Datasets:

webis

/

conclugen

like 1

<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Humans are responsible for damage caused by or danger done to 'their' animals, like cattle. This legal obligation results out of humans' property rights over these animals.<|ASPECTS|>property rights, legal obligation<|CONCLUSION|>

Most animals whose meat is eaten have been the property of humans. Their property rights conflict with animal rights.

bc03829f-3bc7-4b15-9f2f-bad80873fbc5

<|TOPIC|>Will Sex Robots Advance Sexual Liberation?<|ARGUMENT|>It is not as far a stretch as one may think. Young people, in particular, have relationships with their computerised items that would - if translated to human terms - be overwhelmingly intimate.<|ASPECTS|>intimate<|CONCLUSION|>

A recent survey discovered that around 25% of young people would consider dating a robot.

b9c4cec9-ef16-4a76-9ae2-e05856724c2a

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You’ll never convince me to gamble, and I’m not asking you to. But we all know people whom we love and respect … who gamble. Can you convince me that there is a respectable reason for them to do so other than, “addiction” ? I can't even imagine why it's fun. When I visit Las Vegas and see people dropping their money into slots machines or god knows what other activities that I don't even understand , it makes me furious Yet, I understand that gambling is a big part of some cultures Chinese? . I feel bad that I hold a view which essentially is contemptuous towards one billion of the world's population. So please, change my view<|ASPECTS|>respect, respectable reason, fun, gambling, money, slots, gamble, contemptuous, addiction ”, love<|CONCLUSION|>

There is nothing redeeming about gambling. I'm not talking games of skill, like card games; I mean games where you are guaranteed to lose over the long run.

a9e3d9b1-2847-4983-a077-cafde26f114b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In my classroom, it get's really hot, It's summer and get's to 30C and girls often turn the AC off because they get too cold and they sit underneath it. I think it should be on because you can't get cooler without an AC but if you are cold you can bring a sweatshirt or something to warm you up. I wouldn't be allowed to take off my shirt off in class and it to tell the truth it would not be that effective. it's not a big deal to bring a jumper to class because the whole of winter people brought them. If people who tend to get cold brought a jumper it would be a win win. Also another point I would like to ad that boys sweat more than women and you wouldn't like a classroom full of sweat right? <|ASPECTS|>effective, cold, win win, cooler, boys, sweat, summer, warm, class, hot<|CONCLUSION|>

There A/C should be on in Summer time

d6269a90-4494-4366-bd53-ff08ca923ed8

<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Religion has a history of monopolizing education and knowledge limiting the perspectives one can be exposed to making them easier to control.<|ASPECTS|>easier to control, knowledge, monopolizing education<|CONCLUSION|>

Religion organizes and manipulates people in order to make them easier to control.

866e9cbc-0fb9-4269-ac4b-c86247d1d077

<|TOPIC|>throw Russia out of the G8<|ARGUMENT|>The intention of international institutions is to bind countries together, to ensure they speak to each other and resolve differences, and to ensure they feel they cannot engage in aggressive actions. However when a state breaks these norms there needs to be a reaction. Russia has been willing to engage in aggressive acts time and time again. The recent occupation of Crimea is very similar to Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008; in both conflicts Russia used the excuse of Russians being in danger, in both cases Russia was there as a ‘peacekeeper’, and in both cases the action was in another sovereign country whose government did not wish Russian troops there. The result is an expansion of Russian influence and some form of annexation.1 There was no action after the Russian conflict with Georgia except a mediated peace.2 There now needs to be a response to actions in Crimea; throwing Russia out of the G8 is the least response. 1 Friedman, Uri, ‘Putin’s Playbook: The Strategy Behind Russia’s Takeover of Crimea’, The Atlantic, 2 March 2014 2 King, Charles, ‘The Five-Day War’, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2008 Traynor, Ian, Luke Harding and Helen Womack, ‘Georgia and Russia declare ceasefire’, theguardian.com, 16 August 2008<|ASPECTS|>, aggressive actions, russian influence, annexation, resolve differences, actions, reaction, least response, norms, crimea, expansion, mediated peace, bind countries together, aggressive acts, danger, response, ceasefire ’, peacekeeper<|CONCLUSION|>

There needs to be a response to bad behaviour internationally

6669e1f4-7daa-46c9-ab07-1cde7fd2e8b8

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’m coming from a very ignorant position on addiction. I’ve tried most drugs in my younger days but never got remotely hooked on any of them. So completely open minded. I just see a lot of posts on different subreddits whether it’s people confessing their relapse or just celebrating a milestone based on the number of days they’ve been sober. Russel brands new special on Netflix opens with a bit about how he’s been 15 years sober. Every time I see, read, or hear former addicts mention this number I feel like it’s implying that there’s an end goal number, like you are reaching for a certain number of days but in reality never reach it because it SHOULD be never ending. And because it’s never ending, even if a former addict never relapses, they forever identify themselves with being a former addict who is x days sober instead of just a normal person who doesn’t do drugs or drinks . And maybe clinging onto that identity and constantly counting days is what makes them relapse sometime in the future. I also don’t think the cheering and congratulating of a former addict for the rest of their life is not healthy. And people cheer and congratulate the longer the persons been sober. Like 15 years sober? Woooooow amazing job I feel like after a certain amount of time after their recovery, people should stop doing that. It must have some kind of psychological detriment to the former addict who gets a perpetual serotonin bump collecting these free social brownie points whenever they please. Again I’m not a psychologist, so who knows? It also magnifies ones failure and by extension anxiety if someone was to relapse. Like if a former addict was 3 years sober and caves one weekend and has one smoke drink, it’ll leave them with a feeling of utter failure and possibly spiral them down to the deep ends of addiction again, when in reality it could’ve just been an isolated incident and not trigger a full blown relapse. It’s like when I try to stick to a Keto diet, if I see my gf order a delicious cheesecake, I might fucking cave. But I’m not going to give up completely and spiral down to a diet of pizza and brownies because I already “fucked up” and “failed”. In my opinion, it’s healthier for former addicts who kick their addiction to identify themselves as a whole new, healthy person with a new lifestyle that doesn’t revolve around quantifying their sobriety. Basically if I was a former addict, I would like to identify as a healthy person that has nothing to do with drugs than a healthy person who’s 573 days sober.<|ASPECTS|>former addict, open minded, confessing, free social brownie points, congratulate, fucked up ”, celebrating, drugs, congratulating, relapse, failed, days sober, sober, ignorant position, magnifies, hooked, isolated incident, anxiety, cheer, counting days, identity, healthier, years, healthy, ending, addiction, cheering, psychologist, recovery, utter failure, healthy person, sobriety, relapses, psychological detriment, end goal number, milestone, ones failure<|CONCLUSION|>

Recovering addicts should stop counting days of sobriety

e9184dbd-276e-438c-935e-5bc7a968e833

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that in a post sexual revolution society that there should be no tax deductions given for having children. I believe that these deductions did make sense when society did not have ready and reliable access to birth control and other means of ending pregnancy. I also believe that since children in affect cost the government more money school funding and medical cost it makes little sense to lower the amount of money available by exactly the number of children there are. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, reliable access to birth control, affect, cost, ready, tax deductions, view, money, medical cost, school funding<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't believe people with children should get tax breaks.

421004af-35d5-4785-92b5-ee5f5dbfa36f

<|TOPIC|>Artificial Intelligence AI: Should an artificial general intelligence be created?<|ARGUMENT|>The AI to make the drones autonomous, once developed, would be shared and adapted to individual drones, thus you once have big cost, which would then be amortized over centuries between thousands of weapon systems.<|ASPECTS|>adapted, cost, shared<|CONCLUSION|>

Small autonomous drones could be mass-produced cheaply, for less than 10k per piece. They would be expendable, similar to how an ant colony has no problem to sacrifice thousands of its members.

829cd986-2c3a-4775-a646-070d03651129

<|TOPIC|>Should Theresa May Resign?<|ARGUMENT|>More than 140 Russian diplomats have been expelled and the UK has received resolute support from 24 countries across the world.<|ASPECTS|>support, russian, resolute<|CONCLUSION|>

May coordinated the strongest international action against Russian aggression in the wake of the nerve agent attack in Salisbury.

1e18d1e5-149e-4f68-be62-84ef0d233f36

<|TOPIC|>Should horse racing be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>If bullfighting is pushed underground, it won't be able to be held up as a source of national pride. This will reduce its popularity, and so reduce the amount of bullfighting.<|ASPECTS|>national pride, bullfighting, reduce, popularity<|CONCLUSION|>

Bullfighting is less profitable if underground and, thus, rarer. This reduces the number of animals suffering as a result.

1cf99e7d-94ac-446a-8448-f30634d6d84c

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, I'd first like to start by saying that there isn't a problem with gun violence. If we look at the FBIs 2016 Expanded Homicide Table, we are looking at 8,897 deaths by firearms In the United States, there are 325 million people. 9000 325 million is an incredibly low, statistically insignificant number. We could even divide this by fifty states to even further demonstrate this 9000 deaths 50 states 180 deaths. That's insignificant. Some people say that the number is disingenuous and doesn't include suicides. I say the opposite. I think suicide is your own legal right, just like smoking marijuana is. I don't smoke marijuana and I won't commit suicide, but I think it's your right. I'd even go the opposite way and say that having a less painful way of committing suicide is more humane, provided you're gt 17 years old. This number is higher than it should be when discussing gun control. Including drug related homicides is disingenuous. Legalizing drugs would solve a lot of those issues. I also don't care about drug dealers who kill each other, only collateral damage. Including those numbers doesn't make sense. This is a big deal. I know what some of you're saying. Well, if we look at other countries, they have less gun violence. This isn't a good comparison at all. The United States has unquestionably, more income inequality and poverty. This really hurts young people who aren't established and puts a tone of pressure on them. Furthermore, it allows young people to get bullied more. Income inequality and poverty creates 'Have vs Have Not' conflicts. Poverty is related to crime. This is a big one. education is paid for, by the government, in other countries which is kind of related to above. a less homogeneous population than these other countries. Once these European countries started having migrants come in, shit started getting messed up. European countries don't have the same gang culture that we have. a more conservative and less accepting culture than European countries. This creates more social barriers, obstacles, and conflict. a 'war hawk' like history that emphasizes masculinity. healthcare that is super expensive. This puts even more stress on people. people, on average, work more in the United States than other countries and have less sick time. More stress and less time off negatively impacts relationships. stringent abortion time restrictions and more cultural stigma against abortions than Europe does. This is another poverty issue. Low income kids are more likely to be criminals. completely different educational system than other European countries. Also, crime, in general, isn't linear with population increase. Population increases changes the dynamic of crime increases. Why did the population increase? From another country? Refugees? Natural? These, and many more questions, need to be answered. The above items are just a start at the differences between the US and Europe. They are so different that comparing them doesn't make sense. Let's not even get into the discussion regarding the increase in other types of violent crime that Europe has, like knife crime. On the low end, it is estimated that there is 55,000 80,000 defensive gun uses per year, in the United States. 55,000 gt 9,000. You can do some googling. Different studies say different things in this regard so I took the lower numbers. Now that we've established that gun crime is not an issue, let's talk about proposed solutions Banning high capacity firearms. This doesn't make sense at all. Most firearm offenses are committed with handguns. Furthermore, a pump action shotgun with buckshot rivals high capacity firearms in most of these mass shooting situations. There are always exception to the rule. Strengthening background checks. What does this even mean? We already have background checks. Ban the mentally ill from owning firearms. If someone has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, they can't own a gun. What else do you want? Take away gun rights from someone who has heart palpitations and panic sensation and decides to go the the ER and when the doctor runs all their tests and can't find anything, says this is due to anxiety? Let's pretend you do agree with that, what if the cardiologist says it is due to X ? Incredibly dumb policy. Ban anyone that is on or has been on psychiatric medication from owning a firearm. Incredibly dumb. If you hurt your back, you could be prescribed a muscle relaxer called Valium. Valium is a psychiatric medication. Anyone who's hurt their back shouldn't be able to own a gun? Some people use anti depressants as sleep aids. Anyone who has used a SSRI for sleeping sake should not be able to own a firearm? C'mon. Let's be logical and think. Gun registration. Unacceptable. Registration is a precursor to confiscation. Gun confiscation. Unacceptable. 55,000 defensive gun uses gt 9,000 deaths. I guess I am not seeing why anyone would support any form of gun control. It just seems illogical to me. EDIT Some additional questions I have What gun control measures do you support and why? Why would you support something when there's not a problem? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. What flaws do you see in my logic? <|ASPECTS|>poverty issue, disingenuous, income inequality, make, drug related homicides, natural, suicides, super, incredibly, negatively impacts relationships, collateral damage, population increase, anxiety, less accepting culture, deaths by firearms, violent crime, time, high capacity firearms, stress on people, cultural stigma, good comparison, panic, background checks, issues, social barriers, a gun, linear, psychiatric medication, low, conflict, crime, muscle relaxer, due to x, precursor, pressure, crime increases, conservative, statistically insignificant number, solve, hawk, mental institution, sleeping sake, kill, homogeneous population, lower numbers, refugees, suicide, rivals, valium, shooting, knife crime, insignificant, palpitations, drug dealers, unacceptable, population increases, gang culture, painful, different, poverty, gun, numbers, dumb policy, different things, obstacles, cardiologist, abortion time restrictions, shit started getting messed, broke, gun violence, gun confiscation, support something, committed, think, gun registration, logical, flaws, deaths, young people, a firearm, stress, criminals, less, hurts young people, hurt their back, googling, registration, expensive, sleep aids, confiscation, mentally ill, anti depressants, differences, hurt your back, gun crime, gun rights, educational system, gun control measures, commit suicide, paid, support, exception to the rule, dynamic, fix, masculinity, legal right, involuntarily, illogical, handguns, dumb, problem, sick time, firearm offenses, divide, bullied, humane, migrants, defensive gun uses, gun control<|CONCLUSION|>

Any Sort of Gun Control is Bad Gun Control

c463d9d0-8776-4c93-aa29-b1afac5f23bd

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know there are dozens of tipping s on the sub, but none of them actually approach the issue in the way I'm about to. My source for all of my supporting arguments can be found in This episode of Freakonomics Radio. If you tip, you support a pricing structure that runs counter to American ideals behind education and skills training. Workers who's wages are powered on tips, see a bare minimum of a 3 increase in wages annually. This is because, the cost of food goes up every year with inflation, in addition to their 3 from wage inflation. Since tipping is correlated with a percentage of your bill, as food prices go up, it directly increases the wages of wait staff. This growth 6 total is unprecedented amongst unskilled labor jobs. In the last 20 years, waitstaff accrossed the board have seen roughly 300 increases in wages because of tipping, vs kitchen staff who have only seen a 20 increase. A typical kitchen staff can expect to start at right around 14 an hour today. Cook staff, in general are not unskilled labor. They have to go through expensive 20k training to be qualified for the job and the high stress nature of the job often leads to drug use. The quality of life for cook staff is poorer directly because waitstaff collects tips. Waitstaff as unskilled labor don't deserve a base line 3 minimum increase to wages annually on top of minimum wage laws increasing wages, when cook staff with qualifications don't necessarily see the same increase. Thus, it is immoral to support a pricing structure that relies on tips. You are making the lives on an entire section of the work force worse by supporting tipping culture. It disincentivizes getting an education in the service industry and that is in of itself regressive. It is far more moral, to abstain from tipping to in turn force legislature to make tipping illegal, thus increasing food prices to a level where they should be and reflecting an appropriate wage for cook staff that is higher than wait staff.<|ASPECTS|>powered on tips, moral, supporting arguments, unskilled labor, tipping, inflation, food prices, wages, regressive, tipping culture, issue, wages of wait staff, drug use, immoral, cost of food, disincentivizes, quality of life, tips, approach, poorer, pricing structure, unskilled labor jobs, tipping cmvs, staff, high stress, wage inflation, education, expensive, lives, increases, skills training<|CONCLUSION|>

Tipping is immoral. It is more moral to abstain from tipping, than it is to continue supporting individuals with tips.

03f67e58-0390-403a-a827-615a8976e46a

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Petty topic to some, but it's my first time in this sub reddit and I wanted to simply try it out with a smaller topic Sorry the title is wrong, kind user brought it to my attention It is LOGAN paul not JAKE paul. Logan Paul video taped a dead body and posted it to his millions of VERY YOUNG followers to view and only lost ads for a few days with a lot of public backlash but no real punishment from YouTube. Pewdiepie was accused of being a Neo Nazi with fake evidence and he disproved it along with many others. Pewdiepie then lost his contract with Disney, lost a significant amount of ads publicity from youtube and then his YouTube Red series was flat out canceled. Logan Paul's channel should have suffered the same way if not worse than Pewdiepie's channel did. If anyone would like to change my view I am open to it. I do not have all the facts which is a big flaw to my belief and maybe I am missing something. Please be kind First post here D EDIT Sorry for the misunderstanding through out some of this I wasn't completely clear with everything. I am not here to discuss whether I think Pewdiepie deserved the consequences not punishment I am here to discuss why it was irrational for YouTube to more severely punish a man who said racist shady things than a man who filmed a dead body and showed it to his young audience. <|ASPECTS|>lost ads, smaller topic, missing, suffered, consequences, punishment, body, facts, ads publicity, neo nazi, disproved, change my view, misunderstanding, racist shady things, logan, irrational, flaw, fake evidence, public backlash<|CONCLUSION|>

Jake Paul should have AT LEAST received the same punishment Pewdiepie did.

cfff5478-66f7-4520-a7b5-806f61809007

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is mostly in response to the anti bullying movement and legislation against cyber bullying. I've heard it said time and time again that someone caused someone else to kill themselves, and some people have compared this to murder. I find this to be a giant misrepresentation of the word suicide. Furthermore, saying a bully caused a suicide mitigates the mental illness at work and really points the blame in the wrong direction. Thoughts of suicide is a serious mental disorder, and indicitive of a societal problem. I dont think the societal problem is children being cruel. Children have always been cruel, and it really is only a consequent of pressures to fit in, but these pressures have always been around. The internet has only increased access they have to each other. Overall, as a societal problem, I can't see any more cause to youth suicide other than the media exposure of it, the overall sensitivity of our society, and the stigma attached to mental disease. People, namely children, being prosecuted for causing suicide from harassment is not only extremly immoral, but also exhasberates the problem by giving suicidal children the idea that they could get justice by implicating a bully with their death.<|ASPECTS|>pressures, wrong, mental disorder, extremly immoral, cruel, cyber bullying, blame, societal problem, kill, increased access, misrepresentation, suicide, mental disease, societal, caused someone, murder, justice, indicitive, youth suicide, exhasberates, stigma, anti bullying movement, children, mental illness, harassment, sensitivity of our society<|CONCLUSION|>

I dont think anyone can cause anyone else to commit suicide.

4248af69-d254-424b-964c-19d187e7405d

<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>If issues occur during construction, people would need to travel back-and-forth between Earth and the rings to repair. A space elevator does not have those issues as much.<|ASPECTS|>issues, travel<|CONCLUSION|>

An orbital ring is more prone to construction errors and halts than a space elevator.

7c91bf98-a11c-40f4-a667-1ec1d16d424e

<|TOPIC|>the United Nations has a responsibility to protect.<|ARGUMENT|>The United Nations struggles to meet its current needs, in terms of funding for emergency relief, development work, health initiatives, etc. and also in terms of peacekeeping troops, military hardware and transport, etc. It is in no position to make sweeping promises about future commitments that might involve large-scale military interventions around the globe, perhaps sometimes in more than one place at the same time1. At the very best, such an extra burden would draw resources and funding away from the UN's vitally important current programs. At worst, intervention would be undertaken with too few troops, badly equipped and unable to fulfill their mandate. The United States intervention in Somalia failed miserably because it was at best half-baked—the UN would be lucky if not every one of their interventions suffered from the same problems2. This would only worsen the situation. Additionally, taking on these conflicts also includes nation building and government development post conflict which may be difficult for the UN to organize and commit to. 1 Schaefer, Brett, 2005 ‘The U.N. Summit Document: At What Cost?’, The Heritage Foundation, 2 Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey 1996, “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine, <|ASPECTS|>future commitments, worsen the situation, resources, burden, government development post conflict, badly equipped, peacekeeping, needs, military interventions, intervention, problems, health, nation building, development, emergency, funding, humanitarian intervention<|CONCLUSION|>

The UN does not have the necessary funds or expertise.

1ef949d1-1fba-4fc9-bd00-959e67262248

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is inspired by this comment on an AskReddit thread. Edit for clarification I am not anti vaccination, I am very much pro vaccination, you don't need to convince me. When I say 'Anti Anti Vaccination brigade' I mean specifically the people that swarm any hint of an issue with vaccinations in unsubstantiated crap much like the thread I linked. I don't mean people who give well reasoned arguments in a civilised manner. Jim Carry may be an ass, but the way everybody in the thread automatically decided that he is the scum of the earth for that article is ridiculous. Reading the article, most of what he says is pretty reasonable. He's not saying that vaccines are evil, not saying they should be banned, he's mainly pointing out that one case of autism not caused by vaccines doesn't mean that vaccines don't cause autism completely true , that we should be in favour of more detailed and thorough studies on vaccinations we should , and we should be suspicious of any study released by a company or organisation that stands to benefit from skewing the results healthy scientific scepticism which we all should have . All the people piling on him don't seem to actually have a point. They've decided that because there are some idiots who have problems with vaccinations, that anybody with any problem with how vaccinations are developed, tested, and deployed must also be an idiot. I don't think I need to point out that that is idiotic. It seems like the hive mind of the internet has decided that vaccines good and anything that contradicts vaccines being perfect is the vile vacuous dribble of retarded hippies. Even the dumbest anti vaxxers at least has some scepticism. These anti anti vaxxers just blindly follow the word of the first scientist they find and label everybody with a some problem, however minor, to be pro preventable and gruesome death or pro caveman like ignorance .<|ASPECTS|>well, vacuous dribble, preventable, reasoned arguments, idiotic, anti vaccination, pro, vaxxers, ridiculous, like ignorance, retarded hippies, scepticism, vaccines, autism, vaccination, idiot, scientific scepticism, scum of the earth, evil, reasonable, civilised, gruesome death, vile, unsubstantiated, vaccinations<|CONCLUSION|>

The Anti-Anti-Vaccination brigade on the internet is stupider than the Anti-Vaccination movement.

00a0c190-65c7-4958-a3b8-0fcd8cc275df

<|TOPIC|>There is a good case for stating that there is a God<|ARGUMENT|>When you are watching television, talking to friends, doing homework etc. don’t you often think how crazy life is? Some may say that life is just particles happening to bounce off one another but I believe that everyone is important. Science can explain some things in theory like rainbows are created by light shining through water in dense atmospheres, but something as wonderful as that and as wonderful as life itself can not simply be a coincidence. Can you really bring yourself to think that your life will end as fertilizer for a rose bush in a cemetery? God gives purpose, purpose is life. Here is a good link to prove this point make sure you have some time, it is over an our long, but watch the whole thing. <|ASPECTS|>end, god gives purpose, important, crazy life, purpose, life, rainbows, fertilizer, coincidence<|CONCLUSION|>

Life is ridiculous without a God. Belief in God is the only sane thing we discuss.

6ee01052-73f3-4cf1-b477-02754f6648d0

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that love prevails over everything. This includes the difficulties of distance, age, time, and in this scenario, the lack of experience. Also, sometimes, the presumed immaturity when a first love happens when the person is still fairly young. This means that I believe that happiness and true, everlasting love is possible even if someone has not dated another other than the one person he is convinced he wants to be with forever. This also means that I think going through crushes and rejection is sufficient flavour to stop an individual from wanting to explore his options and try with someone new, outside of his one relationship. Change my view?<|ASPECTS|>everlasting love, immaturity, rejection, everything, lack, crushes, flavour, happiness, difficulties, presumed, distance, options, age, change my view, experience, time, prevails, love<|CONCLUSION|>

First loves will last.

caf17ad6-a620-4225-adfc-ab9d9609ef1c

<|TOPIC|>Should the NHS be privatised?<|ARGUMENT|>The government currently dissuades people from using traditional medicine through the provision of accessible and affordable healthcare and information campaigns.<|ASPECTS|>information campaigns, dissuades, traditional, accessible and affordable healthcare<|CONCLUSION|>

Privatization of healthcare will lead to a rise in the use of alternative medicine.

550f6d42-55d6-4fce-9e80-1127ff81fe58

<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>Necessary force is relative to each situation. A well trained boxer or martial arts expert can defend themselves fairly well against unarmed opponents, possibly multiple opponents. A 100 pound person would have difficulty in unarmed defense against most opponents. An average person could not fight multiple if any opponents successfuly if unarmed.<|ASPECTS|>difficulty, unarmed opponents, defend, necessary force, unarmed defense, fight, successfuly<|CONCLUSION|>

An exact, universal limit of such necessity is indeterminable and is thus subjective. What is "reasonable" is inherently subjective.

fcb4a2ba-41c7-4700-a69d-e4242d1ab1d6

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Say you have a cause for time and space existing. Well then what caused that thing? Say we find the cause for that thing. What caused that cause? Unless you have an infinite regression of causes, I don't understand how there couldn't inevitably be a first cause that has no prior causes, and thus just exists with no explanation whatsoever. Even if there were an infinite regression of causes, it seems to me that this still wouldn't avoid the problem. We would still need to explain why the infinite regression existed in the first place although first place in this sense doesn't mean in the actual chronological sense, but in more overall sense . So no matter what, it seems that there must be some first thing that is just there for no reason and with no cause. Please change my view.<|ASPECTS|>prior causes, infinite regression, time and space existing, avoid the problem, view, regression of causes, first, caused, cause, find<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that even if there is an explanation on some level for why the universe exists, eventually it would still have to lead back to some first thing that 'just was' for no reason and without any cause. I see no way around this.

a0ed38aa-7ad2-4f5f-ad90-8ac330683d6a

<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>The existence of mental illnesses that create behavioral compulsions shows there is no free will beyond brain chemistry, as otherwise mentally ill people could just choose not to behave that way.<|ASPECTS|>free, behavioral compulsions, mental illnesses, brain chemistry<|CONCLUSION|>

Human actions are determined by uncontrollable internal and metaphysical processes.

b2881565-f75f-4650-8d95-4526e130cd1c

<|TOPIC|>Should the sale of semi-automatic rifles be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Increasing the price of ammunition by forcing serial numbers be stamped on all legal bullets and shell casings would allow for trackability of ammunition as well as limit access to it.<|ASPECTS|>limit access, trackability of ammunition, price of ammunition<|CONCLUSION|>

Regardless of the weapon type, as long as ammunition isn't regulated mass casualties will remain.

1dc9f5d5-c2f7-491c-9a10-de5b8cea1997

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, let me just say sorry to all the non American redditors out there because my post is exclusively referencing the American military. I make no claim to understand the nature of any foreign military enough to hold the same belief in regards to their citizens enlisting in their armed forces. That being said, my argument is as follows If an individual is qualified for military service, with qualified meaning that they are physically medically capable, have no more than two dependents, are not the primary custodian of any dependents, are not a convicted felon, and have no pending financial or legal obligations that will restrict their service, then they would be foolish to not reap the benefits of at least one enlistment assuming the standard enlistment period of 4 years . These benefits include Job security with a relatively well paying job. Tricare health insurance Physical mental fortitude Job training Tuition Assistance The G.I. Bill Various state benefits i.e. state G.I Bills, tax credits, etc. Hiring preference for government jobs. Membership to military credit unions. Unique experience you can't get anywhere else. Possible objections and counter arguments I don't like violence. Join the Coast Guard, Navy, or Air Force. Chances are that if you see violence in any of those services Special Warfare is an exception then something is horribly wrong. I don't like people hitting yelling at me. This isn't your parents' or grandparents' military anymore. I don't care how many times you have watched Full Metal Jacket boot camp isn't anything like that today. I don't like guns. Then don't join the Army Marines, but the other services have very little to do with them most of the time. It's a morally corrupt institution. This is generally in reference to combat, to which I say if you don't want to be involved in combat, then don't join the Army or Marines. The Coast Guard, for example, patrols the coast, rescues individuals at sea, and arrests drug traffickers. How exactly are they morally corrupt? I fully understand those who don't want to do it for a career because it can be very difficult to achieve a work life balance, but for four years of service especially if you are very young the benefits far out weigh the costs. Feel free to .<|ASPECTS|>physical, morally corrupt, drug traffickers, understand the nature, military credit unions, benefits, tax credits, rescues individuals, mental fortitude, military, unique experience, sorry, costs, work life balance, state benefits, arrests, violence, guns, little, hitting yelling, like, horribly wrong, well paying job, preference for government jobs, objections, combat, job security, morally corrupt institution, free to cmv, physically medically capable, financial or legal obligations, arguments, tuition assistance, job training<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that if you are qualified for service then you would be a fool to not do at least one enlistment in the military.

a0d74926-5fe9-4b87-b6aa-baa8ffad5dc4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me preface this by saying, I am NOT an anti natalist, and I do NOT wish for the extinction of the human species. I got into an argument with someone over my opinion today, and they weren’t able to articulate a convincing counter argument so I’m wondering if one of you might be able to. My thinking is thus we are living in an era of upheaval and political unrest all around the globe. We are just beginning to feel the effects of global warming and climate change, and in the years to come the effects will become even more dramatic. The planet is overpopulated. And it’s been estimated that there are 153 million orphans around the world who need homes. As if this weren’t enough, it’s been scientifically proven that the single best thing you can do for the environment is NOT have children. From a purely rational standpoint, it seems pretty clear that the best thing to do for the long term health of humanity and the planet is not to bring another life into the world. The resources that go into raising a child would be much better used towards improving life for those already here. If you simply must have a child, adopt one of the many who need a family. I’ve heard it said many times by adoptive parents and adoptees both, that you can love an adopted child just as much as you love a biological child, and sometimes that the bond is even more special because it was chosen. With all that said, what incentive is there for having a biological child? Some people want to have a child that shares their DNA, that looks like them, that will continue their lineage. And I’m sorry, but in my book that’s just plain old fashioned selfishness. Why do you think you’re so special? It’s that kind of limited, self centered thinking that has gotten us to a crisis point as a planet. I think there’s a moral imperative not to have children. Once all the orphans in the world have been adopted, and we’ve turned back the clock on global warming and overpopulation, then maybe it’ll be acceptable to procreate again. There was a point in human history where we needed to procreate so that the species would survive. Now the opposite seems to be true we need to NOT procreate if we want to survive. I realize this is a very emotional subject for a lot of people. Parenting feels selfless, and people have a hard time with the idea that the very act of bringing a child into the world could be selfish. But really, why would you do that when you could adopt a child in need? Do these people think that an adopted child is somehow second rate, and are unwilling to say so openly? I understand that emotions run high when it comes to this topic, but I believe it’s one of those times when emotions need to be acknowledged and then put to the side for the sake of doing the right thing. For the sake of our planet and our species. When faced with cold hard facts, the only remaining argument I can think of for procreating is “I WANT TO HAVE MY OWN BABY AND I WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE ME ” Can someone can come up with a different argument, that can withstand the scrutiny of logic?<|ASPECTS|>emotions run high, survive, special, species, emotional subject, overpopulated, procreate, crisis point, adopted child, articulate, selfishness, extinction of the human species, upheaval, acceptable to procreate, bond, counter argument, scientifically, selfless, life, incentive, family, limited, sake, political unrest, lineage, climate change, orphans, health of humanity, right, adopt, environment, unwilling, overpopulation, effects, self centered thinking, biological child, children, scrutiny of logic, emotions, need homes, global warming, anti natalist, second rate, need, continue, moral imperative, convincing, facts, selfish, long, planet, improving life, love<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that it is both a waste of resources and unjustifiably selfish to have children in these times. I would go so far as to say it’s immoral.

4844df89-111f-47b5-8a63-a80cdcf01c79

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A.Islam in the middle ages was actually quite progressive compared to the West it was ruined by the Mongol sack of Baghdad. B. Most Muslim Countries have been colonized by the West and therefore are still catching up to the West in terms of development. C. The Most important thing to realize is that socially Islam is not that far behind. Remember that Marital Rape was only abolished in the US in 1993. Anti Semitism was prevalent throughout the West until post WW2 where it was toned down and was seen less socially acceptable. Women only got the right to vote 1920 in the majority of Western Countries and in the case of Switzerland it was 1970. In the 1800's and early 1900's it was believed that fast trains would hurt women much like Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women to drive. Many of the problems that plague Islam today have only recently been solved in the West.<|ASPECTS|>women, plague islam, socially acceptable, marital rape, right to vote, abolished, progressive, hurt women, problems, ruined, anti semitism, west, catching, socially islam, less, development<|CONCLUSION|>

Islam is not in the middle ages but is merely a few decades behind the West and at most the 1800's

454515fb-866e-4add-8836-1396b35cc29f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Whenever I have a political conversation, I’m called a “libtard” or “alt right.” I find it fascinating that I can somehow be both in the same day, depending on who I speak to about politics. While being a “libtard” is annoying, it’s just a bully like name. I can live with it. The issue I have is that holding any conservative viewpoint, regardless of said viewpoint, usually results in me being told that I am “alt right.” You might say, what’s the difference? “Libtard” is just a dumb, meaningless name, while “alt right” is an actual extremest group. A more comparable name would be if holding any liberal viewpoint resulted in being called “antifa” or just a generic leftist extremest. Essentially, I am tired of every conservative view being treated as an “alt right” viewpoint. While actual “alt right” supporters are disgusting and awful, a vast majority of conservatives are not “alt right,” and calling them such only alienates them and makes cooperation and general friendliness harder to achieve. Ex Wanting lower taxes normal conservative Wanting to eradicate non white races alt right Edit This post is not about what is “left” or “right.” This post is about recognizing that there is a very stark difference between a normal conservative and an alt right extremist.<|ASPECTS|>meaningless, disgusting, antifa, eradicate, conservative view, awful, alienates, right., extremest group, general, lower taxes, normal, annoying, leftist extremest, cooperation, liberal viewpoint, conservative viewpoint, libtard, white races, live, friendliness, right ” viewpoint, bully<|CONCLUSION|>

Not all right-leaving viewpoints are inherently “alt-right.”

2ea61b66-e7da-4655-b5f2-8cac68ddebea

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer this is not meant as a semi veiled attack at Hillary Clinton, though it may certainly apply. Often, we hear about politicians evolving on issues, which is really just a code word for changing their mind. They may be against abortion or capital punishment or gay marriage at one point, and be convinced of the opposing point of view at a later one. By itself, changing your mind is not a problem. I respect people who can consider other points of view and adjust their own views accordingly. However, the purpose of a political candidate is to be a proxy for their voters' opinions. When you vote for a political candidate, you are ideally aware of their issue positions and feel like they best represent you. You make the informed decision that electing that candidate is the best way to advance your personal political agenda. When politicians evolve on issues, they may no longer represent the opinions of those who elected them. That, in turn, defeats the purpose of electing them to begin with. In a representative democracy, a politician supposedly represents the views of those who elected them. The mechanism for change isn't changing your mind, it's electing a new candidate. By changing their views on important issues, politicians may in effect be saying that they don't care so much about representing a particular set of views as they do about being elected again. But even if you remove that bit of cynicism, it's simply risky to vote for a politician that may change their view for whatever reason, good or bad , because they may not represent you properly. TL DR people changing their views is admirable. Politicians changing their positions is bad for representative democracy. Edit I'm heading out to watch the Sounders game, but I'll try to get some more debating in during halftime. I'll certainly respond to everybody who comments after the game is over.<|ASPECTS|>mechanism for change, voters ' opinions, hillary clinton, opposing point, issue positions, important issues, changing your mind, capital punishment, view, semi, comments, informed, debating, politicians evolving on issues, properly, respond, new candidate, gay marriage, views, evolve, risky, mind, points of view, representative democracy, admirable, personal political agenda, proxy, changing, electing, represent, aware, purpose, veiled attack, opinions, adjust<|CONCLUSION|>

Politicians Evolving On Issues is Not a Good Thing

4fdcd4dd-6ba7-45e1-9101-17ab4cde1a05

<|TOPIC|>ban the sale of surveillance technology to non-democratic countries<|ARGUMENT|>The right of Western businesses to sell their services abroad can be curtailed when their actions stand counter to the interests of their home governments<|ASPECTS|>businesses, right<|CONCLUSION|>

ban the sale of surveillance technology to non-democratic countries

048006d1-9b0c-447e-9f01-dd0c12dd68bf

<|TOPIC|>Hydrogen vehicles<|ARGUMENT|>Wayne Cunningham. "Driving It. Why Hydrogen will fuel future cars." CNET. 11 Apr. 2007 - "Many articles I've read covering specific fuel cell cars point out the cost of the car, usually in the millions of dollars. But this dollar figure has no relation to any hydrogen fuel cell production vehicle that will eventually be offered for sale. These research cars are hand-built and use experimental technology created in limited amounts. The most expensive material used in these cars is the platinum covering the nodes in the fuel cells. Other than that, the car consists of motors, wheels, a frame, and body. And there are even fuel cells under development using different, cheaper materials."<|ASPECTS|>experimental technology, fuel future cars, cost, motors, platinum, fuel cells, cheaper materials, hydrogen fuel, expensive material<|CONCLUSION|>

Hydrogen cars will be economically viable soon, not in decades

248107f2-4820-47b7-bffc-4edcbecc5a08

<|TOPIC|>Has Xi Jinping been good for China?<|ARGUMENT|>The brutal crackdown of the Tiananmen Square protests has tarnished China's international image ever since.<|ASPECTS|>international image<|CONCLUSION|>

China's reputation has still not recovered from previous incidents of repression towards their citizens.

6d9c07e9-7319-4fb0-ae34-b9e419bfa32d

<|TOPIC|>Should people be free to choose the country in which they live?<|ARGUMENT|>A multicultural society will not necessarily integrate, unless all sides see value in the others.<|ASPECTS|>multicultural society, value, integrate<|CONCLUSION|>

Culturally distinct newcomers often do not integrate, and instead keep to separate sub-cultures.

6e182b3e-add6-4fbe-a8f8-4d44e255557e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There is a longstanding belief held by the Catholic Church that during the ritual of the Eucharist, the offered bread and wine literally and physically morphs into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. To get around the obvious fact that the wine and bread don't really undergo a change, Catholic theologians claims that the Eucharistic offerings' essence changes into both the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The bread and wine have, by the power of their ceremonies, become homoousious with the body and blood of the Lord. As anyone who has been to a Catholic mass knows, the wine and bread taste and looks the same as it was before the ritual. The Church openly admits that no visible differences exist, even when put under the electron microscope, yet at the same time contends that it has been altered in a magical, mysterious way by God. This is nonsense, and I suspect many in the Catholic Church know it to be nonsense and just go along with it. If no observable characteristics change during the ritual, then for all intensive purposes, it is still wine. Wine and bread are defined by their chemical composition, not some Aristotelian pure essence concept of materials that may have existed before the advent of chemistry but doesn't anymore. The wine is not replaced by any blood cells, so it's still wine. End of story. The real reason the Catholic Church purported the existence of an invisible property of food is because they needed a quick way to justify their beliefs during the Middle Ages and decided to make Eucharistic phenomena unfalsifiable. There is no way to prove the existence of or observe transubstantiation given the wording of its definition. This makes debating over the Eucharist's existence as a process pointless, and effectively means that whether or not it happens, for us the party that cannot observe its effects , it does not exist. <|ASPECTS|>blood, phenomena, homoousious, wine, justify, unfalsifiable, transubstantiation, morphs, replaced, body, mysterious, nonsense, essence, chemical composition, visible differences, pointless, observable characteristics, blood cells, magical, taste, change, invisible property of food, wine and bread<|CONCLUSION|>

The Catholic Church's belief in transubstantiation is unfalsifiable, and no observable differences in the composition of pre and post-Eucharist wine exist.

025e74cd-e661-450c-a9db-5622eacb5bfd

<|TOPIC|>Should Teachers Be Allowed To Wear Religious Symbols At School?<|ARGUMENT|>The definition of "religious symbol" is too vague. One's hair length could be a symbol of their faith, so could a beaded necklace or simple thread of white cloth. To arbitrarily restrict public display of all things that have a spiritual/religious meaning to the individual displaying it is too arbitrary, vague, and ultimately unenforceable. It is overly intrusive. The restriction should be placed on things that can be reasonably shown to be offensive.<|ASPECTS|>, religious symbol, spiritual/religious, restrict public display, vague, unenforceable, offensive, faith, restriction, symbol, arbitrary, intrusive, overly<|CONCLUSION|>

Banning religious symbols will discriminate against religions whose symbols constitute religious practise rather than just symbolism.

f0e555ad-50ff-4434-98d9-cc90b51fbb7e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>While I believe that these things have legitimate goals, I think the way they are being carried out is not flawed in several ways. I think there are multiple goals that are being mixed together in such a way that they end up working against each other or have negative consequences. For example, one goal seems to be to promote specific policy positions, generally left leaning ones. A second goal seems to be to promote more respect for science scientists among politicians the public and to increase the influence of science in politics. A third goal is to promote certain policy positions directly related to science, such as issues related to scientific funding. This issues are related, but I think the way they are being advocated can be counterproductive. For example, it seems to me that the message of some of these efforts could be seen as an attack on conservatives right leaning people, or an implicit accusation that people who don't hold certain views are anti science . In general, I think this contributes to increased political polarization, which I think is a major problem. I also think that this impression is counterproductive to a certain extent, because it encourages the attitudes that it seeks to fight against. To me, it seems like there is a risk that people who hold supposedly anti science views are as likely to double down on these views in light of this type of response than to change their minds. People who oppose taking action on global warming as as likely to tune out these types of responses and harden their views on the subject as they are to be moved toward a different positions. Politicians who percieve that invoking science is becoming a tool used by their political opponents are as likely to counter by trying to demonize or defund science as they are to change their politics. Note here I'm not using as likely to imply that these things are equally likely, just that there is a really risk that these things will have the opposite of the desired effect . In addition to backfiring in terms of the impact that these protests will have on the political opponents of the participants, I think that these types of things have a negative impact on the way science is viewed among proponents. It encourages people to use science or scientific sounding arguments as gotchas, a weapon to be used against political opponents. People forget the humility that is necessarily for science to operate, where we have to willing to accept that what we believe now might be wrong. People will invoke science to make a point, but won't similarly reflect on how their own views might be flawed. Similarly, I think there is a risk that supporters will start viewing science scientists as infallible, and ignore problems within the scientific community e.g. replication crisis and overestimate the confidence that we can have in certain scientific discoveries or interpretations. . <|ASPECTS|>leaning, flawed, anti science views, conservatives, specific, respect for science scientists, confidence, counterproductive, negative consequences, anti science, infallible, demonize, attitudes, views, desired effect, tune, crisis, risk, left leaning, scientific discoveries, sounding, influence of science, weapon, defund science, negative impact, science, politics, change, ignore problems, political opponents, global warming, scientific funding, legitimate goals, impact, political polarization, humility, overestimate, harden, policy positions<|CONCLUSION|>

Recent attempts to promote the role of science in politics e.g. march for science, Bill Nye's Netflix show are misguided.

fab86974-4b7e-4dc9-9124-b3690c8c68bd

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For example knowing that you are in constant fear of being judged because you grew up in a family who judged you so what? How does that change how you act on fixing it? I hear people talk about countless therapy sessions and how much they discuss their past and every time I ask them what corrective actions or solutions the therapist offers, they do say they don't. I have some people close to me I've spoken with about this specifically recently. They just listen and ask questions and then offer root causes. Seems like a waste and annoys me that people bother themselves with this instead of just solving it.<|ASPECTS|>solving, fear of, fixing, root causes, corrective actions, past, waste, therapy sessions, judged, bother, act<|CONCLUSION|>

Seeing a therapist who focuses on understanding your childhood to identify root causes of your emotional state, feelings, and behaviors is a waste of time.

5556cb21-77bb-43a0-8955-b7f13c2dd395

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm looking at this from an office job perspective as it's really the only one I've ever had in my professional life. Hardly anyone can reliably tell you where they see themselves in five years. Five years is a very long time people may develop a passion for completely new things, obtain new skills, discover hidden talents. They also may not fully know the organization where they're applying and therefore they may not be fully aware of the opportunities that the organization may or may not offer. Moreover, someone may be a kickass employee right now but lack the foresight and maturity to be able to tell where they would like to be in five years' time. I would be happy to find out what recruiters would like to hear as a response to this question.<|ASPECTS|>office job, know the organization, completely new things, see, opportunities, hidden talents, recruiters, foresight and maturity, obtain new skills, passion, kickass employee, discover<|CONCLUSION|>

when recruiting, asking 'where do you see yourself in five years?' serves no purpose

913c83bc-fd60-4cb4-b9a3-56a752a0483c

<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>If eating meat is wrong, then 78.2% of Humanity which is the 100% of human population minus the estimated 21.8 of vegetarians i.e. 5.4 billion people are wrong. ourworldindata.org Meat around the world charts.<|ASPECTS|>population, humanity, wrong<|CONCLUSION|>

Eating meat is a central part of human nature, evolution, and physiology/biology and thus its consumption is inherent to humankind.

bfa868e9-fe25-45af-8ac0-116442e747d7

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Apple products are overpriced and don't offer nearly as much as you pay for. The cheapest iMac will offer you a dual core 2.3GHz Processor with 8gb of memory and an Intel 640 graphics card. A computer with better specs more powerful processor, GTX 1050 costs 780 INCLUDING Keyboard, mouse, monitor, and Windows 10. Only real thing missing is the Apple software, but with the extra 300 you're saving I'm sure you can buy better software. And their phones boast features that compare to those of other android phones, or some even worse, while still charging the same amount or more And with things such as the slowdowns being uncovered, it makes me wonder why anyone would want to buy Apple products <|ASPECTS|>offer, features, slowdowns, costs, powerful, apple, better software, overpriced, buy, dual<|CONCLUSION|>

There is no point in buying Apple products.

8fbe45c1-8bb3-4579-bca0-adb850028b12

<|TOPIC|>Should higher education be publicly funded?<|ARGUMENT|>Tax payers are not only paying for other peoples education, they are also paying for other peoples education in irrelevant fields. When the student has to pay for studying he will pick a class that makes him more productive helpful to others in the future instead of a class that does not. If he needs a loan to finance it, it will be more expansive for economically irrelevant fields, which don not ad the later market value of that students work.<|ASPECTS|>productive, later market value, peoples education, expansive, paying, tax, economically irrelevant<|CONCLUSION|>

If this is true, then it would cause further damage to public finances, as graduates would earn less, pay less tax, and generally be less of an asset to the economy.

5123e8b8-ff86-452d-9d30-5e479a75f1c8

<|TOPIC|>Should Countries Taking In Refugees Confiscate their Valuables?<|ARGUMENT|>Violence results from inter-male competition for sexual partners. Being more wealthy makes for a more succesful spouse and hence less stress resulting in violence.<|ASPECTS|>inter-male competition<|CONCLUSION|>

Physical violence is generally negatively related to wealth. Thus, if white people have more ressources they are less violent.

7182943b-c231-4f5e-b688-0115c29cc2d4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The headphone jack is antiquated technology that only serves one purpose and takes up space in a device that otherwise has predominant multi functional components. For Apple to continue innovating they will need to develop components that are even more powerful and smaller. So it makes sense to combine audio into the lightning cable that also doubles as a USB connector and power supply. Furthermore Apple is already including new headphones with the lightning connector as well as an aux adapter right in the box so people can continue using their current headphones anyway. Some people have complained that you can't charge your device and use the headphones at the same time, but 1. How often does that really happen? And 2. They have increased the battery life by up to two additional hours. So why all the hate? All the negativity seems anti progressive to me.<|ASPECTS|>takes up space, battery life, hate, antiquated technology, charge your device, anti progressive, multi functional components, lightning connector, powerful, audio, smaller, negativity, one purpose, components, aux adapter<|CONCLUSION|>

The criticism that people are throwing at Apple for removing the headphone jack on the iPhone 7 is unjustified.

0788dd19-3982-4fdf-b2bd-b467f41e0cc0

<|TOPIC|>Should some teachers be armed?<|ARGUMENT|>Guns in school are owned and operated by the faculty, who students don't exactly trust as much as their parents generally.<|ASPECTS|>guns, owned and operated, trust<|CONCLUSION|>

Being comfortable with guns in school is not comparable to being comfortable with guns in your home.

cb6d62af-bcae-482c-bc88-068c8f805a1b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I probably wasn't the intended audience for this story, but I still feel like I can relate to it as the bad guy. Short story girlfriend and I started dating in early high school, and we're still going strong nearly 6 years later. Only a few months into the relationship, she had a brief sexual encounter with a girl at a sleepover, and felt very guilty about it. When she explained this to me, I didn't mind it considered it hot , and later accepted her when she told me she was bi, and we moved on. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm glad that we could continue our relationship, and I stand by my decision to be forgiving about that encounter. But now I wonder how I would've felt if her experience had instead been with a guy. Would I have taken more time to accept it? Was my forgiveness influenced by the fact that it was a same sex encounter? Reading the story showed me that, despite how exaggerated his passiveness is, the attitude of the boyfriend in the story was not much different from my own. More importantly, it showed me the impact that this attitude has on a relationship, and the message it sends to bisexuals that past relationships with the same sex don't matter which is upsetting to me, as a supporter of LGBT rights . I'm not suddenly thinking that my girlfriend is going to cheat on me, but I don't think it's fair of me to dismiss the impact of her past experience just because it was with a girl.<|ASPECTS|>past experience, lgbt rights, guilty, encounter, forgiving, guy, intended audience, bad guy, forgiveness, sex encounter, hot, bi, passiveness, attitude, relate, impact, time, cheat, accept<|CONCLUSION|>

Didn't care much about gf's past sexual encounter because it was with same sex, until T

6404fe6b-d875-45e8-9845-f5cdbcb6e9ac

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I worked briefly as a 911 call taker in the US, and was shocked at how fragmented the jurisdictional boundaries are in the US. We have city, county, state, and other departments that all overlap and intersect and fight over who is or isn't in a particular jurisdiction, often with fairly ill defined parameters. Is this a necessary system? I realize that there are taxes levied which in turn fund the various state, county, local, etc divisions of law enforcement, but why not make it more unified? The system strikes me as being something of a relic in the age of modern communication and travel.<|ASPECTS|>communication and travel, taxes levied, unified, overlap, intersect, fragmented, relic, defined parameters, necessary system, jurisdictional boundaries<|CONCLUSION|>

The jurisdictions in the US needs to be completely overhauled.

a8a3627b-6f41-4819-9226-bc324f43f229

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Pork, is by far the most versatile of meats. It has more variety than any other animal can offer. The ears can be used for dog treats. The shoulder is used for pulled pork and similar dishes. The arms can be used for sausage. The loin can be used for roasts or dishes like pork chops. There are both spare and baby back ribs. Hind legs are what we consider to be ham whether lunch meat or ham steaks . What's important here is just how different all these parts are and the resulting dishes. Also I am only counting dishes consisting of pure meat, I'm not counting anything that can be used as just a part of a dish such as in stews or chilis. I believe that no other animal can compare to the variety of meat offered by pigs. <|ASPECTS|>variety, dog treats, baby back ribs, versatile, pure meat, spare, legs, meat, roasts, different, sausage, pulled pork, pork, ham, meats, dishes<|CONCLUSION|>

Pork is the most versatile of all meats

8ec957de-649d-405d-96d3-877a5b26994e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that religion can be good because it teaches good morals, encourages people to help others ect. I also understand that many conflicts have started because of religion or have revolved around religion, for example WWII, Muslim Conquests, the Ottoman wars in Europe, and the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Another reason I think this is because of how other religions try to demonize one another. Your religion is wrong and bad while mine is right and good Let's fight about it There are also people and animals that are sacrificed for religion, people ignore science and rely on faith , religious places whether it be a church or temple whatever are always asking for money, Censorship of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs, etc. Not to mention people are voted into office often because of their religion. Suicide bombers Suppression of logical thought You get the point. So reddit, <|ASPECTS|>, conflicts, sacrificed, religion, religious, faith, logical thought, wrong and bad, help others, ignore science, demonize, good, good morals, suicide bombers<|CONCLUSION|>

I think religion does more harm than good and the world would be better without it

fa3687e7-6f1b-4e3c-a989-34f1121832db

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm a progressive, and many progressives view single payer as the solution to America's health care problems. But here is the issue. Our health care system is twice as expensive as any other nation. In America we spend 18 of our economy on health care, in every other developed nation it is closer to 8 12 . In the US we spend 10,000 per capita a year on health care. It is around 5000 a year in Australia and Canada whose per capita income is about the same as the US , around 4000 per capita in the UK. Because our health care is so overpriced, politicians are afraid to implement single payer because of the massive tax hikes. Even in Vermont probably the most liberal state in the US , they couldn't pass single payer because the tax hikes would be so high. This isn't an attack on single payer, it is an attack on our bloated, overpriced health care system. But reforms can be done to make our health care system cheaper. A strong public option. All payer rate negotiations. Making all prices transparent. Allowing the public sector to negotiate prices. Allowing consumers more freedom to travel overseas for treatment or import medical supplies from overseas. Comparative effectiveness reform. Make it easier for generic drug manufacturers to enter the marketplace. Empowering less expensive medical practitioners to do some of the work done by doctors. Encouraging outpatient clinics over hospitals. etc. I feel these kinds of reforms would lower medical prices, which would also make single payer more realistic. If health care wasn't 1 5 of our economy, then politicians wouldn't balk as much about the tax hikes necessary to implement it. But by treating single payer as the beginning and end of health reform, I feel progressives are missing the forest for the trees. The goal of single payer is to make health care cheaper and more humane. Vermont's single payer plan was predicted to reduce medical costs by 25 . Vermont also considered a strong public option, which would've reduced medical costs by 16 . So just having a strong public option aka a medicare buy in option would provide 2 3 of the cost savings of single payer. But after Vermont abandoned single payer, they didn't even consider doing that. gt The report describes four general areas of cost savings for single payer , totaling 24.3 25.3 with a ±15 margin of error for the “single payer” options Options 1 and 3 gt The savings from the “public option” Option 2 would be much smaller, totaling 16.1 ±15 , due to much smaller administrative savings and much less opportunity to reduce waste and duplication of care. Even if Vermont or California, or Colorado can't do single payer now, they should focus on more piecemeal reforms to health care to pave the way for single payer later, rather than assuming anything short of single payer is a failure and not worth doing. A public option alone will provide 2 3 of the cost savings of single payer. A medicare buy in, all payer negotiation, importation of drugs from overseas, etc would all reduce prices and improve care. They would also make single payer more realistic since they'd help control medical costs, and they would move the overton window to the left regarding the public's perception of the government's role in health care So . Progressives treating single payer as the beginning end of health reform is making genuine health reform harder. Instead focus on costs and quality using any reform possible, and when the public are ready and costs are lower, then push for single payer. But even then, single payer won't solve everything. Canada has a single payer system and they have problems too. Medicaid is single payer and they have issues. Single payer is just a step on the road to health reform, not the only reform nor the end goal of reform. Our true problem in American health care is price. The other problems how inhumane health care is, how hard it is to afford care, how unreliable care is are at root due to how overpriced medicine is. <|ASPECTS|>, reduced, forest, import medical supplies, comparative effectiveness reform, marketplace, unreliable care, spend, reform, waste, piecemeal reforms, health care system, health care, problems, freedom to travel, overpriced, cheaper, overpriced health care system, administrative savings, price, improve care, afford care, prices transparent, cost savings, solve everything, bloated, costs, pass single payer, economy, health, work, strong, health care problems, reduce prices, health care cheaper, reforms, outpatient clinics, end goal, payer rate negotiations, care, easier, health reform, per capita, inhumane health care, genuine, public option, failure, single payer system, issues, less expensive medical practitioners, costs and quality, savings, single, medical costs, system, option, income, generic drug manufacturers, single payer, lower, medical prices, reduce, humane, negotiate prices, overpriced medicine, missing, massive, consumers, enter, expensive, politicians, realistic, tax hikes<|CONCLUSION|>

Progressives obsession over single payer is making health care reform harder

a2a403ee-e46d-4e78-ba46-0320e684db4f

<|TOPIC|>Fashion can never be feminist<|ARGUMENT|>Some women can feel pressured to keep up with the latest trends which change rapidly. This prevents women from feeling empowered, instead they are pressure to fit in and be able to afford to buy new clothes.<|ASPECTS|>feeling, pressure to fit, pressured, latest trends, empowered, change rapidly, afford to buy new<|CONCLUSION|>

Fashion can be daunting and cause the opposite effect of empowerment, leaving women feeling inadequate, insecure and poor.

0c24768c-a924-4a5b-9f7b-f43969a46463

<|TOPIC|>Should Canada's Northwest Passage be an international strait?<|ARGUMENT|>The Northwest Passage has already seen many accidents related to grounding and damage to vessels including spills. An increased number of vessel passing the passage will lead to even higher risks.<|ASPECTS|>spills, accidents, damage to vessels, higher, risks<|CONCLUSION|>

The local environment would be badly affected by increased maritime traffic.

2af7f7f1-4f49-447e-b828-70d6777638a8

<|TOPIC|>Was Barack Obama a good President?<|ARGUMENT|>A Supreme Court filing has revealed that the Trump administration believes that transgender people aren't protected by civil rights legislation which seeks to guard against employment discrimination.<|ASPECTS|>employment discrimination, protected, civil rights<|CONCLUSION|>

In 2017, Trump repealed an Obama administration policy that protected transgender individuals from discrimination.

b7e1ec84-eab0-4b45-a74a-b2bf59309e35

<|TOPIC|>Does pineapple belong on pizza?<|ARGUMENT|>Pineapple is in the top 10 foods with the lowest water footprint a.k.a. uses the least water per weight of food, according to this list.<|ASPECTS|>water per weight, lowest, water footprint, least<|CONCLUSION|>

Pineapple tend to be more eco-friendly than most common toppings even if the industry is a heavy polluter.

0e791aac-4f5e-4df6-b057-e77b8c9723e9

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Several foreign policy and military experts have stated that we should wait out North Korea and let it eventually reform or collapse like the soviet union did. They warn that Seoul could be destroyed by the thousands of artillery tubes pointed at it and that Kim Jong Un is likely rational and values the survival of his regime. I don't doubt that North Korea values its survival at that a war will be intense and very lethal in the opening hours and days. I have no illusions that such a conflict won't be costly and ugly and brutal, but I fear we may be limiting our options and painting ourselves into a corner. I have several concerns. 1. We are really rolling the dice here by hoping a brutal nuclear armed dictatorship will collapse or dissolve without using WMDs. Imagine if Assad had nuclear weapons, syria would go from a tragic quagmire to an utterly terrifying standoff. We simply don't know what will happen when North Korea begins to fail. 2. North Korea will try to sell this technology and possibly even the components of a bomb or enriched uranium to unscrupulous buyers and we won't be able to deter them with the threat of force. This is another unknown that could burn us badly one day. 3. The chance of a misunderstanding or accidental nuclear war is too high. The idea of relying on North Korea's shoddy technology and judgement for our survival and world stability is horrifying and I do literally mean our survival. We have far more nuclear weapons than they do but they only need one or two to get past our defenses and severely damage our electrical grid with an EMP. They will likely become more aggressive once they know we can't attack them, and any small retaliation or maneuver could be mistaken as a first strike. There have been several close calls between the U.S. and Russia and some were simply due to technical error. Over time, the chance of one of these events triggering an exchange will grow. Also, Seoul will not be utterly destroyed if we launch a large first strike, you can't level a city with artillery in a matter of hours. Of the thousands of artillery tubes North Korea has, only a small fraction can reach Seoul and most of those can only reach the northern parts of the city. Many potential casualties can be eliminated with more shelters, an alert and prepared population, and striking first along with weapons such as MOAB bombs and our cyber capability. North Korea will likely not use all its artillery at once either as those weapons become easy to spot and destroy once they expose themselves and begin to fire.<|ASPECTS|>, weapons, tubes, conflict, artillery, threat of force, nuclear weapons, nuclear war, accidental, utterly destroyed, retaliation, reform, survival, first, exchange, severely, collapse, deter, easy to spot, damage our electrical grid, terrifying, north, world stability, destroyed, casualties, ugly, eventually, limiting our options, concerns, rational, brutal, close calls, shoddy technology, unscrupulous buyers, burn us badly, dissolve, nuclear armed dictatorship, misunderstanding, intense, costly, lethal, aggressive, small, alert and prepared population, destroy, values, technical error, horrifying, fail, tragic quagmire, seoul, war, artillery tubes, defenses<|CONCLUSION|>

It's too risky to "wait out" a nuclear North Korea.

7ea8025f-5323-4b77-b24e-37a5ce5ecf29

<|TOPIC|>Doctors should be banned from performing genital reshaping surgery on intersex infants<|ARGUMENT|>Because of the invasive nature of surgeries, there is always a chance that an individual may die.<|ASPECTS|>may die, invasive nature<|CONCLUSION|>

Genital reshaping surgery can cause immediate problems for the individuals undergoing it.

c4649bbe-6527-4bca-a51a-ff8e09b8ac5b

<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>Gender, like every human behavior, mating rituals, eating customs, etc., is not completely biologically determined. Yet, there is a biological factor involved<|ASPECTS|>biological factor, biologically determined<|CONCLUSION|>

Social structural theory views gender differences as psychological attempts to adjust to social expectations.

8222cb3b-876d-431e-a11c-f9be51e000bc

<|TOPIC|>Does Pastafarianism deserve the same rights as other religions?<|ARGUMENT|>The practice of Pastafarianism neither impacts the beliefs of other religions, nor disrupts the practice of other religions.<|ASPECTS|><|CONCLUSION|>

There are no logical reasons to restrict the practice of pastafarianism.

7ff0ddd1-8883-4120-9f8f-cbb153fb9f89

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To preface I've never used any illegal drugs narcotics. I'm coming at this from a fairly fiscal standpoint. As of 2018 46.1 of those incarcerated in the federal prison system 1 or more years imprisoned sentenced are there due to drug offenses. Additionally, the average cost of imprisonment in the federal systems costs 36,299.25 a year FY17 . These two statistics together mean that, just at the federal level, we spend 2,838,383,554.5 on their incarceration alone. And these are all without even touching on individual state expenditure where some states pay as high as 69,355 per year FY2015 to keep individuals incarcerated. Through the decriminalization legalization of these drugs we would be saving money that could be funneled toward much more beneficial systems education, science technology, other federal agencies or which could be used to help with further prison reform rehabilitation, reintegration of parole releasees, etc. . The War on Drugs doesn't make sense to me from the standpoint of either political party whereas Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative yet push for a policy of deterrence when it comes to drug crimes and Democrats only take minor steps towards partial drug policy reform legalization of cannabis in some states as an example . I'd love to hear your thoughts on this matter and what views you all hold. <|ASPECTS|>parole releasees, drug offenses, fiscal, narcotics, incarceration, thoughts, saving money, drug crimes, individual state expenditure, costs, drug policy, beneficial systems, spend, illegal drugs, policy of deterrence, cost of imprisonment, prison reform rehabilitation, fiscally conservative, views<|CONCLUSION|>

The Most Effective Means Of Prison Reform Would Be The Decriminalization/Legalization of All Drugs/Narcotics

19aea01e-1ef4-491f-aefe-6d8d86a15ba0

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As an example I'm talking about stuff like this picture and accompanying text If you go read the actual study here you'll see that what heat maps means is the subjects were shown stimulus relating to each emotion, and then asked to color areas of a silhouette that they felt corresponded to an increase or decrease in that emotion. You can read the abstract for a better explanation that. Issue is, I and many others, judging by the comments interpreted it to mean actual change in body temperature . The point is the page I fucking love science routinely posts things like this, and rather than furthering scientific understanding they perpetuate half truths so some people can feel smart. That might be a bit harsh but I really do feel that that's the intent To allow people to feel smart. I think with little evidence, just based on the comments on the page and my understanding of people the number of people who go read the original studies posted is very low, and as such very little actual knowledge gain takes place, rather than just a new and quickly forgotten fun fact. I also don't like the anti religious stance it often takes, which I feel is mostly pandering to the type of people who would like a page called I fucking love science rather than trying to educate. For context I have no background in education, or science, nor do I identify as religious covering some stuff I brought up . I do see a lot of my friends repeating some of the information there and basing a lot of opinions around those half truths, which is why I bring this up. So, .<|ASPECTS|>better explanation, harsh, half truths, change, stimulus, heat maps, religious, opinions, identify, love science, body temperature, education, areas, background, anti religious stance, scientific understanding, feel smart, knowledge gain, love<|CONCLUSION|>

I think the facebook page and accompanying website "I fucking love science" is routinely misleading and does nothing positive for education.

030c5785-a84d-4224-98e3-625030f4d7a9

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Earth naturally switches from cooling to warming cyclical periods, that's not disputed. Human emissions of CO² represent about 3.5 percent of total emissions All measurements about the subject take into account a very narrow time span which is irrelevant considering the Earth's age. It assumes that the temperature pattern of the last 100 years are repeatable, but they could've been an outlier. This subject has been excessively politicized and became almost a taboo topic to question. I'm not a scientist or have particular knowledge on the subject. EDIT View changed. It appears I took in a bit of misinformation, first point isn't related to global climate change, but regional . Second point appears to be from a biased source and carries misleading information 3.5 is total emissions, not from atmospheric CO² , three withstands and the fourth isn't really an argument, but a statement. I've awarded Delta to one thread, accidentally closed the other one which really helped and now it's buried. I will award you, when I find your comment, stranger Thank you all x200B<|ASPECTS|>accidentally, cooling, temperature pattern, edit view, delta, global, human emissions, misleading information, time span, emissions, total, biased, climate change, repeatable, co², scientist, outlier, politicized, knowledge, buried, misinformation, narrow, taboo topic, particular, warming cyclical periods, excessively<|CONCLUSION|>

I'm becoming a 'man-made Climate Change' denier. Help !

d852fc37-b724-418d-953c-f2a9d8158526

<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Religion creates a climate where it is easy to promote hatred, racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination to people who have never been encouraged to think outside their patterns or to question what is being taught to them.<|ASPECTS|>discrimination, racism, homophobia, hatred<|CONCLUSION|>

While it may have fostered unity amongst like believers, religion has historically caused more division, conflict and violence amongst groups than it has ever unified them.

0388887a-3518-4423-ba88-ab4ab929ce01

<|TOPIC|>Should We Live Without Cars or Motorbikes for Personal Use?<|ARGUMENT|>Travel to and from rural areas, too remote for train stops or frequent buses, would become very difficult.<|ASPECTS|><|CONCLUSION|>

It would make it difficult for individuals to move over longer distances.

a44e9cab-7325-4b60-8f6e-8712a90327cf

<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child procreate?<|ARGUMENT|>According to the doctrine of parens patriae the state has the right and legitimate authority to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf. This duty extends to those children who are yet to be born, as they are unable to defend/protect themselves.<|ASPECTS|>duty, defend/protect, unable, right and legitimate authority<|CONCLUSION|>

This is in keeping with the idea of parens patriae, protecting future children from the effects of disease.

f09d36bf-57ec-47ac-96ca-aafd0ce2bd45

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not sure how to explain why I believe this. I study law at a University in India, and a lot of what I study regarding jurisprudence, law poverty, etc, is Western scholarship. And all the scholarship I have come across denounce the capitalistic world order in one way or another. From Pogge to Duflo to Dworkin to Stiglitz, they all seem to agree that human rights is incompatible with free trade. So it seems to be that anyone who focuses on uplifting poverty and increasing equality cannot possibly be economically right wing. .<|ASPECTS|>western scholarship, law poverty, incompatible, economically right wing, poverty, human rights, capitalistic world order, equality, free trade<|CONCLUSION|>

I think Universal Human Rights and right-wing ideology are incompatible.

532d1f7f-a82d-4713-960e-cbcc0cea9c8d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Doctors, nurses, teachers, counselors, principals, technicians, janitors and researchers make these systems work. Medical billing companies, text book corporations, charter schools, advertising, and private insurance make money off of these systems, and have to gouge the most vulnerable to sustain their 1000s of redundant employees and CEO lifestyles. The well has been poisoned and life expectancy is in decline and our education system is no longer envied throughout the world. I want justification for public schools funding private charter schools, for the tremendous bloat in the healthcare industry, for the regular minor revisions to sell new text books each year, for the billions spent on advertisements We have the most state of the art medical and educational tools available, however people are forgoing health treatments and our system of public education that can leave the best and brightest in the dust because they don’t want to begin adulthood under a mountain of debt. I believe fixing these two areas should be the main focus of our government.<|ASPECTS|>systems work, educational tools, life expectancy, redundant employees, health treatments, decline, education system, money, bloat, ceo lifestyles, focus, government, debt, poisoned, vulnerable<|CONCLUSION|>

Unchecked capitalism in healthcare and education is the most damaging problem in the US.

ef3f355e-5a3d-4332-9227-0a566897ea5a

<|TOPIC|>Facebook's collection of user data is unethical<|ARGUMENT|>The fact that FB has allowed 50 million user profiles to be scraped by Cambridge Analytica demonstrates that they have a cavelier attitude towards personal data.<|ASPECTS|>profiles, cavelier attitude, personal data<|CONCLUSION|>

User data should be owned by users and not on a proprietary format by a private company.

057ab64d-86d8-417d-9af1-288d75527a02

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The U.S. Constitution is an old document. At the time it was written, it made a lot of sense, and it was a large jump ahead for democracy, politics, and the human condition as a whole. Unfortunately, failure to foresee that conditions in the future might warrant a radically different document means that the Constitution enshrines certain rights that make no sense in the modern day, and can indeed be harmful to the fabric of society, while ignoring others that are now far more relevant. The Constitution depends on there being nearly no nuance in the rights it affords, something that may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation. The problem is compounded by the fact that making substantial changes to the document is difficult, if not to say nearly impossible in any but the best of circumstances. Those combined factors mean that the U.S. may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws. The solutions are apparent, and in some cases have been tested successfully in other countries, but the Constitution makes change insubstantial and insufficient if changes come at all. Edit Having trouble answering every single post, bear with me. Edit2 I read everything posted and consider it This slows down responses. Edit3 Against my better judgement I think this'll derail things more than anything but multiple people have asked. First Amendment as it relates to corporate personhood and lobbying. Second Amendment as it relates to gun deaths in the U.S. Fourth Amendment as it relates to privacy, specifically digital privacy Tenth Amendment as it relates to federalized health services. Those are my favorite problematic Amendments.<|ASPECTS|>constitution, rights, lobbying, fabric of society, human condition, old document, insufficient, trouble answering every, slows down responses, derail things, privacy, democracy, corporate personhood, backward, problematic amendments, less, difficult, politics, sense, digital privacy, change, substantial changes, harmful, insubstantial, gun deaths<|CONCLUSION|>

The U.S. Constitution isn't nearly as great a document as it's made out to be, especially in the modern day. Making it as hard as it is to amend is a spectacularly disastrous oversight by the Founding Fathers.

b80e5bed-8056-46e8-a333-ee9b98f3b4a8

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First i just want to include a disclaimer I'm not sure of this is the right place for this since i don't yet have an opinion one way or another, but i couldn't think of anywhere else to post it if you have any suggestions of better subreddits please say . Anyway, i just found out about livebaiting, and i'm a little horrified I think although I'm not sure that fish have almost no pain perception as we know it, so maybe that makes it ok? I'm not convinced it does, but I'm not sure why not Also apparently frogs are used as livebait too I guess right now i feel it is cruel and probably should be illegal, but i have no rational arguments or facts to support that position as yet maybe you lot can help me out there, or Either way I'd love some more info to inform my position, whatever it ends up being. Sorry if this is a bit garbled I'm still reeling from discovering this is a thing.<|ASPECTS|>garbled, livebaiting, better subreddits, cruel, livebait, rational arguments, pain perception<|CONCLUSION|>

Is livebaiting cruel? I'm unsure what to think - one way or the other.

d9ed0d6d-cc23-4720-92ed-8d7f01e8d2df

<|TOPIC|>Does the Bible support the conclusion that 'homosexuality' is a sin against God?<|ARGUMENT|>One cannot argue that this is about sexual immorality alone because both the dominant and submissive roles of homosexual acts are condemned along side of other acts of sexual immorality in 1 Cor 6:9-10 "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality both the effeminate role and masculine role."<|ASPECTS|>sexual immorality<|CONCLUSION|>

The passage in Romans 1:26-27, sets homosexuality as a sin — a development of a rebel heart that leads to lust.

63c68753-7156-46f3-8b68-c4e77233dd3e

<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Moral relativism can help people navigate the world by denying absolute moral rules and thus freeing people to do what they think is right in any given situation. In cultural relativism people decide together what is considered acceptable and moral behavior allowing society to freely change with the times.<|ASPECTS|>moral behavior, moral rules, acceptable, freely change, navigate, relativism<|CONCLUSION|>

There are other, superior, sources of philosophical frameworks and moral codes.

2485162f-758c-4406-8176-ff4eb13b94ca

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Yes i said belief don't shoot me but it is a belief. No body can be 100 correct on something like atheism or religion so it is an educated belief. Anyway, I am a creationist or simply put a believer in a higher power. Whenever someone sees creationist they instantly assume religion Christianity mostly and assert that they are foolish for their beliefs, but i find that ALOT of atheism belief comes from the non belief of current popular religions Christianity, Islam etc and along with scientific facts found in Evolution and Big Bang Theory and etc make there decision that there is no God, but evolution and big bang theory have NOTHING to do with God philosophically , they just have conflicts with popular religions such as Christianity and in an atheist view, debunks the God of the Bible and Islam etc. This is where i believe Atheism becomes foolish, they are basing their viewpoint of there is NO God on their belief of Science says the God of the Bible and Islam etc do not exist . SO here is my viewpoint, just forget about any religion you have ever heard about and ask the question How am i here right now you might say well simply put Big Bang gt Evolution gt Here i am, but the big bang proves absolutely nothing in regards to existence itself, so the only big question that needs to be answered is How is existence? or HOW did all come to be? And when you put it like this you get 2 answers. SOMETHING created this universe, that must be bound OUTSIDE the realm of this universe or There was NOTHING and then something was created out of that. The latter is foolish. There can not be nothing , no existence of any kind, but if you are an atheist you must believe that it is true. Telling me that there was nothing makes absolutely zero sense and makes you look as foolish as the religious creationists you mock. Now you are left with SOMETHING created this universe. Maybe all at once, maybe it initiated the Big Bang?, but this is where the questions are, WHAT created this universe. Anyway hopefully i haven't rambled on too much off topic and i hope my grammar is decent, but please i am just searching for knowledge so try and . Tl dr Forget religion and atheism seems foolish. Edit I have read all the replies at the current moment and really appreciate everyone's input, i will try and reply to them all tommorow because its 4am here in Australia.<|ASPECTS|>, atheism, input, nothing, universe, god, educated belief, correct, existence, topic, foolish, answers, religious creationists, grammar, higher power, appreciate, something, knowledge, creationist, big bang, outside, religion, initiated, belief<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that atheism is a foolish belief.

9a219137-d744-430d-b453-81e7185c4aae

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The texture sucks, the overall taste is worse and is far less enjoyable. Ignoring medical reasons, .<|ASPECTS|>medical reasons, less enjoyable<|CONCLUSION|>

Hot chocolate is horrible when made with water rather than milk.

ed87f1b6-b6f1-424a-8820-d9a3512421e5

<|TOPIC|>NFL Player Protests: Should NFL Players Stand or Kneel for the National Anthem?<|ARGUMENT|>Moderate white Americans want black people to understand that belonging, and being respected as citizens in equal standing, is about sharing in the things that unite us, not by focussing all of one's energy on finding fault and punishing those who offend you.<|ASPECTS|>finding fault, sharing, respected, punishing, equal, belonging, offend<|CONCLUSION|>

As great of a leader and a man as he was, This is one aspect of American society where the reverend misses the point.

fbf4d7a6-2f25-4976-bedf-ac9b52322783

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm moving to New York at the end of summer and after 6 years of living in Washington, DC, I just can't get behind Manhattan being even half as enjoyable. For starters, the rent is going to require me to live in a shoebox apartment until the day I die. I have no idea how people save enough money to buy a house after living in one of the most expensive cities in the country. The cost of living in Manhattan is 49 higher than in DC and I'm already paying an outrageous amount in rent. Transportation DC has the number one transit system in the US. It is efficient, clean, and reliable. The NY subway system smells like pee and has people experiencing homelessness living in it. It is always overcrowded, insanely hot during the summers, and uses a paper card system that is ancient and inefficient for riders who have to replace it due to expiration dates. DC is as walkable as NY and has excellent buses and easy access for drivers and bicyclists. Walking the city in DC is a breeze it is more spacious, the streets are less crowded, and the buildings actually allow you to see the sun for more than an hour since skyscrapers aren't a thing. Greenery you can look around on any given street corner and see green because DC is not a concrete jungle. There are parks everywhere and space to be outside because the weather is infinitely more enjoyable. There are actually 4 seasons in DC not just freezing cold for 6 months and then blistering hot like in NY. DC is also home to the famous Japanese cherry blossoms that adorn the Tidal Basin in the spring. DC is more mellow people in DC aren't as wound up or as frenetic as New Yorkers. DC has equally as delicious food as NY, and while there may not be as many eateries and places aren't open as late, I'm okay with not having to spend money frivolously in this way. DC is clean. NY streets are absolutely filthy, you're allowed to throw your garbage right onto the curb, and I have seen people taking a leak on the streets at least 3 times over the last year. x200B Moving to NY is not an option, so I'll make it work, but there is simply no comparison to DC. I visit the city at least once or twice a month now, so I'm no stranger to what it has to offer, but there are a few key points I'm struggling with. I do really enjoy visiting the city now, but by the end of a weekend, can't wait to get out of the dirty, people packed streets and am ready to come back to DC where I can give my wallet a break and enjoy a calming walk to work.<|ASPECTS|>shoebox apartment, calming walk, frenetic, homelessness, overcrowded, greenery, rent, parks, excellent buses, walkable, garbage, transit system, frivolously, freezing cold, japanese, green, cherry blossoms, efficient, smells, filthy, mellow, card system, blistering hot, leak, save enough money, space, ancient, less crowded, delicious food, key, easy access, packed, wound, see the sun, clean, bicyclists, spacious, enjoyable, spend money, number one, inefficient, reliable, weather, cost of living, pee, expensive, comparison to dc, hot, concrete jungle<|CONCLUSION|>

DC is a better city to live in than NY

357064ce-d847-4d41-b590-88cea24158dd

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm female and weigh 130 lbs 59 kg . I live in Ontario, Canada. Back pains recently started, and my GP referred me to a physiatrist. They found no medical condition, and recommended buying a new mattress. I've been sleeping on my 700 IKEA MAUSUND mattress for 4 years. Sleep Country Canada alleged 4500 for the Tempur pedic LuxeBreeze Soft TWXL. But after 2 re visits, the manager, Rob, discounted it to 3800. Despite the arguments and counterarguments beneath, I still distrust Rob and find them unjustly expensive. BTW, sorry for the length How can I shorten this post? Arguments for Tempur pedic Lulu Chang Tempur Pedic mattresses Still worth it? Reviewed Sleep March 11, 2019 gt Ultimately, it’s difficult to get away from the fact that a Tempur Pedic mattress is extremely expensive compared to now ubiquitous bed in a box brands like Leesa, Casper and the like. Starting at around 1,500, this isn’t necessarily the mattress for everyone. That said, if you’re already looking at a mattress with a substantive price tag, Tempur Pedic should certainly be on your short list thanks to its incredible durability, its pressure relief, and its customization. I’ve tried many a mattress in a box most of which are also entirely foam based , and have never found any of them to be nearly as comfortable as a Tempur Pedic. But if you’re not looking for a mattress to write home about, you may not need the queen of mattresses after all. Alyssa Fiorentino Everything You Need To Know Before Buying The Tempur Pedic LUXEbreeze Mattress Tempur Pedic LUXEbreeze Mattress Review Apr 15, 2019 gt I'll admit this bed is on the pricier side. However, you're getting so much more than just a supportive mattress. With the LUXEbreeze, you're paying for a better sleeping experience overall. You'll have an easier time falling asleep and staying cool throughout the night thanks to the SmartClimate dual cover and PureCool Phase Change material. So if you're looking for relief from hot, restless nights, then yes, this mattress is definitely worth it. gt gt Plus, like other Tempur Pedic mattresses, this one comes with a 10 year warranty that guarantees a free replacement or repair if something goes wrong with your mattress. From Reddit Sleepless Devil. 5 points 3 years ago gt I've been a salesman for my whole life, and I've been a mattress specialist for many years. Please, please trust me when I tell you that memory foam mattresses stuffed in a box ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO TEMPUR PEDICS. I'm going to tell you a few things in bulletpoints, and I really hope you take my advice, as I have seen this debate and this internal questioning done time and time again. gt gt 1. Tempur Pedics have one of the best warranties in the mattress industry, and pump a lot of money into customer service and taking care of the people who have bought their products. This means a lot in an industry where warranties are horrid for most manufacturers. gt gt 2. Don't get the Cloud Prima. The Cloud Prima is a mediocre mattress that gives you a firmer feel by sacrificing materials. Yes, you get the same 10 year warranty, but you're not going to be satisfied with that bed even a year from now. Invest the money in the Contour Elite, as it is a thicker, heartier mattress that will hold up and satisfy you very well down the line years from now. gt gt 3. Everyone likes to talk about specs and what's in the mattress , and that's fine if you're a mattress expert. What's better? 12 inches of egg crate memory foam or 8 inches of gel infused memory foam with .79 inches of talalay latex on top? If you don't know immediately, and why, don't bother listening to people who try to act like specs are gospel. They're not. If you really want a specs comparison, I'll tell you this Tempur Pedic is, and does, beat the shit out of Casper, Bed In A Box, Leesa and all these other gimmicky, start up mattress companies. 7 t 7. 5 points 2 years ago gt Stick with the tempur. There is a difference and you especially will notice as a prevois tempur owner. You can pair it with a sealy or l p base for like 600 more than the flat set. bedroomguru. 4 points 1 year ago gt Here is what I know after being exposed to, selling, competing against Tempur Pedic for the last 18 years. They make a top quality product that people like and keep in the home for a long time. People who love their Tempur Pedic love it. Love it so much they buy a new one every 7 10 years as new models come out and or their needs change. gt The retail stores I co own were the first in our market to offer Tempur Pedic in 2000 and, I believe, the second retailer in the state big state, big population we have customers who are on their third Tempur Pedic mattress purchase not because of poor quality but because they like the product that much. They upgrade in size, feature or comfort levels for various reasons. In the last week alone we have sold over 20,000 worth of the product to three customers. gt So yes, it is a good product. Your decision is do you want to spend more now, to be happier longer. Or do you want to run through a few different beds in the same time period in which you can keep a quality mattress and likely spend the same amount of money? That’s a choice only you can make. Rubberroses. 3 points 1 year ago gt You deserve a great night sleep. Both of you, I imagine, work hard. You deserve to wake up feeling refreshed. A mattress lasts 10 years, break it down per night. So, let's say the set your looking at is 8 grand. 10 years, there are 3650 nights. So, 8 grand over 10 years is roughly 2.20 a night. It is common for Tempurpedic to last longer, but that's the break down that many people use. gt You can consider a lower priced mattress, in fact do. Tempurpedic started the memory foam thing, they've perfected it. They've also got the highest customer satisfaction rate. And, in my 4 years selling mattresses, they had the lowest return. That means warranty or comfort. gt Just remember, no matter what foam mattress you buy, a waterproof mattress protector is a must. Give any mattress 30 days before deciding if you love or hate it. It takes our bodies time to adjust to anything new. Counterarguments Sleep Like the Dead rated LuxeBreeze my choice a C under CLOUD collection . The other Collections were C or C . Logan Block Casper vs. Tempurpedic Mattress Review Sleepopolis Updated May 22, 2019 gt First and foremost, I’d say the Casper has more of a balanced feel than the Tempur Pedic LuxeAdapt does . As we discussed throughout the comparison, this balanced vibe comes from the Casper’s diverse array of foams, which work together to hit a real sweet spot between pressure relief and support. The LuxeAdapt, on the other hand, mostly features memory foam , which creates a softer structure full of deep sinkage and body contouring. gt gt While neither of these feels is inherently better than the other, they do endear themselves to different types of folks. Combo sleepers, for example, will likely be drawn more to the Casper , whose bouncy nature will allow them to move around and change positions with ease. Conversely, side sleepers could find a lot to love in the Tempur Pedic , as its thick top layers of memory foam should provide them with all the cushiony support they need at their shoulders and hips. gt gt That being said, one of the most notable differences between these two mattresses is price. The Tempur Pedic LuxeAdapt is much more expensive than the Casper , with the former starting at 3,500 compared to the latter’s 695. If value is an important factor for you, I think the Casper could make the better buy. I'll quote just Ti Zhao's answer No room to quote others in this Quora post here gt I owned a Tempur Pedic sleep system one of their lower end ones for about 3 years, then had to part ways with it and found myself with a much cheaper mattress from Ikea about 2000 cheaper in fact, but also made of foam . gt Did I love the Tempur Pedic? Absolutely. Did I love it 2000 more than the foam mattress from Ikea? I'm not sure. From Reddit kendradog. 2 points 1 year ago gt I can’t speak to other mattresses, but my latest Tempurpedic got soft after a few years and the company refused to honor the warranty. King Jesus. 2 points 9 months ago gt No. I get really hot with one, in addition to bad back support. SurrealEstate. 2 points 1 year ago gt I bought a Tempurpedic a couple of months ago, and while anecdotally it sounds like they're pretty good at honoring the warranty, they do give themselves some liability wiggle room in the gory details sorry about the wall of text, but that's how these things go . Just a heads up gt gt Tempur Pedic mattresses are designed to work on a firm, solid surface, non spring foundation or adjustable bed base that is structurally capable of supporting the weight of purchaser’s Tempur Pedic mattress and user s . This Limited Warranty and other performance warranties are based on tests conducted on “sets” that consist of our mattresses and our foundations adjustable bed bases. THEREFORE, IF PURCHASER USES INAPPROPRIATE FOUNDATIONS, BOX SPRINGS, ADJUSTABLE BED BASES, OR BED FRAMES WITH THE MATTRESS, SUCH USE WILL VOID THIS LIMITED WARRANTY AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. gt gt Tempur Pedic may require purchaser to provide proof of the quality of the foundation, adjustable bed base, or bed frame used in conjunction with the mattress if purchaser makes a claim under this Limited Warranty. Tempur Pedic makes no representations whatsoever as to the structural integrity or rated load for any frame, foundation, or adjustable base not manufactured by or for Tempur Pedic. Tempur Pedic reserves the right to invalidate this Limited Warranty if the foundation is determined, in Tempur Pedic’s reasonable discretion, to be inadequate or if the mattress is found to be in an unsanitary condition. juangonzalezba. 1 point 1 year ago gt Tempurpedic used to have a much higher standard of quality but many have said they have let it slip in the last several years. Some say that was a good part of the reason why they lost their biggest contract recently. There were apparently many complaints, returns and issues. They use a petroleum derivative based memory foam as do the majority of memory foam users in the US but that is also the type of memory foam that is the cheapest to manufacture. For that reason they should not be charging what they do. In essence you are paying for their marketing dollars which reach 100's of millions a year along with the wining and dining of retail execs, etc.<|ASPECTS|>lower priced mattress, happier longer, bed, foam based, structurally capable, models, limited warranty, competing, great, contract, bouncy nature, liability, comfort levels, hate, owner, balanced feel, body contouring, female, needs change, medical condition, mattress specialist, change positions, best warranties, easier, top, softer structure, lowest return, returns, queen of mattresses, mattress expert, warranties, time, work hard, falling asleep, better, restless nights, issues, durability, hot, choice, 3650, unsanitary condition, satisfy, beat, standard of quality, petroleum derivative, ease, cheapest, break, structural integrity, poor quality, gospel, back pains, feeling refreshed, satisfied, waterproof mattress protector, supportive mattress, marketing dollars, horrid, buy, move, physiatrist, honoring, gory, quality product, difference, better buy, pedics, relief, warranty, sold, foam mattress, upgrade, mediocre mattress, tempur, bodies, sleeping experience, stick, firmer feel, surrealestate, money, king jesus, cloud prima, exposed, foam, comparable, mattress, charging, shorten, memory foam mattresses, heartier mattress, value, sacrificing materials, sleepless devil, night sleep, complaints, quality of the foundation, internal questioning, invalidate, nights, expensive, unjustly expensive, rubberroses, bad back support, worth, customization, endear, love, customer satisfaction rate, comfort, spend, price tag, cushiony support, good product, cheaper, repair, price, balanced vibe, customer service, deep sinkage, tempurpedic, thicker, rated load, support, last longer, comfortable, pricier, quality mattress, feature, memory foam, right, room, performance warranties, pressure relief, staying cool, adjust to anything new, wining and dining, distrust rob, specs, size, discounted, free replacement<|CONCLUSION|>

Tempur-pedic mattresses are overpriced. I oughtn't buy one.

cceed609-73c1-4de8-946f-dbef2476b920

<|TOPIC|>Should Minors Need Parental Consent for Abortions?<|ARGUMENT|>It is the woman's body, and she will carry the responsibility for a decision. The father of the child is only responsible if the mother chooses to have the child.<|ASPECTS|>woman 's body, decision, responsibility, responsible<|CONCLUSION|>

Abortion should not only be about what is right for her future mother, but for them future parents. So naturally the father should be involved.

f3263e5c-5c4d-491a-b6bf-03c22ed48be2

<|TOPIC|>Is Gender a Social Construct?<|ARGUMENT|>Genetic males with genital malformations such as cloacal exstrophy not intersex that are assigned the female sex at birth still show interests and attitudes typical of males. Most of them eventually declare themselves to be male. If gender was socially constructed, individuals raised as females would feel female, act as females, and remain female, but they don't.<|ASPECTS|>male, socially constructed, act as females, female, feel female, interests and attitudes, malformations<|CONCLUSION|>

The example of David Reimer shows how gender is not learnable and that biology does influence the gender identity process.

cef745df-b049-4aa5-98c9-3ac91c5a8b47

<|TOPIC|>Is the US a force for good?<|ARGUMENT|>Over 111,000 Afghans including civilians, soldiers and militants, are estimated to have been killed during the war in Afghanistan by the US military.<|ASPECTS|>killed<|CONCLUSION|>

The advancements the US has made does not excuse or equal the detriment the US military has caused around the world.

439a5f9c-3cdc-473e-ab75-4a04967d8107

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Well, I hate to be a downer, guys, but I don't think humanity has another 100 years left give or take a few years . I want to believe that things will be alright, but when you keep hearing worse and worse news about the environmental degradation of the planet even if you are still somehow a climate change denier, you have to admit the oceans are massively polluted and huge amounts of fish are dying, the air in some parts of the world like China is almost unbreathable and getting worse, etc. , it's hard to see humans coming out of this ok. I hate to say it, but I don't think we have another century left. Please tell me why I'm wrong. Edit Just to be clear, I'm not talking about human extinction. We'll probably survive whatever happens to some degree. I mean I think that society will likely collapse. Humans may still be around, but in a Mad Max The Road Book of Eli type of existence.<|ASPECTS|>humans, humanity, society, around, century left, fish, human extinction, collapse, humans coming, hard, survive whatever, unbreathable, years left, environmental degradation, polluted, dying<|CONCLUSION|>

- I believe human civilization is doomed. *PLEASE* change my view.

6e171e2a-4ecc-41f1-ad5c-d512b10486ab

<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>It is possible that free will is a good that is impossible to be had without the possibility of evil, so there is some possible world in which the good of including free moral agents outweighs the evil in that world, and this is a world a perfectly good, perfectly powerful, and all knowing being could permissibly create. Therefore the LOGICAL problem of evil is invalid.<|ASPECTS|>invalid, evil, free, good, free moral agents<|CONCLUSION|>

The problem of evil is not a valid criticism of God's existence.

ab44ec6d-1cdc-44e9-81d5-6660a6254a34

<|TOPIC|>The Trilemma of the Maroons<|ARGUMENT|>Being an arm of law enforcement for the British colonial state is an honorable profession. We should embrace it.<|ASPECTS|>enforcement, honorable profession<|CONCLUSION|>

Option "One": Agree and then honor the agreement. Become the slave police.

5bfecc54-80bf-4453-b43d-fdd50016bc8d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have occasionally had to deal with attractive girls at work, and I try to keep things civil there, but at school or otherwise I am deliberately rude to attractive girls. I have been keeping this up for pretty much as long as I can remember. My justification for acting this way is as follows. They always end up with the guy who has rich parents, speaks eight languages fluently, is going to be a surgeon, is the quarterback for the school football team, etc., and they don't stay friends with anyone who doesn't have similar social status, so there is no reason for me to attempt to cultivate a relationship with them. They are, as a group, much more manipulative than other people, because they have learned over the course of their lives that they can get other people especially guys to do pretty much anything by being nice to them, flirting with them, making promises, etc. Related to 2, it is very easy for them to make other people's lives miserable if they want to, because they have so much automatic social pull, and I suspect that most attractive girls have used this pull against people they didn't like more than once this is basically all that high school social life is, actually . Everything involving people is incredibly easy for them, so it probably doesn't really affect them if I am rude to them anyway, because they have literally dozens if not hundreds of other people who constantly sing their praises. Given the above, I don't see any reason to treat attractive girls with any degree of civility. I'm invisible to them, they manipulate people, they hurt people, and they are immune to pain. One criticism I can foresee of my policy here is that it's like racism. I am discriminating against a group of people based on characteristics that they did not choose to have. But the two cases are not analogous, because there is a strong causal connection between attractiveness and traits 1 4, and there is no necessary connection between race and any particular negative trait. In case it's not clear, I am male.<|ASPECTS|>flirting, girls, invisible, discriminating, manipulative, attractive girls, social status, civility, rich parents, affect, negative trait, social pull, male, hurt people, immune to pain, civil, attractiveness, justification, automatic, rude, social life, connection, manipulate people, miserable, racism, easy, lives, characteristics<|CONCLUSION|>

I am deliberately rude to attractive girls.

c2a2cd26-aa7e-40f3-a8fa-304be63f4b83

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are too many of us here to put it shortly. We've become overpopulated and are spending and investing money into insane research. Diseases like cancer are natural population control. We can't all live forever here, which seems to be the goal of scientists. Survival of the fittest. EDIT I understand this may be a family member and that sucks. But I still believe nature needs to take its course<|ASPECTS|>insane research, spending, cancer, take, investing money, overpopulated, nature, live forever, scientists, diseases, family member, natural population control, survival of the fittest<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe we need to STOP researching and curing diseases.

83c0b849-ffd1-41dc-ad82-e8a777751428

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>No, this simply makes 0 sense. An homicide victim is a fine concept, a depression victim also. But a suicide victim? Are you kidding me? A victim of him herself? Absurd and it makes no sense. The definition is wrong, you are puting there 2 contradictory terms that have different meanings. I can get behind being victim to a condition that led to suicide, that person could also be a terminal disease victim, but never a suicide victim, such thing does not exist. It is time people corrected this mistake they have been making, maybe it was not intended, a silly mistake, but it is time people acknowledged that this definition is 100 nonsensical. How can you be victim of an action that you yourself caused? Edit After some introspection, I have realized my biggest issue with the term suicide victims Gun suicide victims,for example, almost don't exist, because in the majority of suicides there is intent, thus they should never be called victims, unless they are for example, babies People in general shouldn't be calling every single suicide person as victim, because many of those so called victims had the intent, I admit some might have been an accident, but it is the vast minority, isn't? Surely, because of emotional reasons all suicides are generalized as victims, which is totally false<|ASPECTS|>contradictory, terminal disease victim, mistake, generalized, sense, homicide victim, victim of an action, silly mistake, victims, suicide victim, emotional reasons, different meanings, suicide, accident, nonsensical, suicides, depression victim, victim of, intent, suicide victims<|CONCLUSION|>

There is no such thing as "suicide victims". It is an oxymoron.

06f3727d-4859-41f8-bb53-f662314f9cb3

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So first off. I believe rapists are the scum of the earth, and need to be castrated. That being said, let me explain further So if I walk around with a fancy watch and other expensive things, I increase my likelyhood of getting mugged, robbed, etc. Theives want money, and the robbers muggers will excersize power to get it. I am not advocating robbery, robbers are also scumbags as well. But muggings robberies happen, just like rape. There will always be scumbags. Now, let's look at rape. A lot of feminists and other progressive thinkers believe that rape is all about power, and sex isn't apart of it. That it doesn't matter what women wear or appear because all a rapist wants is to have power over someone. However, there are many ways to wrongfully over power someone. They force sex because they want sex, but get it by over powering mainly women. Now if a woman wears short skirts, shirts, etc. She will appeal more to rapists. Just like if someone wears expensive watches they will appeal more to robbers and muggers. I do believe that women SHOULD be able to wear what they want without the fear of getting raped, just like anyone should be able to carry on their person without worrying about getting robbed. But robbery, just like rape, is going to happen. There will always be scumbags. However, if I wear an expensive watch and I get robbed, it is partially my fault. Just like if a woman wears revealing clothing and gets raped, it's a little bit her fault. I got robbed at gunpoint while walking around in a not so nice neighborhood talking on my iPhone 4S which at the time just came out. To this day I regret having that out. However, I do want a good compelling argument against mine, because it seems to be a very misygonistic belief. I personally now think it's a very logical one.<|ASPECTS|>, force sex, robbers, money, rapist, muggers, fear, robbery, misygonistic belief, short skirts, likelyhood, logical, revealing clothing, castrated, appeal, wrongfully over power someone, fault, rape, powering mainly women, want sex, muggings, power, raped, rapists, scum of the earth, getting raped, scumbags, sex, power over someone, excersize power, robbed at gunpoint, mugged, compelling argument, expensive, robberies, regret, robbed<|CONCLUSION|>

I think women who wear revealing clothing increase their risk for rape PS: I am NOT advocating rape, please read content

bdf22f02-724b-49b8-8747-1d158a42dfad

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Whenever I look up topics discussion the strength of the Homunculi, the general agreement is that Pride, being the oldest Homunculus and having an extremely powerful set of abilities, is the strongest of the seven. While I do believe Pride is an extremely powerful being and deserves the spot as the second strongest, I believe THE strongest Homunculus, the one with the best fighting skills capable of defeating a wide variety of stronger opponents, wasn't the oldest one but the youngest one Wrath King Bradley . Let's examine Wrath's fighting potential We are introduced to his lightning fast swordsmanship from the get go, and see that he was able to effortlessly kill a state alchemist, a combat specialist with alchemic knowledge and a philosopher's stone. Even though Isaac had already suffered near fatal wounds, the fact that Wrath killed him without Isaac registrating what happens before dying means the blow was extremely accurate and swift. This is seen again in Edward's test to become state alchemist, when Wrath lops off the head of Edward's spear without any of the attendants noticing when he even drew his sword. Wrath is also pretty much proven to be linearly stronger than Greed, as when he fought the first Greed there was no point during their battle at which Greed even came close to gaining an edge. While I do feel his battle against second Greed was a bit poorly written, since there was no clear reason as to why Greed Ling never fully transformed against him, and it looked like he had the chance. But Wrath was able to thwart the attacks of a battalion of nothern soildiers, disarm a tank with a sword and a grenade, dodge countless bullets and slice through a tank shell, hold his ground against Bucaneer, Greed and Fu, while killing Bucaneer and Fu during the battle at full power, with his ultimate eye intact, there seemed to be no fathomable attack besides Bucaneer's suicidal rush capable of harming him. Last was his battle against Scar, one of the most powerful characters in the series Wrath had already suffered massive wounds, showing his greatest weakness his inabillity to regenerate. While this weakness seemingly puts him at a disadvantage against other Homunculi, I'd argue that given Wrath's speed and reflexes, he's the character who suffers the least from this weakness as in most normal battles he would never be injured in the first place. During his battle against Scar he nearly killed Scar twice, Scar was able to barely defeat him after the occurence of 3 fortunate events Wrath started coughing out blood, allowing Scar to break one of his swords. Scar surprised Wrath with extremely fast alchemy Wrath had no way to anticipate, yet Wrath was only injured and not immediatly killed by this attack. The sun suddenly blinded Wrath, allowing Scar to deliver the finishing blow. Even after these events occured, Wrath was able to pierce Scar's side, holding his broken blade with his mouth, nearly killing Scar. These battles add up to give us a clear picture of Wrath's power while Sloth is mentioned as the fastest Homunculus, Wrath can very clearly take the place as the second fastest. But while Sloth can't really control his direction, Wrath's reflexes and skills can control his speed to make him a much stronger oppoent. Wrath is also shown to have immensly strong destructive power. It is seen that his swords can cut through solid stone and tear apart metal, and only seem to not being able to pierce Greed's ultimate shield and as I mentioned, Wrath is seen as stronger than Greed despite that fact . And that is why I think the strongest of the seven Homunculi was Wrath, He's more skillful, has better combat intuition and reflexes and he was shown to stand against much stronger odds than Any other Homunculus ever had and win. .<|ASPECTS|>fast, blood, swift, inabillity to regenerate, killing, powerful, stronger odds, ultimate shield, pierce, side, stronger oppoent, harming, tear apart metal, destructive power, fatal wounds, attack, fighting skills, fighting potential, control his speed, linearly stronger, accurate, injured, poorly written, combat intuition, finishing, control, anticipate, strength, killed, cut through solid stone, massive wounds, blinded wrath, second, suicidal rush, stronger opponents, wrath 's power, direction, barely defeat, disadvantage, transformed, effortlessly kill, stronger, reflexes, fast alchemy, weakness<|CONCLUSION|>

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood Other than Father, Wrath was the strongest Homunculus.

0c4806e1-2081-4690-8cbd-4f79e23fd73d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now if you have come this far, hear me out as I want to clarify some things about my view of Gender Equality. Just because i believe they are not equal, I am not asserting one is superior to the other. I believe in equal oppurtunity for everyone, as we have seen in the past individuals who have excelled in things generally dominated by the opposite gender. But when I go to bars usually the majority clientel are men , I dont see many male bartenders, if ever. Why? because men would prefer to be served by an atractive woman. I know its only one example, but Im trying to be brief. So. Can men and women be equal? I look forward to this discussion<|ASPECTS|>atractive woman, gender equality, equal, superior, brief, view, majority clientel, male bartenders, oppurtunity<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe men and women, because of the gender roles society has adopted are inherently different and therefore can never be "equal"

cde08b67-3371-4783-a8cb-ac290439fc5a

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't care if they are spying on us. Why should I? It isn't like someone is spying on me specifically just like how I don't care about security cameras. I'm one person out of the 300 million other people here. Nothing that I am going to do is going to be so embarrassing or anything that I would care about what the government saw as I am just one person out of everyone else. The government isn't going to be in their government building or whatever and be like gt Guy 1 Pst guess what gt gt Guy 2 What gt gt Guy 1 This guy looks at bondage porn Why not? Because this study is so large, it encompasses almost any individual person. What are you scared of them judging you? Well I'm sorry to say that there are tons of people judging you every day in your everyday life and even more on the internet. Am I missing something of why privacy is so important? Change My View. EDIT Sorry for the late responses guys, haven't been on reddit all day and just got home. EDIT 2 I have noticed many of the answers are convincing but I was more focused on the average person and how they would be negatively affected by the NSA. Or was all of this uproar due to all of the possibilities that the NSA could do. Also not looking for legal reasons. It's unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure.<|ASPECTS|>spying on us, scared, legal reasons, negatively affected, embarrassing, uproar, late, security cameras, possibilities, unconstitutional, change my view, judging, encompasses, privacy, spying, bondage porn, average, individual person, person<|CONCLUSION|>

NSA, Who gives a shit. I don't.

975e3d6a-bda0-4941-89db-2c9248500490

<|TOPIC|>North Korea should not be labelled irrational for developing nuclear weapons<|ARGUMENT|>The nuclear weapons program has become a vehicle through which very special relationships are built by exporting know-how and components that are crucial for developing and deploying a nuclear weapon<|ASPECTS|>special relationships<|CONCLUSION|>

North Korea should not be labelled irrational for developing nuclear weapons

1e863f20-9c39-4e28-ae66-49400a5a3a0b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Economy would help states if taxed properly Health smoked without papers or tobacco and it actually strengthens lungs. Any brain cells lost from weed, double that when you drink heavily. And cigs are ok to sell when they cause Cancer? What? Socially Literally scratching my head to see what would drastically change. Some quick context I am newly 21 and didn't start smoking until i was late 18. All through high school i was surrounded by stoners and never had any urge to smoke. If you're going to be a follower, you will find a way to be a follower with or without weed. When my friends were stoned, they were only more mellow and more funny, never saw anything. I only started smoking to help with extreme pain from having my jaw broken for 7 days before going to see a doctor. Vicodin makes me itchy and i honestly don't understand how Oxycontin is allowed to even be giving to people I understand why other drugs like cocaine, heroin and meth are illegal. They are known to make people aggressive and lead to a lot of violent crimes while on the drug or while coming down from it. Lastly, it's not like weed being illegal is stopping anyone from smoking it. What is the big deal?<|ASPECTS|>brain cells, lost from weed, itchy, follower, cancer, urge to smoke, weed, smoking, oxycontin, illegal, stopping, taxed, violent crimes, ok to sell, funny, socially, mellow, cause, strengthens lungs, stoners, drastically change, aggressive, never saw anything, smoked, extreme pain<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe there is no benefit of having weed be illegal,

db95490d-b1be-42a3-945d-8f1dbc4b7b1b

<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>The Irish and Italians were also treated poorly in early US history. The Japanese were treated horrendously in WW2. The majority of US citizens are likely tied to some historically oppressed group.<|ASPECTS|>horrendously, treated, treated poorly, historically oppressed group<|CONCLUSION|>

The US track record of exploitation is quite long. Paying slavery reparations would be a slippery slope for other groups to claim the same.

56943286-8bac-428d-895c-fd8d6d3c29a4

<|TOPIC|>Should Mexico legalize drugs?<|ARGUMENT|>Legalizing would allow drug companies to list their stocks on all U.S. exchanges, thereby enhancing liquidity and opening up access to many more investors.<|ASPECTS|>stocks, list, investors, liquidity, access<|CONCLUSION|>

Legalizing drugs could help to secure the investment portfolios of investors across the country and further afield as well.

e295a59e-ead5-4b61-8801-b45732a6bf06

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I come into work every day and have a bunch of women talking about each other's outfits. I do not work in a fashion related industry and I don't think what one wears to work has any impact on that individuals work output. However, I can't help but wonder that the pressure to look nice disproportionately impacts one gender over others. It's a shame that so many news articles about women politicians, actors, etc. talk about their appearance rather than their work. I think this starts at typical workplaces such as mine. What am I missing? <|ASPECTS|>impacts one gender, news, appearance, pressure, disproportionately, women politicians, 's outfits, typical workplaces, impact, work, work output<|CONCLUSION|>

Talking about clothes at work holds women back.

b96612ec-2834-4144-a38b-6518361d3514

<|TOPIC|>Is BDSM Abusive?<|ARGUMENT|>Harassment and abuse in virtual reality can feel real and cause real damage. It follows that the same would be true for simulated role-play scenarios.<|ASPECTS|>role-play scenarios, damage, abuse, harassment<|CONCLUSION|>

In consensual non consent, the scene may have the appearance of being very violent, and without the consent of one party.

3cb401ee-10e5-4cd3-a03b-2780777be24c

<|TOPIC|>Tezos should use fully token-based voting: one Tezzie, one vote<|ARGUMENT|>Not giving "investors" more power might keep some investors away, as they might consider a non-vested group voting against their interests as quite some risk.<|ASPECTS|>risk<|CONCLUSION|>

Tezos should use fully token-based voting: one Tezzie, one vote

2c6c4ad7-64ff-473c-9f97-6bca786344fc

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not going to defend the fact North Korea is a dictatorship, but instead I'm going to defend their right to develop and keep nuclear weapons. Assume you are the leader of a nation like North Korea, any nation basically that is somewhat small insignificant and aligns itself towards the east, so not good friends with USA and the EU pretty much. Your military will basically exist to defend yourself from mostly a possible american invasion, and there is literally only one way to keep USA from invading you, and that is nukes. The reason I would defend regardless of how dumb I think it is I would defend a crazy dictator North Koreas right to have nukes is because the UN Security Council is a joke and have proven that it cant keep anyone safe. If the west want to invade someone, they will, we do not need good reason, Iraq and Libya are good examples, they were simply a threat to economic wellbeing of our countries USA and France mostly in this case and that was enough to motivate an invasion. The only way those countries could have kept from being invaded would have been if they had nukes. Basically, I think its extremely silly for western powers to sit and talk about how its a huge no no that someone is getting nukes when they themselves all have nukes and when they know damn well that there is only one way to defend yourself today and that is to own nukes. The UN Security Council holds no power over the big players, there is absolutely no way for any country to defend itself against the US Military as it is far superior any other, so acquiring nukes makes sense if we believe a country has a right to defend itself. Basically, I am in favor of North Korea acquiring nukes strictly because we in the west force other countries to do so in order to defend themselves, so we have absolutely nothing we can tell them when it comes to asking them not to get those nukes, as we cant guarantee anyone their safety. However, I'll admit I am not exactly happy about KJU having access to weapons that can fuck everyone up, I don't like WMD's in general but NK would definitely be the spookiest nation to own any. Once again though, while NK clearly are crazy, they havent really invaded anyone besides SK a long time ago and they dont really do a lot of damage in the world besides some issues now and then, USA, Russia, UK, etc, on the other hand constantly start wars and shit, and I don't really fear them using nukes, even though they drop bombs daily. Perhaps NK having nukes isnt really that much scarier than anyone else having them, anyway, back to the point TL DR NK should be allowed nukes because its the only way to defend yourself in 2016.<|ASPECTS|>invaded, weapons, nuclear weapons, scarier, right to defend, safe, small insignificant, kept, threat, wars, fuck everyone, invasion, spookiest, access, players, american invasion, crazy, damage, nukes, power, right, dictatorship, economic wellbeing, safety, defend, right to develop, bombs, invading, keep anyone<|CONCLUSION|>

North Korea have good reasons to acquire nukes.

7ce98b78-efd5-4da8-a462-290d00e6ac4d

<|TOPIC|>Should the US adopt stricter gun controls?<|ARGUMENT|>Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century's most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens. 1 million - 3 million the number is debated educated citizens murdered. Gun Control Law Arts. 322-8, Penal Code<|ASPECTS|>educated, educated citizens, radical, unarmed citizens, brutal<|CONCLUSION|>

The great dictators of the 20th century showed what gun regulation can lead to - the slaughtering of good law abiding citizens.

78f0b8fd-9d84-402e-81be-6f2e1cf8d34d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For the purposes of this post, I'm going to use Wikipedia's definition of privilege, which it refers to as a social theory that special rights or advantages are available only to a particular person or group of people. The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to age, disability, ethnic or racial category, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and or social class. For the most part, I understand where proponents of privilege theory are coming from. As a white, heterosexual, Catholic male, I will probably never be threatened in public because of my race, sexual orientation, or religion. I also will probably never face any sort of discrimination in the workplace. So from that perspective, sure, I'm privileged. But the wheels come off when privilege theory is used as an assessment of a person's quality of life, the adversity they face, or both. This is because privilege theory fails to account for how a person's upbringing impacts their life. I have been told more than once in a discussion to check my privilege based entirely off of superficial factors such as my race and gender, despite the fact that the other person did not have any knowledge whatsoever of what my life experience was actually like. For all they knew, my mother could have passed away when I was little, I could have had an abusive member of the family, or my father could have been a deadbeat. These things do not apply to me specifically I had a normal upbringing outside of my parents divorcing when I was seven but that's not the point. These people who were accusing me of privilege were assuming that just because I was white and male my life is automatically sunshine and roses, when those factors pale in comparison to the quality of my upbringing. Whether or not a person is white or black is hardly going to have the same impact on a person's ability to lead a normal life as the psychological trauma induced by a sexually abusive relative. You might be inclined to point out that I'm using a mostly anecdotal argument to present my case, and you're right. Typically, anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy that doesn't pass for an argument, but a person's upbringing is the exception that proves the rule. Every person's life is an anecdote. During their childhood, a person's life can be influenced by their parents, siblings, extended family, teachers, coaches, counselors, friends, and family of friends. The massive variance of influence in life makes it illogical to ascribe demographic statistics to any one person. Each person must be treated as an individual with a unique experience that could very well be molded by an external factors completely unrelated to their identity. To put it more simply, if I were to pick an American black male and an American white male from the population at random, could you say with complete certainty that the challenges faced by the black male are more significant than the challenges of the white male without any additional information? I'm not talking about odds or what's likely, I am talking about what is . I believe the answer to this question is invariably no. When breaking things down to the individual level, you have no idea whether or not I selected a white male whose father skipped town and whose mother was an alcoholic prostitute while the black male had a father who was an esteemed railroad executive In short, because statistics cannot be applied to individuals, and because upbringing supersedes identity when considering the adversity a person faces entering society, privilege theory cannot be practically applied in the real world. It's impossible to make judgments on a person's quality of life purely based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ability without getting to know them first. In order to change my view, you'll have to either convince me that this assessment is false, or that I have a misunderstanding of the concept of privilege. <|ASPECTS|>ability, anecdotal argument, gender identity, variance of influence in life, special rights or advantages, normal upbringing, demographic statistics, unique experience, sunshine and roses, sexually abusive, social inequality, upbringing, superficial factors, race, life, influenced, mother, experience, threatened, deadbeat, privilege theory, quality of life, invariably, normal life, psychological trauma, adversity, privileged, misunderstanding, abusive member of the family, challenges, identity, impacts, quality, logical fallacy, odds, social class, religion, privilege, external factors, sexual orientation, anecdotal evidence, divorcing, discrimination, anecdote<|CONCLUSION|>

Privilege theory fails in practice because a person's upbringing has a larger impact on their life than their identity.

2bacac8f-8629-4482-9462-44c42376b00a

<|TOPIC|>Should voters in the UK have a final vote on the Brexit deal?<|ARGUMENT|>Referendums are very prone to populist opinion manipulation and can very easily be used as a tactic to undermine our representative democracy. As such, they should probably be avoided.<|ASPECTS|>undermine, representative democracy, populist opinion manipulation, avoided<|CONCLUSION|>

The use of referendums, especially on a UK-wide basis, contradicts the principle of parliamentary supremacy

9006f061-66a7-40f6-ae6c-9a0c715a3873