argument
stringlengths 116
44.5k
| conclusion
stringlengths 8
1.16k
| id
stringlengths 36
36
|
|---|---|---|
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So first off I'll say that I am a white guy. I have lived in urban areas for most of my life, not just in one part of the continental U.S. either, I've lived on the west coast, the gulf coast, and the east coast. Having said that, I now live in a rural part of the great lakes area, that is predominately white,and by that I mean like 90 white. Like whiter than Calabasas, CA and I didn't think that was possible. Here's the main gist of all of this. I've lived out here over a year, I have an income that significantly exceeds even the GDP per capita for not just single member but multiple member house holds, and I only mention this because the amount of money I make now in Cities like San Francisco or Boston would probably be a little over working class. Yet I have never found myself as bored and unhappy with where I am living than I am now, and much of it has to do with the people who live here and the culture they foster. I feel like an asshole saying this, but they are as boring as they are bland like mayonnaise sandwich bland. Convince me that there is a vibrant and colorful history behind the small to medium sized communities in rural, white America in the 20th century. Like how can the communities and culture out here be compared to ones like those cultivaed in West Hollywood, Bed Stuy,the Mission, or Treme in terms of the cultural contributions they have fostered in contemporary society? I am not asking this because I immediately want to start sneering at people, I legitimately want to come to understand these people in a positive context. I'm tired of finding myself commenting on places and things that I find fault with out here and getting a look like a just drowned a bag full of puppies from locals. They seriously can't think this is the best of all possible worlds. Some conditions on this I cannot and will not accept that fast food or big box stores like Walmart have any positive merit. I despise hunting and fishing not because I have moral objections but because they are boring, require getting up before 6, and require a large deal of sitting and doing nothing. Finally, why I do not outright hate children, I really do not like their company, in fact a good sign for me that my neighborhood is going south, is when I see young white couples pushing baby strollers down the side walk . I also have no desire to own a home especially out here as that chains you down to a single location for a long period of time. Everything else is fair game, and the more in depth the historical, economic, and cultural perspective you can give me, the better.<|ASPECTS|>sitting, moral objections, nothing, money, couples, sandwich, white, worlds, working class, economic, hate children, strollers, positive merit, hunting, understand these people, fair game, historical, desire, best, colorful history, home, bored, commenting on places, boring, vibrant, cultural contributions, positive context, white guy, unhappy, income, communities, culture, urban areas, sneering at people, company, whiter, perspective, location, rural<|CONCLUSION|>
| The American heartland is devoid of cultural and meaning.
| 9dce4575-ee48-4d6a-87c5-49f6ba6edc1a |
<|TOPIC|>Should We Colonize Venus Before Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>The lower-than-Earth gravity of Venus felt at 50 km altitude would help prevent many of the harmful effects that low gravity has on human life.<|ASPECTS|>harmful effects<|CONCLUSION|>
| Colonizing the Venusian atmosphere with cloud cities roughly 50 km up from its surface is more viable than colonizing the Martian surface.
| cc1f93a4-a703-4533-a921-45b7ca780f00 |
<|TOPIC|>Prisoners Should Have The Right To Vote<|ARGUMENT|>There is a strong principle in the criminal justice system that the punishment should fit the crime - the more severe the crime, the more sever the punishment. At the moment, anyone who is serving a custodial sentence at the time of an election is unable to take part, regardless of the crime for which they were sentenced, or for how long they have been sentenced to prison.<|ASPECTS|>crime, fit, custodial sentence, punishment, unable, sever the punishment<|CONCLUSION|>
| In most cases, the punishment doesn't fit the crime
| d46c48bb-193f-4a85-b735-140f1e055152 |
<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Our entire existence as a country is built on freedom of expression. Non-censorship of publication is one of those things we cannot throw away. The terms use is largely viewed as satirical and not in a hateful manner. I also feel it is important to keep proof of past in order to not repeat the past. If schools want to protect students and teachers are uncomfortable, there are millions of other works to teach from.<|ASPECTS|>protect students, hateful, freedom of expression, non-censorship, proof of past, satirical<|CONCLUSION|>
| The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech.
| 5716365c-b55a-4b61-8f99-7187f8770da7 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I firmly believe that a diverse team has a higher potential for success and, studies aside, it's my direct experience that grounds this belief. However after 2 and half years we still only have a single woman in a delivery team of 7, and she's the only one not doing software engineering she's a mathematician . We are diverse in other senses, as there are 3 nationalities in our team, but every engineer is a guy. Even though we're still small, we made significant efforts to create a non dude environment and all our team members, as well as some of our candidates, have said laudable things about the healthy, non ego driven culture we have developed. We interviewed a few women whenever we had an opening in a team which admittedly is quite rare we grew from 4 to 7 in a year and a half . However, the gender proportions of the candidates applying for a software engineer job are the way everyone knows they are, so the lack of women in our team is a reality of numbers more than anything else. Diversity objectives are debated a lot these days, and there are some excellent arguments, as there are plenty of studies and research showing the importance of diversity in the work place. A lot of the discussion, however, seems to be focused on hiring practices and the responsibilities that businesses and employers carry in achieving these objectives for the greater good of society. Some people including myself argue that bias against minorities is systemic and that there are elements of education, upbringing, political and financial power balances that are accountable for the existence of such a rigged system. An example of such an argument The research papers supporting this are numerous, and I'm hoping we won't be debating this here. But this is precisely the essence of my question are we unfairly expecting for the business world alone to solve the imbalances in our society when the problem is so much more complicated? I understand that the balances of power in capitalism lie with money and influence political or otherwise and money is usually where the business is and vice versa . But can we in good faith hold a single space of our public life the business accountable for a cornucopia of factors that include education, religion, community, cultural identity, etc? If there is a market shortage for talent belonging to a particular minority which seems to be the case then is it helpful to name and shame businesses for not having more of that minority as employees? Is a business and I mean an or any particular business accountable for the education system, political power balances, social values and cultural expectations that people have been forced into decades before ending up in the interview room? Again, I am not here to debate whether the setup is rotten or not I know it is I am an immigrant from the East applying for citizenship in the West . Instead, I want to understand why people believe that hiring practices and quotas need to be the emphasis on addressing inequalities in our society. When there seem to be so many cultural and political factors that have little to do with the business and even less so with a business which are responsible for most of this injustice. <|ASPECTS|>rotten, bias against minorities, addressing, political power balances, immigrant, money, influence political, cultural identity, setup, systemic, hiring practices, financial power balances, injustice, solve, ego driven culture, women, potential for success, community, lack, greater good of society, talent, cultural expectations, complicated, responsibilities, diversity objectives, social values, balances of power, rigged system, imbalances, cultural and political factors, single woman, mathematician, inequalities, citizenship, higher, minority, gender proportions, healthy, religion, political, reality of numbers, non dude environment, nationalities, diversity, education, market shortage, diverse<|CONCLUSION|>
| Coercing businesses into diversity objectives is not practical or fair
| 1cb35976-b2b2-47e7-892c-b29cb643d2bb |
<|TOPIC|>Could adopting a discussion platform like Kialo help improve the quality of Ethereum's political + governance debates?<|ARGUMENT|>Structuring arguments sometimes requires you to first think how these are best represented, which is a bit harder than just blurting out a comment with all arguments just flowing from your pen, without any kind of structure, as is done on the Ethereum subreddits.<|ASPECTS|>arguments, structure<|CONCLUSION|>
| Kialo is a much more complex form of interaction then writing a comment, this might repel some contributors.
| e900d299-551b-498e-a2b9-c4fc15ceb0d2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Person centered therapy is a very old therapy that involves asking questions based off minute assumptions to lead an individual to their own conclusions, on their own accord, through their own viewpoints, essentially. It's actually a lot more nuanced than that, but thats the gist of it. As someone who has been to trained use this, I have adapted my own, stream lined, version of this for this subreddit. It's how I got my first, and only, delta actually. However, I'm not actually changing anyone's minds by doing this type of therapy. I'm actually just helping them reach the conclusion based of their own perceptions and beliefs. I'm simply imploring a type of therapy that works because it is the path of least resistance. However, I'm not actually changing their views whatsoever. Instead, I'm basically leading a horse to water. As such, I don't believe this method should be rewarded with a delta, at least when deliberately used. x200B I would like my view changed very much so, as I am proud of my first delta. However, I feel like I cheated to get it.<|ASPECTS|>minute assumptions, cheated, view changed, therapy, changing their views, perceptions, least resistance, beliefs, water, horse, trained, nuanced, changing anyone 's minds, person, rewarded, delta<|CONCLUSION|>
| If I use an adapted version of person-centered therapy to change someone's view, I don't deserve a delta.
| fecd64b5-5886-4787-a524-7fba4738dd24 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been hearing a whole lot of talk from entrepreneurs and such about how we should drop out of college and there are better ways to make money. However, I can't help but feel like it's a scam— and a scam is how some of them make their money. Is there really any truth to this? I'm going to college to become a doctor despite my dreams of doing music and having other aspirations. Honestly, I would LOVE to believe in this, but I'm not certain that dropping out of college and pursuing this other stuff would be optimal— you know? I'm kinda introverted as well. Thanks. I need some hard evidence.<|ASPECTS|>optimal—, drop, truth, scam, music, better, money, make money, introverted, aspirations, scam—, college, make, dropping out, hard evidence<|CONCLUSION|>
| College is the only way I can make a GREAT living
| 72f6c4f4-8043-4082-a13a-36a1ef5d5d69 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the citizen's right to benefit from technology, for privacy and secrecy, overrule the role of government?<|ARGUMENT|>Extracting information from private correspondence is a penetration of privacy but it is not necessarily open publication, i.e. 100% loss of privacy.<|ASPECTS|>penetration of privacy, open publication, loss of privacy<|CONCLUSION|>
| No legal media or communication channel should be allowed to endanger citizens by confounding access for law and security reasons.
| 084698e5-4651-4531-a7de-b0b63f05b95e |
<|TOPIC|>Should Humans be Monogamous?<|ARGUMENT|>The failure of the family structure is what's ruining our countries. Studies indicate that when children are raised in a 2-parent home, they are better adjusted. Without monogamous marriage, the erosion of the family structure would be complete.<|ASPECTS|>ruining our countries, better adjusted, marriage, failure, erosion of, family structure<|CONCLUSION|>
| Normalizing monogamous heterosexual marriage is important for stable and healthy cultures.
| f7d19605-eb76-4cef-8568-34feee6f4225 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey , So I believe that tit for tat notions on social media are not helping oppressed groups but hindering the progress for equality. For example, I can only speak on the black community being that I am black. The black community has a lot of pent up frustration due to the current climate on race relations in America. However I believe a lot of this anger is expressed in the wrong way. Instead of bridging racial division, the black community is widening it through microaggressive comments such as white people shoot up schools theater or white people can't cook season their food well Now some people might see that as satirical or making fun of a stereotype to lighten its negative connotation, and also reference r blackpeopletwitter as a counterpart. But black Americans are the first ones to get offended over comments made by other races about our lack of fathers , love for watermelon and fried chicken , or any other stereotype I don't believe this to be the most effective means of bridging the divide that has plagued our country for 250 years. I believe that self segregation is never the path towards an egalitarian society. And I think that the black community is rapidly moving away from the ideas of MLK intergrationalism to Malcolm X's self segregation. For me, black pride Afrocentrism is just as dangerous and stupid as Latino pride, Asian pride, White pride supremacy To me, the black community is using guilt to kick whites off the top. the oppressed become the oppressors idiom. But who's to say that Americans of Asian or Latino descent won't try to kick blacks off? It's essentially oppression olympics Game of Thrones<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, wrong, egalitarian society, race relations, racial division, oppressed, anger, white, afrocentrism, oppression olympics, lack of fathers, oppressed groups, black, negative, intergrationalism, helping, offended, kick blacks, stupid, black community, divide, oppressors idiom, whites, self segregation, frustration, microaggressive comments, guilt, progress, equality, love<|CONCLUSION|>
| Lack of historical understanding and microaggressions are not helping minority/oppressed groups
| 7aa556b2-0e69-4084-9033-113ea189d1d8 |
<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>Much like certain people advocate for banning Muslims because they associate Islam with terrorism due to a few atypical, extraneous examples, these same people would likely find examples of people in poverty misspending their UBI although it would likely be atypical & extraneous and use it to perpetuate stigma & otherization. While an irrational characterization, it is a likely characterization that exists more poignantly in a world with UBI.<|ASPECTS|>stigma, poverty, terrorism, irrational characterization<|CONCLUSION|>
| The stigma against individuals in poverty exists for a multitude of other reasons, for example lack of familiarity with other cultures or lack of exposure to minority friends.
| fd460cb1-5819-415d-bbdd-3f353838acd5 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Huge emphasis on the legal aspect of this, as we were both old enough where it wasn't illegal. So I 20M was talking with this girl 24 from a dating site when we decided to exchange phone numbers. Half of the country is between us TX and NY , so any chances of a meet up were pretty much slim to none. We're talking and talking when she suggests that we exchange phone numbers. I say yes, give her my digits and we continue chatting. All of a sudden she wants to exchange naked pictures of each other. Sure we were talking each other up and everything, but I immediately got cold feet when I read that text. To me there has always been a fine line between just saying what you're doing and actually showing it off, you know? I guess my family brainwashed me into the don't post any pictures of you online mentality because of pedophiles, and my entire life I've followed that order. I've just always held onto the belief that sexting is wrong period. I mean, yeah there's countless pictures of weiners and boobs all over the internet, but I'm absolutely frightened that my package makes its way to a billboard or something. Obviously that's a near impossible worst case scenario, but I hear horror stories of girls showing off their stash of pictures they've received, and that's enough for me to chicken out.<|ASPECTS|>exchange phone numbers, weiners, , brainwashed, slim, frightened, naked pictures, billboard, sexting is wrong, horror stories, chatting, legal aspect, cold feet, exchange, showing, illegal, pedophiles<|CONCLUSION|>
| Sexting is morally wrong no matter the age of both *legal* parties.
| 6c260516-a653-418f-b0b6-472e2a4aa3a9 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Instances where I think it is acceptable to purposefully breed dogs and cats are cases where the animal is being sought after for a particular trait that would be used for a service. It is also acceptable to me that dogs are bred to diversify the gene pool for companion pets and keep them healthy, but at this point we have so many dogs that it's not necessary. I don't find the argument that people are seeking certain temperaments or personalities to be particularly relevant. I can understand not wanting to adopt a dog or cat that is grown and has issues or could potentially have issues, but it's a moot point when there are puppies and kittens easily available. People who seek certain breeds of cats or dogs simply for the appearance or because they've applied some trait or idea to them that makes them attractive but not pertinent to their actual life or needs are selfish and or shortsighted and part of the reason there are countless homeless animals and animals that have to be put down.<|ASPECTS|>healthy, homeless animals, attractive, service, temperaments, acceptable, personalities, gene pool, sought, easily available, diversify, selfish, issues, pets, shortsighted<|CONCLUSION|>
| People who buy dogs and cats from breeders are being selfish and/or shortsighted most of the time.
| 46d43e82-23cd-481f-865a-753c7a1958a7 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that this is a HUGE topic around here, and i see a lot of posts that seem a little too intense however, i am a good person subjective, i know with no legal trouble on my record and i have no intentions of harming the United States or any of its citizens. So, Reddit, enlighten me and please change my view.<|ASPECTS|>legal trouble, good person subjective, change my view, harming the united states<|CONCLUSION|>
| Being a law-abiding citizen, with nothing to hide I think i have nothing to fear from the NSA scandal and PRISM.
| 38c49d80-d257-4e87-baf0-91e745cee118 |
<|TOPIC|>What is the worst world problem of the utmost concern?<|ARGUMENT|>Exploiting mind basic six emotions : anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise is the root issue.<|ASPECTS|>exploiting mind<|CONCLUSION|>
| Human emotions impacting logical decisions: devastates rather than improves humanity's advancements.
| 43e6a0ca-be3a-45b1-89ab-deedb5494e6a |
<|TOPIC|>Should the EU introduce a carbon tax?<|ARGUMENT|>High income countries, including those in the EU, contribute the most to carbon emissions. Low-income countries contribute the least.<|ASPECTS|>low-income countries, carbon emissions, income<|CONCLUSION|>
| The EU has a moral obligation to developing countries, which have been disproportionately impacted by climate change.
| 7930217c-1b9e-4288-8172-2059aae66e0e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe profanity is a great way to express yourself if used in a non harmful way as long as you're not cursing at someone, it should be perfectly acceptable language to use. I don't think it should be used professionally or in formal situations, but I think in social situations it's a great way to add emphasis to an expression, for example. Oh no and Oh fuck can be used in different situations, and the profanity adds a certain kick to what you're trying to express. There are many examples of the literary greats using profanity and I don't see why it shouldn't translate into verbal language. I'm not advocating little children swearing since they haven't fully understood how to use it in a non harmful way. As they reach their teenage years, it shouldn't be unacceptable to say it's a shit film instead of it's a bad film there's clearly more of a punch to one of the expressions and I think some parents put unnecessary restrictions on their child's language. Again, I understand that profanity can be used in an offensive way, which isn't what I'm advocating. My point is that under the right context, profanity should be perfectly acceptable language to use. I am in no way suggesting that we make it acceptable to use derogatory terms which are offensive . The reason why I thought of this is that while watching TV, I've found that it kind of ruins the punchline when there is swearing and it's bleeped out The Office US and there are times when I think there's just a perfect opportunity It's Always Sunny There's currently a watershed that prevents nudity, sexual content and graphic violence before a certain time and it's definitely understandable that children in their early teens shouldn't be watching it, I just don't think profanity should be a part of it. I don't see any reason why sitcoms aimed at older audiences couldn't allow profanity it's funny and could also show the right contexts in which it's acceptable to be used. As an additional point many parents allow the use of 'crap' and not 'shit'. This is a perfect example of the fact that the main reason why swearing is unacceptable is the taboos around certain words. Edit corrected typo Edit 2 After the discussion, I would now describe my view as I believe profanity should be perfectly acceptable to use at your own discretion, and the assertions that these words are off limits are outdated . <|ASPECTS|>derogatory terms, emphasis, graphic violence, 's language, formal situations, sexual content, verbal language, unnecessary restrictions, kick, different situations, profanity, acceptable, offensive, taboos, ruins the punchline, nudity, right contexts, outdated, unacceptable, little children, social situations, limits, non harmful, acceptable language<|CONCLUSION|>
| Profanity isn't such a bad thing to use in language within the right context
| c08c55e6-b3c1-4f1a-b296-d9c8169d8b12 |
<|TOPIC|>Internet Brings More Harm Than Good<|ARGUMENT|>The internet has become a major source of information for many people. However, online information has usually not gone through the same checks as newspaper articles or books. There is a higher risk that some of the facts or quotations from a particular source in an article are false. Whereas newspapers might lose customers if people find out they gave been ‘selling lies’, a blog can be easily deleted. If people base their opinions on information they find online, they could well be basing their opinion on false facts. Since the internet gives equal space to material of greatly varying quality, this is a serious risk.<|ASPECTS|>quality, source of information, risk, equal space to material, opinions, false facts, online information, opinion, easily deleted, lose customers, higher, selling lies<|CONCLUSION|>
| The internet has become a major source of information for many people. However, online information ...
| ba3df195-882d-46e1-bf6b-31ffd6fbcc0f |
<|TOPIC|>Female body hair taboo<|ARGUMENT|>In the early 1900s upper class white American associated shaving body hair with being more desirable as a woman. Due to their influence in society, this became the social norm that is still practiced today.<|ASPECTS|>influence in society, social norm, desirable, body, woman<|CONCLUSION|>
| Social norms are the reason female body hair is not a popular choice made by women.
| c632da8f-4255-40c9-8ec5-b5cc2221065a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems pretty intuitive that if the first one is wrong, so is the second, since you're generalizing a group of people based on a trait they can't control. You don't choose to be born a male, so it's not fair that you're labeled as a potential rapist with examples like the bowl of M M's If I were to use that example, except having the bowl of M M's be representative of black people, I would be rightly called a Neo Nazi and told to go fuck a Confederate flag or something. However, I see the All women live in fear of being raped being passed around a lot, and I don't quite see the rationale behind it. Considering that only a minority of men rape, it seems pretty unfair to make a statement that holds all men accountable.<|ASPECTS|>fear of being raped, rape, trait, rapist, black people, control, flag, potential, unfair, neo, accountable<|CONCLUSION|>
| If it's wrong to say "Not all black people are criminals, but all white people live in fear of crime," then it should be wrong to say "Not all men rape, but all women live in fear of being raped."
| 6be0c5f6-b986-4ba6-8159-72a958b5fde9 |
<|TOPIC|>Is it Time for Hungary and the EU to Part Ways?<|ARGUMENT|>Since the enactment of Directive 2004/38/EC all member states have to ensure that there are no explicit or implicit barriers to the free movement of persons across the EU.<|ASPECTS|>free movement of persons, barriers<|CONCLUSION|>
| EU citizenship allows Hungarians to travel around 27 countries freely.
| 4cb6da07-4da9-46fe-9890-aa8077c63070 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think political parties Republicans Democrats or even labels such as liberals conservatives should be removed from media and politics in general. Here is why It only creates division. Having people decide or just creating the option of being one or the other creates sides. It has split the country in two from the most recent presidential election and even the two before that with Barack Obama. Now I do not know what it was like before these elections, since I was younger and didn't really pay attention to politics. But I definitely saw divide and people picking the better side in my family, social media, and media in general biased towards one side or the other. I think good enough proof is scrolling through Reddit seeing the name calling between political affiliates. But Tomi Lahren and Michael Moore both are examples of trying to create divisions themselves. Going off from 1, as seen in U.S.'s history division of such big popular beliefs credits to a Civil War or lots of nonsensical violence, protests, and segregation. Or a house divided against itself cannot stand from Mr. Lincoln who quotes a bible verse Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. While I am an atheist this statement has been shown to be true through history. Being so half and half is not good for any government or country. Adding to that, Divide and Conquer a familiar saying from war movies and such, that Caesar and Napoleon used to be successful in their reign could be used for other countries against the U.S. who wish to exploit that weakness as we have seen with Russian spies bots recently. These parties do not allow for individual thinking, innovation, or even decide one's own personal beliefs. People are starting to be subjugated to group think. Individuals do not know any better and just go with what their parents, peers, community, or media say and share with them. It stops self exploration and creative thinking to solve problems the U.S. faces. Even within itself. Not every solution can be accomplished with the same sort of thinking. Some things still work with current laws and morals, and some don't. We need to learn that sometimes a progressive way is better suited for problem one, and a conservative way may be better suited for problem two. It hinders people who are in the middle like myself to speak their mind. This one is mainly due to personal experience. I've tried speaking my mind about how I like some conservative ways and some liberal ways, and from both parties I get hypocritical backlash and name calling. It's almost sometimes like it is my way or the highway . And yes I know this doesn't speak for them all on both sides, it's just something to discuss since it is allowed from political parties. Adding on to 5, mainly to extremists but a view non extremists it hinders discussion between the parties. People cannot discuss and try to come to a middle ground or any likely solution because both sides simply think the other is wrong since they are Democrat or Republican. If you ask them individually what their beliefs are they might say the same thing, but since they align with a party they won't have any of what the other says. And added to that there is no trying to understand each other. It's just I'm right, you're wrong . This is simply intellectually ignorant and dumb. That doesn't create any progress for society at all. It can be seen in the Senate Congress. Members don't really discuss or appeal to each other. They mainly just vote with their party. The only time things are decided is when there is more of one party in the office. Even then sometimes not, because the minority party pursues in a filibuster to prolong until it is in their favor. It doesn't allow for people in the middle to get into the office which would most likely do a lot of good for everything. They could find a common middle ground that isn't so black and white. Without parties this would be everyone running for office, so people would actually vote for what they are trying to do rather than because he she is a democrat or republican. I honestly, just cannot see why we still have a party system. It's just more labels to put on people to segregate like gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. I just think if we see people for who they are and what they are trying to do, instead of the labels then things could get moving. I had someone say to me separation inspires unity and didn't really get it. So if there is something I'm missing on why we need it I'm all ears. Just trying to make sense of all of it. Edit Grammar <|ASPECTS|>subjugated, labels, intellectually ignorant, wrong, common middle ground, true, individual thinking, personal beliefs, middle, political parties republicans, republican, liberal, protests, nonsensical violence, progressive way, conservative way, vote with, history, discussion, likely solution, one party, running, sides, speak their mind, solution, filibuster, division, extremists, vote, appeal to, senate, moving, current laws and morals, political parties, group think, race, highway, middle ground, thinking, spies, trying, segregate, affiliates, segregation, democrat, better side, create, biased, hypocritical backlash, exploit, good, understand each, gender, dumb, weakness, self exploration, minority, politics, party system, creative thinking, sense, innovation, divide, solve problems, know any better, missing, religion, personal experience, conservative ways, unity, progress for society, divisions, hinders, sexual orientation, popular beliefs, creates, name calling, discuss, inspires, desolation, split the country, good for any government, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>
| At least in the U.S. can't speak for other countries political parties should be removed.
| 28b51fe6-30d9-455e-aca5-19bb3fd9b211 |
<|TOPIC|>Monogamy vs Polygamy: Is the Norm of Monogamy Regrettable?<|ARGUMENT|>Monogamy is like taxes and the speed limit: we say we support it but most of us eventually break it on some level. At best, most people practice serial monogamy. Polyamory would allow us to forego this farce and admit that we can have multiple attractions; maintain multiple relationships; and reinforce that no one "owns" anyone else or anyone else's sexuality.<|ASPECTS|>speed limit, taxes, multiple relationships, multiple attractions, serial monogamy<|CONCLUSION|>
| Monogamy is a social construct that restricts human nature, therefore it should not be a permanent norm.
| b0795213-47ab-43d2-94e4-6a5d3923e86f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Many people have taken offense to Donald Trump's plan to deport illegal immigrants, but why shouldn't they be deported? These people take away jobs from United States citizens, and more importantly, people who have entered the country legally, and applied for their citizenship. It isn't fair that some people wait years to enter the United States the correct way, even are willing to pay taxes to live here, but are hindered by the overpopulation of illegal immigrants. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to the United States, I'm just saying that if they do, there should be some sort of system to hold them accountable, just like the system holds every other United States citizen accountable.<|ASPECTS|>system, overpopulation, pay taxes, deport, take, jobs, deported, immigrate, accountable, illegal immigrants<|CONCLUSION|>
| Illegal Immigrants should be deported
| b592170e-f8ad-422c-a723-6147b48e4d44 |
<|TOPIC|>Do Humanities have less value than Natural Sciences?<|ARGUMENT|>Humanities are crucial to inter-cultural exchange and understanding, for we understand other humans through their language, their history, and their socio-cultural context.<|ASPECTS|>understand, inter-cultural exchange, understanding<|CONCLUSION|>
| Humanities are the basis of how we communicate and human society could not work without this skill-set.
| 910ecb0d-5ace-40c2-ac5e-d41163ccdd2f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Section I Why is Basic Income Increasingly Popular? Basic income is a policy that has broad support from both the progressive left and libertarian right. Center left economists including Paul Krugman have endorsed the scheme for various reasons. First, BI is an effective anti poverty measure. BI also reduces inequality by redistributing income from capital to labor. Perhaps most importantly to some on the left, is the notion that BI provides people with freedom. Left libertarian political economist Philippe Van Parijs argues that to be truly free, people have to have access to the means that people need for doing what they might want to do. BI provides people those means. Some have made a feminist case for BI. Philosopher Carole Pateman writes, BI would, for the first time, provide women with life long modest economic independence and security, a major reason why it is central to democratization. Basic income, particularly in the form of a negative income tax, is also popular among the libertarian right. With a NIT in place, much of the welfare state would be obsolete you could get rid of food stamps, child nutrition programs, public housing, cash welfare, community development programs, Medicaid, and a host of means tested welfare programs. It would simplify the bureaucracy, and get rid of the unemployment trap that occurs under the existing system. Also, basic income advocates on the right want to give people the power and authority to spend money in whatever manner they choose they dislike how the government forces welfare recipients to use their welfare handouts on purchasing food, for example. Benefits are often given in kind rather than in cash precisely because the state doesn’t trust welfare recipients to make what it regards as wise choices about how to spend their money, University of San Diego's Matt Zwolinski writes. A basic income, Zwolinski continues, would change that. Basic income is conservative and libertarian because it makes individuals responsible for their own livelihoods and flourishing. If they make good decisions, so be it, if they make bad decisions, so be it. But the government shouldn't force people to use transfer payments in a particular manner. Conservatives also like basic income because it would allow for less regulations on the marketplace minimum wage laws could be gutted, labor union protections could be removed, etc. Social democrats on the left and libertarians on the right often disagree on how to fund a basic income scheme. Some leftists prefer keeping a progressive tax system in place to redistribute income and lower income inequality. However, libertarians would prefer a flat tax without any tax brackets. One way to the two groups could come together is if they coalesced around a negative income flat tax, which is both flat but has a progressive effect, appealing to the right and left. Another possible way to fund the BI scheme is to have a progressive consumption tax, supported by individuals on the right and left. Land value taxes are also supported by the right and left. Moreover, there are also several liberal economists who agree with free market economists that capital gains and dividends taxes tax savings, and corporate taxation is double taxation. So realistically, if the right and left came together, and had to compromise, they would settle on either a negative income flat tax or a progressive consumption tax. And possibly a land value tax could be thrown into the mix . Section II Automation and Unemployment A big reason why people of all political persuasions are becoming interested in basic income is due to automation. Some project that structural unemployment due to automation and globalization will dramatically increase over the next several decades, and no government in the world has devised a solid plan to deal with this. They fear that automation may occur at such a rapid pace that the structure of the economy may fundamentally change, in which supply for human labor perpetually exceeds demand. Therefore, we need to decouple humanity from work, and transition into a society more based on leisure which Keynes predicted would happen eventually . Essentially, it's not imperative that we build a human society based on work when so many jobs will be automated. And in fact, a basic income scheme may be the only way to shoulder such a huge influx of unemployed individuals. Existing welfare schemes weren't designed to deal with extreme levels of unemployment, and may be overwhelmed in the future. Section III Economizing on Human Labor I think these are excellent points in favor of a basic income scheme. However, here are my rebuttals. I concede that improvements in artificial intelligence and robots will decrease the demand for human labor in the short term. However, I am not convinced that this will necessarily persist in the long term and dramatically decrease permanent employment levels. Traditionally, innovation and technological improvements have lead to structural unemployment through creative destruction. But this was considered a positive development b c human labor could be allocated to new enterprises. Economizing on human labor would improve the dynamism and efficiency of the macroeconomy. Retraining people or putting them through higher education has worked in the past, and has allocated human labor into new sectors. I'm not convinced that this won't be possible in the future. But say technological unemployment does occur. That doesn't mean we can't combat if we act quickly. MIT economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, in their book The Second Machine Age, argue that while a basic income would replace the lost income resulting from mass unemployment, it wouldn't replace the lost self worth, community, engagement, healthy values, structure, and dignity people gain from work. They instead argue that we should successfully enable humans to successfully rage against the machines through investing in expanded education and wage subsidies. One way to increase the supply of human labor would be to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit which kind of acts like a small scale negative income tax, but it works alongside other transfers and welfare schemes . We could further subsidize human labor, paying employers to hire humans instead of robots. We could establish a scheme where humans own some of the robots, and rent them out to corporations. Another option is to reduce work hours to accommodate more humans, while paying humans a wage subsidy. There are many options besides the human workforce will be hollowed out anyway, so screw it, let's accept that humans won't have to work. I disagree with the notion that human beings on a large scale will be able to have meaningful lives in a work free environment that basic income would provide them. Work will be fundamental to humans in the foreseeable future. Moreover, say basic income is politically off the table. It would be in employers' self interest to retain some workers, or provide them some means with which to earn a living. If there are fewer and fewer people to actually do work, there won't be any consumers for the producers employers produce with their robots. Therefore, employers likely will too push for wage subsidies, lowered work hours, subsidies employment, and expanded EITC, etc. They wouldn't be okay with the status quo b c it harms their profits. And moreover, automation will vastly increase supply, helping create an abundance of goods and services, moving our society closer toward post scarcity. As a result, prices for good and services will be pretty low, so workers won't need as high wages to consume them. Section IV Why Conditional Cash Transfers Beat Unconditional Basic Income I also argue that it actually makes sense to have targeted welfare programs food stamps, conditional cash transfers, child nutrition programs, public housing, maternity and paternity care, sick leave policies, collective bargaining, free college, single payer healthcare, etc. And I would like to see such a welfare scheme funded through a progressive income tax system under which capital gains is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income , in addition to corporate taxes, and property taxes. I oppose the progressive consumption tax, a flat tax, and a land value tax. Food stamps, SNAP benefits, other forms of welfare and social security are all a necessity because you cannot have a system that relies on the rational actions of its participants. People will act irrationally they will not spend their basic income in a way that guarantees their well being, and society will incur enormous costs as a result in homelessness, food insecurity, crime, and drug abuse. Behavioral economics has shown that humans aren't rational actors rather they have bounded rationality bounded rationality is the idea that when individuals make decisions, their rationality is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the time available to make the decision. In cases where humans naturally make optimal economic decisions, I am in favor of free markets and against government intervention. In cases where individual economic decisions result in poor outcomes, I am in favor of government intervention to improve outcomes. Information failure is a microeconomic market failure in which consumers underconsume or overconsume a good due to imperfect information. Take healthcare for example. For example, take vaccinations. In neoclassical microeconomics, they are viewed as merit goods that are under consumed due to information failure. The net private benefit is not fully recognized at the time of consumption. People may not anticipate that they my get sick in the future, and they won't recognize the benefits to their future selves for getting inoculated now. Moreover, inoculation via vaccines or another method is a positive externality that has external benefits to society if you protect yourself, others around you are less likely to become sick. However, when people purchase goods, they don't take into account external benefits or costs, leading to underconsumption. In the market for vaccinations, it makes sense to increase consumer demand for vaccines through mandating people to take vaccines. Such targeted governmental intervention in the market actually improves outcomes, and moves the equilibrium quantity more toward the socially optimal level of consumption. Moreover, a strong justification for the existence of our Social Security social insurance program is that while some people are rational actors, many others are not. Many don't exercise a lot of foresight without forcing them to pay payroll taxes to fund Social Security, many people would not have income for themselves after they retire. People may not plan for the future and invest in private sector retirement or pension plan, like a 401k. Social Security a successful anti poverty and social insurance program that ensures that people have some money after they retire. In this case, social engineering forcing people to join a government retirement plan actually improves outcomes in the economy and society through lower poverty and inequality, and greater financial security for elders. That's why I support conditional cash transfer programs instead of unconditional basic income. Forcing people to enroll their children in schools, visiting the doctor, and getting vaccinations are successful in overcoming the poverty trap and facilitating upward mobility, more so than UBI. It forces people who would otherwise make bad decisions for themselves and society to make more optimal decisions. Proponents of basic income argue that it's better to give people the freedom to use their handouts in whatever way the want, but we can have awareness campaigns educating people on how to improve their spending habits. To BI proponents, sure, recipients may portion their money out in ways that may not be the most reasonable, but given regularly cash they will still make rent and buy food. The above is definitely true for a rational actor. But for a drug addict? The mentally ill? Will they spend their basic income on housing and food? Or will their BI disappear and meanwhile the safety net drops out from under them? I would rather have a conditional cash transfer system for such individuals, otherwise society as a whole will incur costs from their poor decisions. Replacing in kind programs entirely with a BIwould result in some consequences that BI supporters are not considering. I'm afraid that if the BI did replace public services, businesses would be there to snap up a lot of that money in housing or medical care or whatever else the moment that payday came around. They will be more exploitative for drug addicts than the government. I'm afraid that there ARE people not poor people or rich people in particular at all who will act irrationally based on mental illness or drug addiction or something else, who will require the forms of assistance that would be replaced by a BI scheme. Section V Does the Welfare Trap Truly Exist? Moreover, libertarian supporters of UBI NIT bring up the welfare trap that exists in means tested welfare programs. I did a pretty lengthy search and could find no actual numerical data to confirm that this effect is significant. There are too many conflicting motivations at play, too many demographics, too many differing situations to say for certain our current welfare system turns people into lazy bums who won't seek work. Most welfare recipients today, given the opportunity, would prefer a steady cash income and the opportunity to advance to a stagnant and unproductive life on welfare. They want to look for work. Section VI Traditional Welfare and Entrepreneurship The traditional welfare state has shown to be successful in the social democratic nations of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and to a lesser extent, Canada. They reduce excessive inequality and poverty, while also facilitating upward mobility. People aren't trapped in poverty. Moreover, the traditional welfare state is more efficient than many people claim. The Roosevelt Institute's Mike Konczal argues that in the existing welfare state, there are relatively few programs and they are run at a decent administrative cost. Proponents of BI argue that UBI would facilitate entrepreneurship, but it's not as if the current welfare schemes that currently exist in the western world discourage start ups. Section VII Keynesian Automatic Stabilizers From a macroeconomic perspective, many New Keynesian economists believe that transfer payments unemployment insurance, food stamp payments, Social Security, conditional cash transfers, etc help macroeconomic stability by acting as automatic stabilizers. Supporters of UBI often criticize the current welfare scheme on the grounds that costs fluctuate with the performance of the economy. However, fluctuating costs makes sense if you use a Keynesian framework. Higher welfare payouts during recessions help stabilize consumption and investment via the accelerator effect during demand deficient recessions by increasing people's disposable income during demand pull inflation, cutbacks in welfare spending decrease people's disposable incomes, which helps close the inflationary gap when too much money is chasing too few goods . I'm not convinced that UBI would be better to our current welfare scheme with regards to acting as an automatic stabilizer. Section VIII Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets Furthermore, deregulating the marketplace through passing right to work laws and removing minimum wage legislation after BI is passed may worsen outcomes. Even if workers are given an income floor, corporations can still artificially reduce pay in oligopsonistic and monopsonistic markets. Within these imperfect labor market structures, minimum wage laws and collective bargaining laws actually help increase efficiency and equity. Section IX The Superiority of Progressive Income Taxes Regarding the funding side, I oppose forgoing our progressive income tax system in favor of a flat tax. Given that income inequality is rising in developed nations due to globalization, automation, and a host of other factors, moving to a flat tax would exacerbate this inequality. A flat tax would shift tax burden away from the rich, to the middle and lower class. It would result in the elimination of deductions may have a positive impact on taxpayers with lower income such as the EITC . The government wouldn't be able to use tax code to encourage desirable activities, such as giving tax credits for making a home more energy efficient energy efficiency is a positive externality with which governments can promote sustainable growth that doesn't lead to environmental degradation . Moreover, government revenues would drastically decrease, making it difficult to fund universal healthcare, free K 12, and a host of other measures. Proponents say flat taxes don't discriminate based on income level everyone pays the same percent of income. This argument, however, assumes the marginal benefit of earning a dollar is always the same. To me, it's common sense that the marginal utility of the dollar decreases as income increases. The flat tax isn't regressive in the strictest sense it's not as if the tax RATE is being increased as you go down the income ladder . but it can be considered regressive in that the burden is disproportionately felt by lower income families. Necessities, such as expenses for food, clothing, and shelter tend to make make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. True, this can be mitigated by allowing a rebate on purchases of necessities since the value of money is still inversely related to income however, the system would continue to be unequal. A rebate would just be a band aid fix. Also in practice, many of the flat tax proposals by conservative politicians don't treat income equally. Yes, they may have a flat rate on income taxes. But they would lower or possibly eliminate taxes on investments, such as capital gains, dividends, carried interest, etc, that disproportionately benefit the rich. These proposals keep in place loopholes that benefit such top earners. Given that the progressive consumption tax scheme, another tax scheme favored by BI proponents, would also invariably lower or eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, carried interest, etc., I'm opposed to that too. Some economists oppose capital gains taxes, asserting that they are a tax on savings. We're engaging in double taxation. People already pay tax on their income, and then they invest some of their savings into stocks, bonds, etc. Then when they sell their assets for a profit, they pay an additional tax on that. Dividends taxes are also double taxation corporations pay a corporate tax first and then investors pay a dividends tax on dividend payouts . From a theoretical perspective, it all makes sense to eliminate capital gains and dividends taxes, because theoretically, they discourage savings. However, this theory does not reflect reality, and higher capital gains tax rates haven't really affected the economy. Even Ronald Reagan raised the capital gains tax rate, and believed income from labor and investment should be taxed at an equal rate. In the real world, through a higher capital gains rate, you can make a significant dent in income inequality w o many adverse economic effects. Basically, the economic distortions from double taxation that economists warn us about don't have that great of an effect on the real world. There is no significant statistical economic relationship between capital gains rates and economic growth refuting aspects of supply side economics . Also the lower capital gains rate could ironically create economic distortions itself The enormous tax savings available likely lure too many highly productive people into the private equity business, drawing them away from other potentially more socially valuable enterprises. A progressive consumption tax, while superior to a flat tax and less regressive , is inferior to a progressive income tax. The PCT would almost assuredly increase wealthy inequality since wealthy would be consuming less and investing more, they'd grow their net wealth even faster than the current pace. This is an unintended effect of the PCT, which would tax consumption and would incentivize savings. Given that automation will increase wealth inequality, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me to exacerbate the trend by gutting capital gains taxes and adopting the PCT. Proponents of the PCT argue that progressive income taxes discourage work due to high marginal rates, but the actual extent to which these market distortions occur in the real world are exaggerated a lot. Even if we had strong inheritance taxes to counteract wealth inequality, a PCT is inferior to a PIT, because with the latter, the government can still use the tax code to encourage desirable activities. Progressive income taxes also protect taxpayer during hard times when income goes down, the tax rate also goes down As I said, I don't believe that human beings are always rational, so social engineering in certain instances can improve outcomes. Finally, I oppose the land value tax, another tax scheme favored by many BI opponents, and I instead support the traditional property tax. A land value tax would exacerbate economic inequality. If property taxes were were only based on the value of the land, rich people would buy small lots in cheap areas, build massive mansions worth millions, and pay almost no taxes.Then the working class people who buy small homes on small lots in the city where dirt is worth more would be paying more in taxes. I support a progressive tax system because I'm of the belief that you should pay what you can. If you can afford an expensive house, you can afford to pay taxes on the value of the house, including the improvements built on that house. Section X Conclusion I believe an unconditional basic income scheme, including in all of its flavors negative income tax, citizen's dividend, demogrant, social wage, etc. is ultimately a pretty flawed scheme. I view the traditional western social safety net as superior. For the reasons above, I feel that it's better for society to expand the traditional social safety net rather than dismantle it completely and replace with a UBI or NIT scheme. I support basic income in addition to the existing scheme like how the EITC works alongside other tax credits and welfare programs , but I oppose scraping the traditional welfare state.<|ASPECTS|>, capital gains, successfully, private benefit, replace public services, society, consumption tax, capital gains rates, flat taxes, poverty trap, flawed scheme, drug addicts, administrative cost, security, eliminate taxes, crime, external benefits, means, flat rate, tax burden, incomes, child, corporate tax, future, flat tax, improve outcomes, broad, poverty and inequality, steady, options, imperfect information, corporate taxes, poverty, act irrationally, lost self worth, conditional cash transfer programs, upward mobility, protect, microeconomic market failure, structural unemployment, social democratic, housing and food, benefits, elimination, anti poverty, less regulations, loopholes, costs, merit goods, stabilize, basic income, capital gains tax rate, efficiency, taxes, unconditional basic income scheme, healthy values, reduce, market distortions, positive development, poor, pension plan, rational actor, capital gains tax rates, welfare trap, bureaucracy, macroeconomic stability, desirable activities, unemployment, retirement, rational actions, rebate, stagnant, abundance, safety net, buy food, land value taxes, benefit, democratization, citizen 's, get sick, side, worsen, efficient, property taxes, improve, trapped, life, look for work, lower income families, freedom, free, social, carried, incentivize, unequal, poor outcomes, tax on savings, unemployment trap, socially optimal level, adverse economic effects, anti poverty measure, unproductive life on welfare, popular, government intervention, economic inequality, expenses, tax brackets, socially valuable, libertarian, positive impact, marketplace, conservative, equilibrium quantity, budget, permanent employment levels, leisure, benefit the rich, high wages, free markets, unemployed individuals, labor union protections, politically, harms, afford, fundamental to humans, inheritance taxes, overconsume, outcomes, tax consumption, increase supply, freedom to use, efficiency and equity, conflicting motivations, fund, social insurance, differing situations, market, corporate taxation, economy, self interest, welfare, pay taxes, universal healthcare, marginal utility, economic decisions, productive, economic distortions, work free environment, negative income flat tax, taxpayer, dignity, influx, drug abuse, overall, obsolete, capital gains taxes, income equally, dividends taxes, net, investments, status quo, effective, optimal decisions, artificially, rich people, wise choices, new enterprises, net wealth, inequality, underconsume, decrease, rage against the machines, mental illness, demand, progressive income taxes, means tested, rationality, expanded, affected, retain, drug addiction, positive externality, dirt, prices, engagement, possible, lazy bums, optimal economic decisions, access, consuming less, discourage work, social wage, negative income tax, exploitative, automatic stabilizer, awareness campaigns, overwhelmed, pay, equal rate, marginal benefit, wage subsidy, rent, land value tax, post scarcity, progressive income tax, feminist case, progressive consumption tax, capital gains rate, wealth inequality, flourishing, bi, democrats, tax savings, change, employers ', improves, basic income scheme, trust welfare recipients, human labor, macroeconomy, money, subsidies employment, disproportionately, economic growth, consumer demand, monopsonistic markets, progressive tax system, numerical data, regressive, human workforce, redistribute income, discourage, treat, reduce pay, poor decisions, income tax, responsible, discriminate, savings, environmental degradation, information failure, spending habits, expensive, mentally ill, social security, allocated, technological unemployment, inflationary gap, taxes.then, time available, code, authority, burden, consumption, retraining people, decouple humanity, corporations, structure, tax rate, dynamism, traditional property tax, combat, facilitate, good decisions, automated, spend money, livelihoods, vaccinations, homelessness, external, band aid fix, government revenues, income inequality, eliminate, automatic stabilizers, work hours, effect, automation, community, welfare handouts, subsidize human labor, work, start ups, progressive effect, portion their money, welfare programs, make rent, social safety net, goods, lost income, entrepreneurship, statistical economic relationship, bad decisions, underconsumption, cash transfer, sick, replacing in kind, demographics, earn, schemes, consequences, income floor, top earners, cash income, mass unemployment, wealthy inequality, sustainable growth, economic independence, rapid pace, rational, cognitive limitations, value of money, welfare state, lower income, healthcare, demand for human labor, power, exacerbate, profits, competition, human society, consumption and investment, hollowed, traditional, act quickly, transfer payments, wage subsidies, tax, simplify, creative destruction, supply, financial security, food insecurity, necessities, income taxes, private, rebuttals, double, welfare payouts, less, lowered work hours, value, income, reasonable, lower, consumers, gutted, marginal rates, spend, plan, decent, meaningful lives, rational actors, scheme, reduces, foresight, support, double taxation, demogrant, living, income increases, taxpayers, drug addict<|CONCLUSION|>
| We should strengthen the traditional safety net rather than replace it with basic income
| 7a1205bc-388f-44ff-b094-1df022abaabf |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Even if you concede all of the economic arguments associated with unlimited migration, and even if you are a hardcore post nationalist or are opposed to all forms of borders and nations, criminals would likely benefit substantially from mass migration between countries with sharply different levels of development. Less developed countries tend not to have the sort of warrant or background check provisions that more developed ones do, and so if a criminal from a poor country flees to a rich country they can get in undetected. Case examples Cubans have the right to settle in the US if they present a Cuban passport. However, the limited cooperation between American and Cuban law enforcement if the latter even exists in a form recognizable to Americans means that it is very common for criminals to fly or catch a boat from Cuba to the US, commit crimes, and then fly back to Cuba with looted money. Although less than one percent of Americans were born in Cuba, between 9 41 of certain federal criminals are Cuba born, depending on the crime. EU EU free migration has not resulted in any appreciable increase in GDP or employment. Countries that were outside of the EU before the Great Recession Norway and Switzerland and were not exposed to its free migration weathered the storm better than their neighbors. EU EU migration has resulted in a lot of criminals from beggars to thieves from eastern Europe building transnational criminal networks, however, to the point that the British government is spending millions of pounds every year locking up Polish criminals alone. EU Syria free migration was triggered by Sweden's granting of asylum to anyone who arrives with a Syrian passport. It has resulted in a large number of people, many from failed states with nonexistent criminal justice systems, entering Europe and then disappearing into Schengen. The ISIS terrorists who attacked Paris are one such example at least one of the assailants was a man of unknown nationality who entered Europe with a forged Syrian passport. Since Syria is a failed state, there is no way to prove that these Syrians are actually bona fide refugees vs. terrorists, gangsters, and other sorts of criminals.<|ASPECTS|>gangsters, free migration, employment, thieves, failed state, criminal justice systems, unknown nationality, undetected, nonexistent, economic arguments, granting of asylum, people, refugees, federal criminals, bona, cooperation, looted money, transnational criminal networks, warrant, commit crimes, mass migration, criminals, terrorists, forged, migration, storm, gdp, rich, right to settle, background check provisions, isis<|CONCLUSION|>
| After what happened in Paris, only a fool would support completely open migration with developing countries.
| fc7b8265-6bbc-4930-b634-104de94f1406 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I feel like people are okay with most accents, and can get a good kick out of a friend or comedian or actor who can pull off a French, Russian, German, etc. accent. But when someone does an East Southeast Asian accent, people tend to get really uncomfortable. I never really thought about why until Hong Chau, a wonderful Vietnamese American actress, got a bunch of flack for her portrayal of a Vietnamese refugee in the film Downsizing. She was accused of making her portrayal stereotypical when all she was doing was… speaking with a thick Vietnamese accent which she copied from family members she grew up with and was in line with her character . I mean, I’ve met people who talk like her character. They were Vietnamese. When it gets to a point where an Asian actress is ripped for playing a non Americanized Asian character, I’m starting to think some people have a underlying issues with the reality of some Asian characteristics, namely some of the accents. And I feel like its because those people themselves don’t think those accents can be beautiful in their own right. Edit sorry, by people I mean anyone who is not of the race whose stereotyped accent is being discussed <|ASPECTS|>accents, portrayal, vietnamese refugee, asian characteristics, beautiful, flack, stereotyped accent, character, vietnamese, uncomfortable, stereotypical, kick<|CONCLUSION|>
| People are uncomfortable with specific accent impressions particularly some Asian ones because they subconsciously feel those accents are unpleasing to the ear, and believe those accents shouldn’t be made fun of for this very reason
| f5c10c8e-10e5-4596-9b75-d506d8e62fb8 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>Weapon or equipment bans can cause a loss of personal capital tied up in usually liquid arms and accessories.<|ASPECTS|>personal capital, loss<|CONCLUSION|>
| Gun control can have a wide array of negative impacts on citizens who have no ill intent.
| 0cff5c1b-69de-4092-8b52-f568e50ea91f |
<|TOPIC|>Is the U.S.A. an exceptional country?<|ARGUMENT|>America has a history of starting wars for tenuous reasons and then failing to win them.<|ASPECTS|>starting, wars, reasons<|CONCLUSION|>
| The United States of America is not an exceptional country.
| b60dd725-08c5-4f58-a8cb-35b352de5156 |
<|TOPIC|>Should colleges ban fraternities?<|ARGUMENT|>Frats have become so problematic on many campuses - with deaths, rapes, violence, and constant binge drinking - that colleges may be justified in taking the extreme step of banning them all together. When a trend of misbehavior lasts for decades without end, a ban becomes the appropriate step.<|ASPECTS|>misbehavior, drinking, problematic, violence, deaths, rapes<|CONCLUSION|>
| Frat problem has risen to a level that invites ban.
| e97525b1-74c4-44a9-b774-23f50e235413 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am discussing the main menu items for fast food FF eateries like hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, strips, wraps, etc. I am omitting discussions of sugary soft drinks because I believe those to be inherently bad. I also believe French fries to be not great and would limit or avoid those as well. This is written like McDonald's vs Subway, but it's really FF burger joints vs FF Fast Casual restaurants that purport to be healthier options Weight Control Obesity FF makes you fat Fast Food may be more calorie dense although I don't know that it is, but I suspect many will compare it to Subway and argue as such , so one should order less food. If you are aiming for 2000 calories a day and eat three meals per day, it is perfectly within reason that even a quarter pounder with cheese 540 calories can easily fit within your daily calorie limits. The calories in a cheeseburger don’t make you more or less fat than the calories in a Subway Sandwich an example I will continue to use but my reasoning applies much more broadly than that . Anectdotally, I lost a lot of weight with FF as a significant portion of my diet, and I know others who have as well. So it certainly isn’t guaranteed. FF is cheap, preys on those of lesser means or is the only thing poor people can afford, and they are less likely to be educated on nutrition. That still doesn’t make the food inherently bad for your health, but just in case this comes up A particular group being less likely to moderate a specific habit or behavior doesn’t make that habit a bad thing, especially if it comes down to a matter of education which I don’t believe it is – poor people smoke more, but not for lack of education . Not to mention, rice and beans by the pound are very cheap alternatives and most people I discuss nutrition with would argue rice and beans is far healthier although this I too disagree with, it is not the point of this . “Healthfulness” In quotes because I don’t know that science has a universal take on what is healthful and what isn’t, but assuming it does, what of the constituent parts of McDonald’s food, or what of the process, makes it less unhealthful? Sodium Five seconds of comparing McDonald’s nutrition information to Subway’s shows that the sodium numbers are mostly on par. A Six inch black forest ham without cheese is 800 mg standard cheeseburger at McDonald’s is 680. Although the burger is technically smaller I would think they deliver similar enough levels of satiety that McDonald’s isn’t committing some sodium sin. FF doesn’t have to be better for you, it probably isn’t – I am just arguing that it isn’t really worse. Too much fat too much carbs too much grease too much cholesterol All of these can be good or bad for you in moderation, and nothing inherent in the components or the preparation of food at FF chains makes their ingredients any better or worse than anywhere else. McDonald’s in particular has a very customizable online menu that can allow most people to find meals that fit their macros adequately. I went to a local Veggie Grill traditional ‘healthy’ fast food place a couple years ago and they couldn’t even provide nutrition information. It’s processed factory food This to me is McDonald’s biggest issue a perception that its products, processes, or ingredients are unhealthy because they are processed, with not a lot of hard data to back it up. I understand the current trend of suspicion regarding unnatural food sources, corn fed cows, and other mass produced food items. I am NOT saying these things are not issues. However, just by Subway marketing themselves as the “fresh” choice, should they gain some immunity to mass produced food that McDonald’s doesn’t? As I understand it Subway bakes its own bread which I guess is fresh but I don’t know why it is healthier. Aside from that, does Subway and Chipotle and the like also not pull their ingredients from the same food manufacturing supply chain as others? Pink Slime If we closely examined all of the processes and components of the foods we ate, we would find similar pink slime events, where what we see is NOT appetizing. This doesn’t make it bad for you inherently, unless someone has a study on pink slime chicken nuggets and the like make you sick or fat. Also, Snopes partially debunked Pink Slime it’s mechanically separated meat, and McDonald’s hasn’t used MSM since 2003 anyway<|ASPECTS|>lost, sick or fat, worse, fat, bad, sodium numbers, pink slime events, customizable online menu, hard data, immunity to mass produced food, bad for, moderate, limit, healthier options, cholesterol, cheap alternatives, debunked, mechanically separated meat, inherently, grease, fit, sodium sin, cheap, healthful, lesser means, unnatural food sources, preys, health, factory, guaranteed, weight, smoke, ingredients, levels, satiety, issues, habit, bread, macros, fresh, daily calorie limits, moderation, universal take, healthier, calorie dense, appetizing, less, unhealthy, soft, nutrition information, healthy, menu items, afford, pink, better, unhealthful, suspicion, healthfulness, education, manufacturing supply chain, french fries, avoid, less food, poor people, educated on nutrition<|CONCLUSION|>
| there is nothing inherently "unhealthy" about McDonald's fast food or other chains like it
| 71c5b6f0-1fd0-4c81-9411-ff1387e1bb82 |
<|TOPIC|>McCain vs. Obama, McCain vs. Obama<|ARGUMENT|>Saddam Hussein is out of power and no longer a shadowy hazard and menace to the region. It is no longer possible for Saddam Hussein to re-build Iraq's WMD. Iraq now has the opportunity to grow into a democratic state, if it chooses. These are welcome developments, despite the costs of the war. This opinion is in line with McCain's policy.<|ASPECTS|>, menace, democratic state, iraq 's wmd, shadowy hazard, saddam hussein, welcome developments, costs of the war, re-build<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Iraq war is justified by events; the world is safer.
| 373e7075-d7e2-4783-8ede-81a3e70e62a1 |
<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Humans are created in the image of God. So if humans are evil, God cannot be omnibenevolent.<|ASPECTS|>evil, god, image of god<|CONCLUSION|>
| If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then evil would not exist.
| dc727b02-451f-4355-9166-a6e295ef0b67 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have seen on here where people have told others that they should keep their religion morals out of their vote and the same when talking about how representatives should vote. But that is impossible in my mind. We are not Vulcans we vote emotionally and based on our morals and upbringing instead of in some cold logical fashion. And a person’s morals will be based on that upbringing, But shouldn’t someone vote based on their morals? Their version of right and wrong will be based on what they have read and what they think is morally right. As for leaving religion out of it that is impossible since for someone religious their sense of morality will be based around that religious law. I may be agreeing against a straw man here and the whole “keep your morals out of it argument” may just be something idiots trolls say when coming up against a moral viewpoint they don’t like or agree with.<|ASPECTS|>morals, sense, vote emotionally, religion morals, right and wrong, morally right, morals and upbringing, cold, religion, morality, religious law, moral viewpoint, leaving, impossible<|CONCLUSION|>
| I do not think it’s possible for someone to keep their religion or lack thereof out of their vote and comments telling people that they should are useless.
| b4c7a29c-6691-4435-adcd-ab11f15c4291 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know this has been done to hell. I personally think this should be done again for each candidate at least once a week, every week before the election. But that is not the view I am asking for you to change. I want to start off by saying that I am not voting for Trump. I do not like Trump in the slightest. A big difference between my post and most others is that I live in Colorado. My vote matters more than most, sorta . I agree with Bernie Sanders the most, on both his social policies and what foreign policies I have heard of his. I consider myself a pacifist. I also would consider myself a socialist, and believe that America can become a working socialist country. Of the three candidates that I can see myself voting for I agree with Jill Stien the most at 92 , Hillary in second at 64 and Gary Johnson at 46 . Trump was at 5 . This information was taken from ISideWith.com. I allready know I am not voting for Trump so I do not want the responses to be riddled with A vote for is a vote for Trump. Give me Positives to vote for Hillary not Negatives. I also should make clear that I am not solely looking at ISideWith.com for who I should vote for. Of the two pacifistic candidates, Johnson and Stein, Gary Johnson is the highest rated one so I am looking to vote for him. I will repeat, the only true way you can is by showing Positives of Hillary not Negatives about the other candidates.<|ASPECTS|>view, voting, voting for trump, foreign policies, trump, hell, hillary, pacifistic, gary, isidewith.com, like, socialist, vote matters, working socialist country, vote for trump, positives, social policies, riddled, pacifist, rated, colorado, vote<|CONCLUSION|>
| I will not vote for Hillary.
| afc31a95-499b-4aaa-b8f5-5a579101c79d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>How as a social progressive website do we allow blatant and obvious gender based discrimination on this website. How as a person who claims to be a progress even utter the words I am against insert gender rights? I think it shows a level of hypocrisy unmatched anywhere else on reddit. At least the racists are consistent in their arguments. Frankly I find it terrifying and confusing. Anyone who subscribes to r againstmensrights in an non ironic or a stand in the distance and watch the circle manner is lying to themselves if they think they care about equal rights .<|ASPECTS|>racists, hypocrisy, gender based discrimination, unmatched, againstmensrights, equal rights, gender rights, confusing, terrifying, consistent<|CONCLUSION|>
| /r/againstmensrights is the same as /r/niggers
| 0473682d-8390-4ced-bf89-eb4d2fd7606b |
<|TOPIC|>The US Supreme Court was wrong to stop unions collecting dues from non-union members<|ARGUMENT|>If a worker feels like they lack bargaining skills and leverage, yet deserve greater compensation; a union may be the answer. An employee’s work is only worth a certain amount to the employer though. If a union becomes too powerful an employer may need to cut employees and either invest in capital or simply sell services at a higher price in order to prevent losses. These are all also negative outcomes for labour.<|ASPECTS|>sell services, cut employees, invest, losses, capital, compensation, negative outcomes, leverage, ’, worth, bargaining skills<|CONCLUSION|>
| They made the right decision because it's not fair to collect money from non-members.
| 847bbdc6-8ed7-42b1-94fc-0a614fb25782 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I came across a discussion in another subreddit about the future of the bond franchise and whether or not it would be a good idea for the new Blofeld to be female or not. The quote that jarred with me was I don't care whether it's Ernst or Evelynn. This made me think, wow, in this case the gender has been altered, but the cultural heritage of the character has been maintained the choice of female name was still Germanic, the quote didn't read I don't care whether it's Ernst or Esmeralda. The point I'm driving at is that the characters have a context and a cultural context. Films of yesteryear may well have been written at a time when the role of women was seen to be x, the role of minority ethnic groups was seen to be y, etc etc, however to alter these attributes is disingenuous to the character. I'd like to make it clear that I'm not against diversity in the film and TV industry. What I'm saying is that a character is written in a certain way. It would be a better idea to write a new character than to retconn an old character to be completely different. I'm also not trying to say that certain aspects of a character can't be changed. Lets use the example of James Bond. A black Bond can easily make sense. The character can still use the same tropes, Bond can still be a slick secret agent. If you made James Bond into Jimmy Bond the CIA agent from Boston, then you start to erode the integrity of the source material. EDIT I've now had my view changed. I recognise that directors aren't exactly riding roughshod over IP, and for the most part, changes are only made which do in fact maintain the integrity of the character. A great example is that the newer Spiderman, Miles Morales IS a black hispanic Spiderman, but he isn't a black hispanic Peter Parker.<|ASPECTS|>black bond, view changed, erode, written, roughshod over ip, character, disingenuous, women, black, ernst, cultural heritage, tropes, future, make sense, integrity, role, minority ethnic groups, cultural context, integrity of the character, changes, gender, context, character ca, james, black hispanic, diversity, different, changed, bond franchise, slick secret agent<|CONCLUSION|>
| Changing genders/race of characters in movie reboots isn't a good thing
| 6342d053-7f41-47d8-97f9-44ef39c4f352 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Unless you can swap out the processor and the RAM, they seem to offer no advantage over a regular phone. Magnetically attaching a speaker to the back of my phone is not better than connecting to a Bluetooth speaker. If I want a better camera Sony and Canon make wifi cameras that can interface directly with my existing phone or tablet. Those might be a little more expensive than a module but they're also way more versatile and can work with all my future phones and friends phones too as well as on their own. It seems to me that all smartphones are wirelessly modular already, they just weren't marketed that way. For that reason the 'modular phone' that makes the most sense is actually the Pebble Core as it's just the processor, radio, and memory, to which you can add whatever you want to wirelessly maybe not yet, but soon I'm sure . Am I missing the advantage of physical attachment?<|ASPECTS|>interface directly, better camera, physical attachment, bluetooth speaker, phone, wifi cameras, advantage, expensive, versatile, magnetically, wirelessly modular<|CONCLUSION|>
| Modular smartphones are pointless.
| de03739e-c7ae-4f3c-b275-79b75f85ad9e |
<|TOPIC|>We should legalize sex selection<|ARGUMENT|>we should legalize sex selection as it is a parents right to choose and many families may want a girl after many boys and so sex selection will help ensure a wanted pregnancy.<|ASPECTS|>wanted pregnancy, parents right to choose, selection<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is within the freedoms of the parents to select the sex of the child
| 46a2ccf0-c67f-4cb5-a8a4-c0994a3e96f5 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Read a recent TIL post about how there's only one casino in America that allows skilled players. As suggested in the title, skilled players should be allowed to play at casinos. Strictly on the grounds that they are being disqualified because they got really good at something. It could be argued that if enough skilled players engaged in playing, they could hurt a casino, or run it into the ground. And I agree casinos exist for the enjoyment of people, and if a whole bunch of skilled players were allowed to play, they may cripple a casino. But if rules are put in place, skilled players who have a legitimate love for the games would also be allowed to go out and test their skills. Possible Solution Perhaps once a player wins a certain amount eg. 5, 000,000 , they are given a special status, where when they come in the future, they can only win up to 20,000 or whatever . This way people can still come and enjoy the games, they just are not allowed to affect the casinos economic operations. To be clear, the exact dollar amounts in my solution are examples. The casinos themselves would be responsible for testing setting their limits But perhaps you can get the gist of what I'm suggesting. Casinos track your every movement with the cards they give you, and strategically come and do things like offer you alcohol after a certain amount of time you've been at the slots, or offer certain specials, etc. And your profile builds as you repeat your visits and they use algorithms to track you and maximize their potential for getting money out of you. So why not also integrate dollar limits into the skill player profiles? Edit Black Jack NOT poker<|ASPECTS|>testing, special status, exact, money, win, solution, affect, jack, hurt a casino, dollar amounts, potential, legitimate love, dollar limits, cripple a casino, good at something, enjoyment of people, players, casinos economic operations, responsible, alcohol, play, disqualified, skilled players, test their skills, track, getting, skill player, limits, profile, every movement<|CONCLUSION|>
| Skilled poker players I.E. People who count cards, and know the game inside and out should not be banned from casinos.
| 70de8424-4d64-4ec4-a5a8-c86cfa7f37e7 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm about at my wits end here, looking for some reason not to feel seething hatred for this man right now. I'm traveling this week, staying at a hostel right now and sleeping in a 20 bed dorm. There is a man here who snores ridiculously loud sounds like an angry horse or feral hog. I have briefly spoken to him during the day, he is also a tourist to the area so it's not like he's borderline homeless and using the hostel as a last resort. It's been 3 days now that I can't get a lick of sleep at night due to the incessant snoring and I'm reaching a breaking point. A good half of us in here are having difficulty sleeping as well, not just me. Is it not extremely rude for him to put himself in this position? Please, give me a reason not to be so upset with him.<|ASPECTS|>last, sleep, homeless, upset, difficulty sleeping, rude, feral, tourist, loud, breaking point, incessant snoring, hatred<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is incredibly rude to book public sleeping areas if you snore
| 4f698751-0c94-48c3-9940-20e5e18e4549 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Inter planetary life is impossible, and the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that past the industrial revolution, a civilisation will inevitably change it's environment and atmosphere so much that the very condition that sustained the species in the first place will degrade to an ice age, or worse. x200B Capitalism, despite having pushed us so far, will also be our doom. There's no short term profit in saving the planet, so the biggest corporations won't lift a finger. We are trying to steer the industry in the right direction, but we are not doing enough, and it's too late to change how we live. We don't have enough time left. x200B We are the last humans living on earth, in a few decades, we will get wiped from the surface of the earth, by weather catastrophes, a nuclear war, an ice age, you name it. x200B Then, after a few thousand years, weather will re stabilize, and the cycle will restart once more. x200B Sorry for bad english x200B<|ASPECTS|>right direction, capitalism, restart, environment and atmosphere, short term profit, sorry, nuclear war, weather catastrophes, ice age, weather, degrade, bad english, doom, cycle, saving the planet, stabilize, wiped, age, planetary life, time left, change how we live<|CONCLUSION|>
| Humanity is going head first into a wall, and the problems we are facing are the problems that prevented complex life to reach the stars.
| c1fd390c-0322-4f8e-b403-2ca73e5d76e9 |
<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>After the Iranian government introduced an UBI identified that the lessened working hours of young adults in the program would likely lead them to enroll at schools and universities to focus on their education.<|ASPECTS|>working hours, lessened, education<|CONCLUSION|>
| With their basic needs covered by a UBI, many people are able to afford to continue with their higher education.
| 1eeb70be-f0aa-4e77-ac76-6622131a0fd7 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Colleges Use SAT Scores In Their Decision Of Who To Admit?<|ARGUMENT|>For Universities that see a lot of international applicants, English proficiency may be an indicator of the extent to which those students will feel comfortable in the university setting, since most students will be conversing in English.<|ASPECTS|>english proficiency, feel comfortable<|CONCLUSION|>
| English proficiency is a legitimate metric for colleges to evaluate.
| 90791005-6684-4fff-802f-76ac3cb75c0b |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People always seem to view Piccolo as one of the good guys, but I don’t think that’s accurate. In the original dragonball series, Piccolo was evil and wanted world domination. He was thwarted by Goku. When Dragonball Z begins, Piccolo and Goku team up to beat Raditz because it was clear to both parties that Raditz was stronger than them both. During that fight, Piccolo uses his “Special Beam Cannon” which he mentions was his secret weapon he’d been developing to kill Goku with. he is still admittedly evil at this point in the series. After Raditz is defeated, I think this is the point when people start subconsciously viewing Piccolo as good because he takes Gohon under his wing, but the only reason he’s doing this is self preservation. He knows that more Saiyans are coming and he needs help to beat them. Piccolo wants to rule by himself. He doesn’t want to be subject to these Saiyans, so he needs to defeat them. He doesn’t fight against them as a noble hero defending Earth, he does it selfishly to protect his interests. After being brought back from the dead, he fights with the others against frieza, which again might seem noble, but this time his motives are nothing more than revenge against Frieza for what he’s done to Piccolo’s people. After the Frieza saga, it might seem as though his desire for world domination has vanished, but all that happened is he realized his goal has become unrealistic because of the power of the others who would oppose him if he tried. It’s not that he grew a heart, he just doesn’t have the means to complete his evil intent. I haven’t watched the series in quite some time, so I’ve probably forgotten some key details. The best way to change my view is to give examples of times Piccolo does something simply because it’s the right thing to do. Or shows genuine compassion towards anyone besides Gohon. I’m not adequately convinced by his relationship with Gohon. Just because you have a friend doesn’t mean you don’t want to rule the world.<|ASPECTS|>revenge, beat, self preservation, rule the world, kill, thwarted, wanted, right thing, key details, subject, defeat, evil intent, compassion, selfishly, friend, genuine, power, evil, rule, help, good guys, world domination, protect his interests, saiyans, secret, forgotten, noble hero, motives, stronger<|CONCLUSION|>
| Piccolo is Still Evil
| d89bf4e8-b0b4-41c0-b63b-9323a901a0ba |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have never been to prison, nor do I know much about it. However, the idea of prison time has never sat well with me. I do not like the idea that our government has the power to hold people in a place against their will. Additionally, keeping prisoners behind bars does not benefit our society. Yes it keeps them from repeating crimes, but does not add anything. I believe large fines of varying amounts based on charges, either based on a income percentage or sum of money, would be a better way to go. After all, time is money. This money could be used positively in society.<|ASPECTS|>income, positively in society, better, hold people, repeating crimes, money, used, power, government, time is money, fines, benefit our society, prison, prison time<|CONCLUSION|>
| I do not believe jail is a good way to punish criminals.
| 6b8c4dd5-f206-41d9-8b9c-497f93221ed5 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This doesn't just apply to homosexual rights. It's similar with race, gender, disability, etc. issues. There are lots of people who have shitty social stances. In some geographical contexts, I think those people are more discriminated against than the group they're supposedly oppressing. For example, my friend is a very serious christian and he doesn't agree with gay marriage. At my very liberal university, he is well in the minority. So every time the matter of gay rights gets brought up, everybody in the room spits venom at him for his stance. They call him a bigot, a hater, and a general piece of shit. When all he's doing is voicing his opinion on a matter that they often actually ask him about, I think it's bullshit that they're treating him like shit in the name of tolerance. I think tolerance should be a two way street. You can't claim you think all people should be treated equally, but then still spew hate at people that have a differing opinion than you do. Especially when it's a result of fundamentally misunderstanding the other person's stance, like most people's attitudes toward religion. I think it's extremely hypocritical and impedes social progress in every way. ? EDIT I should make it clear. I harbor no ill will toward anyone. Like, at all. If I see people being treated poorly, even if the victim was the one with the unpopular opinion, I'll try and put a stop to it. I don't think treating anybody poorly is a good environment to change somebody's mind on an issue. Things like this need respect, understanding, and time if actual social progress is to occur. And respect is a two way street neither side of most issues are right. EDIT 2 Another problem I have with the homosexual debate in particular is that the christian standpoint is fundamentally misunderstood by mainstream opinions. I'm totally in support of gay rights, but most christians, even those who oppose gay rights, aren't bigots for it. The reason christianity opposes gay marriage is because marriage has been a traditionally religious rite for hundreds, thousands of years, and is for childrearing and little else. This is no doubt an outdated view to have, but they don't hate homosexuals as a rule. They just see it as deviant sexual behavior. Sex outside of marriage is also deviant sexual behavior. As far as at least Catholic dogma is concerned, they're essentially the same thing. Gay sex is supposed to be a sin, and those who do it are sinners. But the again, at least Catholic church holds that all of us are sinners and sins are created equal relatively speaking. So it's not that they think gay people are subhuman, or that they harbor hatred for them, it's just that they think it's not appropriate to encourage and advocate behavior they see as wrong. The act is wrong, the person is god's child like everybody else. I'm not catholic, or even christian. I just know a lot about this from my upbringing and it's extremely frustrating for me to watch two groups that I belong to go at each other without really voicing their stances well. EDIT 3 I'm feeling frustrated by the social justice style of responses I'm getting. It seems like rather than change my view, many of them are just talking shit about people who don't agree with them, which is the exact problem I brought up in the first place. I'd like to rephrase my stance. I don't see bigot bashing as being any worse than gay advocate bashing in a different geographical context. But I'm right, is not an appropriate response, it just breeds more contempt. Even though we all agree gay rights are the way to go, the antagonistic atmosphere about the issue only makes it harder to reach a solution. If there is indeed hate being spewed by any group, allowing yourself to become antagonized by it and responding with an escalation only makes people defensive and more secure in their views. EDIT 4 My thread was being downvoted and I thought that was some shit. Then I realized that the title says worse. I do not think bigot bashing is worse than gay bashing. I think they're essentially the same thing. Treating somebody like shit will never help your cause. It only escalates matters and makes people defensive, therefore more firm in their belief. A context of understanding, trust, and honesty is much more beneficial for everybody involved. It seems like people are only willing to call something bigotry if they think the stance is wrong. I think viewing somebody as insignificant and overall less than you are makes you a bigot, regardless of why you think that.<|ASPECTS|>, defensive, sinners, hate, 's mind, escalates matters, stance, social progress, impedes, contempt, time, treating, stances, tolerance, frustrated, mainstream, well, beneficial, agree, thing, act is wrong, downvoted, homosexual rights, social stances, piece, responses, disability, people, antagonistic atmosphere, oppressing, gay advocate bashing, gay bashing, differing opinion, understanding, two way street, subhuman, insignificant, environment, help, change, bigotry, god 's child, antagonized, serious christian, discriminated, trust, secure, gay marriage, general, race, bigot, bigot bashing, treated equally, cause, hatred, respect, misunderstanding the, rephrase my stance, social justice style, less, shitty, minority, deviant sexual behavior, essentially, religion, frustrating, christian, gay rights, hater, worse, hypocritical, hate homosexuals, catholic, religious rite, sins are created equal, outdated view, unpopular opinion, childrearing, views, ill, gender, christianity, gay sex, treated poorly, sin, misunderstood, honesty<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think treating somebody poorly because they are, say, homophobic is often worse than homophobia.
| 23fb7bcd-f35c-47dd-ab54-99dd761ff3de |
<|TOPIC|>Should The Working Week Be Shortened to 15 Hours For The Same Pay?<|ARGUMENT|>Even though our productivity has increased, the amount of required work per person has increased in order to maintain the higher consumption level of our current lifestyles.<|ASPECTS|>required work, consumption level, higher, productivity<|CONCLUSION|>
| A 15 hour work week would result in people working multiple "full time jobs" leading to a massive increase in incomes resulting in hyperinflation.
| f074a71a-7802-4389-b8a9-7ca1b2ffee04 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, first off, I am a die hard liberal on pretty much every issue except the death penalty. I am largely really anti conservative, I'm a huge advocate for gay rights, equal pay, etc. However, ever since I was a little kid, I have always thought the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment for a person who has committed a heinous crime and has been proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm a pretty firm believer in an eye for an eye, which I know isn't the way to solve things, but I feel is just. If someone rapes and kills children, IMO, they deserve to die. If they kill many people, I don't care how mentally ill they are, they deserve to die. And I know that people usually say they'd rather a person rot in prison than die and get off easy, but death row inmates spend years in prison before they are killed. I found this website that was the final statement of every death row inmate before they were executed, and I found it only strengthened my view. I can't see a more fitting punishment than death for a crime worthy of the death penalty. Now, to be clear, I only see the death penalty as appropriate for really terrible crimes. As I said already, rape and or murder of kids, serial killings, proven acts of terrorism through fair trial, I despise Guantanamo that resulted in multiple deaths, and really violent or twisted premeditated murders. I don't think a guy who snapped and shot his wife deserves to die, I think he deserves life in prison. I think a guy who murdered his entire family in cold blood deserves to die. Anyway, I feel like this can't be a good way to think. I'm liberal on pretty much every other issue and would like to become so on this one too. That said, I'm pretty firmly set in my ways. So, reddit, .<|ASPECTS|>death, terrible crimes, fitting punishment, equal pay, crime, premeditated murders, view, liberal, deserve to die, multiple deaths, get off easy, solve things, prison, murdered, cold blood, acceptable form, die hard, guilty, deserves to die, ways, think, way, eye for, die, rapes, serial killings, family, rape, firmly set, rot in prison, kills children, kill many people, anti conservative, mentally ill, deserves, violent, terrorism, punishment, life in prison, acts, death penalty, gay rights<|CONCLUSION|>
| I am a firm believer in the death penalty.
| 2c0e2e86-4a97-4549-81da-95bd306bf697 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>EDIT View changed, guys. You can thank KDY ISD. I will make no further arguments. delta for KDY ISD because he proved that my anti aircraft guns are ineffective. they just need to be more advanced basically my main argument . Now I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly where to start with this, so I'll try by just listing some common criticisms against large scale defensive works and I'll make an argument against each of them. It's too expensive. You know what else is expensive? An offensive operation especially a failed one . IMO, this one is just a question of who has the most firepower in the first place. Advanced aircraft are gonna bomb our advanced fortess, bitterbees Nothing our handy dandy ADVANCED anti aircraft guns couldn't handle. Blitzkrieg Obstacle course Seriously though, it's not that hard to render tanks armored cars useless. Just adjust the ground accordingly vehicles drive better on flat surfaces, you know. So make the ground unflat as possible. It's called earth works . And I already mentioned how to deal with enemy aircraft. So all that's left is infantry looks like a job for barbed wire, mine fields, electric fences, bunkers, come on I can go all day . Why go through all that when the enemy may have nukes? Maybe we have nukes too. Talk about nuclear deterrence. We should also have ballistic missiles though they probably aren't as effective at deterrence as nukes . What if the enemy isn't interested in our fortifications? Wouldn't they just go around? Yeah, I mean, if you let them. Then there's also the option of fortifying our nation's borders, anyhow. Fortifying our nation's borders? That's asking for a siege Siege Time to employ the good ol' Fabian Strategy. Time is on the defensive side anyhow. Well that's pretty much what I can think of to start this off. I'm all ears or eyes, I guess .<|ASPECTS|>defensive side, defensive, thank, edit view changed, , interested, fabian strategy, ears, go, nation 's borders, fortess, unflat, deterrence, earth works, useless, failed, flat surfaces, drive better, electric, fortifications, effective, fortifying our nation 's borders, fortifying, nukes, ground, time, firepower, enemy aircraft, ballistic missiles, advanced, ineffective, siege, armored cars, nuclear deterrence, offensive operation, anti aircraft guns, expensive, eyes, enemy, infantry<|CONCLUSION|>
| As long as objectives and strategic locations have to be captured by land forces during war, large-scale defensive works like fortifications and trenches aren't obsolete...
| b655c7af-5616-4cdf-984e-9b106b6481f9 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>No other entities on this planet are crueler and more deranged than we are as a species. No living creature enslaves a hundred billion beings and tortures them before consuming their flesh. No living creatures take pleasure in the suffering of other beings, humans bully and humiliate each other on a daily basis. I have little faith in the human species. Hell is real. We made Hell. Love is an illusion. There is no love being felt by any of us. Its all in our brains. Nobody cries when a man gets murdered on television, but when a dog dies, we have instinctual reactions like we would have if a baby dies. Its all instinct. There is no such thing as human free will, we are instinctual beasts acting out on our urges.<|ASPECTS|>, human free, humiliate, hell is real, made, brains, faith in the human species, murdered, enslaves, instinct, hell, crueler, deranged, instinctual reactions, flesh, little, instinctual beasts, love being felt, suffering, tortures, consuming, illusion, urges, bully, love<|CONCLUSION|>
| Humanity is the most irredeemably vile, wretched thing to ever appear. We are the demons of the Earth.
| b2400b90-d720-4d89-9fc5-3548e789a836 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Everybody should first watch this video Honestly, Steve Jobs has not invented anything. I believe it's also unfair for people to give credit to Jobs for creating all of Apple's devices and ignoring all the engineers and workers who actually designed and created them. Jobs was not technical at all and did now know to how to program. I don't understand why everybody considers Jobs to be an innovator when he hasn't exactly created anything. The only thing I can give Jobs credit for is spawning over zealous apple fan boys.<|ASPECTS|>know, invented anything, credit, jobs, technical, innovator, created anything, zealous, to program, unfair, apple fan boys<|CONCLUSION|>
| Steve Jobs is not an innovator but a thief and does not deserve his recognition as a "genius".
| 8f492b12-9794-4db9-b63d-b2c973f050fe |
<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>The Deuteronomic Code forbids the people of Israel from handing over fugitive slaves to their masters or oppressing them, and instructs that these fugitives should be allowed to reside where they wish. Although a literal reading would indicate that this applies to slaves of all nationalities and locations, the Mishnah and many commentators consider the rule to have the much narrower application, to just those slaves who flee from outside Israelite territory into it.Deuteronomic Code<|ASPECTS|>fugitive slaves, narrower, fugitives, slaves, oppressing<|CONCLUSION|>
| Biblical slavery is not the same as American slavery. American slavery, which followed a free-market approach to slaves was far more brutal than Biblical slavery.
| 7984afe0-8dc4-4889-8992-4030573beba1 |
<|TOPIC|>Should heterosexual people not be allowed in gay bars?<|ARGUMENT|>When providing goods, facilities and services, refusing to provide them to someone based on their sexual orientation is illegal in the UK. A bar that only caters to gay people would therefore be illegal.<|ASPECTS|>illegal, orientation, gay people<|CONCLUSION|>
| Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in many countries. This discrimination includes refusal to provide a service to anyone.
| 195c8bf2-f4df-4225-853a-c11a7ae0fd1c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The economy boomed in cities that bordered the Great Lakes because roads were inadequate and water transport was the only way to get goods to the interior of the US. Now that we have an interstate system there is little need to be situated on the Great Lakes. If I were investing in land I would buy in the south where the winters are much less harsh, and now that we have air conditioning the heat in the summers isn't an issue. We are already seeing a migration away from Great Lakes cities and it's only going to continue. It's not worth dealing with the winters now that the economic importance of the waterways has gone away.<|ASPECTS|>harsh, winters, interstate system, little, water transport, economic importance, need, economy, inadequate, goods, heat, cities, migration away<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Great Lakes have lost their importance.
| 25f4ccd4-0a92-433d-a750-9c0525ec5491 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Why is bisexual offensive? BTW, I'm not one of those trolls who confuses gender sex. Aside from intersex conditions, there are two sexes. The existing term avoids the issue of gender identity expression all together. I never thought the term bisexual was exclusionary if your gender identity presentation doesn't match your biological sex then someone who's bisexual seems like a good match. This just seems like more of the status quo bisexual erasure. Most people who are't monosexual or whatever you wan't to call it have been told oh you're just confused or you just want attention. What's the point of saying that if you don't say pansexual you're pretending trans people etc. don't exist, or that you automatically rule them out? Aren't there bigger fish to fry? Is it some sort of validation thing? Make me understand why bisexual is so problematic. Edit I decided to add this here, as I can't say any particular poster changed my view, but the discussions including the ones I wasn't participating in certainly helped me better understand where I was coming from, what was actually bothering me, what others seem to be thinking, and helped get me to where I am now. One of the things I've realized is that I'm not as precise as I'd like to be with language, another judging by some of the varied replies is that language is not as precise as I often wish it was. Further I'm feeling a bit out of the loop. From my perspective the term bisexuality encompassed people breaking out of the binary, to me you were basically saying I'm not only attracted to men women if you want to interpret that as male female as biological qualifiers or gender identity that is up to you. I couldn't really detect consensus on the matter from the comments, but people seem to be tending towards gender rather than sex as the qualifier. My revised view would be this It seems that there is a push, by some folks, to give wiggle room to terms like gay and straight wherein you can self identify as straight or gay and be attracted to trans folks whose gender matches your generally sex based preference. In this case your identity is not invalidated and, in fact, you are being supportive. On the other hand if you identify as bisexual, some of these same people may say that you are failing to account for said variations because you are specifically supposed to call them out in a way that a gay or straight person is not required to. This feels like a double standard if I'm going to use something resembling an I statement However, I also realize that language may be shifting in the LGBT Q community since I last checked in from single ville, maybe being partnered off makes you stop thinking about it so much, and it's possible that I am out of touch. I still question whether, outside of LGBT Q folks, extra definitions actually help with meaningful discourse, but this could just be me shouting the equivalent of get off my lawn. I am reminded of when the terms heteroflexible and homoflexible were being tested. Did they catch on? Not sure, to reiterate, I'm out of the loop apparently. It's all given me a lot to think about.<|ASPECTS|>, bigger, precise, automatically, two sexes, biological, monosexual, gender identity, language, fish to fry, meaningful discourse, understand, invalidated, trans folks, catch, validation, trans people, gender sex, double standard, gender identity presentation, intersex conditions, pretending, confused, exclusionary, offensive, homoflexible, bisexuality, attracted to men, based preference, problematic, room, lot to think, gender, binary, rule, identity, consensus, of touch, bisexual, sex, want attention, supportive, status quo bisexual erasure, heteroflexible, loop, lgbt q, gender identity expression<|CONCLUSION|>
| Pansexual is an unnecessary and inaccurate neologism.
| 894f663d-2af6-4296-8b83-e8532f4551ce |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Every time someone helps someone else, they always have a self serving reason. That could be an expectation for them to pay back the favor, or in the case of charity work, feeling good about helping other people which is close to feeling superior over being in a position to help someone. In the case of friendship or family, it's to strengthen bonds. Internships teach people to handle jobs, but receive work for little to no pay and trained, loyal workers in return. This would mean that everyone is selfish to the core, with the best possible relationship being mutual benefit. <|ASPECTS|>help someone, feeling superior, handle jobs, loyal workers, mutual benefit, charity, self serving reason, strengthen bonds, friendship, selfish, helping, pay back the favor, feeling good<|CONCLUSION|>
| There's no such thing as true selflessness, people only help people when it benefits them
| d8fbcae1-5030-4832-b250-dedb9861a333 |
<|TOPIC|>Child Curfews<|ARGUMENT|>There is no good reason for children to be out unaccompanied late at night, so a curfew is not really a restriction upon their liberty. They would be better off at home doing schoolwork and interacting with the rest of their families.<|ASPECTS|>, home, liberty, unaccompanied, restriction, interacting, schoolwork<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is no good reason for children to be out unaccompanied late at night.
| 16586414-83e5-4274-932b-d533a27f8f56 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You've probably heard of the new deepfake technique for swapping faces in video or images by now, and the fact that it is often used to creating fake porn of celebrities etc. Apparently the consensus is that this is a deeply immoral thing to do, for example just a few minutes ago reddit banned a bunch of subreddits dedicated to such content. But I don't really think so. I think it is perfectly fine to make and even publicly post such media. I guess the reasons why I think so can be summed into three main points It's not real. It's fiction. It doesn't represent an actual event. There isn't really any meaningful difference between this and a bad photoshop, or a caricature drawing, or even fanfiction text. It just looks more real, but why does that really matter? No matter how real it looks, it isn't . It may look uncomfortable to some people to see what looks like themselves in vulgar scenes, but just because something is uncomfortable to look at to some, does not mean it is inherently immoral. You don't own the image of your face. Every day you willingly give it away by walking in public or posting selfies of yourself online. This is especially true for celebrities. It's almost their job to make their appearance as widely known as possible. And even if you don't, you're not entitled to own illustrations of yourself like a copyrighted piece of art anyway, at least not by default. It's human nature for people to remember how other people look and picture them in their heads, even in thoughts such as sexual fantasies. And if that's okay then I don't understand why it's not okay to just copy these thoughts into a tangible format such as an illustration. It's not a solution to just declare it immoral. Technology is ever improving, and faked imagery is only going to get more realistic and easy to produce. I'm sure last century there were people equally offended by faked porn that would to our eyes look ridiculously bad and unrealistic. Fakes are here to stay, and we need to adapt our sense of morality to reflect this reality. I believe this will happen and such images will get normalized sooner or later either way, but I think it would be in everyone's interest to just get it over with and make it sooner rather than later. <|ASPECTS|>, fine, porn, meaningful difference, known, illustrations of, bad, real, fake porn of celebrities, appearance, away, entitled, deepfake, technology, uncomfortable, unrealistic, faked imagery, willingly, selfies, fantasies, media, swapping faces, immoral, human nature, celebrities, offended, 's, images, tangible format, image of your face, fiction, normalized, thoughts, represent, actual event, sense of morality, copyrighted piece, easy to produce, realistic, vulgar<|CONCLUSION|>
| Fake porn such as "deepfakes" is not immoral
| 8048387d-5ea7-4f36-ba0e-be68727bb479 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The materials I have read about climate change and the actions I have observed by various organizations and governments haven't convinced me that climate change is something that we can effectively fix or stop just slow it down . For example, several developed countries are not joining the treaties that have them control their emissions and have repealed taxes on emissions. So my thought is instead of people wasting time and resources on trying to convince governments to help with climate change, what if they try to find ways to live with it it is a long term change so any technologies that can be developed along the way will be a major factor . Is this sustainable? What are some of the ways this can happen? etc<|ASPECTS|>, effectively, sustainable, emissions, control, climate change, wasting time and resources, repealed taxes on emissions, long term change<|CONCLUSION|>
| We should forget trying to stop or reverse climate change and instead devote time and resources to finding ways to live with it.
| a7b7abcd-d0fa-423a-a8df-3c347beab03a |
<|TOPIC|>Are Purity Pledges Harmful?<|ARGUMENT|>Students who receive sexuality education including refusal skills training before college matriculation are at lower risk of experiencing sexual assault. Providing such training for LGBTQ+ students could help equip them to deal with such situations as well.<|ASPECTS|>lower risk, sexual assault, training, refusal skills, situations<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is a dire need for LGBTQ+ issues to be addressed in sex-ed programs.
| 8a38f24e-f0cf-44db-983d-f649d46950d9 |
<|TOPIC|>Do Bollywood movies normalise stalking in the name of romance?<|ARGUMENT|>There are many Bollywood films with a murder plot but this does not encourage people to murder in real life.<|ASPECTS|>murder plot, murder<|CONCLUSION|>
| Most people know the difference between what is an unrealistic film plot and what is acceptable in real life.
| 47b51f9e-2250-4ffd-9f31-b46d4b7687cd |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a white dude in my twenties mostly lived in the midwest. Most interactions maybe 25 30 I've had with cops are being pulled over for speeding or minor traffic things. A couple were polite, but the rest were all hot headed and angry. Of the interactions I've had on foot, I'd say the same. A couple were polite, but most were very hot headed. I was arrested once for flipping off a cop, but he decided to drop the charges once he found out I was military. This only makes me dislike them even more for showing favortism. I've never had a cop help me in any way. I know my personal experience can't reflect cops as a whole, but I can't shake how much I hate them. Change my view, please<|ASPECTS|>minor traffic things, cop help, flipping off a cop, hate, reflect cops, angry, polite, white, dislike, interactions, military, midwest, speeding, hot headed, favortism<|CONCLUSION|>
| I've never had a positive experience/interaction with a cop. I've grown to loathe the uniform in general. Please!
| 48962ce7-205d-4a91-a2d2-35450298f88d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that many people are vegetarian for reasons other than not wanting animals to be killed, but my post is specifically about people who believe that killing animals is wrong. Also, I understand that some vegetarians do agree with veganism rather than vegetarianism, but aren't able to be vegan for whatever reason and therefore choose vegetarianism as the next best thing my post isn't about them either. Rather, I'm talking about people who are vegetarians or believe that they should be but don't believe that veganism is necessary. Also, I'm pretty sure of the facts that I state here, but my view could of course be changed by me having got some things wrong. Milk and eggs are both produced by only female animals. For their production, therefore, a majority of female animals is required, with only a small number of males kept for reproduction. Most producers of eggs and dairy kill most male calves chicks because it doesn't make economic sense to keep them alive. Buying milk and eggs therefore usually depends on killing animals, just like buying meat does. Obviously, my argument is against people who support buying supermarket restaurant etc animal products but not meat. I understand why a vegetarian would buy milk eggs from a place which keeps both sexes alive, but as far as I'm aware the majority of vegetarians vegetarian supporters are fine with buying milk eggs from anywhere. Even free range products usually come from places that kill male calves and chicks. I know that some vegetarians have their own female chickens and eat their eggs. The problem with this is that places that sell chickens also tend to kill male ones, since people are generally interested in buying female ones for eggs. Again, there is clearly no problem with buying female chickens from a place that does not kill males, or breeding them yourself. Reddit, Edit to be clear, I agree that vegetarianism is better than nothing at all when it comes to stopping animals from being killed. My argument is against the idea that there is no need to be vegan to stop animals from being killed for food, which I have found vegetarians to believe. My argument is NOT that people who don't want animals to be killed have to do everything that is humanly possible to prevent it. Edit my phone is about to run out of charge, but I'll try to reply to any new comments later<|ASPECTS|>wrong, female ones, killed for food, female chickens, of charge, eggs, veganism, alive, animal, reproduction, vegetarianism, kill, kill males, killing animals, supporters, economic sense, buying female chickens, stopping animals from being killed, eat their eggs, depends, female animals, vegetarian, better than nothing, vegetarians, vegan, kill male calves, humanly possible, milk, free range, kill male ones<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is illogical for people who believe that killing animals is wrong to agree with vegetarianism, but not think veganism is necessary.
| 60c82c73-c43c-4c5d-9f53-569da22a0e25 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have respect for the hard sciences, aka the real sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, and also clinical and neuropsychology. However, social sciences are pseudoscience. They use the scientific method, they manipulate variables, etc but at the end of the day the majority of research that comes out of social science is either common sense, or the research studies have poor validity because it is unclear ambiguous what they are actually measuring. The past few days, the topics from r science that have reached front page are all common sense. Right now it is scientists discover that scientists in the UK are less religious than the UK general population. More it was Introverts can feel out of place within our Western culture that values extraversion. A new study found that introverts become unhappy with themselves if they compare themselves to an extraverted cultural ideal, but if they accept their authentic, quiet selves, they can flourish and be fulfilled. Other examples New research finds there is no “right thing” to say when you want to be supportive. Trying too hard to say the right thing could actually lead you to make “clumsy statements that do more harm than good”. Your “mere presence and sympathy is likely enough”. Parents who force unremorseful kids to apologize to others before they’re truly sorry may do more harm than good, suggests a new study. That’s because the point main point of an apology is lost as children may dislike the apologizer even more after the insincere apology than before. Narcissists are less likely to support democracy, finds a new study, which suggests this is probably because narcissists tend to feel entitled and superior to others, which results in lower tolerance of diverse political opinions. And my favourite Being the father of a school aged daughter makes men less sexist, according to a new study. The findings support the idea that men become more aware of the challenges facing women when they see the female experience of life up close through their offspring – dubbed the “mighty girl” effect. It is obvious and common sense that when people interact with other humans who are different to them in physical appearance eg. different race, gender, nationality, religion, etc they tend to see that beyond those physical or superficial differences, they actually share a lot of differences, so they are more likely to like them as opposed to someone in the KKK who has never got to know a black person in real life. This is common sense. That the scientists are coming with a fancy term called mighty girl effect to own this piece of common sense as their discovery is laughable. There are tons of these ridiculous terms in social science which scientists use to selfishly and egotistically I thought science was about the objective truth and not personal ego fulfillment? associate the common sense discovery with themselves. They just make up fancy terms and words to describe common sense and take credit for it. Also some medical studies non social science are also common sense In a new study involving people over 70 who have exercised regularly for years, scientists discovered that the participants' hearts, lungs, and muscles were in equivalent shape to those of people in their 40s. Wow, who would have guessed? Acting naturally like our ancestors in terms of food and diet is a good thing as opposed to acting non naturally and eating man made fast food? Wow. And example of what I meant when I said social science has poor validity because it is unclear as to what it actually measures Study finds bad bosses could turn you into a great boss When offered leadership opportunities, prior victims of workplace abuse are more likely to treat their own subordinates better by learning from the bad behavior of their bosses. How did that study conclude that? All it did was manipulate some variables that the researchers themselves subjectively gave a meaning to. No way can you objectively say that your data findings result in the conclusion that they mention. These variables are subjectively experienced and different for different people. Who is to say what abuse consists of and to what extent the cut off is? Who is to say what a bad boss is and what a good boss is? Also, a lot of these studies rely on self reports from the subejcts, who don't understand the question properly and give inaccurate answers. You see what I mean? There is just too much ambiguity to prove any results. A lot of the variables being measured are also better left to gut feeling than scientific measurement. This is why I say in the hard sciences like physics, there is much less ambiguity you can make conclusions based on your result with confidence, but with social science, people are such complex creatures that it would be silly to conclude things from studies that have subjectively measured and defined variables with poor wording choices. Just because you use the scientific method and manipulate variables does not mean that your study is automatically right and you can make conclusions such as science says that Also the thing is that the more common sense articles from r science tend to get upvoted more for some strange reason and they make the front page. The actual scientific articles don't get as much upvotes. My hypothesis for this is because since redditors tend to upvote downvote based on ideology blindly, if they see a common sense scientific article on r science that confirms what they thought or is consistent with their ideology, they upvote it. And if not, they downvote it. The average redditor is not well versed nor cares about real science, so they tend to upvote these common sense or poor validity scientific articles because they relate with them more.<|ASPECTS|>, automatically right, left to gut feeling, physical, complex creatures, common sense, bad behavior, naturally, cultural ideal, good boss, cut, sympathy, entitled, credit, upvoted, differences, diverse political opinions, upvote downvote, common sense discovery, physical appearance, less sexist, clumsy statements, quiet, challenges facing women, apology, apologizer, harm than good, personal, egotistically, bad bosses, hard sciences, discovery, less religious, support democracy, right thing, choices, experience of life, extraversion, workplace abuse, bad boss, pseudoscience, fancy terms, data findings, respect, upvote, selfishly, equivalent shape, cares, ideology, mighty girl effect, insincere, ego fulfillment, manipulate variables, subjectively experienced, ambiguity, scientific articles, upvotes, manipulate some variables, supportive, values, poor validity scientific, unhappy, flourish, downvote, children, presence, tolerance, real science, apologize to others, objective truth, superior, sense, introverts, unremorseful kids, self reports, different, question, dislike, fulfilled, abuse, inaccurate answers, poor validity<|CONCLUSION|>
| Social Science is overrated
| 97e3a145-f3a2-40dd-8804-9708d358a107 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have intelligent, educated, not racist friends who support Brexit, but the arguments for Brexit still don't make sense to me. The key points seem to be 1 Make our own laws Why is the line drawn at the UK? Why is it bad for the Netherlands to have influence over some UK law, but okay for England to have influence over Welsh law and vice versa ? Why isn't it bad for Yorkshire to have influence over the law in Cornwall, or the south west in general? Is it more than nationalism causing a mess just for the sake of nationalism? It seems arbitrary to me. 2 Sovereignty Similar to the above, but more abstract. The nation state should be sovereign . I'd say the UK, a Will always give away some sovereignty to international organisations, like the UN and WTO. b The EU expands a portion of our sovereignty over the EU. What we we lose at home we gain over the EU. c The EU can influence international organisations more than the UK, and so the UK has more worldwide self control as part of the EU. 3 The EU is undemocratic . The Parliament is elected, the council is made up of elected leaders of government, and the commission is appointed by the national governments which are democratically elected . So at where is there a total lack of democracy? It's also worth pointing out that the Monarch, the House of Lords, and civil servants aren't democratically elected. So how is the EU worse than the UK? 4 Immigration It seems like a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' problem to me. You have an issue with immigration, so lets disrupt every aspect of government, instead of just dealing with issues brought up by immigration? Overall Points 1 and 2 seem to be arbitrary, and disrupt government with no practical benefit, such for the sake of nationalism. Point 3 is just untrue. Point 4 seems like an overreaction, disrupting everything because of one practical issue. In one phrase Brexit seems to be based on excessive nationalism. Is there a way to understand the Brexit point of view? <|ASPECTS|>self control, , baby, influence over the law, worse, worldwide, disrupt every aspect of government, mess, view, overreaction, make our own laws, understand, influence international organisations, racist friends, disrupting everything, brexit point, lack, nation state, democracy, eu, undemocratic, practical issue, democratically elected, law, nationalism, intelligent, influence, educated, sovereign, disrupt government, gain, sovereignty over the eu, untrue, elected leaders of government, excessive nationalism, sovereignty, practical benefit, arbitrary, lose, immigration<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't think Brexit arguments make sense.
| 949892e9-c009-4f60-b3f5-1f8738c917a9 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Dictatorships Receive Development Aid?<|ARGUMENT|>Most of H&M's factories in Bangladesh still don't have working fire exits despite the company having signed a pledge in 2013 to improve safety conditions after a factory collapse killed over 1,000 workers<|ASPECTS|>safety conditions<|CONCLUSION|>
| Western companies take advantage of the degrading standards on site to maximize their profits, e.g. extremely long working hours in combination with low wages in the technology sector or the textile industry
| 61aeab46-ed4a-4517-835e-3595212ccf10 |
<|TOPIC|>recognise the International Criminal Court<|ARGUMENT|>The likelihood of political prosecution is only augmented by the creation of the novel crime of 'aggression' under the Rome Statute. Any intervention in a State for the protection of human rights of some or all of its people might constitute a crime. The US or any NATO State could be prosecuted, at the request of the genocidaires, for successfully preventing genocide. Moreover, by a quirk of the drafting of the Statute, States that refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC can nevertheless request the prosecution of individuals of other States for crimes alleged committed on its territory. Thus Milosevic could have demanded the investigation of NATO forces for the events of Operation Allied Force, but have precluded any investigation of the actions of the Bosnian Serb army on the same territory.<|ASPECTS|>nato forces, crime, political prosecution, genocide, actions, preventing, protection, investigation, crimes, prosecution, human rights<|CONCLUSION|>
| The novel crime of aggression leads to the prosecution of those seeking to protect human rights.
| 8f383c78-8445-4fbd-98e7-40c095916c7c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Currently, Western nations all have at least one thing in common they use Christian holy days in their national calendar for paid time off days off. Mostly this is Christmas and Easter, but some European countries go crazy with the most obscure Christian festivals, like All Saints Day or something. As we can all agree I'm sure, Western nations are quickly diversifying and secularizing and these national holidays are just as quickly becoming apparent in their offensiveness and exclusiveness towards non Christians. Obviously we can't include every holiday from every religion out there, but perhaps add 1 from every major religion, like Islam Eid , Judaism Hannuka , Paganism Yule — which could just replace Christmas , Buddhism Bodhi Day , and so on. To make it easier we could remove existing Christian day like Easter Friday. If you don't agree with that, maybe because of separation of church and state in the U.S. especially , then my other argument would be to remove ALL religious holidays, such as the existing Christmas holiday. In the U.S. for example which only has Christmas as a religious national holiday, it could be replaced with Yule Winter Solstice or some other name, and placed near to the existing December 25th. I am looking forward to having my view changed because I honestly don't think there is any way that you can defend the current status quo with logic, it is wrong and offensive and exclusionary. Maybe it was OK in the 1800s, but not in 2016.<|ASPECTS|>diversifying, separation of church and state, ok, offensiveness, wrong, holiday, christians, remove existing christian day, offensive, exclusionary, secularizing, paid time off days, christian festivals, christian holy days, religious holidays, current status quo, exclusiveness, obscure<|CONCLUSION|>
| Western nations like USA/Canada/Australia should either add religious holidays from other cultures, or get rid of the Christian ones in their national calendar
| f55ade3d-46f6-4b9b-8875-61a2c6cebd0a |
<|TOPIC|>George Orwell's 1984 is over-rated<|ARGUMENT|>Winston's repeated paranoia and fears of being caught foreshadow the fact that he will eventually be tortured by the Thought Police.<|ASPECTS|><|CONCLUSION|>
| Some of this repetition is a form of foreshadowing about what will ultimately happen to Winston.
| 1df00ef0-d679-42b9-a3ac-ed4688f7e8f5 |
<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Physicists have proposed scores of alternative models over the decades since Friedman and Lemaitre’s work the standard model, and those that do not have an absolute beginning have been repeatedly shown to be unworkable. The only viable nonstandard models are those that involve an absolute beginning to the universe.<|ASPECTS|>viable, absolute, unworkable, alternative models, nonstandard models, beginning to the universe<|CONCLUSION|>
| The standard Big Bang model predicts an absolute beginning of the universe
| ae3de183-8da7-430b-b280-fcc0c0fd9d14 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Title. And let me be very clear I am not an advocate for those who sexually assault or abuse children. I am of the belief that it is one of few crimes that are inherently unforgivable and that those who commit this crime should be, at the very least, put behind bars for life. No questions asked. But here's where I split off as long as these people do not act on these impulses, there is no harm to it. If you have rape fantasies but don't actually rape people, you're fine If you have fantasies about murdering people, but don't actually murder people, I'd recommend counseling, but you're fine If you think that people should be arrested for simply having these thoughts, that is thought policing, and goes against everything that my country The Unites States goes against. So why can this not be applied to pedophilia? New psychological studies seem to indicate that pedophilia is genetic in the same way being gay is and that it's not something that can simply be changed. When spoken to, most pedophiles even state that they wish they did not have these impulses, and that they would never harm a child. Basically what is inherently wrong with pedophilia, as long as these urges are not acted upon?<|ASPECTS|>rape fantasies, inherently, wrong, thought policing, pedophilia, sexually assault, unforgivable, harm, murdering people, harm a child, abuse children, urges, genetic, impulses, advocate<|CONCLUSION|>
| Pedophilia is inherently different from sexual assault of a minor, and causes no harm if impulses are not acted upon
| 526e0423-20ad-4c4e-bf82-391832e421c2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the contemporary stand up scene, especially for those comics who are political and socially progressive, it is commonly held belief among most comedians that 'good' comedy, or the comedic art which contains the most merit, is that which targets people topics and groups which are the most privileged and high in the power structure of society. Hence the phrase 'punching up'. For example, making fun of trumps hands as being abnormally small is not body shaming or offensive, for he enjoys privilege and advantage due to where he is situated in the hierarchy of groups and people in society. Conversely, jokes of a racial or sexual nature, whether cliche or brilliant comedic aritery, are ddeemd as punching down an problematic since the object of such jokes are groups who are marginalised and disenfranchised. This extends to subjects and topics as well, such as sexual assault, suicide, mental illness. Mt view is primarily this it is morally, ethically and artistically justifiable for a comedian to make fun people and subjects that would constitute punching down, as long he or she punches up and most importantly, punches at her or himself. That is to say, as long as one makes light of their own weaknesses, their own insecutires, their own biases and prejudices, they are effectively conveying that they are no better or worse than who they might be ridiculing as part of their routine, whether it be the black single mother in the crowd punching down or the white blue collar republican punching up . The best examples of this are the NY Comics from 97 to 07, otherwise known as the comedy cellar crowd or O A crowd. COmics like Bill Burr, Patrice O'Neal, Jim Norton, Louis Ck, Bob Kelly, Dave Attel etc. They were never afraid to call themselves idiots while they were rating, whether it be about poor people on welfare or corporate bankers. <|ASPECTS|>, sexual assault, insecutires, ethically, idiots, merit, body shaming, prejudices, comics, comedy cellar, power structure of society, suicide, morally, hierarchy, privilege and advantage, biases, racial, disenfranchised, privileged, artistically justifiable, marginalised, corporate bankers, mental illness, weaknesses, poor people, ridiculing<|CONCLUSION|>
| As long as a comedian is self deprecating and makes fun of him/herself through self ridicule and self deprecation, their comedy can 'punch down' as well as 'punch up'.
| ce83ee0d-d094-4b46-9024-090c7713548a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reddit should just use Reddit gold to solve it’s current problems. Why couldn’t Reddit expand on the Reddit gold feature in a way that would address the issues it currently faces? Every time I think about this controversy I can’t help but think that if they just built up Reddit gold so that it was actually valuable and more people paid for Reddit, it would resolve most of the issues being talked about. Think about it A monthly subscription would allow them to monetize the site without bending to the will of advertisers, plus Reddit could keep its claim as a platform for free speech If it was more popular it would also cut down on harassment by creating a financial barrier between members and anonymous hatred. They could also use it as an incentive for users to post better content if they allowed people to personalize their user account. Finally it could be used to control the general atmosphere of the site by making it easier for paying members to post content and harder for anonymous trolls to create drama for drama’s sake This solution seems incredibly simple to me but I have yet to hear any one say this. Why wouldn’t this work?<|ASPECTS|>anonymous hatred, incentive, better content, drama, anonymous, monetize, personalize, control, valuable, free speech, general atmosphere, issues, current problems, harassment, resolve, financial barrier<|CONCLUSION|>
| The only way Reddit will avoid the fate of Digg is to make Reddit gold much more valuable.
| a3498c31-53f6-4427-884b-693f7986455a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As they've been going through their 50th anniversary tour that just wrapped, I've been re listening to old records and some live concerts and bootlegs and I just can't believe this band got that popular. I've seen The Dead and RatDog a few times in concert because they're a good time with hippies and stuff. But holy shit, they can't fucking sing a lick live and a lot of their record, mixed, and mastered songs sound like pubescent boys who think they can still Mariah. Obviously, free love, the hippie culture, hippie trail and caravaning, and drugs played major parts in their popularity. But I further can't imagine them becoming popular nowadays whether due to social limitations like YT FB comments decrying them, cultural issues like music festivals becoming huge, or just the sheer availability of talented musicians nowadays. It's clearly going to be hard to argue that the alternative and traveling music scene that was changed by The Grateful Dead wouldn't accept them today, but if you can, change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, free love, pubescent, social limitations, talented musicians, records, hippie, availability, popularity, still, mariah, hippies, alternative and traveling music, popular, cultural issues<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Grateful Dead have horrific vocal harmonies, pre-and-post Garcia, and would probably never be popular today.
| 8c9dc3e9-99bb-4b94-88ce-bee7077ae701 |
<|TOPIC|>Is cultural appropriation wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Culture is molded by the circumstances in which a people lives, such as geography, climate, the actions of another people, etc. Culture is not something to be proud of or ashamed of, because one has no control over it. The only control one has is whether or not he/she will conform to that culture.<|ASPECTS|>control, culture, ashamed, conform<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is nothing inherently sacred about culture. Attempting to claim cultural appropriation does damage is valid, but only in the same way that one can argue that trying to appeal to a wider audience has ruined a piece of media.
| cfdaac7a-dc6d-4c54-87fc-b47a1d954299 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be clear, I don't want Trump to win. I want a good, respectable candidate to win so we can restore a bit of normalcy to the office. However, unless Trump decides to opt out, he will win. Democrats have no compelling candidates. Their best shots are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, two geriatric career politicians with a lot of baggage. Democrats vastly overplayed their hand with Trump Russia collusion, and people are exhausted from it. First they insisted that collusion was an established fact. Then all signs point to no collusion, so they say, Wait for the Mueller report to be released Then the report is released and they say, Well he obstructed the investigation that established that there was in fact no collusion, and thus he must be impeached If you step outside the liberal echo chamber that dominates the front page of Reddit, you will see that the most Americans are pretty sick of this. They're not going to reward this behavior with a political victory. People like a strong economy, and the economy is strong under Trump. To change my view, you're going to have to show me a viable candidate and explain how the people will embrace him or her over Trump.<|ASPECTS|>viable candidate, reward, career politicians, collusion, political victory, trump, fact, russia collusion, embrace, exhausted, economy, compelling candidates, win, baggage, respectable candidate, strong, normalcy<|CONCLUSION|>
| Trump is going to win re-election.
| af30ae0f-22fc-438c-b387-e0f1def1cfa4 |
<|TOPIC|>Citizens United Was Wrongly Decided<|ARGUMENT|>Without free speech rights, corporate bodies could be restricted from publishing and distributing news, books and other information. Since individuals are rarely capable of doing this on a mass scale, organisations must be afforded this protection.<|ASPECTS|>free speech rights, protection, corporate bodies, restricted<|CONCLUSION|>
| Corporations and unions are people and thus have free speech protections.
| 3a461318-eecf-4cba-9b96-2083b054eb3c |
<|TOPIC|>Should Racial Profiling Be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>A person's race is not principally different from any other observable characteristic eg their behaviour or location that affects whether they are likely to have committed a crime.<|ASPECTS|>committed, race, crime, characteristic<|CONCLUSION|>
| Discrimination on the basis of someone's race involves inflicting an injustice on them, since their race is beyond their voluntary control.
| 47be8466-7612-45d3-a290-1d21ac8ff78c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are a couple of analogies that we can make between r fatpeoplehate and racist people. They discriminate a particular group of individuals due to one of their physical or mental problems. They even created themselves a superiority in their group you had to verify that you were fit to have the verified shitlord flair . They harass fat people when on a regular basis these people did not do anything to provoque them. And two final points Why is harassing fat people legal when racial harassment is illegal? And i'm not here to cover the free speech question. Unless you have to state it to proove your point please don't talk about that aspect of things. I'm sorry for using the word fat to describe these people<|ASPECTS|>fat people, harass, analogies, racist people, physical or mental problems, fat, discriminate, superiority, provoque, harassing fat people, racial harassment, fatpeoplehate, shitlord flair, free speech question, group<|CONCLUSION|>
| Mistreating someone because they're fat is the same as being racist.
| dd3897ea-7c3b-4111-86b3-c0699282217e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There is a small but visible minority of redditors who delete their comments after a certain amount of time. Generally a couple hours, though it varies. My understanding is that they do it in an attempt to prevent other people from browsing their comment histories, or sometimes to avoid being indexed by search engines. Their habit leads to discussion threads like this. Like a lot of people, I am in Asia and thus am not on reddit at its peak usage hours since most users are in North America and Europe . That means I am rarely lucky enough to see these people's comments, and I have to guess what they might have said based on whatever replies they get. To be blunt, this is annoying as hell and often makes me just close the browser tab in frustration. I believe reddit's strength is in its ability to connect people all over the world in non real time discussion. People who delete their comments on a regular basis destroy discussions for users in distant time zones or users whose schedules don't allow them to happen to catch the discussions as they're happening. This selfish behavior is disrespectful of readers and of the other participants in the discussion. It weakens reddit as a whole, and I think the site would be better off if these users were prevented from ever participating in the first place fragmented, non sequitir threads like the one in the screenshots are, to me, a worse experience than those threads not existing at all, including the non deleted replies. Please convince me I should be happy these people are participating on reddit and should approve of what they do with their comments.<|ASPECTS|>approve, connect people, discussions, comments, visible, selfish behavior, catch, happy, destroy discussions, time discussion, annoying, non, prevent, redditors, worse experience, discussion threads, disrespectful of readers, usage hours, weakens, minority, frustration, comment histories<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think reddit users who habitually delete their posts are significantly worsening the site for everyone else and should be banned.
| 24e60f31-f74c-4227-b70b-599be55f19e6 |
<|TOPIC|>Lowering US drinking age from 21 to 18<|ARGUMENT|>Obama told vets on March 19th, 2008, "I know it drives you nuts. But I'm not going to lower the drinking age." Obama told veterans that he sympathized with their predicament, but that setting the legal drinking age at 21 had helped reduce drunken driving incidents and should, therefore, remain.<|ASPECTS|>drinking age, nuts, predicament, drunken driving incidents, drives<|CONCLUSION|>
| Safer roads with 21 drinking laws outweighs all trade-offs
| 2b072c53-5049-478f-b0ea-3655b3c5c8eb |
<|TOPIC|>Is eating meat ethically wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Plants lack a central nervous system and lack sentience. Animals, however, like us humans, are sentient and have a central nervous system. Saying that picking a carrot and chopping it is ethically the same as grabbing an animal and slitting their throat is absurd.<|ASPECTS|>lack, central nervous system, sentience, sentient, ethically<|CONCLUSION|>
| To conflate animals and plants is fallacious. The difference between the two is too significant as to not have an impact on the moral treatment that ought to be given to each.
| aaea2f59-50ac-432c-9cbf-c74a0f4241ff |
<|TOPIC|>Is Conflict Between Groups Inevitable?<|ARGUMENT|>Conflict is a fundamental law of survival, since the cavemen and when the first human empires rose. Today, conflict rises from opinions and ideologies and it evolves into economical and political warfare. It is part of our instinct to attack other in order to gain or protect something. Simply put: it is just human nature.<|ASPECTS|>gain, fundamental, conflict, opinions and ideologies, protect, instinct to attack, human nature, economical and political warfare, law of survival<|CONCLUSION|>
| Evolution is propelled by competition for limited resources. Scarcity is what allows both human and nonhuman life to seek new solutions and grow.
| 2726a15d-d648-488c-8d2a-2c32018550d9 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>UPDATE So what I found most interesting about this post is how few people actually went out to look for evidence contrary to my point of view. The majority of people just complained about why I was wrong. One person simply called me derogatory names, as if this wold somehow change my point of view? The link below is from a TED talk about how the Millennials are the next greatest generation. This is why a wrote this post to see more of HOW millennials will in fact grow into a great generations of Americans. So this apparently has been an argument made by old people since the time of Socrates. But what if its true? What if the men and women of Tom Brokaw’s Greatest American Generation really were and they lavished their post war wealth on their Hippy kids that took a hands off approach to parenting leading to a brain dead mass of unemployable Millennials. What if this is real ? Now that I’m old ish and work with Millennials is sure feels real. <|ASPECTS|>wrong, complained, derogatory names, true, great generations, americans, evidence, real, unemployable millennials, view, old people, brain dead mass, millennials, next greatest generation, post, wealth, point<|CONCLUSION|>
| The current generation is lazy, self-centered an overly entitled
| f7ea97d3-8de6-4870-8583-702194ce46f0 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me explain my stance. Today, I was walking through wal mart with a McDonald's coffee in my hand happy as a clam. And a small kid was being chased by his older brother my guess would be ages 5 and 7 . Kids will be kids. I was the same way. Well, the younger one bumped into me and I spilled a little bit of my coffee onto the floor. Not on myself, not on the kid, just a few drops on the floor. Well, the mom comes over steaming mad. And the kid, obviously embarrassed, is forced to apologize to me. It's a huge scene, and everyone's watching. I wasn't even angry that he ran into me. It happens. But by the end of this ordeal, I was pretty upset. Here's my issue. The coffee spilled wasn't a big deal. The kid running into me wasn't a big deal. WHat made me angry was the mother making a big scene of it. I don't think kid's should have to apologize for every small thing they do wrong in public. I understand discipline, and I understand if it's something big. Like if the kid had knocked me over, I'd expect an apology. But it put me in an awkward situation, and it embarrassed the kid. I don't think the kid learned any lesson other than apologizing is embarrassing. It almost seems detrimental. But then again, I don't have kids so I could just be talking out of my ass.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, upset, apologize, kid, apologizing, chased, apology, steaming mad, embarrassing, angry, embarrassed the kid, discipline, mother, drops, scene, detrimental, coffee spilled, small, talking out, embarrassed, mom, kids, awkward situation, huge<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't think small children should have to apologize to random strangers for EVERYTHING,
| 940a2203-79e2-4e16-91c0-6858d6c02f67 |
<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>There is no evidence that homosexuality, which some consider a sin, represents an expression of free will.<|ASPECTS|>free<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Christian God created homosexuality and yet simultaneously calls for its lethal punishment
| 2f224319-47b6-4c87-9c15-37ce14e46229 |
<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>By starting from nothing, "at the bottom" as it were, with a blank slate, it is only possible to go up. With no pre-conditions or pre-conceived notions, Britain's hands will truly be free to navigate and chart its own future and destiny.<|ASPECTS|>possible, future and destiny, slate, free to navigate<|CONCLUSION|>
| Hard Brexit may actually be the best possible result in the long run, if one can bear the short-medium term economic pain it will produce.
| cd7891af-f527-4955-bfd2-1df2507a6d07 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Classic World of Warcraft better than Retail WoW?<|ARGUMENT|>In Vanilla players cared much more about their reputation as it would cost you dearly once it was ruined.<|ASPECTS|><|CONCLUSION|>
| Playing dungeons and raids with friends and players you know is better than with randoms.
| 7aa7e113-d8c7-4406-8a50-83d59bcefe99 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Genealogy Databases Be Available to Law Enforcement to Solve Crimes?<|ARGUMENT|>The equipment used to gather and analyze DNA might be compromised in such a way that the results are misleading, such as other DNA being accidentally present on it.<|ASPECTS|>misleading, accidentally, dna, compromised<|CONCLUSION|>
| Law enforcement is already struggling to properly interpret DNA samples, which in some cases has lead to innocent civilians being wrongfully convicted.
| a4a6e026-65a4-48cf-9927-357691e83502 |
<|TOPIC|>the United Nations has failed<|ARGUMENT|>It is undeniably true that some of the UN’s procedures need to be improved, and standards of financial transparency improved. However, this is true of many governments and international organisations, not just the UN. The answer to the UN’s problems is not to give up on it but rather reform it for the 21st century, including perhaps changing or augmenting the permanent membership of the Security Council to reflect the reality of the modern world. 1 1 London, Jacqueline. “Reform of the United Nations Security Council”. International Affairs and Foreign Policy Institute. 29th June 2007. <|ASPECTS|>reform, financial transparency, council<|CONCLUSION|>
| Solution to problems of UN is to reform outdated structures.
| e02490d9-faaf-4781-8a42-f3947522d88c |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Recognize Palestine as a State?<|ARGUMENT|>Barak's offer was not sufficient as it only envisioned a gradual control over only 92% of the West Bank Pressman, p. 16<|ASPECTS|>gradual control<|CONCLUSION|>
| The failure of the Camp David negotiations in 2000 were the result of Israel's unacceptable demands.
| 1331b6aa-6aae-4c58-bf60-17bc5bd96241 |
<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Like all rivers in the world merges with the vast oceans on the Earth in the same way all religions on the Earth are a way to Higher Almighty God. Religions are paths to lead the human civilizations to the ultimate high soul. If it is banned then we are closing the ways for the human civilizations to reach the almighty God.<|ASPECTS|>closing, ultimate, almighty god, high soul, higher almighty god<|CONCLUSION|>
| Religion has moral and life lessons to imbue upon its adherents.
| 23cc54d7-d0ab-4798-b337-80f7661cd1d2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've been avoiding meat products and rarely eating fish for a little less than half a year. I have decided that I don't have a problem with eating meat, but I do have a problem with the way meat industries keep the animals in captivity. My current argument is that because we as a human race are powerful enough to have taken complete control over entire species' cattle, chicken , at the very least, we should be respectful enough to provide at least a decent life and a painless death to those animals. With this mindset, I would have no problem with eating meat if it were to be wasted otherwise, if it were from a truly free range farm, or if it had been wild and hunted. I feel this is a good reason for humans to avoid reduce consumption of look for alternatives to factory farmed meat. I am more concerned with hearing what ethical counter arguments others may have to these points than having someone change my view although I am not opposed to changing it.<|ASPECTS|>meat industries, alternatives, painless death, hunted, ethical counter arguments, captivity, complete control, avoiding, eating meat, free range, reduce consumption, meat products, rarely eating fish, wild, wasted, decent life<|CONCLUSION|>
| I have a few ethical ideas for avoiding/reducing consumption of factory farmed meat products
| 4936709d-b03d-420d-9686-d835cae632d2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In a world where a fetus’ life is equal to a living persons’ life, accidentally killing one would have consequences. Wouldn’t it? If I killed someone on accident I’d get charged with manslaughter, so why wouldn’t a woman who has a miscarriage? She didn’t do it on purpose but her body is rejecting it for some reason. Say a driver had a spasm and crashed into people, he would face charges with manslaughter even though his actions were involuntary. ~PSA~ I used an example in the comments about a guy having a seizure, crashing his car, then being charged with manslaughter. I thought it was a one time thing but I was wrong. My apologies. Rape victims would either be denied or allowed abortions. If they are denied abortions then women who are traumatized and never wanted it would be forced to carry the fetus to term. If they were allowed to have abortions then desperate women in need of abortions would lie about being rape most likely the “I was at a bar, No names named” kind of lie, hopefully not blaming actual men which would ruin it for everyone and cause less trust in the claims. And not to mention that it proves the mother’s health and comfort are more important than the fetuses life, which contradicts the pro life movements views of them being equal to us. Women who’s lives are at risk because of the pregnancy would either be denied or allowed it as well. If denied they could die, if allowed then it just proves that a women’s life is more important than the fetuses, again. Which is also the exact opposite of the pro life movement. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ Overall it would really just make things shittier and more complicated<|ASPECTS|>crashed, consequences, ruin, one time, manslaughter, actual men, rape victims, equal, crashing, body, involuntary, miscarriage, health and comfort, die, ’, mother ’, pro life movement, ’ life, seizure, risk, rape, shittier, trust in the claims, denied, less, lives are, accidentally killing, fetus, spasm, women ’ s life is more important, traumatized, allowed abortions, rejecting<|CONCLUSION|>
| Making abortions illegal and labeling them as murder would cause more harm than good.
| a4ba32c5-745b-4d42-9f30-fcda69765258 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Highly successful people are frequently the object of worship. My view is that their public image is distorted by the media and other sources of information, and possibly by the way the brain works. Successful people are generally hard working, mentally sound and very intelligent, but there are millions of people with such traits spread all over the world. Luck is the discriminating factor you need to have the system on your side, be at the right place and time, know the right people, and countless other factors. People are essentially the product of their genes, upbringing and environment. “Society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned. If you stick me in Bangladesh or Peru, you’ll find out how much this kind of talent will produce … I work in a market system that rewards what I do well – disproportionately well.” — Warren Buffett Similarly, there would be no Facebook if the hardware and the network speeds hadn't been up to par, no paypal if the bubble had blown too early, etc. Enormous success is contingent on so many things. Heck, you can even become a billionaire if you happen to be the right person's college roommate at the right time. There's more on this in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, for example, athletes born in specific months or moguls born in specific years. There is also the snowball effect a person who is successful early on will have many more opportunities, in fact there will be a geometric increase in success. It's much easier to make a million if you already have a billion. Musk is a good example of this. Had his earlier projects not panned out, it's very likely he wouldn't have been able to do the rest. The media illusion extremely successful people are only the most visible cog in a large machine. Their primary ability lies in marshalling other people's efforts for their own projects. Nobody can build a large company alone, however, the media will exclusively report on the founder or the figurehead because that is what will interest people the most. The brain cannot process information about thousands or millions of people, so it's preferable to make shortcuts such as Jobs Apple's success. Historical figures are portrayed in this way as well Napoleon single handedly fought all those wars, Hitler and Mao were solely responsible for all those deaths, Einstein came up with his theories all on his own etc. What to make of all this? My point isn't that we should denigrate such individuals or smugly think that they just got lucky. All of these people have obvious talents and skills. However, my view is that it is a mistake to worship them or consider all of their thoughts to be gold. This happens often on reddit people will ask about Musk's reading list in the hope that by reading the same books they will be wealthy too, or they will have favorable views towards a singer's social commentary because of perceived competence. They might think that poor people don't work hard, or that they themselves achieved things entirely on their on without society's help. tl dr People are the product of the system, not the other way around. Beware hero worship and the halo effect. Be careful when trying to analyse the cause of success and the lessons to be learned from it.<|ASPECTS|>shortcuts, college roommate, success, market system, public image, discriminating factor, disproportionately, object of worship, achieved things entirely, right people, interest people, enormous success, wealthy, successful, distorted, founder, moguls, brain, visible, paypal, gold, society, product of the system, talent, upbringing, right person 's, obvious, hitler, deaths, genes, marshalling other people 's efforts, talents and skills, opportunities, outliers, become, denigrate such individuals, bubble, luck, intelligent, contingent, snowball effect, billionaire, traits, environment, cause of success, work hard, hero worship, process information, system, mistake, halo effect, hard working, easier to make a million, earned, mentally sound, lessons, historical figures, perceived competence, poor people, rewards, favorable views<|CONCLUSION|>
| Highly successful individuals such as Elon Musk or Bill Gates are not as superhuman as they are portrayed to be
| d651e77d-f7f2-4e6b-b0b3-905a3700d8bf |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I also believe that by arbitrarily censoring certain websites that the mods have pulled the rug out from under the people who initially helped those subreddits grow. These subreddits grew and were supported by people who were operating under the pretense of a very open forum for discussion available for many different media types and with an open diversity of sources . Then when they subs became huge they clamped down on what they allowed in a way which very much allows the mods to control which stories get the most attention. This, to me, is no small offense and it shouldn't be overlooked or forgotten. 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|>concerns, message us, diversity of sources, downvote, change, popular topics, effective, censoring, downvotes, happy cmving, pulled the rug, forgotten, control, questions, open forum for discussion, remind, small offense, overlooked<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that when the major news and political subs disallow videos and self-posts that they limit and stifle discussion.
| 6f633257-af21-4674-aaf2-9eb608553cd8 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.