Datasets:

webis

/

conclugen

like 1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, I just want to say that I am only referring to grades in academic subjects at a level where grades actually matter. I frankly have no idea about how grades work with second graders. I am going to assume that most grades are composed of homework classwork, projects, and examinations of some sort. I very rarely find a class where anything other than those three make up a significant portion of the grading. If participation is required in a class, and you don't do it, it means you're just not trying. Homework classwork is pretty easy. Usually you can put down something that makes it at least look like you put effort into it and the teacher will usually give you credit. For those rare cases where the accuracy of the answers reflects the grade you get, the teacher has to help you if you ask for it. That's kind of what teachers are there for. Every school project has one thing in common They require you to compile information, synthesize it, and then make something presentable out of it. Ability to compile information and synthesize information are both things that require intelligence. Any teacher will tell you that those are higher order thinking skills. Making and presenting something is a different issue. The ability to make something new out of old information is a highly intellectual exercise. Inability to do this is indicative of inability to perform intellectually, which is basically the definition of being not smart. Making something presentable is entirely tied to effort. When teachers look for presentably, they are almost always looking for how much effort the student put into a project. This leaves tests. I am convinced tests measure intelligence because they require you to do three things a Perform under pressure. b Use previously applied knowledge in new ways. c Demonstrate mastery of previously learned skills. The ability to perform under pressure is a little bit of a gray area. If nothing else, it's an important life skill to learn. I will assert that being intelligent necessitates ability to perform under pressure. If someone chokes whenever its time do demonstrate mastery of a skill, we as a society NEVER give that person the benefit of the doubt. The ability to use previously applied knowledge in new ways is one of the most intellectual exercises out there. People who can do this well typically get hailed as geniuses. As for demonstrating mastery of a previously learned skill, the only question here is whether or not you learned it. Learning is basically just gaining knowledge. Gaining lots of knowledge is required to be an intelligent person.<|ASPECTS|>grades work, previously learned skills, second graders, gaining knowledge, credit, projects, ability, highly, previously applied knowledge, compile information, making, matter, intelligence, accuracy of, participation, tests, mastery, homework classwork, old information, intellectual exercises, effort, examinations, synthesize information, geniuses, skill, project, put effort, presentably, trying, higher order thinking skills, important, life skill, grading, intelligent, learning, intelligent person, smart, grades, teachers, knowledge, inability to perform intellectually, help, classwork, teacher, academic subjects, benefit, doubt, different issue, perform under pressure, use, homework, intellectual exercise, easy, gray area<|CONCLUSION|>

Grades measure intelligence if you actually care about them.

06c3b629-f1f0-4537-b4b4-0f3bfaacdd88

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>An alleged sexual predator almost won just because he is aligned with Trump's policies, and he would have won if those accusations didn't come up. And almost certainly Jones will be replaced when his seat is up. As far as I can tell, Moore's loss is just a sign that Republicans will hesitate to vote someone in who might be a child molester. I'd love to believe the country is turning against Trump, but all I see is one small, temporary win for Democrats thanks to the timing of some serious allegations. For all we know, another wacko will campaign against Jones in a few years, and they will win so long as they aren't accused of murder or something equally awful.<|ASPECTS|>, hesitate, turning against trump, child molester, accused, murder, jones, temporary win, serious allegations, sexual predator<|CONCLUSION|>

Roy Moore's loss in Alabama is not a sign of any uprising against Trumpism

16d63585-85c2-46c1-b2a1-f9444180813f

<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt a single-payer health care system?<|ARGUMENT|>"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is meaningless for those who cannot afford their own health care.<|ASPECTS|>liberty, pursuit of happiness, life<|CONCLUSION|>

It would provide equal access to the same health care regardless of level of income.

57e477ac-bc1f-43d7-92a9-409a0d27eda0

<|TOPIC|>Is Space Exploration a Waste of Money?<|ARGUMENT|>When writing grant proposals, it's not possible to foresee problems. So funding might go to projects that never deliver a result.<|ASPECTS|>funding, foresee problems<|CONCLUSION|>

Private companies often get public funding for ideas, which may or may not end up being a reality.

52d03a0b-3820-4dbd-8364-d08532644391

<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>Religion helps people understand that they have been given a gift by God, their life, which can make them value it more and not see it as a random occurrence.<|ASPECTS|>random occurrence, value, god, gift<|CONCLUSION|>

In a seemingly meaningless world, belief in a higher order helped people give meaning to their pleasure, and hope in suffering.

5b6c1258-bc7d-498a-ada5-f6ab720a60d7

<|TOPIC|>Age Of Criminal Responsibility Should Be Raised<|ARGUMENT|>Criminalising children harms their development and makes the situation worse. Being labelled as a criminal at a very young age is unlikely to lead to a better understanding of right and wrong. Instead, a child who does not understand the wrongfulness of what they have done may feel unjustly treated and feel bitter toward society. Or the child might simply accept the label of being criminal and resign themselves to it. Children who are labelled criminals are also likely to be treated worse by those around them, such as teachers or other parents, separating them from society. In addition, those sent to prison or young offender institutes are cut off from their friends and family and develop friendships with other criminals, possibly even sharing ideas about crimes. All of these reactions are likely to make the child’s situation worse and increase the chance of future criminal behaviour.<|ASPECTS|>situation, criminal behaviour, bitter toward society, treated worse, society, understanding, resign, right and wrong, child, unjustly treated, children, future, friendships, crimes, criminal, wrongfulness, criminals, harms their development<|CONCLUSION|>

Criminalising children harms their development and makes the situation worse. Being labelled as a c...

a12f9ff1-7bd3-41c4-8a87-f8595869d363

<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no correlation between firearm homicide rates and guns per capita among countries with low firearm homicide rates: Chart 3<|ASPECTS|>guns per, firearm homicide rates<|CONCLUSION|>

Many reports contest the correlation between lower gun ownership and lower gun deaths.

f931230f-58fa-4b50-98cb-6e533b5affcb

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A serial killer, according to Princeton, is typically defined as a person who murders three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a cooling off period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification. On the basis that serial killers have multiple murders under their belt and enjoy these acts, what incentive is there for them to stop if they obviously want to continue killing? Yes Dahmer confessed and supposedly became a Christian. But these people tend to be convincing, charismatic, and well spoken. Who's to say it wasn't just an act to get sympathy so he could start killing again or gain trust? Anyway, my view is that serial killers such as Holmes, Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, Manson, etc. cannot change and cannot be rehabilitated into normal society. Change my view Edit Rehabilitation meaning that the offender considers his actions as wrong, expresses remorse, and no longer pursues murder.<|ASPECTS|>sympathy, multiple murders, killing, well spoken, psychological gratification, cooling off period, trust, expresses, charismatic, rehabilitated, remorse, normal society, pursues murder, incentive, motivation, actions as wrong, serial, gain, change, serial killers, convincing, christian<|CONCLUSION|>

Serial killers cannot be rehabilitated.

dab1912c-3b05-4396-9781-7a7fa47ef3c0

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For a long time I was critical of the last episode of Breaking Bad because I saw no logical reason for Walt to go after those neo nazi's. If they were any threat they would have done something far before Walt got to them, and Walt seemed to have no expectation of the rest of his money being there. For a long time I asked myself, why in the fuck did Walt risk his families life so he could murder some people who screwed him over? And rewatching the episode it actually makes perfect sense. Walt even says everything he did was for him, and not his family. Why would I think he would change at that point? It didn't matter that there was no logical reason to go after the neo nazi's, revenge was his motivation. He wanted to murder the people who jacked his money and murdered his family member, even if it would risk more of his family. I've seen some people complain that the ending didn't have him break bad, but to me the ending was one of the few times he did. My only real complaint was that killing those neo nazis served no purpose, but thinking of it as him really doing what he did for himself, it makes sense that he'd rather get revenge than slowly die alone in a cabin.<|ASPECTS|>murdered, revenge, motivation, expectation, risk, family, threat, change, nazis, break bad, money, neo nazi, logical reason, purpose, families life, murder, die alone, walt, perfect sense<|CONCLUSION|>

Spoilers The last episode of Breaking Bad was about Walt getting petty revenge, Walt knew full well he was risking his families life so he could murder some people who wronged him.

9f7914d3-b8af-4914-bf30-7c3c86fd68aa

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I subscribed because I thought there would be intelligent discussion but really, all it reminds me of, is Christians complaining about Atheists. The latest top post in circlebroke is juvenile, even more so than the post it complains about.<|ASPECTS|>intelligent discussion, atheists, juvenile, circlebroke<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that /r/circlebroke is full of whiney, hypocrites that really need to get a life and start enjoying the world &amp; see the funny side of things.

8f7a3768-94fe-4eaf-a19a-ef10dbe281f4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The rate of gun deaths in America significantly larger than that of any other rich, Westernized country where gun control laws are much stricter. This CBS article and this NY times article do a good job of illustrating the divide. My argument is simple Suppose you are placed in a room with 10 other people so 11 people in total . There are two doors by which you can exit, but only one of these doors can be opened. If you exit by door A, 10 random people will be shot dead somewhere in the country. If you exit by door B, 100 random people will be shot dead. To determine which door is to be opened, a vote is held amongst the group in the room. It's obviously immoral for you to vote for door B, since that outcome will cause the death of 90 people who otherwise didn't have to die. If stricter gun control laws are not enacted, America will continue to have a much larger rate of gun deaths than other countries. Moreover, based on statistics from other countries, if stricter gun control laws are enacted, the rate of gun deaths in America will eventually go down. Thus, if you oppose stricter gun control laws, it's like voting for door B in the above scenario, and therefore morally wrong. <|ASPECTS|>death, shot dead, control laws, divide, rate, control, gun control laws, gun deaths, immoral, morally wrong, vote, random people, group, gun control<|CONCLUSION|>

Opposing stricter gun control laws in America is morally wrong

fbaf93bc-d827-4213-aca5-adb6a553cc9a

<|TOPIC|>#timesup: Should individuals credibly accused of sexual assault or harassment be fired from positions of authority?<|ARGUMENT|>Forcing other employees to work with the accused contributes negatively to the company's culture and work environment.<|ASPECTS|>work environment, culture<|CONCLUSION|>

More harm is done by sheltering the accused than by trusting the accuser.

b6219af6-e944-4441-acc1-c6729111ecdf

<|TOPIC|>Should Sex Work Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>Due to the difficulty of collecting accurate statistics, researchers are often forced to make a large number of assumptions - and often try to identify the upper limit "as high as.", rather than a most likely number. Despite this, final figures are often treated as facts by media, lobby groups and politicians.<|ASPECTS|>upper limit, accurate statistics, facts, assumptions, final figures<|CONCLUSION|>

The scale of trafficking is overestimated and sensationalised by media

89d91962-df8a-454a-bb9f-086c6680405e

<|TOPIC|>The Euro Was a Mistake<|ARGUMENT|>If EU Parliament is the same as the House of Parliament, EU Council is equivalent to the House of Lords, and the EU Commission is similar to the British Government - then EU is more democratic than the UK. The leader for the House of Lords is appointed by the PM, in the EU, the President of the Council is elected by democratically elected leaders of 28 nations.<|ASPECTS|>democratically elected, democratic<|CONCLUSION|>

The board of European Central Bank ECB are elected in a democratic fashion.

4a53e5e8-b5c2-4953-b6f0-7113ca3f01c6

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ares was the best cat ever, he was friendly and intelligent and playful. He was everything to me, and he died of an illness on the 4th. He was only 2 and a half years old. He died when I left town, I was confident his anti biotics were healing him because he seemed to be doing so much better. He lived a good life before he died, but in his final moments he felt agony I wasn't there . My mother said he was running from door to door, trying to get outside before he just fell asleep in the kitchen and didn't wake up. We may talk up JFK, Lincoln, MLK, and how meaningful their lives were all we want. In their final moments they didn't get to reflect on that, all they felt was unimaginable amounts of pain. Sure the person who overdoses might have had a good high going before they died, but that doesn't matter does it? How we reflect on their lives isn't something they get to enjoy, honor and memory are useless to the dead. It doesn't help the men who stepped on mines that a man in uniform is marching around where they're buried in Virginia. This isn't just about how the fact of the matter is that Ares died young in bad sickness, but I'm left with the cold reality of that and all of the world. The universe is an unfeeling, nonsensical, and unfair place. Look at what the entire country of Cambodia, they underwent a horrendous genocide. Countless infants were smashed against trees. Their country is still poor and corrupt and Pol Pot never faced justice, the Khmer Rouge never faced justice. That's just one spec of the pain all of humanity has faced throughout the ages. How many infants died throughout history? How many toddlers and small children died, how fucking accepted was it throughout most of history that children under 10 had a 50 of dying. The entire universe is tainted with mortality and randomness. We're a species that aspires for order, love, fairness, peace, and all of that it a universe and on a planet that has no function for it. Nothing can make me at peace with that, the pain of Ares's sad death may subside, but I'll never become at peace with the realization his death gave me.<|ASPECTS|>healing, good high going, agony, pain, genocide, anti biotics, overdoses, function, cold reality, everything, dying, illness, unimaginable amounts, infants died, bad sickness, randomness, useless, nonsensical, memory, smashed against trees, mines, mortality, died, fairness, peace, honor, friendly, good life, unfeeling, intelligent, justice, realization, young, help, infants, playful, corrupt, meaningful, better, dead, sad death, order, small children, unfair place, horrendous, poor, lives, love<|CONCLUSION|>

I will never be at peace with my cat's death

769f53ea-576d-4600-a187-cee02aebcad4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the record, I don’t think Jews are bad, nor do I distrust or dislike them as a group. Every Jew I’ve ever met I’ve liked. I completely condemn any hate speech against them, or hate crimes. And I know actual antisemitic behavior still happens to this day and that is despicable. My point is simply that Jews in America don’t deserve the wide spread victim status given them by the media and pop culture any more than other white people do. I live in a Jewish neighborhood. But it’s not like they stand out or look different than the other white people who live here. It’s not any different from other primarily white neighborhoods in town, other than being wealthier. We have one end of the neighborhood where lots of immigrants live, because all of the affordable housing has been built there, and is still being built there to this day. That part of the neighborhood still pays crazy high property taxes but the roads are terrible, the green spaces are being turned into more affordable housing, and there are no amenities. The high level of diversity in that one segregated area is used by our local representatives to receive government funding for projects where all the white Jewish people live, but none are ever done in the immigrant heavy area. Now, this is just one story. I am NOT making the assumption that this story is representative of all American Jewish neighborhoods. But in every way I’ve experienced living in a Jewish community, they are pretty much just like other white people, but with a special cultural identity and practices, and often more money. When minorities are resentful of white people, I tend to be fairly empathetic. But I’m not concerned that there’s an “epidemic of racism toward white people” in America. We hold a ton of wealth and power within our society. Complaints about white privileged are often legitimate and are treated as such by the mainstream center and left media. It seems like Jews enjoy all the same privilege and power as other white people, but with widespread protection from both the right and left even when they are participating in the same racist and entitled behavior that white people sometimes do. I can’t help but wonder if American culture has given them a pass on potential criticisms because of the holocaust. I understand the need for sensitivity around that topic. But I think the American stance on the holocaust was clear. We hate Nazis and all they represent. Why then do we constantly hear and worry about anti semitism? From what I’ve seen those that actually wish the Jewish people harm are a tiny, tiny minority vigorously opposed by the rest of our culture. The rest of us seem scared to criticize Jews for participating in things like I described above for fear of being labeled an anti Semite If there is a stigma for being Jewish it’s primarily about being rich and profiting off of other groups, just like the primary stigma surrounding white people. And there is some legitimate truth to both that warrants honest discussion not hatred. It seems like a different standard is being applied to two groups who, at this point in time, in America, are more alike than different.<|ASPECTS|>representative, tiny, white privileged, american, bad, money, white, harm, sensitivity, anti semitism, stand, hate nazis, wealth and power, jewish neighborhood, antisemitic behavior, property taxes, jews, liked, legitimate truth, green spaces, white people, profiting, jewish people, honest discussion, holocaust, alike, opposed, hatred, amenities, groups, potential criticisms, look different, hate speech, racist and entitled behavior, despicable, resentful of white people, immigrant heavy, epidemic, terrible, roads, condemn, hate crimes, protection, distrust, legitimate, privilege and power, empathetic, jewish neighborhoods, criticize, cultural identity and practices, stigma, minority, different standard, victim status, complaints, diversity, rich, dislike, anti semite, affordable housing, racism, immigrants live, minorities, wealthier<|CONCLUSION|>

Jews in America are extra-protected “white” people

b6ecbcdb-1bb0-45c8-8291-c256adac73d9

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I support Bernie and believe my life and the lives of my family members would be improved more by his policies than other candidates' policies. I believe he is telling it like it is, for the most part, but I worry reddit is becoming the new Facebook for Ron Paul 2012. Critical evaluations of his policies are few and far between. Reddit is a steady supply of articles which confirm our bias in favor of him, but maybe we are doing ourselves a disservice by completely shutting off any opposing ideas. Redditors pride themselves with being atheistic logicians, detectives able to see through the lies, and deliverers of social justice. Where is the opportunity for the other points of view? A few days ago, someone on this sub said the southern states should be kicked from the union because their regressive policies are destroying America. What happened to this country being a democracy? I do not agree with those wanting to ban abortion but continue the death penalty. I don't think people are idiots that have that view though, and think they should be heard and their opinions considered. Babies are innocent, criminals are not. I understand the sentiment, but our justice system is not good enough at determining guilt to execute someone. Too many innocent people die by the state, it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than one innocent to suffer, etc., etc. I feel redditors should seek out the problems with policy Bernie wants to impose. It would allow our understanding to deepen, clarify our position and maybe even make some other redditors feel the Bern. Delta awarded. My perception has been altered by u helpful hank because he showed me I must acknowledge the role reddit serves as a meeting place for his most active and passionate supporters. Edit for clarity I am aware of r neutralpolitics and r politicaldiscussion. However, I think their obscurity supports my original view. Also, I am not saying every person on reddit is a blind follower. I am saying those who are critical of Bernie are suppressed by his supporters to the point that few people have their views understanding of policies critically challenged. I was religious, I avoided critiques of my religious beliefs for a long time. Once I challenged them I stopped being religious. I think it is beneficial to question what you believe.<|ASPECTS|>altered, opportunity, innocent, bias, destroying america, idiots, problems with policy, critical evaluations, beneficial, meeting place, view, disservice, points, babies, politicaldiscussion, innocent people die, neutralpolitics, lies, critiques, stopped, heard, social justice, position, determining, death penalty, life, perception, democracy, r, blind follower, guilty men, regressive policies, understanding, improved, religious beliefs, policies critically challenged, facebook, criminals, obscurity, religious, critical, feel, question, opposing ideas, guilt, lives, atheistic logicians, passionate, suppressed, opinions<|CONCLUSION|>

Supporters of Bernie Sanders have turned reddit into an echo chamber devoid of critical evaluations of his policies.

a05ccd2a-67c7-4c32-8edf-ca28547bb45c

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To start I’m not an incel, this is just something I’ve noticed. I believe over the past 70 years in the US, the sexual marketplace has changed from a pair bonding based system, to a competition based system. In the 1950s, the dating experience was much different than it is today. Generally, people would couple off at a fairly young age, date, and then become married. This would usually take place directly after high school and marrying in your teens early 20s was very common. Both women and men would try to find the best partner they could, but they had to pick one partner and stick with them. Now let’s fast forward to today’s sexual marketplace. As people delay marriage into their late 20s early 30s for multiple reasons pairing up early on is becoming less common. Casual dating, particularly casual sex, is more accepted during a person’s younger years. Particularly with the advent of apps like Tinder and Bumble, online match making for both casual sex and casual dating has become skewed in favor of women. When a woman is looking for someone to date hookup with casually, her criteria is much different than if she was searching for someone to marry. With typically physical attractiveness being the number 1 bench mark by which to choose someone. As I said earlier, with dating apps being skewed in favor of women, they can be more selective about who they choose to interact with through these apps. So you have the top percent of physically attractive men hooking up with the majority of the women, because women obviously want this most attractive group of all they’re looking for is fun sex. Incels are the group of men who cannot succeed in this competition based marketplace, as their physical attractiveness is not only not in the top percent, but below average. While they may be able to have success romantically when they enter their late 20 or 30s, they will not likely be hooking up with any women until that point. As many of you know, most incels are very bitter because of this. Now, I realize there are many problems in the incel community, and obviously no one is owed sex. However, I think people need to recognize that this is a natrural side effect of changes in how people interact romantically. So Change My View. Do you think Incels are caused by something else? <|ASPECTS|>best partner, interact romantically, fairly young age, sexual marketplace, selective, view, date, owed sex, problems, competition based system, pair bonding based system, hooking, couple, competition based, incels, fun sex, online match making, married, attractive group, incel community, marrying, incel, partner, dating, dating experience, favor of women, mark, natrural side, skewed, criteria, something, bitter, less, casual sex, delay marriage, physical attractiveness, different, physically attractive men, accepted, success romantically, pairing<|CONCLUSION|>

The Incel Movement Exists as a Result of the Changing Sexual Marketplace

78b1d02d-162a-4bea-a136-eb281adb275e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|> If you openly believe in open borders as a matter of principle or ideology, this question doesn't apply to you though I genuinely respect taking on such a publicly unpopular position, and being so intellectually transparent in doing so . Here's my analysis Liberals are against a border wall y'all say it is because it is either racist in origin, impractical, damaging to the environment, or ineffective. Liberals are against pulling people over on the suspicion of being here illegally. y'all say it is because that involves ridiculous amount of profiling. Liberals are against making their life in the US harder by denying them services, such as healthcare or drivers licenses. Liberals are against deporting people who've been in the US for extended periods of time, even if they entered without the law behind them. Liberals and pro business conservatives, to be fair are against making E verify, and other similar programs, mandatory. Liberals are often against detaining illegal immigrants who make it across the border, but are captured if you're merely arguing that the current state of affairs at the border is wrong and should be improved, I agree 100 but if you're contesting the practice itself, this bullet point applies . And when, after considering the above, I gently suggest some liberals might really be for open borders, I get a flurry of responses saying that is preposterous, insane exaggerated nonsense, manufactured by Fox News acolytes. I fully understand that 'liberal' is a ridiculously huge moniker, and that some of the policy beliefs I prescribed certainly do not apply to all of those who identify as such however, I believe that these viewpoints relatively accurately describe the general pulse of what currently comprises the bulk of 'mainstream, elite' left of center thought . Which genuinely confuses me, as a guy simply looking to understand my fellow countrymen's deeply held beliefs. At which point of the typical illegal immigration process are liberals actually against? If you're against outside enforcement the wall, elimination of catch and release, increasing ICE funding, getting Mexico to take some of this stuff off our plate , and you're against internal enforcement deportation, refusing access to government services welfare programs, E verify etc. , aren't you really for NO enforcement?<|ASPECTS|>, preposterous, denying them services, damaging to the environment, state of affairs, detaining, mandatory, liberals, publicly unpopular, elimination of catch and release, insane exaggerated nonsense, fair, life, internal enforcement deportation, illegal immigrants, deporting people, harder, enforcement, open borders, healthcare, intellectually transparent, funding, illegal immigration, impractical, origin, racist, programs, deeply held beliefs, profiling, illegally, drivers licenses, policy beliefs, ineffective<|CONCLUSION|>

Liberals are, for all intents and purposes, for open borders.

dc44ce27-b895-48e4-b316-0a7dfc51a879

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I grew up in Oregon and my home state has used a vote by mail system for almost twenty years. As far as I know, there do not seem to be higher rates of fraud or tampering in the handful of states that use postal voting. It seems to increase voter turnout, makes voting much faster and easier no lines , and enfranchises people who would otherwise have to work on election day. This seems like a no brainer unless you're deliberately trying to discourage people from voting. Are there drawbacks I'm not seeing?<|ASPECTS|>easier no lines, vote by mail system, enfranchises, drawbacks, tampering, fraud, increase, rates, voting, voter turnout, discourage people from voting, faster<|CONCLUSION|>

Every U.S. state should use postal voting.

da83ff6c-a1cf-45d1-a93e-80f502f395c0

<|TOPIC|>Could the universe have only been created by a divine creator?<|ARGUMENT|>In chaotic inflation theory, this concept goes even deeper: an endless progression of inflationary bubbles, each becoming a universe, and each of these birthing even more inflationary bubbles in an immeasurable multiverse<|ASPECTS|>inflationary bubbles<|CONCLUSION|>

Scientific theories support the idea that the universe has no beginning and no end.

0ae336ad-2c1b-4dd3-b822-b7ec6231ac9a

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>mind you I am not saying our only responsibility should be ourselves, rather, our it should be our most important. Except when during the period in which your kids are completely reliant on you. Once they are on their own, your 1 priority should again be yourself. School, work, friends, girlfriends, wives, sports, should never hinder you from first focusing on yourself and your body. I'm not necessarily labeling my viewpoint wrong, but I am interested in anybody changing my view since I seem to be a minority in my way of thinking. I brought this up amongst my roommates and they disagreed with me, most of them placed said they would place their spouse's life ahead of their own. Let me see what you got, and please let's keep this conversational. I am very interested in what you all think.<|ASPECTS|>, minority, priority, hinder, important, interested, completely reliant, view, focusing, disagreed, conversational, responsibility, viewpoint, spouse 's life ahead<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe everybody's number one priority should be themselves.

487e0ed4-31a3-444a-9e59-621a2a494d60

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It occurred to me just today that Deep South conservatives often defend displaying the Confederate flag with a very similar argument to liberals defending the hijab It shows pride in my our history culture. It doesn't represent oppression Yet each side seems keen to argue against the other. The hijab is supposedly anti women according to the right, and the Confederate flag is supposedly racist according to the left. I don't know if I personally think that both are bad, but if you think one is offensive, then the other should be as well.<|ASPECTS|>racist, anti women, offensive, history culture, oppression, argue<|CONCLUSION|>

If you see the hijab as a symbol of oppression, you should also be against the Confederate flag. Likewise, if you think the Confederate flag is a symbol of oppression, you should be against hijabs.

68a258db-f844-4fb8-8ef0-8dd3c30c34db

<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>In the context of our economy pre AI and very high automation 2 will happen first until the big job losses that are yet to come. Work will be penalised more by automation than by benefits .<|ASPECTS|>job losses, benefits, economy, automation, penalised<|CONCLUSION|>

Compared to current welfare systems introducing a UBI either means cutting the benefits of current recipients by more than the amount of the UBI, or adding the UBI payment to non-recipients to the total cost.

eb930334-d432-4f1b-a19e-8e8bfb9cd62a

<|TOPIC|>Funding transparency for TV issue ads in elections<|ARGUMENT|>"Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." The Economist Democracy in America Blog. Oct 4th 2010: "the New York Times' Mike McIntyre set out to find out what you'd have to do in order to discover who the actual donors are behind these kinds of expenditures for TV issue ads. The verdict? You can't. Mr McIntyre tries to track down a mid-sized nonprofit called the Coalition of American Seniors, which was just formed in June and has so far spent $400,000 on ads featuring smart-alecky babies in diapers attacking the Democratic health-reform bill. After a long odyssey through Delaware post-office boxes and registered service agents, he finds that the group's telephone number rings at the offices of a Florida health-insurance broker; the political consulting firm the group lists seems to refer to just one guy, who refuses to provide any information about who its donors are."<|ASPECTS|>expenditures, health-reform, donors<|CONCLUSION|>

TV issue ads conceal sources of funding behind shadow orgs

928f4b80-c6ea-4844-94c1-5c11b401e3b6

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Before I explain my position further, I want to make it clear that I used to be a faithful Christian Catholic to be precise . I grew up in a fairly religious home and went to Catholic schools for about 8 years. I've been Baptized, had my Communion, and I have also been Confirmed. That said, recently I've been questioning my religious beliefs and this dissonance is making me uncomfortable. To start, I am African and this is the source of my inner conflict. To my knowledge, Christians brutally colonized Africans and forced them to believe in this religion. With this in mind I just find it hard to believe that it makes sense to practice a religion that I only grew up with because my ancestors were forced into the religion. I am also starting to believe in the theory of evolution after taking A.P Biology and it seems to completely contradict the story of Adam and Eve.<|ASPECTS|>theory of evolution, brutally colonized africans, sense, baptized, religion, christians, religious beliefs, inner conflict, faithful christian catholic, contradict, religious home, fairly, communion, catholic schools, uncomfortable, dissonance<|CONCLUSION|>

Christianity is not legit to believe in.

15015807-f677-413c-8787-4205e868bc9d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>These days it seems like every kid who's a bit different from their peers is branded with a mental disorder and drugged up and or sent to special education. I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome when I was about 10 years old, probably because I was obsessed with Pokemon it was 1999, and so were most of my classmates , and kind of shy because I had transferred schools the year before and didn't know anyone. I was put in a special ed. class, where several times a week I would play Candyland with a few other kids, and read social stories about working nicely with others. This lasted up through mid junior high. And it gave me a huge inferiority complex. I thought that because of my Asperger's syndrome , that something deep in my brain was broken and that I could never make friends, go on dates, or be otherwise socially successful. I thought that I was doomed to be a weirdo and a sperg forever. I had a few other friends with Asperger's, and they all thought the same way too. When I was 14, I transferred to a private school where there was no special ed. classes and I was a normal kid like everyone else. Lo and behold, I forgot all about my Asperger's diagnosis. I was still shy, I was a geek, but over the next two years I came out of my shell and learned to interact with my peers as an equal and not as some poor kid with a brain problem that makes her a social leper. Now, you would never guess I'm an Aspie . I have plenty of friends, a steady boyfriend, and as full of a social calendar as I want I'm still an introvert, but there's nothing wrong with that P . A while ago, I reconnected with one of my old classmates who was also diagnosed with Asperger's and put in special ed with me. He spent most of our conversation complaining about how difficult it is for him to make friends in college, and how he can never get a girl to date him, and so forth all because I have Asperger's . I tried to explain to him about how damaging labels can be, and yadda, yadda, but he wouldn't hear any of it. I have Asperger's so I can't do that . Honestly, it seems like the Asperger's label becomes a self fulfilling prophecy for many people. When you tell an impressionable young kid that they supposedly have a mental syndrome, with a long scary name, that makes them naturally unpopular and friendless, that's going to do some serious damage to their confidence and sense of capability in the world. Before we had Asperger's syndrome , shy and geeky kids were just that shy and geeky . Shyness can be overcome, and geekyness isn't even a problem at all. But when we frame these traits as an incurable flaw, a syndrome , listed with all the other mental disorders in the DSM, we set kids up to believe that they cannot control their destinies. I have a big problem with that.<|ASPECTS|>forgot, friendless, damaging labels, asperger 's diagnosis, mental disorder, sense of capability, shy, special, special ed, introvert, 's label, asperger 's syndrome, mental syndrome, junior high, normal kid, inferiority complex, brain, friends, steady boyfriend, confidence, interact, drugged, doomed, incurable flaw, sperg forever, syndrome, shy and geeky kids, unpopular, social leper, brain problem, special education, socially successful, control their destinies, weirdo, shy and geeky, asperger 's, difficult, geekyness, shyness, peers, self fulfilling prophecy, working nicely, social stories, obsessed, social calendar<|CONCLUSION|>

I think that "Asperger's syndrome" isn't a real mental illness, but rather simply a personality quirk that has been wrongfully medicalized -- and that it's hurting the people "diagnosed" with it.

248c429b-11ce-4cad-bcff-ed7f652d4584

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Next week, the Sydney Opera House is going to be lit up to advertise a horse race. It will display the colours, numbers, name, and logo to promote the event. I believe that the Opera House is such an iconic, globally recognisable building that carries significant cultural value and that allowing companies to turn it into an advertisement diminishes this value. For so many people around the world, this iconic building is what they think of when they think of Australia. We should not allow companies to purchase advertising rights on this part of our shared identity. The son of the Opera House's architect has come out in opposition to this plan. gt My father would have been sickened by it he would not have condoned advertising on the building in any way, lucky he's not around to see the desecration of our beautiful iconic masterpiece gt I was appalled, I had no idea the Opera House was even being considered to be used as a billboard to promote sport, advertising and gambling, and I know my father would have been appalled too. By allowing this advertisement on the World Heritage listed building, it sets us on a slippery slope towards the complete commercialisation of the landmark. I think it is especially egregious when you consider the harm that gambling can cause individuals and the levels of animal abuse that occur in the racing industry. Currently, 45000 people have signed a petition against using the Opera House as a billboard to promote the racing event.<|ASPECTS|>iconic building, advertise, racing event, horse race, colours, commercialisation, advertising rights, opposition, egregious, animal abuse, billboard, shared identity, complete, sport, harm, cultural value, purchase, advertising, slippery slope, globally, desecration<|CONCLUSION|>

the sails of the Sydney Opera House should not be used to advertise gambling

350de8ec-cc20-4270-9ded-eaf082cbfe44

<|TOPIC|>What Is the Best Drug Regulation System?<|ARGUMENT|>High voltage electricity causes immediate death yet we do not impose a prohibition with severe punishments on using it.<|ASPECTS|>immediate death<|CONCLUSION|>

Many things can cause harm to the body, but we do not ban all of them.

bc294129-3f24-402e-81e7-b3769c372c89

<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>Attempting to colonize Mars in its present state would forever require humans to maintain habitats, which would continually add to the cost of residing on Mars, both from a financial and a safety standpoint. Habitats would have to be maintained, and would occasionally fail. The cost of terraforming would be less over time, but would require longer to implement.<|ASPECTS|>safety, maintain habitats, habitats, fail, require longer, cost of terraforming, maintained, cost of residing, less<|CONCLUSION|>

Not yet. However, if we terraform Mars before we get there, then it will be.

51c887b7-8b82-442c-bfb4-320c81af81b4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Apologies for typo should read Guilt is destructive and serves no useful purpose By making this statement I am differentiating between guilt and remorse. Remorse and guilt seem to be conflated even in the dictionary but I would argue that feeling regret seems a natural initial reaction to a mistaken action or thought. But even then its Latin origin indicates it's something which 'gnaws' away at a person The origin of the term guilt is according to Collins dictionary is of 'obscure origin' I find this convenient and an indication that it is a social construct in order to control people While people are spending time feeling guilty they could be getting busy repairing the damage guilt can paralyse and cloud judgement Instead use logic and self analysis spend as little time as possible feeling remorseful. Rather focus on not repeating the action again developing more self knowledge and control rather than torturing oneself to no purpose <|ASPECTS|>destructive, cloud judgement, self knowledge and control, torturing, control, guilt, useful purpose, feeling regret, remorseful, social construct, remorse<|CONCLUSION|>

Guilt is destructive and serves not useful purpose

8e7feaf9-5b5e-4615-b25a-1fe3639e3fad

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be clear what I am talking about is when organizations make claims that X percent of people in situation Y are suffering from this. Here is one or two person's story. These generally detract from the facts of the overarching issue as the reporters can easily cherry pick a person that says what needs to be done is what the reporter agrees with. To be clear, I do understand that this is done because people pay more attention to it. I still believe that it ends up harming healthy debate and it hinders fixing problems as it makes people latch onto the story of one individual instead of looking at the problem as a whole. After all what might fix that individual's problems might not fix 80 of the other people's problems, affected by 'Y'. Reporting should focus less on personal stories and more on the ideas and events that occur. If the story literally is about one person this is definitely fine, like a person was shot, or a person has won some major reward, or a person started a major protest. My problem is when reporters draw a false line between a single person's story and an overarching event or theme.<|ASPECTS|>, fine, attention, fixing problems, problems, harming, 's problems, person, protest, personal stories, reward, cherry pick, fix, ideas and events, suffering, healthy debate, pay, overarching, facts, hinders, false line, 's story<|CONCLUSION|>

Person-centric reporting is not beneficial to overarching dialogue and fixing problems.

7d89d63c-0d24-42a2-91d7-2b114b17d4e4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Heres a rough image of what the KPK's purpose is The KPK vision is to free Indonesia from corruption. Its duties include investigating and prosecuting corruption cases and monitoring the governance of the state. It has the authority to request meetings and reports in the course of its investigations. It can also authorise wiretaps, impose travel bans, request financial information about suspects, freeze financial transactions and request the assistance of other law enforcement agencies. It also has the authority to detain suspects, including well known figures, and frequently does so. taken from the somewhat outdated english wikipedia page Basically the KPK are a stand alone commission, separate from the government, formed to monitor and eradicate Corruption in Indonesia. In theory this is a great idea, but in practice various loopholes and legalities have allowed the KPK to turn into a somewhat tyrannical entity. Indonesian law no. 30 from 2002 allows the KPK freedom to operate and, in most cases, allow their own rules and regulations to override that of the governments, even those regarding human rights. Without going into too much detail, this year some internal problems arose, and its chairman and deputy chairman were charged with corruption and were later replaced internally by people who worked under the previous Chairman and Deputy. So this is when things started to get fishy Recently several high profile figures have been caught and trialled, among those figures one caught my eye OC Kaligis. Mr. Kaligis is a lawyer, and can even be regarded as a celebrity due to his high profile status, and he was charged with of bribery involving lawyers and a court clerk from the Medan State Administrative Court and is set to serve a maximum of 10 years in prison. On the surface it didn't seem that strange, considering bribery of court clerks and judges is almost an unwritten practice in Indonesia but after further research the grounds for such a sentence seem absurd, and I feel he is being profile rather than what he is alleged of doing. Kaligis allegedly violated Law No.31 1999 in reference to Law No.20 2001 on corruption eradication and also the Criminal Code KUHP . Whereas IMO he should be charged under Article 5 of Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Amendment of the Act No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication, because amongst other things the case for which he allegedly bribed officials for was already over and the clerks asked for gratification money for the result of the case. Secondly, the money allegedly used to bribe these officials were from the personal fund of his client and not state funds. sources several jakarta post articles Indonesian law no 20 2001 Indonesian law no 30 2002<|ASPECTS|>bribery, detain suspects, unwritten, money, corruption cases, financial information, meetings and reports, eradicate, human rights, corruption, freeze financial transactions, loopholes, authority, high, profile figures, tyrannical entity, caught, travel bans, request, charged, profile status, free, fishy, celebrity, state funds, trialled, bribed officials, governance of, gratification money, freedom to operate, corruption eradication, legalities, personal fund, regulations, violated, amendment, wiretaps, internal problems, profile<|CONCLUSION|>

As a result of its Independent status, the KPK translated to: Corruption Eradication Commission is allowed to much leeway in its operations and is becoming more powerful than the government, and thus actions must be taken to stop this.

a7f4d100-b5f5-4a9d-b24c-56a4ac0c6203

<|TOPIC|>Sporting Idols and Domestic Abuse: Where Should Sporting Leagues Draw a Line?<|ARGUMENT|>It is morally inconsistent to hold sports players - or anyone with fame - to a higher standard than anyone else. We hold everyone to a legal standard in society; if we are to increase the standard, either increase it for absolutely everyone or absolutely no-one.<|ASPECTS|>morally inconsistent, standard, legal standard<|CONCLUSION|>

A job in athletics is a job like any other. Since most professions do not have Zero-Tolerance policies, sports leagues should not either.

dfdbea1e-80be-4340-8a49-8865b9c1a993

<|TOPIC|>Students Keep "No Platforming" Contentious Speakers. Should They Stop?<|ARGUMENT|>When the University of Michigan implemented a speech code following racist flyers and KKK demonstrations, the white majority brought 20 disciplinary cases against Black students' speech in the span of 18 months.<|ASPECTS|>racist, disciplinary cases, speech code<|CONCLUSION|>

Because there are no clear standards for what should be no-platformed, the tactic can be co-opted and used against social justice movements to suppress their legitimate/meritorious speech.

58540a69-6857-470d-ba83-ae6855dd7af6

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I regularly see these pop up on facebook. A person pretends to brake the law usually something with drugs in front of the cop. Then the cop says “are you serious” and the person acts like the cop is doing something wrong in order to get them riled up. At the end of the day I think this is simply harassment. While there are many bad cops I don’t think trying to trick them to be bad is something to be celebrated. I have yet to find someone on the same page as me about this, so I’m hoping someone hear may be able to change my view entirely. TL DR I think tricking the police in hopes of them overreacting and gaining youtube views is messed up<|ASPECTS|>wrong, bad, youtube views, gaining, overreacting, tricking the police, bad cops, trick, change my view, facebook, riled, brake the law, drugs, harassment, celebrated<|CONCLUSION|>

People who trick/prank cops for youtube videos should be ticketed

c4e27125-9d44-4ba5-9fc6-cd54c67e86e5

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>OK, I am very worried about the state of the United States of America's government and, particularly, I'm worried about our current President, Donald Trump. I am NOT trolling. What I would like to hear from a Trump supporter is that, as a leftist who is concerned about human rights, economic justice, and science based policy, why should I NOT worry about the current Presidency? President Trump seems to be running a chaotic White House which is, nevertheless, rolling back measures like taxation on the wealthy that have served our country well. Apart from the hypocrisy of claiming to help working people while offering incentives for the wealthy to pull their money out of the economy, the policies clearly seem to benefit the wealthy and powerful including those opposing Net Neutrality at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. I am very worried that this is a pattern that will recur over and over during the current Administration's tenure in office. Seldom has their been this many concerning ominous? events in such a short period of time. The only administrations I could think of with anywhere near this level of trouble were Nixon and Harding. Please understand, I'm not interested in hearing how Trump is better than Clinton. We will never know whether Hillary Clinton would be a good President or not. I want to know why President Trump is a GOOD one.<|ASPECTS|>hillary clinton, help working people, pattern, taxation, wealthy, government, human rights, good one, economic justice, trump, concerning ominous, state, disenfranchised, net neutrality, trouble, better than clinton, hypocrisy, benefit, trolling, good president, science based, chaotic white house, poor<|CONCLUSION|>

The Trump Presidency is the worst since the scandal-ridden Harding Administration.

a11a3058-dac1-41c1-9ef4-3ca0a80b9ee1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Religion should not be a protected group. Ideologies aren't, religious isn't deserving of special treatment, because it involves theism or magic or something. Everytime you grant someone a freedom, because they're religious you're discriminating against everyone whose ideologies doesn't involve magic. A Sikh soldier shouldn't be allowed to wear a special hat, instead of his her uniform unless everyone gets to wear a special hat. Also, notion that attacking religion is more offensive than attacking any other ideology, is ludicrous, and I don't like it as a part of any culture.<|ASPECTS|>ideologies, freedom, ludicrous, religion, protected group, theism, magic, offensive, discriminating, special hat, hat, sikh, deserving, special treatment<|CONCLUSION|>

Religions should get the same treatment as any other Ideology

9ec4db7e-9409-4886-8d56-a9fc51c6070e

<|TOPIC|>Should Employees Disclose Their Mental Health Conditions in the Workplace?<|ARGUMENT|>Russell Crowe’s portrayal of Nobel Prize-winning economist and schizophrenia sufferer in "A Beautiful Mind helped undo decades of films misrepresenting the condition.<|ASPECTS|>schizophrenia, misrepresenting<|CONCLUSION|>

There is an increasing number of positive portrayals of mental health in the media.

1c7c4272-c06d-4305-a53c-a213cda38559

<|TOPIC|>Is Daenerys Targaryen the Prince/Princess that was Promised?<|ARGUMENT|>Characters even refuse to believe direct testimony about White Walkers. When Luwin, the Maester of Winterfell, is told by captured wildlings about the White Walkers, he dismisses these reports as he assumes that they are all dead.<|ASPECTS|>direct testimony, white walkers, walkers, dead<|CONCLUSION|>

Most characters south of the Wall initially dismiss claims about the existence of White Walkers or wights. People like Old Nan, who are seen as spouting old myths, turn out to be right.

da7ba797-077e-47db-94a4-21af73f1f20c

<|TOPIC|>Should the USA discontinue the production of landmines?<|ARGUMENT|>Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not uniquely unpleasant and the debate about them has distorted the public perception of landmines – in truth, they are little different to a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban.<|ASPECTS|>unpleasant, harm, public perception, distorted, weapons of war, landmines<|CONCLUSION|>

Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not u...

c04c6c6c-990e-4148-880c-d0d94acafa14

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>People portray themselves a certain way during courtship and if through their own gluttony they become unattractive to the person who agreed to marry them, that person should not be financially penalized for leaving them. I believe spouses have the right to expect a certain amount of effort regarding the upkeep of the health and appearance of the person they committed to. Of course, there would have to be exceptions for pregnancy, with a reasonable generous time limit for the woman to lose her excess weight after having her child. Being fat is scientifically simply a matter of consuming more food than you need. Virtually anyone can remain at a healthy weight simply by limiting their calorie intake, even eating McDonalds for every meal, which has been scientifically proven. The law should not financially protect gluttons who are endangering both themselves and their children overweight parents are more likely to have overweight children for this reason I also believe the overweight parent should be penalized in custody proceedings and deceiving their spouse. Furthermore I believe this would be a net positive for a society with an obesity epidemic.<|ASPECTS|>overweight children, fat, parents, excess weight, calorie intake, overweight parent, gluttony, effort, endangering, limiting, consuming more food, scientifically, generous time limit, exceptions, financially protect gluttons, obesity epidemic, financially penalized, upkeep, deceiving, penalized, unattractive, net positive, health and appearance, right to expect, custody, healthy weight<|CONCLUSION|>

A husband should be able to divorce his wife with no legal consequences if she gains too much weight

bfe3413b-3fd9-4e00-8ee9-1b7ecaf205b9

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A few Definitions of how I conceptualize some words I will be using, just for clarification and to avoid confusion. Gender Is how a person feels about itself, socially constructed. Could depend on the biology of the brain. Sex Is the distinction between humans on sexual reproduction level, simplified this would boil down to Is this body 'engineered' to produce egg cells or sperm cells? When talking specifically about reproductive capabilities I am addressing a body that either is build to produce egg cells or sperm cells. However the person in this body feels gender is irrelevant, how that persons brain is structured If you believe there is a difference between male and female brains is irrelevant. The body in a biological sense is either male or female and I feel like the most honest thing to do is to refer to that body with the correct pronoun like we do when referring to the sex of an animal for example , especially when talking about the capabilities of 2 humans to get a baby together. 2 male bodies can not produce a baby, so for clarity sake I feel that it is most reasonable in this context to make reference to the most relevant attribute sex, over gender . As a side note How I feel about pronouns in social settings In my ideal world I think we should all use one and the same pronoun for everyone regardless of the gender of that person. I feel like it is none of anyone's business what gender a person is and referring to a person with a gender specific pronoun is putting an unreasonably large amount of value on that one specific attribute. I think it is unreasonable for the same reason we don't do this with race, hair color, wealth, or any other attribute a person might have. In practice I will use any pronoun a person asks me to use. Edit A clarification to the setting situation that presented me with this view I was recently banned from a subreddit in a discussion about reproductive attributes with regard to transgenders because I used and argued for the use of pronouns in the way that is presented here. <|ASPECTS|>confusion, unreasonable, depend, value, biology of the brain, socially constructed, reasonable, distinction, hair color, pronoun, gender is irrelevant, reproductive attributes, social settings, race, avoid, reproductive capabilities, wealth, gender, reproduction, irrelevant<|CONCLUSION|>

When talking about humans from a reproductive perspective one should refer the body of that human with the correct biological sex and not the gender of that person.

982593c8-eabe-4b7b-b46c-4e8b671fda87

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>PUBG wasn't the first battle royale game but it brought back the genre from the ground. It was the most popular game on Twitch until Epic launched the Battle Royale mode in Fortnite. I won't argue that Fortnite is better and PUBG is garbage or the other way around. I feel that one of the biggest contributors to Fortnite is it's F2P model. You can just download the game and start playing without any cost of entry. F2P model works pretty well as shown by LoL, Dota, and Warframe. PUBG costs 30 and this might turn off a large portion of player base. Battle royale games needs the population. I am not trying to say 'PUBG Ded game OMEGALUL' but that it's numbers will always be inferior to Fortnite's mainly due to the barrier of entry. Yesterday PUBG saw a boost in Twitch numbers from 81k to 277 mainly because of the new map. While Fortnite has its share of updates and changes but none are as huge as a new map and still manages a average of 181k viewers. Let's say that someone who is browsing Twitch sees PUBG and Fortnite as the biggest games. They decide to try out both and see that one of them is free and the other one costs 30 bucks. They will pick the one that's free because 30 bucks can mean a lot in some countries and age groups. Epic knows that they have struck gold and are mining it constantly. If this continues, PUBG will be completely overshadowed by Epic's game. PUBG should lower their price or go F2P in order to be competition to Fortnite. <|ASPECTS|>, population, age groups, viewers, garbage, price, constantly, pubg, struck gold, costs, twitch numbers, f2p, cost of entry, boost, overshadowed, fortnite, free, barrier of entry, battle royale games, player base, changes, battle royale, competition to fortnite, biggest games, inferior, map, lower, better, updates, genre, numbers, needs, mining, f2p model<|CONCLUSION|>

Fortnite will grow larger and kill PUBG because of the F2P aspect

dff217a2-fa76-4faf-b86b-13d5253b86bb

<|TOPIC|>US 2020 Presidential Election: Who should the Democratic nominee be?<|ARGUMENT|>Kamala Harris has a mixed record when it comes to her prosecuting the financial industry.<|ASPECTS|>prosecuting, mixed record, financial industry<|CONCLUSION|>

Kamala Harris' record as Attorney General of California is worrying for progressives

c2cf2f81-d2bf-42aa-be1b-e7bd46ab933e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Some people have crazy beliefs and I was wondering if I have any. My support for legalising prostitution could be one of them. The core of my belief is liberty. If two consenting people want to have sex and hand paper or plastic to each other, it's their bodies and properties, and so the state has no right to intervene. My feminism is more about liberation. Men telling women what to do with their bodies is terrible, but women using government power to control women's bodies is fine? It still oppresses and insults women's choices all the same. To me only criminalising the men doesn't solve the issue. If it's illegal to buy, it's not really free to sell. And it seems kind of crazy to criminalise people who are buying something that's free to be sold. Sex slavery is obviously a terrible thing, but I find it hard to believe that significant legitimate things should be banned to stop illegitimate things. I find it hard to believe we can send humans to the Moon, and build the Large Hardon Collider, but not create legalisation which allows freedom and stops slavery. Edit If prostitution is a last resort, then why is taking away someone's last resort and forcing them to be homeless or dead anything other than evil? <|ASPECTS|>women 's choices, stops, solve, last, free to sell, homeless, last resort, sex slavery, support, oppresses, freedom, legitimate things, state, crazy beliefs, slavery, crazy, liberty, terrible, bodies and properties, insults, illegal to buy, evil, criminalise, free to be sold, liberation, dead, government power, right to intervene, illegitimate things, criminalising the men, control women 's bodies, prostitution<|CONCLUSION|>

Prostitution should be legal.

52653ca7-44f4-4cf0-9293-3e61d370a719

<|TOPIC|>Crime cameras<|ARGUMENT|>Heather Knight. "Crime cameras not capturing many crimes". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - "not all city officials think it's wise to spend money on public safety measures if the best thing that can be said about them is they have a placebo effect for worried residents."<|ASPECTS|>capturing many crimes, worried residents, public safety, placebo effect, crime<|CONCLUSION|>

Spending on cameras for a "sense of safety" is wasteful

efaa06da-7af3-4f11-85e2-37b847a5be3d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This goes for both men and women. I've started to feel like I'm unsuitable for a relationship because my ideals are not very normal. This has caused problems with a long term significant other on many occasions and I've been thinking about breaking it off, not because of her but because I feel like my ideals are correct so I don't feel like I should be the one to change. One such ideal is that it isn't okay for men or women to comment on someone in the vein of oh my god s he is so hot as it's extremely disrespectful to the other person in the relationship. I'm not talking like you can't acknowledge someone's looks at all, obviously there are beautiful and handsome people in the world, but there's a major difference between holy shit she's hot as hell and yeah she's beautiful the former of which I see as disgusting. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>women, beautiful and handsome, unsuitable, beautiful, view, long term significant, normal, disrespectful, 's looks, disgusting, men, acknowledge, ideals<|CONCLUSION|>

It's disrespectful to make comments on someone being "so hot" when in a relationship

c1b25192-fbe2-4fcf-9956-9a4b8fb137cf

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems as though human society has an exponential rate of change. More has changed in the way we conduct our day to day lives in the last 10 years than in the 50 years before that. More has changed in the last 100 years than the 500 preceding it. And no one really seems to be aware of it. The pace of computer technology and the evolution of the digital age is driven by one thing Moores law. The reality that computer technology increases its capacity exponentially, every year. The changes in the way we interact with each other, do business, learn, are all tied to this phenomenon. And it would seem that these things are changing just as exponentially as the technology which underpins it. We, as a species, are changing exponentially. The lives of millenials are radically, deeply different because of things like social media, digital tech and globalisation, and most of us arent really aware of the extent of it. Not only this but it's continuing every day. Every day, the world feels a little more foreign to us today than it did yesterday. <|ASPECTS|>changing exponentially, technology, millenials, continuing, changed, foreign, world, capacity exponentially, computer technology, digital age, rate of change, interact with each, day to day lives, deeply different, changing, feels, aware, pace, lives, increases, conduct, exponential<|CONCLUSION|>

Driven by technology, our society is changing at an exponential rate.

3fd0e130-afa2-4ce2-ac42-328ed759f169

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As of right now, most online platforms, like YouTube, are not considered publishers of content, and as such enjoy various protections, such as a lack of liability for copyright violations, defamation, libel, and so on. If a platform implements sufficient protections against these actions, the platform can not be sued for them, and instead redirects the lawsuit towards the user that committed such actions. The platform can do this because, in my understanding, it does not have any say in what the user will publish on it. However, as of late, various platforms, such as Twitter, YouTube, and so on, have been accused of creating rules that restrict various groups of people from posting on the platform, which means they have a say in what is being published on it now. If those allegations are to be found correct, the platforms should no longer enjoy the legal immunity that they do now, and instead work as publishers, with all legal ramifications of that.<|ASPECTS|>publishers of content, copyright violations, legal ramifications, legal immunity, user, protections, restrict various groups, people, publish, say, libel, defamation, liability, rules, lawsuit<|CONCLUSION|>

If an internet platform imposes restrictions on speech on the platform, it should legally be considered a publisher

df033cee-e280-400e-88ae-a7c5d5f9d143

<|TOPIC|>Ivory trading<|ARGUMENT|>Sentience refers to an animals ability to utilize their sensory organs in such a way that they can "feel" or "perceive subjectively". This is impossible to define accurately. How can there be a specific threshold that, once crossed, the animal snaps into a state of "sentience". This difficulty makes any law based on "sentience" untenable.<|ASPECTS|>perceive subjectively, feel, sensory organs, sentience, untenable, impossible to define accurately<|CONCLUSION|>

Defining sentience is impossible, making it impossible to determine which animals deserve rights or protection:

207d0de4-6340-46f4-9fca-6a5d701ba9c7

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that when you attend college, very little matters besides the name of the college. Major isn't very important for the most part, performance at the school isn't that important, and, when it comes to getting a job and succeeding later in life, name of the school trumps all else. What you learn in college matters very little in the real world. Some majors might be more 'practical', like an engineering major vs an english major, but, in 95 of fields, further training is required, be it on the job training or another level of schooling, meaning that a major means pretty much nothing. For example, my dad majored in pre med, but instead went to business school and became a hedge fund manager he also went to Columbia undergrad and business, which he credits with helping him get his job . Sure, there might be a few majors, like accounting, where you can major in it and go straight to a job, but for the most part that doesn't actually happen. The classes you take at college are also very general and theoretical. Again, even if you major in pre med and become a doctor, you'll likely never use your knowledge of molecular biology or advanced chemistry, and instead will become knowledgeable in a specific field like orthopedics. Also, colleges have broad requirements, so different majors take many overlapping classes, meaning that an english major and an engineering major will overlap in many courses. I also believe that the grades you get don't matter as much as the school name. Someone who gets straight Bs at an ivy league will have an easier time than someone who got straight As at a state school. When you walk into a job interview, they might look at your grades, but one of the first questions they'll ask is where you went to college, and that will stick with them more than anything else. When the hiring committee is talking, they likely won't refer to people as The guy who got a C in english and the guy who got straight As , but instead as the Harvard guy and the university of Alabama guy . Furthermore, after your first job, and perhaps even after graduate school, college grades become irrelevant. When you're 35, no one cares what grades you got in college. They still will ask where you went to college, and it will still impact you. <|ASPECTS|>cares, theoretical, college grades, succeeding, overlap, little matters, broad requirements, performance, training, name, knowledgeable, school name, college, general, matters, impact, overlapping classes, grades, easier time, knowledge, irrelevant<|CONCLUSION|>

The most important thing about a college education is the name of the school you attend.

307003fb-a98e-4e5c-b786-33022cebbd02

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Blockchain is an idea and a technology that will undoubtedly change the future. It's application with regards to certain financial transactions remittances, stock settlement, etc will be paradigm shifting. In addition, the idea of using blockchain technology for micro transactions, has huge implications for how communities will manage local resources and utilities without the need of giant companies. But where I fail to see the paradigm shift, is with regards to its function as a stable currency. So let me list some reasons I think it fails to operate as currency Transaction time and transaction costs are too high Limited supply of crypto makes them fundamentally volatile and deflationary people hoard instead of spend hoping to capture financial gains from limited supply Proof or work costs are too high energy spend on mining is non negligible Lack of monetary flexibility as economic conditions change, make this currency too rigid to handle changes in economic landscape over time i.e. recession As upsetting as the idea of a central bank is to many people, controlling monetary supply is a necessity as long as human beings are involved. This control is more of an art than a science and can be driven by external factors such as politics, which can be upsetting to see. In theory the actions of the central bank should reactive to of the underlying economic changes of the humans that produce work growth for that society. In reality, central banks are far from perfect and become over politicized. Also the current path we are going down now with excessive monetary easing, is especially upsetting so its understandable why people want an alternative. But cryptocurrency is not the answer, especially if we are fighting the deflationary pressure of Moore's law driverless cars, AI. Mining does not take into consideration the cyclical nature of economies i.e. human nature . Cryptocurrency is all about proof of work. But, fundamentally, it only proves the stability of the code and the physical energy required to maintain the network. Crypto is not an accurate reflection of proof of work of an economy, and cannot respond to changes in the economy due to new technologies, natural causes or simply the boom bust credit cycle. <|ASPECTS|>proof of work, work costs, financial transactions remittances, physical energy, manage local resources, stock settlement, micro transactions, paradigm shifting, excessive monetary easing, cryptocurrency, volatile, deflationary pressure, natural, economy, giant companies, human nature, stable currency, perfect, monetary supply, economic changes, boom bust credit cycle, cyclical nature of economies, utilities, change the future, changes, driverless, politicized, blockchain, stability of the code, financial gains, politics, economic landscape, monetary flexibility, external factors, upsetting, work growth, controlling, transaction costs<|CONCLUSION|>

Cryptocurrency will never replace Fiat currency.

1cf49032-77e7-407a-8bf7-59f286925900

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not completely devoted to this political correctness movement because I feel that at some point it becomes ridiculous, however one should definitely try not to insult others. I'm also not saying that these words are used in a racist way, in fact they're pretty tame in this day and age. It just seems that they are being used as an easy way to identify a group of people, instead of using more accurate terminology, and to me that's not a good reason because the groups they are referring to are not strictly defined. The words are outdated ways of classifying people based on the color of their skin the inaccurate color of they're skin. White people do not lack all pigment and black people do not absorb all light directed at them. We stopped using the term red for native Americans and yellow for Asians because they were racist, why not white and black?<|ASPECTS|>racist, identify a group of people, classifying, black, insult others, absorb all light, native, strictly defined, white, pigment, ridiculous, political correctness, outdated, inaccurate color, accurate<|CONCLUSION|>

Terms like white and black, when referring to a group of people are racist and should cease to be used.

2433077c-8487-493e-a4a2-ca352747c7b5

<|TOPIC|>Should "women-only" spaces be open to anyone identifying as female?<|ARGUMENT|>In Southeast Asia, matriarchy was once the norm, and in Yunnan Province in China, this set of gender roles still exist.<|ASPECTS|>matriarchy, gender roles<|CONCLUSION|>

The perception of gender roles as something fixed comes from an erroneous ethnocentric vision of Western societies.

4aad46f8-ecf8-45f8-abbb-5c5431f069f2

<|TOPIC|>Is Jesus the Messiah?<|ARGUMENT|>Christians disagreed on the nature of God. Some Christians believed in only one God; others, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or 365, or more. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture<|ASPECTS|>nature of god, gods, god<|CONCLUSION|>

In the 2nd and 3rd century, before the New Testament documents were compiled, many contradictory beliefs existed among Christians.

c7bf2c6e-032b-4272-b84b-e96e0a788744

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that enormous private wealth is inherently bad for society. Billionaires have a concentration of power that is antithetical to democracy and concepts of egalitarianism. Firstly, I'd like to talk about how historically things like monarchy and feudalism came about. Some group gains enough control over a society to restructure that society to their benefit. This leads to a snowball effect, until eventually you get things like monarchy and aristocracy. This leads me to make the claim that concentration of power tends to snowball, as those with the most power write the rules. I would argue we're seeing that right now in many ways tax evasion, political and corporate corruption, increasing segregation of poor and rich, etc . Secondly, I think we're kidding ourselves if we believe that the enormously wealthy have a disproportionate impact on our political discourse. The Koch brothers and George Soros bankroll political candidates all the time. Rupert Murdoch tells almost half a billion people what to think. This leads to some seemingly completely irrational policy decisions that seem like they can only be rationalized through this lens. Our reaction to global warming shows this perfectly, I think. We are incapable of taking the logical path because other paths benefit the super rich more. This is real, lasting damage that will cripple humanities future. Therefore, if we wish to live in a free, Democratic and egalitarian society, I believe that individual wealth should be limited to some amount that means you can live comfortably, but not have these damaging effects. This extends to all of an individual's assets. A few obvious counters Restricting individual wealth will decimate innovation and entrepreneurship Alrighty, lets take this Capitalist truism people only ever do things for money at face value. Even if this is true, innovation is still totally possible, you just need more conglomerates and group investments to get the capital, instead of it coming from one or a few investors. Also how does one believe in this truism but not in the idea of supply and demand? There is demand for innovation, so an entity will emerge to meet that demand. That entity will just be made up of more shareholders. Not all billionaires are bad True. Bill Gates is great A bunch of billionaires are giving away their wealth cool beans. But there are also, inarguably, some very very bad rich people. And it doesn't take many to have serious, currently observable negative consequences for society. It would be impossible to do this No argument here that it would take a lot of sweat, tears and blood to restructure our society in this wa y. The ultra rich have been shaping our society to ensure that for as long as they've been capable of doing so. But this is an abstract position, I'm not arguing about practical implementation. I absolutely don't have a magic number for what the limit should be. It should probably be some floating value tied to wealth distribution, but it would be something up to people much smarter than I.<|ASPECTS|>floating value, blood, egalitarian society, restricting, tears, supply and demand, capital, money, democratic, logical path, group investments, wealthy, tax evasion, bankroll, historically, bad true, political discourse, ultra rich, corruption, restructure our society, negative consequences, incapable, assets, disproportionate impact, think, live comfortably, shareholders, democracy, cripple humanities future, egalitarianism, control over a society, smarter, wealth cool, irrational policy decisions, individual wealth, poor and rich, free, truism, sweat, monarchy, segregation, magic number, conglomerates, damaging effects, concentration of power, private wealth, decimate, snowball effect, bad rich people, bad for society, wealth distribution, innovation, value, entrepreneurship, shaping our society, lasting damage, benefit, individual 's, global warming, practical implementation, demand, political, political candidates, super rich, feudalism, aristocracy, billionaires, restructure, impossible<|CONCLUSION|>

Private wealth should be limited

d783ec34-a7ab-4825-9f8d-96974471cba5

<|TOPIC|>School uniforms should be banned<|ARGUMENT|>Many UK schools that rejected uniforms a decade ago are now returning to them as 'part' of a regime to calm schools and enable learning.<|ASPECTS|>calm schools, learning, enable<|CONCLUSION|>

School uniforms have been shown to reduce tensions between and within students.

086bcd6e-a738-4edc-82d1-fab9c4aad3c6

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I realize this has been addressed here before but I read through those threads and did not find an argument that convinced me to care about thin privilege . To be clear, I do believe it exists and although a lot of the things people complain about are unwarranted I do believe there are some examples of truly unfair treatment for example, thin people getting more promotions in jobs that have no relation to fitness level . HOWEVER, I still don't care about thin privilege because I see it as a privilege that pretty much everyone could enjoy with a modicum of effort. I recognize there are some people who have legitimate genetic or medication issues, but I feel like a huge majority of overweight people are simply ignoring the basic math of our bodies eat fewer calories than your body needs in a day and you will lose fat. Moreover, as I understand it and perhaps you can prove I'm wrong here? except for very special cases, differences in metabolism speed really only account for a 200 300 calorie difference per day at the most. So, while losing weight is slightly harder for some people than others, we're talking about a difference of one soda per day. Obviously 200 calories day adds up over time, but at the end of the day I feel like dieting for anyone is just an issue of controlling yourself if your metabolism is slower you may feel a little hungrier at first but having eaten nothing for a full day on several occasions, I just don't think that's an excuse for losing self control. If it helps, I have started to feel like this after making the decision to get healthier last year. As part of that, I spent a couple days fasting and realized that hunger and our need to eat really is a very mental thing yes biologically we need to eat, but I mean the need to eat 3 square meals a day and feel full at the end of each of them . I just feel like it's pretty much an issue of will power, and if you don't have the will power to stop yourself from overeating, then maybe not having thin privilege along with the rest of us is the punishment you pay for that.<|ASPECTS|>self control, feel full, wrong, unfair treatment, metabolism, differences, genetic or medication issues, fewer, overeating, thin privilege, losing, mental, hunger, weight, harder, power, healthier, hungrier, fitness level, difference, privilege, lose fat, punishment, soda, metabolism speed, controlling<|CONCLUSION|>

I think complaining about "thin privilege" is ridiculous since most people could become thin with some effort.

80ac6563-8fa9-459e-8af5-9a8d29211a68

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In this post I'm referring to the original IRA The military wing of Sinn Fein during the Irish War of Independence from 21 January 1919 1 July 1921. With the overwhelming majority voting for Sinn Fein in the 1918 election, the British began to realise that Home Rule as pushed by the Irish Parliamentary Party would no longer satisfy the newly formed Dail Eireann. Having been occupied by the British for over 800 years and following terrible, systematic injustices against the Catholic majority such as the Penal Laws, I believe their desire for independence was entirely justified. As the war went on the British continually used reprisals and fear tactics carried out by the auxiliaries and black and tans against members of the Irish public in an attempt to limit support for the IRA. While a small number of IRA bombings indiscriminately killed innocents, for the large part their attacks were directed solely at British armed forces which included the Royal Irish Constabulary RIC . This difference in morals can be seen from the Bloody Sunday massacre of innocents in Croke Park, a retaliation following the assassination of 12 British spies by Collins' Squad . As the war went on, the IRA's position was made even more defensible, especially following the partition of the 6 counties of Northern Ireland, including 2 Catholic majority counties, by the Government of Ireland Act. It seems to me that Sinn Fein and the IRA were morally justified as they were fighting to free their country against a tyrant who massacred and persecuted the Irish people. <|ASPECTS|>morals, massacred, catholic, persecuted, ira bombings, systematic, ira, killed innocents, independence, fear tactics, injustices, tyrant, free their country, limit support, catholic majority, defensible, massacre, military wing, reprisals, difference, innocents, morally justified, home rule<|CONCLUSION|>

The Irish Republican Army's actions were justified

83ec77fc-9937-4a69-9bd8-0811ba1bdf2e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a self learner when it comes to economics and I have invested some significant amounts of time to learn it. From what I got is that deflation is bad as it makes it harder for people to pay their debt. It also can lead to a deflationary cycle as businesses stop producing goods and services as they see their prices going down. From what I understood about the Great Depression the Gold Standard caused deflation which exacerbated the crisis. I also understand that fiat currency is necessary to the growth of an economy when you have more people or production rises you need more money to account for that . I also understand that spending by governments can create a multiplier in the economy and make it grow But I don't quite understand the opposing point of view, even though intuitively it seems so logical and ethical. Money should be a store of value and inflation is an illegal tax. With that in mind, please change my view? does the Austrian School make more sense than the Keynsian school? Especially in light of what is going on right now with the Great Recession?<|ASPECTS|>money, deflation is bad, inflation, growth, exacerbated, prices going, deflation, deflationary cycle, store of value, economy, economics, debt, illegal tax, fiat currency, crisis, spending, change my view, standard, self learner, time, pay, sense, ethical, great recession, multiplier, invested<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe in Keynsian economics and think that the Austrian School has got it wrong...

63751bad-7a9f-4ccd-b337-90f4f5e54ac5

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I like the idea of a league where the best clubs in the world participate and play against each other on a regular basis, forming a league above the national leagues. It would attract a massive amount of viewers, many more than the current national leagues european cups attract. Fans from other european countries than their club will be able to see their team play in real life. It would be another step towards european integration. Teams from all important national leagues would be able to hold their own financially, not just the english teams. to support the last point, here are the total transfer costs per league for summer 2015 according to transfermarkt.de Premier League 733.119.000 € Primera Division 142.520.991 € Bundesliga 53.858.557 € Serie A 40.135.000 € The difference between transfer costs for Serie A and Premier league in one summer is about as much as the estimated market value of all Barca or Real players taken together, market value also according to transfermarkt.de and in the long run, money will buy success. So there will be a super league either way, but we can choose whether its just english fans enjoying it or all of europe. To face one possible objection I'm all for spreading the money down to the national leagues so they dont become entirely irrelevant and so there can be fluctuation about which teams are qualified for playing in the super league.<|ASPECTS|>english fans enjoying, value, money will buy success, spreading, viewers, real, financially, money, participate, play, transfer costs, attract, irrelevant, fluctuation, massive amount, european integration, clubs, super, hold their<|CONCLUSION|>

I like the idea of a european super league football/soccer

820bbe6b-8f2f-4b0a-9770-607dc9f04fb3

<|TOPIC|>Was Christianity in the 20th Century Good for Europe?<|ARGUMENT|>Of over 145 million Euros expenses on social projects only 10 million Euros are from Church subsidies<|ASPECTS|>expenses, church<|CONCLUSION|>

In Germany hardly anything Caritas does is paid for with church taxes.

86236894-6cf8-43a1-b432-d8a75b40cef8

<|TOPIC|>Should we create and adopt a universal currency?<|ARGUMENT|>When the EU adopted the Euro as the common currency in 1992, trade between EU member states increased by 8 to 16%.<|ASPECTS|>trade<|CONCLUSION|>

International trade would become easier without having to convert currencies.

c4db6e38-6482-45d4-b94b-747a7891aec1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me clarify my title. When I say viewed the same way as other drugs, I mean not by the law. I'm against the criminalization of all drugs but that's a topic for another day . I mean by the way society views it, the way that people look down and consistently discourage things like narcotics, methamphetamines, etc. I'm 19 now, and since the drinking age in my country is 18, I've seen many of my friends over the last couple of years grow into the alcohol culture that basically the entire world shares. Sometimes this has scared me. Friends that have been with me since I was 12 years old have given me times where I am legitimately scared for my safety because of alcohol, all the while the rest of the group and cheering this person on. I dislike the mere fact that getting drunk for enjoyment is socially accepted and even encouraged. I don't drink, as you've probably guessed. In fact, I stay as far away from the stuff as I can because I detest the taste, just like I stay as far away from peas as I can but also because the mere idea of getting drunk scares me. Loosing rational control of myself is not something I would like to experience, especially if it means I could hurt someone. The fact that I don't drink has been a point of contention for my friends, family and even just strangers I meet. Everyone seems surprised that I don't, and in almost all cases try to get to me to drink, in one case even trying to 'spike' a drink of mine with alcohol just to see me drunk. How is this acceptable behaviour in any circumstance? And yet it is, when it comes to alcohol, because it's seen as fixing me or making me less of a drag from not drinking. I've had to opt out of family events because of this. While it may be a specific case in my family, the idea that it's acceptable to do that is the culture around alcohol I just don't understand and almost hate. The fact that society views alcohol as a requirement for a good time is something I think is incredibly toxic to our lives. I'd say a good hefty percentage of things like car accidents, crimes like domestic abuse, fighting, etc. stems from alcohol. While I'm all for the everything in moderation, I think alcohol is something that most people can't keep moderated. We glorify alcohol, we glorify getting drunk, society works hard to associate it with a good time to the point where most people believe that you can't have a good fun time with your friends without getting smashed. People look forward to forgetting their weekend How crazy is that? No other drug is glorified this way, not even Marijuana admittedly getting closer to it these days which is the probably least harmful criminalized drug. I don't see why society views just alcohol this way and continues to be adamant for the criminalization on other drugs, even ones with a similar or less risk level like Marijuana. Other things have come into our society that operate the same as alcohol culturally, like smoking. At one point, it was all the rage. You were outcast if you didn't smoke, just like now if you don't drink. And then people realised that it was harming us, harming people with second hand smoke. And it's been slowly phased back out. It still exists, but at least in my country, it's something you never talk about, it's something that's looked down upon by most people. People are surprised and sometimes revolted if you mention you smoke, and in common society it's not something you do to hang out like drinking. And yet, I consider alcohol more harmful because with the amount of alcohol fuelled crimes and accidents, I believe it's probably done a lot more damage to individuals and indirect people than smoking ever has. TL DR I think that society should be working to discourage alcohol just like we do with other drugs. It's harmful to the people who drink it, to the people around it, and the glorification it gets in society only serves to promote something I consider inherently bad to people, even ones who wouldn't normally drink. We've already done this with something like smoking, which has similar self and indirectly other harming properties that was widely glorified. Please . I want to understand why people think alcohol is considered acceptable to be in our culture in this way. But please don't try to convince me to drink just to try it so I'll see. EDIT I'm Australian, if that helps give cultural context. It's been brought up that my views are almost flat out incorrect in other cultures and especially other age groups, which is a very good point. EDIT2 I wish to explain my change of view. This has been an absolutely wonderful discussion, and thank you all for posting. Most people have raised the point that my argument only reflects a small majority, a particular culture that only really exists in my age group and even just in my country at times. This is an excellent point, and I've come to realise that treating alcohol like more harmful hard drugs would just be doing a disservice to the majority who do indeed drink responsibly and are genuine good people. It's still harmful, but so are soda drinks, caffeine, driving in the car normally. No reason to outright discriminate against it. I don't think my original argument is necessarily wrong itself, and I think they're good points against drinking in general and for the greater education on responsible drinking, but my post is clearly heavily stepped in selection bias. Many people have raised the point that alcohol has many benefits too, health wise, but particularly as a social lubricant that encourages much of the social interaction that we humans so desperately crave. In the long run, having alcohol as the one common thing between a lot of people is a great benefit to society, we always have a basis to return to.<|ASPECTS|>, bad, discussion, benefit to society, small majority, selection bias, title, drugs, society, hate, harming us, toxic, domestic abuse, acceptable, outcast, drink, criminalization, caffeine, time, safety, harmful criminalized drug, fighting, similar self, drag, slowly, harming people, surprised, disservice, fun time, contention, health, rational control, incorrect, glorification, encouraged, basis, getting drunk, social interaction, enjoyment, family events, culture, revolted, benefits, glorified, crimes, damage to individuals, forgetting their weekend, social lubricant, change of view, harming properties, indirect people, discourage, scared, car accidents, detest, cultural context, discriminate, taste, second hand smoke, less, discourage alcohol, drinking age, genuine good people, harmful, acceptable behaviour, responsible drinking, fixing, least, outright, requirement, views, narcotics, alcohol culture, law, alcohol, rage, alcohol culturally, moderation, phased back, risk level, socially accepted, accidents, scares, lives, hurt someone, alcohol fuelled<|CONCLUSION|>

I think society's view on alcohol is toxic and I wish to see alcohol viewed in the same way as any other drug.

3937d521-7fad-4c07-8a52-d5b5a0d6e255

<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>God's purported omnipotence and omnipresence would necessarily dictate that all choices would proceed according to God's will, not ours.<|ASPECTS|>god 's, choices, omnipotence, god<|CONCLUSION|>

God's omniscience regarding our "choices" may mean that a classical God cannot give us freewill.

7f95b091-2e21-4304-8a18-2424dceead28

<|TOPIC|>Divorce Should Be Easier To Obtain<|ARGUMENT|>We also need to consider the repercussions for the children when their parents do not get along. Rather than force them to grow up in a loveless household, their parents should be able to split up and go their separate ways.<|ASPECTS|>separate, split, repercussions, loveless household<|CONCLUSION|>

We also need to consider the repercussions for the children when their parents do not get along. Rat...

346f3f51-ae37-40be-bf68-ea890f0b8913

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The standard transmission is more prone to serious damage from user error, has more possibility of user error, is more cumbersome to operate in traffic scenarios, takes more to learn and requires learning shift points of different transmissions in different vehicles. The automatic transmission really is only damaged by wear, has little possibility of user error aside from aggressive driving that any vehicle configuration can suffer, does just as well in traffic or free to roam the highway, takes little to learn and has coded and built in shift points that the vehicle handles itself and are only subject to miscellaneous vehicle wear just like the manual and otherwise a computer is shifting the transmission itself at the most effective time. This scenario is very analogous to the US using its old customary system of measurement as opposed to the metric system the rest of the world uses. Both scenarios exist because one party is stubbornly accustomed to their way. The customary system is prone to more drastic miscalculation due to user error, has more possibility of user error, is more cumbersome to use for deciding volume or other combined unit measurements, takes more to learn and requires learning what may as well be a handful of different systems. The metric system is really only subject to user error out of carelessness, has little possibility of such error outside that, is used more or less the same between all measurement subjects, takes only an understanding of basic numbers to learn, the system almost measures things for you. The US is holding onto its system of measurement out of stubbornness while the rest of the world is holding onto the manual transmission for more of the same, as the manual is really only effective for performance or stunt driving and civilians would benefit much more from an automatic transmission. Gas mileage differences between the two configurations has closed out completely since the introduction of the automatic in the US and has been that way for a long while now so the benefits do really seem to tip the scale in favor of the automatic today.<|ASPECTS|>stubbornness, error, accustomed to their way, measures things, benefits, carelessness, points, stunt driving, serious, wear, damaged by wear, cumbersome, performance, gas mileage differences, miscalculation, analogous, effective, user error, damage, drastic, shift points, stubbornly, numbers<|CONCLUSION|>

The US standardization of automatic transmissions over manuals as a superior method is like the way the rest of the world uses the metric system while the US uses their own weird custom system.

1f59f3bb-cfdf-4450-a9da-f26a966a0992

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First I would like to clarify anyone who wishes to drive a vehicle on public roadways should meet their state's requirements to do so. HOWEVER, I think it is just plain silly that you must present a physical copy of your license to an officer if pulled over. Every police vehicle to my knowledge has a computer with internet connection that can access a database of licensed drivers. I got pulled over a few years ago and had forgotten my license at home. It was easy as Do you have your license? No, I do not have it on me. Okay, well do you have a license at all? Yes. I just do not have the physical copy with me. The officer went back to his car, plugged in my first and last name, and had all the credentials my physical license would have provided him with in seconds. Why wouldn't this just be the norm? It seems that a physical piece of plastic is a fickle medium for that information when an officer can easily access a database with the same info. in a matter of seconds. I am not saying physical drivers licenses should not be issued at all. They are a useful and credible way to provide identification. However, I do not think it should be illegal to operate a motor vehicle without that license in your possession. <|ASPECTS|>forgotten my license, identification, useful, credible, state 's requirements, license, database, physical drivers licenses, easy, licensed drivers, illegal, fickle medium, physical copy, credentials, norm<|CONCLUSION|>

Licensed motorists should not be required to carry a physical license on their person while operating their vehicle.

9fe5afb6-504d-4393-8f59-594dfc272abc

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am a firm believer in adoption, and I thought that everyone, on some level, viewed adoption as a positive thing. However, I had a recent discussion with a family member who was ADAMANT about her belief that adoption is horrible. She claims that it is 'inhumane' because babies need their 'real mothers' in order to properly survive. She also called it baby trafficking because it costs so much money and referred to birthmothers as 'breeders'. When she referred to adoption as a form of domestic terrorism, I just walked away flabbergasted. To me, the positive benefits of adoption having a family that actually wants a child and has the means to take care of that child seem to far outweigh its alternatives. Does anyone else on Reddit share this view or can someone help me understand it better? Because I really cannot rationalize this thought process.<|ASPECTS|>understand, domestic terrorism, mothers, alternatives, adoption is horrible, properly survive, positive thing, thought process, adoption, positive, rationalize, benefits, baby trafficking, costs so much money<|CONCLUSION|>

Adoption is a positive alternative to being raised by unfit parents or without parental figures at all.

f85c436a-6213-4c27-a620-6f382e0ac889

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Obviously the Summer Olympics can be held at one venue, and the Winter Olympics can be held at another, but here are my reasons Every four years, the country that is selected to host the Olympics spends billions building new venues and stadiums and the like. Essentially, billions worth of new venues are built to only be used for a few weeks at a time, and then once the Olympics are over, never to be used again. Or, they may be used every once in a while for competition, but not very much. Every once in a while I find a new article on the Internet detailing the fact that some previous Olympic venue has been sitting unused or abandoned for long periods of time. This seems to me to be a monstrous waste of resources, land, and money. It would be so much more efficient to have a designated location for the Olympics to be held. In one location, every four years, indefinitely. Now, I do understand that countries that get to host the Olympics benefit hugely from tourism and all of the television coverage. That is part of the reason why the Olympics are always held in a different place. However, to prevent further waste of resources, land, and money, I think that all future Olympics should be held in the same place every four years. EDIT I am sorry I could not respond to all of the comments, but my view has been changed as a result of parts of every single comment.<|ASPECTS|>land, benefit, different place, efficient, view, indefinitely, money, spends, used, billions, sitting unused or abandoned, tourism, changed, competition, monstrous, waste of resources, new venues<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe all future Olympics should be held at the same venue.

ab6cb617-2aac-40d5-97dc-26f05f9f48c1

<|TOPIC|>Should Democrats Cooperate with Donald Trump?<|ARGUMENT|>If cooperating with Trump has certain negative consequences, then Democrats will be aware of that, and can avoid cooperating whenever the negative consequences outweigh the benefits of cooperation. But it is unlikely that in every single possible case, the harms of cooperation will outweigh the benefits, so Democrats should keep their options open.<|ASPECTS|>benefits, cooperation, harms of cooperation, negative consequences<|CONCLUSION|>

Democrats can weigh the costs and benefits of cooperation on a case-by-case basis. It is highly unlikely that cooperation will always turn out to be a bad idea, so rather than adopting a blanket policy, Democrats should reserve cooperation for the few cases where it is rational.

177690f3-1f3e-4ef7-9f49-47f6aff35075

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Pretty much what the title says, however I will lay my 3 main premises down. Israel would desire to stay a jewish state. There is no way Israel can allow a right of return while being a jewish state. This is simply because there are too many palestinian refugees that would return and arabs would be a majority if that happened. There is no way palestinians would accept anything short of the right to return. It is laid out as a human right in the universal declaration of human rights. Neither side will give up claims to the Temple Mount Western Wall al Aqsa Mosque. I don't think either of those two issues right of return east jerusalem can possibly be solved with anything short of genocide and I think either that this conflict will last for ever, or mass genocide will happen. edit formatting<|ASPECTS|>conflict, jewish state, genocide, claims, right to return, jewish, human right, premises, palestinian refugees, right of return, mass genocide, human rights<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that short of genocide, there is no solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,

da0d8a76-ec5a-483a-8637-9e313db9fbd6

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I used to be one of those who did not take the 9 11 'truthers' and 'conspiritards' seriously. Anyone who brought up the idea of a 9 11 related conspiracy was automatically written off in my mind as being a whacko. But upon re examining the matter I have found myself seriously questioning the official story myself. Here are the primary things which have led me to strongly question the official story, listed in order of most significant to least significant in my mind. • The footage of the three buildings that fell clearly show them falling at freefall speed directly into their own footprints. Specifically, footage of the Building 7 collapse actually shows that the building started collapsing from the bottom, with the every part of the building beginning to collapse simultaneously in this way. And the twin towers, despite their height, do not tilt, buckle, or deviate from the freefall patter in any way, even though the damage to them from the planes was asymmetrical. This is a complete affront to my understanding of physics, mathematics, and probability. I consider this the most damning evidence because it is the most readily verifiable, as it can be observed by anyone in footage taken by many different sources at many different angles and distances. It is also the easiest to understand, as even a basic understanding of physics should be sufficient to send up a red flag for an open minded observer. What really made me question the official story for the first time was seeing the footage of the collapse again, 10 years after I saw it the first time on 9 11, with a much better understanding of physics to serve as context. • The footage of the newscaster reporting on the collapse of Building 7 when a live image of that building, still standing, can be plainly seen in the background. This is footage can be easily found and verified, although you would have to verify the exact time it was recorded and that the building in the background was in fact WTC7 beyond a shadow of a doubt to be completely certain – although I am aware of no allegations that this was not the case. • Thermitic materials found in WTC dust by multiple, independent tests, including at least one that was published in a peer reviewed journal. This has been considered evidence of nano thermite or thermate being present during the destruction of the WTC towers. I list this beneath the footage of the collapse because I do not personally have the means to verify these tests or the source of the dust, and some have called them into question – though anyone can call something into question. • Reports from eyewitnesses of molten steel being found inside the WTC ruins. Jet fuel burns at a maximum of about 600°F in open air, although this could be made hotter under confinement conditions. But the lowest possible temperature at which steel can even begin to melt is over 2,000°F. This further suggests the presence of thermate based explosives as they would be able to melt structural steel. Keep in mind that I'm just not talking about the molten material which was seen dripping from where the jets struck, which might have been molten aluminum, but material found in the ruins themselves. However, these reports of molten steel are anecdotal, unless they can be physically verified, and must be considered in that context. • Reports from eyewitnesses of explosions from the buildings before they collapsed. I have not yet heard these alleged explosions on a recording though I have not looked hard to find them , so I must also consider this anecdotal, although there are several such independent accounts. The above evidence, taken together, strongly suggests to me that the official story of 9 11 is not only incomplete, but seriously flawed to the point of being blatantly false. Furthermore, if there was thermate involved in the demolition of the WTC buildings, then someone would have had to have put it there. Such demolitions require precision planning, and someone would have had to do that planning as well. And someone would have had to have had prior knowledge that there would be attacks on the World Trade Center buildings long before 9 11 in order to have executed that planning and placement of explosives. Whether this was merely prior knowledge based on intelligence or actual coordination with those who hijacked the planes is open for debate. The most reasonable conclusion that I can draw from this information is that 9 11 was an inside job, at least in part, and that the government agencies and officials which were involved in investigating 9 11, which would have to have deliberately falsified their reports, must have been involved in that conspiracy to some degree, at very least after the fact in order to cover the backsides of the culprits, if they aren't themselves the culprits, which is also very possible. I do not pretend to know the details as to how this was pulled off or why. That is missing information, and any statement I make along those lines would be pure speculation based on circumstantial evidence. But I want to have my thoughts and information cross examined to make sure I’m not making some serious error. Can you change my view? By the way, as far as I am concerned, the idea of 'expert' opinion is an appeal to authority fallacy, and I do not blindly accept arguments based on expert opinion alone, unless they corroborate with other known facts and logic. Please keep that in mind when composing your responses. 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|>, flawed, tilt, error, attacks, missing information, independent, probability, destruction, open minded observer, based explosives, official story, temperature, inside job, whacko, found and verified, started, deviate, physically verified, remind, understanding of physics, melt structural steel, explosions, molten steel, easiest, popular topics, circumstantial evidence, footprints, damning, anecdotal, collapse, nano thermite, 9, speculation, backsides, thoughts and information, falsified, aluminum, pure, molten material, collapse simultaneously, freefall, readily verifiable, concerns, planning, basic understanding of physics, thermitic materials, effective, downvotes, thermate, hotter, damage, confinement conditions, happy cmving, coordination, change my view, questioning, lowest possible, molten, context, message us, prior knowledge, change, collapsing from the bottom, placement of explosives, freefall speed, better, eyewitnesses, precision planning, authority fallacy, downvote, questions, false, red flag, conspiracy, melt, incomplete, seriously<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center were almost certainly inside jobs, at least in part.

0acf9832-0323-4e4f-b9e3-f8e34cb490a4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Cigarettes are almost entirely better morally than smoking. Smoke doesn't infringe on your ethics with the more you do it, and other than second had smoke, doesn't really put people in danger. No pack of cigarettes has ever caused someone to go home and beat their children because of it's influence. No cigarette has ever caused someone to be impaired enough to smash their car into someone else. The amount of flank smoking gets over drinking is amazing I think, when I've heard of plenty of bad nights coming from booze but few from smoking. Smoking doesn't blur the lines between what you believe is what's right. Drinking has ruined bodies of people, left families traumatized, and has generally caused a lot of damage. I am not debating the health sides of smoking, only the morality behind it. Edit Ouch, that typo in the title. Drinking<|ASPECTS|>better morally, families, traumatized, smash, morality, damage, flank smoking, 's right, beat their children, ethics, influence, health sides, danger, typo, ruined bodies of people, impaired enough, infringe, bad nights<|CONCLUSION|>

Strictly morally speaking, smoking cigarettes is better than drinkinb booze

bc49a8cc-76a0-4877-8be6-ad43bc15ca6a

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First off, let me say that I am totally against the idea of slut shaming it's an outdated way of thinking, and is stupid and harmful. That being said, I believe any woman who goes into a job where their primary selling point is there body, be it stripping, pornography, etc. is degrading themselves as an actual member of society. They are enforcing the stereotype that women only exist to please men and can only get by on their body, and not their hard work and dedication. If anybody disagrees with me, I would love to hear your view point.<|ASPECTS|>women, dedication, selling point, please men, view point, harmful, body, actual, slut shaming, pornography, member of society, stupid, outdated, hard work, degrading, disagrees<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that women who go into porn are objectifying themselves as nothing more than sex toys,

bf4593bb-a6b5-49a9-b748-700be1580a37

<|TOPIC|>Assisted suicide<|ARGUMENT|>In Compassion in Dying v. Washington 1996, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision delivered by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt - "One of the lower court majority's prime arguments is that the statute outlawing physician-assisted suicide is necessary to protect 'the poor and minorities from exploitation,'-- in other words, to protect the disadvantaged from becoming the victims of assisted suicide. This rationale simply recycles one of the more disingenuous and fallacious arguments raised in opposition to the legalization of abortion. It is equally meretricious here. The argument that disadvantaged persons will receive more medical services than the remainder of the population in one, and only one, area -- assisted suicide -- is ludicrous on its face."<|ASPECTS|>assisted suicide, disadvantaged persons, exploitation, fallacious arguments, protect, poor, disingenuous, ludicrous, medical services, minorities, meretricious, disadvantaged<|CONCLUSION|>

Hospitals won't re-focus resources on euthanizing the disadvantaged

068030e4-9790-40e4-9c99-3afdb17fefb0

<|TOPIC|>Should we believe that God exists, even if we're not sure it's true?<|ARGUMENT|>Belief in an higher power can be a powerful coping mechanism grief through religion and spirituality for dealing with our eventual demise. It is a crutch our conscious mind has constructed until we advance enough to throw the crutch aside.<|ASPECTS|>demise, eventual, powerful coping mechanism<|CONCLUSION|>

Belief in a happy afterlife may relieve the fear of dying.

91bb3b18-0a15-4f55-8ce7-f2fc72bdb758

<|TOPIC|>Would Humanity Be Better Off Under A Global Government?<|ARGUMENT|>Evolution brought humanity on the threshold of being a Type 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale It's is only a question of time before we get there.<|ASPECTS|>type 1 civilization, time<|CONCLUSION|>

A global government is inevitable, it will happen either by conquest or by consensual necessity.

9033dd1b-65b1-485c-b27a-e5ca6373055d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I've always thought that being hypocritical is one of the worst things a person can be. A fun example would be someone that says people should all follow the speed limit because it is the safest way to drive then they go and drive 15 over the limit because they needed to get where they were going on time. Or saying that vegetarianism is the best kind of diet because it is nearly impossible to get meat from animals that were killed humanely then eating a burger because it sounded good at the time. The issue I really have is with the kind of people that aren’t consistent with the views they profess to hold. I think that people that are inconsistent with their views should always be consistent with said views. But please .<|ASPECTS|>humanely, hypocritical, speed limit, impossible to get meat, inconsistent, worst, views, safest way, consistent, vegetarianism<|CONCLUSION|>

People should strive to avoid hypocrisy at all times.

c1904059-9d6e-4187-b944-2c8e291ea747

<|TOPIC|>Who should have the final say about a child's medical treatment - doctors or parents?<|ARGUMENT|>It has also been shown that many patients exhibit white coat hypertension to a greater degree when blood pressure is taken by a doctor compared to when taken by a member of nursing staff. This suggests that patients of all ages, and especially children, are more likely to be distressed by more senior health care providers.<|ASPECTS|>distressed, senior health care providers, blood pressure, white coat hypertension<|CONCLUSION|>

Many children may suffer from white coat syndrome i.e. a phenomenon in which people exhibit a blood pressure level above the normal range, in a clinical setting, though they do not exhibit it in other settings.

1d0d6dad-3188-44e0-8cc2-5c8acecb2c72

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the sake of this thread, we'll exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities IMO the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population. With a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent s . A child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting. I am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child. maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below. I think parents are virtually 100 responsible for producing scholastically successful children. .<|ASPECTS|>knowledge and resource base, income, public accountability, scholastically successful children, reflection of parenting, struggles, monetary incentive, slacks, tax coffers, learning disabilities, healthy child, dips, responsible parent<|CONCLUSION|>

If a child struggles to achieve in grade school it is virtually always the parents' fault.

c774e75b-5df6-41f5-a104-bdd7b4995d25

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I am propagating that people only listen to pop music as it is so accessible, they are exposed to it via the radio, and via TV. They may download and listen to it, but in a few weeks, they will probably forget about all the music they thought was so amazing just a short while ago. However music like Led Zepplin, or David Bowie will probably still be listened to in another fifty years, even though no one listening will have lived through the artist's career. The fact that modern music is forgotten and replaced so quickly, clearly highlights that it is worse it predecessors. I believe that if said pop music 'fans' were exposed to more music, you would find they all have specific tastes, and would then grow a disdain towards their previous musical taste. For example, people who listen to whatever mainstream rap, like Eminem, but they never seek out any other artists, and just listen to Eminem's new hit songs when they come out. Their musical taste never evolves and so they continue to support mediocre artists. They may find that they prefer different styles of rap, or maybe grunge or punk or whatever. Why is this bad? Well as I just alluded to, I feel that this musical taste, or lack there of, is just perpetuating the rise in popularity of bad musicians. It is somewhat clear that 'image' and 'charisma' are valued more today than vocal ability or musical talent or maybe the ratio is a lot more skewed than it once was . People are at the top of the charts as they appeal to people that dont care about music enough to pursue different genres. If people actually sought out musicians they 'genuinely' liked, then they would support a variety of styles, and improve the music industry vastly. So not only do these people 'cheat themselves', but they also 'cheat' out everyone else. Change My View <|ASPECTS|>, worse, bad, bad musicians, vocal ability, lived, valued, mediocre artists, specific tastes, pursue different genres, improve the music industry, download, accessible, musical talent, exposed, forget, prefer different styles of rap, music, musical taste, popularity, quickly, support, appeal, 's career, care, modern music, listened, change my view, skewed, ratio, grunge, variety of styles, forgotten and replaced<|CONCLUSION|>

People only 'like' Top 40 pop music as they haven't been exposed to enough different genres

b4f05a41-b3a8-494c-8be5-4b400efb246a

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay, so, I've been getting into the whole climate change business for the past couple of weeks I've done some cursory research on the matter, watched Before The Flood and Earth 2100 don't watch that last one if you don't want to be depressed or cry , and honestly I'm starting to understand why it is so many people reject the postulates that climate change is happening and that it's largely caused by our lifestyles. The reason why is because of the solutions the climate change movement's been pushing for. I'm talking things like telling individuals to give up their gas guzzling SUVs, to reduce eliminate consumption of beef or rice, turn up their air conditioners in the summer or turn down their heaters in the winter, stupid stuff like that. These solutions are stupid and unfair for a multitude of reasons, especially if you're poor. Carbon taxes are also dumb largely for the same reasons these solutions are dumb, but in some ways carbon taxes are a lot worse. I'll make a list Individual lifestyle changes to combat climate change are stupid because They lower the standard of living for everyone who adopts them. Look, coal, oil and gas are cheap. We have to accept that. Renewables are coming a long way but they're still not fully there yet. And coal, oil and gas make the comfortable lifestyle in the developed world with plentiful access to otherwise expensive and rare food and cheap transportation possible. American cities simply aren't designed around being green yet and people still have to drive many miles to work and back, and most Americans can't afford electric cars they still have to use gas to get to the jobs they need to go to to survive, and to tell them they should drive less which would impact their ability to do that is just wrong. People have a right to each as much beef as they want, to drive around as much as they want, to have living conditions that are comfortable for them e.g. heat and air conditioning and demanding that people give up these things to lower their energy consumption is unfair, especially if you're poor. Our meat industry is designed the way it is because burgers have to cost a dollar for the economy to be stable, and poor people need burgers to cost a dollar so they have cheap and ready access to protein. Beef is delicious, it goes with pretty much everything, it's an enjoyable part of life for most people especially Americans, and it's a food source people have a right to regardless of how inefficient you argue it is. All of the arguments people make against beef apply just as much so to rice and rice is an integral part of Asian culture just as beef is to American culture you don't have a right to tell hundreds of millions of people that they don't have the right to have access to the foods they love because our agriculture systems harm the environment. Having reduced access to the foods we love and I honestly argue need to survive directly harms our standard of living and our way of life and if the climate change movement wants to succeed, it has to stop arguing that people need to adopt a lowered standard of living and instead push for things that allow us to stop global warming while driving around as much as we want and eating whatever we want. Most people can't afford to adopt a greener lifestyle or to pay carbon taxes And this is mainly the reason why I feel the way I do above. Look, most of the world is extremely impoverished. Even most Americans are very impoverished and have a hard time paying rent or getting food or meeting their basic needs. Being forced to adopt a lower standard of living to stop climate change will just make life harder and more expensive for them. Especially for carbon taxes let's be real here, the biggest companies in the world can afford to pay carbon taxes without having to change their behaviors or reduce their emissions in the slightest, and you know what they're all gonna do? Pass on those taxes to the consumer. And before you know it, food and gas prices will go up, making it even harder for poor people to make ends meet and widening the inequality gap even further. Poor people are literally the only ones that would be negatively affected by stuff like enforced lifestyle changes or carbon taxes and the like. They're just as dumb and as much of an infringement on our rights to consume legal products as cigarette and soda taxes are. We don't have a right to make the poor suffer like that. The developing world has a right to an American lifestyle, too, and the climate change movement will stop them from having it if done wrong All of the stuff I talk about above applies a hundred fold to the developing world, especially China and India who are experiencing their own industrial revolutions and bringing their people out of poverty through cheap energy sources like coal, oil and gas. It should be pretty self evident to anyone that it's completely unfair to deny them the same kind of lifestyle the west was able to enjoy for over a century because of our use of fossil fuels. You know over 300 million people in India don't even have electricity? Are you really going to tell over 2 billion people they don't have a right to switch over to a meat based diet. Climate change advocates often argue that we'd need 4 earths to support everyone in the world living a lifestyle the way Americans do why not use all of those neat and hefty renewables, green technology, build carbon methane scrubbers, get rid of corn subsidies which are largely the real reason why the U.S. meat industry sucks so bad and make the fucking cows eat grass the way they're supposed to instead so we all actually can have that lifestyle that we have a right to? There's no guarantee individual lifestyle changes will have any meaningful impact Specifically because of India and China. Their energy usage is accelerating and telling everyone else in the world they have to reduce their consumption while the developing world negates their hard work is just not gonna work. We need solutions that span worldwide and are fair for everyone. There are better solutions to climate change than shitty carbon taxes or lowering our standard of living. Some no one even bothered to consider yet And those solutions largely revolve around switching to renewables. Here's an idea how about instead of guilt tripping, shaming and emotionally manipulating people into giving up their SUVs, why not give people subsidies and have trade in programs so they can trade in their SUVs for a nice Tesla or a Nissan Leaf? Or remove corn subsidies and put that subsidy money toward greening the American lifestyle so we can do and eat what we want while helping the environment? Removing the corn subsidy and regulating the meat industry would do a LOT for this while ensuring people's access to beef by not letting them feed cows corn and candy anymore, cows' digestive systems would no longer be as negatively impacted reducing occurrences of shit like e. coli and mad cow disease, and by using the former corn subsidy to fund green shit like CO2 methane scrubbers they're coming along, fund them the way we do renewables , we can reduce or remove the methane the cows put into the air so we can have our beef and not have to worry about whether we're causing global warming or not. Or redistribute the trillions of dollars in tax revenue we already get every year away from stupid shit like the military we don't need to waste our money making Haliburton richer or even shitty medicare replace it with single payer it's cheaper anyway and doesn't suck nearly as badly and use that money to fund a transition to a green economy. Use that money to move us away from buying wheat and produce from big bulky monoculture farms in Buttfuck, Ohio and let cities grow their own shit in their own greenhouse skyscapers so they can grow and eat whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want it and be able to use electric for shipping. Get the oil industry involved too let them get a piece of the renewable pie so they can transition to making solar panels instead of fracking for oil so they'll stop pushing their shitty anti climate propaganda campaigns, which they're only doing because they know climate change will cost them their businesses and livelihoods. Why not help them change instead of pushing them away or destroying them? Fundamentally if the climate change movement wants to succeed it has to push for renewables, carbon methane scrubbers, and other technology to undo the effects of global warming while allowing the rest of us to maintain our lifestyles and standards of living and allowing the rest of the developing world to get out of poverty and to have that same lifestyle which they fundamentally have a right to. Instead of telling people they have to adopt a lowered standard of living or reduce their energy usage. I think it should be pretty self evident why pressuring people to adopt lifestyle changes makes them reject climate change. Put yourself in their shoes for five seconds and honestly ask yourself if you would listen if you were told you had to give up the thing you loved most in the world to save the environment of course you wouldn't, and I wouldn't blame you. It's just dumb. So, so goddamn dumb. TL DR The green movement is fucking up efforts to stop global warming by pushing individuals to adopt a lower standard of living their solutions will deny India and China the means to continue their industrial revolutions, will destroy the middle class in the U.S. and drive income inequality even further, doing that is unnecessary as there are better ways to combat global warming that don't involve adopting a lower standard of living, there's more that needs to be done to protect the biosphere they're not advocating for or trying to do at all, and they'll fail as long as they keep pushing for this. <|ASPECTS|>, climate propaganda, meat based diet, lowered standard of living, prices, income inequality, standard of living, pushing, lower standard of living, life, access to protein, access, greening, climate change, suffer, greener lifestyle, agriculture, food source, electricity, comfortable lifestyle, negatively affected, american lifestyle, solutions, cheap transportation, impoverished, rights to consume, guilt tripping, cheap, eliminate consumption, renewables, negatively impacted, stupid, environment, renewable pie, paying rent, help, change, cost, afford, inefficient, infringement, poverty, poor people, food, climate, lifestyles, protect, trade in programs, gas, waste, lifestyle, accept, enjoyable part of life, green, reduce their consumption, life harder, economy, fair, subsidies, drive, taxes, lifestyle changes, lowering, emissions, standard, unfair, biosphere, lower, save the environment, reduce, fossil fuels, poor, expensive, basic needs, extremely, rare food, survive, energy usage, energy consumption, air, destroying, cheaper, asian culture, switching, way, negates, meaningful impact, helping, green economy, corn subsidies, shaming, carbon taxes, standards of living, comfortable, emotionally manipulating, subsidy money, businesses, right, inequality gap, destroy the middle class, tax revenue, living conditions, individual, hard work, dumb, reject, global warming, harm the environment, right to an american lifestyle, industrial revolutions, livelihoods<|CONCLUSION|>

Pressuring people to adopt a lower standard of living e.g. reduce beef consumption, switch to an electric car, change light bulbs, etc. causes people to reject climate change and will doom us all.

919f93b7-126e-4578-af19-2836c351ef81

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If the solution to gun violence was as simple as legislation, I would expect the statistics to track technology, availability, and population. AR pattern rifles were invented in 1956. Fully automatic weapons were easily accessible. I quickly plotted school shootings in relative to population and they aren’t tied. School shootings were basically constant until the 70s when they began increasing exponentially. This implies to me there is some unknown driver, not related to the AR 15, availability, population, or mental health. Take this with a grain of salt the callouts are my guesses and the shooting data is from a Wikipedia table so it could be heavily inaccurate.<|ASPECTS|>shooting data, population, inaccurate, automatic weapons, easily accessible, technology, unknown driver, availability, heavily, gun violence, constant, ar pattern, school shootings, mental health<|CONCLUSION|>

mass shootings are entirely unrelated to firearm technology and availability, or even mental health.

16b405be-aa23-41a8-a888-98441eeae358

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand this is considered victim blaming I believe? , but I can't help but feel that if you put yourself in a dangerous situation, then you shouldn't be surprised if a dangerous outcome occurs. To be clear, a person that assaults another person is a criminal and should be persecuted, however the victim in this case is an idiot. Repeating from the title, strangers drugs alcohol, possibly more is a potentially dangerous combination. Freedom of choice is not independent from freedom of responsibility. If you do something, you should be prepared to accept the consequences. If you walk in a crime filled part of town by your own choice when you didn't have to and you end up getting robbed, my reaction would be no shit. Why did you choose to go there? The robber is a criminal but you were acting irresponsibly.<|ASPECTS|>freedom of choice, dangerous situation, crime filled, freedom of responsibility, consequences, victim blaming, acting irresponsibly, alcohol, dangerous outcome, choose, dangerous combination, robber, criminal, persecuted, potentially, robbed, accept<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't have much sympathy for girls or anyone else for that matter who goes to a party full of strangers and drugs and then is shocked when she or he is sexually assaulted,

3b15831d-b6f4-4889-90fe-f1d38a3f18b4

<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>Long before the election Donald Trump espoused racist views, including his taking out of a full page ad calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five<|ASPECTS|>death, racist views<|CONCLUSION|>

Trump's history of racist rhetoric is praised by white supremacists.

faed0f19-369a-408b-9e37-175667932137

<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>If the police are going to have access to firearms - and they inevitably will - citizens should have access to those same firearms. People need to be able to defend themselves against an abusive and frequently white supremacist police force.<|ASPECTS|>abusive, defend, white supremacist police, access, access to firearms<|CONCLUSION|>

Guns are needed by potential resistance movements in the case of the government becoming authoritarian, and they can be a useful deterrent against authoritarianism.

07522941-09bc-4502-b723-5820f0ebf940

<|TOPIC|>Time for a Maximum Wage? Should the US Limit CEO Pay?<|ARGUMENT|>With the exception of the President, the country's highest public representatives receive a compensation of $174,000 per year This is less than all but three CEOs of S&P 500 companies, two of which receive a symbolic salary of only $1. The fourth-lowest paid of these CEOs receives about three times as much as the politicians. This makes high political offices unattractive in comparison.<|ASPECTS|>paid, unattractive, high political offices, compensation<|CONCLUSION|>

Even if companies suffer from a salary cap, society as a whole might profit. If executive positions at companies become less attractive, more highly-qualified individuals might choose other areas for work, for example politics or the public sector.

06f49d31-0ba2-41bf-8b00-6ef92265927f

<|TOPIC|>Is political correctness detrimental to society?<|ARGUMENT|>The dog will associate the words with the language used to describe them, once they are use to it, they'll be happy anytime someone says they hate them, thinking it's about love.<|ASPECTS|>hate, love<|CONCLUSION|>

If a dog likes someone who hates them, they could be mistreated by them.

e3d300a7-c3dc-451d-9a08-f35ecc1913d3

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Since the war on terror began over a decade ago thousands of innocent bystanders and civilians have been killed by collateral damage in the middle east. I believe that isis is a terrible group but this recent attack from their perspective is just a drop in the vast ocean of death that has been growing since the western invasion of the region. The only reason why we care so much about the attacks in paris is because it is so much closer to home with our civilians dying rather than theirs. I feel this is proven by how little the western world cared about isis' other attacks, for example the crash of metrojet flight 9268. Even though the west was shocked and upset by that attack it is nothing compared to the grief that is happening now because it was on the countries home soil. But if you think about it from their perspective, thousands of people have died at the hands of foreigners for a war that they didn't start to promote an ideology that they don't believe in, they are simply fighting back in any way they can against a force that is larger, better equipped and better supplied with greater financial backing behind it .<|ASPECTS|>civilians dying, foreigners, ocean of death, terrible group, grief, died, innocent bystanders, attacks, financial backing, collateral damage, cared, shocked and upset, fighting back, war on terror, civilians, closer to home, crash, killed<|CONCLUSION|>

the attacks in paris from the perspective of isis members was justified and that calling them simply 'terrorists' is an oversimplification that will ultimately lead to more death and destruction on both sides while creating a greater rift between opposing sides.

5ac527ba-1c55-4ad5-a5d9-1f665ad4e00e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You are a product of your environment. Who you are and the choices you make have nothing to do with the essence of your self whatever that actually is. Who you are and the choices you make are a product of your environment, so whether or not you choose to work extra hard, make a certain business decision over a different choice, etc, success isnt something you earn. Maybe in a perfect world. This doesnt mean you can't feel good about your success, it just means you can't look down on others for failing.<|ASPECTS|>, business decision, self, earn, others, success, extra hard, look, failing, product, feel good, choices, perfect world, essence, environment<|CONCLUSION|>

Whether you succeed or fail at anything is luck.

ecc2c5de-ec47-46c2-a9b3-aa0ceaf37911

<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>Some pain provides a valuable feedback mechanism that we're doing something destructive, or that something has gone wrong in our bodies, and we need to seek medical attention.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, medical attention, destructive, feedback mechanism<|CONCLUSION|>

Suffering is not evil. Suffering may sometimes be the result of evil, but is not a synonym for evil.

ed6a6b06-1245-4684-bd71-8dd03af446d8

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>OK, here is what I see what I look at the entire mainstream media, leaving aside any and all political bias. TV news isn't about journalism anymore, whoever is doing it. It's about infotainment. All American news channels are horrible. They pander to an audience and the only question is how much they pander. Some foreign networks are OK, but others are going the same route or were always just an arm of their country's propaganda machine. The standards at newspapers suck donkey balls. Does the New York Times even care about how they have a new said reporter didn't even go there and do that scandal every six months? It's a dying medium that has chosen to help itself commit suicide with incompetency, and nothing is really taking its place. And magazines are even worse. The quality of my magazine articles has slid terribly over the last 20 years. BOOKS. It seems like every book I pick up these days, even the big legacy publisher stuff, is sprinkled with proofing errors. Where I used to find one typo in 300 pages, I now find like one per 25 pages. I constantly find factual errors in my non fiction books as well, as if fact checked were left up to the author. The mainstream media is a bloated, stinking half dead carcass floating on a river of raw sewage. Convince me there is hope for the future.<|ASPECTS|>half dead, worse, news channels, standards, political bias, factual errors, stinking, fact checked, bloated, future, raw sewage, suicide, donkey balls, typo, foreign networks, proofing errors, articles, journalism, magazines, hope, scandal, pander, infotainment, horrible, quality, dying medium, propaganda machine, incompetency, suck, slid terribly<|CONCLUSION|>

The mainstream media is swirling the toilet bowl into mediocrity, and nothing can save it.

1ccf1c70-2c07-4f32-b370-8b6e3e3ab998

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me explain Yes, circumcision has health benefits, as outlined here and It can also help with certain conditions like phimosis in older men. First, it's important to understand that the conditions preventable by circumcision are rare. Additionally, these can be prevented by correctly cleaning the foreskin. I understand lower chances of bad medical conditions, in addition to not negatively affecting pleasure sounds like a great thing. I'm not here to debate whether it's good or bad. I believe in the value of body autonomy, and the choice should realistically belong to the person, not to anyone else. This means parents shouldn't force their infant into the medical procedure. Rather, they should wait until he's older so that the child himself can consider it. I understand the argument of time as well. Adult circumcision can generally take an hour, while an infant can be done in 5 10 minutes. Pain is also a factor, though it isn't extremely painful With all that in mind, let's summarize Why circumcision should be done Lesser chance of disease, no loss in pleasure, can help with phimosis. Why circumcision shouldn't be done Disease are rare, and easily preventable with cleaning, body autonomy. My argument, value body autonomy more. I believe circumcision is definitely a good thing, but I still believe that the person should have the decision, to value body autonomy. Change my view . Edit I'm really sorry to all the people who I haven't been able to respond to give delta to. My inbox was vastly spammed and I haven't been able to trace back to anyone. I will be going through this post again and hopefully providing Delta's arguments.<|ASPECTS|>health benefits, preventable, pain, circumcision, view, chance, spammed, trace back, delta 's arguments, adult circumcision, sorry, pleasure, child, conditions, argument of time, correctly cleaning, infant, bad medical conditions, body autonomy, disease, medical procedure, good or bad, prevented, loss, easily, force, value, painful, rare, negatively affecting pleasure, phimosis<|CONCLUSION|>

Circumcision should value body autonomy, meaning parents shouldn't make the decision for the child

560e3934-bd35-4374-abcd-699f667d2254

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll admit from the off that a lot of left wing euphemisms are well meant. It is generally a mark of generosity and compassion that people search for nicer ways of describing disability, retardation and race, among other things. Yet on balance the mincing of such words makes you appear feeble or untrustworthy. I recently read an interview with David Miliband, former UK foreign secretary and current chief executive of the International Rescue Committee, and he insisted on describing the migrants he worked with as new Americans . Aside from anything else this seemed presumptuous, if not entirely begging the question. By avoiding such clarity you also make yourself appear a bit dim, to my mind, and even duplicitous and patronising. .<|ASPECTS|>new americans, compassion, dim, presumptuous, duplicitous, meant, disability, feeble, race, retardation, migrants, untrustworthy, clarity, patronising, left wing, euphemisms, generosity<|CONCLUSION|>

Left-wing euphemisms are laughable, and make the speaker appear stupid or untrustworthy

4fee2bb9-74e6-4342-85e6-aca976c18ca1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There will not be a Tl dr. How can you change a view that you didn't read? There seems to be a hypothesis about aliens being so complex and strange to us that the human mind cannot grasp it. I refute these claims. If we are speaking strictly about the material world, primitive unicellular life is the source of every complex one, and biological aliens are inevitably the result of evolution as we have observed on earth. When I say technologically advanced , I am speaking particularly about the ability to build and send objects to space to analyze it, and building machinery to communicate much like we do. This rules out beings which might be born in gas planets, as the environment prevents stagnation and complexity to have the chance to emerge, and a solid ground from which to assemble and send objects. There might be extremely intelligent liquid roaming beings like cetaceans, but they would need to build above ground in order to pierce the atmosphere, and they would need to piece together materials from the ocean floor, which again takes a solid ground to function, and which would need motor organs much like legs to support weight above them to carry such tools. It technically makes them ground roaming. If they're just a smarter version of cetaceans, they might not want to engage in that hassle anyway and stay in their comfortable paradise. And finally, most likely, they are in a life friendly Environment such as our own, born from the combination of a particular atmosphere and primitive life's amino acids. In which case they need organs to move around like our legs. Whether they're bipeds or whateverpeds doesn't matter to stand up, and to have an above ground motor organ to grasp and manipulate tools like our hands, regardless of their number . They would need organs to detect objects in front of them like our eyes , organs to perceive sound or air vibration more than likely, whether they communicate this way or not and organs to communicate, to which we will come back to later on. Smelling and taste are senses which they most likely have as they are useful, but not indispensable to technological advances. They need all of these things to even start building tools to start with. The only exception I can think of comes with the issue of communication. If they communicate visually through sign language or color changing skin, then they have eyes. If they communicate through sounds, like us, then they have a noise organ and ears, like us. If they communicate chemically like ants, some insects and aquatic creatures on earth and have the ability to link entire organisms as do cells, then that trait certainly didn't appear until after they became complex beings individually, capable of functioning on their own in the first place. The idea that there's some kind of telepathy going on is improbable and highly conceptual. If they somehow do, which I strongly doubt, it still falls into the realm of speaking and hearing, but simply on a different register. Their anatomy doesn't matter so long as the senses are there. They might not have a head per se, their brain might be everywhere like an octopus or centralised like us, they are obviously very different. Being very small or large beings doesn't matter if they're smart enough to model the world around them in the first place. My argument is centered around necessary senses and organs which perform them. This collectivity or superbeing, if that is the case, might be so technologically advanced as to have uploaded their consciousness to an online platform, which is still something we can comprehend, as the necessary medium is the machine on which it is uploaded, and if such a machine is digitalized too, then it needs physical relay points to contain the system, whatever it may be. This uploading is more that likely electrical, as it is the most universally accessible and easily discovered practical medium for uploading. The idea of them discovering some mysterious energy , an idea which I do not subscribe to because it makes me think of mom blog crystal medicine, hocus pocus and magic, is also out of question. If we go super conceptual, they might have found another type of dimension in physics altogether, in which the laws of physics are different from ours but stable enough to permit a universe. This is however extremely unlikely, as the topic is aliens in our universe, and if another dimension is hidden among ours, then it functions approximately with the same States of matter and comes back to my initial point. In that case, they still need to have evolved on a material, tangible surface to evolve to such a state. Furthermore, if they are technologically advanced enough to come to this world by changing dimensions, then they need a physical, tangible object in this world to manifest themselves. It might be a giant machine god, it can be a super advanced, chemically communicating hyper organism, it can be a mothership with actual individual beings as are we, but they are always, ALWAYS something that homo sapiens can wrap its mind around and put into words, since the beginning of their life inevitably began like ours, and thus results in concepts which can be explained if they are unknown to our sciences.<|ASPECTS|>primitive unicellular life, physical, complexity, life friendly environment, functioning, analyze, electrical, tangible object, view, communicate visually, god, indispensable, complex and strange, communicate, individual beings, building tools, perceive sound, tangible surface, language, link entire organisms, mothership, matter, states, brain, improbable, useful, collectivity, stagnation, roaming beings, anatomy, communicate through sounds, noise organ and ears, smelling, organs, universally accessible, telepathy, superbeing, grasp, evolved, biological aliens, senses, motor organs, move, evolve, practical medium, laws, easily discovered, highly conceptual, speaking and hearing, mind, intelligent, communication, stable, model the world, smart, taste, small, technologically advanced, solid, detect objects, manipulate tools, support weight, air vibration, mysterious energy, change, centralised, hassle, color changing skin, head, motor organ, dimension in physics, changing dimensions, necessary senses and organs, different, comfortable paradise, aliens, ground roaming, eyes, technological advances, evolution, relay points<|CONCLUSION|>

If there are technologically advanced alien species, they are more than likely solid ground roaming humanoids, with the exception of a superbeing, and the idea that alien life might be "something that we cannot comprehend" is laughable at worst, and nearly impossible at best.

0e50b6c4-395d-4998-848a-8af6bf46c7b1

<|TOPIC|>Should "women-only" spaces be open to anyone identifying as female?<|ARGUMENT|>If gender were a social construct, transgender people wouldn't feel the need to alter their physical appearance or undergo hormone therapy and/ or surgeries. A man can be feminine and a woman can be masculine, but that does not negate the fact that their gender is literally encoded within their biology.<|ASPECTS|>hormone therapy, alter, masculine, feminine, social construct, gender, encoded, physical appearance<|CONCLUSION|>

The fact that many trans individuals wish to adapt their physical appearance to the gender they identify with, suggests the existence of a strong connection between physical/biological sex and gender identity.

626f2d68-ea2f-4e1a-a7ba-da4889dc1048

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reddit seems to have a hard on for stories where OP lies their way into a position and manages to succeed. This to me seems completely dishonest especially since you're taking the position away from someone who actually worked hard to be qualified for the position. This is even worse if the job concerns the safety of others. I just saw a thread in r confession where the OP admitted to faking his resume but half the comments are saying to just fake it until you made it . I was raised to be honest so I can't comprehend how popular this sentiment is.<|ASPECTS|>, resume, confession, sentiment, worked hard, manages, honest, dishonest, fake, safety of others, popular, succeed<|CONCLUSION|>

Lying on your resume is absolutely disgusting and companies should actively verified resumes to catch them.

49f504aa-22f6-4fd0-9e23-2b390b3306e4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay my title was a little extreme, but I do feel strongly about this. Pizza should be eaten by hand, not with a knife and fork. For this argument I'm talking about a typical American pizza slice, around half an inch thich thick, that is designed to be eaten by hand. I'm not talking about thicker Chicago style pizza in this instance. We live in a society. There are generally agreed standards of how to eat. If I were to eat spaghetti with my hands in public it would be seen as highly improper, rude, strange, and even disgusting. If I were to eat a penut butter and jelly sandwich or hamburger with a fork and knife or spoon it might not be regarded as disgusting, but it would seem very strange indeed. Pizza is meant to be eaten by hand, eating it another way is highly improper and strange. These are the common excuses I've seen for eating it with utensils 1 It's messy and or greasy I guess the theory is that because pizza is a little messy and or greasy, eating it with utensils helps the eater avoid mess. Sorry, I don't buy it. Millions of people eat pizza by hand all the time without problem, are so special that you can't manage it? Also, if pizza seems to messy for you to eat by hand, maybe it's not the right food for you. There is such a wide array of delicious food in this world, perhaps you should choose something more suited to your delicate sensibilities. A person who is too dainity, or delicate to eat pizza by hand is showing a weakness of character. 2 I've grown up eating this way. I've hear this from British people a lot. They say they've grown up grown accustom to eating pizza with utensils and refuse to change. Well I'm an American, I've eaten pizza all my life, and I'm telling you the right way to eat it. I didn't argue with an English person about how to make drink tea. When I went to Japan I didn't argue with a Japanese person about how to eat sushi. Of course I'm not saying it should be illegal or they shouldn't have the right to eat food whichever way they want. Just that people who eat pizza with a knife and fork should be chided and riddiculed. <|ASPECTS|>, riddiculed, special, highly, right food, disgusting, messy, illegal, refuse to change, grown accustom, extreme, delicate, society, improper, pizza, thicker, drink tea, delicious food, avoid mess, eating this way, british people, chided, right, dainity, sushi, problem, agreed standards, eaten by hand, live, strange, weakness of character, right to eat food, rude, delicate sensibilities, style<|CONCLUSION|>

I think people that eat pizza with a knife and a fork are scum.

708693d9-859f-42ee-81f7-b756e0de6758