argument
stringlengths 116
44.5k
| conclusion
stringlengths 8
1.16k
| id
stringlengths 36
36
|
|---|---|---|
<|TOPIC|>Autonomous Killing Machines: The Future of Warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>Police units that utilize military weapons and tactics - such as American SWAT teams - could make use of AKMs to gain the same benefits as actual military forces, such as in the field of non-lethal force.<|ASPECTS|>benefits<|CONCLUSION|>
| AKMs can be used by police to fight criminality and terrorism, therefore make society safer.
| 3f08fc2f-4843-494b-bf5f-2cef0681cb02 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Popular Protest Productive?<|ARGUMENT|>As fields of study evolve, areas or theories that were previously marginalised e.g. feminist theory in literature become more accepted. This can feel threatening to established theorists who previously discredited these works, even if they are established and hold greater power than the newer theorists. Feeling threatened does not necessarily mean someone is being silenced.<|ASPECTS|>discredited, theory, theorists, feeling threatened, power, accepted, marginalised, silenced, threatening<|CONCLUSION|>
| Those who feel silenced on university campuses are often ideological minorities who have traditionally held positions of power. They may not be silenced, but instead are experiencing a shifting/ redrawing of power, where they have less voice because others, previously silenced, have a voice.
| a3558806-3e7c-435e-9128-15f22d1502f0 |
<|TOPIC|>Would a society, without the concept of guilt, be better and more advanced?<|ARGUMENT|>This also leads people to not question the rationale behind potentially harmful norms due to fear of social backlash.<|ASPECTS|>harmful norms, social backlash<|CONCLUSION|>
| This is not a good thing. Coercing people to conform limits their freedom and autonomy.
| 6fd0fa1c-b9cc-4d2e-9631-ada1288a1821 |
<|TOPIC|>Is meat eating immoral?<|ARGUMENT|>If there were 'knee-jerk' switch to veganism there would be massive consequences to supply chains and employment, on the meat side and the vegan supply side.<|ASPECTS|>employment, massive, consequences, supply chains<|CONCLUSION|>
| Going vegan would require a huge cultural and economic shift with consequences that affect thousands of people, which itself is immoral to do.
| 8e47c81d-32b1-458d-8cfe-c3dda685944f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>DISCLAIMER This is a bit ridiculous and just for fun. I recognize I wrote a ton, so feel free to skim or skip. I acknowledge I’m playing into the stereotype that radiohead fans are obsessive, self important weirdos. Maybe true, but I promise I’m not taking this that seriously. I recognize that music is largely subjective, and thus there is no perfect objective measure. That said, there are still ways we can at least strive to be objective in an evaluation about something as abstract as ‘greatest band.’ So for sake of argument, here are the criteria I’m using, how I’m defining and measuring them, and why Radiohead comes up as best. Sheer Musical Output How much good great music has a band put out? As measured by popular consensus, critical acclaim, and the opinion of other musicians . Radiohead has released nine studio albums. Two are almost unanimously regarded as decade defining works OK Computer, Kid A . In Rainbows is arguably right up there with the other two, and needs a bit more time to reach the level of consensus that they have. At worst, it’s one of the best albums of the 2000s. A Moon Shaped Pool, Hail to the Thief, The Bends, and Amnesiac are all widely considered to be excellent releases, among the very best in each of the years they were released. A Moon Shaped Pool may grow in acclaim and potential ‘classic’ status as time passes. Some hold the same opinion of King of Limbs, but there is less consensus. I’d say the general opinion of this album is that it is good, not great. Their debut, Pablo Honey, is widely considered to be simply okay. Across each of these albums is a ridiculously great catalog of songs. We’ve also got plenty of great B Sides and singles. In short, put Radiohead’s catalog up against any other band from the 90s to present day, and I believe Radiohead comes out on top. If you can’t stand their music, try to look at it from the perspective of wider consensus and determine if there’s truly another band with more acclaimed and widely loved releases than Radiohead since the 90s. Longevity, Evolution, and Current Musical Relevance How long has the band been releasing relevant, quality music? Has their music managed to evolve throughout their duration? Are they still building their legacy, or are they essentially a classic rock act? Is their new music actually well liked? Were there big gaps in their relevance i.e. a long breakup ? Are they recognizable as the same band, or has the lineup undergone dramatic changes? Radiohead first achieved mainstream success in the early 90s, with the single ‘Creep.’ Their first acclaimed album, The Bends, was released in 1995. Their most recent acclaimed album, A Moon Shaped Pool, was released in 2016. There have been no lengthy gaps in quality releases or relevance since their inception. There have been no changes in band membership. Their new music is extremely well received by both fans and critics. Each album shows a significant evolution in sound. Cultural Relevance, Influence, and Sheer Popularity How influential has the band been to music, art, and the broader culture? Basically, how big of a deal are you? Radiohead’s work is constantly featured in popular, acclaimed movies and tv shows Ozark, West World, Black Mirror, Prisoners, 50 50, Vanilla Sky, Clueless, Children of Men, on and on . Radiohead member Jonny Greenwood is himself an acclaimed film composer There Will Be Blood, Phantom Thread, We Need to Talk About Kevin, and more , and Thom Yorke is getting into that arena as well Suspiria’s soundtrack has been very well received so far . Jonny is a highly regarded and influential modern classical composer, and has also made significant contributions to world music with his group Jun Un. Radiohead is one of the most respected and influential bands out there across genres. Artists who’ve expressed love for and influence from Radiohead include Danny Brown, Dave Matthews, Kanye West, Death Cab for Cutie, Vampire Weekend, Coldplay, Miley Cyrus… the list is really endless. Outside of sheer artistry, the way Radiohead released In Rainbows had reverberations across the music industry, even beyond into other industries. This was considered a landmark moment for artists subverting established business models and taking more control and ownership over their art. Radiohead is also a frequent pop culture reference Big Bang Theory, Community, Smallville, Gilmore Girls, Silicon Valley, on and on . They even got nearly an entire South Park episode dedicated to them – and it wasn’t in jest They actually lent their own voices a rarity on that show and were in on the joke. Classical composers and musicians frequently cover Radiohead and cite their influence. An entire ballet was choreographed to Radiohead. Even a chef released a tasting menu inspired by Radiohead. Live shows still sell out practically instantly. They’ve sold tens of millions of albums. They’ve had songs find mainstream success and popularity, though that’s the area they’re lacking in the most. Your mom has probably heard of them. Radiohead had a well known rockumentary made about them, Meeting People Is Easy, critically acclaimed. Bonus Points I don’t think these items deserve their own category, but I do think they’re worth mentioning Great innovative music videos Just, Street Spirit, Karma Police, Burn the Witch, Daydreaming, Nude, House of Cards, There There… yep, we got em. Great live band Yep, Radiohead’s live show is legendary. They’ve headlined practically every festival you can think of, and are an instant ‘must get’ headliner that get people to throw down for the 400 wrist band. Great TV multimedia appearances Their ‘From the Basement’ series is legendary, and their performance of Kid A songs on SNL is iconic. Frequent guests on late night shows including Letterman, Colbert, Holland, and more. Great Art The Kid A Bear is nearly instantly recognizable, their album covers are super famous, and they bring the memes. How to Basically, either another band has a lead in these categories, or there is another, superior way to try to objectively capture the overall “greatness” of a band, and using that way, another band comes out on top. <|ASPECTS|>, instantly recognizable, world music, objective, subjective, great, albums, relevance, well received, mainstream success and popularity, lengthy, memes, music, rockumentary, popularity, evolve, excellent releases, musical relevance, skip, guests, influence, longevity, cultural relevance, musical output, multimedia, band membership, influential, okay, best albums, subverting established business models, evolution, “ greatness, legacy, broader culture, relevant, sheer, people, deal, contributions, famous, good, skim, artistry, critical acclaim, wrote, critically, sold, dramatic changes, iconic, self important weirdos, opinion, art, tasting menu, kid, sell, quality music, mainstream success, respected, fun, catalog of songs, live shows, wider consensus, evolution in sound, control and ownership, modern classical, obsessive, well liked, long breakup, changes, less, band, widely loved releases, instantly, moon, decade defining, reverberations, love, millions of albums, b, innovative, catalog, bonus, ridiculous, endless, live band, objective measure, quality releases, gaps, great music, radiohead, classic ’ status, consensus, acclaim, pop culture, legendary, acclaimed, popular consensus, easy, recognizable as the same band, building, classic rock act<|CONCLUSION|>
| If we’re being as objective as we can be, Radiohead is the greatest rock band since the 90s.
| d75dab55-237b-4ca1-aec1-0ab5f76846c9 |
<|TOPIC|>Wire-tap and ‘intercept’ evidence, admissibility in courts<|ARGUMENT|>Wire-tap evidence quite simply works. It is highly effective in preventing crime and securing convictions once crimes have been committed. In the UK in 2003 alone, intercepts led to the seizure of 26 tonnes of drugs and detected fraud and money laundering to the value of £390m, resulting in 1680 arrests. It is madness that this evidence cannot then be used to convict those clearly implicated in crime who must otherwise be released without charge. Similarly, were jurisdictions who allow intercept evidence to cease to do so, the result would be criminals such as terrorists where it is vital to stop the crime from actually be committed either being held without trial or being allowed to go free. The variety of uses of intercept evidence is vast; it can show where suspects were at certain times, who they met or talked to, and even record exact details of conspiracies. They are also of course valuable in situations where they could be used to prove the innocence of a suspect. These are the functions that wiretap evidence should perform and thus courts should be able to hear this evidence.<|ASPECTS|>preventing crime, wiretap, crime, free, fraud, details, terrorists, valuable, securing convictions, conspiracies, innocence, criminals, intercept evidence, money laundering<|CONCLUSION|>
| Wire-tap evidence quite simply works. It is highly effective in preventing crime and securing convi...
| 8dc8b0db-096d-424e-8d16-89c2527bb2e2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a friend that was explaining her PhD program to me. This was at a conference of many other PhD students. One person there had a focus in the use of props used in plays in Victorian era England. She was paid by her university to travel to conferences and attend lectures in pursuit of this. What is the point? This is the most useless thing I have ever heard. Would we not be better if we did not allow these types of ridiculous degrees and limited the advanced degrees to specific maths and sciences to make sure that we can continue to be innovative on those fronts? Then force these other people out of academia so that they would need to apply their intellect to solving social problems and to help advance the people of the world?<|ASPECTS|>travel, props, solving, intellect, use, phd program, innovative, advanced degrees, useless thing, ridiculous degrees, social problems, advance<|CONCLUSION|>
| I beleive that the majority of advanced degress are meaningless and only exist to further the creation of job openings for people with those advanced degrees.
| 6df7fe80-fbb2-457c-a570-bcd7c0c1ad31 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't believe increasing minimum wage will be a good thing, for employees or employers. I don't disagree that people should be able to earn a good living, but increasing the rate per hour will not change their standard of living long term. People should have careers not just jobs. A career where they can grow and progress while earning a living. But many end up with dead end jobs, or casual positions with no hours, no room for growth and no hope. Work multiple casual jobs to make ends meet, while companies hire casual staff to avoid paying benefits. It is cheaper to higher 3 casual employees and provide them 15hr a week of work than a single 40hr a week employee. So that is what they do. The result is a lack of careers. Paying someone more, but they still have to work multiple jobs because they don't get the hours is not the answer. To bring back careers, it needs to be cheaper to higher a full time employee, it needs to make sense to promote those employees and offer the opportunities for growth. Make befits mandatory for all employees, protect the abused casual employees, and make education and growth more affordable. I see all the talk of minim wage increase and I don't see it helping. Worse more careers are finding that offering the employees jobs, or contracts is better than offering a full time career. 15 hr won't help anyone if they don't have a career.<|ASPECTS|>protect, jobs, grow, multiple jobs, minim wage increase, good living, growth, cheaper, paying benefits, standard of living, lack, education and growth, mandatory, good thing, hours, casual positions, opportunities, careers, full time career, hope, help anyone, paying, room, casual staff, earning, abused casual employees, career, dead end jobs, affordable, progress, employees, earn<|CONCLUSION|>
| Minimum Wage increases won't improve quality of life.
| 04709f5b-5afa-4dba-a2c8-c094f936afe0 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Pot brings no positives to society that I can currently see. While I understand the desire for those who are hooked on it to want it legalized so they don't get arrested lose their job , what positives are expected to come out of this? Note 1 Medicinal use is not what I am referring to in this post. Note 2 The tax revenue from pot sales is a proverbial drop in the bucket when it comes to trickling down to the US citizens. This revenue will never be seen or benefitted from by the people of the United States. Note 3 While legalized businesses selling pot may put many drug dealers out of business, it will not make them simply disappear. With no source of income, they are even more inclined to turn to more sources of illegal criminal activity to produce income. Note 4 Alcohol is worse is an argument as to why alcohol should be illegal, not anything about a positive reason as to why pot should be legal. Note 5 Saving money from putting these people in jail is not a valid reason to make pot legal, as it is not subject specific. This logic could be used for making many other things murder, fraud, theft, etc legal. Potential Negatives Addiction. While it may not be chemically addictive, it is clearly mentally addictive, judging by the considerable number of people who have allowed their entire life career to be ruined due to marijuana addiction ie Ricky Williams, Josh Gordon, etc . Lack of motivation. It has been proven that pot decreases motivation, which will cause a large portion of our population to be less motivated, and thus less successful. Obesity. While there is already an American obesity epidemic, a drug that generally causes people to be less active, and eat more, it going to contribute greatly to the obesity epidemic. Increased usage. By legalizing pot, the pre legalization pot smokers are clearly not going to stop. Additionally, the people who would do it, but don't due to it being illegal, would then start using it. This will cause an increase in the amount of people using it. I truly want to have my mind changed on this I just am yet to see a positive that pot would bring to our society.<|ASPECTS|>stop, potential negatives addiction, less active, increased, drug dealers out of business, illegal criminal activity, less motivated, mentally addictive, illegal, benefitted, job, chemically addictive, society, saving money, lack, people using, positive, medicinal use, revenue, positives to society, legal, obesity epidemic, motivation, jail, disappear, fraud, theft, eat, alcohol is worse, murder, subject specific, marijuana, positives, amount, tax revenue, decreases, income, positive reason, drop, usage, obesity, ruined, changed, lose, less successful<|CONCLUSION|>
| Legalizing pot for recreational purposes brings no benefit to our society.
| bd0214e8-37e2-4e8f-8ab0-5099314b0888 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Facebook and Twitter Remove the Accounts of Terrorist Organisations?<|ARGUMENT|>It would be much harder for ISIS to recruit orphaned minors fleeing from the civil war in Syria.<|ASPECTS|>recruit, orphaned minors<|CONCLUSION|>
| ISIS and its activities would suffer from such a move.
| 7040fb06-d914-48b3-8c0b-696dbb964cda |
<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Unless people can claim they are in possession of unlimited knowledge, they can never objectively deny the existence of God/gods.<|ASPECTS|>unlimited knowledge, god/gods<|CONCLUSION|>
| Science doesn't justify Atheism understood as a "lack of belief in god/s".
| cc9c15e5-c500-4ec2-b35e-0685f734e238 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Land Boundaries/Borders Exist?<|ARGUMENT|>Boundaries can act as firewalls to external issues. If chaos spreads in one parcel, the next one can be protected from it thanks to boundaries.<|ASPECTS|>boundaries, protected, firewalls, chaos spreads, external issues<|CONCLUSION|>
| Boundaries help establish security and can facilitate economic growth, competitiveness, and equilibria.
| 8359530c-7ece-42a4-8513-ed282be4d4d0 |
<|TOPIC|>Should governments pursue predictive policing technology?<|ARGUMENT|>Projects like Fatal Encounters identified about 9,795 police-involved deaths during 2012 and 2018. By contrast the National Vital Statistics System and the Arrest Related Deaths program only recorded about 500 deaths per year, a figure significantly less than that of the independent survey count.<|ASPECTS|>deaths, police-involved deaths<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is always some data that the police chooses not to report, meaning that even the historical data that the police has relied upon is insufficient and biased.
| ceb835fc-a878-4583-8aec-e99458503851 |
<|TOPIC|>Should video game storytelling portray gender equality?<|ARGUMENT|>Women represent a growing market which is lucrative for companies to target. The amount of women in high paying jobs is increasing along with the amount of disposable income enjoyed by women.<|ASPECTS|>growing market, disposable income enjoyed<|CONCLUSION|>
| If they take measures against that backlash, they may win more customers, allowing them to make up for the suggested loss or even surpass their original profit projections.
| 8cb695d6-7289-4474-b0f0-3c6287babdff |
<|TOPIC|>Abortion<|ARGUMENT|>Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice that they can.<|ASPECTS|>less bad, malicious desire, bad alternatives, kill babies, right to choose, want, choice<|CONCLUSION|>
| No woman "wants" an abortion; it is only the least bad alternative
| 6e87a149-bc8b-41e7-b916-ea20f386b5a1 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>CZ 455 American is a 5 round, bolt action .22LR rifle that is designed for hunting. While that's just an example, the important factors are the limited magazine size 5 rounds, and the bolt action nature of the rifle, meaning that each round must be manually entered into the barrel by moving the bolt. If no other guns were allowed or even manufactured, save for military purposes, then gun rights are preserved, you're still allowed to own a firearm. You can still hunt for sport or food. However, the rifle is not capable of spraying out 30 rounds of ammunition at all, much less as quickly as modern rifles. This means that in any sort of mass shooting situation, the perpetrator will be severely limited in how much damage they could do. TL DR limited capacity bolt action rifles are perfectly able to handle all legitimate gun needs such as hunting and sport, while limiting the ability for mass killing due to the nature of the rifle itself. There is no need for anything with a higher capacity or even semi automatic nature to be legal or used outside of military purposes. Edit The important part isn't rifle, it's Semi Full auto and High Capacity Magazine that I'm concerned with. The use of a rifle explicitly for the example is misleading in that regard. Edit 2 for additional clarification, would consider a 6 round revolver fair to own, while a larger capacity semi auto pistol would not be okay. Edit 3 Thank those of you who managed to stay on topic and actually have a conversation. Shame on those who attacked others in this thread, intentionally went off topic, started discussing something else, and even the guy who PM'd me with such nice words I'm unsubbing from this now. While I'm certain better discussion could have been had, it's clear it won't be in a congruent way in this thread at least.<|ASPECTS|>unsubbing, better discussion, sport, severely limited, gun rights are preserved, military purposes, mass shooting, bolt action nature, misleading, quickly, hunting, topic, higher capacity, ammunition, legal, fair to, semi automatic nature, damage, mass killing, semi full auto, high capacity magazine, attacked others, congruent, spraying, limited magazine, manually entered, legitimate gun needs, food, hunt, conversation<|CONCLUSION|>
| There is no reason for anyone to own a gun with a larger capacity or higher fire rate than a CZ 455 American, for example.
| aaf9b5f0-259e-427b-a17b-33945097b3de |
<|TOPIC|>Should Asylum-Seeking Parents Be Separated From Their Kids?<|ARGUMENT|>Parents are pressured to plead guilty and give up asylum in order to get their kids back.<|ASPECTS|>asylum, give<|CONCLUSION|>
| Asylum-seeking parents should not be separated from their children
| 90ece899-fba4-4997-87b9-fa295ce9e40a |
<|TOPIC|>Should Religions Receive Public Funding?<|ARGUMENT|>The 2012 Leadership Network Salary Report of Megachurches found that the second-highest-paid person in churches is most often generically described as the executive pastor. This #2 person typically receives 66% of the salary amount received by the senior pastor $56,100 to over $174,900 per year.<|ASPECTS|>executive pastor, person, salary amount<|CONCLUSION|>
| The salaries of religious organization staff are excessive and could be easily humbled to decrease expenses.
| a640b86f-6ee3-4478-95d5-9cb7103b645e |
<|TOPIC|>Cruel and Unusual: Should Capital Punishment Hurt?<|ARGUMENT|>Due to social norms against causing suffering, this is likely to skew towards those with problematic personalities, criminal backgrounds and/or mental health conditions.<|ASPECTS|>criminal backgrounds, problematic personalities, social norms, mental health conditions<|CONCLUSION|>
| Carrying out painful execution will require the state to employ those with the skills and willingness to do so.
| c6ae35dd-3273-41c2-9391-4897b2b0e272 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are multiple core Republican ideologies and policies that are directly contradicted by scientific consensus. While not every republican voter or politician endorses all of these points, they are all common in the republican mainstream and each of these is endorsed by Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and or Paul Ryan Denial of global warming, which is virtually uncontested among climatologists. Belief in creationism, which no serious biologists endorse. Opposition to gay rights on the grounds that gay marriage and adoption is bad for children, despite multiple authoritative studies to the contrary. Support for North Carolina's HB2 and similar anti transgender laws on the basis of protecting women, despite the paucity of actual cases of assault in bathrooms by transgender people. Belief that vaccines cause autism, a position so discredited that the journal that originally published it rescinded the article. Belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, despite the total lack of concrete evidence and presence of documents to the contrary. Meanwhile, among democrats, I cannot think of any major policy or ideology points that are directly contradicted by science. Some, such as the actual magnitude of the gender wage gap or the efficacy of gun control, are open questions that democrats tend to talk about with more certainty than is warranted, but in neither of those cases is the scientific community as United as on, say, global warming or vaccines.<|ASPECTS|>documents, republican, lack, adoption, protecting women, vaccines, gay marriage, autism, efficacy, cause, concrete evidence, control, creationism, transgender, republican ideologies, scientific consensus, bad for children, assault, global warming, policy or ideology points, gender wage gap, contradicted, gay rights, belief<|CONCLUSION|>
| on the whole, the Republican Party is far more willing than the Democratic Party to deny or disregard science-based evidence in policy-making.
| cc30a156-6d20-436c-a80d-4b91c74027d1 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Howdy. I am neither an MRA nor do I identify as a feminist, because I think feminism is a useless word in general. It could, depending on the opinions of the person describing themselves as a feminist, mean I support equal rights for women I support equal rights for men and women I support preferential treatment for women among many other things. It also has no bearing on their actual opinions on real things, because most people support equal rights for women, or support equal rights for men and women, and will occasionally turn a blind eye to privileges that women have and that men have because of societal and biological biases. People who call themselves feminists could hold completely opposing viewpoints One could be in favor of free birth control for women, and another could be in favor of free birth control for men and women, and another could be opposed to free birth control altogether, because it makes women dependent on a male dominated state system. One feminist could subscribe to privilege theory, another could find it completely absurd. One might complain about objectification, one could utilize objectification to do some slut shaming, and another might not approve of heterosexual relationships at all. One could be in favor of incentives or quotas in colleges or workplaces to ensure that women are equally represented in certain fields, another could be opposed to that because it is benevolent sexism. I am having a very hard time finding one thing that feminists all agree on. The only things I have thought of are as follows. Women should be allowed to vote Women are people Note that both of these statements are so acceptable within the culturethat people who despise feminism will still agree with the statement, with very few exceptions. Meanwhile, most people agree that socialism is either the state ownership of the means of production, or the workers owning the means of production. Most people agree that capitalism is where the means of production are held by private owners, generally for profit. Classical liberalism is a philosophy of limited government and personal liberty. Conservativism is when you support classical and traditional social structures. These descriptives have meanings that, even though there are occasional disagreements, generally mean things. Feminism means almost nothing other than I think about gender issues . Please note, I am not here to be convinced that feminism is good or feminism is bad, just that the term, as an adjective, actually means something. Change my view. EDIT View changed. This is the most succinct definition or case put forward in this thread. gt Someone saying they are a feminist means they have spent time examining and engaging with and those issues in the context of that philosophical tradition. I may disagree about the philosophical tradition aspect, as I am unaware of feminism grounded in any philosophy, but I think that it is true that a feminist has spent time examining and engaging with gender issues, and specifically related to women. This is simultaneously not vague as all hell, as it clearly applies to certain groups of people and not others, and also is a definition that could be agreed upon by most.<|ASPECTS|>feminist, objectification, equal rights, view, slut shaming, feminism, dependent, edit view, women, state ownership, capitalism, male dominated state system, incentives, women are people, means of production, useless word, free birth control, personal liberty, societal and biological biases, equally represented, engaging, definition, privileges, philosophical, philosophical tradition, privilege theory, case, socialism, mra, acceptable, absurd, profit, feminists, quotas, opposing viewpoints, classical and traditional social structures, meanings, limited government, gender issues, heterosexual relationships, conservativism, mean things, feminism is bad, private owners, preferential treatment for women, disagreements, benevolent sexism<|CONCLUSION|>
| Feminism, as a descriptive, is next to useless because it pretty much means whatever anyone wants it to mean.
| c2525b59-65c5-4935-8874-e7c9aab42b47 |
<|TOPIC|>Universities Should Divest from Fossil Fuels<|ARGUMENT|>Even where food exists, extreme events can block main roads, railway tracks, harbors, and food cannot reach markets.<|ASPECTS|>block main roads, reach markets, extreme events<|CONCLUSION|>
| Recently, harvests and livelihoods have faltered as drought has taken hold across equatorial regions.
| 3030a256-bf56-4fe6-a751-c98124ea21af |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ok, PLEASE change my view. Whether or not you believe in Obamacare, I sincerely want to know, from conservatives. Is anyone ok with the way Republicans are holding our country hostage to get what they want. Our country is currently in a very slow, very fragile recovery. The shutdown would be a guaranteed blow to our economy. Does anyone think guaranteed damaging of our country to attempt to prevent theorized damaging of our country is an acceptable move? I feel like it doesn't matter anymore if Obamacare is a good law. To give in to the Republicans demands would be supporting a method of political discourse that will destroy our country far more than any law. It's essentially saying that forcing your wants onto others under threat of catastrophe is a reasonable course of action, isn't it? . EDIT Well, I'm not sure how this kind of thing works, but I feel like there should be credit for sound arguments that make you consider the opposing viewpoints. So far my mind has not been changed, but u Troy125, u anonymity7, and maybe a couple others ? brought up some good arguments that helped me see the other view better. Not sure if that allows them the little delta sign, but I'd support that.<|ASPECTS|>, destroy our country, credit, conservatives, political discourse, fragile recovery, economy, hostage, damaging, catastrophe, blow, guaranteed damaging, republicans, guaranteed, view better, sound arguments, opposing viewpoints, mind, good law, obamacare, action, country, delta sign, arguments, anonymity7, reasonable course<|CONCLUSION|>
| Republicans are crossing a line to get what they want -
| f2d7a313-b0de-43f7-91f1-7a2ee5de3ef6 |
<|TOPIC|>Crimea should be a part of Russia<|ARGUMENT|>The initial takeover was with masked troops who had no visible insignia; it was a covert takeover.<|ASPECTS|>visible insignia, masked troops, covert takeover<|CONCLUSION|>
| The majority of the international community consider the annexation illegal en.wikipedia.org
| 508d46ea-2ace-4ed0-a533-a150bd1a6e35 |
<|TOPIC|>EU Working Language<|ARGUMENT|>The time delay between meetings and the availability of documents is considerable, a single translator finishes merely around 4-5 pages per day. Because of this and because of the growing volume of work, it normally takes 3 weeks between the arrival of a text at the translation service and its dissemination in all requisite versions. Currently there are around 60 000 pages of untranslated material and the number by some estimates increases by around 3 000 pages per week. The introduction of a working language would reduce delays associated with translation and thus make the work of EU institutions much more effective and timely.<|ASPECTS|>delays, availability, effective, time delay, timely, reduce, volume of work, untranslated material, dissemination<|CONCLUSION|>
| The time delay between meetings and the availability of documents is considerable, a single translat...
| 6c3f5449-d313-4be5-9566-9bdede6c2d56 |
<|TOPIC|>Capital Punishment in the US: Inhumane or Just?<|ARGUMENT|>Immanuel Kant said that a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral.<|ASPECTS|>immoral<|CONCLUSION|>
| Retributive punishment is one of the oldest forms of justice, and has historically been accepted by societies as necessary.
| 5bf85f35-5990-4e9d-99a9-d12678fb973e |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been thinking about this endlessly, and I can't get my head around why this is OK. I'm a super liberal democrat, an atheist, and a firm believer in people's liberties. I understand that this issue is extremely important, but I'm not at all firm in my stance on it. Please enlighten me. That sounded condescending. Didn't mean it that way. gt Hello, users of This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views If you are thinking about submitting a yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing<|ASPECTS|>concerns, message us, change, people 's liberties, popular topics, downvote, effective, downvotes, important, condescending, democrat, enlighten, happy cmving, questions, remind<|CONCLUSION|>
| I am an atheist who thinks abortion is wrong. Please
| ae3966a8-4376-4666-b342-73e2ad8f124c |
<|TOPIC|>Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?<|ARGUMENT|>You cannot have true equality without equity being established first. Equality only works when everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help.<|ASPECTS|>equity, help, equality<|CONCLUSION|>
| Reparations would benefit segments of society disadvantaged by the legacy of slavery.
| 874c47b8-387f-48a1-b227-7ddf6a413f8d |
<|TOPIC|>Should Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs be promoted as part of a sustainable agricultural economy?<|ARGUMENT|>Genetic modifications such as photosynthesis improvements could allow for bigger yields on the same land, this could give us a mixture of oppertunity to feed our hungry, leave room for nature and to not use certain harmfull substances.<|ASPECTS|>nature, harmfull substances, bigger yields, oppertunity<|CONCLUSION|>
| GMOs offer nutritious and easy to grow plants that can be more resistant to disease and climatic events. They can provide a solution to the lack of food in certain parts of the world.
| ed9e4ec4-8b57-4f5d-a542-3192b5fa9bda |
<|TOPIC|>Is Undocumented Immigration Into the United States a Problem?<|ARGUMENT|>The percentage of asylum-seeking adults with children in tow and without children, especially from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, has increased There is a high rate of violence and poverty in these countries.<|ASPECTS|>violence, poverty, asylum-seeking adults<|CONCLUSION|>
| If people are trying to flee the dangerous countries they are from, it should not be so difficult for them to get into and stay in the US.
| 7674094a-8de9-4617-bd48-aa29e83df5ed |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'll admit up front that baseball has always been my favourite sport but for most of my life, football was a pretty close second. I used to watch it every Sunday with my family while I was growing up, and later in college with my buddies. But in the past maybe 5 7 years, I've really started to not only like football less, but actually started to hate it. Here's why First and foremost, football is boring. And I say this as a huge fan of a sport many people find boring baseball . But I find the downtime between plays in baseball to be simultaneously relaxing but also interesting what pitch will the pitcher throw next? What pitch does the batter expect? How will the fielders handle certain types of hits? There's lots to think about between plays, and the down time is just a natural part of the game's ebbs and flows. In football, played are stopped cold with a screeching whistle. Often there are endless delays as officials watch replays, or the chain gang moves the first down markers, or the players jog ahead to the new line of scrimmage. Or the coaches call timeouts. Or there's a flag. The stoppages in play are constant and jarring as opposed to the natural flow of baseball. The presentation is over the top. The football news cycle is constant and obnoxious. In cities like mine, there is football talk 365 days a year no matter how well your other pro sports teams are playing. The commentators are loud and mostly stupid. The on screen graphics get more ridiculous each season. And don't get me started about the insanity that is the Super Bowl. And I say all this as someone who's also a big fan of pro wrestling. The thing is that pro wrestling is supposed to be a circus. Football is supposed to be a legitimate sporting competition, but 90 of the coverage is blatant speculation, bombastic trash talk, or just pure non sequiter. Football fans are the worst pro sports fans. Now look, every sport has its share of dummies as fans. But baseball, IMO, has always attracted more reasonable intelligent folks I think in part because of the sport's intimate ties to math and statistics. Basketball has seen a similar increase in statistical importance in the past decade or so. And basketball fans, regardless of the frequent displays of raw emotion by players, have always been generally more civilized. Football fans though? Loud. Drunk as fuck. Huge and obnoxious. There's a reason there are more superfans in football than any other sport, and it's because football encourages fans to behave like morons. The NFL is an authoritarian monolith concerned only with profits. The commissioner, Roger Goodell, spent considerable resources investigating the absurd deflate gate incident, but essentially turns a blind eye to incidences of domestic violence, rape, and even murder. Ray Lewis was charged crime related to homicide, but was celebrated as a hero because he played well and loved God. Ray Rice essentially got a slap on the wrist for brutally beating his fiancee. Ben Roethlisberger has been charged accused of sexual assault multiple times and continues to be held up as one of the game's good guys simply because he has played well and for a winning team. Meanwhile, players like Colin Kaepernick are demonized for taking a stand on a political issue. The league feels safe in criticizing him, because he sucks. I think the league is hypocritical as fuck. These are my gripes with football, and that's not even mentioning the concussion CTE issue. At this point in my life, I just can't fathom how anyone would want to dedicate an entire day of their week to worshiping a league like this.<|ASPECTS|>football talk, , sexual assault, pro, football news cycle, safe, hate, favourite, graphics, dummies, natural, flag, math, obnoxious, jarring, murder, time, football less, delays, good guys, loud, fielders, commentators, boring baseball, huge, crime, loved god, domestic violence, constant, trash talk, fan, rape, types of hits, drunk, reasonable intelligent folks, authoritarian monolith, stupid, demonized, profits, league, downtime, football, worst, relaxing, intimate ties, political issue, wrist, speculation, think, criticizing, football fans, like, pitch, boring, civilized, homicide, sucks, insanity, played well, second, concussion cte issue, behave like morons, raw emotion, deflate gate, hypocritical, presentation, pro sports fans, ridiculous, worshiping, stopped cold, endless, brutally beating, superfans, sporting competition, non, fans, played, timeouts, natural flow, flows, legitimate, stoppages, bombastic, circus, statistics, game, slap, statistical importance, handle, hero<|CONCLUSION|>
| American football, particularly the NFL, sucks and is boring
| 5c8e75d4-b549-4a95-a41e-2bc39ccf6c0c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know this is going to sound a bit brutal and heartless, but please hear me out Recently I have been hearing about proposals to give police in the UK more power to do surveillance on the general public, and act in accordance to their search history, for example if someone is looking up how to make a bomb or other suspicious things like that they would go onto a terrorist watchlist, if this continues then it can lead to arrests, the aim is that the terrorist is stopped before committing the crime. Sounds good, right? This is a laudable goal, everyone wants a decrease in terrorism Here's where i have an issue with this, since 2001 about 100 people have been killed by terrorists in the UK. While their deaths may have been horrible and should never have occured, on a national scale the chance of being killed is extremely low if 100 died out of 60 million that is a 0.00000166666 chance of dying from terrorism, this percentage is minuscule. to put this into perspective around 30,000 people have died in car accidents in the same time frame. with any proposed change to the law, we must weigh the pros and cons, in my personal opinion i don't think that we should allow governments to use mass surveillance on their population in order to prevent a few deaths, the cost is too great, this applies to other sensationalised issues like school shootings or serial killers. I would like to hear everyone elses opinions on this matter<|ASPECTS|>, terrorist, school shootings, dying from terrorism, chance of being killed, arrests, heartless, mass surveillance, deaths, car accidents, brutal, died, power, killed, horrible, terrorists, cost, decrease, terrorism, serial killers, surveillance, opinions<|CONCLUSION|>
| People should not give up their privacy for issues such as terrorism/ school shootings
| 6efc8075-97d7-471d-887b-a735efe99a37 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Religious Exemptions to Discrimination Laws Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>The reality of religious freedom is that it is a functional necessity rather than a granted right. Sincerely religious people believe that they cannot be wrong if they follow their beliefs and believe that there is no material source of authority that can over ride those beliefs. This is demonstrated in the act of martyrdom. Opposing those who prefer death to submitting to an authority they regard as illegitimate are simply too expensive materially and socially to bring into compliance.<|ASPECTS|>source of authority, religious freedom, martyrdom, expensive, granted right, functional necessity, act<|CONCLUSION|>
| Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that stems from people's right to autonomy and self-expression.
| 8181772b-edbb-4463-9c76-50d86fa7d1b8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This is a topic started within a private subreddit and it is regarding the libertarian Non aggression principle. This is the third cross post I've made on this topic, so far I haven't heard anything particularly damning of it so I'd like to hear what has to say Earlier today, I brought up in the thread Proving Property Through Proof Action that I think the NAP is a self defeating argument. Here is a more expanded argument, some common counter claims I've heard, and my responses The NAP sets up a binary system for analyzing behavior as moral or immoral. Your behavior is either aggressive or it is not. For the purposes of this topic, I will use the wikipedia definitions as they're generally acceptable by most Aggression gt Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self determination or the principle of self ownership. So we can see rather clearly that an action that physically affects a person or their property without their consent, constitutes an act of aggression. If we take the term aggression seriously as an immoral and antisocial behavior, we can immediately see that normal, even ubiquitous, actions you and I perform on a daily basis would constitute aggression against others. Example 1 Driving a car, flying in a plane, enjoying a ride on a ship are all acts of aggression. We know that the burning of fossil fuels releases pollutants into our atmosphere that are harmful to both our physical bodies and the Earth's climate. Without the consent of all those affected by your free choice to drive a car, fly an airplane, or ride a ship you are both implicitly and explicitly committing an act of aggression against all those affected who never gave consent. Further, I would say it's functionally impossible TO receive such consent. Example 2 Taking the birth control pill is an act of aggression. What? you may be thinking. Recent research has shown that the active ingredient in the pill , ethinyl estradiol, makes it's way into our waterways upon being expelled from the human body via urine. To quote Live Science The body of a fish or a frog reacts to EE2 as if it were a natural estrogen, demasculinizing male animals and creating a condition called intersex that interferes with an animal's ability to reproduce, Jobling said. Intersex males often produce eggs in their testes. Fun stuff Overall What this all means is that the every day actions you take part in cause you to unknowingly commit acts of aggression upon others. This would occur whether you're in an Anarcho Capitalist utopia or not. Some common objections to my argument Common objection A Humans breath out co2 involuntarily and need to in order to survive. Therefore, if the above argument is true, all humans are committing aggression by breathing . My Response First and most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels release much more than co2 into the atmosphere. According to the EPA warning PDF your typical car releases Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Water, Nitrogen Oxide, Particulates, and Hydrocarbons. Nitrogen Oxide and Hydrocarbons both contribute to Acid Rain formation and the formation of Grown Level Ozone So even if we accept Common Objection A as a legitimate response, it is very obviously incomplete. Driving cars, flying planes, and shipping all pollute our air in ways that harm our health via ground level ozone and particulates and our property via acid rain . Common objection B This one is harder to sum up in one sentence so I'll call it the calculation question . A recent example would be FponkDamn's reply in the Proving Property Through Proof Action thread. To quote him gt I mean, consider the following I drive a car. My contribution to the emissions increases your risk factor by .001 . But I'm a safer than average driver, and each driver increases the cost for other drivers to be on the road, so my minor contribution to other drivers on the margin making the decision to walk today, combined with my raising the average driver safety by X amount, all combines to decrease your risk by .001 . But I also work in an industry that uses a lot of transportation, and my contribution to the growth of that company results in 5 more miles per year being driven by our company drivers, which increases your risk by .001 . But my company manufactures emergency medical equipment, and the increased availability of that equipment increases your chances of being saved during a heart attack by X amount, decreasing your risk by .001 . And so on and so on. The point is that our lives are woven together in such a way that it may not actually be possible to assess risk in such a manner. My response There's a lot to say here. I have three separate responses in my head but I'm going to go with one. The bold text at the end strikes at the heart of why I think the NAP is a self defeating idea. You're attempting to address the infinite complexity of human action down to a binary good evil framework when it really doesn't make any sense to do so. Now those who are completely attached to the NAP may be tempted to take this problem and shift it aside, saying something like these issues are too complex to calculate and ultimately are so minor that they're irrelevant . No joke, I've heard that said by NAP proponents. To me, that is a sign that the person arguing in favor of the NAP doesn't actually believe it in principle but rather as a convenient rhetorical argument to make whenever they encounter a statist . Which, if that is the only purpose of the NAP then it is again a self defeating idea. If your only goal is to rhetorically accuse me of committing aggression via the state then all I need to do is accuse you of committing aggression in EVERYTHING YOU DO EVER. I had a lot more to say on this subject but much of it got lost during this write up. I'll leave this as is and hopefully will remember later when I've had more drinks. I only do good criticism when I'm drunk<|ASPECTS|>lost, , survive, act of aggression, natural estrogen, minor, beneficial, good criticism, consent, aggression, eggs, neutral, binary system, ethinyl estradiol, moral, ee2, incomplete, harm, heart attack, aggression against others, acid rain formation, pollutants, co2 involuntarily, property, act, good evil, saved, calculation, utopia, produce, physically affects, rhetorical argument, self ownership, initiation, health, chances, burning, immoral, damaging, thinking, self defeating argument, violence, complexity of human action, waterways, anarcho capitalist, risk, demasculinizing, carbon dioxide, fuels, self defeating idea, right to self determination, harder, convenient, emissions, behavior, committing, infinite, libertarian non aggression principle, pollute, violent or aggressive, co2, aggressive, unsolicited, threatening, safety, assess, level ozone, ability to reproduce, functionally impossible, antisocial behavior, cost, risk factor, principle, harmful, separate, emergency medical, active, acts, acid rain, carbon, objection, driver, safer, complex, irrelevant<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think the NAP is a terrible, self defeating argument x-post
| 12facacc-3630-42a4-a6fe-a44b944bf2a7 |
<|TOPIC|>Ban on Muslim burqa and niqab<|ARGUMENT|>In 2008, The Dutch banned parents from coming to pick up their young children from school while wearing burqas. The rationale was that it was a security risk, as teachers and the children themselves needed to be able to verify that an individual was actually the parent of a child.6<|ASPECTS|>young children, security risk<|CONCLUSION|>
| Burqa ban protects children from being picked-up by impersonators.
| 26bf0bbd-2700-4ed8-a6d6-f774fac7e27c |
<|TOPIC|>All Humans Should Be Vegan.<|ARGUMENT|>Many plant species go extinct or endangered due to exploiting plants, especially in the essential oil industry with rare plants like sandalwood<|ASPECTS|>exploiting plants, go extinct, species, endangered<|CONCLUSION|>
| Veganism accepts valuing humans/animals over other lifeforms, which is almost as bad as omnivores accepting valuing humans over animal/other lifeforms.
| 90658c7a-e0bd-4c7c-a1e0-1754105d27ff |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I well, used to be a big PvPer in WoW, loved Rated Battlegrounds and arenas were fun as well though I never pushed rating in the latter . I found it to be very fun, challenging, and interesting. Pretty much everything PvE isn't. I could never understand why PvE'ers love to do the same exact dungeons and raids again and again. I never did too many raids, but they didn't differ much from dungeons it felt like. Here's some reasons why I hold this view PvP takes skill. You have to cooperate and communicate with team mates, and make split second decisions that are game changers. No two games are ever the same. Sure, it's the same battlegrounds, but they are different every time, and you have to adapt to the enemy's strategy. PvE, although can be challenging in some ways, is dull. Once you play through a dungeon a couple of times, it becomes mundane. You know what to expect. It rarely if ever changes. Raids are, at least in my albeit little experience, are just as, if not more boring. Along the way to the bosses, it's the same feel as dungeons killing some mobs. Once you get to the bosses, its 5 10 minutes of casting rotations, or whatever you feel like, and moving out of the way of aoe when it comes. And then of course, especially with PUG groups, you will fail multiple times. So, it's more like 30 minutes of rotations on the same boss again and again. Then, once you finish a raid, next week you jump right back into it, to do the same exact challenge, with the same mundane rotations. I view it kind of like FPS games Cod, battlefield . Singleplayer definitely can be fun the first, or even couple playthroughs. But then it's just mundane. But the multiplayer pvp games are different each time, and far more challenging. Yet WoW gives you more of an option to play competitively in rated games, where cooperation, communiation, and skill plays a much higher role. With each game you get better, learn different tips and tactics, and winning gives you a very nice feeling.<|ASPECTS|>, team mates, killing, battlegrounds, differ, mobs, rotations, cooperate, couple, tactics, mundane rotations, fail multiple, fun, competitively, challenge, challenging, games, raids, skill, split second decisions, mundane, dull, interesting, tips, cooperation, dungeons and raids, battlefield, play, dungeons, boring, changes, playthroughs, casting rotations, takes, game changers, nice feeling, feel, multiplayer, different, 's strategy, communiation, adapt, communicate<|CONCLUSION|>
| PvP is far more fun than PvE in World of Warcraft
| 6cbefbba-956e-4fd8-9867-1c7dd99aa7dd |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>We often hear the narrative of white privilege and the idea that white people and white men specifically have more advantages than minorities and women. This narrative may be true in some regards, and may be exaggerated in others. My isn't predicated on debating if this does or doesn't exist, that debate has been had and usually leads down a downward spiral. What I rather focus on is the idea that other demographics not white men have the opportunity to use their demographic as an excuse or justification that absolves them from anything they are doing. I'd like to outline one example below so you understand what I mean I was reading through this thread about a Hillary Clinton supporter being frustrated with a potential Bernie v. Trump debate and Hillary not getting her due respect, and they argue that it must be because she's a woman. Using the woman card here as a reason for why Hillary might not be doing so well gave me the idea that when a person is someone who isn't a White male, they can always imply that something doesn't go their way because of their demographic. It dawned on me that say the scenario was flipped no one could ever say, oh this is happening to Bernie because he's a male. Maybe if Bernie was a minority they could say it's happening because of his race. Maybe if he was a different sexual orientation, they could say it's because of that. However there's no scapegoat ability for someone who is a straight white male. I can understand that racism and sexism and homophobia are still things that exist in this world. I can also understand that in cases these things are the reason why certain people feel a certain way about a person or their actions. However I find it quite troubling that there's this out card if you will that exists for every group other than straight white males. Just looking at the example above objectively, one can see a plethora of reasons for why someone might not support Hillary Clinton. However since she's a woman we must include that as a reason as well. We can look at Trump and find plenty of reasons why people won't support him .However you'll never hear it's because he's a white male. The fact that the former exists and the latter doesn't makes me believe that non straight white males have the ability to always create a shadow of a doubt about the reaction to their actions by claiming discrimination. Even if discrimination is really nowhere to be found. This scapegoat ability exists for them but will never exist for straight white males. If you believe that heterosexual white men do have the same scapegoating ability as other demographic groups, please .<|ASPECTS|>homophobia, reaction, white, narrative, straight white males, scapegoat ability, way, white privilege, race, excuse, support, advantages, respect, male, scapegoating ability, white male, demographic, exaggerated, downward spiral, justification, minority, different sexual orientation, sexism, debate, card, reasons, clinton, feel, absolves, racism, discrimination, woman<|CONCLUSION|>
| Heterosexual white men don't have the same scapegoating ability as other demographic groups
| 3dfaa7b5-eeda-44a6-acdc-023c4a551383 |
<|TOPIC|>Should European Monarchies Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>At present, only 15% of the Crown Estate is awarded to the British Queen but, under abolition, the royal family may demand greater compensation, as the Crown Estate technically belongs to the reigning monarch.<|ASPECTS|>greater, compensation, estate<|CONCLUSION|>
| The UK Crown typically brings in more money via the Crown Estates than is granted by the Sovereign Grant
| 4c4302ba-2368-49e5-b5da-85a313b04009 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To be clear Im strictly talking about the game itself, I realize that a lot of people were unable to even start the game, so CS obviously wins in that category. Im also aware that this might not be a typical post, but I feel like there is actually no place on Reddit where you can criticise this game without being downvoted into oblivion, no matter how constructive the comment is. First I want to state the obvious, and give the one big reason why most people think the game is better than Sim City The map size. I think this was very well done by the developers. Second The traffic seems to flow way better than in Sim City, this is however not because the car AI is smarter or whatever, its mostly because they dont simulate traffic as deep as Sim City. There is no rush hour because of the lack of a day night cycle, so the cars traveling from home to work and back are spread evenly over the day. An the day and night cycle or lack of is my next issue, it creates so much atmosphere and makes me feel like I'm managing an actual city, and not a model of a city. In sim city it was also way more fun to follow people around or wait all day for the next event at the arena. Next is the ability to customize buildings, I know that this is a feature that may still be implemented but I'm not too sure about that. Being able to add garages to a firestation looks much better that having to pop down two of them in close distance. Same goes for schools wind farms and especially parks. And dont even get me started on how I miss being able to place a sign or a flagpole for each service. Lastly I have to say that the significantly worse graphics do bother me. I realize that many people only play city builders for the challenge of organizing everything, but I play them to be able to sit back and just enjoy the scenery. This works wonderful in Sim City, because of of the high level models and textures of the buildings. Cities just looks too mediocre and the buildings dont seem to fit with each other to form a nice city. I assume this is not because its creators arent as talented as the guys at Maxis, but just because there are fewer of them. So there you go, that is my opinion rant about Cities Skylines, its neither better nor worse, it solves some problems and creates others. With all the fans of the game I really hope someone can take his time and try to bash my arguments.<|ASPECTS|>, criticise, textures, models, flagpole, play city builders, organizing everything, talented, traffic, well done, problems, downvoted, map size, fit, nice city, city, creates others, miss, fun to follow people, significantly, spread evenly, bash my arguments, enjoy the scenery, oblivion, smarter, wind farms, day night cycle, solves, mediocre, customize buildings, atmosphere, wait, better, managing, start, rush hour, unable, cycle, garages, worse graphics, flow, high level<|CONCLUSION|>
| Cities Skylines is actually not much better than Sim City.
| b2f2c51a-15f1-4798-b55d-6fa9bff933ee |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know, I know, everyone since Plato thinks that the end is near. But hey, even a stopped clock is right once. And this time we have nuclear weapons. I think that if we can't 'just get along' better, a nuclear holocaust will be the the outcome, eventually. I know we are at a point in our existence as humans where things have a chance to go two ways Way 1 to infinity and beyond We will create a society like Star trek eventually Way 2 misery, pollution, war, corruption, and or nuclear holocaust. I'm betting on Way number 2. Not in my life time. But eventually. Because you have to admit that our track record as humans for 'being excellent to each other' and being smart or co operative, is not very good<|ASPECTS|>record, corruption, nuclear weapons, pollution, nuclear holocaust, war, way, misery, excellent, co operative, life, smart, stopped clock, end is near<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think that the human race will self destruct in the next 300 years. Can you please ?
| a69729b2-47c7-4fad-91fe-70e942b37cc8 |
<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>Access to healthcare for children and aged populations would be a more effective way at compensating for child/age care as it more specifically addresses the target groups.<|ASPECTS|>effective, groups, access to healthcare, child/age care, compensating<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are more direct and effective ways to compensate for child/aged care.
| aa27bd6b-bc09-455f-bfb4-33d4d7c0b437 |
<|TOPIC|>Do fair trade products cause more good than harm?<|ARGUMENT|>It is Western countries who manufacture goods from the raw materials produced by fair trade workers, and in turn receive the profits from those products.<|ASPECTS|>profits<|CONCLUSION|>
| Fair trade locks developing countries in the primary sector commodities market, which limits how much the country can develop and grow.
| cd087e11-aee6-4bb0-a54a-cc74a248b7c9 |
<|TOPIC|>Should culturally diverse writers be mandatory in English curricula?<|ARGUMENT|>In 2015, Lee & Low Books, an independent publisher of multicultural children's and young adult literature, launched the first major study of staff diversity in publishing. Over 40 publishers and review journals participated. The findings revealed that, across the board, nearly 80 percent of those surveyed who worked in publishing self-identified as white.<|ASPECTS|>self-identified as white, staff diversity<|CONCLUSION|>
| Book publishing houses are largely Euro-American and Anglo-American, as are the reviewing media. Their biases are likely to affect the degree to which they invest in the publishing, publicizing, and mainstreaming of a book p. 172.
| 199c298f-9f42-4c4f-a10a-ce850726ee73 |
<|TOPIC|>Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?<|ARGUMENT|>Priests can advise on issues of marriage better when they are unmarried because they are better able to detach themselves from similar worldly experiences and give objective advice based on religious teachings.<|ASPECTS|>, detach, objective advice, marriage, worldly experiences<|CONCLUSION|>
| Priests can advise these couples about the religious teachings of the Church in relation to marriage without needing an experience of marriage.
| 95f079f5-cd24-406c-8d5a-715aa3e7f757 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Is there really a net increase in emotional trauma due to someone committing suicide? Here are some common arguments I've heard as well as my rebuttals. One argument is that suicide causes those who were close to you to feel as though they could have done something about it, and thus hold guilt upon themselves. But this could happen in multiple scenarios of death. I bought a motorcycle for example. If I died using it, my sisters would likely feel guilty for not trying as hard to convince me not to get one. My parents might feel guilty for not being open enough that I would want to tell them about me getting one. My friends might feel guilty for encouraging me to purchase one. There are way too many possibilities of death where loved ones will place guilt upon themselves. It is natural for people to find fault where there isn't any. One may argue about the pain of suicide given to elder loved ones, such as a parent living past their child. But does that actually have a net increase in pain? You are saving yourself the pain of seeing your parents die. You may also be saving people you may have potentially met otherwise had you not committed suicide from pain, by allowing them to never get to know in the first place. Assume that committing suicide has the same amount of emotional trauma as dying otherwise. You could argue that you're saving loved ones from undergoing additional emotional pressure from the simple fact that they have had less time to go through the trouble of trying to help you given that they know about your situation . My conclusion is this . I'm not saying suicide is necessarily going to cause less emotional pain, but that there are way too many possibilities and tangents to consider to be able to say that suicide is any more or any less inducing of emotional pain. This makes it invalid in many cases to consider the pain of others when weighing the decision of suicide. Now, you can still say in some specific situations that someone committing suicide would cause more suffering than otherwise, but it would be wrong to apply this as a blanket statement, especially if you don't know much about their specific situation. <|ASPECTS|>death, emotional trauma, pain, suicide from pain, situation, guilty, increase, natural, saving people, suicide, loved, emotional pain, common arguments, fault, decision, saving, saving loved, rebuttals, suffering, time, less, emotional pressure, find, feel, parents die, possibilities, guilt, multiple, pain of suicide, pain of others, scenarios of death<|CONCLUSION|>
| Suicide is not any more tragic than other forms of death
| 984d5e7b-781f-43c2-bbcd-c5c4dd29eb77 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the Primary Focus of Prisons be Rehabilitation, or Punishment?<|ARGUMENT|>Rehabilitation does not always work to reduce criminal behaviour in certain individuals, however punishment is proven to be effective.<|ASPECTS|>criminal behaviour, reduce<|CONCLUSION|>
| Punishment should be the primary focus of prisons because criminal acts must have consequences to be effective.
| a6a307ba-5371-428f-8c96-a974eb187be5 |
<|TOPIC|>The European Union should become a United States of Europe<|ARGUMENT|>It will be difficult to find a consensus policy on agriculture given the differences between France and Germany.<|ASPECTS|>consensus policy<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are irreconcilable differences between EU member states that make the USE a nearly impossible endeavour.
| 4e40c0d0-21ec-4753-b661-5b710d4dec6b |
<|TOPIC|>Scottish Independence<|ARGUMENT|>Many of Scotland’s problems are grounded in the fact that its potential has consistently been held back. Because the focus for economic development from a Westminster perspective has focused for generations on North Sea oil and the coal fields of Lanarkshire, huge opportunities were missed and the best and the brightest tended be dragged down south for jobs worthy of their skills. Even with the limited powers allowed by devolution a burgeoning life-sciences sector, a growing IT sector in silicon glen are adding to the traditional industries. Since 2003 Scotland has generally had faster economic growth than the UK with 13% during the period from 2003-2007 compared to the UK’s 11.4%.i Independence would stretch people still further. i CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, ‘The changing pattern of Scotland’s economic growth since Devolution’, CPPR Briefing Note, June 2011, <|ASPECTS|>sector, economic growth, stretch people, traditional industries, opportunities were missed, economic development, potential, faster, problems, huge<|CONCLUSION|>
| An independent Scotland has enormous economic potential to join other small European nations, especially as a leader in technology and renewable energy
| bbd51978-fc0f-4601-9fe1-f1b65dbeede3 |
<|TOPIC|>Should citizens be able to crowdsource laws?<|ARGUMENT|>The average knowledge and skill of of the average Wikipedia users, does not hamper the quality of Wikipedia.<|ASPECTS|>knowledge and skill, quality of wikipedia<|CONCLUSION|>
| Crowd sourced efforts assign menial tasks to low skilled or uneducated users.
| 9a5a692c-ad63-447b-89c2-e4bdaccc1bc0 |
<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>Providence could also be iterated simply as reason. The fact that the world functions through logical principles and those principles can be derived through human reason demonstrates providence and humanity's role in it as inseparable from reason.<|ASPECTS|>inseparable from reason, reason, logical principles, providence<|CONCLUSION|>
| The real question if there's a providence or not. Good and Evil as agents in our world would have significant implications in regards to free will.
| 606a5812-9062-4bde-9947-21c5befda149 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Im going to graduate high school soon, and have looked at many different career options, my main two ambitions being business or physical therapy. The thing is, I have friends going into EMT's, military, getting doctor licenses, basically doing all these things that are thought of as honorable. I flashed forward 10 years to a high school reunion, and saw myself among them. Me being maybe a business major or something, standing among war vets, firefighters, EMT's, doctors, professions that take heart and soul to perform. Professions that are honorable. I think about this and feel absolutely terrible that I don't want to do one of those professions. I feel almost as if my not wanting to do one of those is un honorable . I feel ashamed that I don't have the courage or desire to join the military, or to become an EMT. My career ambitions don't have me saving lives. Im hoping someone here will be able to change my opinion about this, maybe make me feel a bit better about not wanting to do one of these careers, which are widely regarded as honorable.<|ASPECTS|>ashamed, professions, change, doctor licenses, physical therapy, high school reunion, courage, better, desire, terrible, emt, saving lives, war vets, opinion, un honorable, heart and soul, career options, career ambitions, honorable, business<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't want to go into an "honorable" career, and I feel bad about it
| 612a1d1b-05dd-4fa6-9323-c06ae69aefe2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>What are your opinions on this? I have had the privilege of traveling and studying in another country over the past 5 years, where I have met people from different countries and religions. If you look at social media today, many outlets glorify traveling and encourage many people to do so. Traveling has become pretty cheap lately and with options such as hostels and Couchsurfing, accommodation is pretty affordable or maybe even free. Coming to the point, because of traveling, we are having the opportunity to meet many people from so many different countries and religions. From my experiences, I have started judging people based on their character and personality rather than their religion and nationality. Sometimes I tend to forget where they come from and what their beliefs are. It was a different experience before I left my city when I was filled with racist rhetoric from the elders in my family, who had different perceptions. But the older generations didn't have so many opportunities to meet people from different countries and make perceptions themselves. They've only been fed very racist rhetoric by the media, and that's their only source of information about any country and its people. That's the base that many politicians use to get into power most of whom are born in the 1940's and the 1950's . Also, in many countries such as the Scandinavian countries, Canada, New Zealand and so on, people are being encouraged and given opportunities to go abroad, be it for an exchange semester, for their PhD or for internships. This does give an insight into the political situations into those countries. Thus, I believe that with time, when the youth get elder, they would encourage their future generations to do the same. Thus, the entire political landscape in most of the world could change a lot within the next 20 30 years. <|ASPECTS|>religions, accommodation, judging, character, traveling, forget, opportunities to go abroad, cheap, future generations, studying, personality, religion and nationality, meet people, opportunities, political situations, information, perceptions, encouraged, free, power, meet many people, base, change, racist rhetoric, youth, privilege, glorify traveling, encourage, affordable, political landscape, opinions, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>
| Traveling will be a key reason behind the political landscape changing in the next 20-30 years
| f6a1fd02-ad0d-4b3f-9b07-5e13d2e42f87 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>No, I'm not a Russian shill. I'm just a curious American who latched onto the cynical neither side is right mentality about the Ukraine Crisis. Here's why I think Crimea's independence was pretty justified. Please note that this is distinct, but related to whether Russia's military aid to Crimea's independence was justified. I think Crimeans were reasonably afraid of the new Ukrainian government, as they had overwhelmingly elected Yanukovych Furthermore, Yanukovych was technically deposed in an unconstitutional manner I think it is reasonable for a region to secede if the old government was deposed in an unconstitutional coup, and the new government has differing political ideology. The Crimeans attempted for independence in 1991 but Ukraine shut that down. This is mainly why I don't believe arguments that Russia forced them to become independent. Pew Research, which I think is non biased, seems to indicate that Crimeans are happy with independence As far as I can tell, no one died during the secession, which is better than what a lot of independence movements can say. Sorry if I am too soap boxy. I am new to this subreddit, and I wanted to explain my opinion clearly, as it is a very controversial subject.<|ASPECTS|>russian shill, soap boxy, died, independence, political ideology, controversial subject, independent, happy, afraid, crimeans, justified, military aid, ukraine, ukraine crisis<|CONCLUSION|>
| Crimea's secession was among the more legitimate of secessions in history
| 7d5ad08d-f862-4768-becb-89f55edf5cc4 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I do believe that auto manufacturers should be required to include seatbelts in cars, just that it is my right to choose not to wear them. I believe that laws like helmet and seatbelt laws for adults shouldn't exist. They serve no purpose other than to bring in money for the government. If, as a grown adult of sound mind, I want to risk being killed in a vehicular collision, that should be my right. No one besides me runs the risk of being injured should I choose not to wear a seatbelt helmet, and it is noone's business but mine. To those that would bring up the argument of but think how guilty the person who accidentally killed you would feel all I can say is, they shouldn't. They are not responsible for my actions and there was nothing they could do about the fact that I chose not to take the precautions that were available to me. The argument that my death would affect my friends and family recieves the following answer so? If I choose not to wear the seatbelt or helmet that couldv'e saved me, my friends and family will have the right to question why, to be angry, and even to hate me after I'm dead. While I do believe that individuals have the responsibility to attempt to be worthwhile members of society, I do not feel that they should be forced to be unselfish . Just a note, I do believe that these laws are reasonable to apply to children. Even should they not want to wear the protective gear, they are not old enough or mentally competent to make that decision and it is the duty of their care givers to see that they are protected<|ASPECTS|>death, helmet, actions, money, friends and family, affect, unselfish, hate, guilty, seatbelts, precautions, care, protective gear, old enough, responsible, laws, worthwhile members of society, mentally competent, vehicular collision, children, reasonable, bring, duty, purpose, right to question, risk of being injured, right to choose, risk being killed<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that laws intended to protect individuals helmet laws and seatbelt laws specifically are idiotic and should not exist.
| 5a38c3a4-d2aa-43ea-9f00-b4b24f43713a |
<|TOPIC|>Should selective breeding of animals be prohibited?<|ARGUMENT|>Well-known and historically important dog breeds, for example the corgi, bloodhound, Scottish deerhound, gordon setter, Norwich terrier, Skye terrier, and many others, are now incredibly rare The disappearance of these special breeds would be a great loss.<|ASPECTS|>historically important, rare<|CONCLUSION|>
| If humans stopped breeding some particular breeds, they could become extinct.
| d7d5a044-0d4d-401f-bf74-8b05d8552046 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After reviewing the effects of sugar on someones health I believe that there should be a tax on sugar and products that include sugar. The money raised by this tax should go toward educating the public on the effects of sugar. The average American has 153 grams of sugar per day which is unhealthy and raises the risk of afflictions such as diabetes and obesity. This number is likely due to the fact that the average American does not know how damaging sugar is and takes it in such massive amounts because it is so cheap.<|ASPECTS|>educating, damaging sugar, cheap, diabetes, obesity, massive, tax on sugar, risk of afflictions, unhealthy, effects of sugar<|CONCLUSION|>
| There should be a tax on sugar
| 9dee6fe2-e706-41c5-b7bb-a1a56d8e8978 |
<|TOPIC|>Electric vehicles are better than fossil fuel vehicles<|ARGUMENT|>Most current EVs have small battery packs because batteries are expensive. The Tesla Roadster with its 600 mile range proves that batteries can supply a more than adequate range once their price comes down. Despite the much lower energy density of batteries compared to fossil fuels, the 6x efficiency advantage of electric motors vs ICE evens that out considerably. A 1,000 mile range for a modern day EV is entirely feasible, if costly.<|ASPECTS|>price, energy density, small battery packs, efficiency advantage, feasible, adequate range, expensive, costly, batteries<|CONCLUSION|>
| EVs have better range than fossil fuel vehicles note: currently 2017 this is patently a false thesis but is worded this way to fit in with the rest of the structure of the discussion - please argue pros/cons appropriately
| 454e3fd7-d1a0-4ada-835c-bb0e839358b2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In my dual enrollment English 1010 class, we are not allowed to use you in it or we automatically fail the essay. This is crazy and doesn't make any sense as it helps the reader connect to the story and understand it better. Usually after writing the essay I go back and change all of my yous to another word that can substitute in. After I do that then the story starts to sound weird with these words in there and I think it actually sounds worse than if I left all of the words as you. Using you also let's the writer come up with examples for whatever their purpose he she is writing for to better get their message across. Many of my friends also feel the same way and I have seen a couple of them fail due to this rule. Usually after class, we all walk out complaining about all of the stupid reasons we got a bad grade on our essay. I may be missing something that makes you ruin an essay but I just can't see it.<|ASPECTS|>understand, , story, stupid reasons, message across, connect, crazy, fail the essay, feel, fail, bad grade, substitute, weird, ruin an essay<|CONCLUSION|>
| Using "you" in a highschool/college essay should be allow and helps tie the reader into the story.
| a4fabe3d-85dd-4f1a-8ff7-3b1a7b5fdca3 |
<|TOPIC|>Are Canada's new impaired driving laws appropriate?<|ARGUMENT|>Someone who only smokes occasionally could smoke something too strong and be too impaired to drive.<|ASPECTS|>impaired to drive<|CONCLUSION|>
| Canada's new impaired driving laws regarding cannabis are appropriate and will not need major revision.
| 2cff5114-c266-4b0c-a011-a97ccc0bdb1c |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As long as an action doesn't cause harm to anyone else including society as a whole or infringe upon someone else's rights, then it is not immoral. Furthermore, a moral action increases happiness and improves the lives of others. For this reason, homosexuality and polygamy should be accepted by society. Furthermore, even if something can be proven immoral, it still shouldn't be a basis for being made illegal think lying . Thus, gay marriage and polygamy shouldn't be illegal in countries like the United States, that support individual freedom.<|ASPECTS|>polygamy, rights, moral, homosexuality, individual freedom, happiness, immoral, harm, illegal, lives, increases, accepted by society, improves, infringe<|CONCLUSION|>
| Both homosexuality and polyamory should be legalized and accepted by society
| 8ac6ffb5-7652-4e06-b8b1-92be5d703981 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have been thinking recently about how our country may eventually head toward single payer healthcare, but there doesn't seem a good way to make it appetizing for stakeholders like insurance companies, caregivers, politicians in the system to keep them from opposing it all together. My idea is to create single payer system for the US in primary care only. The idea is three fold. Get people to see their physicians while they are healthy, while care is cheaper. Allow the government to bargain better drug prices for generic drugs. Second, allow a system that eases the taxpayers into single payer that can actually operate in the green say 10 years while the rest of the system is developed. Thirdly, increase the robustness of the primary care system, provide incentives for doctors to practice the specialty, without worrying about whether their business model or school loans would disincentivize them from practicing. Toeing in to primary care single payer would also allow the public private balance to shift over time, so insurance companies would not be left on a cliff, and could plan on providing insurance for people that wanted to pay for it in the future. The one sticking point could be Who covers the person that has primary care coverage but not regular insurance and has a serious problem? Maybe they are treated and charged, or billed as medicaid just as they are now. However the idea that increased primary care visits may actually decrease trips to the emergency room or more intensive stays just by having more primary care. <|ASPECTS|>treated and charged, fold, primary care visits, medicaid, bargain, robustness, primary care, school loans, serious, incentives, single payer healthcare, insurance, care is cheaper, drug prices, disincentivize, intensive stays, regular insurance, single payer system, care system, appetizing, primary, problem, decrease trips, healthy, eases the taxpayers, primary care coverage, billed, public private balance<|CONCLUSION|>
| The US could ease into single-payer healthcare by starting with primary care only.
| 10f41d5c-f9bd-4fe4-b67a-2153e05db668 |
<|TOPIC|>Humans should act to fight climate change<|ARGUMENT|>The "little ice age evidence of which was first recorded around 1300, and which extended through to the mid 1800s, was the coldest interval over the Northern Hemisphere for one thousand or so years. Periodic plagues and famines ravaged Europe and glaciers descended from the Alps to engulf a number of villages.<|ASPECTS|>periodic plagues, famines, coldest interval, age<|CONCLUSION|>
| There are multiple examples of climate shifts similar to today.
| 0f25ea0e-9cec-44e5-a07f-c18ed8d223d0 |
<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>The Covenant Code dictated that if when slaves are significantly injured by their masters, manumission is to be the compensation given; the canonical examples mentioned are the knocking out of an eye or a tooth. Exodus 21:26–27:26 Americans slaveowners had no such laws.<|ASPECTS|>manumission, injured, slaveowners, compensation<|CONCLUSION|>
| Biblical slavery is not the same as American slavery. American slavery, which followed a free-market approach to slaves was far more brutal than Biblical slavery.
| 5481a84a-bb71-429a-9e3a-30e4fe854f7d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that higher taxes within reason, not like 100 , more like 33 66 average rate is better than lower taxes 0 33 average . The reason why I believe this is because tax dollars are spent directly back into the economy in the form of millions of government employees and purchases, and overwhelmingly go to funding systems like education, healthcare, military, transportation, infrastructure, etc. The higher the taxes, but still leaving a lot of financial wiggle room for personal freedom, the better a society and economy is, as money is spent as it is received, rather than having a chance to be spent, and much of it just sitting in bank accounts, trusts, etc. I believe that higher taxes has overwhelmingly more pros than cons, given that it's a rate of spending or income, etc, rather than a flat fee. Am I wrong? Edit One of my views I am not so sure of anymore, thanks to some input that higher taxes is better for the economy than lower taxes. I'll say that maybe I am misguided by using a blanket statement like that, but I am still standing by my belief that higher taxes can support better uses of the spending on the economy, such as healthcare and education. <|ASPECTS|>average rate, taxes, spending, income, financial wiggle, better uses, rate, money, better for, lower taxes, economy, flat fee, personal freedom, tax dollars, misguided, employees, higher taxes, funding systems<|CONCLUSION|>
| Higher taxes is better than lower taxes.
| ef0f879a-5c8a-4ba4-b7ea-8eab52959c95 |
<|TOPIC|>Should The Catholic Church Publicly Elect Its Leaders?<|ARGUMENT|>If anything, these statements have brought the Church back in line with original Gospel teachings, and away from a prior legacy of greed and extravagance exemplified by the Indulgences and Vatican wealth<|ASPECTS|>greed and extravagance, teachings<|CONCLUSION|>
| Pope Francis has explicitly committed to a church "for the poor
| 249eb60e-ec53-4182-a20d-2cfdfdebf7df |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think that exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which I value more important than any small revenue bump. I also think that requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. I also think that Churches have earned their tax exempt status by contributing to the public good. eg soup kitchens and stuff It's also important to note that the only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on all of the public charities that aid that do good. If only churches were taxed, the government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature. <|ASPECTS|>separation of church and state, taxing churches, financial pressure, treating churches differently, empowered, tax all nonprofits, penalize, constitutionally valid, revenue bump, free exercise clause, shut, free expression of religion, default, taxation, contributing, endanger, tax exempt status, public good, religious nature<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think that Churches should maintain their tax-exempt status.
| 85c1a2d8-9dfd-4411-acde-145454710a9f |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm talking about people with IQ's in the near and completely immeasurable range those with IQ's above 200 . Now, as previously stated, these people would have to have humanitarian prospects and not beliefs that only a master race should rule i.e. Eugenics would be deal breaker , and also they would have to be tolerant of the world's race's and beliefs. In general, I believe this would be an extremely smart idea. Why? Well for one, I imagine people with IQ's this high would be capable of comprehending the whole scale of world issues much better than the average joe who typically only has enough brainpower to focus on a few issues at a time abortion rights gay rights religious rights political views freedom of speech rights gun rights pay raise boss unfair etc. Please before there is any misunderstanding I am not condoning nor supporting those examples, they were just for the singular minded issues reference . I am also not saying that no average joe has multiple views, just that typically, it is harder for an average joe to connect gay rights to abortion rights and have a coherent understanding with defined logical connections other than simply generalizing the two to political views . I'm talking about the x connects to y and y to k and k to a linked by g etc. understanding. An understanding most people simply will never ever have. I believe there are many brilliant people in the world but rarely are these people given the ultimate power to act to the fullest extent upon their ingenuity. I believe that this is because in nearly every society, rules are dictated by pre established rules. Rules which no one is brave enough to fully revise except in small bit sized portions . I have a lot more to add but I'll leave off for now so people can attempt to . Also for the record, I am not a smart man, I'm average my IQ is in the 110 125 range the differences lying in varying degrees of restfulness and different tests . The irony or not? So maybe it's not smart for the dumb to believe the smart should be in charge and yet, my vision is not of people who exploit those dumber but those who genuinely will be better for the world if they are in charge . ∆OK Amablue you win whoops The goal is to continue a conversation rather than win a debate. . Somewhat. I mostly sort of in some ways kind of agree with you on many of the points you made and I guess you have changed my view. I can see know where some of my thinking is inherently flawed, especially in terms of the scientific process. But, ultimately who is to know, since so far, an off the charts intelligent person has yet to take a high position of power, what the outcome could be to my original proposed view. I guess it would honestly depend on a person by person basis. In other words it could be good or bad and I get that. It also should be understood that I understand that the person people who I am proposing do not exist for certain or at all. Lastly, thank you for your continued followup. It was interesting to say the least.<|ASPECTS|>power to act, freedom of speech, flawed, multiple views, bit sized, agree, iq, revise, brainpower, pre established rules, win, scale, restfulness, depend on a person by person basis, singular minded issues, inherently, tolerant, master race, irony, cmv, smart idea, world 's race 's, good or bad, exist, deal breaker, person people, understanding, continue a conversation, political views, comprehending, humanitarian prospects, misunderstanding, intelligent person, power, exploit, smart, brilliant people, honestly, ingenuity, better for the world, debate, immeasurable, rules, world issues, attempt, defined logical connections, extremely, gay rights, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that the "few" individuals with IQ's within the upper 5% deviation should be given full access and complete control of the world provided they have "humanitarian-prospects" and are "tolerant" of the world's race's and beliefs.
| dfc46654-ab28-4a2c-b7f2-633a79fe4724 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that planet Earth can't sustainably support 7 billion human beings, and that having children should be strictly regulated. When you get down to it, most major problems the world is currently facing are just facets of the population problem. To give a few examples, jobs being outsourced overseas is only a big issue in America because there are so many people in Asia that their options are either work for almost nothing or starve. The oceans are heavily overfished because countries like China have to just to support their population. All the arguments I've heard against this essentially boil down to the idea that having children is a 'god given right'. If the needs of the many truly outweigh the needs of the few which they do , then why are we allowing population to grow when it tangibly worsens everybody's quality of life in the long term?<|ASPECTS|>worsens, human, quality of life, given right, outsourced, regulated, heavily, jobs, nothing, sustainably support, support their population, population problem, options, needs, problems, strictly, work, starve, overfished<|CONCLUSION|>
| World population controls need to be instituted
| df696165-d32e-403f-bc69-265cf18a6ea9 |
<|TOPIC|>Is trust a positive trait?<|ARGUMENT|>Trust is positive because it has to be earned and consistently demonstrated, proving a person is reliable.<|ASPECTS|>trust, reliable, earned<|CONCLUSION|>
| Trusting someone deepens the connection you have with that person.
| 8c802b59-3d4b-4dbf-87b2-a73dff4ac310 |
<|TOPIC|>Vegetarianism<|ARGUMENT|>Because animals do not have rights, how can holding them in captivity be problematic from a human rights perspective?<|ASPECTS|>problematic, rights, human rights<|CONCLUSION|>
| Animals do not have rights so can be held in captivity.
| 68e60544-9d13-496d-821a-907eb89ed106 |
<|TOPIC|>Who should qualify for Asylum?<|ARGUMENT|>If we accept that the severe danger of violence is grounds for asylum in a warzone, we should accept the same criteria for criminal "warzones".<|ASPECTS|>asylum, criminal ``, violence, danger<|CONCLUSION|>
| Those who live in areas with generally high levels of crime.
| 4aab7dfc-15cd-47b4-84a9-3dbfdf8bd8d3 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Right now, the Federal Reserve in the US is charged with keeping inflation low, and unemployment low. In doing this, they have adopted targets of 2 yr inflation and ~5 unemployment. To accomplish these two goals, they have one principal tool, interest rates. Trying to accomplish two goals with one tool is problematic, and can lead to overcorrection in one direction or another see stagflation A better objective would be to targer nominal gross domestic product NGDP . Nominal GDP is relatively easy to measure, and has a beneficial aspect of being self correcting for inflation and economic wellbeing. It is essentially targeting a basket of inflation and growth. So an NGDP target could be satisfied in normal times of growth by 3 real GDP growth and 2 inflation. In a recession, it could be satisfied by 1 real GDP growth and 6 inflation. In a major boom, it could be satisfied by 6 real GDP growth and a 1 inflation rate. Edit for clarity NGDP is an independent variable which is measured in the real world economy. Real GDP is a synthetic variable composed of NGDP and inflation. End edit Targeting NGDP would likely force the Fed to be a bit more aggressive in booms and busts, contracting or expanding the money supply respectively to bring NGDP back in line. I see that as a good thing. It's also a clear target that can be met all the time. The inflation and employment targets are naturally going to be missed over the course of business cycles, whereas the Fed can always be pretty close to hitting an NGDP target. This would give us a much more concrete way to measure Fed performance. A bit more formal of a defense of the idea can be seen by economist Scott Sumner here. NGDP targeting is pretty controversial in central banking circles, and the Fed in 2011 indicated these reasons for not adopting it gt The Committee also considered policy strategies that would involve the use of an intermediate target such as nominal gross domestic product GDP or the price level. The staff presented model simulations that suggested that nominal GDP targeting could, in principle, be helpful in promoting a stronger economic recovery in a context of longer run price stability. Other simulations suggested that the single minded pursuit of a price level target would not be very effective in fostering maximum sustainable employment it was noted, however, that price level targeting where the central bank maintained flexibility to stabilize economic activity over the short term could generate economic outcomes that would be more consistent with the dual mandate. More broadly, a number of participants expressed concern that switching to a new policy framework could heighten uncertainty about future monetary policy, risk unmooring longer term inflation expectations, or fail to address risks to financial stability. Several participants observed that the efficacy of nominal GDP targeting depended crucially on some strong assumptions, including the premise that the Committee could make a credible commitment to maintaining such a strategy over a long time horizon and that policymakers would continue adhering to that strategy even in the face of a significant increase in inflation. In addition, some participants noted that such an approach would involve substantial operational hurdles, including the difficulty of specifying an appropriate target level. In light of the significant challenges associated with the adoption of such frameworks, participants agreed that it would not be advisable to make such a change under present circumstances. I think this is pretty weak reasoning, and mostly seems to be focused on a perceived difficulty in implementing it. However, I think the Fed is more capable than the board members are giving it credit for here, and that unmooring inflation expectations isn't the worst thing, if they're replaced with expectations about the course of nominal growth overall, which seems to be the more salient thing for businesses anyway. So what's the stronger version of the Fed's case, or another case, for not adopting a NGDP target?<|ASPECTS|>operational hurdles, real gdp, booms, targeting, keeping, economic activity, real, clear target, sustainable employment, inflation expectations, money supply, inflation, unmooring, stagflation, formal, growth, independent variable, gross domestic product, gdp growth, risks, price level, inflation rate, uncertainty, economic recovery, inflation and employment targets, nominal growth, capable, unemployment, economy, intermediate target, inflation and growth, weak reasoning, ngdp target, interest rates, circumstances, economic outcomes, target level, good, challenges, aggressive, economic wellbeing, risk unmooring, nominal gdp targeting, overcorrection, synthetic variable, perceived difficulty, gdp, fed performance, inflation low, easy, financial stability, price stability, self correcting, unemployment low, controversial<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Federal Reserve should adopt a NGDP target.
| 3bc2b4d6-4d21-49ea-974e-d9e2a77fd516 |
<|TOPIC|>Should governments fund liberal arts degrees?<|ARGUMENT|>The liberal arts cultivate and celebrate imagination. Imagination is an important antidote to extremism and dogma because it supports a capacity for adopting differing perceptions, critical reflection, and hope Nussbaum, p. 109-110<|ASPECTS|>critical reflection, differing perceptions, celebrate imagination, hope, extremism, cultivate<|CONCLUSION|>
| In a democratic society, a basic grounding in liberal arts is necessary to be a good citizen.
| d06580a4-9a0e-4156-a246-e6536e2c9aff |
<|TOPIC|>Is the UN a force for good?<|ARGUMENT|>Other nations might be motivated to become democracies in order to join the newly established League.<|ASPECTS|>become, democracies, motivated<|CONCLUSION|>
| A League for Democracies would be a better alternative to the U.N.
| b44a0055-e2db-4f99-9a46-9fbe03cee576 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So, I originally posted the argument below in the Star Wars subreddit, but it was removed because it sounded harsh and over opinionated. Thus I've heavily edited it and decided to post it here instead. But first, I want to make one thing clear I AM A FAN OF THE PREQUELS Despite their obvious flaws I consider them enjoyable movies. I think that every Star Wars movie is flawed in some way, and to me Jabba the Hutt, his henchmen and the Ewoks, all from Episode VI are just as annoying as Jar Jar. In fact, I prefer all three prequels to Episode VI. Now, onto my argument It is undeniable that the Star Wars prequels is the most hated trilogy of films of all time. Twelve years after Episode III and they remain as mocked and as insulted as ever. They are so uinfamous that even admitting to liking them is a risk. Attempting to defend them will get you a ton of negative replies. Some Star Wars centric fansites outright expect their visitors to be prequel haters from the get go, writing articles about them that imply that they are universally despised. There was, of course, that very short lived period where acceptance for the prequels started to grow, around the time that hype for TFA was growing. There was that Clone Wars TV series. There's a ton of prequel related merchandise. There's an upcoming Battlefront game featuring prequel planet maps and characters. So you'd assume that by now, people don't mind them? Wrong. Because the still ongoing prequel memes trend has absolutely eradicated even the tiniest of positive aspects of the prequels. Any good stuff anything that people liked, took seriously, decided was as good as the original trilogy has now been literally ruined. They are now even more of a massive joke than they were when they were originally released. And now, there is absolutely no way they will ever recover from this new humiliation. Before, they could. The years went by and people were able to re watch the prequels and take note of some strengths. Now though, even the best of the three prequels is just one big stupid joke. No one will ever, EVER be able to re watch the scene where the Emperor tells Anakin about Darth Plagueis again and take it seriously. Even the climax of the third film that massive battle that the entire trilogy was leading up to? Again, just a big joke now I have the higher ground Now combine the meme humiliation with the ongoing extreme dislike for them that continues to occur including the sizable portion of fans that refuse to even consider them canon , and I truly think there's only one solution Render them non canon. I think that Disney should declare them Expanded Universe material and remake the prequels as one film via modern technology. And like I said, I'm a prequel fan. I like those movies but I just cannot take it anymore. Justifying your liking for them is so difficult now and I'd rather just see the majority of the fans who hate them finally stop whining about them. It's for the best. That doesn't mean the prequel DVDs and merchandise can no longer be sold, since there are loads of different versions of the Star Wars material and several versions of many other movies even remakes of foreign movies . And if the prequel fans protest, so what? The majority rules. The Star Wars fans have spoken The prequels are not welcome, and thus should be banished forever, only in existence to be laughed at online and watched just for giggles. TLDR The Star Wars prequels are so hated, ridiculed, and barely accepted that it would be preferable if Disney demoted them to being part of the Expanded Universe. Even as a fan of the prequels, they are too infamous and clearly unwelcome within the fandom. <|ASPECTS|>, flawed, strengths, banished forever, prequel related merchandise, insulted, unwelcome, ridiculed, enjoyable movies, modern technology, hated trilogy of films, movies, harsh, hype, annoying, stupid joke, flaws, protest, clone wars, risk, best, uinfamous, welcome, remakes, extreme dislike, heavily, hated, positive aspects, mind, plagueis, expanded universe material, acceptance, liking, prequel haters, majority rules, humiliation, universally despised, massive joke, infamous, negative replies, sold, massive battle, mocked, planet maps, remake, prequel fan, opinionated, ruined, recover<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Star Wars prequels should be permanently removed from the official Star Wars canon and remade as one film.
| 08c54b38-a746-4a16-9660-4b757167139b |
<|TOPIC|>A Socialist Economy would work better than a Capitalist Economy.<|ARGUMENT|>Societies have shown that they can cope with Socialist economies and share in smart ways. e.g. Kibbutzim evolved ways of coping with different individual / family needs and also letting them prioritise their wants. So without using unintelligent 'equal shares' they achieve narrowed bands of income inequality.<|ASPECTS|>prioritise their wants, socialist economies, smart ways, needs, share, individual /, income inequality<|CONCLUSION|>
| A socialist economy would allow for a smaller gap in economic equality.
| b7abd528-dcf6-4568-91f8-de5d73489a09 |
<|TOPIC|>There should be no limit to freedom of speech.<|ARGUMENT|>A speaker might say "Men are better at sports than women." Which they believe is an objective fact. A female listener may take this to mean "All men are better at sports than all women.", which is demonstrably false. If the speaker had instead said, "The average man is able to perform better at most athletic feats than the average woman is.", it would be more clear, demonstrable, and unlikely to insult someone operating in good faith.<|ASPECTS|>unlikely, , athletic feats, sports, demonstrable, perform better, better at sports<|CONCLUSION|>
| It may be true that harm and insult arise through listener interpretation. However, if both speaker and listener engage in good faith neither actually attempting to insult the other, then insults may only occur when the speaker's words are vague enough to be open to interpretation. Thus, political correctness motivates people to word their ideas more clearly and precisely.
| e435823a-ec5e-4daa-9a2b-cd974b1cd206 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Real time debates are a terrible way to pit two positions against each other. They are only good if you want to show a dramatic or theatrical scene, which is why networks use them. If you aren't interested in providing entertainment and actually want to put forth an intellectually stimulating and thoughtful way to put two positions against each other, then you should use a different format. An example one off the top of my head get it? would be to have both contestants make statements in turn, one at a time, and a contestant can take some time maybe a few hours to analyze and debunk research the preceeding statement by their opponent. Not only is the memory aspect of debating removed which balances the playing field , but it also removes interruptions and talking over others. It would also allow panelists to come across clearly and avoid making mistakes and saying stupid stuff. Debating in real time is largely just theater and while it may be a good way to showcase the key points of your position and to watch some drama, it is a hugely ineffectual way to pit two positions against each other. You can hide secret facts from your opponent like an ace up your sleeve, use them in a debate, and your opponent not because there is no counterargument, but because they cannot recall one off the top of their head will be stumped or unsure how to respond and portrayed thought of as debunked or defeated. Come on, that's completely unfair. I doubt networks will stop doing these debates anytime soon because you need em views. If you aren't an entertainment network and if you are truly interested in seeing two positions go head to head, debating in real time is not a good format. that I have little faith and stock in these debates. <|ASPECTS|>hide, entertainment, intellectually stimulating, real time debates, points, counterargument, dramatic, debating, thoughtful, memory aspect, defeated, debunked, stupid stuff, field, debates, debunk, making mistakes, faith and stock, em views, little, terrible, pit two, theater, unfair, preceeding statement, time, balances, clearly, theatrical scene, providing, talking over others, secret facts, avoid, ineffectual, interruptions<|CONCLUSION|>
| Real-time debates suck because they rely on off-the-top of your head thinking and are only good for being theatrical.
| aaf8ffcb-a931-4cb6-b515-bd80eb50f2c2 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think investing in nuclear energy is one of the most foolish things that mankind has ever done. The sheer amount of energy it yields is certainly enticing, but I do not think it is worth the risks it entails. My primary reason for despising nuclear energy is that in the event of a failure at a nuclear facility, the results are catastrophic. Many people claim that nuclear power plants are safeguarded with redundant forms of security making a meltdown impossible. I do not buy it. No matter how many safety regulations are implemented, I think nuclear meltdowns are inevitable. These facilities are run by two things people, and computers. People, even highly trained people are fallible, and I have used computers for far too long to trust that these computers are error proof. What's more, we have historic precedents of nuclear meltdown and the natural turned nuclear disaster in Japan to show us just how naive it is to think that nuclear energy is safe. When a hydro electric power plant goes out, people lose power for a while. Huge inconvenience for a lot of people, possibly even a bit destructive, but ultimately not a huge deal. When a nuclear power plant has a meltdown the entire area must be evacuated, people's lives are put in danger, and the environment is polluted with radioactivity for over a century. Nuclear power plants are a threat to the communities they reside in and every nation ought to begin taking steps towards shutting down such facilities. Edit Delta awarded to JustsayinwhatIthink.<|ASPECTS|>energy, safeguarded, justsayinwhatithink, safe, error proof, meltdown, polluted, evacuated, disaster, catastrophic, redundant forms, risks, threat, lose power, fallible, nuclear meltdowns, danger, nuclear meltdown, buy, two things, foolish, failure, environment, historic, natural turned, destructive, safety regulations, enticing, radioactivity, computers, inconvenience, lives, security, huge<|CONCLUSION|>
| Nuclear energy is terrifying! All nuclear facilities ought to be shut down.
| ec8238a2-9db9-47ae-864b-ce710616ad8d |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don't believe that there is a god or enough evidence to prove that one exist. People say that religion is a source for comfort, when really its just a delusion that makes them feel comfort. Also peoples religious views have stopped humans from scientific progress Bush banning stem cell research . I just see no good in it. The other problem with religion is that it satisfies people with the given answers like god created the universe instead of actually trying to figure out how the universe was really created. I fail to see a point in religion, it only inhibits humans.<|ASPECTS|>stem cell research, scientific progress, evidence, religion, comfort, feel, god, inhibits humans, religious views, satisfies people, source, see no good<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think that religion is pointless.
| 508e22f8-67a5-459d-8e57-cb3c2504c4a9 |
<|TOPIC|>Google knows too much about us<|ARGUMENT|>Google is alone in having data on its users. Many internet services store data on users and sharing is just a part of modern life. If we weren't ok with it then we would not use the internet or at least we would go to much greater lengths to ensure that we are not sharing data. Facebook collects plenty of data on people and still it has 500 million active users and 50% of those users log on every day. Zuckerberg I’m trying to make the world a more open place.<|ASPECTS|>sharing, sharing data, active users, open place, collects, alone, data, store data on users, data on people<|CONCLUSION|>
| Google is not alone. Sharing data is part of modern life.
| f2374961-ca7c-4090-8ef5-09759a2b264d |
<|TOPIC|>Should the state grant benefits linked to marriage?<|ARGUMENT|>Around 80% of people with a disability were not active in the labour force. This often leaves them impoverished and reliant on the government, and people in these circumstances are less likely to be able to get married.<|ASPECTS|>labour force, disability, impoverished<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is harder for people with disabilities to get married.
| 3d162bc2-e909-432f-91e6-98f9e74e2bbf |
<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>God has so constituted us that we naturally form belief in Him under certain circumstances; since the belief is thus formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties in an appropriate environment, it is warranted for us, and, insofar as our faculties are not disrupted by the noetic effects of sin, we shall believe this proposition deeply and firmly, so that we can be said, in virtue of the great warrant accruing to this belief for us, to know that God exists.”<|ASPECTS|>cognitive faculties, god exists, effects, sin<|CONCLUSION|>
| Belief in God is not merely justified but also warranted. Warrant is that property that converts mere true belief into knowledge when possessed in sufficient degree.
| e32847eb-bbc2-44c7-9832-a65449330ffc |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Being a Ford guy, a Chevy guy, Dodge guy, etc is just brand standing. Only body style and the logo on the front is different. All pickups pull the same trailers. Landscapers for example, whether enclosed or open trailers, pull these same trailers with all makes of trucks. All pickups have towing capacity, payload, 4x4, and other options available. When one buys a truck, it's basically being bought for the body style and the logo on the front. I've heard opinions of manufacturers by friends who had a bad experience with one truck and that has shaped their whole opinion. JD Power awards are a joke. Everybody has won one for something. Ford claims best selling pickup for x 30? years but I don't know if there is any fine print in there. I've had my Ford truck for 13 years now. Big lift kit, big tires, the whole 9 nine yards. But I bought the truck because I liked that body style over the others. I knew the other trucks had big motors, after market adaptability, towing, yada yada yada. My Chevy and Dodge buddies bust my chops and I bust theirs and it's all in good fun but they truly believe their trucks are better. They're all basically the same. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, payload, trailers, power awards, view, ford truck, brand standing, bust my chops, big, fun, motors, one, lift kit, market adaptability, trucks, bad experience, bought, towing capacity, body style, fine print, opinions of manufacturers, better, logo, best selling pickup<|CONCLUSION|>
| All pickup trucks, regardless of manufacturer, are the same.
| 9c6d2c28-ad11-4138-b586-c958d23db031 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This one should be easy because I'm not to sure about this but I keep getting a feeling we are going in a bad direction and would love facts to disprove that. Here are my reasons Banks are being treated like gods and have more power then the government. Internet freedoms are being attacked. Government already violates rights on internet and nothing is being done about except trying to make it legal Our government hates the bees acknowledges pesticides are killing the bees but aren't doing anything to stop them Our government favors corporations over people Citizens United General Support of the MPAA General Support of Corrupt banks That protect Monsanto bill Laws against unlocking your phone Corrupt police not being prosecuted Polarization in congress preventing reasonable laws from passing School unions in that state I forgot the name of being dissolved The governor responsible reelected? Stories about woman still being treated disrespectfully in blue collar jobs. This is a direct story from a woman who has worked in both the car industry and construction and in both places has experience a good amount of sexism I'm sorry I didn't detail each reason to well but I just wanted to get them out. I also assumed most people had some idea about these since most of them I'm getting from r news. But if you address each of those issues it would be best but supplying examples in which our society is improving will also help . Formatting I don't mean starting. The view I wish you to change is very tentative and not well built but I am leaning the toward position that our society is degrading. Ignore the word starting. This doesn't mean it will be easy to sway me I would like reasonable argument for why our society is either static or improving. Also because things are better now doesn't mean they aren't degrading. if we could quantify the state of our society were still above 0 but our slope is negative.<|ASPECTS|>, ignore, help cmv, disrespectfully, banks, attacked, formatting, treated, violates, society, word starting, negative, idea, killing the bees, starting, improving, reasonable argument, degrading, internet freedoms, bad direction, corporations, state, tentative, laws, power, sway, slope, sexism, better, static, facts, easy, gods, rights on internet, woman<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think that our society's well being and civil rights are starting to degrade.
| a8160c07-7002-406b-a000-060b19d44fe0 |
<|TOPIC|>Extraordinary Rendition<|ARGUMENT|>The U.S. Government uses “extraordinary rendition” as “torture by proxy”. They deliver suspects of terrorism to countries which are known to practice torture, and expect certain results from those countries, in the form of information extracted. They are thereby violating the UN Convention against Torture CAT, which forbids countries to render persons to states which practice torture, and also U.S. domestic law, which also prohibits this.<|ASPECTS|>information extracted, suspects, rendition, terrorism, torture, torture by proxy<|CONCLUSION|>
| The U.S. Government uses “extraordinary rendition” as “torture by proxy”. They deliver suspects of ...
| 9d13f656-b7e0-4d1f-992a-a7f44d3afe97 |
<|TOPIC|>Do fair trade products cause more good than harm?<|ARGUMENT|>In Sri Lanka women are not allowed to work after 10 p.m. in the retail sector.<|ASPECTS|>women<|CONCLUSION|>
| In many countries, women are not granted the right to work at night
| 52f355dc-eb80-40fa-9718-98fede6922eb |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I wouldn't think this would be controversial, and yet, a majority of the movies I go to are interrupted by someone talking so there must be a bunch of dissenters out there. It is less surprising during a blockbuster in a crowded theater but lots of people still yammer on during quiet indies and dramas. I'm open to changing my view because I get so annoyed about movie talkers that I let it ruin the movie more than it needs to and I want to try to change this. Murmuring and whispering counts as talking if I can tell you are whispering you are whispering too loud . This also counts previews, because preview talkers usually turn into movie talkers and I get anxiety wondering if they will shut up when the movie starts. Exceptions to the rule Children 12 or under talking during a kids movie, provided their parents make it a teaching moment. Medical emergency fire natural disaster. Singalong or shadow cast. Nobody else is in the theater besides a friend family member who knows you well and will call you on your shit. <|ASPECTS|>quiet, well, teaching moment, ruin the movie, dissenters, previews, singalong, whispering, movie talkers, shut, murmuring, talking, anxiety, fire natural disaster, whispering too loud, medical emergency, theater, controversial, shadow cast<|CONCLUSION|>
| With a few very specific exceptions, it is never okay to talk during a movie at the theater.
| a036c168-5d27-4877-a7f2-d0fe35e96451 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Background Right now, all three Democratic members of the Virginian executive branch are embroiled in scandal. Gov. Ralph Northam's medical school yearbook from 1984 featured a photo of one man in blackface, and the other dressed in a KKK costume. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax has been accused of sexual assault by at least two women, one in 2000 and the other in 2004. And the Attorney General of Virginia, Mark Herring, admitted to wearing blackface while he was an undergrad student. All three of them are Democrats, and if all three of them were to resign, then the next in line would be the Speaker of the House of Delegates, Kirk Cox, a Republican who only won his own race with a coin toss in 2017 This is obviously a difficult time for Virginian and national Democrats. On one hand, our own principles and basic human decency obligate us to condemn these actions and push for their resignation. But the fact that all three Democratic members of the line of succession have committed these offenses makes things more complicated, in my view. The Virginia governorship is the only branch of Virginia state government that Democrats control both the House of Delegates and State Senate are controlled by Republicans. And legislative Republicans do not have veto proof majorities, meaning that a Democratic governor has real power in preventing egregious and disenfranchising legislation from passing. If the governor even if he's just acting governor became Republican, he would, in all likelihood, sign and pass such legislation, which would harm black, Latin x , female, and LGBTQ Virginians. To that end, I would like to do a brief comparison of Ralph Northam's and Kirk Cox's voting records KIRK COX VOTED FOR prohibiting the establishment of sanctuary cities HB 1257 Feb. 2018 . FOR authorizing concealed handgun carrying in Virginia HB 1852 April 2017 . FOR prohibiting state funding of abortion services HB 2264 Feb. 2017 . FOR allowing the death penalty to be administered in Virginia with drugs from secret anonymous companies and pharmacies HB 815 April 2016 . FOR allowing school security guards to carry guns HB 1234 Feb. 2016 . FOR prohibiting the state from legally pursuing religious people who discriminate against LGBTQ people HB 773 Feb. 2016 . FOR prohibiting cities from increasing the minimum wage HB 1371 Feb. 2016 . FOR allowing organized school prayer in public schools SB 236 Feb. 2014 . FOR requiring photo identification for voting SB 1256 Feb. 2013 . FOR forcing a woman to get an ultrasound before having an abortion HB 462 March 2012 . FOR repealing the state law which required all girls entering the 6th grade get the HPV vaccine HB 1112 Jan. 2012 . FOR requiring police to ask about immigration status when a suspect is being arrested HB 1060 Jan. 2012 . RALPH NORTHAM VOTED FOR the legalization of medical marijuana SB 726 April 2018 . FOR requiring female inmates to receive feminine hygiene products while in prison HB 83 March 2018 . FOR increasing the minimum wage to 9.25 SB 590 Feb. 2014 . AGAINST the requirement which forced women to get an ultrasound before having an abortion SB 617 Feb. 2014 . AGAINST the requirement of photo identification for voting SB 1256 Feb. 2013 . AGAINST requiring drug tests for welfare recipients SB 721 Feb. 2013 . AGAINST allowing adoption agencies to refuse adoptions for religious reasons i.e. for gay couples HB 189 Feb. 2012 . AGAINST tax deductions for corporations SB 131 Feb. 2012 . FOR prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation SB 747 Feb. 2011 . FOR allowing absentee voting for any reason SB 949 Jan. 2011 . AGAINST eliminating state funding for abortion Amdt. 91 April 2010 . Also, here is a list of bills that Ralph Northam by virtue of being a Democratic governor without a veto proof Republican majority in the legislature has been able to VETO these are bills that will probably pass again if Kirk Cox becomes governor Requiring a record of anyone who assists with a voter registration application HB 1144 May 2018 . Prohibiting local minimum wage ordinances HB 375 April 2018 . Prohibiting cap and trade regulations HB 1270 April 2018 . Prohibiting the establishment of sanctuary cities HB 1257 April 2018 . tl dr In any other circumstance, I would say that all three of these assholes Northam, Fairfax, and Herring should resign. However, the very real, institutional harm that will be done to minorities, especially to POC, in Virginia if all of them resign makes me think that at least one of them should stay on.<|ASPECTS|>employment discrimination, , sexual assault, veto proof, controlled, cap and trade regulations, preventing, institutional harm, harm, gay couples, veto, government, pass, school security guards, organized, religious reasons, egregious, resign, sanctuary cities, feminine hygiene products, blackface, orientation, photo identification, immigration status, drug tests, hpv vaccine, complicated, school prayer, state funding of abortion, kkk, voter, local minimum wage ordinances, lgbtq, tax deductions, discriminate, condemn, state funding, scandal, democrats, minorities, absentee voting, welfare recipients, difficult, refuse adoptions, religious, concealed handgun carrying, pursuing, basic, offenses, death penalty, disenfranchising legislation, human decency<|CONCLUSION|>
| Ralph Northam resigning would do more harm to the POC of Virginia
| 68b9b0a8-9efa-4f89-a4e1-c4c8befa9415 |
<|TOPIC|>All Lives Matter is a racist affront to BLM<|ARGUMENT|>The Electoral College is designed for this very reason to allow partisan political factions who are smaller than the majority to have more say in our political discourse.<|ASPECTS|>political discourse, political<|CONCLUSION|>
| Minorities need the additional focus on them as they are by definition smaller groups and therefore have less access to voicing their concerns.
| 4d91913f-9f0c-4c8d-a896-85f956fe19ae |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hypothesis People seem to always blame the rich for the overall level of wealth in the country being so low. I personally think consumerism is the true culprit. Exceptions I am trying to exclude people who are under the poverty line, because that is a completely different situation arguement. Personal Information proof Our family income has never exceeded 100,000. My vehicles are 10ish years old, and my house payment is 1700 month. My wife no longer works but takes care of the children. I dont buy the newest gagets, I live cheaply but comfortably. I did get a work related bonus of about 100,000 one time. I will have a networth of over a million after 11 12 years of working my job. Conclusion People end up poor because buy cars, vacations, fast food, ect. The rich and corporations are not to blame because you are poor, the american acceptance of consumerism is. Am I wrong?<|ASPECTS|>family income, networth, live, takes, consumerism, personal information, poverty line, cheaply, conclusion, comfortably, work related bonus, house payment, rich, poor, the children, acceptance, wealth, level, true culprit<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't think the rich are to blame, I think consumerism is.
| 0c9f8e9b-8f23-448c-bc76-42f456fcce24 |
<|TOPIC|>Compulsory voting<|ARGUMENT|>For example, most Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote explicitly denies them their freedom of religious practice. In some countries with universal voting, Jehovah's Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are obliged to show up to vote, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.<|ASPECTS|>excused, freedom of religious practice, blank or invalid vote, political events, jehovah, voting<|CONCLUSION|>
| Compulsory voting may infringe on freedom to express one's relgion.
| 3a3618fd-a69b-4aee-ad8d-ee9b67e27ba9 |
<|TOPIC|>Is "The Last Jedi" one of the weakest Star Wars movies so far?<|ARGUMENT|>It goes without saying that defeat is not necessarily permanent or all-encompassing. The First Order do suffer a major defeat in The Force Awakens, as does The Empire in A New Hope. Whereas the Empire struck back within the narrative, the First Order strikes back in the opening text scroll.<|ASPECTS|>permanent, defeat<|CONCLUSION|>
| The Resistance start the movie on the run from The First Order despite resoundingly defeating them in The Force Awakens, and end the movie on the run from The First Order, just with fewer people.
| ac7d95ba-afe1-4a53-bbab-a4dfb9ef4cd5 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>English is not my native so there can be a few hiccups here and there i use gender as what the person perceives him herself as between man and woman and sex as what the person's biological sex is that is male and female first i believe that sports strives to be as inclusive as possible however sometimes when 2 groups of people are too biologically uneven is when we have to factor in the differences between different people and that is the case with the male and female sexes granted some women are stronger than men physically but the average is that men are stronger than women in the physical case i honestly would love to be proved wrong on this but oh well and thus it was decided it would be best if sports were separated between male and female so that brings us to the title first trans women are women born in a man's body afaik so even if the woman has the discomfort lets just go with that for now of living in a man's body she still enjoys the strength she got from being born male and any other benefits it may come from that strength. however that also means in a sports scenario where the sex matters more than the gender the sex should take precedence since physical ability matters more and thus trans women who have male bodies should compete in men's sport where their physical ability matches with the contestants most of the time unlike in women's sport where their physical ability would mismatch more often of course most if not all of this would be for naught if trans women who have gone through transition have made them to match other women contestants but i have a few issues with that too. first if we are in a age where we can change people's bodies to suit people's needs then what does that leave us with? if its good to let trans women who have been weakened enough through transition to compete with women then is it also good to let a man who was born very weak to be able to compete with women? or it only makes sense if the man goes through some medical process first? and or it depends on what the person says about his identity even though sports are separated between the averages of male and female sexes? and if that is the case then is it okay to prohibit trans men from competing in women's sport and leave out only men's sport where he would won't be able go far without some medical changes? i just like there's no simple answer to this so am i missing something? as for the potential why do you care want your view changed well there's lots of things that i debate about that doesn't have any effect on my life irl so this is one of them i guess EDIT alright so i think i get the big picture a bit. first thing im a bit too ignorant for a cmv in this topic not to mention it was my first too. and second i thought in sports everything was allowed except heavily body changing procedures or drugs but turns out things work on a case by case basis so if something is not really that advantageous even it involved big changes its ok. and third the matters regarding sports and trans women i thought were more complicated when they are actually much simpler so you can disregard the the last bit about trans women. so i guess overall i ultimately bit more than i could chew in this cmv.<|ASPECTS|>view changed, simple answer, medical process, mismatch, trans women, weak, chew, life, change people 's bodies, physical ability, transition, compete with women, weakened, body changing procedures, changes, identity, 's needs, simpler, missing, bit, men, medical changes, ignorant<|CONCLUSION|>
| if trans women have a definite advantage in women's sport then its not wrong to prohibit them to join women's sports
| fc7da289-1704-45e4-be5e-6f2b51e405c8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I understand that this subreddit's potential is great, and that this topic exposes great sores. But I have given a delta as well as received them, and I assert that this is not a devils advocate post and I shall change my view if shown how. I am a tormented person who wants peace. I feel that true understanding demands the contemplation of the unthinkable, so here is my hypothesis War is the human equivalent of forest fires. In spite of incredible suffering, to a degree that no sane person can desire, war will, nonetheless, burn away stagnation and leave opportunities for the survivors to re shape the future in a way that isn't otherwise possible. Just as forest fires will eradicate old growth and make it possible for new plants, with new genes and genetic combinations, to grow in an environment where the sunlight isn't stolen by elder oaks and maples yep, I'm a Rush fan with a copy of Hemispheres , war is a necessary intervention in human evolution. There must be periods where both stagnant bloodlines and stale hierarchies are swept away to let something newer and more vibrant grow in its place, even though the process is horrific. I think war is a natural process, and I think it will continue to occur, and I think it's an ugly necessity for progress. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, horrific, shape the future, view, human evolution, devils advocate, sores, forest fires, eradicate old growth, sunlight, stagnation, necessity, tormented person, potential, ugly, stagnant bloodlines, understanding, peace, vibrant, contemplation, stale hierarchies, suffering, natural process, wants, war, intervention, progress, unthinkable<|CONCLUSION|>
| I think that war is good.
| e213afc4-c3ec-4831-bb90-1ae58db741ea |
<|TOPIC|>Should unpaid internships be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Training up unpaid interns can be more labour intensive than the work and results the interns themselves are likely to provide for the company.<|ASPECTS|>interns, labour intensive<|CONCLUSION|>
| The effectiveness of interns as staff members is questionable since often they move on after a few months.
| 6a59d203-0ef6-4d26-b1a1-16d159ad4b76 |
<|TOPIC|>The Ethics of Eating Animals: Is Eating Meat Wrong?<|ARGUMENT|>The meat industry is particularly harmful to its workers. Supporting the meat industry by eating meat involves being complicit in this harm.<|ASPECTS|>harmful, harm<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is better that consumers feel distasteful than to live with the negative consequences of eating real meat.
| 3f13a20a-f99b-43fc-a8be-bf8c72acc731 |
<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>The Jewish Leaders had requested that the guard be posted so that the disciples wouldn't steal the body and claim that Jesus had resurrected.<|ASPECTS|>steal, jesus had resurrected<|CONCLUSION|>
| The posted guard, the Jewish leaders and the Romans had no incentive to remove the stone.
| 882bcb00-480c-4c82-b0e3-e7cf59526502 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>On my morning and evening commute, there are several places, particularly at interstate entrances and exits, where the vast majority of traffic wants to go in the same direction. This predictably creates long lines for the lanes which provide access to the interstates and free flowing empty lanes for those which go elsewhere. Everyday, several cars use the empty lane to bypass the line of traffic, often moving from the busy lane to the unoccupied lane only to reenter the occupied lane 1,2,5 or even 10 cars down. Diagram to help visualize In my diagram, all cars want to use the right on ramp to the interstate after the traffic light. Lane B is the lane you have to be in to take the on ramp. The brown cars represent those that waited in the line, and the black cars represent those that did not by driving in lane A. The red car was a bypasser who has now rejoined the line in lane B. The red car would have been directly behind purple, had he not used Lane A to bypass. In this scenario, as the traffic light goes through its cycle, the brown cars and black cars move through the light, with the black cars moving from Lane A to B in order to get on the interstate. When black cars indicate their intention to get into Lane B, brown cars slow to allow gaps for black cars to get over, and the motion of the line in lane B is slowed to the point that purple would have made it through the green light if there were no black or red cars, but black and red moving into lane B slowed traffic and purple got stopped as the first car at the red light instead. So in this scenario, cars that arrived at this spot at a later time than purple, went in front of purple, and due to their actions, cost him an appreciable amount of time. To me this is the definition of cutting, whether it occurs in traffic or in line at a supermarket a person prioritizes their own time over another's through bypassing an existing line and their actions cost an earlier arriver more time. I know there are a thousand different traffic situations that may necessitate a driver being in lane A and bypassing traffic. I am specifically talking about drivers who know which lane they need to be in, know through experience that there is unlikely to be a natural gap in which to merge, yet bypass the line regardless. By natural gap, I mean a slower driver, traffic light patterns, and traffic movement trends that create a gap into which a person can merge without another making that gap or being forced to alter their driving after the merge to maintain a safe following distance. For example, in my diagram, if 50 of drivers typically went right at the cross street at the light, it would be reasonable for drivers to use lane A to access the natural gaps created by those turners, but if 97 of drivers go straight through to the on ramp, it is highly unlikely that a natural gap will exist for them to use. To me this behavior seems obviously equivalent to cutting in any other line, but by the proportion of drivers that I observe who do it, there must be some other viewpoints. I'm tired of watching others drive by me every day as I impatiently wait in lane B and would love a justification to cut a few minutes off my commute, so please, <|ASPECTS|>natural gap, right on ramp, traffic situations, natural gaps, free flowing empty lanes, viewpoints, slower driver, unoccupied, safe following distance, lane, diagram, bypassing traffic, appreciable amount, traffic movement trends, line of traffic, purple, bypass, traffic light patterns, cutting, gaps, brown cars, prioritizes, time, slowed traffic, cost, bypasser, empty, long lines, traffic wants<|CONCLUSION|>
| If a driver cannot reasonably expect a future natural gap in traffic, passing other drivers is the equivalent to cutting in line.
| 479836c0-4b1e-45b7-944a-7f6be936fc81 |