Datasets:

webis

/

conclugen

like 1

Follow

Webis Group 32

<|TOPIC|>Abortion<|ARGUMENT|>How can you compare an unborn baby to the willing beings that fight in wars they have choosen the fate of going to war and the know of the harsh consquenses that may follow. A baby on the other hand is born into the world if permitted not of their own free will but of the mother's decision to abort or have the child.<|ASPECTS|>, mother 's, free, decision, fate, world, willing beings, harsh consquenses<|CONCLUSION|>

Killing helpless fetus is incomparable to death of willing soldier.

2ffbba13-ec74-47a2-b124-29adb3da1a62

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I am holding the view that an appropriate tax rate for an individual or married couple family household cannot be determined without accounting for both income and the local cost of living. And I believe the US tax code should account for this. Background I am holding this view as a taxpaying US citizen living in a high cost of living area the SF bay area, in my case , and having experience living working where the cost of living has not been nearly so high. Let Me Explain I often feel like our tax system classifies me unfairly, and placed me in a category of income earners where lawmakers have decided I can afford to pay more or write off deduct less however you want to slice it . Going from a low cost area to the bay area feels as though I have crossed a threshold where the gloves come off, the AMT kicks in, deductions max out, credits no longer apply or are insufficient to meet the intended purpose, etc. . The problem is, my costs for the same services and needs have increased as well. Some disclaimers clarifications Determining the local cost of living accurately would be a tall order, and getting it exactly right would probably be impossible. Still, using some sort of standardized method to do this would move the existing tax code closer to the fair end of the spectrum. I am not suggesting that the amount I pay in taxes is unaffordable, or places undue hardship on me or my family. I am speaking strictly in relative terms. I think it is unfair the federal tax system doesn't make a distinction between a person spending 80 of their 100k salary on a crappy apartment that they may not even own and a person spending 20 of their 100k salary on a mansion in rural Texas those figures probably aren't very accurate, but the point stands . Whether it is because I am paying too much, or they aren't paying enough probably depends on your political persuasion. Just to clarify, by local cost of living I am thinking at the level of a regional economy or a geographical statistical area , and not necessarily at the neighborhood or city level.<|ASPECTS|>hardship, tax code, regional economy, strictly, unaffordable, costs, relative, credits, high, gloves, federal tax system, taxes, taxpaying, fair end, cost of living accurately, tax rate, standardized method, paying enough, paying, unfair, less, unfairly, cost, intended purpose, income earners, classifies, cost of living, local, deductions, political persuasion<|CONCLUSION|>

The US federal tax code ought to account for the local cost of living.

c7bd577d-13e1-45d9-96a2-389aba286c97

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Historically, there have been many ways that a population could effect change in their leadership, from voting, to civil disobedience, to outright violent revolution. I think that all of them are ineffective today, because the “system” is so strong and has such huge momentum, that it can control for every kind of activism that has been practiced to date. Because of this, our current leadership is unresponsive to anything other than the interests of the very wealthy. First off voting doesn’t work. I won’t elaborate on this, but feel free to argue otherwise. In my opinion, the last time that there was a serious effort to subvert the interests of the wealthy and powerful was in the 1960’s. There was clear popular dissent evinced by civil disobedience campaigns like the civil rights movement and protests against the Vietnam war. Those movements failed black people in the US are still severely oppressed and the US has continued to wage costly wars as the aggressor and against the will of the population. Violent revolution is obviously no longer an option, because any state military could easily handle violence from its own population “you’re bringing a gun to a drone fight” I’d further suggest that the powers that be are so good at disrupting organized movements against them, that its basically impossible to even articulate a coherent counter narrative to their propaganda. Bernie Sanders would be a good example of a hopeful grassroots campaign, but that was blocked and by his own party no less. To change my view, please show me an example of activism that has successfully effected the social change it sought and that was NOT in the interests of the very wealthy. EDIT the example should be in the 21st century, sorry that was not clearer. x200B EDIT 2 Thanks for all the responses Reading them I think I realize why I'm not quite getting the examples I'm looking for? I'm framing my question badly, so I might try another post another day. It is my belief that any serious contest to the established structure of society insofar as it preserves the power of the very wealthy will fail, because they run things. I think that even methods of activism that have previously been successful in challenging those interests in a given developed nation will fail today, because over time states learn how to respond to these threats to maintain the order of society that yields their power. For example I believe that civil disobedience would no longer work in the US, because they have adapted and know how to respond to such civil disobedience as we saw in the 60's. The Hong Kong protests may be the best example I saw, since its literally civil disobedience similar to what's been practiced in the US met with violence from the developed Hong Kong state. However, even Hong Kong is not really a comparable nation state given that in terms of power relations its not a superpower, but a more minor power caught in between the two more powerful interests of the Western states vs. China. It is my belief that the result of that struggle is going to be decided by the influence of those two superpowers. So, its not really a case of a population vs. the interests of the very wealthy, but rather of a case of a power struggle between two ways the wealthy like to do things. I guess what I'm looking for could be activism by a group or population that has created a serious contest to the interests of the very wealthy owners of society, and succeeded in its goal over the past 20 years or so. One that has been shown to be successful in the past and still works today would be ideal. Ask for clarification if you have questions, I'd love to hear them x200B Edit 3 The Me Too movement was also a solid example in retrospect. I would expect it to be accepted by the wealthy and gain wider support while being used to their advantage, or if they don't like it, it will be suppressed to the point that it will no longer work in the future. I'm really looking for activism methods that have worked in the past and still work today that presents a serious challenge to the wealthy and powerful owners of society.<|ASPECTS|>population, minor, momentum, ideal, successful, wealthy, activism, wealthy and powerful, established structure of society, wealthy owners of society, wider support, adapted, threats, superpowers, power struggle, civil disobedience, subvert, comparable, powerful interests, contest, voting doesn ’, social change, organized movements, hopeful, grassroots campaign, work, violence, 21st century, activism methods, order of society, severely oppressed, retrospect, control, influence, popular dissent, costly wars, power, examples, handle, very wealthy, blocked, change, revolution, disrupting, run things, interests, powerful owners of society, violent revolution, superpower, accepted, unresponsive, suppressed, ineffective<|CONCLUSION|>

All established methods of activism are ineffective in the 21st century, except for lobbying. Without new and radical methods of activism, only the extremely wealthy can effect social change.

c7856aae-d5ad-443c-9141-d82adc0c6f2c

<|TOPIC|>Should You Confess to Cheating After a One Night Stand?<|ARGUMENT|>Research on marriages suggests that infidelity was a major factor in more than half of all divorces and that it doubles the chance of a couple getting divorced.<|ASPECTS|>divorced, infidelity<|CONCLUSION|>

Revealing it has a high likelihood of ending the relationship.

9ed8005a-6599-42c5-ad3a-c0755ec881f0

<|TOPIC|>the United Nations has a responsibility to protect.<|ARGUMENT|>From a group of cooperating but sovereign states, secure from external intervention if they live peaceably with their neighbors, the UN would be turned into some sort of global congress of humanity, where borders played no part. This may seem a utopian vision, but the nation state has a good record of delivering responsive, accountable government to which individual citizens can feel a strong personal commitment, and which is able to meet their particular cultural, religious, environmental and economic needs1. International institutions are at best impersonal and remote and at worst an unaccountable and undemocratic imposition. It is right to oppose any language and commitments which would advance the cause of those who would turn the UN into a world government. 1 The Economist 1999, “Garibaldi and the 1,000”, <|ASPECTS|>personal commitment, responsive, unaccountable, peaceably, environmental, commitments, borders, impersonal and remote, right to oppose, needs, intervention, language, world, congress of humanity, undemocratic imposition, cause, accountable government<|CONCLUSION|>

The UN would be turned into something that it is not.

7e71264c-9608-4d21-847f-863c3fb75bca

<|TOPIC|>Free Julian Assange<|ARGUMENT|>Democracy depends on openness and accountability in government activities. If governments fail to be transparent with their actions then it is important for groups such as Wikileaks to act.<|ASPECTS|>democracy, accountability, openness, transparent<|CONCLUSION|>

A culture of secrecy in governments can be easily abused. Websites like Wikileaks prevent this.

a0a5ab0f-370d-4d4a-86fc-4259b63832dd

<|TOPIC|>Was the FBI Right to Keep the Pedophile Site Playpen Online After Hacking It?<|ARGUMENT|>Without using a malware software it is close to impossible to identify the true IP of pedophiles.<|ASPECTS|>ip<|CONCLUSION|>

A bait is a successful tactic to identify anonymous users and thus justified.

a39f874a-8300-41a6-b8e6-5668e223b3ab

<|TOPIC|>Would giving from rich countries and the world's richest people help end poverty?<|ARGUMENT|>Full employment in a society is not optimal in capitalism because it nullifies the competition of the job market. Workers gain their livelihood from wage-labor. Therefore capitalism will tend towards permanent unemployment and a constant destitute portion of the working class.<|ASPECTS|>employment, destitute, market, permanent unemployment, constant, livelihood, competition, wage-labor<|CONCLUSION|>

From an economic perspective, capitalism is based on competition which means that there has to be winners and losers, an unequal system.

57bbb742-8bad-4bba-8828-01dcc2c0ba89

<|TOPIC|>Is the world of Harry Potter really the place to be?<|ARGUMENT|>Unlike other invisibility cloaks that have been created, which tend to lose their magic over time and become patchy in terms of hiding the wearer, the invisibility cloak that Harry Potter owns and which is believed to be a Deathly Hallow, never loses its powers.<|ASPECTS|>lose, powers, magic, invisibility, patchy<|CONCLUSION|>

The Invisibility Cloak renders whoever is under it completely invisible. The Deathly Hallows fable suggests this would allow a person to hide from death.

b9788f2a-0b93-4203-a315-d155cb5e8881

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Really hoping you can change my view on this, but to me, it's pretty clear our institutions can't survive the Trump administration. Specifically, it seems clear from the Russia sanctions that Trump has already ignored the checks and balances on the executive department, 98 of Congress voted for the sanctions, Trump refuses to veto which could get overturned, so he's just not using the power of the executive to enforce and already he's talking about being installed as President for Life . People talk about how things will get better after this election, but we can't impeach even after 2018 if the Republicans are in lockstep, because it would be impossible to get the numbers to convict in the Senate. Additionally, the narrative was that Trump was a joke in 2016 and the narrative was wrong then, it could be wrong now, especially if Trump uses Russian influence to actively change vote totals, which is entirely within the realm of possibility. This would be intolerable with a dictator who was relatively benevolent Trump is no such character, willing to severely tank the American economy over petty perceived grudges or simply to try to get the news cycle away from his scandals. I just don't see any hope for America and it's getting harder and harder to get out of the bed in the morning, just awaiting when Trump gets so riled up he pulls the temple down on our heads, either with economic policy or with nuclear warfare. For various reasons, I cant move until April 2019 at the earliest, so I feel trapped and claustrophobic in this country. I just don't see any hope. <|ASPECTS|>get better, institutions, economic policy, survive, russian influence, change, trapped, benevolent, impeach, claustrophobic, perceived grudges, trump administration, scandals, hope, numbers, economy, vote totals, hope for america, nuclear warfare, severely, convict<|CONCLUSION|>

There is no reason to hope things will get better in America in my lifetime I'm 39.

9dcb2fb8-50ae-4bff-b17b-2dc290bfccc1

<|TOPIC|>Does science justify atheism?<|ARGUMENT|>Faith was an important factor in keeping the American Civil Rights movement together in the face of a concerted and powerful opposition.<|ASPECTS|>faith, powerful<|CONCLUSION|>

Faith based organizations have led or been a major part of social change overthrowing injustices. e.g. ending slavery, civil rights.

d8516a75-247b-4c46-b9a9-7fd228dd423b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For a while now I've had this view about age that it is all but meaningless. It allow us to decide when people are allowed to vote, drink, drive and many other things, essentially using them as a means of measuring a person's maturity and aptness for certain tasks. I don't see how this can be accurate in any way though since as far as my experience goes, age and maturity hold little in common. Of course, people are more likely to be more mature when they're older, but you can have completely immature 33 year olds just as much as you can have very mature 17 year olds. I don't know any other fair way to determine when people are mature ready enough to engage in certain activities, but the idea of using age just seems extremely silly to me. Change My View.<|ASPECTS|>maturity and aptness, meaningless, immature, mature ready, maturity, change my view, age, using, completely, mature<|CONCLUSION|>

I think one's age means next to nothing in terms of how mature one is and don't see the point in using age to determine when people are allowed to do what.

5aea63aa-138d-4853-a6ea-a3ac1cf291ce

<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>Facebook, Google and Twitter have recently come under fire for how some of their pre-programmed algorithms behave - but vitally, they altered these algorithms immediately, rather than passively allowing things to slip through the net. If companies are committed to censoring harmful views, they will adapt accordingly, as problems present themselves.<|ASPECTS|>harmful views, adapt<|CONCLUSION|>

The methods through which internet companies censor are not fixed; they are constantly upgraded and improved.

02d4b03e-755d-4fa7-a2e9-dc1abbec1616

<|TOPIC|>Autonomous Killing Machines: The Future of Warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>Control implies dominion. And an AGI could have more resources or faster access to those resources of forcing submission than humans do. Especially since most technology is interlinked through the internet.<|ASPECTS|>resources, interlinked, dominion, forcing submission, control implies, faster access<|CONCLUSION|>

An AGI would be impossible to control or regulate once its abilities or reasoning surpasses our understanding.

0b8bc1fa-1b36-4af9-b63d-3628ba63a416

<|TOPIC|>Are Bitcoin and Anonymous Payments Beneficial for the World?<|ARGUMENT|>Since AP payments cannot be tracked, people could purchase goods from illegal marketplaces which would not include VAT.<|ASPECTS|>purchase goods, ap payments, vat<|CONCLUSION|>

Purchases would be partially or fully paid for via APs to avoid taxes.

adf7be78-3e35-4e8a-b7dd-708727fee900

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>For most of this election cycle a large variety of groups have found Trump to be offensive. At the same time, he has consistently won primary election after primary election. His base has said repeatedly that there isn't much that Trump could say or do that will make them not vote for him. This needs to be respected. Now is not the time for polls and public outrage to impact the will of the people shown through votes. The GOP leadership should not pursue methods of removing him from the ticket simply because he has offended so many with this particular outburst. They should not pressure him to step down as the nomination. Nothing he said was really unexpected if folks had listened to his many interviews. This perhaps was more graphic, but was it more graphic than his statements that have offended other smaller groups? By removing Trump, the GOP will have shown contempt for Republican and Independent voters who went to the ballot box. Trump received more votes than any other Republican primary candidate, ever There is no reason to disallow these results.<|ASPECTS|>, offended so many, contempt for republican, primary election, respected, votes, offended, disallow, offensive, smaller groups, polls, public outrage, impact, unexpected, election, vote, graphic, voters<|CONCLUSION|>

The GOP should respect the primary elections and keep Trump on the ticket.

8cea3843-4526-4017-9aea-857fa552241f

<|TOPIC|>Do all or most White Americans experience privilege?<|ARGUMENT|>The fact that whites can be truncated into groups like slavs, Jews, Eastern European, Mediterranean, etc. each with their own histories, physiological characteristics, and values proves that whites are not a monolith and cannot be grouped as a whole. This puts the concept of white privilege to question.<|ASPECTS|>monolith, white privilege, physiological characteristics<|CONCLUSION|>

Jews the race, not the religion are linked genetically and are distinct enough to be considered a race. www.haaretz.com

498d2080-113b-4c3e-a1c1-4ed91bcd9c5f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Recently I was playing Fallout Shelter on PC, and I cheated myself 30 Lunchboxes valued at 1 a box , since I didn't feel like spending hours to get to where I was on my Android vault. And as a I was mass opening the boxes each box gives you 5 random items , I found myself getting items that were total garbage, items that required 2 5 minutes of waiting at low level progression and items that were literally useless at mid game and end game progression. I could only imagine the disappointment of someone who actually spend 30, expecting to get legendary guns, outfits and characters in exchange for money only to get absolute crap that'd take them 5 minutes of play to get. If you pay a game company 1, 2 or whatever the micro transaction costs, then you should get that amount of content in return. Whether it be a rare item, or character. Not a chance to roll the dice and hope you get something of that worth that money. Its absolutely disgusting that paying customers are treated this way, when those who are willing to spend extra on the game should be rewarded for their dedication, not screwed over by RNG and told Better luck next time. Even when the Game Industry was at its scummiest, taking costumes that were free beforehand and charging 2 for them, atleast when you payed the 2 you got the costume, not a random roll that may give you garbage or the thing you wanted. Its seems utterly indefensible, Is there any defence to this Nickeling and Diming of Loyal Customers?<|ASPECTS|>dedication, , cheated, content, screwed, costs, paying customers, money, garbage, useless, legendary guns, rare item, disgusting, scummiest, character, loyal customers, indefensible, worth, nickeling<|CONCLUSION|>

Micro Transactions that involve a chance are terrible value and unacceptable.

1b918f92-cdbb-4ff2-a420-af4a192eddcd

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Another Redditor has pointed out the errors in my argument, so I've deleted it and will try to start a new. There's no way that I can fully express this argument without it seeming like the rant of a deluded, worried person. To some it may even seem that I make this argument as though the world should revolve around men. I'm not intending any of this. I'm simply stating the fact's that I believe support my thought that women should ask men out. Why should they ask men out? Quite simply I reply, because if they did then they show their interest and the man could take it from there. True women would be rejected just as men are rejected now, but I would hope that through all the years of men being cruelly rejected by the opposite sex, that they would have learned how it feels and be nicer in their rejections then women can be. Probably when pigs fly, but still one could hope. If a man approaches and ask's out a woman he could be called names, or possibly pepper sprayed depending on her particular frame of mind at that moment. If a woman approaches a man, in most cases he tries to break the topic and excuse himself. In other cases he too would call her names but certainly wouldn't resort to pepper spray. In either of those scenarios the man is labeled the bad guy in the latter one he would be and justly deserves being called it and has to prove his innocents. While the woman is held up as the victim and needs to be pitied. This is why I think women should approach men for dates. I have more that I could right but it would come off as a raving rant about the things women can do that men can't. This is not my intention, so I leave it with my paltry argument, and bide you adieu. As I said there was no way that I could express this opinion without coming off as a jerk some way or the other. .<|ASPECTS|>, pitied, cruelly rejected, break the topic, deluded, rejections, pigs, jerk, bad guy, women, show, ask men, names, interest, approach men, revolve around men, excuse, rejected, worried person, hope, dates, argument, victim, pepper sprayed, prove, innocents, errors, pepper spray<|CONCLUSION|>

I think that women today should approach and ask out men, instead of the other way around.

8c8c7399-7767-43f5-902c-a42bd0ad54b2

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My first and immediate problem with Malala in particular is that she is a teenage kid. Her views of the world, regardless of her background or the socio political situation of her home country, are little better than that of any other teenager, yet she is still feted as being some heroine. Plus what is crucially ignored by too many people, in my opinion, is that she was getting an education, whilst thousands, if not millions of girls don't have that opportunity at all, much less the higher education she receives. I also have the issue that she, along with others, have actually done little in the way of any actual action. She's talked, which anyone can do, but she has not actually done anything. She's not raised money for a school, she's not lifted a brick to build one, she's not taught a single minute of a school lesson. There are thousands of people who actually do these things, and they are, in my eyes, doing an infinite amount better towards improving education than Malala is ever capable of doing. If she really wanted to improve education, she should become a teacher and provide that ideal education. So, change my view.<|ASPECTS|>, opportunity, ideal education, teenage kid, actual action, higher education, minute, little, view, ignored, socio political situation, heroine, education, done, improving education, raised money, views, school lesson, improve education<|CONCLUSION|>

I think the likes of Malala Yousafzai are not admirable or role models in any way.

337232da-6567-406c-a7ba-897f332e80d5

<|TOPIC|>The Trolley Problem: What's the Right Solution?<|ARGUMENT|>In the book Touched with Fire the author argues that successful artists are 20 times more often suffering from depressive illness<|ASPECTS|>depressive<|CONCLUSION|>

Many artists recieve their staggering imaginations from psychological problems and turn them into great expressions.

8769a9f0-5d07-4fbc-8310-4529e7e3cc36

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>To keep it short, I think most of us can agree that at age 18, we are not considered emotionally or mentally developed enough to be called true adults nor have we developed into the person we will be for the rest of our lives. Neurological studies prove that the brain is not fully mature until the age of 25 29 years old, so the potential for a couple to marry at 18 being perfectly happy with each other as people could change by the time they are 30. By that time, their brains are now different, which means personality has changed and it is likely that they are no longer compatible. I believe that if the marriage age was raised, many divorces could be prevented. Brain maturation source. EDIT Well this has been interesting, but I think this has been fleshed out enough. I'll give deltas to the best debaters as I usually do.<|ASPECTS|>personality has changed, mentally developed, deltas, divorces, happy with each, emotionally, brain maturation source, true adults, brains, compatible, best debaters, mature, marriage age, brain<|CONCLUSION|>

The minimum age for marriage should be raised to 25.

6d022fd3-14eb-403d-8c03-50e127d8a72e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>nigger refers to nigga, I don't distinguish them because they're the same word. Nigga is just a ghettoized way of spelling it You're literally equating a modern day white person who very likely resents racism with every fiber in their being, to a supremacist scumbag who supported human slavery, because they happen to both be white. Maybe I'm missing something but this is highly irrational and also pretty racist. It's like saying ''Oh I'm not comfortable with black people wearing a hoodie because they remind me of those thugs''. I have a feeling this analogy doesn't compute but hopefully you understand the gist of it. And if you agree that context matters, then you'll have to concede that there's no issue to be had with a white person saying nigger, so long as it's not racially motivated. Sure, strictly definitionally speaking, nigger is a contemptuous term for black people. But in slang, words are used differently all the time think cunt as a term of endearment among Australians why is nigger an exception?<|ASPECTS|>racist, ghettoized, irrational, nigga, thugs, endearment, comfortable, highly, black people, racism, context matters, analogy, racially motivated, contemptuous, human slavery, compute, differently, nigger<|CONCLUSION|>

Taking issue with a white person saying nigger purely because of their skin color doesn't make any sense.

4a38eb08-76cb-4f84-a82a-3cded21b86de

<|TOPIC|>Does the European Union lack the necessary public discourse to function properly?<|ARGUMENT|>The USE will enable a more assertive foreign and defense policy for the benefit of its members.<|ASPECTS|>assertive foreign and defense policy<|CONCLUSION|>

The USE will be more effective than the EU at promoting a common European foreign policy.

749d7003-7566-49cb-ac60-d8ff5842ba62

<|TOPIC|>ban partial birth abortions<|ARGUMENT|>here is a vast amount of support in the United States for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Opinion polls have shown a consistent increase in support for a ban: as high as 70% in favour to 25% against in January 2003.1 Furthermore, in 1997 the House of Representatives voted 295-136, and the Senate 64-36, in favour of a ban. For President Clinton to veto it was undemocratic;2 for President Bush not to pass it would have been to break a campaign promise. 1 Gallup, ‘Abortion’, 30 November 2011, 2 Craig, Larry E., ‘Clinton Claims on Partial-Birth Abortion Still Not True -- Not Even 'Legally Accurate'’, United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, 15 September 1998, <|ASPECTS|>support, undemocratic, increase, campaign promise<|CONCLUSION|>

Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards

d423b44f-2576-4473-9036-9df1729fa4b2

<|TOPIC|>Should airfare be taxed to account for its environmental impact?<|ARGUMENT|>As many countries are reducing the budget allocated to fighting climate change, it is likely that taxes on airfares may not be spent on addressing environmental concerns.<|ASPECTS|>taxes, environmental concerns, climate change<|CONCLUSION|>

Taxes raised for a certain purpose often don't increase government spending towards that purpose.

60da7bdb-46ac-4ea0-a3fd-8abbc6f533a7

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I don’t see why everyone is freaking out about net neutrality. I get what net neutrality is a law requiring ISPs to treat all content on the internet as equal. People say that we will now have to pay to access certain websites in “bundles”. However, let’s say there are 2 companies, A and B. If company A started taxing the internet, it would lose many customers, who would flock to company B. Company B, now having all the excess money flowing from a large group of customers, would not need the money that they could gain from these so called “taxes”. Even if they did, Company C could spring up just months after that, and customers would flock to them. If their CEOs had iqs of above 14, they would see what happened to Company B and not enforce this “bundle” concept. But, I have seen many major companies such as reddit and google, who make thousands of times more money each couple of years than I will probably make in my life, protest this change fiercely. So, users of reddit, I’m asking you to change my mind on this very controversial issue. Thank you for your time, Baes20 <|ASPECTS|>companies, pay to access certain websites, bundle ”, equal, net neutrality, flock, money, controversial issue, bundles, taxing the internet, lose many customers, excess money, “ taxes, customers, protest<|CONCLUSION|>

I support the repeal of net neutrality.

d2a31303-6304-463d-9a57-4f3d4ef5546e

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>After I viewed the final episode of the Death Note anime on Hulu, I was surprised by many of the comments that I read below the video. Apparently, a large percentage of Death Note fans were actually rooting for Light to survive his encounter with Near's SPK the Japanese police task force many followers of the series even claimed that Light was a hero. Personally, I cannot understand how anyone could reach such an unusual conclusion about this very reprehensible character. Although it seems clear that Light did not view himself as an evil person, this detail is irrelevant in determining the morality of his actions Hitler, Mao, and Stalin also believed in the rightness of their causes and the justness of their ways. After receiving the Death Note, Light began to think of himself as a beneficent, godlike figure dedicated to punishing evildoers. In reality, he was nothing more than a sociopath with repressed violent tendencies who decided to target criminals due to his arrogance, narcissism, and self righteousness. And, although Light primarily targeted criminals, he also showed a strong willingness to kill for utilitarian reasons to him, anyone who attempted to investigate the actions of Kira or reveal information about the Death Note was considered fair game. In fact, when his own sister was taken captive by Mello, Light contemplated killing her to prevent the Death Note from falling into the hands of criminals. Light's ultimate goal of creating a crime free world was not one motivated purely by altruism he considered himself to be the rightful leader of the world's people, and after taking control, he would eventually morph into a tyrant. By the end of the series, he stated that it was too soon for Teru Mikami to start announcing his desire to kill off lazy and purposeless people in other words, he objected to the way the announcement was made and not the concept in principle. If he ever gained a position of authority in the world's government, he would inevitably begin to kill regular people for minor moral infractions. And finally, any analysis of Light's psychology would be remiss without a careful footnote about his deceptive behavior. Light manipulated Rem into killing L by placing Misa into a compromising situation he abused the trust that others possessed in him to usurp L's position as head of the task force and finally, he utilized Misa's affection for him to manipulate her into doing his bidding even at the cost of her own interests. All of this evidence depicts the protagonist of Death Note as evil, Machiavellian, and possibly sadistic. To be considered as an antihero, a fictional character would have to possess at least a few positive qualities however, it seems obvious that Light falls to show any semblance of traditional moral values or human decency.<|ASPECTS|>reprehensible character, morality, compromising, deceptive behavior, comments, killing, positive qualities, trust, justness of their ways, lazy and purposeless people, kill regular people, kill, machiavellian, evil person, rightful leader, fair game, beneficent, tyrant, moral values, affection, self righteousness, abused, crime free, godlike, narcissism, rightness of their causes, willingness to kill, arrogance, morph, evil, criminals, sociopath, utilitarian reasons, punishing evildoers, repressed violent tendencies, interests, moral infractions, unusual, hero, altruism, sadistic, human decency<|CONCLUSION|>

The main character of "Death Note," Light Yagami, is a textbook villain, not an anti-hero.

e30982cd-132e-4476-8d0e-8a1a1f03ec44

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>My view is that the 2nd Amendment is not just defence against a tyrannical government, but defence from people who want to harm you or your family. I've had multiple family friends have break ins and they all say that their gun was the only thing that stopped the robber. But what about Britain? Their gun violence went down And knife violence SKYROCKETED shortly after their ban. As well as daytime crime, and hot burglaries Burglary when the home owner is home . As well as the recent acid attacks and grooming gangs that terrorize the country. Cant have a bad guy with a gun if they're outlawed Reducing supply without reducing demand causes a spike in sales from alternate sources, e.g Cartels. You'll be taking guns away from properly trained people who have genuine reason to arm themselves. A ban on guns is a ban on gang violence Again. Supply and demand. That is, assuming they didnt already acquire their firearms illegally. Studies show that only 3 10 of all murders are committed with a legally owned gun, and a large percent of uses of a firearm are to STOP an ongoing crime No exact due to wildly fluctuating estimations between Bureaus<|ASPECTS|>stop, firearms illegally, genuine reason, supply and demand, gang violence, gun violence, acid attacks, harm, bad guy, britain, sales, murders, spike, supply, knife violence, hot burglaries burglary, arm, daytime crime, guns, 2nd, family friends, defence, acquire, reducing demand, stopped the robber, legally owned, grooming gangs, gun, break ins, ongoing crime, tyrannical government<|CONCLUSION|>

The 2nd Amendment is necessary to the safety of all citizens

b7e94658-3bb1-47b5-bb98-3408895f8324

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>As the title says, I think that by implementing common military strategies that were used in medieval periods on Earth, the people of Westeros should have nothing to fear from White Walkers. Please don't read further if you don't want to be spoiled for the 7th season. There are a couple of assumptions that I will make with this post. However please correct them if they are wildly off base with the show. I assume that Dany's 2 dragons will be able to handle the Night King's one dragon. Other than that, I don't think Dany's dragon's even need to play a part in the battle. The war strategy and technology that was around pre 1400 or so Europe is available on Westeros. I believe this is generally true, given the fortifications we see in castles, and the use of crossbows, but obviously not rudimentary guns. There are roughly 200k wights, along with a dozen or so White Walkers. Indeed, the show has shown us far less than this, so I'm being generous here in saying that this is how many wights and White Walkers will be fighting, not including any new wights that are made through deaths. Once a wight or White Walker has been killed, there is no process to bring them back. Once a white walker is killed, a portion of Wights immediately die along with it. Once the night king is killed, all wights die. Given these assumptions, it seems clear to me that a few pieces of military strategy would easily defeat the dead army. First, the dead army has shown no capability to fight in formation, or with any sort of strategy. The wights fight without fear, but they are generally scattered. Second, they also generally have no other weapons that what their dead bodies had on them. This means generally, they have short spears, swords, and axes. But all of them are very old and low quality for the most part. Third, only White Walkers have been shown to ride horses. Wights generally have not been seen to have any sort of cavalry. Nor do they have any sort of siege weaponry, save for Giants which practically count as siege weapons themselves. Yet they also don't have any sort of ladders, or mechanisms to scale or penetrate a castle. That being said, any army that meets the dead army in the field is only hindered by pure numbers alone. A wall of pikes can easily dispatch far more wights, even given the fact that a dead soldier means another wight. And any army that is able to hole up in a castle has things even easier. Without a dragon, the only thing the dead army has as far as strategy is bashing through the walls of a castle with a giant. While we haven't seen how effective this strategy is, I doubt it can penetrate the walls of most castles. Even if it could, the giants are few and far between. Lots of archers with lots of arrows either flaming, or made of dragonglass can easily take down Giants, as well as countless wights. Then, the only strategy for the dead army is to lie in wait as people starve themselves inside the castle. Yet as we have seen in the show, no wights seem to have any archery skills whatsoever. Whereas a living army has archers with flaming or dragonglass arrows that could slowly but steadily whittle down the wight's numbers until it is a much, much easier fight in the field. And lastly, the most skilled of archers can try and shoot directly for the white walkers themselves. They haven't been shown to have any sort of superhuman reflexes or strength, given that Jon has been able to defeat two of them in single combat. They are simply pretty strong in single combat against a human with dragonglasss or valyrian steel. Things that will successfully change my view mentioning something I forgot as far as a strategy that the white walkers could employ to counteract what I've mentioned. showing how dany's two dragons, would in fact lose to the Night King's one dragon showing how these strategies would not actually help defeat the white walkers. <|ASPECTS|>, weapons, spoiled, dead soldier, counteract, siege weaponry, white, dispatch far, wildly off base, scattered, pure numbers, rudimentary guns, capability to fight in formation, assumptions, starve, fear, lie in wait, penetrate the walls, arrows, ladders, process, giants, crossbows, short spears, fight, die, strong, mechanisms, defeat, deaths, archery skills, strategy, wights, single combat, easier, siege weapons, effective, low quality, hindered, dead army, and far, military strategy, military strategies, strength, ride horses, easily, cavalry, white walkers, less, help, handle, skilled, walkers, war strategy and technology, dead, bashing, take down giants, shoot directly, old, numbers, night king, battle, superhuman reflexes, easier fight<|CONCLUSION|>

In Game of Thrones, basic military strategy should be able to easily defeat the White Walkers

1db8d3ac-4eb1-491c-aeb5-34d52caa0dfb

<|TOPIC|>Should a license be required in order to have a child procreate?<|ARGUMENT|>All tests are not necessarily summative, as tests can also serve a formative function: the test not only evaluates whether the potential parent meets the standard required, but also informs the potential parent of what is required of him or her in the context of that particular culture.<|ASPECTS|>formative function, summative<|CONCLUSION|>

What constitutes ideal or adequate parenthood is at least partly a cultural value judgement that isn't meant to reflect a scientific standard but rather a cultural one.

d6cc19c6-8b5a-47a3-9b06-f722ecc4353d

<|TOPIC|>Trade vs Aid<|ARGUMENT|>Trade is a long-term basis for international co-operation. The other partner in a trading relationship is likely to represent an ongoing market for goods or services. So when a developing country has the capacity to engage in trade with another country, there is a strong likelihood that that trade will blossom into an ongoing trading partnership. This will allow a firm basis for a flow of cash or goods into the developing country, largely independently of whether the developed country is doing well or badly economically at a given moment. This can be contrasted to the flow of aid. It tends to be less predictable, both because it is manipulated for political reasons and also because it can be quite ephemeral and so, if the developed country goes through a bad economic time, the aid budget makes an easy target for a reduction in spending.<|ASPECTS|>ongoing, predictable, spending, trade, ephemeral, economic time, less, trading partnership, political reasons, flow of aid, ongoing market for goods, manipulated, reduction, long-term, international co-operation, flow of cash or goods, badly economically<|CONCLUSION|>

Trade is a long-term basis for international co-operation. The other partner in a trading relations...

635f497a-7e27-43a9-b63f-4d1c5b7a16cf

<|TOPIC|>Should Judges be Elected or Appointed?<|ARGUMENT|>Law is almost infinitely complex, thus simply meeting a minimum standard does not mean they are necessarily sufficiently qualified. Appointed judges can be specifically chosen for certain roles which takes this excess complexity account.<|ASPECTS|>excess, sufficiently qualified, complex, complexity<|CONCLUSION|>

Checks and balances do not guarantee all appointments are qualified.

b5414c7c-46f6-4993-afac-cad7a8e3a370

<|TOPIC|>Should Conduct in Virtual Reality be Subject to the Laws of the Real World?<|ARGUMENT|>Virtual worlds, as defined by the original thesis, don't inherently have any real-world effect. Murder or torture are commonly considered the worst crimes and doing either of those in a virtual world are impossible without having an interface to something in the "real world". This category of issues already exists on the current internet and society's use of it.<|ASPECTS|>society, worst crimes, murder, virtual worlds, torture, issues, real-world effect<|CONCLUSION|>

Without physical effects, large portions of the criminal code do not make sense to enforce.

84cac85c-6c12-46a3-96b0-cb69afed4660

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Affirmative action has never really made much sense to me, primarily because it bases whether you get into college on something you're born with instead of your own merit. In essence, it's reverse racism I say that lightly since all racism is racist and wrong . My problems with it are the following What I just mentioned. Your merit should really be all that matters. If person A, who is of a racial majority, has a 3.6 GPA when he applies for college, is rejected in favor of person B, who is of a racial minority and has a 3.0 GPA, then that does person A a huge injustice since he had the merit to get in but didn't because he was born a certain way. Furthermore, it may do person B an injustice as well. Colleges have GPA thresholds so that the people who get in are prepared for the workload. Affirmative action blurs that threshold, so there is less guarantee that people will be able to handle the school, which leads to the second problem I have. It doesn't solve the problem. By including race as a somewhat weighted factor, you might have more minorities in the school, but it doesn't mean they are more prepared to enter it. Affirmative action to me seems like an ends justify the means example. The problem that must be addressed is that minorities right now are not able to prepare their children to perform competitively at high level universities due to financial difficulties. The way to address the problem that affirmative action is trying to solve is to have comprehensive, low cost or free SAT preparation. That way, more minorities get into college because of their own merit. This is better for everyone. It feels better to accomplish something because of YOU, and not the system, and the injustice suffered by high performing students is eradicated. I know this is pretty idealistic, but I feel that affirmative action is only creating more problems in its dodging of the real problem.<|ASPECTS|>eradicated, perform, financial difficulties, merit, problems, injustice, performing students, competitively, reverse racism, racial majority, race, rejected, solve the problem, real problem, prepared, ends justify, accomplish, racist and wrong, gpa thresholds, person b, handle the school, action, low cost, free sat preparation, better for everyone, college, minorities, racial minority, workload<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe that affirmative action is a terrible solution to the problem of not enough minorities getting into college.

e8315d03-d81c-4eb1-bde1-002c19af4ada

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Disclaimer I'm not trying to argue HRC in general or touch on any of her other various valid criticisms. In this post, I would like to just focus on the single above statement. I see Facebook videos and online articles that show all the times how HRC has flip flopped on policy. For example, she used to be very clearly anti gay marriage, but she has since reversed that to support it. People seem to think that this is a negative thing because she doesn't stand by her word. I think that's incorrect. She has patterned her positions off of data and public opinion. Shouldn't we want all of our politicians to change their positions to represent what the public wants? She is a lightning rod for this criticism because she has been a political player for so long, during which public sentiment has changed wildly on many issues. I believe that comparing HRC to Bernie in this regard shouldn't paint her as evil. They are different types of politicians. Bernie is very idealistic, and it just so happens that current public opinion matches his policies. Hillary, on the other hand, is pragmatic. She wants to lead feels that she is the best candidate and matches public opinion on that. Overall, to Show that a politician who changes their stances to reflect public opinion is less effective that one that sticks to their guns. Or, show that HRC doesn't actually reflect public opinion in her policy flip flops. Or something else. Your call. note I do believe that the accusation that she allows corporations to have undue influence over her is valid, we can talk about that another time. Right now, I ONLY want to talk about her policy changes that have been based on getting elected or matching public opinion.<|ASPECTS|>current, best candidate, less effective, negative thing, elected, flip flopped on policy, pragmatic, public sentiment, positions, reflect, policy changes, matches, incorrect, anti gay marriage, public wants, evil, single, matching public opinion, public opinion, different types, change, valid criticisms, idealistic, undue influence, political, data, politicians, changed<|CONCLUSION|>

People say that HRC switching her political positions gay marriage, gun control, etc. is a bad thing. I disagree.

2b248761-eb1b-4269-bdd5-5437554b93fa

<|TOPIC|>Does mainstream feminism exploit women of colour?<|ARGUMENT|>The Combahee River Collective was a black feminist movement in the 1970s which was born out of the frustration black women felt at mainstream feminism refusing to speak about issues which affected them, such as racialized violence and sterilisation.<|ASPECTS|>racialized violence, sterilisation<|CONCLUSION|>

Mainstream feminists have often been criticized for not understanding and not representing women of colour.

8945a003-0c9c-4bf1-914c-0800561ef194

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>There are some people who have an intrinsic objection to the act of euthanasia itself considering it to be morally objectionable regardless of the consequences due to infringing on the sanctity of life or similar, they sometimes provide the alternative of passive euthanasia or the witholding of medical treatment in order to hasten the death of the person who wants to die without actively killing them. If this is the case then one can make the same point that any immorality of execution can be resolved by starving the person so that they die yet since they are never actively killed that means that it is acceptable. The person chose to commit a crime and in doing so chose to be imprisoned knowing that they will not have food there and in imprisoning the person the government performs the morally permissible act of choosing not to provide the person food and in doing so they fail to prevent the person's death but they do not actively cause it. In this manner when committing a capital crime a person chooses death and is not killed so the only morally wrong thing that occurred was their decision to commit the capital crime. <|ASPECTS|>, death, morally objectionable, passive euthanasia, capital crime, chooses death, morally wrong, immorality of execution, starving the person, morally permissible<|CONCLUSION|>

If passive euthanasia is an acceptable workaround to the immorality of active euthanasia then passive execution starvation is an acceptable workaround to the immorality of active execution such as lethal injection

00367898-694a-43ec-9b8e-e1a63643dd34

<|TOPIC|>Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?<|ARGUMENT|>The debate is not over whether God is good. It is whether the concept of God as traditionally conceived is consistent with the existence of evil. Thus, the premises do not need to be proven. It just needs to be shown that the concept of God is consistent with the existence of evil. I am just explaining the definition of God and its entailments. e.g. that God, by definition, is perfectly logical.<|ASPECTS|>logical, god is good, evil, definition of god, god<|CONCLUSION|>

Claiming that a valid argument begs the question doesn't make it so. You aren't showing how the argument begs the question. The conclusion follows logically from the premises, making it a valid argument.

170ae25f-02fd-4e4d-94b6-b759d17edc70

<|TOPIC|>Overwatch™ - Heroes<|ARGUMENT|>The damage of Deadeye increases the longer the player waits with pulling the trigger, posing the dilemma of either giving the enemies time to hide or risking not damaging them enough.<|ASPECTS|>time to hide, damage, risking, damaging<|CONCLUSION|>

When using his ultimate ability - Deadeye - he is highly vulnerable and mostly immobile.

7a65926e-506c-4306-9a0b-64ec8cc3801d

<|TOPIC|>Should Polygamy Be Legal?<|ARGUMENT|>The Chinese leadership is highly aware of what the people want and think in order to satisfy the demands before they become threatening to the regime itself.<|ASPECTS|>threatening<|CONCLUSION|>

Also in autocratic regimes there is a discussion between society and leadership. After all without making policies that are appreciated revolution is likely.

69781801-f575-4129-9d97-a48d16dec5a1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First, I'd just like to provide a little backdrop for this discussion. I'm am speaking from a specifically American point of view where cyclists are in the minority. I live in a suburb on the outskirts of a large city. I sit squarely between suburbia and rural areas, and cycling has become very popular over the past several years. Legally, at least in my city cyclists have every right to use the same roads as motorized vehicles. Many of the roads I travel in my city are winding and through forested areas. The speed limit usually ranges from 35 55 miles per hour in these areas, and cars obviously outpace cyclists by a large margin. Visibility, even in broad daylight, is very limited for long stretches of these areas. In one county in particular, the roads are incredibly unsafe for cyclists and accidents deaths occur on what feels like a monthly basis. Just as an example there is one particular road that has an aggressive downhill slope. You can round the corners of this road safely and legally doing 30 MPH, but cyclists have trouble reaching over 8 MPH going uphill. There is no bike lane. The road is very narrow. Accidents are regular. I have come close to hitting a cyclist probably 2 3 times a year for the past several years. In a few of these cases, I've nearly run myself off the road. The avid cyclists I've come into contact with are vehement about their rights on the roads and how drivers need to adapt to this new cycling culture. The problem is, accidents are occurring when neither the driver or cyclist is being reckless. With such low visibility and differences in speed between cyclists and drivers, injuries and deaths will continue to no one's fault. Everyone's lives are unreasonably at risk in these situations. Drivers and cyclists alike.<|ASPECTS|>rights, forested areas, speed limit, accidents deaths, backdrop, suburb, cyclists, hitting a cyclist, safely, unsafe, differences, injuries and deaths, low visibility, rural areas, reckless, regular, cycling, vehicles, right to use, downhill slope, legally, bike lane, risk, limited, outpace cyclists, 's, roads, unreasonably, cars, aggressive, minority, drivers, narrow, speed, accidents, run myself off the road, winding, outskirts, visibility, popular<|CONCLUSION|>

Cycling on any road not exclusively set aside for cyclists is wrong, dangerous, and should be made illegal.

be2fd701-d1f0-4b67-888c-8a8ea41d1115

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello, before I begin to explain my argument and my view I'd like to tell you some things about myself and my experiences in school. During Pre school and middle school I was severely bullied by my almost the whole class, I only had a few friends to hang with. I had a very hard time to realize why I was bullied in the first place. Some of the things the bullying kids did was freezing me out, making fun of me and even hitting me. My mother was very active in trying to make them stop, making my teacher speak in front of the class trying to at least make them stop harass me, but obviously it did not help. When I then later went to high school I sort of got into a group of people that made me change and grow up. And at that time the bullying also stopped. Now when I have grown up and looked back to my behavior I realize that I was a very weird kid, doing lots of weird things. At the moment I have a nice group of around 7 people to hang out with, and I love them. One of them is special in his own way, almost like I was during middle school and pre school. He is also bullied at the moment, when I ask those people why they are being mean to him, they just reply that they think he is very weird and have almost no real good answer to this. My view on bullied kids is that almost all the time the kid that is being bullied is a very weird person in a social way. A better word might be socially incapable. Me myself is a living example, and I have many examples of other people I have seen that have went through the same things I have. Why I went here is because when I start speaking about with people IRL they think I am a horrible person and what I think is morally wrong, and I do not disagree with them. Even if my view is like this I feel that it is kind of morally wrong to think like this, I know there are few examples where people have done nothing wrong and still been bullied, but I feel like the majority of them is like what I have been talking about here. Many might come with the argument that they've been bullied because they are fat, but I've had friends that are close to being obese but still being one of the popular people in school. Computer nerds hanging out with the cool partying gangs is yet another example. Please r , change my view. Edit Many seem to think that I am justifying bullying, and this is completely wrong. I do not agree with buylling as it is absolutely horrible. I am just expressing my thoughts on why it is happening.<|ASPECTS|>popular people, special, wrong, fat, weird person, socially incapable, computer nerds, grow, obese, weird, making, horrible person, weird kid, severely, friends, fun, bullying kids, bullying also, social, cool partying gangs, bullied kids, morally wrong, experiences, horrible, justifying bullying, harass, change, bullied, buylling, mean, weird things, freezing me, love<|CONCLUSION|>

I think that most of the time bullied kids are to blame themselves

48a0b652-ee76-47db-ae70-799c274baf26

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Conventional wisdom is that you should not stay together for the kids. It hurts them to see an unhappy marriage. For the sake of this argument, let's say unhappy marriage is not physically or emotionally abusive. Of course, there will be arguing, resentments, cold spots, all the slings and arrows of the long term intimate relationship. Cheating, substance abuse, gambling problems let's assume those are not involved. I am in my 40s and have been married over 10 years, and I've watched friends grapple with various marital situations involving kids. I've come to the conclusion that more people should suck it up and stay together for the kids. Many of my reasons are anecdotal, so I'm open to having someone . I've seen people expect their lives to be better separately, only to find that re entering the dating world in their 30s, 40s, and 50s is a nightmare that is far different from the dating landscape they left before their marriage. Second and third marriages have very high failure rates also. The idea that you will leave the co parent of your child and find your true love seems to be a myth at least, it's pretty rare, statistically. If that is your reason for leaving, feelings of boredom, sniping and general malaise, I think counseling and an attempt to re focus might work better. The grass may not be greener. It seems not to be, from what I've heard. I also cannot overestimate how hard it is on both parents and kids when they have to spend time in different homes. I can't imagine how I would feel if my kid was in a different house every weekend, or every other weekend, or for half a week. My spouse would have to offend in some very terrible way for me to be willing to lose all that time with my kid. Parenting philosophies may differ within a couple, but I've seen some real rifts open when people separate. Also, not to be alarmist, but children in an intact family have the lowest risk of sexual abuse. Chances go up in separate parent households or for children with single parents. You may be sure you won't expose your child to an abuser, but you cannot be sure who your partner will wind up with. Also, you're more likely to need child care if you are a single parent. The younger the child, the higher the chance of abuse, something to keep in mind. Having a new baby is a huge stress on a marriage. Attempting to persevere through that time may result in things working out later, or at least reaching an equilibrium. I am not personally convinced that kids feel better when run of the mill unhappy marriages end. I have had students whose performance and demeanor radically changed during and after a separation. Some children have extremely bad reactions. Some are relieved I imagine those are the ones whose parents probably should split. But I have seen a number of kid versions of nervous breakdowns over their parents splitting up. I wonder how bad it must be in the home to put the kids through that. My friends with divorced parents' experiences vary widely. Some tell me they were glad when their parents split, but usually one parents was abusive in some way or mentally ill. My friends whose parents just went their own way often express that the divorce really harmed their happiness, so that informs my thinking. I understand that home dynamics with growing children can be very stressful, but once the kids leave, marriages regrow in new and better ways. Society tells us to expect marriage to be unicorns and rainbows romantic But it's not, especially once you have kids. It's tiring and hard and often aggravating. If you can hold on until the kids are grown, either you will rediscover your spouse, or you will feel much more free to leave. Do you have compelling reasons why it is better to split than stay, in a marriage that is not abusive? How much does the parents' perceived unhappiness count v. the child's happiness? If you can find a way to tolerate and be civil with your co parent, might it not be better to stick it out? If the sex has gone blah, consider that it will probably go blah with whoever you are with for any length of time. If you're bored, you will probably get bored of the next person eventually too. The parent of your child has the greatest reason in the world to work it out with you, if your remember that you've created a human together and that human's well being is of paramount importance. That, at least, is my personal opinion. if you can. <|ASPECTS|>, human 's, dating landscape, nervous breakdowns, bad, mentally ill., hard, working out later, unhappiness, child care, tolerate, separate parent households, nightmare, home dynamics, chances, gambling problems, risk, better separately, performance and demeanor, civil, time, expose your child, marital situations, personal opinion, abusive, arguing, intimate relationship, emotionally abusive, abuse, persevere, kids, well, feel better, true love, sexual abuse, boredom, child, anecdotal, high, harmed, bored, unhappy marriage, marriage, bored of the next person, different homes, perceived, different, cold spots, stay together, lose, substance abuse, parents, hurts, bad reactions, chance, unhappy marriages, sniping, failure rates, general, greener, rifts open, marriages regrow, terrible, malaise, stress, equilibrium, split, unicorns, need, divorced parents, offend, physically, lowest, spend, grass, get, cheating, focus, resentments, rediscover your spouse, abuser, younger, happiness, conventional wisdom, free to leave, experiences, single parents, aggravating, sex, stressful, tiring and hard, philosophies, lives, changed, rainbows, suck<|CONCLUSION|>

If the marriage is not abusive, staying together for the kids is a valid, maybe good thing to do

970d1bdd-a49d-4b20-9798-59eed8217fc2

<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>Hard work is not an intrinsic utilitarian or moral goal. For example, we embrace labor multiplying technologies such as tractors, dishwashing machines, laundromats, automobiles, and other tools and social systems that facilitate radical reductions in labor without a corresponding perception of moral failure or laziness.<|ASPECTS|>labor multiplying, moral failure, intrinsic, radical reductions, hard, moral goal, laziness, utilitarian<|CONCLUSION|>

This presupposes that those are virtues. However, these are merely tools that allow people to improve their living conditions or accomplish a goal when needed.

73058db4-a189-486c-880e-58009e8a7249

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe the basis of a truly working and fair society lies strongly on a working judicial system, and this cannot happen while people know they will propably get away with a lie. In fact the judicial systems at least of western countries were designed around the concept that people are intrisically honest and we know that is not the case, so someone less scrupulous can commit a broad range of crimes and not get caught. This would not happen if that people knew all it took for them to get punished was to go through a lie detector. Some years ago I had a problem in which we had to go to court because someone was claiming ownership of some land that had been owned by my mom's family for ages, suddenly on the hearing, all it took was a few small favors and some witnesses who had never seen the land were testifying against my mom. While I agree this was a minor issue who still caused lots of distress I got to see how easily people can lie in front of a judge, and how a farse the trials can be. Ultimatelly an eficient lie detector would not a criminal catcher, would be a crime preventer, and it would worth every dollar euro Yen poured onto developing it<|ASPECTS|>crime preventer, fair society, small favors, trials, intrisically honest, distress, working, criminal catcher, eficient lie detector, crimes, punished, working judicial system, lie detector, worth<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe the justice system and thus society will never fully work and be credible until a full-proof lie detector be created, please

da883fa0-4c24-4b2c-ae22-b76d66a46dbc

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>First perhaps a needed clarification By theoretical philosophy I mean the traditions of continental and some analytic philosophy. There are some cases of analytic techniques that I think blur the lines between mathematics, computer science, and analytic philosophy, e.g. proof theory, type theory, and similar excursions of the first order logics. These are not my topic of interest because it's clear they have some computational content and usability however small. There is also a brand of philosophy of what I can imagine is any tradition that I will call experimental philosophy in contrast to theoretical . An example of this is Alfred Mele. His work, and work in that similar tradition is not of interest here. Although there are a lot of good philosophers that fall into the categories listed above, as either experimentalists, proof theorists, or the like, I think we still have a wide pool of traditions to pull from, namely the continentals. Philosophy as a history is something I can see as quite important. Prior to scientific machinery existing and by that I mean the literal tools not the method philosophy had much to say about hypothesis generation. However, modern theoretical philosophy has seemed to enter a bit of a crap shoot. At one end there are philosophers butting up against notions like Free Will with interesting and powerful arguments for and against, and at the other end there are metaphysical inquiries with appeals to quantum mechanics or quantum logics. Although I understand quantum mechanics is a rich field with plenty of philosophical questions that could be considered, I don't feel that modern theoretical philosophy has the tools to attack any of the problems, and more often than not misrepresents the reality. Moreover, of the fundamental questions that are still in the theoretical domain of philosophy e.g. knowledge philosophy has much to do about nothing. There are very interesting ideas, very interesting arguments, but mostly it all boils down to survive with pragmatism in the day to day or say that beliefs alone are good enough anyway. I suppose my argument boils down to this. If you are a philosopher in modern times and have not adapted to using the sophisticated tools of either experimental science, mathematics, computer science, etc. in your endeavors and actually used it not just appealed to it to fill in holes then you're not contributing much and in fact will not be able to contribute much, if anything. To preempt some counterarguments I understand that exploration in a field need not be useful in the short term, or even foreseeable long term. Mathematics itself has played with ideas that had no practical use for quite a while. However, the field is at least internally useful, something I can not even grant the brand of philosophy i'm critiquing. Not to mention Mathematics has a strong history of becoming useful, regardless of the hibernation period. This is not an attack on learning the classics or anything of the sort. Although I do hold a belief that jumping to the classics as introductory material is absurd, that is neither here nor there and obtaining some culture and critical thought by reading Aristotle is fine in my book. It is the modern day contemporary tradition that is under the lens. I have not done an exhaustive search of ideas in continental philosophy. It is entirely possible that my vision is simply lacking and there are powerful and new ideas added by the tradition. However, from what I have experienced and I like to think I've given it a fair exploration I find it hard to believe that this brand of philosopher has anything really meaningful to say. Morality and the like. There has been much already said about morality, and I take the modern thought on it that is not cognitive science or sociology psychology to be again much to do about nothing. You can regurgitate your favorite argument about moral realism but you'll get no closer to proving the existence of actual moral laws. Ethics and morality are of course important, and we have scientists in their respective fields that consider these questions in regards to their experiments, but trying to tackle it categorically doesn't offer much promise. To conclude I would very much like to think that the fundamental questions that seem to be impervious to scientific disciplines i.e. knowledge, problem of induction can obtain satisfactory and consistent solutions but way of philosophical inquiry. It would be quite nice to be hopeful that we can some day have a decided reality about what morality is or isn't. Surely there ought to be a solution, I don't tend to belief that the concept of morality is in some superposition of objective moral truths being immediately and irreparable contradicted by subjective moral truths. However, I do have strong reason to believe that such things, if they are to be solved at all, will not be solved by the philosopher.<|ASPECTS|>contemporary tradition, fill in holes, survive, contribute much, morality, nothing, objective, satisfactory, subjective, history, theoretical philosophy, sophisticated tools, pragmatism, contributing much, lacking, adapted, useful, practical use, usability, ethics and morality, critical thought, philosophical inquiry, philosopher, hypothesis generation, crap shoot, moral laws, moral truths, impervious, solved by, scientific disciplines, important, metaphysical inquiries, exploration, ideas, absurd, learning the classics, powerful and new ideas, fundamental questions, traditions, fair exploration, experimental philosophy, philosophical questions, analytic, vision, solved, philosophy, decided reality, internally useful, meaningful, computational content, moral realism, beliefs alone, search of ideas, culture, misrepresents the reality, becoming useful, arguments, counterarguments, consistent solutions, rich, analytic techniques<|CONCLUSION|>

Modern "theoretical" or traditional philosophy is useless.

ec21c0d7-5a23-47ee-ae88-4061a86b21b6

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>In my experience being Intersex has often been mistaken for Transexuality. I'm Partially Androgen Insensitive. I was born with XY chromosomes but my body does not respond to testosterone and I developed as a female. I had surgery when I was young to remove internal testes and I was placed on estrogen hormone therapy to aid in my development during puberty. x200B Link If you don't know much about Intersex conditions Article talking about Moral Ethical duty to disclose transgender status to a potential partner. one about when to disclose being transgender. x200B x200B x200B There's a recent question I've seen spring up time and time again Does a transgender person have an ethical or moral obligation to inform a potential sex partner of his or her transgender status before the two people have sexual relations? I believe I can see both sides of the argument. However I'm more strongly leaning towards Yes, that a transgender person should reveal their transgender status before sexual relations take place. As traditionally from what I've seen in the media and my social group, most Transgender people lean heavily into gender stereotypes in order to feel more comfortable as to not trigger their gender dysphoria. Meaning that someone who is very feminine appearing but still has male genitalia is potentially misleading their potential partner with their outward appearance. Assuming heterosexuality, the male suitor expects female reproductive parts which is why they're attracted to the female in the first place. Transgender people who haven't had their sexual reassignment surgeries are presenting as one gender when in fact their genitalia is representative of the other gender s . It is my viewpoint that a transgender person who does have their sexual reassignment surgery doesn't have an obligation to disclose their transgender status. I'm curious if we change the wording around to relate to intersex conditions will society's answer change? Does an Intersex person have an ethical or moral obligation to inform a potential sex partner of his or her Intersex status before the two people have sexual relations? Now I'm a bit biased as I am Intersex myself. I know there is a large variety of Intersex conditions and that no one condition is the same as another. However I believe that most intersex conditions tend to make people look quite androgynous and that due to the androgynous nature of most intersex conditions it is not an ethical or moral requirement to disclose the Intersex status before sexual encounters. This belief of mine is further abetted by the fact that surgery on Intersex youth is highly discouraged by Intersex activists and surgery of any kind is quite often seen as barbaric mutilation. Whereas Transgender people will sometimes get sex reassignment surgery in order to feel more comfortable in their bodies. To recap. I believe that an Intersex person is not morally or ethically obligated to disclose their Intersex Status to potential partners before sexual encounters take place. x200B Edit Someone in the comments said gt Why not avoid making them sad before and clearly disclosing what genitals you have and any variations from the norm? I want to be clear that ambigious genitalia from Intersex conditions still very clearly resemble either male or female genitalia with some slight variations. I don't believe the ambiguity is some sort of moral ethical dillema. Whereas Transgender people who haven't had their sexual reassignment surgeries are presenting as one gender when in fact their genitalia is representative of the other gender s . It is my viewpoint that a transgender person who does have their sexual reassignment surgery doesn't have an obligation to disclose their transgender status.<|ASPECTS|>disclose being transgender, sex reassignment surgery, estrogen hormone, gender stereotypes, mistaken, moral ethical, genitals, ethical or moral obligation, transexuality, ethically obligated, sides, development, outward appearance, androgynous, barbaric mutilation, transgender status, relations, partially, misleading, heterosexuality, disclose, status, one gender, obligation, intersex conditions, morally, testes, ethical or moral requirement, feminine, comfortable, look, sexual reassignment, biased, transgender, sad, society 's answer, moral obligation, testosterone, argument, ambigious genitalia, gender dysphoria, ethical, moral ethical duty, potential partner, androgen insensitive, female reproductive parts, feel, genitalia, intersex, recap, intersex status<|CONCLUSION|>

Intersex Individuals do not need to disclose their Intersexual status before sexual encounters with a potential partner.

209d1b7e-9e03-413a-80ca-bf1864f79a8f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Recently, a team of scientists including a professor at Cornell, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, and a data scientist from Facebook published an article 1 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which, according to the abstract, used people who use Facebook to gt test whether emotional contagion occurs outside of in person interaction between individuals by reducing the amount of emotional content in the News Feed. By varying the amount of positive and negative content seen by a user on their News Feed and monitoring the emotional content of that user's posts, they explored the extent to which interactions via social media influence our mood. The study concluded that gt when positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. Since the findings of the study were published on 17 June, there have been numerous articles published 2 3 4 many of which have questioned whether the methods of the study were ethical. Quite a few sources have been critical of the study, and many articles and reddit posts 5 6 7 have even employed negative language in the article post title. Much of the criticism employs a mixture of arguments, including nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp a It is unethical to manipulate people's emotions nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp b The study was conducted on people who had not expressed informed consent nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp c Per the results of the study, increasing the amount of negative posts seen by users may have led, in nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp some cases, to increased negative actions e.g., unfriending , negative comments, etc. or emotions nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp e.g., sorrow, depression, anger, etc. nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp d The findings of the study will be used for unethical purposes. However, I don't agree with this view of the study. Personally, I am interested in the methods, findings, and implications of the study. As a naturally curious person, I am always in favor of advancing our knowledge of life, people, and the universe. In this case, the study is an exploration of the way in which using social media influences our lives and the extent of its effects. I am glad this is being studied and I have no ethical problems with the methods used by the authors of this study. While I agree that it can be unethical to manipulate people's emotions, I don't believe that applies to this study. The purpose, content, necessity, and duration of the manipulation all factor in to whether the manipulation was ethical. The Facebook experiment had a short duration 1 week , which was sufficiently long to detect trends, but not unnecessarily long. While it is hard to say what the true purpose of the study was, the act of publishing the study in an academic journal instead of hiding it and secretly using it for their own purposes , is an attempt to contribute to the fields of sociology, technology, and psychology. Furthermore, the manipulation wasn't nefarious in that it didn't involve propaganda, advertisements, or lies. Furthermore, consent is given when people accept the Facebook Data Use Policy 8 which include a clause allowing Facebook to use user data for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement . In the context of this experiment, I believe that this consent, coupled with social media use being voluntary, is sufficient as the short time period isn't long enough that the risk of negatively affecting subjects in the long term is sufficiently high enough to warrant express informed consent . Finally, the argument that the findings will be used for unethical purposes takes the consequentialist approach that, because something bad may result from an action, that action should not be performed. While the premise may be true, the argument ignores the merits of the results. While these results can potentially be used to manipulate people for insidious purposes, it also contributes to our academic understanding of human emotions and the psychological influence of online social media interactions. While I may condemn any unsavory use of the findings, I do not blame the study for these uses and I believe that the value of the knowledge outweighs the uneasiness caused by potential applications. nbsp tl dr Facebook performed an experiment where it manipulated the contents of some users' News Feeds in an attempt to ascertain the effects of this on users' emotions. Many are calling the study unethical, but I believe it is more interesting than unethical. I feel that criticism of the experimental methods is reactionary and irrational and that the theoretical negative effects on users' psyches is overstated and unsubstantiated. nbsp NOTE I will acknowledge that, as with any study, there is a chance that bad methodology may completely or partially void the results of the study. The peer review and editing processes greatly decrease the number of papers with faulty methodology or flawed conclusions, but these processes are not perfect. Preliminary discussions 9 10 11 of the study point out several potential flaws, but that does not mean that the question that fueled the study is not valid.<|ASPECTS|>flawed conclusions, depression, increased, duration, positive posts, bad methodology, advertisements, consent, negatively affecting subjects, anger, unfriending, unethical purposes, merits, lies, negative actions, ethical problems, insidious purposes, content, necessity, implications, negative, potential applications, negative effects, knowledge of life, expressions, overstated, flaws, influences our lives, uneasiness, psychological influence, detect trends, unethical, negative expressions, nefarious, interesting, risk, troubleshooting, methods, short duration, negative posts, unsavory use, human emotions, emotional contagion, manipulation, manipulated, informed consent, void, findings, manipulate, value, effects, ethical, academic understanding, positive and negative content, emotions, mood, critical, unnecessarily long, use, user data, manipulate people, purpose, reactionary and irrational, negative language, emotional content, propaganda, faulty methodology, unsubstantiated, sorrow, sociology<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't think the recently published Facebook mood study was unethical and I'm glad it was done

6c282a3d-6c2e-4070-a70d-aba89f571776

<|TOPIC|>Should Human Life Be Valued Above Animal Life?<|ARGUMENT|>If it is true that a human naturally prefers one’s family over other humans; And if it is also true that a human considers a pet as part of their family; Then it would not be natural for the human to value non-family-humans more than family-pets.<|ASPECTS|>value non-family-humans, prefers, ’ s family<|CONCLUSION|>

If a person considers their pet "a member of the family", this creates a moral quandry.

498148ad-301a-47f5-b285-bcda84acded5

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>On the condition that the U.S. opens up more jobs program facilities like Work2Future, of course, so that people can get into fields they actually want to work with some assistance. I'm of the camp that doesn't fear automation and instead embraces it. My job can automated and I work for a tool rental company. When I left fast food I said to myself I wish for a day when nobody will have to work this job. Honestly, I don't see anyone would want to work in fast food unless you specifically want to work in culinary in which case, you could train yourself at home since you don't even actually flip burgers in fast food, you just work an assembly line but instead of assembling toys or car parts you're assembling food . I want these jobs to be gone. They're demeaning, contribute little to society, the pay is garbage even when you're a store manager, and it's rare for people whom you serve food to to actually respect that you're working an honest job. When automation comes for my job, and it's already been rumored through corporate that they want to start doing automation, I'm not going to be sad when my job is no longer mine. <|ASPECTS|>jobs program facilities, tool rental, automation, automated, honest, pay is garbage, fear automation, jobs, assembling, contribute little to society, sad, train, job, demeaning<|CONCLUSION|>

Good riddance to fast food jobs

03d7546b-a59d-4725-8e02-fa4d6ca4d761

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Hello reddit, I'm not a native speaker so I hope you won't mind grammatical mistakes. I have always had difficulties in getting to know new friends since I couldn't hide my repulsion for wasting money, for being frugal and following a strict budget. As soon as someone casually understands this, he she she mostly starts walking away from me without telling me their reasons. Recently I've found a person that doesnt really care about this trait of mine, a very direct guy who suggested me to keep it for myself, if my goal was to find new friends. Still, my entire life follows this framework I save for breakfast by eating at home, for the metro by walking faster, for the getting to know coffee because I don't want to surpass my expenses. But I genuinely feel like I'm being distanced from everyone for this. I know I should hide it better, and I'm trying to do so, but i encountered no success so far. I'm very used to it. Someone said stingy for stuff, stingy for emotions , and it looks like a social acceptable norm to get far from those who are possessive and frugal. I just feel like everyone else, liking someone is free, I just can't see why is that important to be generous.<|ASPECTS|>budget, expenses, wasting money, hide, social acceptable norm, success, trait, stingy, free, frugal, repulsion, grammatical mistakes, save, new friends, walking away, possessive, generous, distanced from everyone<|CONCLUSION|>

I think that being stingy does not reflect the personality of someone and that it shouldn't be seen as a bad trait

ce224791-f43a-4467-8a27-493d34072be8

<|TOPIC|>Should the European Union intervene in the political conflict in Catalonia?<|ARGUMENT|>In many aspects it's a simple fact of defending basic human rights. People can't be imprisoned just for ideas. The political discussion has to be deep and real to the end.<|ASPECTS|>basic human rights, deep, real, imprisoned, political discussion<|CONCLUSION|>

The European Union must defend citizens and not member state governments.

65739a67-1889-445d-9c33-f2af8957155b

<|TOPIC|>Do gun control laws reduce crime?<|ARGUMENT|>Banning alcohol in the 20's did not keep alcohol from being available. Banning drugs and prostitution, currently, does not keep either from being available. It'll be the same for guns.<|ASPECTS|>alcohol<|CONCLUSION|>

Passing stricter gun control laws will not reduce crime because criminals will ignore those laws.

e1b4b1d9-b7f7-45b8-904e-b7978950c4ad

<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>One example is higher education. The government might not feel that it is worth maintaining universities if people do not get jobs out of them due to a UBI. This would mean that fewer schools are created and thus people have less access to higher education.<|ASPECTS|>schools, fewer, higher education, jobs, worth maintaining universities, access to higher education, less<|CONCLUSION|>

A person can only perform such meaningful contributions if society provides them the chance and capability to. It could be possible that when a UBI is implemented, governments might limit certain activities due to the unique dynamics that a UBI presents.

8238c114-b9d9-497d-98d3-8daa854c12c7

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The belief that addiction is a disease is the principal reason that heroin deaths have risen so sharply over the past few years in the United States, and alcoholism remains a major cause of early death. The continuing assumption that the addict's brain chemistry has been altered so that they cannot stop themselves from craving opiates or alcohol is a free pass to a continued life of despair and, eventually, death. The disease theory results in incalculable suffering for the families of addicts who are told that the addict has a disease hence they feel unable to simply insist that the addictive behavior must stop. People choose to drink or to use drugs they can equally choose to stop.<|ASPECTS|>alcoholism, death, addiction, addictive behavior, choose to stop, early death, heroin deaths, incalculable suffering, despair, brain chemistry, life, disease, craving opiates<|CONCLUSION|>

The misguided belief that addiction is a disease is not only incorrect but is actually killing addicts.

29bd5c3f-018a-42a0-91bc-4c907d063c53

<|TOPIC|>We should adopt atheism<|ARGUMENT|>atheism should be the defacto stance as it is the only provable observance of reality, in that there is absolutely no evidence to prove the contrary.<|ASPECTS|>defacto, provable observance of reality<|CONCLUSION|>

Atheism should be adopted since we cannot prove that God exists

aabf5acc-cc8b-4ebe-85e3-d1404504f414

<|TOPIC|>Should churches pay tax?<|ARGUMENT|>The IRS explicitly lists "lessening the burdens of government" as a "charitable purpose" for an organisation to have on its website, endorsing the view that charitable work saves the taxpayer money.<|ASPECTS|>charitable purpose, charitable work, saves, taxpayer money, burdens of government<|CONCLUSION|>

These programmes benefit everyone, not just their direct recipients, because they save the government, and thus the taxpayer, huge amounts of money.

2b18a594-a80c-41f6-a60b-da1f59719c02

<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>Permitting discrimination based on belief endorses discrimination and establishes precedent that gives companies like Facebook and Kialo license to refuse service to groups like Jews, Republicans, Feminists, or Communists.<|ASPECTS|>discrimination<|CONCLUSION|>

Denying service to white supremacists might lead to extensive online censorship of non-mainstream views.

a8e49cb8-a863-40df-94ad-7f0896645f9e

<|TOPIC|>Kialo should separate voting into relevance and veracity of claim.<|ARGUMENT|>Most religions have a "free will" notion which would not be possible if God "would not allow" his religion to die as that would be violation of the free will.<|ASPECTS|>free, god, violation<|CONCLUSION|>

There is no reason for us to belive that a true God would not allow his religion to die and, as it stands, it is a mere speculation.

9a20dff9-137a-4bda-865b-b7127e3c058a

<|TOPIC|>Is there a place for a uniform in today's education system?<|ARGUMENT|>Students wearing uniforms "incorrectly" ie. shirt not tucked in properly are carded by school staff and/or faculty and are reprimanded for it Children attend school to be educated, not to adhere to uniform policies.<|ASPECTS|>educated, uniform policies<|CONCLUSION|>

Requiring students to wear uniforms creates issues for students that are detrimental to or distracting from substantive education.

ad7caa62-d998-47df-a117-74ffcb9323bd

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that, contrary to popular belief, that the Internet isn't taking over our lives. I still think we can be independent without it. and tell me why it is.<|ASPECTS|>taking over our lives, independent, internet<|CONCLUSION|>

The Internet isn't taking over our lives.

7de2df5a-93a6-4b2a-b407-4310a0003a0c

<|TOPIC|>Students Keep "No Platforming" Contentious Speakers. Should They Stop?<|ARGUMENT|>If someone's ideas are truly bad, then exposing those ideas to the public will be the fastest way to dispel them.<|ASPECTS|>dispel, bad<|CONCLUSION|>

In a marketplace of ideas, bad ideas would die out because people will not want to "buy" into them.

606aab5f-902f-4f9b-b8af-f282b4513faf

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Ever since social justice has gained momentum I have seen a lot of claims of Islamophobia. Before that, I sympathized with the idea, but as the SJ people became more and more nit picky I have started to get a bad taste in my mouth when I hear the term because it seems to me that anytime anyone throws a jab at Islam the SJ people jump in screaming ISLAMOPHOBIA Here's what I think are there a handful of more conservative like right wingers that discriminate on regular ass people just trying to live their lives for being TERRORISTS because they are Muslim? Yes, absolutely, and I believe that is unacceptable. Look at the clock kid. Also there are tons of videos I have seen online where some white guy usually with a cow boy hat calls out and harasses a woman wearing a hijab or something like that, when the person is just trying to go about their day. It's gross, xenophobic and maybe even racist. However, that doesn't give Islam a get out of jail free card from all criticism. If an individual is an anti theist and get joy out of discussing the atrocities of organized religion, I don't think it makes them an Islamophobe if they criticize Islam along with other reorganized religions. The truth is though, that even though there are some very peaceful passages in the Quran, there also are some very hateful violent ones just like the Bible . If people want to call those out, let them. It's not a personal attack on every Muslim. It's an attack on the a belief system. You can't discriminate against a belief, you can only discriminate people. I've heard SJ people say that it is not our place , aka white westerners, to criticize the culture of POC on the other side of the world and that we should strictly focus on Christianity because that's what the overwhelming majority of theists are where we live. But I think that's a bullshit argument. So I am not allowed to speak ill of something because we have different skin tones and they live X amount miles away from me? Anti theists might, just might, be complaining about religion because it affects EVERYONE negativity and not just themselves. TL DR Islamophobia does exist but anti theists aren't necessarily Islamophbies if they criticize all religions.<|ASPECTS|>bullshit argument, everyone, gross, get out of jail free, picky, personal attack, criticize islam, belief system, harasses, hateful violent ones, islamophobe, anti theists, dr, theists, skin tones, ill, live x amount miles, atrocities, islamophbies, negativity, anti theist, discriminate against a belief, criticize, unacceptable, christianity, xenophobic, racist, peaceful, religion, culture, organized religion, different, islamophobia, discriminate people<|CONCLUSION|>

Hating Islam MAY be Islamophobia and it may not be.

447ea253-cac6-4189-8845-f11924a90e4e

<|TOPIC|>Should "women-only" spaces be open to anyone identifying as female?<|ARGUMENT|>For New Natural Law theorists, the good of marriage not only consists of couples forming a moral or spiritual union, but also bodily union through the act of marital intercourse good of marriage, couples form a union of persons not just morally or spiritually, but also bodily, in the act of marital intercourse. Because sexual intercourse actualizes a biological function that can only be actualized by the couple together, the couple are, in marital intercourse, literally “one flesh,” and this one flesh union is the physical realization of the basic good of marriage. Because sexual intercourse actualizes a biological function that can only be actualized by the couple together, this union is the physical realisation of the basic good of marriage.<|ASPECTS|>physical, union, biological function, moral, bodily union, basic good of marriage, good, morally<|CONCLUSION|>

New Natural Law philosophy argues that the marital union between man and woman with the aim of procreation and child-rearing is a basic good of human society Undermining it in any way, e.g. by questioning its fundamental assumption of the difference and complementarity of men and women, undermines the moral foundations of our society.

ecb8e7d6-3711-4dbc-a824-f80e74644908

<|TOPIC|>Does pineapple belong on pizza?<|ARGUMENT|>It is a way for students to have a main course and desert in one meal, enabling more time for exstensive learning.<|ASPECTS|>desert, exstensive learning<|CONCLUSION|>

Eating pizza first and pineapple as dessert would make the whole meal experience better than together.

0f096e2e-2e9e-4cab-9d16-2fc4f6b65ea5

<|TOPIC|>Autonomous Killing Machines: The Future of Warfare?<|ARGUMENT|>Yes, they won't even see the other person dying. Designers will just do their work and they will never admit a fact, dozens died because of their work, thus dozens were killed by them. They just followed orders and developed what they were told to develop without any moral boundaries.<|ASPECTS|>followed orders, killed, moral boundaries, person dying, died<|CONCLUSION|>

For the designers of machines and the soldiers who use them, killing is an impersonal and socially distanced act. This reduces their accountability to what is happening on the ground. With AKMs this distance will increase.

ea178e64-2cd7-470d-9d20-4b49bd2f9333

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Firstly, Rudolf Virchow’s third tenet of cell theory, a basic principle of biology, which has gone virtually unchanged for 150 years states that cells arise from pre existing cells. We know from the work of Theodor Schwann and Matthias Schleiden on the first two tenets that the all living organisms are composed of one or more cells and that the cell is the basic unit of structure and organization in organisms. So cells life only come from other cells. Also, the chicken and egg problem with DNA RNA and the other paradoxes in cell and molecular biology is insurmountable. There are many theoretical constructs that have been proposed to satisfy the issues, but no real observable science has ever come close to answering these problems that I can tell. That being said, the conclusion that I draw is a simple one. If the spontaneous formation of life cannot happen, then life must have existed since the formation of our existence, which for I would define as the unchanged laws of science in our universe since the beginning. That’s also something that maybe someone could shed perspective on. Change my view.<|ASPECTS|>unchanged laws of science, science, existed, insurmountable, theoretical constructs, structure and organization, cell, pre existing cells, view, cells life only come, cells, shed perspective, life, simple, spontaneous formation of life, chicken, paradoxes, problem<|CONCLUSION|>

Life has always existed within our universe and the laws that define it.

7d44ec6c-ddb2-47ae-a892-fa9b9999f0d5

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that once you make the decision to be in a relationship with someone, under no circumstance is it excusable for you to cheat on them. You always here people say things like I didn't have a choice. or anything along those lines when they try and explain themselves. You always have a choice. Should I cheat on my S O? No. But this other person is much hotter. Still no. They keep throwing themselves at me. Tell them you're in a relationship and that they should stop. Seriously how hard can it be? This is my first post to , sorry in advance for any mistakes I made while posting Edit Really interesting responses. Think you guys have definitely covered the extreme scenarios, but now I've got to wondering about the more generic cases of cheating you see in day to day life e.g. young relationships, loveless yet also abuse less marriage , etc.<|ASPECTS|>, relationship, extreme scenarios, mistakes, cheating, abuse less marriage, choice, loveless, hotter, cheat on, cheat, excusable, hard, explain, relationships<|CONCLUSION|>

I don't believe that anyone can be excused from cheating in a relationship.

f830d79b-8d79-4bc6-b3e4-d4222b1d8711

<|TOPIC|>Should Progressive Web Apps Replace Mobile Apps?<|ARGUMENT|>App stores give consumers a sense of safety since they are well-known and reputable. PWAs may be downloaded from sites that are not reputable, putting one's device at risk.<|ASPECTS|>safety, risk<|CONCLUSION|>

There is no central location to find PWAs, like app stores.

8a5a358d-53c2-4feb-aa78-a09ce4b98120

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So the big political news is the indictments of Paul Manafort and Richard Gates Many of my friends are already cheering that this is just the beginning and the other shoes is going to drop. The Washington Post is even touting that this is just the beginning of the results of the investigation After reading the indictment it looks to me like this has absolutely nothing to do with an investigation into the Trump campaign or collusion with Russia. The charges all seem to hand on money laundering that Manafort of Gates may have been involved with while working with Ukraine which is certainly NOT Russia and shouldn't be confused as such . All of these charges seem similar to what Manafort had already been investigated for, and seem to have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 presidential campaign. Am I missing something or are my friends just being overly zealous in the hopes that this is the opening of the flood gates that will finally demonstrate that rump is guilty of something? <|ASPECTS|>charges, indictments, guilty of something, political news, collusion with russia, zealous, flood, money laundering<|CONCLUSION|>

The Mueller indictments are not the smoking gun many were hoping for

c316b14e-7409-40dd-b9c5-5606e63133e2

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Basically, convince me that this comic is making a valid analogy. I believe that unlike the situation for pigs and other farm animals, being the product is often completely harmless for humans, and that it is often possible to take advantage of free services that operate on this model without incurring any meaningful loss. There may be some cases where people have stupidly ruined their lives by sharing information with social media companies, but I don't believe it is the inevitable, or even typical, experience.<|ASPECTS|>harmless, meaningful loss, ruined their lives, valid analogy, stupidly, free services<|CONCLUSION|>

There's not necessarily anything wrong with "being the product".

0dd9ebdf-5125-418f-af78-fef81884b3c1

<|TOPIC|>How Much Say Should a Father Have With Abortion?<|ARGUMENT|>If the woman's life is going to be seriously upended by a pregnancy, there should be no compulsion to continue the pregnancy to term.<|ASPECTS|>upended, compulsion<|CONCLUSION|>

This decision can affect a woman's education if she is forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

7e4537e2-a9cc-45f5-b14f-f784b9933439

<|TOPIC|>What is the best religion to believe?<|ARGUMENT|>"It is not good to feel that my religion alone is true and other religions are false. The correct attitude is this: My religion is right, but I do not know whether other religions are right or wrong, true or false." Vedanta Society<|ASPECTS|>religions, religion, false, right or wrong<|CONCLUSION|>

Hinduism teaches that all religions have some degree of right and wrong within them. There is no standard to measure truth by other than internal feelings and emotions. This is not a stable platform on which to build one's life.

02d5f1e3-6445-4b19-9d5b-517314ec0e83

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The title may not encompass how I feel exactly but I wasn't sure how to phrase it. First time posting on so I apologize if I do not do a good job. Every year, on 9 11, since about 2012 2013, I have ceased making memorial posts on social media for 9 11 because to me, I found myself arguing with myself over whether or not we SHOULD truly never forget. Part of me thinks that the large scale remembrance that occurs in our country every year could possibly contribute to hatred or negative feelings, either consciously or subconsciously, that people feel towards Islam or Muslims. I do not have any research that hate crimes go up, or support for the war go up following 9 11 and I'm not sure that there would be any but logically, it just seems to me that if we never forget, we will never forgive and our country has so much hatred over 9 11 that we must learn to forgive if we ever wish to move past this whole chapter in our history. There is an issue in this country of anti islamic mentalities and once a year, we give people an excuse to hate muslim islamic extremists and some will transfer that into hatred of ALL muslims followers of islam which only hurts our country, does not hate. x200B I guess a different way to phrase my Change my View is Annual never forget 9 11 memorials has not allowed time for those emotional wounds to heal and contributes not necessarily the driving force to the anti islam anti muslim rhetoric in America. x200B I'm not sure I am explaining myself well and I find myself saying I don't know, I just X when I am having this conversation a lot and I can argue both sides with myself. Just wanted to see what other people think who maybe can articulate how I feel better or have a different perspective than I do. x200B<|ASPECTS|>, extremists, feel better, hate, emotional wounds, feel, forgive, negative feelings, different perspective, hate crimes, never forget, remembrance, anti islamic mentalities, memorial posts, hurts our country, good job, articulate, muslim rhetoric, hatred<|CONCLUSION|>

Annual "never forget" 9/11 memorials refresh people's hatred of Islam/Muslims vs. remembering those we lost

161c6701-d9f0-4da9-b52c-643ddc16f102

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that individuals of the same sex should be allowed to get married because I don't see the harm in allowing them to do so. I just frankly don't see an issue why it. On the other hand, I was reading people replying about polygamous marriage and incestuous marriages and how they should be legal as well. I can make an arguments as to why one would be not okay but I feel like I'm just making excuses because incestuous marriages seems wrong . But I don't know why I see them as being wrong if that makes any sense.<|ASPECTS|>wrong, polygamous marriage, get married, incestuous marriages, harm, legal<|CONCLUSION|>

I believe in same sex and traditional marriage but not other types of marriage

33d5d4e0-c3a9-4fc5-9ad7-0b62616aa77b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I’m in the process of learning several different languages, and important parts of that process are pronunciation and accuracy. So it’s frustrating to me when I hear people celebrating someone who has yet to learn these parts of a language. This might come across as racist, since it puts discriminatory pressure on foreigners. That’s not where I’m coming from. I’m open to celebrating as many cultures as I can, and that’s part of my motivation for pursuing polyglotism. But I believe that if someone commits to living in a community with a dominant language, it’s their responsibility to learn how to interact with the people of that region. Some exceptions I can think of would be Dialects and accents that are part of the same language but nearly unintelligible. For example, as an American, I can’t understand cockney accents at times. But if I were to move to London, or if one of them were to move here, I would expect that newcomer to assimilate to the local way of speaking, at least to a degree of universal intelligibility Border communities that have developed creoles or bilingual communication systems. Again, so long as the people who have chosen to live there are able to converse with the locals, I would consider that a perfectly acceptable degree of understanding of the local way of speaking. But, ultimately, if I were to move to a foreign country like Ukraine, I would expect myself to be able to converse easily with Ukrainians as soon as possible, and I hold other emigrants to the same standards<|ASPECTS|>, foreigners, accents, bilingual communication, dominant language, celebrating as many, cockney accents, polyglotism, understand, interact, dialects, way, understanding, converse easily with ukrainians, universal intelligibility, pronunciation and accuracy, cultures, racist, frustrating, discriminatory pressure, responsibility, unintelligible<|CONCLUSION|>

Heavy accents and broken language are not to be celebrated

82baafc8-4ea6-46bf-a4cd-ba8960a6536b

<|TOPIC|>Should There be a Universal Basic Income UBI?<|ARGUMENT|>However if they are not dependent on a certain job, they can choose to walk away from workplaces where they are not treated fairly without endangering their means for subsistence.<|ASPECTS|>means for subsistence, endangering, treated fairly, walk<|CONCLUSION|>

Minorities are much better off when they have economic security.

6a8ce810-42d4-45d5-a828-e8f5dd46bad1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A controversial topic is eating shark fin soup. I think this has been highlighted in media and a lot of people has been taking a stand on it. Basically, because of endangerment and inhuman treatment of sharks, many people refuse to eat shark fin soup. Gordon Ramsay did a documentary on it investigating how the sharks are killed and the logistics behind it all.<|ASPECTS|>logistics, endangerment, highlighted, fin soup, sharks are killed, inhuman treatment, sharks, controversial, shark fin soup<|CONCLUSION|>

I see no problem in eating shark fin soup.

9502c443-7e11-4201-9e8c-84d4ad032389

<|TOPIC|>Is Donald Trump a Good President?<|ARGUMENT|>"My Twitter has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth." This is an example of a ridiculous and arrogant statement insofar that it is neither true nor likely to ever be true. It also continues to propagate conspiracy theories about Trump's perceived 'enemies'.<|ASPECTS|>, enemies, arrogant, conspiracy theories<|CONCLUSION|>

Trump has said some patently bizarre outrageous stupid and/or plain ridiculous things

9ed72e71-df8c-494a-96bc-2953024fe4b9

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I believe that the parents of children with dangerously unhealthy obesity problems should be viewed at in the same way as child neglecters. They are intentionally allowing their children to cause themselves massive amounts of harm through teaching them bad eating habits. The child cannot control what he or she eats, the parent has full responsibility over the child's diet so therefore the blame lies entirely in the parent's hand when the child becomes ill through this problem. Often children grow up into obese adults who find it very difficult to change their habits because its all they have ever known. Overeating can literally ruin the lives of children. They are bullied and mocked openly in society and often fat children have huge self confidence issues that affect them later in life. This is almost all down to the parents lacking the responsibility to teach them good eating habits from a young age. Therefore the parents should be punished for ruining their children's futures. I believe this would be a positive step forward for a lot of society's overeating problems and would combat the obesity epidemic of the western world at its source.<|ASPECTS|>obesity problems, child neglecters, ruin, obese adults, harm, ruining, blame, overeating, good eating habits, self confidence issues, children 's futures, overeating problems, obesity epidemic, control, punished, unhealthy, difficult, bad eating habits, children, mocked, responsibility, lives, change their habits<|CONCLUSION|>

I think parents with obese children should have tough penalties from social services and it should be classed as child neglect.

6a578ec2-e643-4477-b4c1-6252c753ba3f

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>So let me tell you about this guy. He spends all fucking day at work. He works 500 a week and does not give a shit about the kids or me. For years, I spent allll day long with the kids while he just went off to work to go hang out with his buddies and when he gets home, Oh, honey I'm soooo tired. I just want to get to bed. He expects me to have fucking dinner ready and all that. He can't be bothered to go grocery shopping or cook for himself. He's gone every fucking day before I wake up at 6AM and doesn't come back from work until past ten. He does this every fucking day. 10 47 PM right now, still not home. And god forbid he has to do something for the kids. Oh no honey, my boss needs me . My husband is a fucking janitor and a fast food worker. How much could his boss really need him? Sometimes the kids need to be picked up from school and I'm too exhausted to do it. He needs to make time. Well guess what, I deserve better. I deserve a man who went to college instead of the fucking military. If he can't take two minutes out of his big and important life then he should at least let me buy something I want. Speaking of which, he neeevver lets me buy anything. Oh, god forbid I buy something for myself. Guess what, it's the man's job to support a family and if he can't do it then I shouldn't have to be the one making sacrifices.<|ASPECTS|>, sacrifices, bed, fast food worker, fucking dinner ready, picked up from school, making, neeevver, support a family, tired, exhausted, important life, cook, buy, lets, man 's job, make time, grocery shopping, long, give, day at work, spends, deserve better, need, college, buy anything, the kids, fucking, kids, buy something<|CONCLUSION|>

Drunken addition: Screw my husband. The bidding for a car I want ends in three hours and I'm using his vacation fund on it and when finds out, too bad for him.

5d1f8d75-3de7-42c2-9407-0a527a6a8221

<|TOPIC|>Should corporations take stances on political issues in advertisements?<|ARGUMENT|>AirBnB's "#WeAccept" campaign - a response to discrimination against minorities on its platform and around the world - was AirBnB's 3rd most successful ad of all time, with over 87 million engagements.<|ASPECTS|>engagements, discrimination against minorities<|CONCLUSION|>

The success of a number of political ad campaigns is indicative of their wide scale support.

5e888c94-e07b-4b29-8c19-aa2298e2b070

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but I am conservative about the second amendment. I appreciate that the NRA is a strong advocate for the Constitution, and I take this right seriously. I also enjoy that the NRA is the largest educator of firearms firearm safety in the US, which is actually one of their principal missions. They're the primary instructor for concealed carry permits for states with may issue shall issue statutes. In addition to the right to bear arms being an American civil right, I also view self defense as an inherent human right. . <|ASPECTS|>, constitution, educator, firearm safety, bear, concealed carry permits, firearms, human right, conservative, second amendment, instructor, self defense, advocate<|CONCLUSION|>

I support the NRA and hope it survives this latest test.

0f84c7e1-af4c-4a28-8782-ee0e0d7f54f7

<|TOPIC|>Should the Legion of Honor be restricted to war veterans?<|ARGUMENT|>War veterans who currently witness the broadening of the "scope of attribution" often refuse to wear the medal, as a sign of protest. They believe that their courage should not be considered equal to a great singer's performance.<|ASPECTS|>scope of attribution, 's performance, courage, protest<|CONCLUSION|>

Should the Legion of Honor be restricted to war veterans?

59abf7f2-0d79-4305-a8fc-5ce6d00ec944

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>The more I think about this phrase the more I think it is a bullsh it idea that tries to justify suffering in some way. To me it is saying that if you want to be happy in life, you need to suffer. Now I understand that as long as we live in this world there will be some forms of suffering. You can't completely remove suffering without removing free will and individuality. Otherwise it would be a hell hold like that novel Brave New World. But do we need to experience pain and suffering in order to be happy? Because if you advocate that then you are in fact saying that war is necessary for people to be happy. Child abuse will make the child happier in life. Are you going to go up to a happy woman and say you appreciate and experience more happiness if you were raped as a child. Does anybody not see anything wrong with this? The whole yin yang thing is in my eyes is just a bullsh it philosophy designed to try to cheer people up after they suffer.<|ASPECTS|>individuality, wrong, child abuse, cheer people, happy woman, happy, free, raped, hell hold, happier in life, war, happy in life, pain and suffering, justify suffering, happiness, remove suffering, appreciate, suffering, experience, suffer<|CONCLUSION|>

The phrase no happiness with out sadness is bullshit.

5e25d68a-b555-427c-8a82-bc4cc6247ca1

<|TOPIC|>Is the LGBT movement failing bisexual people?<|ARGUMENT|>It is likely that more bisexual people are in ethically non-monogamous relationships than straight people.<|ASPECTS|>ethically non-monogamous relationships<|CONCLUSION|>

This may not be a problem in an open or polyamorous relationship.

759470d1-78a4-49c7-b7d5-a894daf54346

<|TOPIC|>Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?<|ARGUMENT|>Since 2001, the number of violent attacks on U.S. soil inspired by far-right ideology groups including white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups and anti-federalists militias has spiked to an average of more than 300 a year.<|ASPECTS|>violent attacks, ideology<|CONCLUSION|>

Such speech is particularly dangerous when it actively inspires violent acts.

20d9e941-7082-4fde-b970-685b18f28c47

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Up Down vote arrows are by default displayed at the top of comments. This encourages people to rate them before they have read the entire comment. That means people make snap upvote downvote decisions based more on comment openings than on the comment as a whole the whole don't judge a book by its cover logic kind've applies . Additionally, it penalizes long comments because users must scroll back up to rate the comment after reading the comment. If users must put in the extra effort to scroll back up, it likely diminishes the voting of users that take the time to read the entirety of long comments since the extra effort means fewer people will do it . This is especially bad for discussion based subs, like , where effective arguments may take more room to build and lay out then what can fit in a short blurb. So I think we should move the vote arrows to the bottom of comments. .<|ASPECTS|>effective arguments, fewer, comment, long comments, rate, penalizes, diminishes, room to build, vote arrows, discussion based, downvote decisions, voting, comment openings<|CONCLUSION|>

Reddit up/down vote arrows should be at the end of comments, not the start

604d1914-3da9-48cd-bb00-5d535b871bf1

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>Thanks everyone I suppose the difficulty of getting a conviction in a criminal court, plus the damage to the family that would be caused by a cheating spouse being imprisoned this cutting off a income vector would make this law a burden more than an aide or a deterrent, it may have been feasible if this has been going on for a hundred years or so, and society as a whole treated marriage with more respect, but unfortunately it's too late. I still believe it's a crime, but punishing it is just too costly, difficult and counter productive. gt a·dul·ter·y gt əˈdəlt ə rē gt noun gt noun adultery plural noun adulteries gt voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse. gt she was committing adultery with a much younger man The social, economic and emotional effects of cheating on your husband wife is devastating to them and the family, and as such harms society as a whole, there is no excuse for it in any way, if the relationship is in trouble, leave it, if a relationship is open, have that in writing, marriage is a contract after all, it won't be too difficult to make an amendment to it. I'm talking about Cheating on your husband wife, not boyfriend girlfriend, it's clear that it would be difficult to enforce without an actual contract binding both parties like marriage. i would define it as Having consensual sexual intercourse with someone other than you Spouse without your spouse's consent, either written as predefined in the marriage contract or clearly articulated in a legally definite way. The contract is used to protect the parties from this law by allowing them to define their relationship as open, thus going around the consent headache , that is all the contract does.<|ASPECTS|>relationship, crime, deterrent, protect the parties, consent headache, contract, cheating, burden, economic and emotional effects, adultery, harms society, legally, adulteries, open, social, counter productive, income vector, devastating, costly, difficult, difficult to enforce, voluntary sexual intercourse, damage to the family, consensual sexual intercourse<|CONCLUSION|>

Adultery should be illegal, and not a misdemeanor either, but punished severely like the crime it is.

7facb57b-f715-47bc-93e5-128835d0547d

<|TOPIC|>Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient scripture?<|ARGUMENT|>In Alma 34:12 the Book of Mormon teaches that "there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world." This substantially mirrors Methodist teachings.<|ASPECTS|>sins, methodist teachings, infinite atonement<|CONCLUSION|>

The Book of Mormon teaches that the atonement of Jesus is an unlimited sacrifice, which mirrors the teachings of Methodism in opposition to Calvinism.

75c437b4-e5b5-4510-980c-916d514f1288

<|TOPIC|>Rebuilding New Orleans<|ARGUMENT|>Katrina was certainly one of the greatest natural disasters in US history, killing roughly 1,500 people. Out of respect for such a tragedy, New Orleans should be rebuilt, and the memory of both the city and those that lived and died in it should be honored.<|ASPECTS|>respect, killing, natural disasters, memory, tragedy, rebuilt<|CONCLUSION|>

New Orleans should be rebuilt out of respect for tragedy.

bece8567-9a96-4a8d-946e-6ae8e0f1f30e

<|TOPIC|>Are Bitcoin and Similar Cryptocurrencies Good for the World?<|ARGUMENT|>Services selling porn do not charge customers with a bold "PORN" in capital letters on their credit card bill, but rather some innocuous looking billing service.<|ASPECTS|>innocuous looking billing<|CONCLUSION|>

People can pay using their credit card and have an unsuspicious looking service appear on their bill.

0d006939-28b7-45d7-8fb9-b0701ebadd4c

<|TOPIC|>Should Bullfighting be Banned?<|ARGUMENT|>Some believe that the real motive of the ban was ridding Catalonia of the Castilian culture epitomized by bullfighting, using animal rights as a new weapon in a nationalist battle.<|ASPECTS|>castilian culture, animal rights, nationalist<|CONCLUSION|>

Catalonia's ban on bullfighting is less about repudiation of bullfighting than it is about asserting regional control.

cbee7e5e-a399-4300-8706-9e59df09da9b

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>If these charges are true at least some of them have been public knowledge for decades like trolling the mall for teens as a 30 year old DA in the seventies. The charges have escalated from groping minors above the age of consent to groping minors below the age of consent to attempted rape in seemingly consecutive news cycles. All too close to the election to investigated and determined to be true or false. Gloria Allred is a red flag for me as well. In a perfect world these reports could have been used by his opponent in the primary to get him to withdraw or been published to defeat him in the primary. Instead they were saved until now just before the election so that it is too late for any kind of due process or investigation. The whole thing smacks of cynical dirty politics. Does any of this matter or is the process just irredeemably dirty?<|ASPECTS|>, public knowledge, true, irredeemably dirty, trolling, cynical, dirty politics, investigation, groping minors, red flag, due process, attempted, withdraw, defeat<|CONCLUSION|>

The charges against Roy Moore seem cynically timed, orchestrated and escalated. Convince me that the motives of the accusers don't undermine their credibility.

81b71128-92c8-474f-8b7d-3b1f36a5aa14

<|TOPIC|>DACA and DREAMers: Should DREAMers be Granted Citizenship?<|ARGUMENT|>People who got into this country illegally, by their very presence, are adding themselves to the political landscape illegally. If the numbers are large, this adds up to an illegal political revolution.<|ASPECTS|>illegal political revolution, political landscape illegally<|CONCLUSION|>

Granting DREAMers citizenship could significantly alter the political structure of the US.

7e33be6a-ebf1-47ff-ab88-1581562bab3d

<|TOPIC|>Should Religious Exemptions to Discrimination Laws Be Abolished?<|ARGUMENT|>Disobeying religious laws can lead to intense emotional and psychological harm for followers of some religions.<|ASPECTS|>emotional and psychological harm<|CONCLUSION|>

For many, religious teachings are the word of God and cannot be violated by men.

b806bd3e-ad74-4f9d-b0d3-156054f9d308

<|TOPIC|>Should all major political decisions be made via public referendum?<|ARGUMENT|>This means voters can end up turning to the guidance of trusted authority figures or choices that fit within a familiar narrative for the answers instead of assessing the information available for themselves and make their decisions in a non-partisan way.<|ASPECTS|>non-partisan, trusted authority figures, guidance<|CONCLUSION|>

Reducing political decisions to a binary yes or no leads to worse decisions

32633d09-cc0a-4bed-ad24-300ab4fdfecc

<|TOPIC|>Can Religious Faith and Science Co-exist?<|ARGUMENT|>The ‘God of the Gaps concept suggests that the areas that religion alone explains are becoming smaller and smaller as a result of scientific advancements.<|ASPECTS|>scientific advancements, smaller, god<|CONCLUSION|>

So much can be explained by science, religious faith is not a necessary tool for understanding life.

bd33cd49-dd99-4dec-88d3-3fc8cb253375

<|TOPIC|>NA<|ARGUMENT|>A little bit of background I am 17 years old. I live in a small town where pretty much everything is in walking distance given I have enough time . My friends all live on the same street as me, my school is only a couple of blocks away. I really have no purpose to drive, at least that's what I think. My parents think other wise. They are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless I'm driving. I see driving as a pretty terrifying activity. You are in full control of a 2 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour. Around you are strangers, also controlling 2 ton metal hunks. You have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again. But you have to trust them. Just a small accident could end the life of you, your passengers, and other people on the road. I can't live with that burden. For the record, I have driven before. I got my permit when I was 16, and have only used it a few times. Each time I've used it, I've been stricken with fear. I feel like driving is essential to life nowadays, but I just can't get my head around. Please <|ASPECTS|>accident, trust, fear, rides, burden, think other wise, forcing, background, drive, speeds, driving, control, stricken, walking distance, time, small, purpose to drive, hunks, strangers, end the life, terrifying activity, essential to life, driven<|CONCLUSION|>

Driving is terrifying, and serves no purpose to me.

0970fd90-9a9c-44a8-826b-2dbf5b5dd6ea