hung out with many other girls my entire life. And literally not a single one of them ever seemed to notice Barbie's thigh gap, tall height, unrealistic figure, etc., let alone say that they desired to look like her. And if they did, it wasn't what lead them to have self esteem problems later on in life. I put the blame on the influence of our media movies, TV, etc, and their peers, not a freaking doll they haven't touched since they were about 8. At that age, few girls really care about weight, beauty, etc. in the way that big girls and women do. They just want to find a cute outfit for Barbie's next fun day out with Ken and her friends. While I'm sure there are stories of girls being influenced by Barbie's appearance, I can assure you that they are few and far between. TL DR, blaming a doll aimed at very pre pubescent girls on a widespread social issue in our society is just insane. Girls don't care at that age.<|ASPECTS|>women, weight, fun day, babysat, big girls, beauty, girls, care, barbie 's appearance, girl, social issue, insane, tall height, hung, influence, influenced, gap, cute outfit, little sister, self esteem problems, unrealistic figure<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think the viewpoint that Barbie dolls are responsible for girls having self-esteem issues is beyond ridiculous.
| e14b9c1b-13d9-400f-b6f8-29ab5476b196 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Comprehensive Sex Education be Mandatory?<|ARGUMENT|>National polls in the US show that 70% of parents are in favour of sexual education classes in schools. As such, it is not an intervention but rather something that the people of the state want and therefore something the state has a responsibility to provide.<|ASPECTS|>sexual education classes, responsibility, intervention<|CONCLUSION|>
| States do interfere in private matters, especially when there is harm to its citizens involved.
| b8adef02-ebb9-4259-89d4-7e8abd1926cf |
<|TOPIC|>Is the UN a force for good?<|ARGUMENT|>A declassified Department of State telegram shows the US with SC veto power "opposed any effort at this time to preserve a UNAMIR presence in Rwanda". They instead supported a full withdrawal.<|ASPECTS|>full withdrawal, unamir presence<|CONCLUSION|>
| The US used it's power to block UN attempts to bolster troops in response to the brewing genocide.
| 2854f898-f02d-4378-9afd-4197ab4ac742 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that it's imperative that we transition away from fossil fuels as soon as possible. I believe that the amount of energy required to fully transition to renewable energy can only be filled by either fossil fuels or nuclear power and that nuclear power is clearly the safest and the best realistic option available to us, especially given the growing energy demands of developing nations. I do not believe that nuclear power is 100 safe or that it has no negative environmental impacts, but that in comparison to the continued use of fossil fuels it is the preferable option. I also don't believe that it's fair to enforce restrictions on developing nations to 'solve' problems around energy consumption, just so we are on the same page here Please go ahead and change my view, I'd love to find out if I'm completely mistaken. Edit My view has been changed, and I am happy to announce that I was mistaken u Bradm77's and u aboutillegals' comments have made me realize parts of the debate that I was completely unaware of, both points were deal breakers on the nuclear front for me. In addition to this, their comments made me consider the practicalities and logistics of switching from fossil fuels to nuclear as our primary energy supply, the possible short term impacts of carbon generated from building thousands of reactors, and the importance of putting financial backing in the most purposeful place. Thanks to everyone who commented. The discussion has been really fascinating, and I appreciate everyones contributions.<|ASPECTS|>realistic option, energy consumption, energy, problems, safe, deal breakers, fascinating, environmental impacts, negative, carbon generated, short term, practicalities, contributions, logistics, transition, impacts, nuclear, safest, financial backing, fossil fuels, renewable, energy demands, restrictions<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that nuclear power is a good alternative to use in transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources
| 8fe980f2-0221-439b-a53e-f2b9afdfd095 |
<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>People may be considerably more interested in visiting palaces if they could see areas currently off limits such as the Queen's living areas and private collections.<|ASPECTS|>limits, interested in visiting palaces<|CONCLUSION|>
| Tourists are attracted to the history of monarchy and royal palaces, regardless of the political structure of the state i.e. republic or constitutional monarchy.
| dc379a6c-c853-473e-b99f-6de2f2fd2b5b |
<|TOPIC|>Ban on Muslim burqa and niqab<|ARGUMENT|>"Cold Comfort: Supporting Arguments don’t do Burqa Bans a Favor." Muslimah Media Watch. February 4th, 2010: "In the bitterly, painfully cold Toronto winter cold snap we had last week, I found myself thinking that a piece of fabric designed to cover the face could actually be a great idea. In saying that, I don’t mean to trivialize the issue, but instead to say that covering one’s face, as with many experiences, can have multiple meanings, and might even be to one’s advantage at certain times."<|ASPECTS|>multiple meanings, trivialize, cold comfort<|CONCLUSION|>
| Burqa has diversity of meaning to women that wear it
| d9ce7c2d-7ffe-4c42-93e7-5ab50db78b4b |
<|TOPIC|>freeze the United Nations budget<|ARGUMENT|>The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” 1 Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn? 1 Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008 improve this<|ASPECTS|>budget, contributions, take a mile, un operations, usa, rewards of un existence, veto, consistent donor, dependent, expensive<|CONCLUSION|>
| There has been a serious inequality in the funding of the UN budget.
| 67855464-7722-4446-bb4a-d9070b4f9a1d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I used to be fine with abortion, given that is was done a period before the Fetus could survive without the mother. This to me was the only reasonable cut off date for abortion, as it feels that all other dates are arbitrary. At present, I can't really justify being okay with abortion as, I have been presented with an argument that make this moot. Without a firm and defensible date of Right to life, the Fetus should either have a right to life from the get go, or not at all. The latter scenario is out of the question as I wouldn't be okay with a fetus being aborted a week before it's due date. Thus, abortion is immoral because with only arbitrary dates for a Fetus' right to life, it should always have a right to life. The hypothetical argument goes, in 5 10 years we develop the technology to artificially gestate a fetus from the point of conception. So my original window for abortion becomes basically zero, since you can't abort before the egg is even fertilized. Say a women wants an abortion at week 14 after this technology is created. Once the fetus is removed from her womb, do we have an obligation to artificially gestate it, or can we just incinerate it? Either way you answer the hypothetical, you make my original stance moot. If we have an obligation to artificially gestate the Fetus which I would say we do , why should this Fetus be given the right to life and not an in womb Fetus in our time? If we're okay with just incinerating it, then surely I should be okay with terminating a pregnancy after we can medically keep the fetus alive? I've been stuck on this for a few months, and have talked with it to a few people rarely can I get past rhetoric. For example I've got stuck on I believe a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body twice, even though doesn't address my issue at all. A woman should have the right to choose, but she shouldn't have the choice to supersede a Fetus' right to life. Does anyone have any input on these two points? Or maybe a non arbitrary date for the Fetus' right to life? Edit Just to clarify, I'm not from the US. I'm from a country with Universal Health Care so medical bills aren't really an issue.<|ASPECTS|>medical bills, fine, input, arbitrary date, incinerating, right to life, artificially gestate a fetus, fetus alive, medically keep, immoral, obligation, survive without the mother, women wants an abortion, rhetoric, window, cut off date, universal, right to choose, defensible, gestate, aborted, fetus, original stance, incinerate, arbitrary, terminating a pregnancy, justify being okay, choice<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are no non-arbitrary dates for a Fetus' right to life, therefore abortion is immoral.
| 90faa311-3ecb-445e-90fe-a73ca934b378 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the United States be the global police?<|ARGUMENT|>The United States is one of the only countries who did not join the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration which is a vital agreement going forward with policing the ongoing migrant crisis.<|ASPECTS|>migrant crisis<|CONCLUSION|>
| The United States is not a member of many key international groups/treaties.
| b8d9e0d4-4935-4ea4-945b-f0077453cb41 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now obviously there are going to be extreme exceptions to these as with everything. Also, I know age is an extreme factor but let's assume the two types of people in case1 are always the same age when comparing. CASE1 I believe that people who claim to have fast metabolisms and eat a lot really overestimate what they eat. For example, a skinny person goes to McDonalds and has 4 McDoubles about 1700 cals OK we can agree that that is a lot of cals food for one meal. BUT from my experience it is these same people who skips meals frequently and are fairly active. I have a brother like this. He eats about 2 meals a day and although eating 8 eggos or a few bacon cheeseburgers in a sitting he never eats breakfast and or often skips lunch and plays soccer a few times a week bikes around with friends. Now on the other side. People with slow metabolisms completely underestimate what they eat while generally not being as active for example a desk job . I have a friend who is about 60lbs overweight. When he tells me what he ate today he usually says something like oh, you know just a steak and some rice obviously not accounting for the 6 glasses of coke, 4 shots of JD and 2 giant bowls of cereal I watched him eat and portions of the steak rice and that is just the icing on the cake no pun intended seriously . CASE2 From a psychological standpoint a fat person doesn't want to admit to being a pig and a skinny person wants to sound cool by saying how much he she can eat and still be skinny. Ultimately, metabolisms from each person do differ but not by close to as much people claim they do. .<|ASPECTS|>skinny, fat, overweight, bikes, slow metabolisms, differ, skips meals, age, pig, metabolisms, extreme, cool, fast metabolisms, brother, icing, fairly, cals, active, extreme exceptions, skips, food, overestimate, underestimate<|CONCLUSION|>
| I, for the most part, believe having a "fast" or "slow" metabolism is a myth.
| df0bf515-bfbe-4a09-8dd5-2ae5b1b7b2bf |
<|TOPIC|>Teacher-student friendships on Facebook<|ARGUMENT|>Laws on the books already exist regarding sexual harassment and abuse of minors. If an administrator, parent, or anybody else discovers an inappropriate relationship between a teacher and student, they will have every recourse to pursue legal action.<|ASPECTS|>inappropriate relationship, sexual harassment, abuse of minors, legal action<|CONCLUSION|>
| Laws against sexual abuse apply; no need to ban "friendships."
| 703ddcb0-cd52-4e93-8702-c1b7f13d4a44 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.