argument
stringlengths 116
44.5k
| conclusion
stringlengths 8
1.16k
| id
stringlengths 36
36
|
|---|---|---|
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The Declaration of Independce sates that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While I know the Declaration does not hold the same powers as the Constitution it is a indication of the way the US was designed. Now, it seems reasonable to me that we are not forced to have these rights. We are not forced to try to be happy and we are not forced to live life as freely as possible. Why then must we be forced to retain the right to life? While assisted suicide is in the popular topics, I am new to the sub and have not seen a about the non terminally ill.<|ASPECTS|>assisted suicide, rights, live life as freely, liberty, happy, terminally ill, us, powers, right to life, pursuit of happiness<|CONCLUSION|>
| Not only should docotor assisted suicide be legal but it should be expanded to people who may not be terminally ill.
| 96eb3782-d7ac-4211-9756-2e2c9138d80b |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I think it is clear that the online threats directed at feminist public figures benefit their causes. These threats have enabled mainstream media coverage to create a straw man of any opposition to them and has poisoned the well for anyone who finds their views problematic that wants to have a public dialogue about them. As evidence, for each of these women, I simply did a google search of their name and opened every recent article from a mainstream news source about them on the first 3 pages. Here is what I came up with. Anita Sarkeesian Zoe Quinn Every article mentions the threats, and only two provide anything close to objective coverage of the controversy. The narrative for almost all mainstream coverage of these women universally supports them, and an inordinate portion of these articles focuses on harassment from a small group of psychopaths and trolls, which usually includes quotes of some of the most tasteless comments for shock value. Because of this, I believe that the threats and trolling these women have experienced has greatly helped their cause. People unfamiliar with the games industry who read these articles are led to believe that a large portion of those opposing these women are psychopath basement dwellers making rape threats. Because this narrative helps their movement so much, I believe that feminists who support the actions of these women can definitely help their movement by creating many fake, anonymous accounts and viciously threatening feminist public figures with them. Drawing from this, while hardcore members of Gamergate have undoubtedly trolled and threatened these women, I believe a decent portion of the vitriol against these women is posted by their supporters.<|ASPECTS|>online threats, public dialogue, objective, poisoned the well, shock value, women, threats, anonymous accounts, feminist public figures, straw man, helped their cause, threatened, controversy, help their movement, helps, rape threats, vitriol, psychopath basement dwellers, causes, threatening, trolled, benefit, trolling, movement, fake, tasteless, harassment<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is in the best interest of internet feminists to make fake accounts to threaten people like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian
| 71e82425-da5f-45b1-b99b-5a910ac06cdf |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There is this notion in our society that confidence is a thing. Phrases like Just be confident Learn how to be confident are fairly common. However, confidence in and of itself does not exist. Confident people are only confident because they have something that makes them high value as determined by society, and therefore, they get to be confident. People who lack confidence do not have high value as determined by society, and therefore they are not confident. If anybody's level of confidence does not match their value, as determined by society, then that is delusion, not confidence. <|ASPECTS|>high value, confidence, value, confident, delusion<|CONCLUSION|>
| Confidence does not exist
| 1fc14ca7-71df-4cba-babb-50b764922c4e |
<|TOPIC|>Should fracking be banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Methane leaks are as high as 6-12% Given that any leakages over 3.2% indicate that gas is worse for the climate than coal, fracking is not a viable alternative to other fossil fuels.<|ASPECTS|>, viable, fossil fuels, climate, leakages, methane leaks<|CONCLUSION|>
| Methane, the most harmful greenhouse gas, is released into the atmosphere in large quantities by fracking.
| 2b185088-4269-4cdd-8ee6-b6268a305992 |
<|TOPIC|>the development of a missile defence system<|ARGUMENT|>The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations Mearsheimer, 1993. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of a strategic national missile defense system. The United States has every right to develop such a system if it will furnish a greater measure of defense for its citizens and interests. US military technology is the most advanced and prodigiously financed in the world, which is why it is generally the United States that stands at the forefront of new defense and combat systems. The National Missile Defense program is simply the newest tool in the arsenal of the world’s greatest military, whose purpose is entirely defensive. To shield itself from potential ballistic missile, and even nuclear, attack the United States has the right to build a missile shield to defend itself and its allies under its aegis. There is no principled justification for a country to not pursue defense initiatives that benefit itself and that it wishes to pursue.<|ASPECTS|>prodigiously financed, defensive, strategic national missile defense, defense, benefit, principled justification, defense and combat systems, shield, advanced, right to develop, fundamental building block, new, nation-state, right to defend, potential ballistic missile, right, defense initiatives, missile shield<|CONCLUSION|>
| As a matter of principle, every country, including the United States, has the right to defend itself to the best of its technological and economic ability
| c62a944f-eda2-41c8-95ff-7ac31dac1f61 |
<|TOPIC|>Should churches pay tax?<|ARGUMENT|>A lot of people make regular payments to these organizations, and they would not do that unless they perceived some benefit conferred from the exchange. It can't be mere altruism or people would pay even if they didn't attend.<|ASPECTS|>altruism, benefit conferred, people, payments, pay<|CONCLUSION|>
| They occasionally sell goods, as during a rummage or bake sale, and they even call a scheduled gathering a "service".
| ab257459-58f6-4029-84ae-d5d1c5296ba3 |
<|TOPIC|>Mike Pence Would Make a Better President than Donald Trump<|ARGUMENT|>Pence on the other hand, tried to defend Trump and repeatedly said he and Trump denounced specific hate groups involved in the violence in Charlottesville, including neo-Nazis, the KKK and white nationalists, and said there was "no moral equivalency drawn" by the president's comments.<|ASPECTS|>hate groups, moral equivalency<|CONCLUSION|>
| After neo-Nazis, anti-semites and white supremacists murdered a woman in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, Donald Trump praised them as "very fine people" saying violence had taken place on "many sides
| 5a10e766-27e8-484c-b7cb-c42827a4c224 |
<|TOPIC|>Free Will or Determinism: Do We Have Free Will?<|ARGUMENT|>"This criminal deserves jail time" can be rightfully interchangeable with "we need the criminal to have jail time" in a perfect justice system, since the morality of a society should never be considered as useless<|ASPECTS|>morality, system, jail time, perfect, criminal<|CONCLUSION|>
| The question of a non-punishing justice system may simply rephrase our wording whereas the same concepts will still be essential for this justice to be functional.
| f9877c16-29be-462b-aa18-34838dcf1b72 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This might be a really moronic idea but I'll pose it anyways because that's what is for. Please be gentle. I was thinking about the last US presidential election and how awful the two candidates were. Pretty much everybody I knew, left and right, said something along the lines of the real tragedy is that we had such shitty candidates , or it's a choice between no way and fuck no , or they were the worst candidates in the history of US elections . That got me thinking. If so many people even refuse to vote out of principle, what if there was an option for those people ? On the ballot, there's Hillary , Trump , and Mulligan . If Mulligan gets a plurality of votes, the entire election is called off. An emergency election is called, where neither of the mulliganned presidential candidates are eligible to run. And the election can be mulliganned as many times as necessary until someone wins. One nice thing is that it creates a real, viable option for those I hate both sides voters, who I think are criminally underrepresented. For example if 40 of republicans think trump sucked, and 40 of democrats think clinton sucked, they could find common ground in the suckiness of both their candidates and join together for the anybody but these clowns choice, and actually outnumber either of the base demographics. If politicians had to suddenly listen to the reasonable people in the middle, there would be a lot less hardline political nonsense, I think. Though maybe I'm not thinking about this in the right way. Is there some fatal flaw in this idea? . <|ASPECTS|>candidates, election, awful, plurality of votes, suckiness, fatal flaw, viable option, trump, shitty candidates, hillary, tragedy, emergency election, refuse, hardline political nonsense, moronic, criminally underrepresented, eligible, less, mulliganned, option, principle, vote, choice, gentle<|CONCLUSION|>
| Elections should have a mulligan do-over option where brand-new elections with new candidates are held.
| 73640d8b-9fa0-4fde-a892-13549fce0439 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that communism fails in practice because it does not incentivize people on the individual level. The government wants people to choose to put society ahead of the individual. However, there is not enough motivation for the citizen to sacrifice his her own well being for that of the nation. Even though the entire group would benefit if everyone performed these actions, people are better off acting in their own self interest. This seems eerily similar to the concept of group selection in evolutionary biology. This theory claims that any behavior that benefits the entire population will be selected for. However, few people accept this theory because it fails to take into account the advantage on an individual level. While evolution occurs on a population level, selection almost always occurs on the individual level. In my eyes, the solution for making communism work is to focus on incentivizing the individual to commit positive actions.<|ASPECTS|>, group selection, population, commit, motivation, benefit, communism fails, incentivize people, positive actions, behavior, selected, choose, benefits, advantage, selection, self interest, sacrifice, incentivizing, individual, society ahead, evolution<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe communism often fails in practice because of a reliance on outdated "group selection" ideas.
| 32e0114a-2905-4872-bed3-8e9ef3a18a36 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Aside from celebrating achievements or specific, one time occasions e.g. weddings, funerals, etc. , I think that other celebrations do not matter. Christmas, birthdays, Halloween, Easter, and other such occasions have no real connection to our lives, and I think that the effort put into such celebrations is hardly worth it. I understand the concepts behind occasions such as Thanksgiving obviously, to give thanks , but why do we not treat every day equally in this case, be equally thankful every day ? I also know that many people just use celebrations as excuses to party hard and get completely smashed which I've never understood to be particularly fun either . There is a certain bias here, because I do not derive much pleasure from celebrations, either because I have never experienced any good celebrations, or because I do not enjoy celebration in itself. I would love to hear other viewpoints, because anybody else I talk to will call me a party pooper or something along those lines. Also, please try not to use anecdotal evidence, as you may enjoy celebrating more than I do.<|ASPECTS|>, party pooper, funerals, connection to our lives, bias, fun, pleasure, thankful, equally, viewpoints, smashed, anecdotal evidence, celebrations, party hard, celebrating, excuses, achievements, celebration<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that periodic celebrations i.e. not achievements are a waste of time and resources.
| 8b278601-e4fe-4475-8611-0f9d4b79b6b6 |
<|TOPIC|>Should We Sing Problematic Christmas Songs?<|ARGUMENT|>Foreign aid risks making Third World countries dependent on Western countries with no long-term policies to encourage economic development.<|ASPECTS|>economic development, dependent, third world countries<|CONCLUSION|>
| Foreign aid efforts are frequently criticised for being white-washed and benefiting developed countries.
| a3367586-19c7-4e4f-b2bd-c77416931d91 |
<|TOPIC|>arm the Syrian rebels<|ARGUMENT|>Democracies should support moderate groups seeking to oust dictators because the result will hopefully be a moderate, democratic state. This would then be a reliable partner for the future that would be more willing to help engage and resolve the region's problems. But this is not all about being high minded and wanting to promote democracy in the Middle East, arms need to be provided in order to ensure future influence in Syria. We already know that there are jihadis operating in Syria so it is plain that this is a conflict that will eventually have wider implications for the west. If we want to have influence in Syria after Assad is overthrown then we need to begin helping opposition groups. It is in our interest to build up the moderate groups so as to deny support to the extremists; once this is over we would be in a much better position if we have grateful friends on the ground rather than groups who are resentful that we provided fine words but no real help. We don't want to find ourselves having to root out terrorists from the air using UAVs.1 1 Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013<|ASPECTS|>conflict, grateful friends, arming, problems, moderate, words, wider, jihadis, implications, deny support, democracy, helping, high minded, resolve, democratic state, future influence, root, opposition groups, influence, moderate groups, terrorists, reliable partner, oust dictators<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is in the national interest for democracies to support those seeking to oust dictators
| 34757044-0546-4cf9-80eb-fda0e9ad0e30 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I know this is kind of a controversial opinion, not that I’m trying to martyr myself here but I’ve been reading some interesting books, namely The Kindly Ones by Jonathan Lethem, and I’ve been caught on an idea I can’t seem to shake, though I would like to. Sometimes I hear a lot of weighty, anguished, discussion over the “how” and “why” of how men could commit mass murder on the scale of the Nazi’s. How they do it? How could they kill babies, women, men, children? How could they shoot these people in cold blood or gas them in chambers? Basically, how could these people do these evil things? Now I won’t try and compare the “evil score” between the Allies and the Nazi’s because I think they’ll win overall. What I’m arguing is that the actions by which both sides soldiers killed civilians were equally moral or immoral in weight. It doesn’t matter the reasons, American airmen knew they were killing civilians when they dropped bombs in Tokyo, Hamburg, or Nagasaki. They knew that people would die. They weren’t idiots. So did the Nazi soldiers gassing Jews in camps or killing them in a forest. But on an eye to eye level for the mostly. And that is where I think the key difference lies in how we appreciate each subject. American pilots have a couple thousand feet of difference in between them and their targets though. But, they nonetheless directly killed thousands, upon thousands, of civilians. However, they won the war. So they define their actions in popular culture as necessary and justified. But based on the laws we have in the Geneva convention now I’m pretty sure they could’ve been tried by the Nazis if they won. Now of course one can argue that the civilians killed in bombing raids were a necessary cost of war in regards to the Allied powers. They were the collateral damage that was unfortunately caught up in the campaign to destroy the German and Japanese armies. But, and I’m not saying this is something I believe to be true, because I don’t, the German soldiers mowing down civilians could have easily made the same argument in 1943. That it was a necessary precaution to eliminate The risk of Pardison activity in a vulnerable rear zone. My point is that both soldiers, on the American or Nazi side, essentially made the same arguments and justifications in their heads as to why the civilians had to die. And I’m sure that US soldiers on the ground could’ve been convinced to do the same thing the Nazis did in Eastern Europe had the US government put the idea out there. They would have followed orders, they would have killed men, women, and children too. There’s no moral difference between a little Jewish boy being gassed in Auchwitz and A little German girl being burned to death in Dresden. Both are equally tragic, and both equally wrong.<|ASPECTS|>idiots, killed men, moral, killing, kindly, gas, directly, kill babies, tragic, convinced, cold blood, gassing jews, nazis, equally wrong, justifications, appreciate each subject, immoral, die, pardison activity, evil score, risk, the war, controversial opinion, collateral damage, cost of war, vulnerable rear zone, shoot, moral difference, tried by, killed, commit mass murder, difference, people would die, arguments, equally, martyr, civilians, evil things, necessary and justified, eye level, nazi, followed orders, killing civilians<|CONCLUSION|>
| Morally, there’s no difference between Nazi soldiers killing Jews in Auchwitz and an American pilots firebombing German civilians in Dresden. And even more, there’s no fundamental difference in the psychology or justification.
| 959c196b-5917-4699-b6a3-8f2a4e83f8ce |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In the U.S. you learn the pledge in Kindergarten if not earlier . Every morning we pretty much pledged our lives to a government before we were old enough to understand what we were saying. This may be extreme to say but many leaders controlled their subjects by indoctrinating children. I get this is not on the same level as that but again, every morning starting at the age of 5 I pledged my life to a government when I could not understand what I was actually saying. I believe I should not have had to been taught this until I was old enough to understand what this anthem is actually saying. Maybe sometime in high school would have been best. Edit View has been changed. Thank you to G Platypus and everyone else<|ASPECTS|>leaders, taught, controlled their subjects, pledged, high school, indoctrinating children, life to, learn the pledge, government, lives, edit view<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance should not be recited every morning by children in school.
| b7b3f232-32a8-4df6-942c-704811ea3f12 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The biggest argument against religion is lack of proof, though this is only against a very small part of religion. Worship for 5 or so minutes is for the divine entity then the rest of the time is always for improving yourself as a person based on the teachings of the religion. It is nothing more than philosophies about what is the right thing. People arguing against religion are all wrong because they never cover the beliefs part of it, only the part of the divine entity. Thus, religious people should also care less about people who disagree with their religion because they only disagree with the small part of it. I actually often see athiests among the students, because teachings of charity and helping the little man are agreed to be good to the vast majority of people. When have you heard anyone argue agains that? A lot of religions don't even have a divine entity, just a wise teacher. In fact, these divine entities often speak in metaphors so their miracles could easily be something else entirely, or something like the placebo effect. Then all religion can easily be right, though just in the wrong way or not explaining how it be. Almost all religions actually overlap in some way. Being charitable, avoiding rudeness and adultery, etc. Athiests agree with these views, yet the wars are still endlessly fought based on the divine entity bit and nothing else. In fact, a person converted to athiesm is very likely to still keep all of the same views except for evolution. So there is my theory.<|ASPECTS|>miracles, overlap, religions, religious people, metaphors, charity, wise teacher, charitable, effect, teachings, avoiding, improving, wars, adultery, right thing, lack of proof, views, argue, divine, fought, divine entity, rudeness, athiests, religion, easily be right, philosophies, disagree, evolution, care less, beliefs<|CONCLUSION|>
| Religion is thought too much to be all about the divine entity, it is much more about the core commandments and beliefs.
| ca4ebcef-8174-4ae3-9321-baf2d0c54f67 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>From personal experience and anecdotal evidence from others I know of no instances where a home schooled child has greatly benefitted from their method of schooling. They have come out unsuited to their peer groups and with a whole lot of behavioral quirks that inhibit their ability to interact with others. The ONLY case when homeschooling should be used is when the child young adult has mental social disorders that would make normal school damaging to them. Now because my view is based on my experiences I know there must be another side. That's why I'm doing this . Thanks in advance for your responses Edit I appreciate the feedback I've gotten today, and both u KevinWester and u imaginethat1017 have changed my view on this issue. The studies provided and perspective of incredibly poor schooling options made me see it in a different way. Thanks guys<|ASPECTS|>homeschooling, unsuited, method of schooling, ability, side, normal school damaging, anecdotal evidence, feedback, benefitted, interact with others, mental social disorders, behavioral quirks, peer groups, poor schooling options<|CONCLUSION|>
| Homeschooling is a practice that almost always damages the child, leaving them less equipped to cope with real world interaction and social behavior
| 52902778-dfef-4397-b04d-acb473a7cb74 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is based on a few observations The actual amount of smoke must be tiny compared to the amount inhaled by first hand smokers. Even if someone's smoking a cigarette in a small enclosed room we're talking about a dilution of a couple of orders of magnitude between a smoker and a passive smoker. Smoking is unhealthy, sure, but people usually develop illness and health issues from first hand smoking over long periods of time, and even then there are plenty of people maybe a reasonably sized minority? who don't end up dying from it in the long run. If you take these statistics and adjust them for the massively diluted levels of smoke a passive smoker would inhale, it seems they'd end up completely insignificant to most people. Are tobacco leaves particularly carcinogenic when burnt compared to other matter, like incense sticks, burnt toast, car fuel, bonfires even We're happy to ignore these sources of smoke. Finding new health risks associated with smoking has become fashionable stories that follow this theme have always gained attention and been shared. This, to me, is why it's plausible that actual health risks in real life are insignificant and the knowledge still spreads. I can't for the life of me find any actual papers with hard data about health risks for passive smokers. No percentages or meaningful information apart from qualitative statements like it is associated with etc. Driving is associated with sudden death is certainly true but for most people is worth the risk. Change my view reddit<|ASPECTS|>tiny, view, dilution, diluted levels, illness, health issues, meaningful information, passive, risk, smoke, driving, carcinogenic, insignificant, amount, unhealthy, sudden death, percentages, knowledge still spreads, statements, data, dying from, health risks, worth<|CONCLUSION|>
| Second hand smoke can't possibly be dangerous enough to care about in the real world
| 524d1a5c-2ff1-40db-a3ab-86d844406a48 |
<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Men are valued above women in most traditional cultures, so it is also a predisposition. In Victorian England, it made scientists believe that female animals play minor to no role in the natural selection by secondary sex-related attributes. Later biologists were able to decisively falsify this assumption.<|ASPECTS|>falsify, sex-related attributes, valued above women, men, natural selection, predisposition<|CONCLUSION|>
| A biological predisposition to some kind of belief does not prove the validity of this belief.
| eec1a51d-96b1-422d-90c6-3c274ad1e898 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I have a close friend that is very into the paleo diet and thinks grain is super bad for you. My friend states that 'humans aren't meant to eat grain' because it isn't part of our 'natural' diet and that it can't be digested well. She thinks that we should only eat like hunter gathers. I don't think that there is any sort of actual natural diet for humans, we have evolved to eat all sorts of things, so wouldn't we have evolved by now to be able to eat grain? From what I have read on the subject, grains don't seem to be necessarily bad for you, but also not that beneficial. If grains were so terrible and made people sick then why does every nutritionist in the world not say this? I believe that I already eat healthy and that grain does not make me feel sick. .<|ASPECTS|>eat grain, hunter gathers, eat healthy, bad, beneficial, terrible, eat, digested well, sick, paleo diet, natural diet, diet, feel sick, grain, made people<|CONCLUSION|>
| I don't believe grains are bad for you
| bb3787df-6efc-4991-a9dc-4f0ffa9b0d82 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Many people say that the ice bucket challenge is a waste of water while third world countries suffer and kids die of thirst. I don't see anything wrong with using that water to raise awareness and collect donations. There is no difference in playing with water in your garden or use it to cool off. Water is in a first world country is simply a cost factor and is basically unlimited over here. Bringing up third world countries always has been a flawed argument.<|ASPECTS|>raise awareness, flawed argument, waste of water, third, cost factor, collect donations, cool, playing with water, die, unlimited, suffer, thirst<|CONCLUSION|>
| Many people say that the ice bucket challenge is a waste of water while third world countries suffer and kids die of thirst. I don't see anything wrong with using that water to raise awareness and collect donations.
| fdead66c-00fa-4caa-83c8-0aa12ec677ea |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>This post was inspired by another recent one When a political ideology advocates solving social problems through government intervention, it reflects a worldview that shifts the problem to someone else. Instead of showing care and sympathy for people with an actual problem, it allows people to claim that they care while they do nothing but vote for politicians who agree to take money from rich people, and solve the problem for them. A truly caring, compassionate, sympathetic person would want to use their own personal resources to help people in need in a direct way. They would acknowledge suffering, and try to relieve it. They would volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charitable causes, give a few dollars to the homeless guy on the side of the street, etc. Asking the government to solve social problems is passing the buck, and avoiding the responsibility that caring implies. Therefore, conservative libertarian ideologies are intrinsically more caring than liberal ones. <|ASPECTS|>compassionate, charitable causes, care, donate, sympathy, solving, libertarian ideologies, caring, social problems, help people in need, rich people, homeless guy, responsibility, relieve, sympathetic, acknowledge, worldview, solve the problem, suffering, personal resources<|CONCLUSION|>
| Politically liberal ideologies are less sympathetic and caring than conservative ones
| e1d69e65-8f2a-45e7-b02c-42a06465a7f2 |
<|TOPIC|>The Trolley Problem: What's the Right Solution?<|ARGUMENT|>Cooperativas, the basic form of Fair Trade products, are more bureaucratic and centralized than market based systems. It allows for more entry points of corruption.<|ASPECTS|>entry points, bureaucratic and centralized, cooperativas, corruption<|CONCLUSION|>
| Fair Trade marketing system provides more opportunities for corruption than the normal marketing system.
| 63f99523-acf9-4404-9320-981519809d77 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>AGI 46,671 Fed. Tax 5,098 State Tax 1,920 Property Tax home car 3,287 Sales tax approximation based on Mint data 1,000 Total tax 11,305 Total tax is 24 of my AGI. I feel this amount of tax is oppressive, especially considering how tight my budget is. I understand the need for taxes, but I feel that too much of the burden is falling on people who barely make enough money to keep themselves out of debt. I'm tired of pinching pennies and watching thousands of my dollars dumped into a government that seems to turn a blind eye to billionaires creating legal ways to avoid paying taxes. I don't want to get too political here though, I'd like somebody to convince me that a person with my income should be expected to pay over 20 of that income to the government s .<|ASPECTS|>budget, taxes, sales tax, pinching pennies, legal ways, income, total tax, burden, political, tax is oppressive, property tax, avoid paying taxes, debt, billionaires<|CONCLUSION|>
| In 2014 I earned $47k and paid over 20% of that income in taxes. I'm overtaxed,
| e6d8f01d-0c2d-4a92-a08d-363a0768b96b |
<|TOPIC|>Time for a Maximum Wage? Should the US Limit CEO Pay?<|ARGUMENT|>Only 0.1% of the population are employed as high paid CEOs. There simply are not enough of them to significantly affect the prices of goods bought by everyone else. This means that the amount that they are paid has no effect on the benefit that other workers derive form their pay. Altering their pay does not change whether the payment given to other employees can be described as unfair treatment.<|ASPECTS|>unfair treatment, prices, high paid ceos, goods, benefit<|CONCLUSION|>
| The existence of a disparity of wages between owners/CEOs and the lowest paid employee is not sufficient to indicate exploitation.
| 11351954-7a94-43d0-a789-fb787059ee49 |
<|TOPIC|>Anarchy is the only ethical system of society.<|ARGUMENT|>Companies with enough power can deny necessary goods to locals, if for some reason the good can be sold more profitably elsewhere, e. g. Nestlé Water Scandal<|ASPECTS|>profitably, deny necessary goods<|CONCLUSION|>
| Problems with free market economies that result from self interest cannot be solved with an appeal to competition.
| 2e24447d-b661-4a4e-b630-c4b98cd39e01 |
<|TOPIC|>Humans should act to fight climate change<|ARGUMENT|>There is a well-established mathematical/scientific field dedicated to the study of complex systems Here's a simple example: though you can't predict how many connections any given member of a social network may have, it has been observed that the distribution of numbers of connections of all the members of the network will exhibit a power-law.<|ASPECTS|>power-law<|CONCLUSION|>
| Meaningful and true claims and understandings can still be made about complex systems.
| 0f726f00-c88f-4999-adaf-76a990300c93 |
<|TOPIC|>Should the UK Remain in the EU if the only Alternative is a Hard Brexit?<|ARGUMENT|>Outside the EU, the UK cannot be subjected to forced immigration like the "2015 European Agenda on Migration which obliges member countries to fulfil quotas for asylum seekers.<|ASPECTS|>asylum seekers, forced immigration, quotas<|CONCLUSION|>
| The UK should be able to control and limit its immigration policy as it sees fit.
| c448cf77-0035-4638-9df8-36d314c0b10a |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that if a mother wants to give her newborn child up for adoption and there is a family willing and able to adopt the child, then the mother should not be liable for mandatory child support in the case that the father does not agree to give the child up for adoption. While I do believe that the father should have the right to claim the child and deny the adoption, he should not then be able to collect child support after he overrides the mother's wish to give the child up for adoption. If there is no family willing to adopt the child, then I believe mandatory child support is necessary since there is no one else willing to provide for the child. However, if there is a willing and able family to adopt the child, then it is no longer a question of whether the child’s needs can be fulfilled and now a question of who should raise the child. And in the case that the biological parents disagree on whether they are able to support a child together, I do not believe that one parent should be able to obligate the other into supporting the child when there is another family eager to provide support for the child. For example, consider the case that two 18 year olds have a child together. The mother may realize that they do not have the resources to support a child and that raising a child will jeopardize their chances of developing careers or completing college educations. In this case, I do not think the father should have the right to obligate her to support the child if she is unable to convince him that they need to move forward with an adoption due to the fact that they do not have the resources to support a child. Essentially, I do not think the father should have the right to deny the support that the adoptive family is offering the child and then demand the support from the mother. Obviously, the reason that we make child support mandatory is because the child should never suffer as an innocent bystander and had no choice whatsoever in the matter. However, in the same way that the parents are trusted to make decisions in the best interest of the child with regard to spending child support, parents should be trusted to make the decision in the best interest of the child with regard to adoption. If the father cannot support the child, he should be expected to move forward with adoption as it is in the best interest of the child. As an aside, if the father declines the adoption to keep the child himself and the mother does not opt to support the child, she would lose all right to custody of the child. Also, the same should apply if the roles are reversed and the mother declines the father's wish to move forward with adoption. Finally, I am not advocating what I've seen called financial abortion where the father has the right to decline providing child support if the mother fails to get an abortion. I view abortion as a complicated medical choice and does not obligate the mother to support the child she should only be obligated to support the child if there is no willing and able adoptive family .<|ASPECTS|>, trusted, decisions, family willing, liable, right to decline, roles, right to custody, willing and able family, child support, developing careers, child, adoption, deny, resources, support a child, best interest of the child, complicated medical choice, chances, financial abortion, support, mother, father 's wish, father, family, completing, decision, 's, obligate, jeopardize, child together, right to claim the child, suffer, college educations, right to obligate, mandatory child support, supporting, child ’, needs, collect, innocent bystander, right to deny the support, choice<|CONCLUSION|>
| If there is a family willing and able to adopt a child, then the mother should not be liable for child support if the father does not agree to give the child up for adoption.
| 329a1485-67c9-480a-b2bc-2e14465012dd |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm no professional when it comes to logic or argumentation but I have been pondering this thought lately. I am not a believer of any after life or supernatural. If after death we experience what we experienced before birth which is nothingness, then isnt life meaningless? Why should we continue to suffer when life is literally a constant suffering? I personally believe life is meaningless. When you are under the assumption that you experience nothingness when you are dead, what is the point of living? The only reason I can personally see for living is to not inflict additional emotional suffering on those that you know and care about you. But if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering. Its been something I've been thinking a lot about lately Change my view, please. Also, this is not a cry for help and I will not be jumping off the golden gate bridge any time soon.<|ASPECTS|>meaningless, thinking, logic, supernatural, nothingness, constant, living, life, life meaningless, cry for help, professional, suffering, suffer, emotional suffering<|CONCLUSION|>
| Life is meaningless and we should all commit suicide
| cc18be2f-ac46-4a0b-b77a-f60dcf56d3e5 |
<|TOPIC|>Has Religion Been a Good Thing for Humanity?<|ARGUMENT|>The First Communion is normally received around the ages of 7 to 10 after a period or cathequesis education. And Confirmation the time when the believer really gives consent, also happens when children are young or in their mid-teens.<|ASPECTS|>consent<|CONCLUSION|>
| Religions are routinely introduced to children who are too young to make an informed choice.
| 2a1b5ed0-2960-4f49-9950-2e8123ee171c |
<|TOPIC|>Is Morality Objective?<|ARGUMENT|>Freedom to defy one's nature is logically impossible, because an agent's decisions are necessarily the result of its nature. An agent couldn't decide to defy their nature, because that decision would itself be following its nature.<|ASPECTS|>nature, decisions, freedom to defy, defy, following<|CONCLUSION|>
| An inability to contradict His own nature does not count against God's omnipotence.
| f34e6b39-7731-49d7-8f19-4ccc39bf5770 |
<|TOPIC|>Is it okay to physically torture prisoners?<|ARGUMENT|>The tortured person can confess a crime he never committed, just to avoid suffering. Historical proof was people confessing to be actual witches/wizards during the XVII century European Inquisition.<|ASPECTS|>avoid, suffering, confess, tortured person, witches/wizards<|CONCLUSION|>
| People being tortured are focused on stopping the pain, and thus would be willing to say anything, leading them to say false information
| fc9abc19-9c02-4fd3-ba4e-d1e6f113d1d2 |
<|TOPIC|>The parties participating in elections for the European Parliament should hold primary elections<|ARGUMENT|>This could cause people to not vote because the voting system is too complicated for them to understand what/who they are voting for.<|ASPECTS|>complicated, vote, voting system<|CONCLUSION|>
| This would add more complexity to a system which is in itself already complex.
| 0dc50417-cd6a-4066-9e51-49ceb12ad317 |
<|TOPIC|>The international community should work towards recognizing an independent Kurdish state<|ARGUMENT|>Creating a one world government allows people to conceive of the world as a single system. This allows for problems that require cooperative rather than competitive action to take place, such as climate change and pollution. This is because in this kind of problem, taking the first real action fundamental systemic change is detrimental to their economic output. Thus, alternatively, if a separate entity could coax such actions via some kind of payment, it could cause innovation.<|ASPECTS|>innovation, detrimental, competitive action, single system, pollution, cooperative, systemic change, economic output, climate change<|CONCLUSION|>
| More centralization would solve collective action problems that create climate change and pollution.
| 871dfb2e-dfee-4faf-9323-ee1d613effbf |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>More specifically, if I come to the conclusion as an individual that I am not compatable with the status quo or direction of the government of my birth country and have lost all faith that it could change I shouldn't be expected to reside in a different country to live how I choose nor be prosecuted for practicing my own truely held belief system if I chose not to move. I do not believe I should be allowed to practice those beliefs outside of my own land. I believe that I should be able to be free from the government with which I do not want to be a part of.<|ASPECTS|>status quo, faith, belief system, compatable, beliefs, free from the government<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe I should be able to withdraw my consent to be governed and not be forcibly governed; while still residing on my land without fear of persecution.
| c72d7148-da78-4381-8ecf-2cfe657d9032 |
<|TOPIC|>Who Will Win the Game of Thrones?<|ARGUMENT|>As the show goes on Littlefinger is slowly losing grasp on people as he throws away their trust. In the first season he had many people either with him or just working alongside him, but now as he continues to backstab people he is slowly losing their trust like the situation with Sansa.<|ASPECTS|>trust, grasp on people, backstab<|CONCLUSION|>
| He knows how to play the game of thrones unlike the other three powers: Cersei, Daenerys, and Jon Snow.
| b1055cc7-d720-4cbf-94ca-c9acb5cc26a2 |
<|TOPIC|>limit the right to trial by jury in some criminal cases.<|ARGUMENT|>It is very difficult to carry out trial by jury if people involved in the case continuously attempt to tamper with the jury, or unduly influence its decision. For example, the UK home office has stated that trying to protect jurors from tampering can be extremely disruptive to the jurors themselves, who may in extreme cases need police protection 24 hours a day. Cases involving international terrorism, drug smuggling or organized crime are the most likely to present such problems 1. In the infamous trial of Italian anarchists Vanzetti and Sacco, one of the jurors had a bomb thrown at his house, despite a huge number of security measures taken by the Massachusetts government 2. Another example is the 2008 case of a large armed robbery at Heathrow. After three mistrials, which cost £22m and the last of which collapsed after a serious attempt at jury tampering, it was decided that the case would be tried by a judge alone 3. If eliminating the jury is the only way to ensure that a a trial occurs and b jurors are safe, particularly when it is the defendants' fault that a fair trial by jury is untenable, it may be necessary to do so.<|ASPECTS|>international terrorism, mistrials, trial by jury, disruptive, drug smuggling, decision, security measures, jurors, untenable, tamper with the jury, influence, fair trial, police protection, safe, jury tampering, organized, armed robbery, difficult<|CONCLUSION|>
| It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where there is a real danger of jury tampering or intimidation.
| 7cf6b3b3-b426-4444-94b7-075e03d1015c |
<|TOPIC|>Should Bitcoin Be Adopted As Legal Tender Worldwide?<|ARGUMENT|>As Bitcoin's hash rate has been consistently increasing, reaching an all-time-high in August 2019 a 51% attack is virtually impossible in the foreseeable future.<|ASPECTS|>hash rate, attack<|CONCLUSION|>
| A 51% attack has never successfully been executed on the Bitcoin network.
| 03eb01fd-752e-47eb-b107-d23cb4d73cd8 |
<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are generally two reasons as to why living beings will cause harm to others of their kind Desperation. Feeling the instinctual need for food, water, resources, social acceptance, etc. Revenge. Violence that is met with punishment will typically grow into more violence, even if the punishment was intended as justice. Justice is blind, and it is keeping humanity in the dark. I know it is a hard thing to accept, but the only way to truly bring peace, eliminate jihad, be Christian, or whatever you want to call it, is to respond to violence with understanding and Love. That means looking at life through the eyes of others before deciding that they should have to experience more pain for an event that originally caused you some pain in the past. It is much healthier to forgive and forget than it is to seethe in vengeful rage. Sometimes a little pain can serve as a good way of teaching or learning a lesson, that is why it exists though these days it is being abused. Constantly wishing pain upon others will only bring it upon yourself. Now admittedly, there are those who cause pain to others due to mental illness, but that is typically the result of a rough childhood, which is usually directly or indirectly caused by a scarcity of resources or Love. However, as the human race, we do have the technology and resources necessary to eradicate scarcity and much of the world hunger and pain that currently exists although people raised in materialistic first world countries rarely have the heart to actually do so, the world is slowly changing. All of the people I know would rather help someone than hurt them. But for the people in charge, it is hard to make generous decisions when everyone has been conditioned to do whatever they need to do to earn as much money as possible. You know you want to, and damn, I do too. I simply can not imagine how all of the starving people must feel when there are people on this Earth who are surrounded by more wealth in a single day than an average first worlder can hope to make in a lifetime.<|ASPECTS|>, pain, money, harm, instinctual need, vengeful rage, eradicate, scarcity of resources, social acceptance, hunger and pain, eliminate, technology and resources, others, rough childhood, respond, life, scarcity, justice is blind, wealth, violence, cause, generous decisions, abused, dark, understanding, wishing, teaching, peace, hurt, learning, lesson, justice, jihad, healthier, rather, desperation, help someone, humanity, starving people, bring, mental illness, forgive and forget, punishment, food, earn, love<|CONCLUSION|>
| I believe that World Peace is within our grasp. I challenge You to
| f5ab8ddc-1c28-4493-a72d-03f3c5c31f34 |
<|TOPIC|>Google decision to stop censoring results in China<|ARGUMENT|>Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said in January of 2010 that Google had made an "irrational business decision" because "the U.S. is the most extreme when it comes to free speech,” and because Google does business in many other countries with censorship laws such as France, where Nazi denial is banned, and Australia where certain porn sites are banned.3<|ASPECTS|>free speech, censorship laws, nazi, irrational business decision<|CONCLUSION|>
| Censorship is common globally; China was in-bounds with Google
| ff5bfcff-1be6-4d5c-980d-4cd55e467a72 |
<|TOPIC|>China Human Rights Abuses, U.S. Trade Barriers<|ARGUMENT|>It is wrong to place economics over human rights when weighing up the right foreign policy choices. Ultimately, World Trade Organisation membership should not restrict the United States’ freedom of action. WTO membership already carries a high price in preventing the US Administration from protecting American industries and farmers from unfair foreign competition, including dumping. As US jobs are increasingly outsourced abroad, it may be time to reconsider our membership of the WTO. Given the USA’s economic weight and friendly relations with developed democracies around the world, bilateral and regional trade deals could be a preferable alternative to the WTO.<|ASPECTS|>foreign policy choices, outsourced, friendly relations, economic weight, jobs, unfair foreign competition, freedom of action, economics, preferable alternative, high price, membership, human rights<|CONCLUSION|>
| It is wrong to place economics over human rights when weighing up the right foreign policy choices. ...
| 9f721d3f-046e-47be-8880-762295dc7061 |