Datasets:

webis

/

conclugen

like 1

Follow

Webis Group 32

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In particular, three things about the Holocaust, in my view, make it unique There was no strategic motivation. The European colonists in America, for example, killed the Natives because they were motivated by expansion, Stalin and Mao killed mostly political opponents etc whereas the Jews in Europe had no reason to be a target other than being Jewish and being at the center of some far fetched conspiracy theories. The Holocaust happened cold bloodedly , meaning that the perpetrators had time to think about the consequences and morality of their actions. The Turks who killed the Armenians, for comparison, were mostly peer pressured on the brink of the moment. No other genocide in history had an entire military, logistic, bureaucratic and industrial apparatus entirely dedicated to extermination. And so, this is briefly the reason why I believe the Holocaust is unique among other genocides, but I would like to hear opinions from the non uniqueness perspective.<|ASPECTS|>peer pressured, target, moment, morality, genocide, political opponents, consequences, expansion, motivated, strategic motivation, non uniqueness, conspiracy theories, killed, extermination, holocaust, unique<|CONCLUSION|>

The Holocaust was the single most evil thing ever done by human beings.

8a4cf278-376f-4ba4-b6e2-41afe7720153

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that a belief in a god is illogical, as there is no evidence that shows one exists. It is ignorant to believe in something that has no evidence to support it. Belief in a god is also highly dependent upon confirmation bias and faith which makes for discussing religion and it's merits incredibly difficult. How can I have a rational debate with someone who believes in god with complete confidence, while also admitting they have no basis for that belief? It just seems completely illogical. . EDIT I get that this is a sensitive topic guys, but downvoting my every comment, post, and ignoring my main point That believing in something without evidence is illogical will not .<|ASPECTS|>, confidence, confirmation bias, sensitive topic, evidence, downvoting, faith, god, ignorant to believe, incredibly difficult, rational debate, illogical<|CONCLUSION|>

A belief in god is illogical and has no basis in reality.

06fec204-2245-40f7-95bf-f5b219767a06

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me start of that I don't want this to be a discussion of affirmative action itself. I'm simply arguing that if AA makes sense based on race and gender for all of the reasons people argue it makes sense, it should be applied to other people who may face more disadvantages because of genetic issues they can't control. I believe that in modern society, there are many sizable groups that face more roadblocks to success than minorities because of issues they can't control. Therefore, if we are correcting for bias and history of oppression of racial minorities, we should do the same for other groups. While this is by no means a definitive list, but I believe that the following groups of people who have genetic conditions that deserve AA as much or more than racial minorities Severely ugly, deformed or disfigured people. There is a human instinct to shun people who are horribly ugly or disfigured. It is very difficult for such people to be successful in life. Dwarves extremely short people People with palsy muscle disorders, tick disorders, stutterers, etc. This makes people uncomfortable even though there is no cognative impairment. Transpeople If you don't believe this is true, consider how many congressmen, self made billionaires or Fortune 500 board members, CEOs, COOs, or CFOs have one of these traits. In addition, there are people who have non genetic life circumstances beyond their control that can make life much harder than simply being a minority. If your argument for AA is that minorities have tougher conditions growing up that put them at a disadvantage e.g. worse access to education rather than simple discriminatory bias , there are other groups that probably face the same issues. For example Children raised in foster homes. Victims of severe child abuse or other severe psychological trauma. Children of infamous hated people e.g. war criminals, mass murderers, etc. . People raised in poor, rural areas. Child war refugees. People raised in oppressive religious groups or hate groups i.e. on a compound . To , you'll have to convince me why AA based on gender race is more valid than the things like I described above, who I believe now face more discrimination and or hardship than any racial minority in the US.<|ASPECTS|>short, bias, hardship, roadblocks to success, hate groups, victims, history, human instinct, genetic conditions, tick disorders, uncomfortable, rural areas, war criminals, affirmative action, severe, child war refugees, oppression, deformed, foster homes, disadvantages, genetic life circumstances, tougher conditions, ugly, discriminatory bias, disfigured people, psychological trauma, disfigured, shun, life much harder, horribly, mass murderers, palsy muscle disorders, stutterers, minority, access to education, difficult, child abuse, genetic issues, children, infamous, oppressive religious groups, gender race, successful in life, disadvantage, hated people, race and gender, poor, discrimination, racial minorities, minorities, cognative impairment<|CONCLUSION|>

If race/gender based affirmative action is valid, so it should be for other uncontrollable traits that result in discrimination.

95cfb9f6-2764-43dd-ae35-5c3a0e82c534

<|TOPIC|>How should we decide whether a single-winner voting system is fair?<|ARGUMENT|>Ballot boxes can be closely monitored to make sure the integrity of the ballot box is not compromised.<|ASPECTS|>integrity, monitored<|CONCLUSION|>

There are methods for verifying the legitimacy of ballots without exposing who cast them

b698c369-9e9c-406d-84a6-ddf72eb32251

<|TOPIC|>Should hate speech be illegal?<|ARGUMENT|>Human dignity is protected by the very first law of the German Constitution "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt." "Human dignity is sacrosanct. It is the duty of all state authorities to respect and protect it."<|ASPECTS|>respect, protect, protected, duty, human dignity, sacrosanct<|CONCLUSION|>

Human dignity is a more important value than free speech. Hate speech puts human dignity in danger. Therefore it should be banned.

3f38889e-7a55-4a2a-81b6-5ab30aad9729

<|TOPIC|>Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?<|ARGUMENT|>The introduction of partial public funding systems in the United States has encouraged more new candidates to run for public office.<|ASPECTS|>partial public funding systems, new candidates<|CONCLUSION|>

Having to privately fundraise makes it less likely that working class citizens will run for office in the first place.

f14715c5-b9e6-4daa-bdec-637280c120e2

<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>The Likelihood Principle states that if some observation O is likely under hypothesis A and less likely under hypothesis B, then O counts as evidence for A over B. The existence of a fundamentally beautiful universe O is likely assuming a perfect creator A, and less likely assuming the absence of such a creator B.<|ASPECTS|>perfect creator, likelihood, beautiful universe, evidence<|CONCLUSION|>

There isn't any reason a priori to expect the world to be fundamentally beautiful - however, if it was created by a perfect God, it would almost certainly be. As such, the fact that we exist in a fundamentally beautiful universe counts as evidence for a perfect Creator.

55969c07-078a-43c3-b79e-9ee43fdacc9d

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Everyone believes that the entertainment industry continues to rehash old ideas, that they refuse to make new stories and everything is just based of an existing property. We have heard it before , If you want a diverse cast of people you should make something new , Hollywood, stop with the remakes and sequels “Why not more original movies?” “We need original movies and franchises, why we still have sequels and remakes?” Each time I hear phrases like these, I think Do moviegoers these days actually want originality from Hollywood, or are they begging too much? I say this because some of the most original and good movies of, for example, this decade, unfortunately 1 Become an undeserved box office bomb, because most moviegoers go to see other movies that they supposedly hate for copying concepts 2 When you think some of them might be present in pop culture history years after its release, they go unnoticed and are forgotten for the next anticipated sequel and remake. It's very easy to blame everything on the ones running the business because everyone likes to believe that corporations are these evil greedy entity's that only care about money but the truth, those corporations are people like you and me, they run a business, they have families to feed and bills to pay and they are going to stick to where the money is because of it. A friend who work on the industry told me how a lot of his co workers want more original works in the movie and video game medium but they can't work on it because it would require a high budget and they would loose their jobs if those works don't make back a profit. They don't want to put their families at risk just cause they wanted to try something new because the truth is the general audience don't care about new Ideas no matter how good and well made it is, they only like and support things they are familiar with. The industry sadly don't care what a bunch of movie buffs, gamers or animation enthusiasts say on the internet because they are a minority compared to the general audience where most of the money come from and as I said, the general audience vote with their wallet.<|ASPECTS|>original movies, money, office bomb, new stories, undeserved, support things, property, loose their jobs, new ideas, high budget, original works, copying concepts, risk, care, profit, begging, unnoticed, families, minority, original, bills, rehash old ideas, evil greedy entity, forgotten, vote, originality, diverse<|CONCLUSION|>

The general audience is to blame for the Lack of originality in the entertainment industry not the makers.

3f188b32-ca07-4c77-bfec-4cdedb01b32e

<|TOPIC|>Should Obligatory Community/Military Service Be Introduced?<|ARGUMENT|>The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, which stood until 2011, allowed LGB people to serve in the US military, only if they did not openly reveal their sexuality.<|ASPECTS|>people, sexuality<|CONCLUSION|>

Many countries have a long history of banning people from the military based on their sexuality.

ad37a553-ea8c-486d-a77f-7cdc087c074d

<|TOPIC|>Do corporations benefit society?<|ARGUMENT|>A paper funded by by a group whose members included Coca-Cola, Hershey, Red Bull and Oreo cookie maker Mondelez published a study that downplayed the harms of excess sugar intake.<|ASPECTS|>excess sugar intake, harms<|CONCLUSION|>

Having corporate interest in scientific funding can lead to biases in the results which are being produced.

d93c20fa-3d21-4f97-9844-e51881c76264

<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Nature is much more cruel in the way of animal on animal violence. When humans kill most animals for food it is done in a fast and humane way.<|ASPECTS|>nature, animal violence, fast and humane, cruel<|CONCLUSION|>

That animals eat other animals is the natural order of the world; to replicate and continue this is not immoral.

8c7a5aa4-7fea-4aa6-a4e4-1408a26e1f50

<|TOPIC|>Was the EU right to approve the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market?<|ARGUMENT|>Bots on social media are often used to reproduce or summarise news articles programmatically. This means people no longer have to visit the press publications themselves, robbing press publications of valuable income.<|ASPECTS|>valuable income, robbing, reproduce<|CONCLUSION|>

Article 111 prohibits for-profit web services from reproducing or making public press publications.

ba741db4-0831-4205-b3fe-41297aab6695

<|TOPIC|>All Humans Should Be Vegan.<|ARGUMENT|>Animals consume more plants to produce x amount of calories than if we got the calories directly from plants. Therefore even if eating plants is removing life, less plants are consumed by only eating plants.<|ASPECTS|>consumed, removing life, plants, amount, calories, consume more plants, less plants<|CONCLUSION|>

Whether or not plants feel pain, veganism results in fewer plant deaths as fewer plant calories are used as animal feed.

c9e83bd8-d4c7-4d64-8455-50c99683321b

<|TOPIC|>Should the BAR exam be eliminated as a requirement to practice law?<|ARGUMENT|>Since few lawyers pass the BAR exam, those who do charge extremely high fees which makes it such that very few people can afford legal assistance.<|ASPECTS|>legal assistance, fees, afford<|CONCLUSION|>

The BAR exam is injurious to the supply-side of the legal market.

2856497e-86da-40a4-bb4d-9ef258f2fb7b

<|TOPIC|>Should Youth Votes Count More Than Votes Cast by Elderly Citizens?<|ARGUMENT|>In 2014 only 16% of youth aged 18 to 20 came out to vote. This percentage increased to 43% in 2016.<|ASPECTS|>youth<|CONCLUSION|>

The political participation of the youth is improving in recent years.

5019990e-a129-4b5a-b131-8592713dae8c

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, the argument you always hear from people about speeding is that it's not worth it and doesn't pay off. Let's do some math. Assume these facts about a commute 25 miles each way to work, 5 days a week 25 mpg car 2 gal gas 25 hr equivalent pay rate Highway, speed limit 60 mph for easier math Scenario 1 Go the speed limit, 50 minute commute daily At 25 mpg, it takes us 2 gallons of gas each day 4 Scenario 2 We go 20 faster, or 72 mph We cut our commute to 42 minutes, saving 8 minutes Say we get 10 less mpg probably realistic 22.5 mpg, it now takes 2.22 gallons of gas 4.44 So we spent 44 cents more on gas per day, but we saved 10 minutes. 8 minutes .133 of an hour, or the equivalent of 3.33 1 6 25 Net benefit, 2.89 a day, or 752 a year. Scenario 3 We go 40 faster, or 84 mph We cut our commute to 35 minutes, saving 15 minutes Say we get 25 less mpg 18.75 mpg, it now takes 2.67 gallons of gas 5.33 So we spent 1.33 cents more on gas per day, but we saved 15 minutes. 15 minutes 1 4th of an hour, or the equivalent of 6.25 1 4 25 Net benefit, 4.92 a day, or 1280 a year. This all factors up the faster you go, the more you drive, and the more you get paid. Maybe factor in a speeding ticket every 5 to 10 years, big whoop. So tell me, why this day and age with high performance vehicles even average cars are , do people still waste time driving slow?<|ASPECTS|>drive, get, saved, pay, waste time driving slow, benefit, cut, worth, math, faster, paid, commute, speeding, speeding ticket<|CONCLUSION|>

People who claim speeding isn't worth it are bad at math.

3aeebf20-37dc-40df-8bc1-ce876c24f1e1

<|TOPIC|>Mike Pence Would Make a Better President than Donald Trump<|ARGUMENT|>Karen McDougal, who had an affair with Donald Trump broke off their relationship after hearing him make racist remarks<|ASPECTS|>racist remarks<|CONCLUSION|>

Donald Trump has a long history of making racist remarks

70bc5b20-a755-4076-80e6-31745b31f075

<|TOPIC|>Should we worship a god that sends people to hell?<|ARGUMENT|>Same as the argument with unicorns. It is possible unicorns exist and it is possible that the existence of unicorns disprove the existence of god. It is not reasonable to therefore conclude god does not exist.<|ASPECTS|>existence of god, god, disprove, unicorns<|CONCLUSION|>

Grandparent argument makes two positive claims that must be proven in order to support the conclusion drawn by them. More than possibility is thus required.

02cac4d7-46ff-408e-b09b-0800596b7d3d

<|TOPIC|>The Existence of God<|ARGUMENT|>Euthyphro's dilemma is consistent with the fallacy of false dilemma in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.<|ASPECTS|>false dilemma<|CONCLUSION|>

Euthyphro's dilemma could be regarded as a false dilemma.

318bea5d-59aa-4b76-b9a2-213266d22ff3

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Okay so there aren't many topics more touchy than abortion, I mean we're literally debating about the beginning of the value of a human life here. Not too long ago if you would have asked me where I stood on abortion I wouldn't have been able to give you a firm answer, I used to say Well I don't know enough about it so I'll say pro life just be safe. Cause I felt like it would be better to be pro life and wrong than pro choice and wrong. But lately I've been watching some debates on it and I found myself become more firmly pro life. Specifally I've been watching Ben Shapiro's debates on the subject. I think Ben is a smart and well meaning guy and I appreciate the research he puts behind the things he debates on, though sometimes he is a bit too conservative for my tastes though I dont see anything inherently wrong with being a conservative or republican or whatever. I usually go into his debates with a fair bit of, I guess skepticism just because he isn't always my cup of tea but I was really agreeing with him when he was talking about abortion. So I'm gonna start with the reason I'm posting this, then the reasons I think abortion is immoral, why it should be illegal and what exceptions there should be. I'm also gonna lay out some common pro choice arguments and give my piece on them so I can get some different answers here, or at least those answers put in a more in depth and or convincing way. Mostly the way I'm looking for my mind to be changed here is to be given a better understanding of pro choice thinking that isnt some of the, in my opinion, flimsy arguments I'll be bringing up later. I have ocd and though that's not an excuse for me to say something wrong nor an excuse for you to discredit what I say because I have a mental illness, it does cause me a fair bit of anxiety and makes me have a bit of black and white thinking about things sometimes. I don't want to think of pro choice people as bad people and I just want a better understanding of that side of the argument but I'm bringing my a game and my current best articulation of my opinion and I feel pretty firmly planted in it, so don't expect me to sway easily. I'm saying this because sometimes I see posts on here that seem like the person is just trying to seem morally superior and doesn't actually care about the comments or like they're just trying to cram their arguments down people's throats, I also see comments that don't seem open for debate. Alright so simply put I think abortion is immoral because I see it as killing a baby. Some people have a stance like I'm for abortion until after 20 weeks because the fetus can feel pain. I'm not for abortion at all except for extreme circumstances, I feel like life begins when the sperm meets the egg. Now do I value an embryo and say, a toddler on the same level? No, but I still feel like an embryo has value because human life has value even in the early stages of pregnancy and you shouldnt be allowed to decide that it's not a baby and kill it because you find it convenient, seeing as though if you left it to it's natural process it would become a baby. It's not just a clump of cells like mucus or dead skin or something, it's a human life and it's wrong to think it's okay to just do away with it. With that being said though, I think there are exceptions. One being if it comes between saving the mother and the child. Like if a mother has to get chemotherapy to treat her cancer and a result is that the treatment is going to abort the baby I think the mother should be okay to go through with the treatment. Another argument I hear is what if a woman is raped and impregnated because of it? I don't like that argument in the first place because you're giving someone a horrible scenario like that in a way to sort of guilt them over to your side but I think it's a fair question nonetheless. Though part of me feels like it should be her choice then and the death of the baby would be on the rapists hands, I'm gonna say abortion should still be off the table in that case because the solution to a horrible thing happening shouldn't be another horrible thing happening, as hard as it would be for the mother. Even though it is unfair and one of the worst things that could ever happen to someone I don't think the child should die because of it. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic to the victim here, I'm trying to be sympathetic to the baby. So I've covered the Just a clump of cells argument and the question on what if it was rape or what if the mother's life is in danger. There's a few other common arguments I wanted to give my response to here. The point that seems to be most used for pro choicers from my perspective is that wanting abortion to be outlawed is actually about wanting to control women's bodies which honestly I think is ridiculous. Being pro life is clearly not about wanting to have control over women, it's about protecting the baby inside of them and it happens to be so that one of the sexes has to carry the baby and I don't think you should be able to decide to kill a child that's growing in you just because it's growing in you. The baby is still a human life and it should be protected and I think the government has a responsibility to protect human life, a child isn't just an extension of the mother, even when it's inside of her. I've also heard an argument that the government shouldn't moralize people, but what's the point in having laws then? I think the government has a responsibility to make it clear that something is morally wrong by outlawing it. And the last pro choice argument I'll touch on here is that the child may be an economic burden. But there's a reason you can put kids up for adoption and someone being an economic burden doesn't justify killing them. My thing is, if you have sex you know you're taking a risk. I understand that people aren't perfect and they make mistakes and accidents happen I can imagine how painful it must be to realize youre pregnant with a child you aren't ready for and maybe cant afford. However I don't think you have the right to end the child's life and decide that a human life doesn't have value because it's early on in the pregnancy or you think it'd be more convienent to not have to carry a child.<|ASPECTS|>, black and white, life begins, pro life and wrong, wrong, cancer, death of, protecting the baby, worst, thinking about things, discredit, pro, conservative, illegal, safe, research, feel pain, life is in danger, saving the mother, human life, value an embryo, killing a baby, sympathetic to the baby, mistakes, treatment, mother 's, convienent, horrible scenario, kill, child, adoption, right to end, natural, pro life, raped and impregnated, immoral, dead skin, skepticism, mother, die, child 's life, exceptions, perfect, common arguments, bad people, risk, rape, understanding, protected, moralize people, pro choice thinking, sway easily, convenient, economic burden, morally superior, anxiety, justify killing, morally wrong, smart, unfair, protect human life, rapists, okay, horrible thing, value, choice and wrong, accidents happen, painful, extreme circumstances, mental illness, taking, control over women, guilt, unsympathetic, responsibility, control women 's bodies, choice arguments, chemotherapy, choice<|CONCLUSION|>

Abortion is immoral and should be illegal.

dbf28091-4d04-48b2-bc53-b27b48ce9ba5

<|TOPIC|>Castration of sex offenders<|ARGUMENT|>"Thoughts on Castration for Sex Offenders." The Curvature. March 12th, 2009: "the idea that it would stop the castrated rapists from raping again, as a general rule? I can believe that. But it won’t stop rape. Not even close. And in the process of stopping a few rapes while failing to stop the vast majority of them, a false sense of what rape is about is heavily stitched onto the public’s consciousness."<|ASPECTS|>castration, rape, public ’ s consciousness, curvature, stop rape, offenders, false sense, castrated rapists<|CONCLUSION|>

Castrating sex offenders gives false sense of security on rape.

ee8c028c-ffa0-4761-af4d-c5eeff285cd5

<|TOPIC|>Should Israel Remain Democratic Even If that Would Ultimately Lead to it No Longer Being a Jewish State?<|ARGUMENT|>The Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988 plainly declares that the Palestinian state would be an Arab state. That did not impede negotiations for peace between Israel and the Palestinians as the Oslo Accords were signed 5 years later.<|ASPECTS|>negotiations, peace, arab state<|CONCLUSION|>

How Israel forms its own political system should not affect the Palestinian peace process since they are separate entities.

7a7e54d5-c01f-4b4c-9f3e-aea5296a9319

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Today I read about a danish politician, who came forward, by telling how tired he was about all of this overreacting by feminists and how tired you become of all the shit storm. About how oldschool it had become, to act like you where offended by everything, and to make a big act, about something so meaningless as the next part It all started by a danish teacher at CBS Copenhagen business school feeling offended by an old danish folk song called Den danske sang er en ung blond pige The danes' true song is a young blond girl . The song was written in 1924 by Kai Hoffmann, and was reflecting Denmark in the face of a blond woman. This was found offensive by the BLACK haired teacher, as she didn't feel danish when she read the song. This meant that she demanded the school to remove all the school books, who had the song included. The school did not approve her terms, which let to a lot of drama and even a vote in the court, about removing the song from the Danish high school song books. What do you think about the fact that someone can take this case this far because of song from 1924? Should the politician have said nothing like that, as it could offend a lot of people? flaske Edit I was made aware that I was wrong about feminisms role in this matter, but instead the current victim culture.<|ASPECTS|>school books, overreacting by feminists, meaningless, offended, song, girl, case, oldschool, reflecting denmark, drama, offensive, feel, feminisms, victim culture, shit storm, offend, people, remove, danish, tired<|CONCLUSION|>

Politicians right to freely talk and highly educated teacher offended

caee66df-3473-43bb-95b0-f27b7ad0e582

<|TOPIC|>Should Couples Sign A Prenuptial Agreement Before Marriage?<|ARGUMENT|>For a person who gives up a lucrative career for the sake of marriage, a premarital agreement can ensure that they will be compensated for that sacrifice if the marriage does not last.<|ASPECTS|>compensated, lucrative career<|CONCLUSION|>

Prenuptial agreements can protect individuals from potential harms in case of a divorce.

b443fb20-488c-4539-bcd4-1d64a10caca9

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Nothing Brings countries together like free trade. Both countries get richer by specializing in what the do best, and in turn, become more dependent on one another. Attacking a country whom you depend on, as a customer, or as a supplier is disadvantageous. Western Europe has enjoyed peace for 70 years, a span of time that it almost unprecedented in 1600 years of post Roman Europe. What caused this? Open free trade within its borders in the EU. For an american example, 50 years of aggressive trade sanctions could not so much as budge the Cuba government. Meanwhile, a decade of trade turned China and Vietnam into capitalists. Trade Sanctions never work in the long run, substitutes and competitors quickly pick up the slack Iran has home industries for everything from fast food and soft drink to Cars and airplanes. A few points that get repeated. Wages are set by the price mechanism, if a new company enters an area, they need to pay wages to attract workers or no one will work there. For a very poor country, what looks like a low wage to you can be a lot of money. Most people agree that peace is better than war. Unless threatened or starving, people dont want to go fight.<|ASPECTS|>low, slack, money, price mechanism, wages, aggressive trade sanctions, home industries, go fight, starving, open, trade, peace, capitalists, disadvantageous, enjoyed, pay, dependent on one, richer, better, war, poor, attract workers, trade sanctions, free trade<|CONCLUSION|>

Free trade is not just good, Free trade is the only thing that can Guarantee peace, and Americas love of trade Sanctions are usually self defeating.

6b7d1dda-3511-45ec-9040-a1d73f1e1db9

<|TOPIC|>Are Bitcoin and Anonymous Payments Beneficial for the World?<|ARGUMENT|>If you are not interested in buying a gun, you would not do so, even if you have the chance to anonymously purchase one.<|ASPECTS|>anonymously<|CONCLUSION|>

An honest and law-abiding citizen won't suddenly turn criminal, just because he could be sure that he/she would not get caught.

8f516617-799c-45ee-b58d-95de82c63dd4

<|TOPIC|>Is deliberately not preventing someone's death ethically equivalent to killing them?<|ARGUMENT|>If a bystander fails to intervene when there is only a 5% chance that they will die, they are effectively saying that their life is worth 20 times as much as the life of the person in trouble. This is morally unreasonable, since all lives are worth an equal amount.<|ASPECTS|>die, lives, worth, life, morally unreasonable<|CONCLUSION|>

If intervening creates a small probability that the bystander will die, but failing to intervene results in certain death for the person in trouble, the bystander still has an obligation to intervene.

6ddc910b-f5fa-44b4-8e91-46161d345b06

<|TOPIC|>Limitations on Foreign Investments<|ARGUMENT|>A cap would insulate the home economy from the extremities of the global economy. The cap would limit the amount of foreign competition. Therefore, in times of bitter rivalry between different economies and businesses, the domestic economy would receive some protection as part of it is not exposed to the same global pressures. The impact of any global or foreign economic downturn would also be reduced. In recession, companies often withdraw their overseas investment and this causes a further economic downslide in the host economy. By limiting the foothold foreign companies can achieve in the first instance, this trend would be limited in its impact.<|ASPECTS|>rivalry, insulate, economic downslide, economic downturn, investment, impact., withdraw, protection, foothold, home economy, impact, foreign competition, global pressures<|CONCLUSION|>

A cap would insulate the home economy from the extremities of the global economy. The cap would limi...

71827410-4837-46c7-a5ab-4ec81447c90b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|> People with personality disorders are capable of controlling themselves This is going to be long, sorry, I think it's pretty good though TLDR TLDR People with personalty disorder have the ability to become decent people if they are self aware and they choose to become passionate and altruistic .There are many people with personality disorders who use their disorder as an excuse to act in destructive and anti social ways that is completely unfair to people around them. People should not use their disorder as an excuse, I have been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and I will never blame any of transgressive issues on the disorder. BPD is not some sort of virus that infects ones body and chemicals to make them act the often harmful ways they do. BPD is just a string of unhealthy defensive mechanisms a child learned from a traumatic and chaotic environment. Every mistake I have made I take full responsibility for. BPD traits are often learned from a young age. I was moved around a lot because my father was in the military at a young age, I made friends at all my schools and immediately had to leave them all two or three years later and never see them again. This is still somewhat traumatic for me to this day for me as silly as that may sound. My father was often away for years at a time in the middle east, I felt like I barely knew my father at some points during my childhood. I also believe he would qualify for having NPD and BPD although not diagnosed and I'm not going to go too far into this. When my father came back from deployment he was often aggressive and controlling, he would be mad about the house not being taken care of enough, he would be mad at me for all sorts of things., He could be angry, threatening, and sometimes even violent. But other times he could be the most loving Dad in the world, we had so much fun sometimes, he would buy me whatever I wanted, we would go to games together and it could be awesome. My relationship with my father is still kind of like this I'm 25 now . The worst thing with me is that he pretty much forced me to try to become a top baseball athlete. He could be the meanest motherfucker when he was doing this. He would make me cry, call me a pussy or a retard but he would praise me when I did a good job. My father is very manipulative and dramatic, I picked up many of my transform him. Despite this, I feel that I sm more self aware of them and able to rationalize with them better. I eventually quit baseball when I was fourteen and he was furious about it. Still he really is an oddly great dad in a lot of ways and has good things about you. He's someone who will help anyone in need no matter what, he's just gonna be a dick about it. Throughout my teenage and early college years I was very reckless. I drank a lot, did any drug you can imagine, sold drugs. I was kind of an asshoel at this time but I had good qualities to me too. I ashamed of the way I treated girls I was interested in at this time. I wasn't a sexist or any hint but I could be manipulative and downright cruel at times. I was never physically or sexual abusive so but I was still an asshole and I'm ashamed of the way I used to act. I tried to overdose two times during my teenage years, one time I just ended up in the woods alive, the other time I ended up fighting a cop and being hospitalized. When I was in my early twenties I became a serious alcoholic and started selling and manufacturing drugs in a bad neighborhood. Before tis, I was sent to the hospital for calling a suicide hotline and sobbing and cursing at the people on the other line because I thought they weren't trying to help me. I had a borderline breakdown while with I girl I was messing around with, I started screaming in a rage at first and then started crying and apologizing. She told me that she thinks I have borderline personality disorder Soon after this I was brutally assaulted by a former friend who was also my room mate at the time for no reason, I think he was on crack or something. It was really bad but I managed to get my contraband out of the house before the police came he punched me in the face about 50 times, hit me with a baseball bat, a guitar, threw me off a chair and stompted on my chest with boots but he never knocked me down, I kept going . This guy had close to 100 pounds on me so I didn't have much of a chance and I feel like if I did fight back he would get a knife.I got out with everyone I needed, never got arrested, but my face liked like the bitch from the exorcist, it was horrible. My parents saw what happened and immediately let me back in the house they rightfully kicked me out before After this, I started attaining therapy and learning more about myself, more about my troubling behaviors and realizing how destructive, inappropriately angry, and subconsciously manipulative I could be. I have also started studying dialectical behavioral therapy. I decided I didn't wanna do anything illegal anymore. It's about a year and a half since then and I'v been doing a lot better, I'm not completely sober but I've learned to use substances in a much safer way and I've learned that I don't need to be on mind altering substances at all time. My father and I are on much better term now and I I'm helping him start a film series business. I also am working on mastering and mixing my first musical album, it's a weird indie rock trip hop electronica mix. I'm really proud of it and I'm proud of what I'm doing. I've been going to LA lately and it's a a lot of fun. I'm planning to eventually start working on film sets full time in LA if I can swing that. I think have flashes of extreme depression, anger, sadness and emptiness, but I am much more self aware and I can convince myself these feeling will pass no matter how intense they are. I still experience feelings of aggressive but anger can be a gift if you know how you can use it The Clash , I have stable opinions and I have BPD, I try my hardest not to compromise but I feel angry when I fell I have to capitulate and pretend my opinions aren't as strong as they are. The problem is, I would come off as a total dick if I did. If you have BPD you need to have balls or a pussy of steel to make yourself, or else you’ll hate yourself for standing for nothing and falling for everything. This being said, it is good to be open minded when presented with good arguments and to be adaptable in all situations including debates. There's a push and a pull, it's good sometimes to be blunt and have bold opinions but you have to time it out so it's appropriate, it's a skill you can work on. You weren’t built to be someone who follows the masses, people with BPD and other personality disorders to use are abnormal thought patterns to do things that others cannot do. It is possibly for someone with a personality disorder to rise above and better themselves and become better people. This is an issue that needs to understood more by contemporary society. You need to use your odd thought processes to do something constructive with for rather them destructive and remember that you cannot run from, everyone has a devil on their shoulder and it must only be listened to sparsely. I'm not saying I'm an amazing person or anything, but I'm trying to be better and I'm slowly getting there, I'm not the ideal version of myself but I'm getting there in if I still get caught into spells of self loathing occasionally. To get to my final fucking point There is a way to become a better and more responsible person if you have BPD or any personality disorder, even NPD, ASPD, and the Cluster A ones but the person has to be self aware and willing to change. I believe that the inherit traits found in people with personality disorders can harnessed in a very special and profound war. A schizoid can make sound logical decisions because they are not effected by emotions as much and can think clearly and analytically. A sociopath can handle morbid subjects that a normal empath may not be able to stomach, as long as the sociopath has a reason not to cause harm as many sociopaths have no real interest in harming people. Someone with borderline can channel their intense emotions in art, music, and writing, dramatic types of people often tend to be charismatic and great actors. TLDR People with personalty disorder have the ability to become decent people if they are self aware and they choose to become passionate and altruistic. x200B x200B Edit Something that sparked the idea of this post was reading about children with parents who have BPD. The poster was saying how whenever he criticized his dad for doing something out of line, his dad would blame it on his BPD and shame his son for picking on the mentally ill . I thought that was some of the pussiest shit I've ever heard. I will never blame BPD on my actions, I am myself and I do what I do and I take responsibility for it. It's a cop out to blame mental illness. And yes, I empathize a lot of with certain behaviors that other people with BPD and other personality disorders do. For instance, I felt sorry that Pete Davidson threatened to commit suicide on instagram, I feel sad for him and I'm sorry he feels that way, I know how he feels and it's absolutely awful. Still at the same time, I don't support manipulating social media and possibly his ex by attempting suicide, that is totally the wrong way to reach out for help and I hope he realizes this and stops that sort of behavior. Still I empathize because I've attempted suicide myself.<|ASPECTS|>serious alcoholic, attempted suicide, film series business, cruel, self loathing, understood, fighting a cop, inappropriately, illegal, devil, total dick, friends, blame, hate, manufacturing drugs, constructive, personality, furious, think clearly, contraband, become, rationalize, trip hop, chaotic environment, self aware, film sets, sexist, better, arguments, help anyone in need, better term, sound, picking, barely knew my father, responsibility, mind altering substances, blame bpd, electronica, better people, controlling, praise, opinions, decent people, special, harming people, follows the masses, logical decisions, anger, analytically, standing for nothing, learned, treated girls, apologizing, reckless, extreme, knife.i, shame, instagram, suicide, charismatic, buy, top baseball athlete, falling for everything, bold opinions, take, responsible person, breakdown, learning, willing, hospitalized, pussy, cursing, help, selling, mistake, change, ashamed, emotions, manipulating social media, meanest motherfucker, bpd traits, stable opinions, thought processes, troubling behaviors, behaviors, passionate, relationship, balls, sobbing, chance, manipulative, borderline personality disorder, adaptable, great dad, good qualities, awful, proud, fun, indie, angry, mad, brutally assaulted, loving dad, feeling, personality disorders, great actors, therapy, morbid subjects, unfair, unhealthy, sexual abusive, destructive, woods, drank, violent, asshoel, dialectical behavioral therapy, physically, virus, safer, mentally ill, anti social, depression, harmful ways, inherit traits, retard, altruistic, personality disorder, open minded, asshole, defensive mechanisms, dramatic, npd, emptiness, traumatic, good things, appropriate, overdose, sold drugs, skill, commit suicide, profound war, bpd, sadness, pussiest shit, transgressive issues, disorder, empathize, horrible, awesome, aggressive, sociopath, abnormal thought patterns, personalty disorder, threatening, intense emotions, mental illness, qualify, bad neighborhood<|CONCLUSION|>

People With Personality Disorders are Capable of Controlling Themselves.

92d4e84a-252c-45d9-8305-2968184a2454

<|TOPIC|>What is the worst world problem of the utmost concern?<|ARGUMENT|>What we decide to do, or not do, impacts the global environment in which the animal kingdom exist and the decision process starts with a philosophical position, consciously or not.<|ASPECTS|>impacts, philosophical position, global environment<|CONCLUSION|>

Human ecological footprint has already impacted many species to the point of extinction. Our philosophical awareness could help reduce that impact.

3f625764-15cb-48c1-9572-3a90d94198cf

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Bernie Sanders' tax plan treats capital gains as ordinary income. This is not a new policy and has been discussed for many years by many different, usually democratic, politicians and lawmakers. The reason I hold this view is due to two primary reasons Investing requires risk. If I buy x shares of Enron at x price, tomorrow Enron can fail and I can lose all of my money. This is not true in the case of ordinary work. If I am working at Burger King and work x hours for x money, I am paid that amount period there is no risk of loss. When you have risk, in my view, it makes sense to receive some preferential treatment from the IRS. The sister point to this is that capital loss is not a valuable deduction. If I could lose a lot of money in the market and then write it off against my income tax then that would be a lot easier to swallow. As it stands, capital losses only yield a measly 3000 deduction after offsetting gains. Preferential rates incentivize the American way of entrepreneurship, growth and innovation. I am more inclined to invest in companies that I think are good and valuable, such as amazon in my personal opinion. I want amazon to expand and I hope my small investment in the company allows them to do that. However, if I am looking at the prospect of losing money investing, and then in the event that I make some money nearly 1 2 of it is going to the tax man I would definitely not be so inclined to risk my money in the market. On a macro scale, this could lead to economic stagnation. The IRS' tax treatment incentivizes me to invest because I know that I stand to net a decent profit if there is any at all. Lastly, my cynical view on the matter is that it's just another take the rich guys money tax plan that wants to squeeze the upper echelons, equating investors with the anti wallstreet movements. I am not in an upper echelon, im middle class, and I want to be able to invest and save for retirement without getting more taken out and given to the government. <|ASPECTS|>, capital gains, preferential rates, economic stagnation, middle class, money, easier to swallow, growth, tax treatment, price, invest, 3000 deduction, capital losses, save, decent profit, losing money, money tax, squeeze, ordinary work, retirement, valuable deduction, income tax, risk, small investment, capital loss, new, expand, valuable, good, innovation, ordinary income, entrepreneurship, offsetting gains, anti, risk my money, risk of loss, fail, preferential treatment, lose<|CONCLUSION|>

Capital Gains Should Receive Preferential Tax Treatment

d16d1cc5-7a66-41a7-ab2e-90ab39075a9e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Reverse racism is just racism is clearly a viral meme hereafter, RR R . We see it repeated verbatim and in minor variations in response to the same triggers over and over and over. For those who think meme means funny cat picture, meme theory actually holds that ideas work very much like viruses, using our brains as hosts in which to replicate and spread. We can trace that spread back epidemiologically and observe mutations that have helped a meme propagate. We can also talk about common features or strategies of different memes that contribute to their spread and survival. The essence of the RR R meme is that to not apply the concept of racism equally to any and all races on either end of an act of prejudice is a double standard, i.e. hypocritical. Invoking hypocrisy or double standards is almost always itself hypocritical literally, under reasoned or under examined . It's easy to frame almost any position as a double standard, and accusations of hypocrisy are a strong emotional hook for young people in particular. These accusations rarely say much of anything about the supposedly hypocritical position, though. They just cast doubt on those holding the position in practice, an ad hominem attack. RR R is actually a mutation of the much older Reverse Racism RR meme, which has seen repeated outbreaks since the '60s. RR held that any policy action to counteract racism constituted racism against white people. In other words, opposing racism is racism. This meme was calculated to perpetuate racism by sidetracking discussions of racism, watering down the concept, and stalling anti racist action. It can safely be characterized as racist. The R is a wrapper for the RR meme to make it more palatable to people who might reject the harder we should never do anything about racism position, but RR is still in there. Both rely on the double standard hook to get your attention, but rather than addressing policy, RR R invokes the idea of individuals acting with racial prejudice toward whites. In addition to being more acceptable, this approach introduces the idea of a relatable however unlikely threatening scenario, engaging an even stronger emotional hook your fight or flight instinct. Lodged firmly in your brain, RR R starts propagating itself as you sneeze it all over Reddit and Twitter, but original RR opposing racism is racist is still floating around out there, and RR R has the twin action of creating the appearance of greater support for the pro racist RR position. while also making RR more acceptable by degrees to those who have accepted RR R. As such, RR R is a trojan for RR, playing on your sense of fairness avoiding double standards and self preservation a bad guy threatening you on the basis of your race to make you and those you interact with more susceptible to an overtly racist view. To change my view demonstrate that RR R has some utility in reducing, opposing, or increasing our understanding of racism, rather than supporting and propagating racism even if inadvertently while muddying the waters. Constructing phrases where you can substitute white for black will not achieve this end. Repeating some pure and idealized, a contextual and a historical definition of racism is also not productive. You can quietly believe in your heart that racism is some platonic ideal because it ends in ism, but the reality remains that the only relevant application the only reason the word came into use and continues to exist is to refer to the favored position of white people and the disfavored position of everyone else in post colonial societies.<|ASPECTS|>cat, hypocritical, repeated verbatim, minor variations, ideal, spread, racist action, survival, idealized, unlikely threatening scenario, self preservation, viral meme, instinct, mutation, prejudice, racism against white, double standard, white people, substitute, palatable, support, spread back epidemiologically, disfavored position, replicate, understanding, double standards, acceptable, fairness, hypocritical position, mutations, repeated, racism equally, sidetracking, common features, outbreaks, racist view, racial prejudice, observe, productive, hypocrisy, racist, perpetuate, favored position, doubt, emotional hook, utility, racism, ideas work<|CONCLUSION|>

"Reverse racism is just racism" is a racist trojan virus

d86fee6d-d22d-4e88-acf6-5b72fd5ba9db

<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>The EU launched a new “Diversity and Inclusion Charter in 2017 with promises of fresh action to reach at least 40 per cent women in its management by Nov 1, 2019.<|ASPECTS|>women, inclusion, fresh action<|CONCLUSION|>

The EU commissions senior management is 35% female and 37% of middle management is female.

209987e5-5ef9-4f06-8572-17c4055ddd65

<|TOPIC|>Should conscientious objection to abortion be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>The humans who are trying to teach the starlings in this test cannot directly communicate with them. Humans interacting with humans have a clearer method of communication and so may have more affective ways of teaching rather than learning through failure.<|ASPECTS|>affective ways of teaching, communicate, learning through failure, clearer method of communication<|CONCLUSION|>

The study which supports this claim is based on starlings and not humans. This learning technique may not be as relevant to humans and instead be a trait connected to birds.

b944e602-f58c-4850-882c-08b1241703b8

<|TOPIC|>Cap-and-trade versus carbon tax<|ARGUMENT|>Carbon emitting energy industries emerged long ago, before anyone thought about the environmental impact of this industry. Is is wrong to suddenly consider all energy production that involves carbon emissions a social "bad", after decades of thinking to the contrary. Modern energy producers should not be punished for their participation in an industry whose emergence pre-dates concerns of global warming.<|ASPECTS|>carbon emitting energy, environmental impact, carbon emissions, global warming, social `` bad<|CONCLUSION|>

It is wrong to tax all carbon emissions, and call them all "bad":

f77dca95-9d22-4c47-be6f-552bc01003ac

<|TOPIC|>International Criminal Court<|ARGUMENT|>"U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court". Congressional Research Service. 29 Aug. 2006 - "ICC supporters may argue that all States Parties will have the opportunity to vote on a definition of aggression after the treaty has been in effect for seven years, which definition must comport with the U.N. Charter, thereby preserving the role of the U.N. Security Council.37 The ICC, under this view, is merely providing a forum for trying persons accused of committing “aggression” under international law."<|ASPECTS|>aggression, “ aggression<|CONCLUSION|>

All UN members can vote on ICC definition of "aggression"

83003898-b5b0-4455-9b00-b5641f99f17f

<|TOPIC|>Mark Twain used the N-word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Should it be censored?<|ARGUMENT|>Lack of clear standards can lead to extreme conclusions as the decisions on what words are appropriate would be erratic and unreliable.<|ASPECTS|>extreme conclusions, clear standards, unreliable, erratic<|CONCLUSION|>

There is no clear standard to determine the effect that a word will have on readers.

d09acf23-9083-4c49-8814-d90940e73999

<|TOPIC|>Is Android better than iOS?<|ARGUMENT|>This represents a security risk: less than one percent of devices are running the latest version of Android, and less than one quarter the second-latest one from two years ago. In contrast, three quarters of iOS devices are running the system's latest version.<|ASPECTS|>security risk<|CONCLUSION|>

Because companies customize Android in their own way there is a fragementation issue.

7cf5951c-bf45-4296-9af2-47c7eb39e9e3

<|TOPIC|>Which political party is best for America?<|ARGUMENT|>Discussions regarding sexual orientation, race, and religion are labeled 'hate speech', effectively shutting them down from public discourse.<|ASPECTS|>race, discourse, speech<|CONCLUSION|>

According to one poll 71% of Americans say that political correctness has silenced important discussions.

cece87b0-bf56-4669-a65d-f3d56431953a

<|TOPIC|>Is Donald Trump a Good President?<|ARGUMENT|>Donald Trump consistently, whether with intent or not, creates a bad image of America and its citizens by creating “tweet storms” on Twitter on various topics while making statements that could only be described as unpresidential.<|ASPECTS|>storms, bad image, unpresidential, america<|CONCLUSION|>

Trump's behaviour and character is very polarising and he often contradicts himself or outright lies.

97625587-bbab-4a42-ad40-fc4217169d8b

<|TOPIC|>Monogamy vs Polygamy: Is the Norm of Monogamy Regrettable?<|ARGUMENT|>Monogamous marriage, compared to a polygamous culture, results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, a 2012 UBC study found.<|ASPECTS|>child welfare, accidental death, child neglect<|CONCLUSION|>

Growing up in the context of a non-monogamous relationship disadvantages children.

8ce14bbe-6310-42c5-90bc-d15651d69b5b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Not the religious aspect, but the age of the universe as supported by these proofs I for a long time believed in a universe that is billions of years old, due to proofs like radio carbon dating and our understanding of the speed of light. I have only recently been convinced that the universe may actually be much younger than this, mostly due to concepts like the lack of supernovas we can see, the amount of mud on the sea floor, etc. Are these concepts not factual, or is there an explanation? I am very open to being persuaded. Change my view <|ASPECTS|>, religious, speed of light, universe, mud, explanation, younger, factual, much, persuaded, age of the universe<|CONCLUSION|>

Young Earth Creationism is the most plausible model of the Universe

232d7d87-c394-47c5-8898-3952d8e337de

<|TOPIC|>Should culturally diverse writers be mandatory in English curricula?<|ARGUMENT|>School climate and school culture directly impact student success. As a result, it is particularly important for the school culture and the classroom culture to reflect, acknowledge, and celebrate diversity.<|ASPECTS|>school culture, diversity, student success, school climate<|CONCLUSION|>

Schools are also agents of socialization and need to bear in mind factors that may assist the personal growth of its students.

5cdef969-edd4-431e-bc48-2266c31c413f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I just can't seem to understand when, if someone is eating at a restaurant, and they are having bad service, what possible reason they wouldn't have to inform the waiter in a respectful, constructive manner. And this applies to all things, not just restaurant service. Without criticism how does one expect to improve on anything? I can't see a reason why nowadays everyone acts so coy about things that they could potentially help improve Whereas biting your tongue and not saying anything only perpetuates the cycle of mediocrity, and allows for more and more mistakes to continue being made. Keep in mind, I am specifying that this is all occurring in a respectful and strictly constructive manner at the appropriate time. Please <|ASPECTS|>respectful, mistakes, constructive manner, improve on anything, mediocrity, cycle, strictly, bad service, coy, restaurant service, expect<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe it is ridiculous when people refuse to give constructive criticism.

4c44a1b6-705e-407c-a2f8-6a341c1cb06a

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>It seems like there has been a lot of news lately about the whole transgender debate passing laws on which bathrooms they should use. Accepting girls into boyscouts. There's been so much media attention for a topic which I imagine represents a very small number of the population. Not to mention the famous children at the age of 9 declaring to be transgendered. This seems like an outcry to attention to me. Surely, someone so young cannot fully grasp this concept. Kids go through phases all the time. Wanting to wear dark colors and boy clothes doesn't make you a boy. I don't understand the whole transgender thing to be honest, nor do I personally know anyone who is transgender. Really this seems like more of a mental illness or dissociative identity disorder that maybe a small amount of people have but due to all the extra attention people are joining the bandwagon. So Reddit, change me views. Is being transgender just the new age rebellion of preteens or is there some underlying condition?<|ASPECTS|>population, transgender debate, attention, girls, extra, dissociative identity disorder, boyscouts, change me views, outcry, boy, transgender, young, small, transgender thing, transgendered, boy clothes, media attention, phases, mental illness, underlying condition, news, dark colors, new age rebellion<|CONCLUSION|>

That being transgendered isn't just some new trend or cry for attention

fad8d65c-57fe-448d-8854-9d6f27d5d81d

<|TOPIC|>Will Liquid Democracy be a better mechanism of governance than Representative Democracy?<|ARGUMENT|>It reduces the power of professional politicians who are targets for lobbying in most current systems, making the "key actors" you would have to control to influence the system a constantly changing group of people.<|ASPECTS|>reduces, power of professional politicians<|CONCLUSION|>

Liquid democracy would reduce the influence of super pacs and lobby groups.

33148aec-5aeb-4de6-b2c7-a248c0b3fc89

<|TOPIC|>Who should provide healthcare: the government or the market?<|ARGUMENT|>US Medicaid drug price controls led to decreases in discounts from manufacturers and increases in prices for many consumers.<|ASPECTS|>price controls, prices, discounts<|CONCLUSION|>

The United States of America healthcare system is hardly entirely market based.

d166b660-cb74-4d09-ab72-037d79ce3ec8

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Economic growth is the increase in the amount of goods over time. Goods, of course, have to be generated somehow, and they can all be traced back to natural resources. On Earth, natural resources are either finite or fixed. We will eventually run out of minerals. That's obvious. But about sustainable resources? Solar energy is going to be here for a while, but Earth has a finite area. You can only extract so much solar energy out. Same deal with trees or agriculture. At the same time, these fixed resources are competing with space with other resources, and technique used to extract energy out of them may involved non renewable resources. What about human capital? Surely using our minds we can extract every once of juice out of the Earth's resources, right? The truth is that there are theoretical and practical limits to how much we can apply new techniques before we reach diminishing returns. Really, if we continue aiming at ramping up the pace of economic growth, we are basically accelerating our towards resource depletion. We would do well to 1 start focusing on building space industry to extra resources from other places, 2 make a greater effort at protect our natural environments, and 3 focus on stabilizing the economy at zero growth, with a focus on making people happier than on making them richer. .<|ASPECTS|>, protect, diminishing returns, economic growth, earth, competing, human capital, growth, extract, theoretical, generated somehow, resources, practical limits, economy, happier, space, trees, non, goods, solar energy, resource depletion, amount, natural resources, natural environments, minerals, richer, fixed resources, agriculture, juice, sustainable resources, renewable resources, finite, finite area<|CONCLUSION|>

Constant economic growth is not sustainable in the long term, at least in our planet's closed system.

2e78ef5b-dec5-4af0-b593-b91b85ef3201

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Now, this post isn't going to be arguing about morality per se I'm talking from a viewpoint we can generally agree on, that murder is wrong, suffering is bad, etc. I'm not here to debate ethics. In almost every way, the Stormcloaks are hurting. not helping the situation. They are protesting the White Gold Concordat, which happened because the AD defeated the Empire in the Great War. It didn't happen because the Empire hated Talos, or didn't care about them many Imperials still revere Talos see Rikke and he was the one who led the Imperials into their golden age. The real enemy hear is the Thalmor. The only way that there can be real peace in Tamriel is if they are defeated, and the Stormcloaks are aiding them. We know that the Thalmor have secretly aided the Stormcloaks to cause strife, they want the Empire to be weakened. So, the stormcloaks are actually helping the. Furthermore, it is only because of them Stormcloaks that Talos worship was really cracked down on before Ulfric started protesting the ban wasn't really enforced, so they're the cause of they're own problems. And finally, the Stormcloaks have a lot of problems regardless of their intentions They are racist, and they drive away Dark Elves who otheriwse might want to help them against the AD and the weakened Empire needs all the help it can get. Ulfirc is also very power hungry, and is in it for his own game, not for the Nords. So, yeah. The stormcloaks are helping the AD, who are really the cause of their problems not the empire , which they essentially created in the first place, and they're racist and Ulfric is power hungry.<|ASPECTS|>morality, stormcloaks, problems, revere, hated talos, suffering is bad, defeated, empire, helping the situation, enemy hear, helping, murder is wrong, drive, power hungry, white gold concordat, peace, defeated the empire, ethics, weakened, golden age, racist, help, debate, ad, strife, elves, hurting, thalmor<|CONCLUSION|>

In Skyrim, the Imperials are the "good guys"

a3407450-236e-45e5-95c1-1c343ad15095

<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>A game or a sport is no longer a distraction when it involves suffering or death for an animal<|ASPECTS|>suffering or death, distraction<|CONCLUSION|>

If the activity harms innocent creatures, people should no longer be able to do what they want.

06b9fcb5-d509-41dd-bb73-94651c6b2aaf

<|TOPIC|>Should genetic engineering be used on humans or animals?<|ARGUMENT|>Genetic modifications could prove to be expensive which could mean that people coming from poorer families will have a genetic disadvantage.<|ASPECTS|>genetic disadvantage, poorer families, expensive<|CONCLUSION|>

Genetic engineering should not be used on humans or animals.

9dad40ba-1931-4ff0-8917-1367f0489f93

<|TOPIC|>Should "women-only" spaces be open to anyone identifying as female?<|ARGUMENT|>Integrating women into the workforce was an economic and political necessity for some time, but gender inequality starts rising once a certain level of development is attained. For example, the female labour participation rate has been falling in the most developed parts of China and gender perceptions are still largely based on Confucianism. This shows that changes are temporary at best and that society reverts to a gender-based division of labour whenever possible.<|ASPECTS|>gender perceptions, temporary, economic and political necessity, female labour participation rate, gender inequality, changes, gender-based division of labour<|CONCLUSION|>

The gender division of labour is not fixed for all time; it changes in response to wider economic, political and social changes, e.g. migration.

9d699513-1126-4ebf-a862-8605a561c0e1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Polarity is a term that refers to the number of independent power centers in the international system. Some scholars many of them are American believe that the world is unipolar with the United States being the world’s only “superpower” all other powers revolve around this one. I agree with these scholars. Just because the United States is the unipolar hegemony , does not mean that it always gets what it wants. It has no real challengers to its power right now. China may be a threat 40 50 years from now, but at the moment it’s nowhere near close enough to pose a threat. Power cannot be perfectly measured nor defined, hence the disagreement. The most common ways of measuring power are GDP in all of its forms Military Size and Spending also included is the technological advancement of said military Do you have nukes? Political influence measured by foreign aid spending and others The United States is the best on all of these measures except purchasing power parity, which is one way of measuring GDP and China is winning this one . The Cold War Era was bipolar, with the US and the USSR dominating. The Soviet Union collapses, leaving only the United States. Since there hasn’t been any other powers challenging the US in the same way as Soviet Union did, the US is the unipole. In order to convince me that the world is not unipolar, you need to provide sufficient evidence that another actor has the means and the desire to challenge US power. Current US allies will not be considered . <|ASPECTS|>size, collapses, unipolar, united states, purchasing power parity, gdp, challenge us power, challengers, unipole, us allies, threat, polarity, superpower, unipolar hegemony, power, political influence, technological advancement, perfectly measured nor defined, independent power centers, bipolar<|CONCLUSION|>

The international system is unipolar with the United States being the hegemon.

fc5b9eed-5dc7-484c-9ff0-aa716c56ed45

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>You've gained a new level and now you're level 99, or you beat the game on hard difficulty. You feel like you've been rewarded. Game are dangerous, because they will make you feel like you're achieving something when you really aren't. To learn to draw, learn a new language, or succeed at a real hobby is to achieve, and videogames are just a big distraction away from that.<|ASPECTS|>dangerous, level, hard difficulty, distraction, beat, new language, achieving something, game, rewarded, hobby<|CONCLUSION|>

Videogames are a big waste of time -

b0f48e70-418f-4b5a-aaa7-7ada953c982a

<|TOPIC|>The United States Needs a Strong Third Political Party For Moderates<|ARGUMENT|>Sure they both have the same ideals about the constitution and the three branches of government but they are radically different on other issues like gay rights.<|ASPECTS|>ideals, different, gay rights<|CONCLUSION|>

The two parties have about as much in common as a chimpanzee has with a gorilla.

7ccbf959-a479-43f3-bb45-e5a1ef34357f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know that some philosophers hold a compatiblist view of either free will and determinism or of free will and an omniscient God. I see no way that, if the universe is deterministic or if there is an infallible and omniscient God, we can have free will. But I would like to be convinced that there is a way these ideas are compatible. Now, I know there are arguments that show that one can be morally culpable for pre determined actions. I don't care about moral culpability. I care about free will. Anyway, I'd love to be convinced. Edit I typically define free will as being libertarian free will total and unrestrained free will and as having the ability to choose more than one thing. A choice of one thing isn't really a choice. I would also be open to the idea that my definition is flawed as well and that my opinion on that definition could be changed<|ASPECTS|>flawed, unrestrained, free, ideas, deterministic, god, morally culpable, determinism, choose, infallible, compatible, choice of one, omniscient god, moral culpability, compatiblist, choice<|CONCLUSION|>

I hold an incompatibilist view of free will and determinism

9c7592a7-7910-4616-a1af-38f450379881

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Everyone seems to be looking forward to Jurassic World and I'm over here like, Predators ? The Hobbit ? The Phantom Menace ? Robocop ? Total Recall ? and so on. First of all, it looks nothing like Jurassic Park, in either tone or setting. Second, these sorts of decades later reboots sequels cash ins are never good. And last and most mysterious to me, why should anyone who is a fan of the original be excited for this? I was in the second grade when the original came out, so I am squarely forever in the Jurassic Park demographic and the trailer does nothing for me. Just seems like any old movie where velociraptors flank motorcycles.<|ASPECTS|>robocop, jurassic park, jurassic world, forever, velociraptors, jurassic park demographic, total recall, predators, forward, phantom, flank motorcycles, ins, fan<|CONCLUSION|>

The new Jurassic Park looks terrible and nobody should see it simply for nostalgia's sake.

ecf47d96-be56-4148-8096-208007dd4a77

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What is there to love about humanity anyway? I see war and poverty and corruption. I see rapes, I see bullying, I see animal abuse, murders, and other terrible deeds. I recognize there are good people out there, but their numbers seem very few and they are impotent. Their voices are drowning in a sea of hate and ignorance and other evils. The human species is an abomination that must die. The world will become a better place the less of these apes are walking alive. I can't wait for human extinction because I think we are inherently cruel and horrible apes who mostly hurt other lifeforms including ourselves. We have inflicted a mass extinction on the planet, only 4 of species are wild. We torture and enslave millions of animals for food and other purposes. We are cancer. Human culture is cancer, it must all be destroyed along with the rest of our civ. Edit from a now deleted reply The world and nature doesn't give two shits about right and wrong. You're anthropomorphizing the world. The world doesn't get cancer and it doesn't think of things as good, bad, abominable or reverential. The world just is. Nature doesn't give a fuck about you or me, it doesn't give a fuck about apes, it doesn't give a fuck about cute penguins and polar bears and all the crap inside of it. Nature can send an asteroid hurtling to Earth and slaughter everything that's alive, and nature wouldn't give a damn because nature doesn't think You're the only one who cares about nature. If we die tomorrow, guess what? Apes will keep fighting and evolving into making better weapons and killing each other. Tigers will mercilessly slaughter children right in front of their mothers, and won't think twice about it. Hyenas will eat an aging father alive because he couldn't keep up with his kids and grandkids, and no one will think twice about it. Animals will continue raping other animals, and slaughtering each other Fuck your morals. The world is amoral and doesn't give two shits about it. So don't bother with your mass extinction tears around here. The sun's going to explode in a blink of an eye and fucking slaughter everything you care about. Get over it, because nature and the world already has The only thing that human are a threat to are themselves. You sound like a 5 year old who has a bad day in preschool and thinks because of that, school is pointless and serves no purpose. You think your insignificant problems mean anything to the broader nature and world? Just stop with that. Humans are fucking animals just like everyone else. We kill, we rape, we're selfish, and all that crap. We kill for security and territory, and if you think that's unnatural then go do jumping jax next to a bear's nest and fucking see what momma bear does to you. It'll make nuclear war seem like a goddamn joke, and if that bear had nuclear weapons and had the mental capacity to think strategically, and think 10 20 years in the future, you can bet your ass that bear would fucking nuke all of us because it would see us as an eventual threat. We're just animals who happen to have better brains and strategic capabilities than other animals. You don't have a problem with humanity, you have a problem with life, which seeks to survive, thrive, and propagate Don't bother us with your sob stories about the world and talk like humans are any worse than other animals. If you want to roll over and die, go for it. But don't tell me that I and my kids can't be good people and live a good life, and don't tell me that I have to lose hope in humanity because we don't live up to some stupid standards that you don't put on any other animal, and don't tell me that I have to believe all your moralizing about the world when a fucking tsunami wipes out half a million poor people in the blink of an eye. Guess what? The world doesn't care about us. So if you want a better society, then you're the one who has to care. If you don't want to be bothered to care, then fuck off. Humanity has enough people who do care that we're still trying to be better, because the world and Momma Nature isn't going to come tuck us all in and make us feel safe. The fact that you even have the goddamn frame of reference and cultural morals to even think about what we're doing to the planet is because of OTHER FUCKING HUMANS and scientists who gave a shit about the world enough to give you that frame of reference. You're like a 12 year old who just discovered that the world is unfair. We've been working on it long before you realized it, we'll be working on it long after you and I die, and the fact that you even know about that unfairness is a testament to how far we as stupid apes on this rock have come. I'm not interested in snuffing out our progress just because you can't handle the information that other humans who care about the same thing you do have come up with Your view is incoherent and immature.<|ASPECTS|>amoral, nuclear war, fucking humans, unfairness, broader, cultural morals, slaughter everything, cruel and horrible apes, cute, hate, ignorance, stupid standards, life, die, aging father alive, bullying, abominable, school, pointless, good people, eat, good life, security and territory, animal abuse, terrible deeds, better, selfish, better brains, abomination, propagate, impotent, thrive, morals, torture, bad day, mental capacity to think strategically, mass extinction, mass extinction tears, murders, kill, slaughter, sun, world, lose hope in humanity, rapes, eventual threat, care, rape, good, wild, walking alive, humans, strategic capabilities, humanity, culture, moralizing, killing each, numbers, poverty, animals, poor people, progress, food, cancer, nuclear weapons, incoherent, better place, raping other animals, insignificant problems, corruption, tigers, right and wrong, bothered to care, enslave millions, fucking animals, better weapons, unfair, care about us, war, reverential, love, survive, roll over, slaughtering, human extinction, nature, slaughter children, mercilessly, better society, threat, destroyed, nature and world, cares about nature, immature, hurt, fuck, feel safe, evils, serves no purpose, anthropomorphizing the world, fucking<|CONCLUSION|>

Humanity is a virus, and the world will be better off with our civilization extinct.

aee7ab9f-c1f2-41b1-8acc-7c51309ca5aa

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After awarding multiple deltas in this , I've decided to move my search for a UN member to the right of the USA northeast, to Estonia. Why do I consider Estonia to be more like the US? Violent crime. It has one of the highest violent crime rates in the semi developed or developed world, along with its neighbors Latvia and Lithuania. It and the US have the same murder rates, and in both cases murders are concentrated among a large but disenfranchised minority in Estonia Russophones. Politics. Pretty much every major Estonian party is neoliberal, even the social democrats. The less neoliberal party, Keskerakond, are Putinbots. Economics. Estonia is widely cited as a neoliberal, like the US and particularly the US Republican Party, fantasyland, with little bureaucracy, almost no safety net, and a flat tax rate. Free marketers in the Nordics have used Estonia as a trojan horse to promote neoliberal policies in their countries. Conservatism. Although Estonia is pretty irreligious, it is far more culturally conservative than its Nordic brethren, with fewer protections for gays including a recent history of open violence and strong dislike of blacks. The only thing that Estonia has in common with the Nordic countries is its Finno Ugric language, related to Finnish and Sami, its now forgotten Lutheran past, its irreligion, and its chilly climate.<|ASPECTS|>protections for gays, neoliberal policies, flat tax rate, conservatism, irreligion, irreligious, bureaucracy, murders, chilly climate, us, putinbots, neoliberal, ugric language, culturally conservative, horse, un member, violent crime rates, open violence, russophones, social democrats, fantasyland, lutheran past, little, dislike of blacks, safety net, disenfranchised minority, violent crime, right, free marketers, usa, murder rates<|CONCLUSION|>

Estonia is not Nordic because of its political climate. In fact, it is closer to the US than it is to developed Europe, much less the Nordic countries.

14d8ab4e-e111-43d6-955b-64822c5ae544

<|TOPIC|>The Trolley Problem: What's the Right Solution?<|ARGUMENT|>If the morality is merely about the eventual death toll, it should be considered moral for a doctor to kill one patient if that means she can save more people with the organs she can take from the person who was killed. If you agree that that is immoral, you will have agreed that it can't be as simple as counting the deaths.<|ASPECTS|>morality, eventual, moral, save, death toll, immoral, counting, deaths<|CONCLUSION|>

If pulling the lever were the correct thing to do in a society, it would be a society less safe than others; that society would hold to a general rule that the innocent few could be sacrificed or killed, without their consent, for the perceived benefit of the majority.

2484c9a1-cd3d-4bf8-8224-72639a64a345

<|TOPIC|>Should scientists contribute to Wikipedia?<|ARGUMENT|>Even if scientists do share their knowledge, it's unlikely that people will understand it, so it's a waste of their time to do so.<|ASPECTS|>understand, waste, time, knowledge<|CONCLUSION|>

Many scientists engage in research so specific that it does not fit onto Wikipedia pages.

19b30de8-e5d4-4c92-8c5c-823fec0128b7

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>OK let me start off with my history with India and the people there. Back in the late 90s and early 00s I worked for an IT company that was contracted out to go to Delhi India and setup IT infrastructure in some call centers businesses and train the local admins. At this job I made 3 trips to India where each one was roughly 2 months give or take a few days so in total I was in India for a total of 6 months over a 2 year span. During my trips while I worked long hours during the week the weekends me and my coworkers often traveled around to different cities, towns, and tourist spots. One thing that struck all of us was how filthy the country is. Piss, shit, and trash just all over the place. Even the clean places were disgusting to someone from a Western country. Even backwoods hillbilly towns deep in the heart of the Appalachian mountains are cleaner then 90 of India. The other 10 is a tie. Seriously words can not describe how filthy this country is. Even pictures don't truly convey the mess as it does not transmit the smell. Oh my god the smell of the shit and piss and god knows what else. For a taste of the trash just look at some of the pictures on this site warning, NSFW and possible NSFL as it does show dead bodies While those pictures were mostly around the holy rivers the cities were flipping disgusting. Hell Indians complain about how filthy Indians are Another thing we quickly picked up on was the sexism. I'm not talking about the rampant rape and grouping that you constantly see in the newspaper or hell even saw on the street. I'm talking about it got to the point where the woman in my company refused to go to India because the locals either ignored them, violated every HR rule on sexual harassment ever written, or were incredible hostile towards them. I witnessed on more then one occasion where an Indian man told my female co workers that a real man doesn't take orders from a woman. On one occasion I and another coworker had to step in between a man who decided he would show a woman her role in the workplace. I could not blame the woman for not wanting to go over to India as even as a man I could not believe how the men treated women. Now I will say not all of the men acted this way, just a very large portion of them did. And by large portion I'm talking probable 60 70 of the guys we trained were openly sexist and another 10 15 would make sexist remarks while my female coworkers were out of ear shot but to their faces acted just fine. Another thing I was taken aback by was how pushy and argumentative everyone was. I know this is more culture then anything but when out shopping or just seeing the sites it felt like everyone was out to fuck you over. At the time I just figured this was the culture so I didn't pay too much attention to it but as I deal with Indians more and more, the more their culture gets on my nerves and rubs me the wrong way. Needless to say that overall when I quit that job for another one that didn't require travel I did not think highly of India or people from India. For a few years I jumped from job to job until back in 2009 I decided to open my own company where I provide support for servers IT infrastructure. For example I do contact work where I can either setup your email exchange server for you or I can do support where I come in and save the day when your system goes down. Most of my work is usually fixing things. I actually have gotten to the point where a few co location data centers and hosting companies recommend me for when shit hits the fans so the majority of my work is fixing things or setting things up after a system is wiped out. I would say about 75 of my customers are US or Canadian based and the other 25 is from India. But about 60 of my income is from the Indians. Why? Because they can't think on their own. Now don't get me wrong, they tend to have more Microsoft certs then I even knew existed and they some times know commands I didn't even know about but they have no actual idea how to interpret the data or think on their own. Now not only do they not know what the heck they are doing or how to think they also like to barter, demand free crap, or try to pull a fast one on you. For example a few months ago I get a request for assistance on configuring multiple NICs on a server. Nothing hard just one IP per NIC and there were a total of 8 NIC ports on the server and the server was running 2008 r2. Any system admin should be able to do this no issue. Since it was the weekend when the request came in I said I could help by either using webex or rdc and do the work but on the weekend its double the normal rate and minimum 3 hours you will pay for ruining my weekend . I also then provided a link on how to do the work that showed step by step how to what they were asking. The customer's senior administrator who had listed in his email signature MCSE certified responded that he didn't feel comfortable making such a serious his words not mine change to the server and would rather have me do the work. He at first tried to negotiate the price but I said for the weekend hours there is no negotiation so he agreed to pay. Never someone to pass down more then a 1000 I said sure, give me the list of IPs, which NIC needs what IP, any specific settings required, and the administrative login information. After that I sent a contract listing everything I was going to do and how much I was going to charge. He agreed to the contract and 10 minutes later I was done and the guys credit card was charged for over 1000 . Now became the bitching about I charged too much for such a simple job and I should have done it for free. I told him he agreed to the contract. This then started with him trying to get free work and saying he had also requested this or that done and again I pointed him to the contract that he signed. This in total went on for about a half an hour of him trying to lower the price or have me do more work for free. Want to know the sad part? This isn't the first time and I doubt it the last time I have dealt with this customer. I usually get a call from him every 4 6 weeks asking me to do something ungodly easy and then he sits there and pulls the same shit time after time. If it wasn't for all of the money I make off of him I wouldn't deal with it. I may hate Indians but their money is a different story. And this guy is just an example. I have multiple customers from India just like him. I could have more but I actually do turn some down because while talking to them to determine their problem I get the sense they will be more trouble then they are worth so I refuse them service. They seriously try to barter or get free stuff. They also don't seem to understand the word NO means fucking no. You can tell them no ten times in a row and they will ask the same damn question another 10 times. TL DR from the time I have spent in India and the time I have spent working with people from India please change my view that India is a despicable country and why I shouldn't hate all Indians. Edit Just want to add, I didn't hate India or Indians before I dealt with India in a professional manor. I also don't hate or dislike any other group. Just India and Indians.<|ASPECTS|>, pushy, hillbilly towns, interpret, specific, smell, servers it infrastructure, tie, hate, take orders from, sexual harassment, work, example, role, free crap, dislike any other group, filthy indians, sexist, barter, credit card, configuring multiple nics, men, trash, multiple, negotiate, piss, argumentative, tourist spots, assistance, ungodly easy, history, disgusting, rape and grouping, based, system admin, deal, travel, filthy, nerves, refuse, save the day, think highly, negotiation, trouble, treated women, help, charged too much, culture, free stuff, hate indians, administrative login, sexist remarks, dead bodies, mess, money, exchange server, hate all indians, acted, ruining, india and indians, think, microsoft certs, simple, india, customers, shit, filthy the country, setting, sad, fixing things, hits the fans, sexism, income, hate india, despicable country, openly, settings, infrastructure, price, rampant, get, us, support, hostile, lower the price, free work, charged, fuck, charge, contact work, ip, weekend, system, rate, demand, nic ports, clean places, indians, cleaner<|CONCLUSION|>

India is a despicable country and why should I not hate all Indians.

81dfc4b6-ab7b-415b-b756-30dd8d8d8b49

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that killing is wrong in any situation and that there is no difference between murdering and killing. This stems from my belief that we as people cannot possibly judge these acts accurately, only some sort of God figure could. Because we cannot judge who should and should not be put to death, it is morally better to die than to kill, if forced into that choice. The reason we cannot judge acts of killing is that we cannot fathom the true meaning of dying, since none of us has experienced it before hopefully . All we do know about dying is that there is no coming back and so for any of us to condemn another person to this fate is never justifiable by human means alone. I'll just head off one potential counter argument right now and say that, yes, even in the case of Hitler, it is wrong to kill for the reason I outlined above we don't know whether he truly deserves death even though we are pretty strongly convinced . I think that killing another person is overstepping human bounds and acting as a God like judge. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>human bounds, human means, god figure, acts accurately, killing is wrong, meaning of dying, wrong to kill, killing, judge, condemn, deserves death, murdering, view, coming back, morally better to die, overstepping, dying, god like judge<|CONCLUSION|>

I'm a staunch pacifist.

4038dde6-bd84-48d6-9d9c-2dacefc3ae06

<|TOPIC|>ban the use of trans fats in food stuffs<|ARGUMENT|>Milton Friedman argued in the 1980s: "If we continue on this path, there is no doubt where it will end. If the government has the responsibility of protecting us from dangerous substances, the logic surely calls for prohibiting alcohol and tobacco. . . . Insofar as the government has information not generally available about the merits or demerits of the items we ingest or the activities we engage in, let it give us the information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives."11 George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux asks what a trans-fat ban is a model for: "Petty tyranny? Or perhaps for similarly inspired bans on other voluntary activities with health risks? Clerking in convenience stores? Walking in the rain?"12 Morally the government should be consistent when it bans things, the sale of an undeniably deadly products such as tobacco is sometimes allowed so far less dangerous substances should be allowed.13 Education should be considered an alternative to banning trans fats or other unhealthy food. There should be aggressive education campaigns to educate consumers as has been done with tobacco. At the moment consumers are ignorant, they need to know what they are, the dangers and the consequences. Information on trans fats should also be part of a wider program of nutrition awareness which will put it in context. . Many people have rejected tobacco as a result of raised awareness; the same will occur with trans fats. The food industry would respond to consumer demand and reduce the use of trans fats and other ingredients considered ‘bad’.13 Information on trans-fats is not hard to come by: the Centre for Science in the Public Interest CSPI, for example, is happy to inform about the dangers of dietary trans-fat, and has no trouble getting its declarations of doom on television and into newspapers.11 This consumer pressure is already occurring. In the United States, for example, many fast-food chains and food manufacturers have already eliminated trans fats from their products or have pledged to phase them out. To pick one case, Wal-Mart is going to reduce its sugar, sodium content and remove all trans fats from its food.14 Left to its own devices, the market will solve this 'problem' in all areas which consumers consider it to be a problem, all without needing an unwieldy government ban. Therefore the government should educate its citizens regarding the health concerns surrounding trans fats, but leave it up to the citizens to choose what they eat.<|ASPECTS|>rejected tobacco, deadly, unhealthy food, bad, consequences, merits, consumer demand, sodium content, trans, solve, prohibiting alcohol and tobacco, eliminated, consumer pressure, petty tyranny, educate consumers, doom, sugar, chances, trans-fats, free to choose, health risks, trans-fat, dangers, aggressive education campaigns, less, declarations, dangerous substances, nutrition awareness, raised awareness, reduce, educate, health concerns, protecting, ignorant, trans fats, unwieldy government ban<|CONCLUSION|>

The government should provide information to consumers, not restrict choice

e20143bb-b7ce-412a-9379-1778a140ec1d

<|TOPIC|>The Vollgeld/Monnaie Pleine/Sovereign Money initiative should be accepted by the Swiss People.<|ARGUMENT|>The limitations that Vollgeld would impose on funding may increase reliance on non-bank lending instead.<|ASPECTS|><|CONCLUSION|>

This may instead make other types of financial crises worse.

a3c70644-c018-47fd-9eca-02486b66800e

<|TOPIC|>Should the state grant benefits linked to marriage?<|ARGUMENT|>Today marriage is a choice, whereas in the past shame was associated with being a woman too old to get married "spinsters or with having a child out of wedlock.<|ASPECTS|>, choice<|CONCLUSION|>

The historical context should not inform our understanding of modern marriage, which is considerably less oppressive than past forms.

ce84f381-1048-449d-9726-0ce11b1a580a

<|TOPIC|>Should all major political decisions be made via public referendum?<|ARGUMENT|>Close to half of the US population does not support anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ people. Given such polices are human rights issues, a referendum is not suitable.<|ASPECTS|>referendum, anti-discrimination laws, human rights issues<|CONCLUSION|>

Some major political decisions are in fact decisions about the rights of citizens, and should not be subject to a referendum.

b85e3bcd-db05-4ca4-9c54-5ad5a5116dd5

<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>Consider a robbed man seeking his money back in court: he's no thief, even though he seeks money by force. Only the first taking theft; the second is not. It's just a correction.<|ASPECTS|>correction, thief, theft, money, robbed man<|CONCLUSION|>

Reparations are not a form of discrimination. Rather, they rectify past discrimination.

58b90b42-40cd-43f4-a7b2-f8bfb933ea55

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Specifically in US politics, I feel that the filibuster is often portrayed as one person who felt so strongly on a subject that they stood up against the tides and fought it. A David vs. Goliath story with the lone senator as the hero. However, I feel that the filibuster is a failure of democracy because it makes the majority opinion irrelevant when any one person, in the minority, has the power to unilaterally derail any legislation. Also, the modern day filibuster is rarely Mr. Smith goes to Washington style with one person standing and reading the phone book for 12 hours in the US senate, a filibuster can literally be phoned in without the objecting senator even being present or talking, they can have their staff object on their behalf, and delay a bill for debate for weeks. To be clear, I object to filibustering always. I will admit that it has been used to stop things I opposed such things as ANWAR oil drilling and the Texas state senate abortion clinic reform But I would rather they had been approved through the majority rule system that the senate was founded on, rather than stopped by a method of unilateral blockading. I may be sheltered to this argument, because until recently I thought that any sensible person would agree. However recently I have seen many people hold the view that a filibuster is a necessary tool and part of the tradition of the American governmental system. I am of open mind, so , why should I approve of filibustering? EDIT I really did not expect this much response I'll read through these all on 7 24 when I have enough time to give them the individual attention they deserve. Thanks to everyone who took time to put together a response.<|ASPECTS|>filibustering always, stop, , attention, object, sheltered, unilateral blockading, sensible person, delay, filibustering, majority rule system, legislation, open mind, majority opinion irrelevant, necessary tool, felt, lone senator, individual, tides, strongly, failure of democracy, hero, derail, response, unilaterally<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't believe filibustering should be allowed in any governmental body,

17987fa5-59a0-48db-aa86-6b26a08b84d2

<|TOPIC|>Should the BAR exam be eliminated as a requirement to practice law?<|ARGUMENT|>Suzanne Darrow-Kleinhaus argues that the bar exam adequately assesses competency in the basic analytical skills required for the practice of law. p. 36<|ASPECTS|>competency, analytical skills<|CONCLUSION|>

Society has a compelling interest in ensuring lawyer competency. The BAR exam serves this purpose.

303c1ffc-8ae3-4cbf-8171-4b4d1de2149c

<|TOPIC|>limit the right to trial by jury in some criminal cases.<|ARGUMENT|>There are three reasons why this is the case. First, terrorist groups may threaten jury members see Argument 2 for more detail. Second, terrorism may politicize the jury see Argument 3 for more detail. Third, the state may be limited in what information it can provide if jurors are present. The government may be unable or unwilling to present classified information for fear of intelligence leaks; for example if it does not want to reveal intelligence methods and sources to the public. This reluctance may make it very difficult to prosecute terrorists. The implication is that the unique national security issues terrorism trials pose may make juries untenable if we ever want to convict terrorists of serious crimes.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"<|ASPECTS|>intelligence leaks, threaten jury members, limited, politicize the jury, information, terrorism, vices, national security issues, prosecute terrorists, virtues, untenable, classified information, intelligence methods, terrorist groups, serious crimes.1, difficult<|CONCLUSION|>

It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in terrorism cases, or other cases surrounding large national security issues.

bc010fce-1df0-4646-bc2d-3cb9d2ec1c2a

<|TOPIC|>George Orwell's 1984 is over-rated<|ARGUMENT|>People in the novel can be arrested for a thought or a facial expression leading to a fearful society.<|ASPECTS|>fearful society, expression<|CONCLUSION|>

1984 shows that not allowing people to do or express what they want leads to unhappiness.

f191a543-499a-4110-8919-c5e4b93de0df

<|TOPIC|>Should homework be mandatory?<|ARGUMENT|>Children with less supporting/able parents will struggle even more to keep up in school compared to the more fortunate ones.<|ASPECTS|>supporting/able parents<|CONCLUSION|>

The conditions and ability to do homework vary from family to family.

898d6d91-5772-466d-9316-db75de6384f1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Let me preface by saying I am for legalizing marijuana recreationally and medically. Most kids my age that smoke only claim how there are far more benefits than cons of smoking, that it is completely harmless. Although it has not been fully studied it is known that any burning plant matter has adverse effects on the body. The whole weed is perfectly safe and weed improves health and ailments seems to be an agenda pushed like big tobacco. There are also implications of marketing toward children. Although it is the parents responsibility to protect their children. Examples, flavored papers, strain names, and edible candy. Also there is the culture smoke weed every day seems like industry is pushing to use it more conspiracy, sorry . All in all it seems as though the weed industry is pushing a big tobacco like agenda. I am all for the natural right of your body and deciding what to put in it and such, but it seems like there is rampant misinformation and lies.<|ASPECTS|>parents, health and ailments, weed, benefits, safe, marketing toward children, lies, medically, culture smoke weed, papers, implications, strain names, body, tobacco like agenda, harmless, adverse effects, protect their children, misinformation, recreationally, natural right of your body, responsibility, conspiracy, improves, edible candy<|CONCLUSION|>

Marajuana is the next "Big Tobacco"

545f0b47-b802-4801-ace5-790911d820a2

<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>Citizens who are concerned about the environment will be able to donate larger amounts with the help of a UBI.<|ASPECTS|>donate larger amounts, environment<|CONCLUSION|>

A UBI would be beneficial for those who fight for the environment's protection.

33d1d1bb-a7e7-4fe5-a164-22a9ef09c7d2

<|TOPIC|>Should humanity establish colonies on Mars?<|ARGUMENT|>There is no purpose, as the past people searched for unexplored lands such as the first explorers of the New World, such as Magellan However, the universe outside of Earth is currently known/mapped.<|ASPECTS|>purpose, unexplored lands<|CONCLUSION|>

Humanity is not prepared for exploration in terms of space colonization at this moment.

338c40f6-e269-4968-b327-fa2432402e0b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In heavy traffic it is just a lane. In medium traffic it is the fast er lane. In very light traffic, yes people should stay to the right and let people pass on the left, but exactly when this change happens is a blurry line at best, and people need to relax about this. Let's start with the worst case in heavy traffic the passing lane just becomes a lane. It would be moronic to keep it clear so that people can pass, 'cause guess what? Everyone wants to get past that fucking quagmire And keeping a lane that could otherwise help ease the congestion clear of cars ain't gonna help. The grey area of exactly where between that and when it should be used as a passing lane again is harder to pin down though, which is one reason why you'll always have people in the passing lane and others who are pissed at them. Ignorance and assholery being the other two predominant reasons . But please, change my view<|ASPECTS|>ease, pissed, moronic, grey area, blurry line, heavy traffic, fast er lane, passing lane, congestion, ignorance, traffic, quagmire, relax, lane, pass, assholery<|CONCLUSION|>

The left lane is only very rarely a "passing" lane.

97fb77a4-5582-4b59-ab3f-638fa56aa2ff

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The recent post about the legitimacy of referendums made me think about this, and this is the conclusion I've come to. Representatives are supposedly capable of making decisions and deciding policy, that's why they're elected. Any delegate should know what their main voter demographic is or are and should be able to figure out what's best for them. This is what they should do not what their voters ask for unless the two things align. Just like with any other profession, you can't expect people who don't work at it to be as knowledgeable as professionals. You don't tell your mechanic how to fix your car, an aerospace engineer how to build a plane, or an architect how to build a house. Why tell a politician how to do their job? They're meant to know how to do it, or at the very least surround themselves with experts who know how. Parents don't do what children want, they do what they think is best for them. This is because they care for the well being of their children, and they aren't at any risk of losing their position barring special circumstances . Politicians should do the same thing. The flaw in this idea is that politicians might lose their position if their voter base thought they were going against their best interests. I think it's better if a delegate lies in their campaign and does good in office than if they tell truth in their campaign and do harm in office. . <|ASPECTS|>, decisions, parents, making, lies, voter base, truth, fix your car, voter demographic, special circumstances, children want, risk, best, well being, losing their position, deciding policy, lose their position, good, best interests, their job, experts, know, children, legitimacy of referendums, knowledgeable as professionals, politicians, harm in office<|CONCLUSION|>

delegates should do what's best for their voters, not what they ask for

9ec5f7b1-fe87-4d1f-aec4-c4d4a9153851

<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>At the time the main assumption had been that individual hieroglyphs symbolized ideas some what like Chinese. It was later shown to be, like Arabic writing, a consonant only alphabet where the vowel sounds are inferred. As such multiple characters are needed to form a single word.<|ASPECTS|>consonant only alphabet, symbolized ideas, word, multiple characters, vowel sounds<|CONCLUSION|>

Looking in Joseph Smit's book Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar it is clear that he is deriving whole phrases from single letters of the papyrus.

a2f84891-ac3a-4891-9480-00a1f5700dcf

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>OK so i was trying to argue with my SJW teacher proably my first mistake that places like little china or other communities arent being made by white men to keep the minorities down but are a natural occurrence when people come to another country. My argument hinges on the fact that people will naturally search out things that are familiar to them especially if they are moving halfway around the world. So by going and living near others from where you live you can be in a community that is going though the same thing you are and have the same back ground and can help you get adjusted to the new country. And white, black, asaian, you see little italy, ireland, mexico, etc in alot of cities were people new to the country come to live. So finaly i say that its a natural part of the migration of peoples, they come from their country, seek out people and things familiar to them, acclimate to the new country, then they or their children move out of little whatever and into more mixed neighboorhoods.<|ASPECTS|>neighboorhoods, natural occurrence, community, search out things, mixed, migration of peoples, adjusted to the new country, back ground, minorities, ireland, familiar<|CONCLUSION|>

Places like little china or little italy are not a form a social segregation but a natural process of people moving to a new country.

c7b6c553-824e-4030-ab09-379b9d4c95f2

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hey everyone, my SO and I are what you classify as DINKs. We have been in a relationship for 3 years now and planning to get married within the next 5 years. By then both of us would be in our early 30s. We discussed about having a kid in the future but quickly brushed it off as we are perfectly happy just together. She doesn't want to go through the pain and trouble of pregnancy plus child birth. And I foresee that our working hours will pick up as we move up at work. On top of that, the cost of having a child in the most expensive city in the world is insane. Another point to note is that both our parents are getting older, so we would rather focus our resources in taking care of them. .<|ASPECTS|>relationship, pain and trouble, early, planning, cost, dinks, insane, pregnancy, get married, focus our resources, happy just together, working hours, older<|CONCLUSION|>

My SO and I do not want any kids

6196444c-f665-4d18-9f40-38f600be844c

<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>Using a utilitarian approach encourages people to think about the costs and benefits of their actions in a way that a rules-based framework provided by a religion does not.<|ASPECTS|>costs and benefits<|CONCLUSION|>

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

3f343564-90e7-40d9-8f85-a148a4aa9b6a

<|TOPIC|>Is the minimum wage good for the economy overall?<|ARGUMENT|>The standard of living has been increasing in the US since 1820 over 100 years before the first minimum wage law was passed.<|ASPECTS|>standard of living<|CONCLUSION|>

The minimum wage is unnecessary because the market will determine a fair, equilibrium wage on its own.

7b1849a7-d02e-44f1-8172-35a766cae4f8

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've had arguments about this before, but they didn't really bring up any good points. Anyways, I was looking at the 7 graphs why america is overrated here and I think that america is doing it right. I don't think that maternity leave should be paid. One of the reasons that I hold this belief is that I don't think the business should have the burden of having to pay an employee when they get nothing back, as would happen during paid maternity leave.<|ASPECTS|>good points, burden, pay an employee, overrated, paid, maternity leave<|CONCLUSION|>

I think maternity leave should be unpaid, and that if she isn't able to do her job fully due to the pregnancy, the employer should have the ability to fire her.

b04818e2-8a0c-4dd4-8736-0005404ae90b

<|TOPIC|>Should all major political decisions be made via public referendum?<|ARGUMENT|>Politicians can decide to call referendums at politically convenient times and use them to justify decisions even when public will is no longer in their favor.<|ASPECTS|>, justify decisions, politically convenient<|CONCLUSION|>

Deciding whether a political decision is 'major' or not may become a politicised process.

01044445-09cd-424c-be17-3e532c2f2c59

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I've got family waiting for me in New York City, but I believe the Titanic has become an 'event' to the point where selling my ticket and taking a different ship that would attract less attention and be considerably cheaper at a later date would be to my advantage. My ticket is second class and at this point I could sell it and buy a second class ticket for half the price on another ship. I just don't think the spectacle is worth the price and I can send a letter to my family in the meantime explaining. .<|ASPECTS|>price, family, second class ticket, spectacle, second class, worth, attract, less attention, cheaper, buy<|CONCLUSION|>

I should sell my ticket for the RMS Titanic.

98aa1b13-d54b-448e-b9fd-7fc6b58b9244

<|TOPIC|>Has Xi Jinping been good for China?<|ARGUMENT|>Hua Guofeng, who wished to uphold Mao's policies, was forced to step down by Deng Xiaoping in order to open China up.<|ASPECTS|>'s policies, open china<|CONCLUSION|>

After Mao's death, a completely new "reform and opening up policy was adopted by Deng Xiaoping.

af3cd4dc-72c8-426c-94bd-52bdc60d8484

<|TOPIC|>Should all religions be banned on a global scale?<|ARGUMENT|>A religious con most commonly goes like this: It starts off with a concept similar to conservation of energy, that we can't be destroyed. Once you've accepted that there may be heaven and/or hell then the con has created the carrot and/or stick and, while mileage may vary, your support is inevitable, whether it's money in the collection box, placard holding, or your vote.<|ASPECTS|>support, conservation of energy, destroyed<|CONCLUSION|>

The mark uses the information presented to them and makes what appears to be a rational decision. It may even seem to be their own idea, but the information isn't what it appears to be or it isn't the whole picture.

d547fc61-bb73-4401-81bd-ea779bda6da6

<|TOPIC|>Should governments make an effort to reduce the gender pay gap?<|ARGUMENT|>A study found that married mothers earned 73.3 percent of married fathers’ earnings $44,000, compared with $60,000, while single mothers earned 70.7 percent of what single fathers earned $31,100, compared with $44,000.<|ASPECTS|>earnings<|CONCLUSION|>

Not all households have two adults. The gender pay gap exists when single parent households are compared.

2e2f433d-c9da-40a6-9a03-6075a8ee5863

<|TOPIC|>Is the world of Harry Potter really the place to be?<|ARGUMENT|>Throughout history, Ministry of Magic policies regarding werewolves have been ineffective in curbing the spread of lycanthropy or challenging the stigma associated with being a werewolf.<|ASPECTS|>lycanthropy, spread, stigma, ineffective<|CONCLUSION|>

Many creatures are actively discriminated against and treated as second-class citizens by the magical community despite having their own magic and/or near-human intelligence.

ad0ef162-2619-4c8b-be98-58aba75e6ea7

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So I found out about this whole thing swiping through Instagram and saw Forbes' posting on how Kylie Jenner is on route to be the world's youngest billionaire. The money game is always interesting to me so I decided to look into it and found a lot of people bashing her accomplishment. I don't think that anyone is exempt from opportunities landing on their lap. As much as the Jenner Kardashian people rub me wrong, there is an exponential amount of individuals that don't do anything with the opportunities given to them let alone own 100 of their company and an individual net worth of 900 million dollars. The spectrum of success is huge if we compare inheritance to success. A lot of people succeed with money, a lot more fail. Curious to see what your views are on the term self made itself and the whole situation entirely. edit I cannot form a single comprehensible sentence <|ASPECTS|>spectrum, accomplishment, interesting, money game, opportunities, success, inheritance, bashing, fail, money, youngest billionaire, comprehensible, self made, exempt from opportunities, succeed<|CONCLUSION|>

Kylie Jenner is eligible to break Mark Zuckerberg's record of being the youngest Self-made Billionaire.

f407ab36-ff15-4240-8815-330465a236ef

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, clarity on terms Differential Reproduction the way in which genes are mixed as they are passed down from parent to child. This explains why people with dark hair usually have children with dark hair, etc. The theory of common descent this is the idea that we have a common ancestor with all most other forms of life on Earth. Nobody or virtually nobody who knows anything about biology disagrees with differential reproduction. We use this in genetic research, culling organisms which have undesirable traits and breeding those with desirable traits in order to produce future generations with a higher percent of desirable traits. It's not as simple as we'd like it to be, as epigenetic factors don't fit nicely into the system, but generally it's reliable. People who believe in Creation of whom I am one disagree solely with the theory of common descent, claiming that the evidence fossil record, homology, etc. can be interpreted multiple ways. They claim it's not science because it's non falsifiable, as there are few if any pieces of evidence essential to the framework, and that the geological record is frequently interpreted in light of the claimed order of the fossils. The key point of my is that I believe that anyone claiming that evolution is settled science either is unaware of the difference between 'evolution' differential reproduction and 'Evolution' common descent , is accidentally conflating the terms because they're pronounced the same, or is intentionally misrepresenting the situation so that their worldview is not challenged. I would consider my view changed if someone could show that there is a way that someone could honestly believe that common descent is settled science separately from differential reproduction while being reasonably informed.<|ASPECTS|>desirable traits, interpreted multiple ways, common descent, epigenetic factors, differential reproduction, differential, reasonably, descent, genes, dark, theory, mixed, worldview, science, fossil record, settled science, undesirable traits, reliable, order, dark hair, common ancestor, misrepresenting, non falsifiable<|CONCLUSION|>

People who say that "Evolution is settled science" conflate differential reproduction with common descent.

6ce808c4-ca81-45c5-ac2d-0b32b2a911d2

<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>Eating animals that have been raised in a responsible environment and killed humanely offers a better life than most ever obtain from living wild.<|ASPECTS|>better life, responsible environment<|CONCLUSION|>

Keeping animals for slaughtering is a lot more humane then letting them die through natural ways such as predation, starvation or disease.

218ae234-905a-494b-b868-d889244d7d52

<|TOPIC|>Should governments fund security for places of worship?<|ARGUMENT|>In California, the Unruh Act outlaws discrimination based on sex, religion, or sexual orientation in areas of public accommodation in order to provide protection to gays and lesbians from “arbitrary discrimination.” The Act applies to all business establishments that provide accommodations, services or goods to the public. This includes businesses such as hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and bars.<|ASPECTS|>discrimination, arbitrary discrimination.<|CONCLUSION|>

The US and UK outlaw discrimination based on certain protected characteristics, which means that it is illegal in these countries to refuse a business or service provision to an individual as an expression of religious freedom in certain contexts.

df2cfa8d-3cb8-4ddb-9fa7-95f17505bfae

<|TOPIC|>Should sensitive social and political topics be discussed in school?<|ARGUMENT|>Critical thinking, forming arguments, and exploring new topics should be a central pillar to an education system. All of these things are rooted in discussions around sensitive and political topics.<|ASPECTS|>critical thinking, sensitive and political topics<|CONCLUSION|>

Politics should be discussed in schools because it is important for students to have a complex understanding of the world to properly navigate it as adults.

640e46b9-c63c-448e-a9be-547f7e047061

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Throwaway here. A little bit about me I am a career journalist at a major daily newspaper in the United States and I have been in the industry for 10 years and have worked at six very different outlets. I love going on Reddit, but I have grown quite frustrated with how journalists and the news industry in general are regularly derided. I believe many of the criticisms are ill informed and often unfair. I don't want to use straw men, but I am generalizing some of the themes that I read here on a consistent basis, which I will attempt to pick apart one by one. Whenever the phrase mainstream media is thrown around here usually in the context of criticism , people are generally focusing exclusively on the cable news networks Fox, CNN, MSNBC and sometimes the primetime news networks ABC, CBS, . The mainstream media is a much broader umbrella than that. NPR, PBS the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc. are all part of the mainstream media. Those outlets generally do a terrific job of reporting the news fairly and intelligently they are the standard bearers. So I get frustrated when people make blanket generalizations about the mainstream media due to what the cable news networks do it would be similar to me making blanket generalizations about American cinema based on the Transformers series. The notion that the news has gotten worse. I read things like the news just isn't what it used to be anymore From the perspective of a news consumer, I don't think there has been a better time to be alive. You have access to quite literally almost every news source in the world via the Internet, whereas at any point before 20 years ago, you were generally limited to your city's newspaper, the broadcast networks, a couple major papers like WSJ and NYT, and a couple radio stations. The barrier to entry in journalism is a lot lower now, which is a good thing, but it also means that you will have to be more discerning as a consumer. When you have more choices, it's easier to focus on the bad than on the good. Even if there has been some sort of measurable decline in the quality of the news, it can be attributed largely to declining revenues. In case you were unaware, this industry has been struggling over the past decade and newsrooms have shrank considerably part of the reason is this newfound sense of entitlement among news consumers. How many of you actually pay for any news subscriptions beyond what's included in your cable? Don't get me wrong, I want news content to remain freely available for the most part, but don't complain about a news outlet not covering a particular story when you're not even paying for their product. You're expecting something that's hard to produce for free. If more people were willing to pay for good journalism, there would be more good journalism. Most people just don't appreciate how hard of a job this is. Most of us have little job security, we work insane hours generally 50 60 hours a week, up to 80 hour weeks when something big happens for shit pay median salary is something like 35,000 , often to only have our work ripped off by some blogger who editorializes the shit out of our original reporting that took days or weeks to do. And even when I get the opportunity to do the hard hitting, investigative reporting that can make a difference, the top articles on our website are always bullshit top ten lists, crappy opinion pieces, or some weird viral nonsense that's of no real importance. So the pressure is put on us to churn out that kind of trivial content that drives traffic then the finger gets pointed at us by critics, when they really should be pointing the finger at the audience. Corporate ownership and consolidation of news outlets. You've probably heard some statistic that says something like in 1980 there were a 100 media companies who controlled all of the news outlets in the U.S., now there are only six. To be sure, this is a legitimate criticism of the news media, and I too am wary of my corporate overlords. But it's misleading because that statistic neglects just how many independent, partisan, ideological, non profit or otherwise alternative outlets have sprung up in the past decade, and those alternative outlets can drive mainstream coverage. It was Drudge who broke Monica Lewinsky and Mother Jones who broke the 47 story, after all. Although my experience is anecdotal, I have worked for six separate news outlets, and I have always felt that I have more editorial freedom at the outlets that are owned by big corporations. The two small mom and pop owned local daily papers I worked for would never let me write anything that was critical of just about any business or city councilman in town because they were all subscribers and or advertisers. Whereas I have written critical stories about companies that advertise at the corporate owned outlets I've been at, and I've never heard any objections from my editors or the publishers. The news is biased. Yes, it is. Always has been, always will be. Everyone is biased, I'm biased, you're biased, my editors are biased. Being biased isn't a bad thing as long as you're fair in your reporting and are transparent with your readers. I think Reason and the Economist are great magazines, but they both have a clear ideological bent which they are up front with. The media is obsessed with insert whatever trivial story of the day is when they should be covering the thousands of people who just died in that impoverished country that I can't find on a map. Ok, excuse the snark. Again this comes back to you, the audience. If the audience demanded that we cover certain things over others we would. But again it's the trivial shit that gets the most clicks highest ratings. I'm not saying that the media isn't guilty of sensationalizing stories it is, every day , but at some point the audience is to blame too. Now, don't get me wrong, there are many legitimate criticisms of the modern news industry, but I wanted to focus on these particular points that rustle my jimmies. To be honest, part of me thinks I am stuck inside this echo chamber since most of the people I interact with every day are other journalists and my sources, so I am open to having my mind changed. ?<|ASPECTS|>, mainstream, mainstream coverage, worse, controlled, trivial story, bad, mainstream media, terrific, sensationalizing stories, investigative, generalizations, trivial shit, hard to produce, freely available, media companies, wary, mind changed, discerning, impoverished, decline, guilty, news content, audience, 47 story, hard of a job, career journalist, criticism, time to be alive, choices, focus, fair, echo chamber, broader umbrella, ideological bent, consolidation of news outlets, news subscriptions, corporate overlords, insane hours, easier, crappy, free, throwaway, intelligently, fairly, reporting the news, biased, cover certain things, viral nonsense, legitimate, appreciate, trivial content, unfair, barrier to entry, good, news source, ill informed, transparent, critical stories, objections, good journalism, opinion pieces, pay, job security, criticisms, quality of the news, consumer, snark, better, news, critical, ratings, corporate ownership, entitlement, editorial freedom, derided, straw men, declining revenues, news outlets, advertisers, clicks<|CONCLUSION|>

The pervasive criticisms of modern journalism on Reddit and elsewhere are incredibly misguided, unfair and ill-informed.

080d3ff3-93b2-436b-b78f-6ed6733ccbb4

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Recently a trio of female japanese porn stars debuted as a Kpop group. Most people are fine with this however there is a huge portion of people that are against it simply due to the fact that for some reason just because they happen to do porn, these should not be in Kpop because it may influence younger fans in negative ways and expose them to the dangers of human sexuality. Why is this problematic? KPop, while being diverse with different concepts, already has a big sexual aspect to it. Some groups are purely cute while some are straight up sexual. Its basically the same thing that the JAV stars are doing. People seem to have less of a problem with celebrities doing really sexual dances but go crazy if those girls happen to enjoy being on camera getting penetrated. Its the exact same thing. Both of them are selling sex. It is the same product, one of them just sells the premium version of it. Tell me I am crazy because I want to be able to differentiate between the two. <|ASPECTS|>cute, fans, crazy, sexual, human sexuality, kpop, negative, differentiate, sexual aspect, dangers, problematic, porn stars, sexual dances, selling sex, purely, premium version<|CONCLUSION|>

There is nothing wrong with JAV stars forming a Korean pop group

56723dac-5e4d-4e2d-875c-231b74872c6b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I heard few times, last time on DLD conference that Amazon Inc paid 1B dollars total in corporate taxes for last 8 years. On the other side, in 2016 it paid 11.3B dollars for lobbying in Washington DC. source Center for Responsive Politics Our corporate tax laws allow companies to keep profits overseas and to hide profits by buying large companies e.g. Whole Foods and corporate expenses constructing a massive system that is invisible to IRS. I pay taxes based on income, no matter that I can't save much profit . On other side, Amazon has huge income, but they are taxed only on profit which its financial departments easily hide. It's successfully transfering profit from successful industries to expand to new industries, and we treat it as no profit company . If it didn't spend so much money on politicians, somebody would try to design better laws and limit effects of this profit hiding schema.<|ASPECTS|>, lobbying, invisible, massive system, irs, keep profits, corporate expenses, transfering, taxed, save, better laws, paid, taxes, profit, profit hiding schema, profit company, hide profits, corporate taxes, corporate tax laws, income, limit effects, huge<|CONCLUSION|>

Amazon Inc pays almost no taxes because it pays a fortune for lobbying

dd1db694-6279-4c0d-a9c1-792968e8a54f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Of course, anyone is free to believe in whatever they like and I would never argue against freedom of religion or the thought of God, gods, or god like figures being supported. Along with this, I am not an expert on any given religion and do not know every religion being followed, and there could be multiple religions and religious institutions that are feminist. However, when looking at the major religions being followed, I cannot help but think that they are anti feminist by nature. There cannot be a female pope, and Pope Francis has stated that there will never be a woman ordained as a priest in the Roman Catholic church. In the religion I was raised, Eastern Orthodoxy Christianity , women are not even allowed to set foot behind the altar, but men who are not priests are. In other religions and countries that are heavily religious, women have only recently been granted certain rights, but still do not seem totally free. Although I have seen many women in these countries or following these religions say they are not opposed to certain things, like the requirements of certain religious clothing outside of the home, it is still men controlling women. In my own opinion, I see religion as a way to continue to keep women as inferior and I do not see why a feminist would continue to support these institutions, or possibly even the religion itself in certain cases. Women will always be inferior to men in major religions, and while I think it's normal for women to practice and believe in figures in their religion, the institutions that preach these religions will always have men at the top, and women will always be followers who are controlled by men who always have the chance to be in power. Even as countries become more progressive, it does not look to end any time soon, and even reminds me of the traditional family structure, where women were mostly confined to the house and men had all the opportunities to climb the ladder and go as far as they wanted. If you disagree I would like to hear why, and someone who perhaps has studied these religions more can give me more insight into information I have not seen yet. I am all for civil discussion and am not here to belittle religions, but I clearly have my own views on the institutions themselves<|ASPECTS|>woman ordained as, controlled, feminist, religions, rights, god, men controlling women, religious institutions, insight into information, women, altar, civil discussion, progressive, family structure, inferior to men, freedom of religion, views, free to believe, opportunities, free, power, end, inferior, confined to, multiple religions, female pope, religion, anti feminist<|CONCLUSION|>

Religious institutions are inherently anti-feminist and no feminist should support them

c50d81b3-b267-4f82-b31b-9b7e06346ea2

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If you take any scenarios presented today by the experts in politics, economics, current events or science at face value you must realize that humans have really made a mess of things and really are unlikely to Fix what they've broken Agree that it is broken Admit that they broke it. Furthermore if you add up human history it becomes apparent that the situation we are in now is a direct result of people trying to fix other mistakes and creating bigger ones in the process. Seeing this, it is only rational to accept that we are neither wise, nor powerful as a species and we really ought to just allow things to work themselves out, but we because we are not wise we must admit we are unlikely to be able to stop ourselves from messing things up. Therefore the best solution is to celebrate our lives as often as we can remember to do so and cultivate a sense of gratitude for the fact that human intelligence is not responsible for beating the heart, drawing air into the lungs or causing the rain to fall. Truly we are not different than ants on any scale that is much larger or smaller than we are accustomed to looking at things. I use the phrase Praise the Lord but in fact there is not a necessity per se to celebrate life religiously or with a deistic focus, nor is there any harm in it. It really doesn't matter so long as you feel grateful for a life that is here without your permission or control no matter what the particular circumstances you find yourself in. You didn't make the life, you are it. Shut up and dance for joy if you know what's good for you. Edit I feel I should clarify that the original post is not in reference to recent political activity in particular. I have put experts in quotes because the media in particular often presents problems via experts and usually their analysis is quite subjective but presented as the opposite. This comes from all sides and from all points on the political spectrum. The result being that more often than not no matter who is saying it the conclusion is that everyone sees only problems. I do not have a particular political group targeted or even in mind in this post.<|ASPECTS|>stop, heart, political group targeted, wise, political activity, made, powerful, subjective, political spectrum, harm, problems, make the life, mistakes, necessity, permission, life, rain, messing things, celebrate our lives, gratitude, problems via, rational, unlikely, lord, deistic, fix, control, good, human history, grateful, mess of things, recent, celebrate life religiously, analysis, dance for joy, different<|CONCLUSION|>

We're fucked, Praise the Lord.

64596cb8-348c-4bad-b56c-f57efc8cda7e